HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02231999 - C61 Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County
FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER, AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DATE: February 1, 1999
SUBJECT: Adopt Positions on Proposed State Legislation Relating to High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) Lane Designation: AB 44 (McClintock), AB 71(Cuneen), and SB 14 (Rainey)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECC)MMENDATIONS
Adopt positions on the following pieces of legislation introduced for the 1999 State
Legislative session related to the designation of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on
state highways: Assembly Bill 44 (McClintock) - OPPOSE; Assembly Bill 77
(Cuneen) - WATCH, and, Senate Bill 14 (Rainey) v WATCH.
FISCA IJM.PACT
Nave.
BACKGRQ.0 D/REASONS F_JR RECOMMENDATIONS
The manner in which Caltrans designates and constructs High Occupancy Vehicles
(HOV) lanes on the state highway system have attracted the attention of several
State Legislators, including State Senator Richard Rainey. These legislators have
received numerous inquiries or complaints from their constituents about the apparent
low level of use for recently opened HOV lanes on the state highway system.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
i t
SIGNATURE(S): Donna Gerberwair Mark De Saulnier
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ,g OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - m p ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN,
Contact: Patrick Roche, CDD-TPD(5101335-1240 ATTESTED Ff b- r,4 23 1999
cc: CA State Leg. Delegation for CoCo Co. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
D.J. Smith, Smith&Kempton THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1
B �. , DEPUTY
TWIC/PR:h:prochAeglsletiorlhovleg99
Adopt positions on State Legislation related to HOV Lane Designations
February E, 1999
Wage 2
B8Q,KGROUND/REASON-S FOE ISE N A 1 N (continued)
This matter has prompted the introduction of three separate pieces of legislation each
directly dealing with either Caltrans' procedures in designating HGV lanes or Caltrans'
operating procedures for designated HOV lanes. Each item of legislation is listed below
and it is followed by a position recommendation from the Transportation Water and
Infrastructure Committee:
AB 44 (McClintock): This bill would require Caltrans to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as
mixed-flow lanes, and it establishes study and analysis procedures to designate and/or construct
freeway lanes as HGVs. The study and analysis procedures include to preparation of a
cost benefit analysis to document that an HOV lane is the most efficient transportation
alternative. The required study for designating an HOV lane would then need to be certified
by the University of California's Institute for Transportation Studies prior to the inclusion of
the HOV lane project in the State Transportation Improvement program (STIP).
TWI Committee recommendation. position. This legislation would take away
the flexibility for a region, such as the Bay Area, to determine if HOV lanes are an
approach transportation strategy because it would mandate redesignation of all existing
HOV lanes in California for mixed-flow operation. In addition, AB 44 would set a nearly
impossible standard of proof to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness of HOV lanes in
the decision-making process.
AB 71 .(Cuneen)t This bill would extend the use of HGV lanes to inherently low-emission
vehicles (IL.EVs), as defined in Federal regulations, that have a distinctive special license
plate bearing in a manner that clearly distinguishes them from other vehicles. It would
require Caltrans to design and make them available to qualified owners of inherently low-
emission vehicles.
TWI Committee recommendation; M position. The legislation is aimed at creating
positive incentives toward ownership of 1LEVs, however, impact of ILEV on HOV system
operation and procedures for creating a special license plate both need further evaluation.
SB 14 (Rainevk This bill would prohibit Caltrans from designating or constructing new high
occupancy vehicle (HGV) lanes until after a study has been completed, based on criteria
measuring effectiveness of state highway lanes proposed to be designated or constructed
as HOV lanes. It would require Caltrans, within 18 months after HGV lane operation, to
determine whether it meets operating criteria. Caltrans would also be required to develop
remedial strategy for HOV lanes not meeting criteria;and, if after one year, the remedial
strategy has not resulted in achieving the criteria Caltrans would be required to
immediately initiate process to convert HOV lanes to mixed-flow operation. This bill would
also apply to HOV lanes that were in operation before 1/1/99.
