AB 2851: Lead exposure: abatement.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2018-08-28
Existing law establishes an action for a public nuisance, which affects an entire community or neighborhood, or a considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. Existing law authorizes a private party or a public body to bring an action to abate a public nuisance.
This bill would specifically provide that the presence of lead-based paint on or in private or public residential properties or structures, whether considered individually, collectively, or in the aggregate, is not a public nuisance.
Existing law, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991, requires the State Department of Public Health to adopt regulations establishing a standard of care at least as stringent as the most recent federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guidelines, whereby all children are evaluated for risk of lead poisoning by health care providers during each childs periodic health assessment. The standard of care, among others, is required to provide that, upon evaluation, those children determined to be at risk for lead poisoning are required to be screened. Existing law defines lead poisoning to mean the disease present when the concentration of lead in whole venous blood reaches or exceeds levels constituting a health risk, as specified in the most recent federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for lead poisoning as determined by the department, or when the concentration of lead in whole venous blood reaches or exceeds levels constituting a health risk as determined by the department, as specified. Existing law creates the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fund, consisting of fees imposed on manufacturers and other persons formerly, presently, or both formerly and presently engaged in the stream of commerce of lead or products containing lead, or who are otherwise responsible for identifiable sources of lead that have significantly contributed historically, currently contribute, or both have significantly contributed historically and contribute currently to environmental lead contamination. The moneys in the fund are required to be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of the act.
This bill would establish the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Abatement Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would require moneys in the fund to be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of funding the abatement of lead paint in this state, except for $300,000,000 that would be continuously and directly appropriated to specified cities and counties. The bill would impose a fee, for deposit into the fund, on each architectural coating distributor, as defined. The fee would be calculated as specified, would be initially due and payable no later than January 31, 2019, and would be payable only until January 31, 2028. The fee would be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The bill would bar any action seeking to assert abatement liability against any architectural coating distributor while the distributor pays the fee.
The bill would provide that the total amount of fees collected would be $475,000,000 from the commencement of the fee until January 31, 2028. The bill would also provide that the fees would be $47,500,000 in any single fiscal year.
The bill would provide that its provisions would not become operative unless the Secretary of State certifies to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration prior to October 15, 2018, that the plaintiffs in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51 have reached a binding settlement with all defendants.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires designated transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan. Existing law requires a regional transportation plan to include a policy element, an action element, a financial element, and, if the transportation planning agency is also a metropolitan planning organization, a sustainable communities strategy. Existing law requires each transportation planning agency to consider and incorporate into its regional transportation plan the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations, and state and federal agencies, as appropriate.Existing law designates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as the regional transportation planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning, programming, and funding. Existing law establishes the Department of Transportation and the California Transportation Commission and provides that the department has full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes, and authorizes and directs the department to lay out and construct all state highways between the termini designated by law and on the locations as determined by the commission.This bill would authorize each city located within the jurisdiction of MTC to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan intended to reduce greenhouse gases and particulate emissions, and reduce travel times, and the number of stops and fuel use. The bill would also require the Department of Transportation to coordinate with each city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan pursuant to these provisions to ensure that any traffic signals owned or operated by the department are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.Existing law requires designated transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan. Existing law requires a regional transportation plan to include a policy element, an action element, a financial element, and, if the transportation planning agency is also a metropolitan planning organization, a sustainable communities strategy. Existing law requires each transportation planning agency to consider and incorporate into its regional transportation plan the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations, and state and federal agencies, as appropriate.
Existing law designates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as the regional transportation planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning, programming, and funding. Existing law establishes the Department of Transportation and the California Transportation Commission and provides that the department has full possession and control of all state highways and all property and rights in property acquired for state highway purposes, and authorizes and directs the department to lay out and construct all state highways between the termini designated by law and on the locations as determined by the commission.
Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the State Air Resources Board from a market-based compliance mechanism relative to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.This bill would require authorize each city located within the jurisdiction of MTC to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan, as prescribed, and would require MTC to consider and reference plans developed by cities located within its jurisdiction into its next regional transportation plan. The bill would create the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund and would require the Department of Transportation, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to award grants from moneys deposited in the fund to assist cities in implementing their traffic signal optimization plans. The bill would appropriate $2 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the 202021 fiscal year for deposit in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund. plan intended to reduce greenhouse gases and particulate emissions, and reduce travel times, and the number of stops and fuel use. The bill would also require the Department of Transportation to coordinate with each city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan pursuant to these provisions to ensure that any traffic signals owned or operated by the department are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
Because the bill would impose additional duties on a local agency, it would impose a state-mandated local program.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.Existing law requires designated transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan. Existing law requires a regional transportation plan to include a policy element, an action element, a financial element, and, if the transportation planning agency is also a metropolitan planning organization, a sustainable communities strategy. Existing law requires each transportation planning agency to consider and incorporate into its regional transportation plan the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations, and state and federal agencies, as appropriate.
Existing law designates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as the regional transportation planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area, with various powers and duties relative to transportation planning, programming, and funding.
Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the State Air Resources Board from a market-based compliance mechanism relative to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
This bill would require each city located within the jurisdiction of a metropolitan planning organization MTC to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan, as prescribed, and would require each metropolitan planning organization to consider and incorporate those MTC to consider and reference plans developed by cities located within its jurisdiction into its next regional transportation plan. The bill would create the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund and would require the Department of Transportation, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to award grants from moneys deposited in the fund on a competitive basis to cities that can deliver the greatest per capita reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases through the implementation of their traffic signal optimization plans and that provide matching funds. to assist cities in implementing their traffic signal optimization plans. The bill would appropriate $2 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the 201920 202021 fiscal year for deposit in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund.
Because the bill would impose additional duties on a local agencies, agency, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires designated transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan. Existing law requires a regional transportation plan to include a policy element, an action element, a financial element, and, if the transportation planning agency is also a metropolitan planning organization, a sustainable communities strategy. Existing law requires each transportation planning agency to consider and incorporate into its regional transportation plan the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations, and state and federal agencies, as appropriate.
Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the State Air Resources Board from a market-based compliance mechanism relative to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
This bill would require each city located within the jurisdiction of a metropolitan planning organization to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan, as prescribed, and would require each metropolitan planning organization to consider and incorporate those plans developed by cities located within its jurisdiction into its regional transportation plan. The bill would create the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund and would require the Department of Transportation, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to award grants from moneys deposited in the fund on a competitive basis to cities that can deliver the greatest per capita reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases through the implementation of their traffic signal optimization plans and that provide matching funds. The bill would appropriate $2 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the 201920 fiscal year for deposit in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund.
Because the bill would impose additional duties on local agencies, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing federal law provides for apportionment of certain federal funds to the state for highway safety improvements. Existing law requires these funds to be deposited in the State Highway Account and provides that these funds are appropriated for allocation by the California Transportation Commission.This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.Existing federal law provides for apportionment of certain federal funds to the state for highway safety improvements. Existing law requires these funds to be deposited in the State Highway Account and provides that these funds are appropriated for allocation by the California Transportation Commission.
This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
(a)(1)Notwithstanding any other law, the presence of lead-based paint on or in private or public residential properties, whether considered individually, collectively, or in the aggregate, is not a public nuisance.
(2)This section does not limit the authority of federal, state, or local governments to require a property owner to remediate a lead hazard pursuant to existing law.
(3)This section does not apply to cases pending on, pending on appeal on, or filed on or before June 28, 2018, nor does it apply to any injunctions, judgments, or other remedies issued in those cases.
(b)For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)Appurtenance means accessories to an architectural structure, including, but not limited to, hand railings, cabinets, bathroom and kitchen fixtures, fences, raingutters and downspouts, window screens, lampposts, heating and air-conditioning equipment, other mechanical equipment, large fixed stationary tools, and concrete forms.
(2)Paint means any product which is used as, or usable as, or contained in, a coating applied to the interior or exterior surfaces of structures and their appurtenances, or to portable buildings, mobilehomes, pavements, or curbs. Paint includes, but is not limited to, ordinary house and trim paints, primers, undercoaters, and traffic coatings used on residential structures and appurtenances.
(3)Structure shall be liberally construed to include any building, or part thereof, used for housing or human habitation, as set forth in Division 13 (commencing with Section 17000) of the Health and Safety Code, and any building, or part thereof, used by the public, as set forth in Division 12.5 (commencing with Section 16000) of the Health and Safety Code, or any building or structure, or part thereof, where a child under six years of age may be present. The term structure shall include the surrounding soil on the property on which the structure is located.
SEC. 2.Section 105310.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:105310.5.(a)The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Abatement Fund is hereby established in the State Treasury. Moneys shall be allocated from the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature except as provided in subdivision (j), for the purpose of funding the abatement of lead paint in this state in accordance with this section.
(b)(1)A fee, in addition to the fee imposed pursuant to Section 105310, shall be assessed and imposed on each architectural coating distributor in accordance with this section for deposit into the fund.
(2)Fees imposed pursuant to this section shall be administered and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration in accordance with Part 22 (commencing with Section 43001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code only until January 31, 2028.
(3)Fees assessed pursuant to this section shall be initially due and payable no later than January 31, 2019, and shall be due and payable only until January 31, 2028.
(c)The total amount of fees collected pursuant to this section, excluding any late payment fee, shall be four hundred seventy-five million dollars ($475,000,000) from the commencement of the fee until January 31, 2028. The department shall collect forty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($47,500,000) in fees in any single fiscal year. The fees collected pursuant to this section and the earnings therefrom shall be used solely for the purposes of implementing this section.
(d)The fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the fund. Moneys in the fund shall only be expended for the purposes of this section, upon appropriation by the Legislature except as provided in subdivision (j). The costs of administration of the fund shall not be payable from moneys in the fund. All interest earned on the moneys which have been deposited into the fund shall be retained in the fund.
