BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2542
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 2542
(Gatto) - As Amended March 15, 2016
SUBJECT: Streets and highways: reversible lanes
SUMMARY: Requires that, prior to the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) approving a capacity-increasing project or
major street or highway lane realignment project, the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or a regional
transportation planning agency must demonstrate that reversible
lanes were considered for the project.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Vests CTC with responsibility to advise and assist the
Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency and
the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies
and plans for California's transportation programs.
2)Requires the CTC to, among other things, adopt the state
transportation improvement program and allocate transportation
capital funds to specific projects in the program, for each
major phase of a project.
3)Declares that it is the policy of the state that public
agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are
AB 2542
Page 2
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of such projects.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Reversible lanes add peak-direction capacity to a
two-way road and decrease congestion by "borrowing" available
lane capacity from the other (off-peak) direction. The lanes
are particularly beneficial where the cost to increase capacity
is especially expensive, like on bridges and in dense urban
areas.
Reversible lanes are not new to California. In fact, reversible
lanes were first inaugurated on the Golden Gate Bridge in
October 1963. While they worked to reduce serve traffic in the
peak direction, they were labor intensive to operate and posed
serious safety problems because they led to the increase in
head-on collisions. Now the lanes are adjusted with the aid of
a "zipper"-a moveable barrier machine that pushes a heavy
concrete and metal barrier across one lane and related labor and
safety problems have been minimized.
Today, in addition to the Golden Gate Bridge, reversible lanes
are used on the San Diego-Coronado Bridge, Interstate 15 in San
Diego, and, until recently, in the Caldecott Tunnel.
Furthermore, the use of reversible lanes is increasing, for
example, during large sporting events, traffic incidents,
construction, and evacuations.
According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (Institute),
the decision to consider reversible lanes is usually based on
the need to mitigate recurrent congestion. Its use is most
applicable on multi-lane roadways with a directional imbalance
in excess of 65/35% with a predominance of through traffic and
AB 2542
Page 3
predictable congestion patterns. Reasons agencies give for
using reversible lanes include: congestion mitigation, queue
length, the need to decrease travel time, and the need to
improve the overall corridor level of service.
The Institute asserts that planning of specific reversible
facilities does not differ substantially from conventional
facilities. It also suggests that "[t]he vast majority of
reversible lanes are implemented on lanes not originally planned
or designed for bi-directional use. Most reversible lanes are
incorporated into conventionally designed roadways that were
later reconfigured for permanent or periodic flow conversions
using various permanent or temporary design and control
features. The exceptions to this case are applications on
freeways, in particular freeway high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and
transit reversible lanes, where transition termini and lane
separations are planned, designed, and constructed specifically
for the purpose of a reversible lane."
Caltrans already provides guidance regarding consideration for
the use of reversible lanes. Consequently, AB 2542 should be
relatively easy to implement. Furthermore, given the potential
benefits of avoiding costly, environmentally unfriendly roadway
expansion, the requirements set forth in AB 2542 to consider
reversible lanes seem reasonable.
Committee comment: AB 2542 does not prescribe the manner by
which Caltrans or a regional transportation planning agency
would demonstrate that reversible lanes were considered. Nor
does it define the process within which CTC would be approving a
AB 2542
Page 4
capacity-adding project. The author may want to work with the
CTC to clarify how provisions of AB 2542 would be
operationalized, for example, by requiring that a reversible
lane alternative be considered in the alternative analysis
portion of an environmental review document.
Previous legislation: AB 1283 (DeVore) of 2005 would have
required Caltrans, prior to adding single-direction lanes, to
study the feasibility of adding reversible lanes separated by
barriers. AB 1283 failed passage in this committee by a vote of
6-5.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
AB 2542
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093