BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1010
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jenny Oropeza, Chair
AB 1010 (Oropeza) - As Amended: April 6, 2005
SUBJECT : Rail transit
SUMMARY : Shifts responsibility for oversight of specified
at-grade rail crossings from the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
EXISTING LAW provides that any public transit guideway (tracks)
planned, acquired, or constructed after January 1, 1979, is
subject to the regulations of the PUC relative to safety
appliances and procedures.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : The federal government has designated the
responsibility for rail public transit safety to state
governments. In California, these functions, including those
related to at-grade light rail lines, and rail crossing
applications rest with the PUC. A quasi-judicial regulatory
process is utilized to carry out these review functions.
The agency has safety oversight responsibility for all public
and private highway-rail crossings as well as the power to
establish funding priorities for construction of new at-grade
highway-rail crossings (where roads and tracks intersect at the
same level) and construction of grade separations (underpasses
or overheads where train tracks are above or below the roadway).
PUC staff reviews proposals for crossings, investigates
deficiencies of warning devices or other safety features at
existing at-grade crossings, and recommends engineering
improvements to prevent accidents.
According to a report from the Governor's California Performance
Review (CPR) Commission, there are fifty railroad corporations
operating within California, and there are about 11,000 public
grade crossings located within 52 counties and 400 cities.
Caltrans has a division known as the Rail Crossing Safety &
Track Branch which reviews the list of eligible projects. This
Branch authorizes the local agencies to begin project
AB 1010
Page 2
development and obtain required funding. If all requirements
are met, Caltrans enters into contracts with the railroads and
local agencies to improve the crossings.
According to representatives of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), in most states the department of
transportation assumes responsibility for the rail crossing
program as well as the rail safety program. Apparently, only a
few states (California, Ohio, and Illinois) require that a
regulatory agency review and prioritize rail crossing
improvement projects.
The involvement of two agencies can result in duplication of
effort and can add uncertainty or confusion for local agencies
as well as extra time to complete the project.
Little Hoover Commission
In 1996, the Little Hoover Commission (LHC) recommended that the
Governor and the Legislature transfer PUC's rail planning and
safety functions to the Business, Transportation and Housing
(BT&H) Agency. In its discussion on rail safety, LHC indicated
that multi-purpose regulation of the railroads is no longer a
critical function of the PUC. It stated that the dual-agency
coordination, review and prioritization of projects can slow the
process.
In its report, LHC refers to a 1996 U.S. Department of
Transportation (U.S. DOT) report entitled "Accidents That
Shouldn't Happen," that identified a need to coordinate warning
signal inspections, track and highway maintenance, and a need
for better coordination in setting standards and designing
highway-rail crossings.
According to a representative of the Los Angeles Economic
Development Corporation (LAEDC), the rail crossing safety
project process has been a source of significant problems over
the past few years. Application approvals for new crossings
have been taking six to eight months for uncontested matters and
up to two years on crossings that are contested.
According to PUC's description of the Rail Crossings Engineering
Section 13, staff are responsible for the functions referred to
AB 1010
Page 3
in this proposal; eight are located in Los Angeles, two are
located in San Francisco, and three are located in Sacramento.
The CPR Report estimates that the relocation expenses for these
employees are estimated to be a one-time cost of $250,000 during
the 2005-2006 fiscal year. In addition, there will be $53,000
in costs associated with moving the office operations to
Sacramento.
Shifting this responsibility to Caltrans would result in the
integration of rail planning and oversight responsibilities
within Caltrans. With the exception of charter party carriers
and household goods carriers, PUC has few other
transportation-related functions.
The California Public Utilities' Commission (CPUC) has
historically held jurisdiction over whether or not a public
transportation rail crossing meets the letter of the law as it
relates to the appropriate public safety notices and devices.
In late 2004, a court held the opinion that in the case of Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority vs. California Public
Utilities' Commission that the CPUC did not have the authority
to review these types of projects, so long as all the
appropriate safety precautions, spelled-out in statute, were
followed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Transit Association (sponsor)
Santa Clara Valley Transit Association
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Andrew Antwih / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093