(e)(1)(A)Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) of the fees imposed by this section shall be assessed as follows:
(i)Fifty percent of the total fee amount shall be assessed equally upon the entities described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (m). To the extent that one or both of those entities become insolvent or otherwise do not pay the fee assessed in any year, the fee assessed against that entity or those entities shall not be assessed against another entity.
(ii)Fifty percent of the total fee amount shall be assessed against the entities described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (m) using the formula set forth in subparagraph (B), as that formula existed at the time of the effective date of this section, except that neither an entity that pays the fee assessed pursuant to clause (i) nor an entity described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (m) shall be assessed a fee pursuant to this clause.
(B)The formula for calculating the amount to be paid by each entity described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) is the formula set forth in Section 33020 of Article 2 of Chapter 6 of Division 1 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, as that section read on January 1, 2018, except that the number in the formula represented by B shall be reduced by the total gallons of architectural coatings distributed in or about 1978 by the entities described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (m), and the number in the formula represented by D shall represent the total fee amount.
(2)One hundred seventy-five million dollars ($175,000,000) of the total fee imposed by this section shall be assessed as follows:
(A)Fifty percent of the total fee amount shall be assessed equally upon the entities described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (m). To the extent that one or more of those entities become insolvent or otherwise do not pay the fee assessed in any year, the fee assessed against that entity or those entities shall not be assessed against another entity.
(B)Fifty percent of the total fee amount shall be assessed against the entities described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (m) using the formula set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), as that formula existed at the time of the effective date of this section, except that an entity that pays the fee assessed pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall not be assessed a fee pursuant to this clause.
(f)The fee imposed pursuant to this section shall be the responsibility of the architectural coating distributor and shall not be passed directly on to the consumer.
(g)(1)The fees collected pursuant to this section shall be the exclusive liability of the architectural coating distributor for abatement liability, as provided for in subdivision (h).
(2)Subject to subdivision (h), this section bars any action seeking to assert abatement liability against any architectural coating distributor who is current on its payment of the assessed fee, but does not affect tort claims for personal injury or wrongful death that otherwise may be asserted.
(h)The exemption from liability afforded by subdivision (g) applies to each architectural coating distributor that is subject to the fees assessed pursuant to this section. That exemption remains in effect only during each fiscal year for which the distributor has paid the fees assessed pursuant to this section.
(i)Late payment of the fee assessed pursuant to this section shall result in a 10 percent interest penalty.
(j)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) of the moneys in the fund shall be continuously and directly appropriated to the 10 cities and counties that were involved in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, as follows:
(A)The County of Alameda, jointly with the City of Oakland: 9 percent.
(B)The City of San Diego: 7 percent.
(C)The City and County of San Francisco: 7 percent.
(D)The County of Los Angeles: 55 percent.
(E)The County of Monterey: 2 percent.
(F)The County of San Mateo: 5 percent.
(G)The County of Santa Clara: 9 percent.
(H)The County of Solano: 2 percent.
(I)The County of Ventura: 4 percent.
(2)Funds appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) may be used by the 10 cities and counties for inspection, education, abatement, administrative, and other costs associated with lead paint remediation, including costs and fees associated with People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51.
(3)Funds distributed under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) shall be deposited into the treasury of the County of Alameda for the benefit, in part, of the City of Oakland, and may not be expended until such time as the County of Alameda and the City of Oakland have reached agreement on a coordinated plan for spending or otherwise dividing the funds between them.
(4)One hundred seventy-five million dollars ($175,000,000) of the moneys in the fund shall be allocated to all counties in this state other than those described in paragraph (1).
(k)Architectural coating distributors shall not counterclaim, seek contribution, or demand an equitable set-off from any public entity or any property owner who receives funding to inspect or abate lead paint that has been allocated pursuant to this section or pursuant to any settlement in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51.
(l)This section does not impair, diminish, or otherwise alter or modify the obligations imposed on former manufacturers pursuant to this chapter or pursuant to the Architectural Paint Recovery Program in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 48700) of Part 7 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code.
(m)For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)Abatement liability means any and all claims, damages, injunctive relief, inspection, risk assessment, abatement, or other losses, liabilities, obligations, costs, or expenditures arising from the presence of lead paint or lead pigment in or on any structure.
(2)Appurtenance means accessories to an architectural structure, including, but not limited to, hand railings, cabinets, bathroom and kitchen fixtures, fences, raingutters and downspouts, window screens, lampposts, heating and air-conditioning equipment, other mechanical equipment, large fixed stationary tools, and concrete forms.
(3)Architectural coating distributor has the same meaning set forth in Section 33004 of Article 1 of Chapter 6 of Division 1 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, as that section read on January 1, 2018.
(4)Architectural coating distributor also includes, for purposes of this section, without regard to whether those entities currently pay the fee assessed pursuant to Section 105310, any of the following:
(A)Only two of the three entities found liable in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, ConAgra Grocery Products Company and the Sherwin-Williams Company.
(B)All three entities found liable in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, ConAgra Grocery Products Company, NL Industries, Inc., and the Sherwin-Williams Company.
(C)One of the three entities found liable in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51, NL Industries, Inc.
(5)Fund means the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Abatement Fund.
(6)Paint means any product which is used as, or usable as, or contained in, a coating applied to the interior or exterior surfaces of structures and their appurtenances, or to portable buildings, mobilehomes, pavements, or curbs. Paint includes, but is not limited to, ordinary house and trim paints, primers, undercoaters, and traffic coatings used on residential structure and appurtenances.
(7)Structure shall be liberally construed to include any building, or part thereof, used by the public, as set forth in Division 12.5 (commencing with Section 16000), and any building, or part thereof, used for housing or human habitation, as set forth in Division 13 (commencing with Section 17000), or any building or structure, or part thereof, where a child under six years of age may be present. The term structure shall include the surrounding soil on the property on which the structure is located.
SEC. 3.This act shall not become operative unless both of the following occur:
(a)The Secretary of State certifies to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration that the plaintiffs in People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51 have reached a binding settlement with all defendants.
(b)The certification described in subdivision (a) occurs prior to October 15, 2018.
SEC. 4.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To protect public health and ensure that lead abatement programs receive funding from the fees assessed pursuant to this act as soon as possible, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.Section 65080.02 is added to the Government Code, to read:65080.02.(a)Each city located within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission may develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan intended to reduce greenhouse gases and particulate emissions, and reduce travel times, and the number of stops and fuel use.(b)The Department of Transportation shall coordinate with each city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan pursuant to subdivision (a) to ensure that any traffic signals owned or operated by the department are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.(a)On or before July 1, 2020, each Each city located within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall may develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan. The plan shall estimate the extent to which, through the coordination and optimization of traffic signal timing and sensing, each city can achieve the following: plan intended to reduce greenhouse gases and particulate emissions, and reduce travel times, and the number of stops and fuel use.
(1)Reductions in greenhouse gas and particulate emissions.(2)Reductions in travel times, the number of stops, and fuel use.(b)Within its next regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to Section 65080, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall consider and reference any plans developed pursuant to subdivision (a) by cities located within its jurisdiction.(c)The Traffic Signal Optimization Fund is hereby created in the Transportation Tax Fund and shall be administered by the Department of Transportation. Moneys in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund may be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, by the Department of Transportation to award grants to assist cities in implementing their traffic signal optimization plans developed pursuant to subdivision (a).(d)The sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the 202021 fiscal year to the Department of Transportation for deposit in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the implementation of traffic signal optimization plans.(b)The Department of Transportation shall coordinate with each city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan pursuant to subdivision (a) to ensure that any traffic signals owned or operated by the department are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(a)Each On or before July 1, 2020, each city located within the jurisdiction of a metropolitan planning organization the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan. The plan shall, shall estimate the extent to which, through the coordination and optimization of traffic signal timing and sensing, each city can achieve all of the following:
(1)Reductions in greenhouse gas and particulate emissions.
(2)Reductions in travel times, the number of stops, and fuel use.
(b)Each metropolitan planning organization shall consider and incorporate Within its next regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to Section 65080, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall consider and reference any plans developed pursuant to subdivision (a) by cities located within its jurisdiction into its regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to Section 65080. jurisdiction.
(c)(1)The Traffic Signal Optimization Fund is hereby created in the Transportation Tax Fund and shall be administered by the Department of Transportation. Moneys in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund may be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, by the Department of Transportation to award grants pursuant to paragraph (2). to assist cities in implementing their traffic signal optimization plans developed pursuant to subdivision (a).
(2)The Department of Transportation shall award grants from moneys deposited in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund on a competitive basis to cities that can deliver the greatest per capita reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases through the implementation of their traffic signal optimization plans. In order to receive a grant pursuant to this section, an eligible city shall provide matching funds for the implementation of the plan.(d)The sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the 201920 202021 fiscal year to the Department of Transportation for deposit in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the implementation of traffic signal optimization plans.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)Each city located within the jurisdiction of a metropolitan planning organization shall develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan. The plan shall, through the coordination and optimization of traffic signal timing and sensing, achieve all of the following:
(1)Reductions in greenhouse gas and particulate emissions.
(2)Reductions in travel times, the number of stops, and fuel use.
(b)Each metropolitan planning organization shall consider and incorporate plans developed pursuant to subdivision (a) by cities located within its jurisdiction into its regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to Section 65080.
(c)(1)The Traffic Signal Optimization Fund is hereby created in the Transportation Tax Fund and shall be administered by the Department of Transportation. Moneys in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund may be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, by the Department of Transportation to award grants pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2)The Department of Transportation shall award grants from moneys deposited in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund on a competitive basis to cities that can deliver the greatest per capita reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases through the implementation of their traffic signal optimization plans. In order to receive a grant pursuant to this section, an eligible city shall provide matching funds for the implementation of the plan.
