BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1746 Hearing Date: 6/28/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mark Stone |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |5/24/2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Sarah Carvill |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Transit buses
DIGEST: This bill expands the authority to operate transit
buses on highway shoulders to eight additional transit
operators.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Establishes numerous distinct transit districts,
transportation authorities, and associations of governments,
and enumerates the specific powers of each.
2) Authorizes the state Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to construct exclusive or preferential lanes for
buses only, or for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles,
or to permit exclusive or preferential use of designated
lanes on existing highways that are part of the state
highway system.
3) Requires motorists to drive on the right side of the
roadway, with specified exceptions such as when the motorist
is legally passing another vehicle.
4) Prohibits motorists from passing on the right, except in
specified circumstances if conditions enable the motorist to
pass safely, such as when the vehicle overtaken is about to
make a left turn.
AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 2 of ?
5) Prohibits a motorist from passing on the right if it
requires driving off the paved or main-traveled portion of
the roadway.
6) Allows a bicycle to travel on a shoulder of a roadway.
7) Authorizes the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) and the
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD), subject to
approval by Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol
(CHP), to designate shoulders of certain highways and
freeways within those transit districts as transit bus-only
corridors (commonly referred to as bus-on-shoulder [BOS]
programs).
8) Requires MST and SCMTD to each determine jointly with
Caltrans and the CHP appropriate segments for BOS programs
based on criteria including but not limited to right-of-way
availability and capacity, peak congestion hours, and the
most heavily congested areas.
9) Requires MST and SCMTD to each work with Caltrans and CHP,
in a transparent manner that includes opportunity for public
comment, to develop guidelines to ensure driver and vehicle
safety, as well as integrity of the infrastructure.
10) Requires Caltrans, MST, and SCMTD to monitor the
state of repair of highway shoulders used in the program,
including repairs attributable to the operation of transit
buses on the shoulders.
11) Provides that MST and SCMTD shall be responsible
for all costs attributable to this program.
12) Authorizes the program to commence operation as
soon as MST, SCMTD, Caltrans, and CHP have agreed upon
guidelines.
13) Authorizes operation of a transit bus on the
shoulder of a state highway in conjunction with a BOS
program within the areas served by MST and SCMTD.
This bill:
1) Authorizes the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, the
AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 3 of ?
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the Livermore Amador
Valley Transit Authority, the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority, the North County Transit District, the
San Diego Association of Governments, the San Diego
Metropolitan Transit System, and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority to operate their own
bus-on-shoulder programs, subject to the same requirements
MST and SCMTD must meet to operate BOS programs under
current law.
2) Requires that each of the above entities, in conjunction
with Caltrans and the CHP, must submit a report to the
legislature two years after initiating a bus-on-shoulder
program. Reports must be posted on the entity's website and
include the following:
a) The geographic scope of the program
b) A copy of the guidelines agreed to by the entity,
Caltrans, and the CHP
c) Information about any highway modifications made in
relation to the program
d) The costs associated with the program
e) Performance measures used to evaluate the success of
the program, such as safety, freeway operations, and
changes in the reliability of transit and travel time
savings
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. The author states that traffic congestion is a
critical issue for transit programs throughout the state,
and many districts are trying to find low-cost, safe, and
reliable ways of making their transit programs more
appealing to riders. The author notes that many transit
agencies and districts are aware that schedule reliability
is a main concern for their ridership, but do not have the
funds to drastically expand infrastructure. The author
argues that this bill will allow the specified districts to
pursue, with the approval of Caltrans and the CHP, BOS
programs that would allow for reliable service without
significant infrastructure costs.
AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 4 of ?
2) Scope. This bill applies to transit buses operated by
specified transit districts only. No other buses would be
allowed to drive on the shoulder. There is no sunset on the
BOS authority conferred in existing law or by this bill.
3) BOS programs: the benefits. As noted by the author, the
primary benefit of BOS programs is that they allow transit
buses to bypass congestion using existing infrastructure.
This reduces delays in bus service and increases the overall
reliability of transit, which in turn increases transit's
appeal to the public. BOS programs are also believed to be
an effective method of recruiting new transit riders, since
drivers creeping along in regular traffic lanes actually see
buses cruising by them uninhibited. One Illinois transit
district reported that bus ridership on a heavily-traveled
corridor more than tripled in the two years following the
initiation of a BOS demonstration project there. On-time
performance, which had averaged less than 70%, reportedly
increased to over 90%.
4) BOS in other states. Several jurisdictions across the
country and in Canada have implemented BOS programs,
including major metropolitan areas such as Atlanta,
Columbus, Miami, and the Twin Cities. These programs have
been successful in shortening commute times and increasing
transit ridership without increasing the number of
collisions. In 2012, the Transit Cooperative Research
Program (TCRP) released a guide for implementing BOS
programs based in part on an earlier study of seven BOS
initiatives. These case studies provide detailed
information on how existing programs have established
signage and road marking requirements, set minimum lane
widths and speed limits, trained drivers, minimized
conflicts between buses and merging traffic, and otherwise
improved infrastructure to accommodate buses on highway
shoulders. This resource provides a starting point for
transit agencies contemplating new BOS programs.
5) The California experience. Previous legislation, AB 946
(Stone, Chapter 426, Statutes of 2013), authorized a BOS
program specifically for MST and SCMTD. To date, these
agencies have not initiated programs due to a lack of
resources for planning and evaluating potential projects.
MST anticipates initiating a feasibility study this summer,
so actual bus use of shoulders is still not imminent in
AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 5 of ?
Monterey.
California does have direct experience with BOS, however.
In 2005, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
conducted a demonstration program in partnership with the
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, Caltrans, and the
CHP. An October 2007 Technical Report issued jointly by
Caltrans and SANDAG noted that the program achieved a time
savings of one minute per mile over a four-mile section of
highway, which is equivalent to approximately $13,000 in
annual savings for the transit operator. Overall, the
report concluded that the project yielded strong benefits
for transit operations, was perceived positively by transit
drivers and transit passengers, and maintained safety on the
highway.
6) Competing shoulder uses: a possible safety hazard. While
the potential benefits of BOS programs are considerable, it
is important to bear in mind that shoulders already serve
important functions in maintaining traffic movement and
highway safety. Law enforcement officers and highway
maintenance workers use them regularly to perform critical
job functions, and representatives of these organizations
emphasize that the shoulder is a dangerous place to work
even without transit buses in the mix. According to the
California Association of Highway Patrolmen, nearly 30 CHP
officers have died after being struck by cars on the
shoulder. Caltrans workers are also often the victims of
collisions that occur when regular traffic strays too close
to the edge of the right lane. Opponents of this bill are
concerned that it will be difficult for fast-moving buses to
avoid emergency response and law enforcement personnel, road
maintenance workers, and disabled vehicles on the shoulder -
especially considering that buses are heavy vehicles and
require longer stopping distances than the average passenger
car. Additionally, congestion in regular traffic lanes may
make it difficult for buses to merge back into the right
lane when necessary.
7) Weight and wear and tear. In addition to the possible
safety hazards described above, this bill raises questions
about inherent, design-related incompatibilities between
shoulders and buses. While there is no single design
standard for shoulders in the state of California, generally
they are not built to the standard of regular traffic lanes
AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 6 of ?
and are less able to withstand the wear and tear of traffic.
As mentioned above, the kind of traffic that this bill
would impose upon shoulders is particularly heavy. The
average transit bus weighs nearly 40,000 pounds - about 10
times the mass of the average car
8) - and the low emissions buses that are increasingly used
by California transit agencies are even heavier. This bill
places the cost burden of additional wear and tear due to
BOS operations on transit agencies exclusively. It also
requires transit agencies to work with Caltrans and CHP to
collect and publish data on maintenance costs and roadway
modifications associated with BOS programs.
9) A tight squeeze. Another difficulty with putting buses on
shoulders stems from their respective widths. According to
the TCRP, most regular traffic lanes are 11 to 12 feet wide,
but many shoulders can be less than 10 feet in width,
particularly on older roads. The TCRP suggests 10 feet as a
reasonable minimum shoulder width for BOS, but this is
exactly the width of a standard, 8.5-foot-wide transit bus
once its side mirrors are factored in.
10) Driver behavior. BOS programs may also pose problems
related to the habits and behavior of other drivers.
Opponents of this bill argue that the sight of buses
traveling on shoulders may inspire drivers in regular
traffic to follow them, illegally, into what is intended to
be a bus-only lane. Unlike professional drivers, these
individuals would not be trained to use the shoulder safely,
or to adhere to relative and absolute speed limits specific
to BOS travel. Another concern arises from the fact that
the public is accustomed to seeing the shoulder as a safe
place for disabled vehicles. Drivers experiencing
mechanical problems may not exercise appropriate caution
when pulling into a shoulder that is also designated for bus
travel.
11) Balancing the risks and the benefits. Experiences in
other states provide evidence that BOS programs can be a
useful tool for increasing transit reliability and, by
extension, increasing transit use. It is also important to
note that as of 2012, TCRP knew of no BOS programs that had
been discontinued due to safety issues. As an additional
safeguard, this bill retains the provisions from AB 946 (see
Related Legislation below), requiring Caltrans and CHP to
AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 7 of ?
review and approve any new bus on shoulder programs. Still,
there are many reasons to approach BOS programs with
caution. As it is currently written, this bill would expand
an existing law that has yet to result in the implementation
of a single BOS program to authorize such programs in eight
additional transit districts. While it is clear that
additional data on BOS in California would be useful, such a
dramatic enlargement of BOS authority may not be warranted,
given the potential risks of such programs and the limited
experience of state government and transit agencies in this
area. The author and committee may wish to consider
amendments limiting the scope of this bill to the original
sponsoring transit agency and the two transit agencies
authorized to implement programs under existing law.
Related Legislation:
AB 946 (Stone, Chapter 426, Statutes of 2013) - authorized MST
and SCMTD to operate a BOS program with approval from Caltrans
and CHP.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 76-0
Appr: 18-0
Trans: 16-0
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 22, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (sponsor)
Alameda-Contra Contra Transit District
California Transit Association
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
Environmental Health Coalition
Monterey-Salinas Transit
North County Transit District
San Diego Association of Governments
AB 1746 (Mark Stone) Page 8 of ?
OPPOSITION:
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
International Union of Operating Engineers
-- END --