TWI Committee recommendation; .�I/,4 Z position. This legislation addresses some
of the same concerns about the process for designation of HOV lanes inherent in AB
44, but it is,fundamentally different in that it does not mandate redesignation to mixed
flow operation and it provides Caltrans (or a region) with more flexibility than AB 44
in procedures for designating lanes for HOV operation.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1..994-W REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLE' BILL No. 44
Introduced by Assembly Member McClintock
December 7, 1998
An act to add Section 162.3 to the Streets and Highways
Code, and to add Section 21655.9 to the Vehicle Code, relating
to highways.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEUS DIGEST
AB 44, as introduced, McClintock. Highways:
exclusive-use or preferential-use lanes.
(1) Existing law requires that, prior to establishing
exclusive-use or preferential-use traffic lanes for
high-occupancy vehicles (HOV lanes), the Department of
Transportation and local authorities, with respect to highways
under their respective jurisdictions, make competent
engineering estimates of the effect of the lanes on safety,
congestion, and highway capacity.
This bill would require that the specified engineering
estimates include a traffic model study comparing the
alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a
high-occupancy toll lane, as defined, establishing a mixed-flow
lane, or not establishing additional lanes.
The bill would require that the analysis results of the study
and a description of the methodology used for the study be
completed and documented, as specified. The bill would
require that the analysis results and methodology description
be submitted to the Institute of Transportation Studies at the
University of California, Berkeley for archiving and
99
AB 44 —2-
certification
2-
certification of competency. That certification would be
required for inclusion of the project in the state transportation
improvement plan.
The bill would require that a copy of the analysis results and
methodology description be submitted to the Governer and
the Legislature within 6 months of completion.
The bill would require the department and local
authorities, with respect to highways under their respective
jurisdictions, to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as
mixed-flow lames and would prohibit those entities from
establishing any new HOV lanes unless (a) the department or
local authority has conducted the required traffic model study
and analysis and obtained the specified certification of the
study and analysis, (b) the result of the analysis is that
establishing an HGV lane is the most efficient alternative in
accordance with cost-benefit estimates derived under the
study, and (c) 6 months have elapsed from the date the
analysis of the study was submitted to the Governor and the
Legislature.
To the extent that the provisions of the bill would apply to
local authorities, the bill would create a state-mandated local
program by imposing additional duties upon local
governmental entities.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
procedures for making that reimbursement, including the
creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
mandates that do not exceed. $1,000,000 statewide and other
procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
99
-3— AB 44
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
I SECTION, 1. Section 162.3 is added to the Streets and
2 Highways Code, to read:
3 162.3. The department and local authorities, with
4 respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions,
5 shall redesignate all existing exclusive-use or
6 preferential-use lanes for high-occupancy vehicles (HOV
7 lanes) as mixed-flow lanes and may not construct or
8 designate any new HOV lanes unless all of the following
9 requirements have been met:
10 (1) The department or local authority has conducted
II the traffic model study and analysis required under
12 Section 21655.9 of the Vehicle Code.
13 (2) The department or local authority has obtained
14 the certification of the study and analysis required under
15 subdivision(f) of Section 21655.9 of the Vehicle Code.
16 (3) The result of the analysis conducted under
17 subdivision (c) of Section 21655.9 of the Vehicle Code is
18 that establishing an HOV lane is the most efficient
19 alternative in accordance with the cost-benefit estimates
20 derived under paragraph (9) of subdivision (b) of that
21 section.
22 (4) Six months have elapsed from the date the analysis
23 of the study was submitted to the Governor and the
24 Legislature as required under subdivision (g) of Section
25 21655.9 of the Vehicle Code.
26 SEC. 2. Section 21655.9 is added to the Vehicle Code,
27 to read:
28 21655.9. (a) The competent engineering estimates
29 required under subdivision (a) of Section 21655.5 shall
30 include a traffic model study of not less than six months'
31 duration that compares the alternatives of establishing an
32 exclusive-use or preferential-use lane for high-occupancy
33 vehicles (HOV lane alternative), establishing a
34 high-occupancy toll lane (HOT lane alternative), as
35 defined in subdivision (h), establishing a mixed-flow lane
36 (mixed-flow lane alternative), or not establishing
37 additional lanes (no-build alternative).