(d)The sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the 201920 fiscal year to the Department of Transportation for deposit in the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the implementation of traffic signal optimization plans.
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 1.Section 2332 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2332.All of the funds received pursuant to these federal programs shall be deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund. All of the funds apportioned to the state for these programs are appropriated for allocation by the commission in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.All of the funds received pursuant to these federal programs shall be deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund. All of the funds apportioned to the state for such these programs are appropriated for allocation by the commission in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2018 | Senate Rule 29.3(b) suspended. (Ayes 26. Noes 11.) |
| Aug 21, 2018 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| Aug 17, 2018 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 16). |
| Aug 6, 2018 | In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Jun 27, 2018 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 14, 2018 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Jun 7, 2018 | Referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| May 31, 2018 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 30, 2018 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 29, 2018 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 25, 2018 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 25). |
| May 9, 2018 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 24, 2018 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 16, 2018 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Apr 16, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 12, 2018 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 20, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Mar 19, 2018 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 19, 2018 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Feb 17, 2018 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 19. |
| Feb 16, 2018 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16, 2018 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 6, 2018 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 26, 2018 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing |
Passed |
|
| May 30, 2018 | AB 2851 GRAYSON Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 25, 2018 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 23, 2018 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah | ** Support | Aug 18, 2018 |
| Automobile Club of Southern California | ** Support | Aug 18, 2018 |
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2851
:
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/26/18
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Dodd, Gaines, Morrell, Vidak, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, McGuire, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/16/18
AYES: Portantino, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/30/18 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill authorizes each city within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan and directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure its traffic signals within these cities are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
Existing law:
- Requires designated regional transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan with various elements as specified. Regional transportation planning agencies must consider and incorporate the transportation plans of its jurisdiction’s cities, counties, and districts into its regional transportation plans.
- Designates the MTC as the regional transportation planning agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area and assigns it the responsibility to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan.
This bill:
- Authorizes each city within the jurisdiction of the MTC to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan.
- Directs Caltrans to ensure its traffic signals within these cities are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
Comments
- Author’s statement. “Several recent studies and reports have concluded that traffic signal optimization technology has been proven to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Over 10 years ago, the California Transportation Commission implemented a traffic light synchronization effort statewide with positive results, using Prop 1B funds. I have authored AB 2851 in order to authorize cities within the MTC to develop and implement traffic signal optimization plans, which are intended to reduce greenhouse gasses and particular emissions, and reduce travel times, and the number of stops and fuel use. The bill also requires CalTrans to coordinate with each city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan to ensure that any traffic signals owned or operated by CalTrans are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.”
- Existing MTC program. MTC has an existing program for traffic light signalization on which it has spent $1.8 million. It believes that this program has generated significant savings, increasing average speed by 26% and saving 11.5 million gallons of fuel, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 67:1.
- Caltrans cooperation. A traffic synchronization program won’t work well if state jurisdictional streets aren’t also synchronized. MTC’s existing program includes traffic signals under Caltrans’ jurisdiction so there is evidence of cooperation. Were Caltrans to change its mind, the requirement for Caltrans to cooperate contained in this bill would prove useful.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown Caltrans costs, ranging from minor up to the low hundreds of thousands in a given year, to coordinate with cities on their signal optimization plans, make any necessary traffic controller technology upgrades, and optimize signal timing. Actual costs would depend upon the number of cities that develop plans, the number of Caltrans-owned signals on identified corridors, and whether those intersections will require traffic controller technology or traffic detection upgrades. (State Highway Account)
AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah
Automobile Club of Southern California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/16/18)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/30/18
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon
8/18/18 13:09:39
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular Session
AB 2851 (Grayson) - Regional transportation plans: traffic signal optimization plans
Version: May 25, 2018 | Policy Vote: T. & H. 8 - 0 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: August 6, 2018 | Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary:
AB 2851 would authorize each city located within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan, and require the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to adjust and maintain any department-operated signals in accordance with those local plans.
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown Caltrans costs, ranging from minor up to the low hundreds of thousands in a given year, to coordinate with cities on their signal optimization plans, make any necessary traffic controller technology upgrades, and optimize signal timing. Actual costs would depend upon the number of cities that develop plans, the number of Caltrans-owned signals on identified corridors, and whether those intersections will require traffic controller technology or traffic detection upgrades. (State Highway Account)
Background:
Existing law designates MTC as the regional transportation planning agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. There are 101 cities within the regional jurisdiction of MTC. MTC has administered its Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) since 2010. PASS delivers financial and technical assistance to cities and counties to enhance signal coordination across jurisdictions, including engineering help for local governments seeking to re-time signals, traffic-responsive timing plans, and improving communication between local and state signals. According to MTC, it coordinates an average of 320 signals per year through this program with about $1 million annually. PASS has helped Bay Area cities and counties successfully re-time some 1,900 traffic signals since 2010.
