BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 63|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 63
Author: Solis (D), et al
Amended: 6/29/99
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE : 10-0, 4/6/99
AYES: Dunn, Costa, Figueroa, Hayden, Kelley, Monteith,
Morrow, Murray, Polanco, Rainey
NOT VOTING: Karnette, Speier
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-0, 4/26/99
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Kelley, McPherson, Mountjoy, Vasconcellos
NOT VOTING: Karnette, Leslie, Perata
SENATE FLOOR : 40-0, 5/10/99
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Baca, Bowen, Brulte, Burton,
Chesbro, Costa, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Haynes,
Hughes, Johannessen, Johnson, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley,
Knight, Leslie, Lewis, McPherson, Monteith, Morrow,
Mountjoy, Murray, O'Connell, Ortiz, Peace, Perata,
Polanco, Poochigian, Rainey, Schiff, Sher, Solis, Speier,
Vasconcellos, Wright
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-2, 7/8/99 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Preferential vehicle lanes: occupancy level:
Route 10
SOURCE : Author
CONTINUED
SB 63
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill would reduce, until January 1, 2002,
the minimum occupancy requirement for vehicles using the
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane on the San Bernardino
Freeway from three to two persons.
The bill would require the Department of Transportation to
analyze and submit a report to the Legislature by January
1, 2001, any discernable changes in a motorist's behavior
as a result of this change.
Assembly Amendments :
1.Change the sunset date from 2003 to 2002, and make
related changes.
2.Delete Assemblyman Longville as a coauthor.
ANALYSIS : A HOV lane, commonly known as a "carpool" or
"diamond" lane, is part of a traffic management strategy
designed to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles
during periods of heavy traffic congestion by offering
commuters in high-occupancy vehicles (generally two or
three or more passengers) the option of an "express-like"
traffic lane that is designed to reduce travel time.
This bill would require the Department of Transportation to
establish exclusive or preferential use of highway lanes
for HOVs on that portion of State Highway Route 10 known as
the San Bernardino Freeway, and shall set the minimum
occupancy level on those lanes at two persons, including
the driver.
The bill provides that notwithstanding Section 7550.5 of
the Government Code, on or before January 1, 2001, the
Department of Transportation shall complete, prepare and
submit to the Legislature a report regarding an operational
study concerning the use of the HOV lanes. That study
shall include, but is not limited to, an analysis of any
discernable changes in motorist behavior as a result of the
establishment of the lanes.
The above provisions would become inoperative on July 1,
2001 and would sunset altogether on January 1, 2002.
SB 63
Page
3
California has one of the most extensive networks of HOV
lanes in the nation. It is estimated that there are nearly
900 miles of HOV lanes currently operational in the state,
and the department has planned an ambitious expansion
program consisting of over 700 miles of additional HOV
lanes which are expected to be inaugurated in the next
several years. The vast majority of HOV lanes in the state
require a vehicle occupancy requirement of two or more
occupants, with only about a dozen HOV lanes requiring
three or more occupants (all located in Northern
California, except the HOV lane on the El Monte Busway).
Since 1973, the San Bernardino Freeway has included an
exclusive lane for buses, known as the "El Monte Busway."
As the result of a local bus strike in 1976, however, an
agreement was reached that allowed carpools with three or
more occupants to share the busway. The agreement included
a standard of 1300 vehicles using the HOV lane per hour
during peak traffic periods. According to the department,
current traffic volumes approach the stipulated standard.
The department conducted a review ("Operational study of
the El Monte Busway") in 1996 to examine the feasibility of
reducing the occupancy requirement on the busway. The
analysis considered four operational alternatives,
including: (1) two or more vehicle occupancy, seven days a
week, 24 hours a day; (2) three or more vehicle occupancy
during peak hours, and two or more vehicle occupancy during
non-peak hours; (3) reconstruct the busway for two lanes;
and (4) maintain three or more vehicle occupancy, seven
days a week, 24 hours a day. The report concluded:
The El Monte Busway lanes were originally conceived to
establish a high speed transitway for buses; whereby, the
motorist would be encouraged to ride the system in-lieu
of driving his vehicle. Currently, this system is
functioning at a satisfactory level of service and is not
experiencing any major breakdown. Based on our analysis
of various traffic and engineering data, existing and
expected carpool demands, and input from various transit
agencies and CHP, it is our recommendation that the El
Monte Busway lanes remain as a three or more occupancy
requirement for 24 hour a day carpool usage.
SB 63
Page
4
Further, we believe that allowing two or more carpools to
use these lanes during peak periods would overload the
system causing congestion and delay and present an
unacceptable level of service.
According to the report, peak hour traffic volumes of three
or more occupancy vehicles on the freeway ranged from 1267
to 1241 westbound, and from 1188 to 1025 eastbound
(recorded at two locations on the freeway). Peak hour
traffic volumes of two or more occupancy vehicles ranged
from 2796 to 2094 westbound, and from 2776 to 2236
eastbound. The department indicates that traffic volumes
on a freeway lane that exceed 1800 vehicles per hour result
in congestion and delay.
