BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 538
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 538 (Williams) - As Amended: January 4, 2012
SUBJECT : Truck restrictions: State Route 33
SUMMARY : Bans commercial vehicles with a kingpin-to-rear-axle
(KPRA) length over 30 feet from a portion of State Route (SR) 33
in Ventura County. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding a 1989
study conducted by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) that evaluated which state highways could not
geometrically accommodate the operation of a 40-foot KPRA
length.
2)Further finds and declares that the report found that a
segment of SR 33 in Ventura County is "geometrically
inadequate" for use by a commercial vehicle with a KPRA
greater than 30 feet.
3)Declares that in its 1989 KPRA study, Caltrans recommended
that the Legislature grant Caltrans the authority to install
regulatory signing based on the appropriate KPRA for a
specific route.
4)States legislative intent to provide Caltrans with the
authority to install regulatory signing for a specific segment
of SR 33.
5)Bans commercial vehicles with a KPRA in excess of 30 feet on
SR 33 between the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line and the
Camino Cielo Road near the City of Ojai.
6)Exempts from the restriction, the following:
a) Authorized emergency vehicles;
b) Vehicles operated by a publicly or privately owned
public utility;
c) Vehicles operated by a government agency;
AB 538
Page 2
d) Tow trucks providing assistance to a vehicle that is
accessible only from the otherwise restricted section of
highway; and,
e) Commercial vehicles involved in motion picture,
commercial, or television production in areas that are only
assessable from this section of SR 33.
7)Provides that violations of the restriction are punishable by
fines pursuant to provisions related to overweight vehicles,
or $1,000, whichever is greater.
8)Directs Caltrans to erect suitable signing of the restriction.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Sets the maximum limits on the height, weight, and length of
vehicles that are allowed to use state highways; specifically
provides that the KPRA for a truck tractor-semitrailer
combination vehicle cannot exceed 40 feet.
2)Allows Caltrans, with regard to state highways, to lower the
maximum KPRA length restriction to less than 40 feet but
specifically prohibits the department from lowering the length
restriction to less than 38 feet.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : In 1989, Caltrans conducted a study entitled "Truck
Kingpin-To-Rear Axle Length State Highway System Evaluation" as
required by SB 2232 (McCorquodale), Chapter 1378, Statutes of
1986. The study was in response to other provisions of SB 2232
that increased the allowable KPRA from 38 feet to 40 feet.
In the study, Caltrans warned that out of the 15,166 total miles
of state highway;
1) 22% (3,364 miles) could not accommodate trucks with 40 foot
KPRA lengths.
2) 21% (3,185 miles) could not accommodate trucks with 38 foot
KPRA lengths.
AB 538
Page 3
3) 18.6% (2,831) miles could not accommodate trucks with 30
foot KPRA lengths.
In this study, Caltrans recommended that it be granted the
authority to post regulatory signs limiting the allowable KPRA
lengths on specified roads. Subsequent legislation attempted,
through various statutory means, to authorize vehicle length
restrictions consistent with the findings in the KPRA study.
Proponents of such legislation argued that the restrictions
would improve public safety and that warning signs alone were
not adequate to discourage the use of long trucks on the roads
in question. They further argued that existing law
inappropriately left the question of public safety up to
individual truck drivers who are often pressured by tight
schedules to take these routes despite KPRA advisory warnings.
Opponents, on the other hand, argued that truck restrictions
might create an undue burden on the state's trucking industry by
limiting the industry's use of the state highway system and that
limiting 20% of the state's highways might isolate some parts
of the state from continued service by common, larger, more
economical trucks. Finally, opponents argued that restrictions
might also hurt businesses that rely on the trucking industry
for the delivery of goods.
In the end, none of the bills were successful in systematically
implementing the truck length restrictions called out in the
1989 KPRA study. Instead, Caltrans posted advisory signs on
these routes that warn, "Tractor-Semis over �30] Feet Kingpin to
Rear Axle Not Advised."
Among the highway segments identified in the report, SR 33 in
Ventura County (between El Roblar Road to the Santa Barbara
County line) was identified as geometrically inadequate to
accommodate KPRA lengths over 30 feet.
The author has introduced AB 538 on behalf of the County of
Ventura, which has reportedly received a number of
safety-related complaints from residents about trucks crossing
over the double-yellow when negotiating some of the sharp turns.
Although, according to Caltrans, accident statistics for this
segment of SR 33 do not indicate a safety concern, the author
asserts that Ventura County is reasonable in seeking a truck
length restriction prior to someone getting injured or killed by
AB 538
Page 4
an off-tracking truck.
Writing in opposition to this bill, the Mosler Rock-Ojai Quarry
argues that the truck length restriction will mean that the
quarry will no longer be able to use the types of trucks the
quarry has used for the past 60 years. The Southern California
Contractors Association (SCCA), also in opposition to the bill,
shares concerns that the truck length restriction will
jeopardize mining operations along SR 33. It argues that virgin
aggregate is already difficult to obtain and this bill would
exacerbate that problem. SCCA also argues that this bill would
require its members that are located in the area to take
circuitous routes, adding an hour or more to their trips,
thereby increasing costs.
Committee concerns:
1)Traffic accident data on SR 33 does not indicate that a
truck-length restriction is warranted. Consequently, it is
not clear what the basis is for singling out SR 33 from the
other over 2,800 miles of state highway that also cannot
geometrically accommodate KPRA lengths greater than 30 feet.
If the Legislature is to deem SR 33 as unsafe for KPRA lengths
over 30 feet by imposing restrictions, despite the lack of
supporting accident data, then shouldn't all routes deemed
inadequate for longer trucks be likewise restricted?
2)Provisions in the bill that identify the fine schedule for
violations of the proposed truck length restriction
incorrectly reference existing truck weight-violation
penalties, which have no relevance to violations of truck
length limits.
3)The proposed restriction is limited to commercial vehicles and
provides specific exemptions for, among other vehicles, those
involved in motion picture or television production. It is
not clear what the justification is for exempting these
vehicles from the restrictions.
4)The 1989 KPRA report identifies the segment of SR 33 between
El Roblar Road to the Santa Barbara County line as incapable
of geometrically accommodating KPRA lengths greater than 30
feet. This segment is not consistent with the segment
identified in the bill. If a restriction is to be imposed, it
should logically begin at a point on the highway where it
AB 538
Page 5
intersects with an available alternative route, in this case
several miles south of the terminus identified in the bill.
Previous legislation:
SB 2232 (McCorquodale) Chapter 1378, Statutes of 1986, increased
the allowable KPRA to from 38 feet to 40 feet and required
Caltrans to conduct the KPRA study.
AB 2253 (Honda) of 1998 would have allowed truck length
restrictions below 38 KPRA. That bill died in Assembly
Appropriations.
AB 576 (Honda) of 1999 was similar to AB 2253. Provisions
related to truck length restrictions were ultimately amended out
of that bill and replaced with unrelated provisions.
SB 636 (Karnette) of 2001 would have required Caltrans to update
its KPRA study and impose truck length restrictions accordingly.
That bill died in Assembly Transportation Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION :
Support:
Ventura County Board of Supervisors (sponsor)
City of Ojai City Council
Los Padres ForestWatch
Ojai Stop the Trucks Coalition
21 individuals
Opposition:
Mosler Rock-Ojai Quarry
Southern California Contractors Association
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093