Building on the success of PASS, MTC has also launched a Next Generation Arterial Operations Program to help cities and counties explore and implement low-cost, advanced technologies to help run their busiest streets and roads more smartly. Technologies include adaptive signal systems, real-time traffic monitoring, queue-jump lanes, and Bluetooth-related intelligent transportation system elements.
Over the past decade, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has administered the Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP), with $250 million in bond funds from Proposition 1B (2006). TLSP has funded traffic light synchronization projects and other technology-based projects to improve safety, operations and the effective capacity of local streets and roads. Implementing legislation enacted in 2007 directed CTC to allocate $150 million of the TLSP funds to the City of Los Angeles for upgrading and installing traffic signal synchronization within its jurisdiction, with the $100 million remainder to be made available for projects elsewhere in the state. As of June 2017, CTC has allocated the Proposition 1B funding to 85 projects statewide. CTC estimates that these projects will save motorists roughly 38,000 hours every day during peak periods alone, improving congestion along those corridors.
Proposed Law:
AB 2851 would authorize each city within the MTC region to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan intended to reduce greenhouse gases and particulate emissions, and reduce travel times, and the number of stops and fuel use.
The bill would also require Caltrans to coordinate with each city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan to ensure that any traffic signals owned or operated by Caltrans are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
Staff Comments:
Caltrans indicates that it regularly partners with cities on traffic signal timing where local streets and state highways intersect, so any additional workload would depend upon the volume of cities that implement optimization plans. To the extent those plans necessitate any capital upgrades to Caltrans signals or the installation of sensors or other infrastructure, the bill could drive additional costs. Based on the costs for signal optimization through MTC’s PASS program, the Caltrans share could be in the tens of thousands for each individual project corridor, depending on the number of Caltrans signals involved.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: AB 2851 Hearing Date: 6/19/2018
Author: | Grayson | ||
Version: | 5/25/2018 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Randy Chinn | ||
SUBJECT: Regional transportation plans: traffic signal optimization plans
DIGEST: This bill authorizes each city within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan and directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure its traffic signals within these cities are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Requires designated regional transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan with various elements as specified. Regional transportation planning agencies must consider and incorporate the transportation plans of its jurisdiction’s cities, counties, and districts into its regional transportation plans.
- Designates the MTC as the regional transportation planning agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area and assigns it the responsibility to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan.
This bill:
- Authorizes each city within the jurisdiction of the MTC to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan
- Directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure its traffic signals within these cities are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
COMMENTS
- Author’s Statement. Several recent studies and reports have concluded that traffic signal optimization technology has been proven to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Over 10 years ago, the California Transportation Commission implemented a traffic light synchronization effort statewide with positive results, using Prop 1B funds. I have authored AB 2851 in order to authorize cities within the MTC to develop and implement traffic signal optimization plans, which are intended to reduce greenhouse gasses and particular emissions, and reduce travel times, and the number of stops and fuel use. The bill also requires CalTrans to coordinate with each city that develops a traffic signal optimization plan to ensure that any traffic signals owned or operated by CalTrans are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
- Existing MTC Program. MTC has an existing program for traffic light signalization on which it has spent $1.8 million. It believes that this program has generated significant savings, increasing average speed by 26% and saving 11.5 million gallons of fuel, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 67:1.
- Caltrans Cooperation. A traffic synchronization program won’t work well if state jurisdictional streets aren’t also synchronized. MTC’s existing program includes traffic signals under Caltrans’ jurisdiction so there is evidence of cooperation. Were Caltrans to change its mind, the requirement for Caltrans to cooperate contained in this bill would prove useful.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
Assembly votes:
Transportation: 14-0
Appropriations: 16-0
Floor: 78-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 20, 2018.)
SUPPORT:
AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah
Automobile Club of Southern California
OPPOSITION:
None received.
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:
Author:(Grayson)
As Amended Ver:May 25, 2018
Majority vote
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Transportation | 14-0 | Frazier, Fong, Aguiar-Curry, Baker, Berman, Chu, Daly, Friedman, Gipson, Harper, Mathis, Medina, Nazarian, O'Donnell | |
Appropriations | 16-0 | Gonzalez Fletcher, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Fong, Friedman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Nazarian, Obernolte, Quirk, Reyes |
|
SUMMARY: Authorizes each city within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan and directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure its traffic signals within these cities are adjusted and maintained in accordance with the plan.
EXISTING LAW:
- Designates MTC as the regional transportation planning agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay area and assigns it the responsibility to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan.
- Under Proposition 1B, enacts the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. This bond act authorized $250 million for traffic light synchronization projects throughout the state, administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- Significant ongoing cost pressure (transportation special funds), likely in the low millions of dollars annually, for Caltrans to update the timing of traffic signals on state highway right-of-way within the 101 cities in the MTC region. This is because some state highways run through cities in the MTC region as arterial streets. Thus, Caltrans' participation will be necessary for the effective implementation of traffic signal optimization plans.
- Significant onetime costs (transportation special funds), likely in the low millions of dollars, for Caltrans to participate in the plan development process with the 101 cities in the MTC region and administer the grant program.
COMMENTS: The author states that he introduced this bill in order to encourage cities to develop and implement traffic signal optimization plans because they have been proven to reduce congestion and GHG emissions. Indeed, CTC has implemented a traffic light synchronization effort statewide with positive results.
Over the past decade, CTC has administered the Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP), with $250 million in bond funds from Proposition 1B, funding traffic light synchronization projects and other technology-based projects to improve safety, operations and the effective capacity of local streets and roads. Implementing legislation enacted in 2007 directing CTC to allocate $150 million of the TLSP funds to the City of Los Angeles for upgrading and installing traffic signal synchronization within its jurisdiction, with the $100 million remainder to be made available for projects elsewhere in the state.
As of June 2017, CTC has allocated funding to 85 projects statewide. CTC estimates that these projects will save motorists roughly 38,000 hours every day during peak periods alone, improving congestion along those corridors. Further, a study by the National Conference of State Legislatures claims that this traffic signal coordination reduced vehicle delay by 25%.
In addition to the time savings, studies demonstrate that routes with synchronized traffic lights can significantly reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. A recent report by UC Davis demonstrated that signal timing and signal priority projects can result in 6-10% energy savings for vehicles on the road. In addition, ARB reports that, through a review of four studies on signal coordination systems around the world, these projects result in GHG reductions between 1% and 10%.
Writing in support of the bill, the Automobile Club of Southern California and AAA Northern California, Utah & Nevada (AAA Clubs) state that effective and successful traffic optimization projects offer great benefits to mobility, traffic safety, air quality, and reduce fuel consumption. According to the Institute for Traffic Engineers, successful traffic optimization projects have demonstrated benefit-to-cost ratios of 40-1, or even more.
MTC has been successfully administering its Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) for a number of years. PASS delivers financial and technical assistance to cities and counties to enhance signal coordination across jurisdictions, including engineering help for local governments seeking to re-time signals, traffic-responsive timing plans, and improving communication between local and state signals. According to MTC, it coordinates an average of 320 signals per year through this program with about $1 million annually. PASS has helped Bay Area cities and counties successfully re-time some 1,900 traffic signals since the program began in 2010.
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Eric Thronson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0003275
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2851
Author:(Grayson) – As Amended Ver:April 12, 2018
Policy Committee: | Transportation | Vote: | 14 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires each city within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan. This bill appropriates $2 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) in fiscal year 2020-21 for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to award grants to assist these cities in implementing their plans. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires, on or before July 1, 2020, each city in the MTC region to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan. Each plan must estimate the extent to which, through the coordination and optimization of traffic signal timing and sensing, each city can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and particulate emissions as well as travel times, number of stops, and fuel use.
- Creates the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund and authorizes Caltrans, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to use funding in the account to award grants to assist cities in the MTC region in implementing their traffic signal optimization plans.
- Appropriates $2 million from the GGRF in fiscal year 2020-21 to the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund.
FISCAL EFFECT:
- Onetime $2 million appropriation (GGRF) for Caltrans to provide grants to cities in the MTC region.
- Significant reimbursable state-mandated local costs, in the range of about $1 million annually, for the 101 cities in the MTC region to implement the required traffic signal optimization plans. Based on MTC’s experience with a similar program, it appears that cities in the MTC region would require roughly $3 million to make initial changes to implement traffic signal optimization. Because this bill provides a $2 million appropriation, there would be about $1 million in remaining initial costs that are likely to be reimbursable by the state.
In addition, reimbursable state mandated costs are likely to continue in perpetuity, at a level of roughly $1 million annually. This is because traffic signal optimization must be updated periodically, resulting in ongoing costs.
- Significant ongoing cost pressure (transportation special funds), likely in the low millions of dollars annually, for Caltrans to update the timing of traffic signals on state highway right-of-way within the 101 cities in the MTC region. This is because some state highways run through cities in the MTC region as arterial streets. Thus, Caltrans’ participation will be necessary for the effective implementation of traffic signal optimization plans.
- Significant onetime costs (transportation special funds), likely in the low millions of dollars, for Caltrans to participate in the plan development process with the 101 cities in the MTC region and administer the grant program.
COMMENTS:
- Background. Over the past decade, CTC has administered the Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP), with $250 million in bond funds from Proposition 1B (2006). TLSP has funded traffic light synchronization projects and other technology-based projects to improve safety, operations and the effective capacity of local streets and roads. Implementing legislation enacted in 2007 directed CTC to allocate $150 million of the TLSP funds to the City of Los Angeles for upgrading and installing traffic signal synchronization within its jurisdiction, with the $100 million remainder to be made available for projects elsewhere in the state. As of June 2017, CTC has allocated the Proposition 1B funding to 85 projects statewide. CTC estimates that these projects will save motorists roughly 38,000 hours every day during peak periods alone, improving congestion along those corridors.
