BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1010
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 1010 (Oropeza)
          As Amended April 6, 2005
          Majority vote 

           TRANSPORTATION      12-0        APPROPRIATIONS      13-5        
                                                       
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Oropeza, Huff, Bogh,      |Ayes:|Chu, Bass, Berg,          |
          |     |Chan,                     |     |Calderon, Mullin,         |
          |     |Shirley Horton, Karnette, |     |Karnette, Klehs, Leno,    |
          |     |Mountjoy, Niello, Pavley, |     |Nation, Oropeza,          |
          |     |Ridley-Thomas, Salinas,   |     |Ridley-Thomas, Saldana,   |
          |     |Torrico                   |     |Yee                       |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |Nays:|Sharon Runner, Emmerson,  |
          |     |                          |     |Haynes, Nakanishi,        |
          |     |                          |     |Walters                   |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           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 PUC relative to safety appliances  
          and procedures.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee  
          analysis, this bill would result in moderate one-time relocation  
          costs, in the range of $350,000, to Caltrans to transfer PUC staff  
          to its Rail Crossings Safety and Track Inspection Branch.  (State  
          Highway Account, Public Transportation Account or eligible federal  
          funds.)  There would also be a moderate cost shift, about $700,000  
          in the 2006-07 fiscal year and $1.4 million annually thereafter,  
          from PUC to Caltrans.  

           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 PUC.  A quasi-judicial regulatory process  
          is utilized to carry out these review functions.  







                                                                  AB 1010
                                                                  Page  2



          The agency has responsibility to review 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 50 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 (Branch) which reviews the list of eligible projects.  This  
          Branch authorizes the local agencies to begin project 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.  







                                                                  AB 1010
                                                                  Page  3



          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 review  
          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 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 PUC 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 PUC 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.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Andrew Antwih / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093    
                      FN: 0010717







                                                                  AB 1010
                                                                  Page  4