SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:
AB 1250
Bloom
9/9/2015
No
Randy Chinn
Hearing Date: 9/10/2015
Fiscal:
Yes
SUBJECT: Vehicles: buses: axle weight
DIGEST: This bill establishes a declining maximum curb weight per axle for
buses.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Limits the gross weight of buses to 20,500 pounds per axle.
2) Prohibits California from enforcing a weight limit of less than 24,000 pounds
per axle for buses travelling on the federal interstate highway system, pursuant
to federal law.
3) Allows, until January 1, 2016, a public transit system to procure a bus whose
weight exceeds 20,500 pounds per axle if 1) the new bus weighs less per axle
than the bus it is replacing, or 2) the new buses are part of a new fleet class,
provided that the governing board of the public transit system makes a finding
that the new fleet class is necessary to address a need in a new or existing
market.
4) Prohibits driving a vehicle over a bridge or other structure that is part of a
highway when that vehicle weighs more than the bridge or structure can safely
support.
This bill:
1) Establishes a declining maximum curb weight per axle, beginning with
procurement solicitations issued after January 1, 2016, for standard transit buses
of 23,000 pounds, declining to 22,000 pounds by January 1, 2019. For
articulated or zero-emission buses, the maximum curb weight per axle is 25,000
AB 1250 (Bloom)
Page 2 of 4
pounds, beginning with procurement solicitations issued after January 1, 2016,
declining to 22,000 pounds for procurement solicitations issued after January 1,
2022.
2) Defines curb weight as the weight of the bus including fuel and all equipment
used in normal operations but excluding the weight of the driver and
passengers.
3) Exempts buses procured from solicitations issued prior to January 1, 2016 or
during option periods in multi-year contracts not exceeding five years, or
January 1, 2021, whichever is earlier, from the 20,500 pound-per-axle weight
limitation and from the axle weight limitations established in this legislation.
4) Prohibits buses exceeding the federal 24,000 pound-per-axle weight limitation
from operating on the interstate highway system.
5) Requires that if the gross weight of any axle exceeds 20,000 pounds, that axle
shall have four wheels.
6) Requires operators employing articulated buses to provide notice to cities and
counties in whose jurisdiction those buses are operating of the approximate
routes of those buses.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose. According to the author, transit buses play an integral role in
California’s transportation infrastructure. While cities, planning agencies,
transit agencies, and bus manufacturers do not all agree on the solution for
overweight buses, it is essential that transit systems continue to operate, and
transit agencies must be allowed to continue to procure transit vehicles if the
need arises. Stakeholders convened with the goal of crafting a long-term
solution that works for all parties.
2) Second time around. The committee heard this bill on July 15, 2015, and
approved it 11-0. Since that hearing, the bill has been amended and made more
specific to reflect the continuing negotiations between the parties. This bill
represents the result of year-long negotiations between transit operators, local
and state governments, and bus manufacturers. The current version of the bill
represents the results of final negotiations. As a result, the League of California
Cities is supporting the bill, the California State Association of Counties is
neutral, and Caltrans has provided technical support.
AB 1250 (Bloom)
Page 3 of 4
3) Technology requirements are part of the problem. California’s air pollution
and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals have resulted in alternatively
fueled powertrains for buses, such as electric and compressed natural gas.
Improving efficiency in transit operations often means using larger buses and
optimizing routes so that buses run full. Both of these policies result in buses
which are so heavy that they can damage streets and prematurely wear bridges
and overpasses. As policymakers consider new technologies and efficiency
improvements, they’d be wise to also consider the effects of their decisions on
the state’s transportation infrastructure. Fixing the state’s deteriorating roads
and bridges is expensive.
4) A different standard. The key metric for this bill is curb weight, which for the
purposes of this bill is the total weight of a bus, including maximum fuel and all
normal equipment, but excluding the weight of the driver and passengers.
Supporters contend that this is a knowable, consistent, and clear measure.
However, this is an unusual metric, as the much more common metric is gross,
or actual, weight. This measures the actual force of the tires, though the gross
weight for buses will vary throughout the day as passenger loads rise and fall.
For comparison, a fully occupied bus is as much as one-third heavier than an
empty bus.
5) 29.10 hearing. This bill is being heard pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(b) as it
has substantially changed from the version heard earlier by the committee.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 1720 (Bloom, Chapter 263, Statutes of 2014) — provides a two-year
exemption for existing transit buses to exceed the state weight limit, sunsetting at
the end of 2016.
AB 1706 (Eng, Chapter 771, Statutes of 2012) — provides a two-year exemption
for existing transit buses to exceed the state weight limit, sunsetting at the end of
2014.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
 Unquantifiable minor to significant impact on pavement maintenance costs as a
result of accelerated degradation by allowing the operation of overweight transit
buses. (State Highway Account, local funds)
AB 1250 (Bloom)
Page 4 of 4
 Due to the numerous factors that may result in pavement degradation, it is
impossible to calculate the isolated impacts and costs associated with the
operation of overweight transit buses on state highways and local streets and
roads.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
September 9, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
California Association for Coordinated Transportation
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California Transit Association
City of Arcata
City of Santa Monica
Orange County Transportation Authority
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
Solano County Transit
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --