BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1908
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 1908
(Harper) - As Amended March 17, 2016
SUBJECT: High-occupancy vehicle lanes
SUMMARY: Prohibits the establishment of high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lanes on state highways in southern California unless the
lane is established on a part-time basis; requires all southern
California HOV lanes to be converted from full-time to part-time
operation. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits the Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, from establishing
an HOV lane on a state highway in southern California unless
the lane is operated on a part-time basis.
2)Requires all existing HOV lanes in southern California also to
be converted to part-time operation.
3)Requires Caltrans to report to the Legislature by January 1,
2019, on the impact to traffic by converting these HOV lane
segments to part-time operation.
4)Provides that, on or after May 1, 2018, if Caltrans determines
that part-time operation of these lanes has resulted in an
adverse impact on safety, traffic conditions, or the
environment, it may notify the Assembly Committee on
AB 1908
Page 2
Transportation and the Senate Committee on Transportation and
Housing of its intent to reinstate the lanes to 24-hour
operation; thereafter specifically authorizes Caltrans to
reinstate full-time operation of the HOV lanes.
5)Makes provisions requiring the conversion of specific routes
to part-time HOV operation operative on July 1, 2017, and
repeals these same provisions 60 days after Caltrans notifies
the Legislature of its intent to reinstate the lanes to
24-hour operation; requires Caltrans to post the date that the
Legislature receives the notice on the department's web site.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes Caltrans to permit preferential use of highway
lanes for HOVs, under specific conditions.
2)Requires Caltrans to produce engineering reports that estimate
the effect of an HOV lane prior to establishing the lane. The
reports must evaluate the proposals for safety, congestion,
and highway capacity.
3)Vests, under federal law, state departments of transportation
with responsibility for establishing occupancy requirements
for vehicles using HOV lanes, except that the requirement can
be no less than two occupants.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: The primary purpose of an HOV lane is to increase the
total number of people moved through a congested corridor by
offering two kinds of incentives: a savings in travel time and a
reliable and predictable travel time. Because HOV lanes carry
vehicles with a higher number of occupants, they may move
significantly more people during congested periods, even when
the number of vehicles that use the HOV lane is lower than in
the adjoining general-purpose lanes.
AB 1908
Page 3
State and regional transportation agencies are required to
ensure that federally supported highway and transit projects do
not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.
Consequently, when transportation agencies identify a need to
add highway capacity, their options are limited. They often
rely on the addition of HOV lanes, which are generally
considered a viable solution to adding highway capacity in
non-attainment areas-i.e., where air quality is worse than the
national ambient air quality standards.
In northern California, HOV lanes are only operational Monday
through Friday during posted peak congestion hours, for example
between 6 a.m. - 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. - 7 p.m. All other vehicles
may use the lanes during off-peak hours. This is referred to as
"part-time" operation.
In southern California, HOV lanes are generally separated from
other lanes by a buffer zone. The HOV lanes are in effect 24
hours a day, 7 days a week--referred to as "full-time"
operation. State Route (SR) 14 is an exception. Previous
legislation [AB 1871 (Runner), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2000],
created a demonstration project to evaluate part-time use of the
HOV lanes on this route.
The operational practices vary differently between northern
California versus southern California because of traffic volumes
and commuter patterns in the two regions. Northern California
highways usually experience two weekday congestion periods
during peak morning and afternoon commute hours, followed by a
long period of non-congestion. Using a full-time operation
would leave the HOV lane relatively unoccupied during off-peak
hours and would not constitute an efficient utilization of the
roadway. Southern California normally experiences very long
hours of congestion, typically between six to eleven hours per
day, with short off-peak traffic hours. Part-time operation
under these conditions is generally considered infeasible.
AB 1908
Page 4
Committee concerns:
1)The author asserts that HOV lanes in southern California are
under-utilized during off-peak hours, thereby increasing
congestion and vehicle emissions. He proposes to covert HOV
lanes to part-time operation, thereby relieving congestion in
mixed flow lanes during off-peak hours. However, it is during
periods of congestion that the real benefits of HOV lanes are
realized. This is when HOV lanes have the greatest people
throughput. Furthermore, incentives to carpool are greatest
when HOV lanes offer quicker, more reliable travel times than
adjacent mixed flow lanes.
2)While there is evidence that at least some of the HOV lanes in
southern California experience a drop in usage after peak
commute hours, the same is often true of the mixed flow lanes
adjacent to the HOV lanes. Consequently, opening up the HOV
lane to mixed flow use would provide little or no congestion
relief. It is for this reason that the Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO) concluded, in a 2002 report that evaluated the
conversion to part-time operation of SR 14 in Los Angeles
County, that converting SR 14 HOV lanes from full-time to
part-time had "essentially no effect on traffic congestion,
either positive or negative."
3)The committee was unable to obtain traffic volume data to
confirm or refute the author's assertion that the lanes are
under-utilized. However, it may be helpful to note that
optimum HOV lane usage is generally considered to be about
1,650 vehicles per hour-75% of the maximum capacity of
mixed-flow lanes. In a report published in 2000 that
evaluated the effectiveness of HOV lanes in California, the
LAO suggests that this disparity is the reason that, even when
an HOV lane has reached its operating capacity, it would
AB 1908
Page 5
always appear to have room for additional vehicles as compared
to the adjacent mixed-flow lanes.
Previous legislation: AB 210 (Gatto) of 2015 and AB 405 (Gatto)
of 2013 would have required the conversion of HOV lanes on State
Routes 134 and SR 210 from full-time to part-time operation.
Both bills passed the Legislature but were vetoed by Governor
Brown. In his veto messages, the Governor stated that he
believed carpool lanes are especially important in Los Angeles
County to reduce pollution and maximize the use of freeways and,
therefore, the current 24/7 carpool lane controls should be
retained.
AB 2200 (Ma) of 2012 would have suspended the HOV lane on
eastbound Interstate 80 in the San Francisco Bay Area during the
morning commute. AB 2200 was passed by the Legislature but
ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown. In his veto message, the
Governor stated, "Encouraging carpooling is important to reduce
pollution and make more efficient use of our highways. This
bill goes in a wrong direction."
AB 1871 (Runner), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2000, prohibited,
until June 1, 2002, HOV lanes from being constructed on SR 14
between the City of Santa Clarita and the City of Palmdale
unless the lane was established as an HOV lane only during the
hours of heavy commuter traffic. AB 1871 also required the LAO
to report on the traffic impact of the part-time HOV lanes.
That report found that limiting the HOV lane to part-time
operation had "essentially no effect on traffic congestion,
either positive or negative."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 1908
Page 6
Automobile Club of Southern California
National Motorists Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093