BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 584
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: huber
VERSION: 6/1/10
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
SUBJECT:
Neighborhood electric vehicles
DESCRIPTION:
This bill authorizes, until 2016, the County of Amador and the
cities of Jackson, Amador City, and Sutter Creek to establish a
neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plan or plans.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law defines a low-speed vehicle as a motor vehicle that
is 4-wheeled; can attain a speed in one mile of more than 20
miles per hour (MPH) and not more than 25 MPH on a paved, level
surface; and has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than
3,000 pounds. Low-speed vehicles are also known as neighborhood
electric vehicles (NEVs). NEVs meet federal motor vehicle safety
standards, and one must possess a valid California driver's
license to operate a NEV on public streets.
Existing law generally prohibits NEVs from being operated on any
roadway with a speed limit in excess of 35 MPH, but a number of
bills have provided exceptions for three communities, as
follows:
AB 2353 (Leslie), Chapter 422, Statutes of 2004, authorized the
NEV transportation plan pilot projects until January 1, 2009,
for the cities of Lincoln and Rocklin, as follows:
1)Each city may establish a "neighborhood electric vehicle
transportation plan" for the city or some part of it. Existing
law puts numerous requirements on the adoption of the plan,
including consultation with local law enforcement and
AB 584 (HUBER) Page 2
transportation planning officials. The plan must accommodate
the travel of NEVs by identifying routes and providing for NEV
facilities (separate lanes, trails, street crossings, parking,
charging stations, etc.), and it may allow NEVs on streets
with speed limits over 35 MPH where dedicated lanes are
provided for NEVs.
2)The cities must work with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to establish uniform specifications
and symbols for signs, traffic control devices, and
right-of-way designation in the plan areas.
3)If Lincoln or Rocklin adopts a NEV transportation plan, then
the city must report to the Legislature on the plan, its
effectiveness, and its impact on traffic flows and safety, and
it must make a recommendation to the Legislature on extending
the sunset date or expanding the authorization for NEV
transportation plans statewide.
AB 2963 (Gaines), Chapter 199, Statutes of 2008, extended the
sunset date on the Lincoln and Rocklin pilot projects from 2009
until January 1, 2012. In doing so, the bill required the cities
jointly or individually if only one proceeds, to report to the
Legislature by January 1, 2011, on implementation of their NEV
transportation plans. This report shall be prepared in
consultation with Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol (CHP),
and local law enforcement and provide specified information on
the NEV transportation plans and their implementation.
SB 956 (Correa), Chapter 442, Statutes of 2007, allowed Orange
County to establish a NEV transportation plan for Ranch Plan
Planned Community under essentially the same criteria as the
Lincoln and Rocklin pilot projects, except with a sunset date of
January 1, 2013.
This bill authorizes the County of Amador and the cities of
Jackson, Sutter Creek, and Amador City to establish jointly or
individually neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plans
under the same terms as the pilot projects in Lincoln and
Rocklin. Specifically, the bill:
1)Permits the County of Amador and the cities of Jackson, Sutter
Creek, and Amador City, to establish by ordinance or
resolution a NEV plan for streets under their jurisdictions.
Prior to adoption, the county and cities shall receive comment
and review on the plan from the Amador County Transportation
AB 584 (HUBER) Page 3
Commission and any agency with traffic law enforcement
responsibilities in these jurisdictions. The plan must
accommodate the travel of NEVs by identifying routes and
providing for NEV facilities (separate lanes, trails, street
crossings, parking, charging stations, etc.).
2)Requires the jurisdictions that adopt a NEV plan to report to
the Legislature by January 1, 2015, in consultation with CHP
and local law enforcement. Each report shall describe the plan
adopted, evaluate its effectiveness and impact on traffic
flows and safety, and make a recommendation to the Legislature
on extending the sunset date or expanding the authorization
for NEV transportation plans statewide.
3)Sunsets on January 1, 2016.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . The author introduced this bill so that several
communities in her district may create a more sustainable
transportation option that encourages NEV use while decreasing
fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, and overall energy
use within the community. The author reports that a local
community organization, Amador Citizens for Transportation
Options (ACTO), has been working with Amador County to
consider transportation alternatives that will link the small,
historic towns of Jackson, Sutter Creek, and Amador City. ACTO
has proposed developing a NEV transportation plan similar to
those established by Lincoln and Rocklin. This bill would
permit implementation of such a plan.
2.Outstanding public safety issues for NEV Plans . There are
numerous outstanding public safety issues to be resolved with
NEV plans, including:
conflicts with bicycles, as noted below;
appropriate and universal signage; and
the difficulty for a NEV making a left turn on a street
with a speed limit in excess of 35 MPH where the NEV must
cross traffic in order to move from a dedicated lane on the
right hand side of the roadway.
In recognition of these, all of the existing statutory
authorizations for NEV plans have sunset dates: Orange
County's sunsets in 2013, and Lincoln's and Rocklin's sunset
AB 584 (HUBER) Page 4
in 2012. This bill includes a 2016 sunset date for the same
reason.
3.Conflicts between NEVs and bicycles . Bicycle advocates have
expressed concern with NEV plans, because they can result in
NEVs operating in bicycle lanes. Specifically, these advocates
note that NEVs are too wide for bike lanes, that NEVs should
be with other motorized vehicles rather than bikes because of
the severity of NEV-bike accidents for bicyclists, and that
allowing NEVs in bike lanes leads to the incorrect impression
that NEVs may travel on bicycle paths that are separate from
roadways. The California Bicycle Coalition opposes this bill
because it could lead to bicycles and NEVs sharing a single
lane. To address these concerns, the committee or author may
wish to amend this bill to clarify that dedicated NEV lanes
may not be for joint use of NEVs and bicycles nor may NEV
lanes displace bicycle lanes.
4.Opposition . The California Council of the Blind opposes this
bill because it does not address the safety issues that NEVs
pose for pedestrians and especially for visually impaired
pedestrians. NEVs and other electric vehicles emit little
sound, and it is vehicle sound on which blind pedestrians rely
to detect the presence of vehicles and know when it is safe to
cross a street. The council indicates that it will support the
bill if it is amended to require NEVs to emit sufficient sound
for blind pedestrians to audibly detect the presence of NEVs.
RELATED LEGISLATION
AB 1781 (Villines) authorizes, until 2016, the City of Fresno to
establish a neighborhood electric vehicle transportation plan.
Status: Also on today's agenda in this committee.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 67 - 0
Appr: 17 - 0
Trans: 14 - 0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 9, 2010)
SUPPORT: Amador Citizens for Transportation Options
(sponsor)
Amador County Transportation Commission
AB 584 (HUBER) Page 5
OPPOSED: California Bicycle Coalition
California Council of the Blind