BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: AB 1361
          SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN               AUTHOR:  Portantino
                                                         VERSION: 5/13/09
          Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell                   FISCAL:  yes
          Hearing date: June 16, 2009








          SUBJECT:

          Commercial vehicle ban: State Route 2

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill bans large commercial vehicles on a segment of State  
          Route (SR) 2 in Los Angeles County and the City of La Ca?ada  
          Flintridge.

          ANALYSIS:

          Existing law designates the California state highway system  
          through a description of segments of the state's regional and  
          interregional roads that are owned and operated by the  
          Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 

          Existing state law establishes maximum length, width, and weight  
          limits for a variety of vehicles and vehicle combinations on the  
          state's roads, as follows:

           The total length of a combination of vehicles (tractor and two  
            trailers) is limited to 65 feet; 

           Vehicle width is limited to 102 inches; and 

           Combinations of vehicles may not exceed a total weight of  
            80,000 pounds, while lower maximum weights apply for certain  
            vehicles based on their number of axles and the stances  
            between axles.  

          Caltrans may close segments of highways to long or heavy  
          vehicles if those highways cannot safely accommodate vehicles of  




          AB 1361 (PORTANTINO)                                      Page 2

                                                                       


          a given length or weight based on the design of the highway.  
          When Caltrans could not ban large vehicles on highways because  
          of the design of the highway, the Legislature has sometimes  
          either enacted a ban or provided authority for a ban. For  
          example, existing law bans trucks over 9,000 pounds on  
          Interstate Route 580 (I-580) between Oakland and San Leandro,  
          and it permits Caltrans and the Santa Clara County to ban  
          vehicles over 9,000 pounds on SR 85 between Cupertino and San  
          Jose.

           

          This bill  :

          1.Bans commercial vehicles with three or more axles or a gross  
            vehicle weight of five tons (10,000 pounds) or more on the  
            segment of SR 2 between Interstate 210 in the City of La  
            Ca?ada Flintridge and County Route N4 (Big Pine Highway) in  
            the County of Los Angeles.

          2.Exempts the following vehicles from this ban:

                 Authorized emergency vehicles
                 Vehicles operated by publicly or privately owned public  
               utility
                 Caltrans' vehicles
                 A transit bus servicing facilities accessible only from  
               that segment of SR 2
                 A tow truck providing assistance to a vehicle accessible  
               only from that segment of SR 2
                 A commercial vehicle that is making deliveries to or  
               from, or servicing property, that is located within the  
               city limits of La Ca?ada Flintridge or is accessible only  
               from this portion of SR 2.
                 A commercial vehicle involved in a motion picture or  
               television production conducting activities along or  
               adjacent to this portion of SR 2.

          1.Requires Caltrans to erect signs to give notice of the ban at  
            each end of this segment of SR 2 and any other points Caltrans  
            deems necessary.

          2.Imposes a penalty of $1,000 or a specified greater amount  
            based on the weight of the vehicle for violating the ban and  
            dedicates the proceeds, upon appropriation by the Legislature,  
            to improving the safety of this portion of SR 2.




          AB 1361 (PORTANTINO)                                      Page 3

                                                                       


          
          3.Is an urgency measure.
          
          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose  . The author points out that the portion of SR 2 that  
            runs through Angeles National Forrest and into La Ca?ada  
            Flintridge is a winding highway with grades as steep as seven  
            percent in some locations. Some assert that these road  
            conditions have contributed to accidents on this segment of  
            highway since at least 1951. As an example, the author cites an  
            April 2005 accident in which a dump truck lost its brakes on  
            SR2 and careened into the protective retaining wall just in  
            front of a popular restaurant in La Ca?ada Flintridge. In  
            another instance, in September 2008 a truck slammed into seven  
            cars in the parking lot of the same restaurant after its brakes  
            failed. In April of this year, yet another run-away truck  
            slammed into cars and eventually into a bookstore, taking the  
            lives of a father and daughter. The truck driver in that  
            accident was arrested for gross vehicular manslaughter and  
            felony reckless driving.

            After those deaths both the city and Caltrans agreed to place a  
            90-day ban, which expires in July, on commercial trucks along  
            the mountainous portion of SR 2 in order to provide the  
            Legislature time to pass a more permanent solution. This bill  
            is that permanent solution.
            
            The author asserts that it is only a matter of time before the  
            driver of another large truck, who is unaware of the dangers  
            of SR 2, wears down his or her vehicle's brakes and causes  
            another accident. The author is carrying this bill to make  
            "long overdue preventative measures to protect the citizens of  
            La Ca?ada Flintridge and its visitors from another similar  
            incident."

           2.Why 10,000 pounds  ? Other bans on large vehicles, including  
            that on I-580 in Alameda County and that on SR 85 in Santa  
            Clara County, prohibit vehicles in excess of 9,000 pounds.  
            This bill instead chooses to set the ban at 10,000 pounds or  
            greater or more than three axles. The author indicates that  
            this number came from local discussions between Caltrans, the  
            California Highway Patrol, local businesses, and elected  
            officials.

           3.Penalty amount and use  . This bill imposes a fine of $1,000 for  




          AB 1361 (PORTANTINO)                                      Page 4

                                                                       


            driving a vehicle over 10,000 pounds on the specified segment  
            of SR 2.  With penalty assessments this $1,000 fine would  
            become a total assessment of approximately $3,800. 
          
            In addition, the bill dedicates revenues from the base fine,  
            upon appropriation by the Legislature, to improving safety on  
            this segment of SR 2. It is unclear, however, how this revenue  
            would be so dedicated, as no special accounting method exists  
            to separate these revenues out from others received for  
            traffic fines, or whether such a dedication would be  
            appropriate given that fine revenues are already dedicated to  
            various state and local law entities. The committee may wish  
            to amend the bill so that fine revenues derived from  
            violations of the ban this bill imposes are allocated in the  
            same manner as other traffic fines imposed in state law.

          4.Urgency clause language  . The urgency clause in this bill  
            states that this portion of SR 2 "has contributed to numerous  
            accidents involving large commercial vehicles since 1951? ."  
            By stating this conclusion, the bill prejudges a matter  
            pending in the state courts that stems from the accident that  
            occurred in April of this year, in which Caltrans is being  
            sued. It may be more appropriate to leave this matter to the  
            courts and instead state that the urgency clause is needed  
            because this is a dangerous section of highway for large  
            vehicles, which are temporarily banned by Caltrans, but which  
            can only be banned permanently through an amendment to state  
            law. The committee or the author may wish to amend the urgency  
            clause language in this bill to refer to the need to make the  
            temporary ban on large vehicles on SR 9 permanent rather than  
            to draw a conclusion about the cause of accidents that have  
            occurred on this segment of SR 2.
          
          Assembly Votes:
               Floor:    75 - 0
               Appr: 15 - 0
               Trans:    13 - 0

          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the Committee before noon on  
          Wednesday, 
                     June 10, 2009)

               SUPPORT:  City of La Ca?ada Flintridge (sponsor)
                         California Contract Cities Association
                         City of Lakewood
                         City of Palm Desert




          AB 1361 (PORTANTINO)                                      Page 5

                                                                       


                         Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation  
          Authority
                         Approximately 50 individuals
          
               OPPOSED:  None received.