BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 2200
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: ma
VERSION: 5/1/12
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
SUBJECT:
High-occupancy vehicle lanes
DESCRIPTION:
This bill eliminates, until January 1, 2020, the high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes in the Interstate 80 (I-80) corridor within
the San Francisco Bay Area during the reverse commute time
period.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law permits the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) or local transportation agencies to designate highway
lanes as HOV lanes, granting access only to vehicles with more
than one occupant. Prior to establishing these HOV lanes,
Caltrans or the transportation agency must conduct traffic
engineering studies to determine the effect these lanes may have
on the highway's safety, congestion, and capacity.
Federal law vests state departments of transportation with the
responsibility for establishing occupancy requirements for
vehicles accessing HOV lanes. In the Bay Area, HOV lane
location and occupancy decisions are made jointly between
Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and
the Federal Highway Administration.
This bill eliminates, until January 1, 2020, the HOV lanes in
the I-80 corridor within MTC's jurisdiction during the reverse
commute time period. This bill defines the reverse commute time
period on I-80 as 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. in the eastbound direction
and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. westbound.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . This bill grants access to the HOV lane to any
vehicle during the reverse commute on I-80 from the Carquinez
AB 2200 (MA) Page 2
Bridge to the Bay Bridge. The author contends this is
necessary to make the underutilized HOV lane available to all
drivers and relieve congestion in the rest of the lanes
travelling that direction. Caltrans states that the ideal
capacity of HOV lanes is between 1,600 and 1,650 vehicles per
hour. According to the author, in 2002 only 200 to 700
vehicles accessed the HOV lanes per hour during the reverse
commute time period. Further, a Legislative Analyst's Office
report from January 2000 stated that HOV lanes statewide were
only operating at two-thirds capacity. Relying on this data,
the author concludes that drivers have not fully utilized
these HOV lanes and therefore eliminating the HOV access
requirement will not adversely impact HOV lane users. At the
same time, this bill will relieve congestion in the other
lanes.
2.Caltrans recent traffic study . In May 2012, Caltrans
collected travel time data on the Alameda County segment of
I-80, because it historically suffers from the most congestion
in the corridor. Based on this traffic study, Caltrans draws
two conclusions. First, eliminating the eastbound HOV
restriction during the reverse commute period is not expected
to have any impact on congestion, because both the HOV and
regular lanes currently operate at or near the speed limit
with little or no delays. Second, Caltrans concludes that
eliminating the westbound HOV restriction during the reverse
commute period will result in adverse traffic impacts; the
overall delay for all westbound vehicles would not be improved
while higher-occupant vehicles would experience significantly
more delay. These findings suggest that changes made by this
bill will not result in congestion relief in either direction.
3.Opposition . Opponents of this bill have raised a number of
concerns. First, opponents argue that eliminating HOV lanes
in the corridor will effectively eliminate the ability of
transit systems to more quickly and reliably transport riders
to and from their destinations. This, in turn, will likely
diminish or remove the incentive for many to choose transit.
In addition, local transportation agencies are concerned that,
while this corridor may not currently be heavily utilized at
all times, this bill does not take into account the
anticipated increase of traffic over the next two decades.
Some studies predict traffic in the off-peak direction will
increase along the I-80 corridor as much as 43 percent over
the next 20 years.
AB 2200 (MA) Page 3
Finally, opponents suggest that, due to their complicated and
controversial nature, changes to HOV occupancy requirements
and operational periods should be based upon detailed
technical analysis conducted by traffic operations experts and
should be well-vetted with affected stakeholders. The local
transportation agencies representing many drivers directly
affected by this bill indicate that the author did not discuss
this proposal with them nor attempt to gain their support.
Opponents are concerned about the precedent this bill would
set for the Legislature to make uninformed decisions involving
regional transportation systems.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 52 - 16
Appr: 12 - 5
Trans: 9 - 2
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 27,
2012)
SUPPORT: American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
California Trucking Association
West Coast Aggregates, Inc.
OPPOSED: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Solano Transportation Authority
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee