Existing law establishes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs in the state. Existing law tasks the CTC with various transportation-related studies and reports to the Legislature.

This bill would require the CTC to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and degradation to roads, and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee to include consideration of vehicle weight. The bill would require the CTC, by no later than January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs in the state. Existing law tasks the CTC with various transportation-related studies and reports to the Legislature.

This bill would require the CTC to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and degradation to roads, and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee to include consideration of vehicle weight. The bill would require the CTC, by no later than January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs in the state. Existing law tasks the CTC with various transportation-related studies and reports to the Legislature.

This bill would require the CTC to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and degradation to roads, and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee, or restructuring an existing fee to include consideration of vehicle weight. The bill would require the CTC, by no later than January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs in the state. Existing law tasks the CTC with various transportation-related studies and reports to the Legislature.

This bill would require the CTC to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and degradation to roads, and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee, or restructuring an existing fee to include consideration of vehicle weight. The bill would require the CTC, by no later than January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs in the state. Existing law tasks the CTC with various transportation-related studies and reports to the Legislature.

This bill would require the CTC to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and degradation to roads, and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee. fee, or restructuring an existing fee to include consideration of vehicle weight. The bill would require the CTC, by no later than January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs in the state. Existing law tasks the CTC with various transportation-related studies and reports to the Legislature.

This bill would require the CTC to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee. The bill would require the CTC, by no later than January 1, 2026, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 251

Author:(Ward and Friedman)

As Amended Ver:September 1, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to convene a task force to study the potential costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee.

Major Provisions

1. Requires CTC to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, and degradation of road infrastructure, and appropriate responses, including the potential costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee, or restructuring an existing fee to factor in passenger vehicle weight to offset unreasonable impacts.
2. Requires the task force to consist of the Office of traffic Safety (OTS), Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), local transportation agencies, safety advocates and representatives from the automobile industry.
3. Requires the task force to prepare a report summarizing various findings.
4. Requires CTC to take into consideration the differential weights of comparable zero emission vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles.
5. Requires CTC by January 1, 2026 to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature detailing the findings of the study and include recommendations to the Legislature.
6. Repeals the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2027.

Senate Amendments

1. Require the commission to take into consideration the differential weights of comparable zero-emission vehicles, not just battery electric vehicles.
2. Clarify that the CTC study should focus on passenger vehicle weight.

COMMENTS

The Governor Highway Safety Association (GHSA) projected that drivers struck and killed an estimated 7,485 pedestrians in 2021, the most pedestrian deaths in a single year in four decades and an average of 20 deaths every day. The percentage of speeding-related pedestrian crashes involving children ages 15 and under more than doubled the previous three years. 2021 deaths represented a 12% increase from the following year, resulting in an additional 774 lost lives. Pedestrians accounted for 17% of all traffic deaths compared to 13% in 2010. While pedestrian deaths have risen by 54% over the past decade, all other traffic deaths have increased by 13%.

GHSA notes that the percentage of Americans driving sports utility vehicles (SUV) increased at a faster rate than deaths in crashes involving passenger cars- 36% versus 27%. Truck and SUV sales are on the rise. JD Power estimates that over 80% of new vehicle sales were SUV and trucks for the first time ever in 2021. That is up significantly since 2010 where that number was 52.1%. As a result of increased sales, SUVs in 2018 are 29% of the passenger vehicle fleet, up from 21% in 2009. Vehicle weights are only expected to continue to grow as more electric vehicles enter the market place, as the batteries for these vehicles weigh significantly more than the internal combustion engine and gasoline storage.

Pedestrian Deaths and Large Vehicles, a research paper from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics, estimates that between 2000 and 2018 replacing the growth of SUVs with other lighter-weight cars would have averted 1,100 pedestrian deaths.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report Pedestrian Injuries from Cars and SUVs: Updated Crash Outcomes from the Vulnerable Road User Injury Prevention Alliance, "SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, three out of 10 crashes with SUVs (30%) resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with five out of 22 for cars (23%). At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian (100%), compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars (54%)."

As a result of this research, CTC recommended to the California Legislature in their 2022 annual report to the Legislature to consider forming a task force within CTC to study a fee based on weight for passenger vehicles in light of the fact that States are preempted from creating motor vehicle design standards by federal law. Washington D.C recently enacted a similar policy with annual fees for cars over 6,000 pounds being tripled. Michigan already charges over $50 more over a two-year period for passenger vehicles over 3,700 pounds.

According to the Author

According to the author, "AB 251 would codifies the recommendation by the California Transportation Commission, included in their 2022 report the legislature, by authorizing the Commission to convene a task force consisting of state agencies and local transportation agencies to study the potential costs and benefits of a passenger vehicle weight fee and report to the Legislature.

As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help the legislature craft evidence-based policy in the future."

Arguments in Support

According to Streets for All, the sponsors of this bill, "As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help determine the legislature craft evidence based policy in the future."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Taxpayer Association opposes this bill, arguing "We agree wholeheartedly with the author that cyclists, joggers, pedestrians and others face far too many risks caused by bad drivers, but this problem can be addressed without a new tax that would increase Californians’ cost of living and deter Californians from purchasing zero-emission vehicles."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to Senate Appropriations Committee:

The CTC estimates one-time consultant contracting costs in the low hundreds of thousands, and state operations costs of approximately $280,000 annually for three years for 1.0 PY (limited term Supervising Transportation Planner) to convene the task force, manage the consultant contract, and oversee the development of the report. (State Highway Account and Public Transportation Account)

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) would incur minor costs to participate in the task force established by the bill. (Motor Vehicle Account and State Highway Account)

Unknown, significant future cost pressures, likely incurred by the DMV, to establish and administer a vehicle weight fee, to the extent the study recommends that imposition of such a fee is an appropriate response to address road degradation and road user injuries and fatalities. Any such costs would be offset by increased vehicle weight fee revenues. (Motor Vehicle Account and potentially other funds).

VOTES:

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-3-1

YES: Friedman, Berman, Juan Carrillo, Gipson, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Lowenthal, Stephanie Nguyen, Ward, Wicks

NO: Vince Fong, Davies, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Wallis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-15-7

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bains, Cervantes, Chen, Grayson, Lackey, Quirk-Silva, Wicks

SENATE FLOOR: 30-9-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado

UPDATED

VERSION: September 1, 2023

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0002036

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 251

Author: Ward (D) and Friedman (D), et al.

Amended: 9/1/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 11-4, 6/13/23

AYES: Gonzalez, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Cortese, Dodd, Limón, McGuire, Umberg, Wahab

NOES: Niello, Dahle, Nguyen, Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Newman

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 9/1/23

AYES: Portantino, Ashby, Bradford, Wahab, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-15, 5/22/23 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission: vehicle weight safety study

SOURCE: Streets For All

DIGEST:

This bill directs the California Transportation Commission to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight, safety, and degradation of road infrastructure and appropriate responses including a passenger vehicle weight fee.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Vests the California Transportation Commission (CTC) with responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary of the California Transportation Agency and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for California’s transportation programs. (Government Code §14520)
2. Requires commercial motor vehicles, with some exceptions, to pay a fee based on the vehicle’s weight. Establishes a different fee structure for commercial electric vehicles than other commercial vehicles. (Vehicle Code §9400 and §9400.1).

This bill:

1. Requires the CTC to convene a task force comprised of the Office of Traffic Safety, the Department of Motor Vehicles, local transportation agencies, safety advocates, and representatives from the automobile industry to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities and the degradation of road infrastructure.
2. Directs this taskforce to study appropriate responses to that relationship including the potential costs and benefits of imposing a fee based on passenger vehicle weight to offset unreasonable impacts.
3. Requires the task force to prepare and submit a report summarizing its findings and legislative recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2026. This report must include:
   1. An analysis of the relationship between passenger vehicle weight and vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities;
   2. An analysis of the relationship between passenger vehicle weight and degradation of road infrastructure;
   3. A discussion of how a passenger vehicle weight fee may change driver behavior;
   4. A discussion of how revenues generated by imposition of a weight fee could be directed to enhance local infrastructure and that increases safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users; and
   5. An analysis of the equity considerations relating to different population groups in the state, including demographic groups, regional groups, persons with low incomes, and persons using a vehicle for commercial use versus personal use, and any appropriate adjustments for these considerations.
4. Requires the CTC to, in consultation with relevant agencies, consider the differential weights of comparable zero emission and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and the existing incentives and environmental goals to promote zero emission vehicle adoption.

Comments

1. Purpose of bill. According to the author “AB 251 would codifies the recommendation by the California Transportation Commission, included in their 2022 report the legislature, by authorizing the Commission to convene a task force consisting of state agencies and local transportation agencies to study the potential costs and benefits of a passenger vehicle weight fee and report to the Legislature.

“As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help determine the legislature craft evidence based policy in the future.”

1. Traffic safety crisis. Nearly 95% of people who die using the nation’s transportation networks are killed on our streets, roads, and highways. The roadway fatality rate declined consistently for 30 years, but progress has stalled over the past decade and went in the wrong direction since 2020. According to the latest projections from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 4,400 people were killed in traffic crashes in California in 2022, or 12 people every day. This is a 3% increase in fatalities from the previous year. A disproportionate number of those deaths affect Californians of color and low-income communities. As part of the state’s response the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has launched the “Go Safely Movement” public safety campaign to establish a stronger road safety culture. Policies can and should be developed to work alongside these education and cultural efforts to improve traffic safety.
2. Larger and heavier vehicle use is on the rise. Truck and sports utility vehicle (SUV) sales have been increasing. JD Power estimates that over 80% of new vehicle sales were SUV and trucks for the first time ever in 2021. That is up significantly since 2010 where that number was 52.1%. As a result of increased sales, SUVs in 2018 comprise 29% of the passenger vehicle fleet, up from 21% in 2009. Vehicle weights are only expected to continue to grow as more electric vehicles enter the market place, as the batteries for these vehicles weigh significantly more than the ICE and gasoline storage.
3. Vehicle weight and pedestrian risk. As a matter of physics, larger and heavier vehicles have more momentum, making it harder for them to quickly stop and increasing the force imparted upon a collision at even low speeds. Furthermore larger and taller vehicles often have poorer visibility, making it harder to detect and avoid pedestrians. Research has shown that heavy SUVs result in much more serious traffic collisions.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report “Pedestrian Injuries from Cars and SUVs: Updated Crash Outcomes from the Vulnerable Road User Injury Prevention Alliance,” SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, three out of 10 crashes with SUVs resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with five out of 22 for cars. At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian, compared with only seven out of 13 crashes involving cars.

The growth in sales of SUVs and trucks is likely to increase the number of pedestrian deaths in the coming years.

As a result of this research, the CTC recommended to the California Legislature in their 2022 annual report to consider forming a task force to study a fee based on weight for passenger vehicles, as states are preempted from creating motor vehicle design standards by federal law. Washington D.C recently enacted a similar policy with annual fees for cars over 6,000 pounds being tripled. Michigan already charges over $50 more over a two-year period for passenger vehicles over 3,700 pounds.

1. Vehicle weight and infrastructure preservation. Heavier vehicles put more stress on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. According to a 2009 report by the Federal Highway Administration titled “Exploring Vehicle Size and Weight Solutions”, the amount of infrastructure damage an overweight vehicle causes is geometrically larger than the weight increase. For example, an increase in axle weight from 18,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds causes 50 percent more damage to the pavement. This increased stress decreases the remaining service life of the infrastructure, resulting in increased costs for maintenance. However, wear and tear on roads primarily comes from commercial vehicles, not the passenger vehicles this bill focuses on. Studies have shown that heavy trucks are at least 1,000 times more damaging to the roads than passenger vehicles, Weight fees already exist for commercial vehicles in California, generally with the purpose of trying to pay for the increased damage heavier vehicles do to the roads. As the Californian passenger fleet transitions to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) the main source of state money for highway maintenance, the state gas tax, will garner less and less revenue as vehicle weight (and maintenance costs) increase.
2. The tension of fees – changing behaviors vs. funding programs. It is common for governments to use fees to penalize undesirable behavior or to fund related programs. These two goals are usually at odds with one another – if a fee is designed to reduce a behavior then it should be made relatively large and ideally the amount of money raised by the fee will decrease over time as the behavior decreases. This sort of fee structure is used with cigarettes, and has led to some problems where the success of lowering smoking rates has led to underfunding of desired programs. Alternatively a fee might be structured to fund continuing programs, in which case it should be relatively small, so as not to disincentivize the behavior that funds the programs.

Given the state’s goals to transition to a fully ZEV fleet and the increased weight of ZEV vehicles due to their traction batteries, disincentivizing the purchase of heavier vehicles would seem to be counterproductive. This bill states that the goal of this fee is to “offset unreasonable impacts” and mitigate the effect of heavier vehicles, not reduce their adoption. It also specifies that this report should discuss how revenues generated from the fee can be directed to enhance road infrastructure and safety for vulnerable road users.

1. Weighing climate goals versus safety goals. California has goals and policies that incentivize and eventually require the purchasing of ZEVs. The size and density of traction batteries used in ZEVs will be significantly heavier than comparable vehicles that use ICEs. A passenger vehicle fee that solely scales based on weight would somewhat undercut those goals and incentives by creating an increased costs for ZEVs relative to ICE vehicles of a similar class.

This may be appropriate, as the traffic safety risk of a heavier ZEV will likely be greater than a comparable ICE. Eventually all passenger vehicles sold in California will be ZEVs and the differential incentive will be irrelevant, but the relation between ZEV weight and safety will continue to be an issue that this potential fee could help address.

1. Equity considerations and cost of driving. A new weight fee for passenger vehicles would necessarily make it more expensive to drive. While the state is investing in alternative modes of mobility, including active transportation and mass transit, driving remains an important form of mobility for many people’s ability to work. Making it more expensive to drive could increase the financial burden on low-income commuters by making it more difficult to purchase a personal vehicle.

Current commercial vehicle weight fees range from $87-$358 for electric vehicles, and $8-$360 for non-electric vehicles under 10,000 pounds, depending on the weight. Compared to the cost of a new electric vehicle that fee is relatively minor, but for low-income individuals who will be looking to purchase vehicles used, that fee could be substantial.

In order to account for this concern, this bill specifies that the report by the CTC should include an analysis of the equity considerations relating to demographics and regions, including income.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The CTC estimates one-time consultant contracting costs in the low hundreds of thousands, and state operations costs of approximately $280,000 annually for three years for 1.0 PY (limited term Supervising Transportation Planner) to convene the task force, manage the consultant contract, and oversee the development of the report. (State Highway Account and Public Transportation Account)
• The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) would incur minor costs to participate in the task force established by the bill. (Motor Vehicle Account and State Highway Account)
• Unknown, significant future cost pressures, likely incurred by the DMV, to establish and administer a vehicle weight fee, to the extent the study recommends that imposition of such a fee is an appropriate response to address road degradation and road user injuries and fatalities. Any such costs would be offset by increased vehicle weight fee revenues. (Motor Vehicle Account and potentially other funds)

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/23)

Streets for All (source)

Associated Builders and Contractors of California

Associated General Contractors

California Transportation commission

CALSTART

Circulate San Diego

City and County of San Francisco

City of San Jose

City of Santa Monica

Coalition for Clean Air

Culver City Democratic Club

Families for Safe Streets San Diego

Happy City Coalition

Marin County Bicycle Coalition\

Move LA

Napa County Bicycle Coalition

Norwalk Unides

San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

Stop4aidan

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/23)

California Taxpayers Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsor of this bill, Streets For All, “Researchers and advocates are starting to connect the rise of pedestrian fatalities and the increasing weight and size of consumer vehicles on the road. IIHS’s 2022 study found that SUVs, pickup trucks and passenger vans are more likely to strike a pedestrian and 2-3 times more likely than cars to kill a pedestrian in the event of a crash. This could be due to a greater impact from having more weight and less front and rear visibility. In their 2022 report, the CTC included a recommendation requesting the Legislature to authorize a working group to analyze these alarming trends and study the possible merits of a weight-based registration fee on passenger vehicles, similar to the fee the State already imposes on commercial vehicles. AB 251 would simply follow the CTC’s recommendation, and provide them this authority.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Taxpayers Association, “This tax and related task force and studies should be flatly rejected because a vehicle weight “fee” distorts the distinction between taxes and fees. Vehicle weight fees have historically been used to pay for road construction and repair based on the premise that heavier vehicles cause more road damage. The state’s existing weight fees, imposed on vehicles designed primarily for the transportation of property (including pickups owned by individuals and not used for commercial purposes), are considered true fees because of this nexus. AB 251 proposes not a fee, but rather a tax that would be paid by those who may or may not have any nexus with the projects that would receive their money.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-15, 5/22/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Ward, Weber, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NOES: Alanis, Megan Dahle, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Mathis, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Waldron, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bains, Cervantes, Chen, Grayson, Lackey, Quirk-Silva, Wicks

Prepared by: Jacob O'Connor / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121

9/2/23 14:58:33

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 251 (Ward) - California Transportation Commission: vehicle weight safety study

Bill Summary:

AB 251 would require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, as well as degradation of road infrastructure and appropriate responses, including the potential imposition of a vehicle weight fee, as specified. The CTC must also submit a report of the study’s findings and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2026.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on September 1, 2023

Fiscal Impact:

• The CTC estimates one-time consultant contracting costs in the low hundreds of thousands, and state operations costs of approximately $280,000 annually for three years for 1.0 PY (limited term Supervising Transportation Planner) to convene the task force, manage the consultant contract, and oversee the development of the report. (State Highway Account and Public Transportation Account)
• The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) would incur minor costs to participate in the task force established by the bill. (Motor Vehicle Account and State Highway Account)
  
• Unknown, significant future cost pressures, likely incurred by the DMV, to establish and administer a vehicle weight fee, to the extent the study recommends that imposition of such a fee is an appropriate response to address road degradation and road user injuries and fatalities. Any such costs would be offset by increased vehicle weight fee revenues. (Motor Vehicle Account and potentially other funds)

Author Amendments:

• Delete the option for the task force to study the costs and benefits of restructuring an existing fee as a response to the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, as well as degradation of road infrastructure.
• Make several clarifying changes, including that the study should focus on passenger vehicle weight.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 251 (Ward) - California Transportation Commission: vehicle weight safety study

Bill Summary:

AB 251 would require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, as well as degradation of road infrastructure and appropriate responses, including the potential imposition of a vehicle weight fee, as specified. The CTC must also submit a report of the study’s findings and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2026.

Fiscal Impact:

• The CTC estimates one-time consultant contracting costs in the low hundreds of thousands, and state operations costs of approximately $280,000 annually for three years for 1.0 PY (limited term Supervising Transportation Planner) to convene the task force, manage the consultant contract, and oversee the development of the report. (State Highway Account and Public Transportation Account)
• The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) would incur minor costs to participate in the task force established by the bill. (Motor Vehicle Account and State Highway Account)
  
• Unknown, significant future cost pressures, likely incurred by the DMV, to establish and administer a vehicle weight fee, to the extent the study recommends that imposition of such a fee is an appropriate response to address road degradation and road user injuries and fatalities. Any such costs would be offset by increased vehicle weight fee revenues. (Motor Vehicle Account and potentially other funds)

Background:

Existing law establishes the CTC and requires it to advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for transportation programs. Existing law requires the CTC to adopt and submit an annual report to the Legislature by December 15 that explains and summarizes the major policies and decisions adopted by the CTC in the prior fiscal year, including allocations of transportation capital outlay appropriations. The annual report may also include a discussion of any significant upcoming transportation issues that may be of concern to the public and Legislature, and the report must include any recommendations for legislation to improve the transportation system.

Existing law imposes a vehicle weight fee on commercial motor vehicles, with specified exemptions. Current commercial vehicle weight fees range from $87 to $358 for electric vehicles, and from $8 to $360 for non-electric vehicles under 10,000 pounds, depending on the vehicle’s weight.

Proposed Law:

AB 251 would require the CTC to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, as well as the degradation of road infrastructure, and appropriate responses, including the potential costs and benefits of imposing a vehicle weight fee or restructuring an existing fee to factor in passenger vehicle weight to offset unreasonable impacts. The bill would require the CTC, in consultation with relevant agencies, to consider the differential weights of comparable zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and internal combustion engine vehicles, and the existing incentives and environmental goals to promote ZEV adoption.

AB 251 would require the task force to consist of state agencies, including OTS and the DMV, local transportation agencies, safety advocates, and representatives of the automobile industry, and require the task force to prepare a report summarizing its findings that includes the following:

• An analysis of the relationship between vehicle weight and vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities.
• An analysis of the relationship between vehicle weight and degradation of road infrastructure.
• A discussion of how a passenger vehicle weight fee may change driver behavior.
• A discussion of how revenues generated by imposition of a weight fee could be directed to enhance local infrastructure and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users.
• An analysis of the equity considerations relating to different population groups in the state, including demographic groups, regional groups, persons with low incomes, and persons using a vehicle for commercial use versus personal use, and any appropriate adjustments for these considerations.
  

The bill would require the CTC to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature that includes the findings of the study and any legislative recommendations by January 1, 2026, and sunset the provisions of the bill on January 1, 2027.

Staff Comments:

This bill would implement a recommendation from the CTC’s 2022 Annual Report to the Legislature, which notes that research in recent years has begun to draw a connection between trends in the average size of vehicles on the road and increases in pedestrian fatalities, as larger vehicles tend to correlate to an increase in the severity of collisions. This could be due to a greater impact from having more weight as well as less front and rear visibility. The CTC report recommendation states the following:

“Currently, California charges registration fees based on weight only for commercial vehicles. With the average size of passenger vehicles increasing, the Commission believes it an appropriate time for the state to begin to consider whether to implement weight-based fees for passenger vehicles. This could both encourage consumers to purchase smaller vehicles, which appear to be less dangerous for pedestrians, as well as raise revenue for roadway safety programs. As a first step, the Commission recommends the Legislature authorize the Commission to convene a task force….to study the potential costs and benefits of a passenger vehicle weight fee and report back to the Legislature.”

AB 251 requires the CTC to convene the task force and submit the report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026, and the CTC estimates that it would need 1.0 PY of new staff to convene the stakeholder group, oversee a specified consultant contract, and oversee the development of the report. Staff notes that the new PY would likely be authorized through a budget change proposal as part of the 2024-25 budget process, so work on the funding needs assessment may not begin until July 1, 2025, unless the CTC shifts resources in the short-term to convene stakeholders and manage the consultant contract.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 251 Hearing Date: 6/13/2023

SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission: vehicle weight safety study

DIGEST: This bill directs the California Transportation Commission to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight, safety, and degradation of road infrastructure and appropriate responses including a passenger vehicle weight fee.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Vests the California Transportation Commission (CTC) with responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary of the California Transportation Agency and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for California’s transportation programs. (Government Code §14520)
2. Requires commercial motor vehicles, with some exceptions, to pay a fee based on the vehicle’s weight. Establishes a different fee structure for commercial electric vehicles than other commercial vehicles. (Vehicle Code §9400 and §9400.1).

This bill:

1. Requires the CTC to convene a task force comprised of the Office of Traffic Safety, the Department of Motor Vehicles, local transportation agencies, safety advocates, and representatives from the automobile industry to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities and the degradation of road infrastructure.
2. Directs this taskforce to study appropriate responses to that relationship including the potential costs and benefits of imposing or restructuring a fee based on passenger vehicle weight to offset unreasonable impacts.
3. Requires the task force to prepare and submit a report summarizing its findings and legislative recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2026. This report must include:
   1. An analysis of the relationship between vehicle weight and vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities;
   2. An analysis of the relationship between vehicle weight and degradation of road infrastructure;
   3. A discussion of how a passenger vehicle weight fee may change driver behavior;
   4. A discussion of how revenues generated by imposition of a weight fee could be directed to enhance local infrastructure and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users;
   5. An analysis of the equity considerations relating to different population groups in the state, including demographic groups, regional groups, persons with low incomes, and persons using a vehicle for commercial use versus personal use, and any appropriate adjustments for these considerations.
4. Requires the CTC to, in consultation with relevant agencies, consider the differential weights of comparable zero emission and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and the existing incentives and environmental goals to promote zero emission vehicle adoption.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of bill. According to the author “AB 251 would codifies the recommendation by the California Transportation Commission, included in their 2022 report the legislature, by authorizing the Commission to convene a task force consisting of state agencies and local transportation agencies to study the potential costs and benefits of a passenger vehicle weight fee and report to the Legislature.

As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help determine the legislature craft evidence based policy in the future.”

1. Traffic safety crisis. Nearly 95% of people who die using the nation’s transportation networks are killed on our streets, roads, and highways. The roadway fatality rate declined consistently for 30 years, but progress has stalled over the past decade and went in the wrong direction since 2020. According to the latest projections from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 4,400 people were killed in traffic crashes in California in 2022, or 12 people every day. This is a 3% increase in fatalities from the previous year. A disproportionate number of those deaths affect Californians of color and low-income communities. As part of the state’s response the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has launched the “Go Safely Movement” public safety campaign to establish a stronger road safety culture. Policies can and should be developed to work alongside these education and cultural efforts to improve traffic safety.
2. Larger and heavier vehicle use is on the rise. Truck and sports utility vehicle (SUV) sales have been increasing. JD Power estimates that over 80% of new vehicle sales were SUV and trucks for the first time ever in 2021. That is up significantly since 2010 where that number was 52.1%. As a result of increased sales, SUVs in 2018 comprise 29% of the passenger vehicle fleet, up from 21% in 2009. Vehicle weights are only expected to continue to grow as more electric vehicles enter the market place, as the batteries for these vehicles weigh significantly more than the ICE and gasoline storage.
3. Vehicle weight and pedestrian risk. As a matter of physics, larger and heavier vehicles have more momentum, making it harder for them to quickly stop and increasing the force imparted upon a collision at even low speeds. Furthermore larger and taller vehicles often have poorer visibility, making it harder to detect and avoid pedestrians. Research has shown that heavy SUVs result in much more serious traffic collisions.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report “Pedestrian Injuries from Cars and SUVs: Updated Crash Outcomes from the Vulnerable Road User Injury Prevention Alliance,” SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, three out of 10 crashes with SUVs resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with five out of 22 for cars. At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian, compared with only 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars.

The growth in sales of SUVs and trucks is likely to increase the number of pedestrian deaths in the coming years.

As a result of this research, the CTC recommended to the California Legislature in their 2022 annual report to consider forming a task force to study a fee based on weight for passenger vehicles, as states are preempted from creating motor vehicle design standards by federal law. Washington D.C recently enacted a similar policy with annual fees for cars over 6,000 pounds being tripled. Michigan already charges over $50 more over a two-year period for passenger vehicles over 3,700 pounds.

1. Vehicle weight and infrastructure preservation. Heavier vehicles put more stress on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. According to a 2009 report by the Federal Highway Administration titled “Exploring Vehicle Size and Weight Solutions”, the amount of infrastructure damage an overweight vehicle causes is geometrically larger than the weight increase. For example, an increase in axle weight from 18,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds causes 50 percent more damage to the pavement. This increased stress decreases the remaining service life of the infrastructure, resulting in increased costs for maintenance. However, wear and tear on roads primarily comes from commercial vehicles, not the passenger vehicles this bill focuses on. Studies have shown that heavy trucks are at least 1,000 times more damaging to the roads than passenger vehicles, Weight fees already exist for commercial vehicles in California, generally with the purpose of trying to pay for the increased damage heavier vehicles do to the roads. As the Californian passenger fleet transitions to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) the main source of state money for highway maintenance, the state gas tax, will garner less and less revenue as vehicle weight (and maintenance costs) increase.
2. The tension of fees – changing behaviors vs. funding programs. It is common for governments to use fees to penalize undesirable behavior or to fund related programs. These two goals are usually at odds with one another – if a fee is designed to reduce a behavior then it should be made relatively large and ideally the amount of money raised by the fee will decrease over time as the behavior decreases. This sort of fee structure is used with cigarettes, and has led to some problems where the success of lowering smoking rates has led to underfunding of desired programs. Alternatively a fee might be structured to fund continuing programs, in which case it should be relatively small, so as not to disincentivize the behavior that funds the programs.

Given the state’s goals to transition to a fully ZEV fleet and the increased weight of ZEV vehicles due to their traction batteries, disincentivizing the purchase of heavier vehicles would seem to be counterproductive. This bill states that the goal of this fee is to “offset unreasonable impacts” and mitigate the effect of heavier vehicles, not reduce their adoption. It also specifies that this report should discuss how revenues generated from the fee can be directed to enhance road infrastructure and safety for vulnerable road users.

1. Weighing climate goals versus safety goals. California has goals and policies that incentivize and eventually require the purchasing of ZEVs. The size and density of traction batteries used in ZEVs they will be significantly heavier than comparable vehicles that use ICEs. A passenger vehicle fee that solely scales based on weight would somewhat undercut those goals and incentives by creating an increased costs for ZEVs relative to ICE vehicles of a similar class.

This may be appropriate, as the traffic safety risk of a heavier ZEV will likely be greater than a comparable ICE. Eventually all passenger vehicles sold in California will be ZEVs and the differential incentive will be irrelevant, but the relation between ZEV weight and safety will continue to be an issue that this potential fee could help address.

1. Equity considerations and cost of driving. A new weight fee for passenger vehicles would necessarily make it more expensive to drive. While the state is investing in alternative modes of mobility, including active transportation and mass transit, driving remains an important form of mobility for many people’s ability to work. Making it more expensive to drive could increase the financial burden on low-income commuters by making it more difficult to purchase a personal vehicle.

Current commercial vehicle weight fees range from $87-$358 for electric vehicles, and $8-$360 for non-electric vehicles under 10,000 pounds, depending on the weight. Compared to the cost of a new electric vehicle that fee is relatively minor, but for low-income individuals who will be looking to purchase vehicles used, that fee could be substantial.

In order to account for this concern, this bill specifies that the report by the CTC should include an analysis of the equity considerations relating to demographics and regions, including income.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, it is reasonable to expect the bill to result in costs, potentially significant, to CTC.

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 7^th.)

SUPPORT:

City and County of San Francisco
City of San Jose
City of Santa Monica
Coalition for Clean Air
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Happy City Coalition
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Norwalk Unides
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
Stop4aidan
Streets for All (Sponsor)

OPPOSITION:

California Taxpayer’s Association.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsors of the bill, Streets for All, “Researchers and advocates are starting to connect the rise of pedestrian fatalities and the increasing weight and size of consumer vehicles on the road. IIHS’s 2022 study found that SUVs, pickup trucks and passenger vans are more likely to strike a pedestrian and 2-3 times more likely than cars to kill a pedestrian in the event of a crash. This could be due to a greater impact from having more weight and less front and rear visibility. In their 2022 report, the CTC included a recommendation requesting the Legislature to authorize a working group to analyze these alarming trends and study the possible merits of a weight-based registration fee on passenger vehicles, similar to the fee the State already imposes on commercial vehicles. AB 251 would simply follow the CTC’s recommendation, and provide them this authority.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Taxpayers Association, “This tax and related task force and studies should be flatly rejected because a vehicle weight “fee” distorts the distinction between taxes and fees. Vehicle weight fees have historically been used to pay for road construction and repair based on the premise that heavier vehicles cause more road damage. The state’s existing weight fees, imposed on vehicles designed primarily for the transportation of property (including pickups owned by individuals and not used for commercial purposes), are considered true fees because of this nexus. AB 251 proposes not a fee, but rather a tax that would be paid by those who may or may not have any nexus with the projects that would receive their money.”

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 251

Author:(Ward and Friedman)

As Amended Ver:March 2, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to convene a task force to study the potential costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee.

Major Provisions

1. Requires CTC to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, and degradation of road infrastructure, and appropriate responses, including the potential costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee, or restructuring an existing fee to factor in passenger vehicle weight to offset unreasonable impacts.
2. Requires the task force to consist of the Office of traffic Safety (OTS), Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), local transportation agencies, safety advocates and representatives from the automobile industry.
3. Requires the task force to prepare a report summarizing various findings.
4. Requires CTC to take into consideration the differential weights of comparable battery electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles.
5. Requires CTC by January 1, 2026 to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature detailing the findings of the study and include recommendations to the Legislature.
6. Repeals the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2027.

COMMENTS

The Governor Highway Safety Association (GHSA) projected that drivers struck and killed an estimated 7,485 pedestrians in 2021, the most pedestrian deaths in a single year in four decades and an average of 20 deaths every day. The percentage of speeding-related pedestrian crashes involving children ages 15 and under more than doubled the previous three years. 2021 deaths represented a 12% increase from the following year, resulting in an additional 774 lost lives. Pedestrians accounted for 17% of all traffic deaths compared to 13% in 2010. While pedestrian deaths have risen by 54% over the past decade, all other traffic deaths have increased by 13%.

GHSA notes that the percentage of Americans driving sports utility vehicles (SUV) increased at a faster rate than deaths in crashes involving passenger cars- 36% versus 27%. Truck and SUV sales are on the rise. JD Power estimates that over 80% of new vehicle sales were SUV and trucks for the first time ever in 2021. That is up significantly since 2010 where that number was 52.1%. As a result of increased sales, SUVs in 2018 are 29% of the passenger vehicle fleet, up from 21% in 2009. Vehicle weights are only expected to continue to grow as more electric vehicles enter the market place, as the batteries for these vehicles weigh significantly more than the internal combustion engine and gasoline storage.

Pedestrian Deaths and Large Vehicles, a research paper from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics, estimates that between 2000 and 2018 replacing the growth of SUVs with other lighter-weight cars would have averted 1,100 pedestrian deaths.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report Pedestrian Injuries from Cars and SUVs: Updated Crash Outcomes from the Vulnerable Road User Injury Prevention Alliance, "SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, three out of 10 crashes with SUVs (30%) resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with five out of 22 for cars (23%). At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian (100%), compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars (54%)."

As a result of this research, CTC recommended to the California Legislature in their 2022 annual report to the Legislature to consider forming a task force within CTC to study a fee based on weight for passenger vehicles in light of the fact that States are preempted from creating motor vehicle design standards by federal law. Washington D.C recently enacted a similar policy with annual fees for cars over 6,000 pounds being tripled. Michigan already charges over $50 more over a two-year period for passenger vehicles over 3,700 pounds.

According to the Author

"AB 251 would codifies the recommendation by the California Transportation Commission, included in their 2022 report the legislature, by authorizing the Commission to convene a task force consisting of state agencies and local transportation agencies to study the potential costs and benefits of a passenger vehicle weight fee and report to the Legislature.

As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help the legislature craft evidence-based policy in the future."

Arguments in Support

According to Streets for All, the sponsors of this bill, "As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help determine the legislature craft evidence based policy in the future."

Arguments in Opposition

According to The California Taxpayer Association "We agree wholeheartedly with the author that cyclists, joggers, pedestrians and others face far too many risks caused by bad drivers, but this problem can be addressed without a new tax that would increase Californians' cost of living and deter Californians from purchasing zero-emission vehicles."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "CTC did not provide the committee a cost estimate by the time this analysis was finalized. However, it is reasonable to expect the bill to result in costs, potentially significant, to CTC.

In any case, because the bill has the primary purpose, in the committee's estimation, of creating a task force, the bill is a candidate for the committee's suspense file, consistent with the committee rules."

VOTES

ASM TRANSPORTATION: 11-3-1

YES: Friedman, Berman, Juan Carrillo, Gipson, Hart, Jackson, Kalra, Lowenthal, Stephanie  Nguyen, Ward, Wicks

NO: Vince Fong, Davies, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Wallis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-1

YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Weber, Ortega

NO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Robert Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: March 2, 2023

CONSULTANT: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000626

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 251

Author:(Ward) – As Amended Ver:March 2, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill directs the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to convene a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, and degradation of road infrastructure, and appropriate responses, including the potential costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee or restructuring an existing fee to factor in passenger vehicle weight to offset unreasonable impacts.

The bill requires the task force consist of state agencies, including the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), local transportation agencies, safety advocates and representatives from the automobile industry.

The task force is to prepare a report, which CTC is to submit to the Legislature by January 1, 2026, detailing the findings of the study and including any legislative recommendations regarding the following:

1. The relationship between vehicle weight and vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities.
2. The relationship between vehicle weight and degradation of road infrastructure.
3. How a passenger vehicle weight fee may change driver behavior.
4. How any revenues generated by the imposition of a passenger vehicle weight fee could be directed to enhance road infrastructure and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users.
5. Equity considerations relating to different population groups in the state and any appropriate adjustments for these considerations.

FISCAL EFFECT:

CTC did not provide the committee a cost estimate by the time this analysis was finalized. However, it is reasonable to expect the bill to result in costs, potentially significant, to CTC.

In any case, because the bill has the primary purpose, in the committee’s estimation, of creating a task force, the bill is a candidate for the committee’s suspense file, consistent with the committee rules.

COMMENTS:

1. Background and Purpose. This bill seeks to implement a recommendation by the CTC that the Legislature authorize CTC to form a task force, such as the one described in this bill, to, as CTC describes it in its 2022 report to the Legislature, “to account for the disproportionate impacts of larger vehicles on vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities.”

Pedestrian fatalities in California are common, and increasingly so. The California Office of Traffic Safety reports that, in recent years, pedestrian fatalities accounted for more than a quarter of traffic-related deaths in the state. And California pedestrians are dying at an increasing rate, as shown in the table below.

Disturbingly, the data reveal a nearly 49% increase in the California pedestrian fatality rate, when comparing 2020 to 2011.

In response to this trend, the CTC, in it 2022 report to the Legislature, considered the effects of vehicle size on vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians. In the report, CTC notes research beginning to draw a connection between increasing average vehicle sizes and pedestrian fatalities, without observing an improvement in motorist safety. The CTC report goes onto observe that some jurisdictions have sought to encourage consumers to purchase smaller vehicles. In conclusion, the CTC recommends the Legislature authorize, as a “first step,” a study on the “implementation of weight-based passenger vehicle fees to account for the disproportionate impacts of larger vehicles on vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities.” This bill is consistent with CTC’s recommendation.

State policy encourages replacing vehicles with internal-combustion engines (ICEs) with zero-emission vehicles, such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs). On average, a BEV will weigh significantly more than a comparable ICE vehicle. As the state considers vehicle weight-based policies to increase the safety of vulnerable road users, it will need to account for the effect of any such policy on achievement of the state’s clean transportation goals.

1. Support and Opposition. According to bill sponsor Streets for All, this bill will “provide valuable insight and analysis to help the legislature craft evidence-based policy in the future” as the Legislature seeks to ensure the safety of all.

Writing in opposition to the bill, the California Taxpayer Association, while supporting the bill’s aims, objects “this problem can be addressed without a new tax that would increase Californians’ cost of living and deter Californians from purchasing zero-emission vehicles.”

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 20, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Laura Friedman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 251 (

Author:Ward) – As Amended Ver:March 2, 2023

SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission: vehicle weight safety study

SUMMARY: Requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to convene a task force to study the potential costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CTC to study the relationship between vehicle weight and road user injuries and fatalities, and degradation of road infrastructure, and appropriate responses, including the potential costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee, or restructuring an existing fee to factor in passenger vehicle weight to offset unreasonable impacts.
2. Requires the task force to consist of the Office of traffic Safety (OTS), Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), local transportation agencies, safety advocates and representatives from the automobile industry.
3. Requires the task force to prepare a report summarizing its findings that includes the following topics:
4. An analysis of the relationship between vehicle weight and vulnerable road user injuries and fatalities.
5. A discussion of how a passenger vehicle weight fee may change driver behavior.
6. A discussion on how any revenues generated by the imposition of a passenger vehicle weight fee could be spent to enhance safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users.
7. An analysis of the relationship between vehicle weight and degradation of road infrastructure.
8. An analysis of the equity considerations, related to different population groups in the state, including persons of various demographic groups, persons residing in various regions of the state, and persons using a vehicle for commercial use versus personal use, and any appropriate adjustments for these considerations.
9. Requires CTC to take into consideration the differential weights of comparable battery electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles.
10. Requires CTC by January 1, 2026 to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature detailing the findings of the study and include recommendations to the Legislature.
11. Repeals the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2027.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Vests CTC with responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary of California Transportation Agency and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for California’s transportation programs. (Government Code 14520)
2. Requires commercial motor vehicles, with some exemptions, to pay a weight fee based on the vehicle’s weight. (Vehicle Code 9400 and 9400.1).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: The Governor Highway Safety Association (GHSA) projected that drivers struck and killed an estimated 7,485 pedestrians in 2021, the most pedestrian deaths in a single year in four decades and an average of 20 deaths every day. The percentage of speeding-related pedestrian crashes involving children ages 15 and under more than doubled the previous three years. 2021 deaths represented a 12% increase from the following year, resulting in an additional 774 lost lives. Pedestrians accounted for 17% of all traffic deaths compared to 13% in 2010. While pedestrian deaths have risen by 54% over the past decade, all other traffic deaths have increased by 13%.

GHSA notes that the percentage of Americans driving sports utility vehicles (SUV) increased at a faster rate than deaths in crashes involving passenger cars- 36% versus 27%. Truck and SUV sales are on the rise. JD Power estimates that over 80% of new vehicle sales were SUV and trucks for the first time ever in 2021. That is up significantly since 2010 where that number was 52.1%. As a result of increased sales, SUVs in 2018 are 29% of the passenger vehicle fleet, up from 21% in 2009. Vehicle weights are only expected to continue to grow as more electric vehicles enter the market place, as the batteries for these vehicles weigh significantly more than the internal combustion engine and gasoline storage.

Pedestrian Deaths and Large Vehicles, a research paper from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics, estimates that between 2000 and 2018 replacing the growth of SUVs with other lighter-weight cars would have averted 1,100 pedestrian deaths.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report Pedestrian Injuries from Cars and SUVs: Updated Crash Outcomes from the Vulnerable Road User Injury Prevention Alliance, “SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, three out of 10 crashes with SUVs (30%) resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with five out of 22 for cars (23%). At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian (100%), compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars (54%).”

As a result of this research, CTC recommended to the California Legislature in their 2022 annual report to the Legislature to consider forming a task force within CTC to study a fee based on weight for passenger vehicles in light of the fact that States are preempted from creating motor vehicle design standards by federal law. Washington D.C recently enacted a similar policy with annual fees for cars over 6,000 pounds being tripled. Michigan already charges over $50 more over a two-year period for passenger vehicles over 3,700 pounds.

According to the author, “AB 251 would codifies the recommendation by the California Transportation Commission, included in their 2022 report the legislature, by authorizing the Commission to convene a task force consisting of state agencies and local transportation agencies to study the potential costs and benefits of a passenger vehicle weight fee and report to the Legislature.

As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help the legislature craft evidence-based policy in the future.”

According to Streets for All, the sponsors of this bill, “As injuries and fatalities of vulnerable road users continue to rise, California must consider every available tool to enhance the safety of all. Many aspects of a weight-based fee for passenger vehicles require further examination to understand the potential impacts. This bill would provide valuable insight and analysis to help determine the legislature craft evidence based policy in the future.”

The California Taxpayer Association opposes this bill, arguing “We agree wholeheartedly with the author that cyclists, joggers, pedestrians and others face far too many risks caused by bad drivers, but this problem can be addressed without a new tax that would increase Californians’ cost of living and deter Californians from purchasing zero-emission vehicles.”

Committee Comments: The growth in sales of SUVs and trucks is only likely to increase the number of pedestrian deaths in the coming years. Weight fees already exist for commercial vehicles, generally with the purpose of trying to pay for the increased damage heavier vehicles do to the roads. Should this bill become law, the CTC should consider using such a fee for passenger vehicles to pay for traffic calming measures that will help slow down vehicles, reducing their potential to kill pedestrians. Doing so will help mitigate the potential harm owners of such vehicles pose to vulnerable road users and other vehicles.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Streets for All (sponsor)

City and County of San Francisco
Coalition for Clean Air

Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Happy City Coalition
Marin County Bicycle Coalition
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Norwalk Unides
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Stop4aidan

Opposition

California Taxpayers Association

Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093