In a report entitled, "The Effectiveness of High-Occupancy
Vehicle Facilities" (1988), the Institute of Transportation
Engineers concluded that "(m)ost HOV lanes are carrying at
least 50% more peak-hour person trips than an adjacent
freeway lane. The problem is that an HOV facility
typically carries only 400 to 500 peak-hour vehicles at 55
mph, while an adjacent freeway lane is carrying 1,500 to
2,000 peak-hour vehicles under stop-and-go conditions. The
perception of the driver stalled in traffic is that the HOV
facility is underutilized. The pressure on those operating
the HOV facility is to relax the HOV restrictions and allow
more vehicles into the HOV facility."
HOV lanes have increasingly become the subject of criticism
as freeway congestion has worsened and the number of these
lanes have increased. Many HOV lanes in the state are
operating at less than the optimum level. Several
legislative measures have been introduced in the
Legislature this session regarding the operation of these
special lanes, including at least one proposal that could
potentially require HOV lanes to be redesignated as
mixed-flow lanes. It appears that in actuality the
department has relatively few operational options for
improving the efficiency of HOV lanes, including varying
the vehicle occupancy requirement and the hours of
operation, and engaging in public information efforts to
urge commuters to form carpools. A significant point of
criticism, however, of HOV lanes by commuters is that very
manipulation of vehicle occupancy requirements and lane
SB 63
Page
5
hours, which creates a confusing variation in the
requirements for the use of the lanes, particularly in the
Bay Area and on intersecting freeways.
Related legislation
Senate Bill 14 (Raney). This bill would require the
department to complete a study to create a set of criteria
for measuring the effectiveness of state highway lanes
proposed to be designated or constructed as HOV lanes.
(This bill is currently in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.)
Assembly 44 (McClintock). This bill would require the
department to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as
mixed-flow lanes and would prohibit those entities from
establishing any new HOV lanes unless (a) the department or
local authority has conducted the required traffic model
study and analysis and obtained the specified certification
of the study and analysis, and (b) the result of the
analysis is that establishing an HOV lane is the most
efficient alternative in accordance with cost-benefit
estimates derived under the study. (This bill has been
referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee.)
Assembly Bill 199 (Pescetti). This bill provides that it
is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to
evaluate the effectiveness of HOV lanes that are currently
in use on highways in this state. (This bill has not been
referred to a committee in the Assembly.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 1999-2000 2000-01
2001-02 Fund
CalTrans unknown, minor costs to
replace signs Transportation
and complete study
SB 63
Page
6
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/9/99)
City of Monterey Park
City of South El Monte
City of El Monte
City of La Puente
City of Irwindale
Mayor, City of Pomona
El Monte/South El Monte Chamber of Commerce
Azusa Chamber of Commerce
United Transportation Union
San Gabriel Valley Economic Council
Hacienda Heights Improvement Association
Industry Manufacturers Council
Alhambra Democratic Club
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/9/99)
Southern California Transit Advocates
Foothill Transit Executive Board
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author,
"(t)raffic congestion in Southern California is terrible.
Both during the morning and after peak hours, thousands of
cars are trapped in traffic. For commuters traveling on
the San Bernardino Freeway, Interstate Highway 10, they
must face these 'parking lot' conditions on a daily basis.
To help alleviate this situation, we can reduce the
requirement of the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane on the San
Bernardino Freeway from a three person to a two person
minimum. By enacting a more attainable goal of two people
per vehicle in a HOV lane, more commuters will be able to
utilize the carpool lane. In turn, this will increase the
efficiency of the carpool lane and improve traffic
conditions in the mixed-flow lane."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Southern California Transit
Advocates state that, "we view this bill as endangering the
productivity of the El Monte busway on route 10 (the San
Bernardino Freeway) or the large levels of express bus
service that utilize it, especially during peak weekday
hours. The freeflowing nature of the busway is vital to
its success and increasing the levels of traffic on it by
SB 63
Page
7
reducing from three to two the minimum occupancy required
for carpools to use the busway would defeat its purpose."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn,
Baldwin, Bates, Battin, Baugh, Brewer, Briggs, Calderon,
Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa,
Cox, Cunneen, Davis, Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Floyd, Frusetta, Gallegos, Granlund,
Havice, Hertzberg, Honda, House, Jackson, Kaloogian,
Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Leach, Lempert, Leonard, Lowenthal,
Maddox, Maldonado, Margett, Mazzoni, McClintock, Migden,
Nakano, Olberg, Oller, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco,
Pescetti, Reyes, Romero, Runner, Scott, Shelley, Soto,
Steinberg, Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vincent,
Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright,
Zettel, Villaraigosa
NOES: Bock, Longville
NOT VOTING: Machado, Papan, Thompson, Torlakson
RJG:sl 7/9/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****