- Purpose. Writing in support of the bill, the Automobile Club of Southern California and AAA Northern California, Utah & Nevada state that effective and successful traffic optimization projects offer great benefits to mobility, traffic safety, and air quality and reduce fuel consumption. According to the Institute for Traffic Engineers, successful traffic optimization projects have demonstrated benefit-to-cost ratios of 40-to-1, or higher.
Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Peters / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2851 (
Author:Grayson) – As Amended Ver:April 12, 2018
SUBJECT: Regional transportation plans: traffic signal optimization plans
SUMMARY: Requires each city within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan and appropriates $2 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) in fiscal year 2020-21 to assist these cities in implementing their plans. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires, on or before July 1, 2020, each city in the MTC region to develop and implement a traffic signal optimization plan. Each plan must estimate the extent to which, through the coordination and optimization of traffic signal timing and sensing, each city can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and particulate emissions as well as travel times, number of stops, and fuel use.
- Creates the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund in the Transportation Tax Fund and authorizes the moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the legislature, to be expended as grants to assist cities in implementing their traffic signal optimization plans.
- Appropriates $2 million from the GGRF in fiscal year 2020-21 to the Traffic Signal Optimization Fund.
- Requires MTC, within its next adopted regional transportation plan, to consider and reference any plans developed by cities within its jurisdiction.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires designated regional transportation planning agencies to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan with various elements as specified. Regional transportation planning agencies must consider and incorporate the transportation plans of its jurisdiction’s cities, counties, and districts into its regional transportation plans.
- Designates MTC as the regional transportation planning agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay area and assigns it the responsibility to, among other things, prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan.
- Under Proposition 1B, enacts the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. This bond act authorized $250 million for traffic light synchronization projects throughout the state, administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
- Establishes the GGRF in the State Treasury, requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected pursuant to a market-based mechanism implemented to reduce GHG emissions be deposited in the fund and requires the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Air Resources Board (ARB) and any other relevant state agency, to develop, as specified, an investment plan for the moneys deposited in the GGRF.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: The author states that he introduced this bill in order to encourage cities to develop and implement traffic signal optimization plans because they have been proven to reduce congestion and GHG emissions. Indeed, CTC has implemented a traffic light synchronization effort statewide with positive results.
Over the past decade, CTC has administered the Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP), with $250 million in bond funds from Proposition 1B, funding traffic light synchronization projects and other technology-based projects to improve safety, operations and the effective capacity of local streets and roads. Implementing legislation enacted in 2007 directing CTC to allocate $150 million of the TLSP funds to the City of Los Angeles for upgrading and installing traffic signal synchronization within its jurisdiction, with the $100 million remainder to be made available for projects elsewhere in the state.
As of June 2017, CTC has allocated funding to 85 projects statewide. CTC estimates that these projects will save motorists roughly 38,000 hours every day during peak periods alone, improving congestion along those corridors. Further, a study by the National Conference of State Legislatures claims that this traffic signal coordination reduced vehicle delay by 25%.
In addition to the time savings, studies demonstrate that routes with synchronized traffic lights can significantly reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. A recent report by UC Davis demonstrated that signal timing and signal priority projects can result in 6-10% energy savings for vehicles on the road. In addition, ARB reports that, through a review of four studies on signal coordination systems around the world, these projects result in GHG reductions between 1% and 10%.
Writing in support of the bill, the Automobile Club of Southern California and AAA Northern California, Utah & Nevada (AAA Clubs) state that effective and successful traffic optimization projects offer great benefits to mobility, traffic safety, air quality, and reduce fuel consumption. According to the Institute for Traffic Engineers, successful traffic optimization projects have demonstrated benefit-to-cost ratios of 40-1, or even more.
MTC has been successfully administering its Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) for a number of years. PASS delivers financial and technical assistance to cities and counties to enhance signal coordination across jurisdictions, including engineering help for local governments seeking to re-time signals, traffic-responsive timing plans, and improving communication between local and state signals. According to MTC, it coordinates an average of 320 signals per year through this program with about $1 million annually. PASS has helped Bay Area cities and counties successfully re-time some 1,900 traffic signals since the program began in 2010.
Committee Comment: Department of Finance and ARB work together to develop an investment plan for the moneys deposited in the GGRF. To date, no GGRF funding has been used for traffic light synchronization. While these programs have demonstrated their ability to reduce GHG emissions, it is unclear whether Finance and ARB will be supportive of dedicating scarce GGRF resources to these programs at any level. In contrast, given MTC’s experience that they are able to optimize roughly 320 signals with $1 million per year, it is difficult to imagine a one-time investment of $2 million will have much of an impact.
In addition, given the fact that MTC already has in place a program to assist agencies within its jurisdiction with signal coordination, perhaps it would be better to simply dedicate the appropriated GGRF moneys to MTC’s PASS instead of creating a new program for the state to administer.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AAA Clubs
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Eric Thronson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Discussed in Hearing
13SEC
Senate Floor
1H
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
2MIN
Assembly Floor
3MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):
