BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 1249 - Daucher Hearing Date: July 10,
2001 A
As Amended: July 2, 2001 FISCAL B
1
2
4
9
DESCRIPTION
Current law requires the sounding of a locomotive bell or
whistle at least 1,320 feet from the place where the railroad
crosses any street. An exception is made where the railroad
crossing has a permanently installed audible warning device
authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
that automatically sounds when an approaching train is at least
1,320 feet from the crossing.
Current law authorizes the CPUC to conduct pilot projects for
evaluating proposed railroad crossing warning devices with the
consent of the local jurisdiction, affected railroads, railroad
employees, and other interested parties.
Current law articulates legislative findings that there is a
growing need to mitigate train horn noise without compromising
public safety, and declares legislative intent that the CPUC may
authorize pilot projects in the cities of Roseville and Lathrop
to test the utility and safety of stationary, automated audible
warning devices as an alternative to trains having to sound
their horns as they approach highway-rail crossings.
This bill expands that legislative intent to authorize the pilot
projects in the cities of Newark, Fremont, and any other
locations determined to be suitable by the CPUC.
This bill declares legislative intent that the CPUC be permitted
to authorize pilot projects to test supplementary safety
measures, as defined in Section 20153(a)(3) of Title 49 of the
United States Code, for use on rail crossings in the City of
Placentia.
BACKGROUND
Approximately 4,000 times each year, a train and highway vehicle
collide at highway-rail grade crossings, resulting in more than
400 deaths.
On January 13, 2000, the FRA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking which requires locomotive horns be sounded while a
train approaches and enters a public highway-rail crossing. The
proposed rules provide for an exception in circumstances where
there isn't a significant risk of loss of life or serious
personal injury, use of the locomotive horn is impractical, or
supplementary safety measures fully compensate for the absence
of the warning provided by the horn. The FRA has yet to
formally adopt the proposed rules in this area, but SJR 19
(Ackerman), which is also before the committee today, urges the
FRA to promptly adopt the final rules.
This bill references a specific subsection of the United States
Code. That subsection reads as follows:
Section 20153 (a)(3) The term "supplementary safety
measure" refers to a safety system or procedure,
provided by the appropriate traffic control authority
or law enforcement authority responsible for safety at
the highway-rail grade crossing, that is determined by
the Secretary (of Transportation) to be an effective
substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention
of highway-rail casualties. A traffic control
arrangement that prevents careless movement over the
crossing (e.g., as where adequate median barriers
prevent movement around crossing gates extending over
the full width of the lanes in the particular
direction of travel), and that conforms to standards
prescribed by the Secretary under this subsection,
shall be deemed to constitute a supplementary safety
measure. The following do not, individually or in
combination, constitute supplementary safety measures
within the meaning of this subsection: standard
traffic control devices or arrangements such as
reflectorized crossbucks, stop signs, flashing lights,
flashing lights with gates that do not completely
block travel over the line of railroad, or traffic
signals.
COMMENTS
1)Changing The Look At Petticoat Junction . This committee has
considered several bills dealing with ways of mitigating the
disruptive, but necessary, sounding of locomotive horns in
residential areas. SB 1491 (Leslie), Chapter 263, Statutes of
2000, and SB 62 (Morrow) of 2001, focussed on using wayside
horns as a substitute for locomotive horns.
This bill allows the locomotive horn problem to be mitigated
in a different way by urging the use of supplementary safety
devices, such as four-quadrant gates where all lanes of
traffic are blocked from entering the crossing, in lieu of any
horn whatsoever. The author believes this bill is necessary
spur to the CPUC to consider and approve a pilot project in
Placentia to test such devices.
2)(Double) Joined At The Hip . The provision of the bill
articulating legislative intent for pilot project authority
for wayside horns to Fremont and Newark is similar, though not
identical, to that contained in SB 62. Both SB 62 and this
bill amend the same sections of the Public Utilities Code.
Though SB 62 is an urgency bill and this bill is not, the
authors may wish to consider placing double-joining language
into both of their bills at some point to ensure that one
doesn't inadvertently chapter the other out.
3)If It's Good For Placentia, Is It Good For The Entire State?
The bill authorizes supplementary safety measures to be
piloted on rail crossings in the City of Placentia. These
safety measures must be approved by the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation and the pilot projects must be approved by the
CPUC with the consent of cities, railroads, railroad
employees, and others. With these safeguards the author and
committee may wish to consider whether this provision should
be generalized to apply to the entire state.
4)Railroad Crisis Supplants Energy Crisis? Noise impacts of
locomotives have become a regular subject of the committee.
SB 1491 (Leslie), Chapter 263, Statutes of 2000, set up a
pilot program to allow wayside horns to substitute for
locomotive horns.
SB 62 (Morrow), which was approved by this committee and is
pending in the Assembly Transportation Committee, makes
technical changes to that bill and expands the number of
cities that can be included in the pilot program.
SJR 19 (Ackerman), which is scheduled to be heard by this
committee today, urges the Federal Railroad Administration to
adopt regulations relating to the establishment of quiet zones
at eligible railroad crossings and urges the U.S. Congress to
pass legislation to provide funding to the states to help them
establish those quiet zones.
Residential growth in California, along with increasing rail
traffic, means the public will increasingly demand locomotive
noise mitigation. While legislation continues to authorize
pilot projects to mitigate the impact of locomotive noise,
those projects have primarily focussed on local problems.
Perhaps it's time to take a broader, more systematic look at
the issue and deal with a problem that is sure to become
statewide in nature at some point. Funding will obviously be
a key issue, for none of the legislation provides funding for
any of these relatively costly supplemental safety measures,
an obvious barrier to their widespread implementation.
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
Oppose:
None on file
Randy Chinn
SB 1249 Analysis
Hearing Date: July 10, 2001