99
AB 44 —4-
1 (b) Except as authorized under paragraph (2) of
2 subdivision (f), the traffic model study required under
3 subdivision (a) shall cover an analysis segment consisting
4 of at least the entire affected freeway section, or the
5 corridor of which that freeway is a part, and shall include,
6 but need not be limited to, all of the following.
7 (1) A modal choice submodel showing the fraction of
8 travelers that will choose a high-occupancy vehicle mode,
9 such as car pools, vans, or buses, instead of driving alone,
10 dependent upon, but not limited to, the number of
11 passengers required to qualify a vehicle as a
12 high-occupancy vehicle and the HOV lane time savings.
13 (2) Distribution of the total freeway volume between
14 the HOV lane and the mixed-flow lanes, dependent upon
15 modal choice fraction.
16 (3) A congestion submodel showing travel speeds and
17 time, dependent on the vehicular volume in the various
18 lanes.
19 (4) Calibration to confirm that the model yields results
20 are consistent with observed prebuild traffic volumes,
21 speeds, and number of car pools. The observed total
22 prebuild person trips (over all modes) within the analysis
23 segment, which shall be referred to as the "person-trips
24 base," shall be held constant and used as the basis for
25 subsequent benefit calculations.
26 (5) Iterating the model as necessary to ensure that the
27 travel times found in paragraph (3) are consistent with
28 those used in estimating the fraction choosing
29 high-occupancy vehicle modes under paragraph (1).
30 (6) Total travel time, emissions, and fuel consumption
31 shall be computed by summing over the same
32 "person-trips base" for each build alternative, and
33 expressed as change relative to the no-build alternative.
34 (7) Emissions estimates shall include carbon
35 monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen
36 oxides. Emissions and fuel consumption shall be
37 computed using methods of the State Air Resources
38 Board and shall be dependent upon vehicle miles
39 traveled, vehicle trips, and average speeds in the various
40 lanes,
99
-5— AB 44
1 (8) Capital costs, annual operating costs, and
2 annualized capital and operating cost, shall be estimated
3 for each alternative, incremental to the no-build
4 alternative. Costs unusual to each alternative, including
5 any special lane width, buffer lanes, additional shoulders,
6 enforcement zones, merging regions, and enforcement
7 operation, shall be separately identified and estimated.
8 (9) Cost-benefit ratios shall be estimated for each
9 alternative and may be expressed as dollars of total
10 annualized cost per unit of benefit for each of the various
11 benefit measures specified in paragraphs (6) and (7).
12 (10) The study shall provide data sufficient to
13 determine whether the use of high-occupancy vehicle
14 lanes improves air quality to the extent included in the
15 state implementation plan filed under the federal Clean
16 Air Act(42 U.S.C. See. 7401, et sect.).
17 (11) The study shall compare the number of traffic
18 violations, accidents, injuries, and fatalities that occur on
19 portions of highways that have high-occupancy vehicle
20 lanes to portions of highways that do not have those lanes.
21 (c) The Department of Transportation or local
22 authorities shall analyze the results of the traffic model
23 study to determine the most efficient choice among the
24 HOV lane alternative, the HOT lane alternative, the
25 mixed-flow lane alternative, and the no-build alternative
26 in terms of total person-delay, emissions, and cost.
27 (d) The Department of Transportation or the local
28 authority shall require that the performance results and
29 comparative analysis conducted under subdivision (c) for
30 a high-occupancy vehicle lane project be distributed as
31 follows:
32 (1) As part of any oral presentations at hearings and
33 part of any visual presentations in handouts and
34 workshops for the project.
35 (2) In any literature or visual displays prepared for the
36 public or for public officials in relation to the project.
37 (3) In any environmental impact report prepared for
38 the project.
39 (e) The analysis results and a description of the
40 methodology shall be documented in sufficient detail to
99
i
AB 44 —6-
1
6-
1 support stand-alone, critical review, and duplication of
2 the results.
3 (f) (1) The documentation required under
4 subdivision (e) shall be submitted to the Institute of
5 Transportation Studies (ITS) at the 'University of
6 California, Berkeley, for archiving and certification of
7 competence. That certification shall be required for
8 inclusion of the project in the state transportation
9 improvement program.
10 (2) ITS may not certify a study that does not use the
11 methodology described in subdivision (b) unless the
12 proponent of the alternative methodology proves that
13 the alternative methodology yields results that are as
14 comprehensive and accurate as the results obtainable
15 through the methodology described in subdivision (b).
16 (g) The Department of Transportation or the local
17 authority shall submit a copy of the documentation
18 required under subdivision (e) to the Governor and the
19 Legislature for review within six months of completion.
20 (h) For purposes of this section, a "high-occupancy toll
21 lane" or `°RIOT lane" is an HOV lane that, for a toll, may
22 be used by vehicles withh less than the number of
23 passengers otherwise required to lawfully use the lane.
24 SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the
25 Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates
26 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
27 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
28 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
29 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title
30 2 of time Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
31 claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million
32 dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be trade from.
33 the State Mandates Claims Fund.
34 Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government
35 Code, unless otherwise specified., the provisions of this act
36 shall become operative on the same date that the act
37 takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution.
O
99
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 3, 1999
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE--1999-2000 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 71
Introduced by Assembly Member Cunneen
December 7, 1998
An act to add Sections 5007.5 and 21655.9 to the Vehicle
Code, relating to vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEVS DIGEST
AB 71, as amended, Cunneen. High-occupancy vehicle
lanes: inherently low-emission.vehicles.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation,
with respect to highways under its jurisdiction, to authorize or
permit the exclusive or preferential use of highway lanes for
high-occupancy vehicles.
This bill would require the Department of Transportation,
in consultation with the Department of the California
Highway Patrol, whenever it authorizes or permits exclusive
or preferential use of highway lanes or highway access ramps
for high-occupancy vehicles to also extend the use of those
lanes or ramps to inherently low-emission vehicles (ILEVs),
as defined in 'federal regulations, as specified., regardless of
vehicle occupancy or ownership, that display the special
license plates described below.
In addition, for the purpose of implementing these
provisions, the bill would require the Department of Motor
Vehicles to design and male available for issuance special
license plates for ILEVs that clearly distinguishes them. from
98
AB 71 —2—
other
2—other vehicles. The bill would rewire the department to
include a summary of the provisions relating to the special
license plates on each motor vehicle registration renewal
notice or on a separate insert, as specified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation; no. Fiscal committee. yes.
State-mandated local program. no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby ,finds and
2 declares all of the following:
3 (a) The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
4 (Public Law 101-549) sought to accelerate the
5 deployment of inherently low emission vehicles (ILEVs)
6 through the use of nonmonetary incentives in areas that
7 do not mee(federal ambient air quality standards.
8 (b) Federal regulations to implement these federal
9 Clean Air Act Amendments were adopted by the United
10 States Environmental Protection Agency in 1993, and are
11 set forth in Part 88 (commencing with Section 88.101-94)
12 of Title 40 of the Code of .Federal Regulations. These
13 regulations direct states to exempt federally certified and
14 labeled ILEVs in fleets from high-occupancy vehicle
15 (HOV) restrictions for single-occupant vehicles (Sec.
16 88.313-93, Title 40, CER.). Five years later, California has
17 not yet conformed to those federal regulations.
18 (c) In addition to these federal requirements
19 pertaining to ILEUS in fleets the Transportation Equity
20 Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178), commonly
21 known as TEA-21, encourages and permits states to
22 extend the HOV lane access exemption to nonfleet
23 owners of ILEVs.
24 (d) In most instances, existing HOV lanes in California
25 are uncongested and underutilized, resulting in less than
26 optimal traffic flow. Traffic flow efficiency and air quality
27 would, therefore, be improved by an exemption for
28 ILEVs from the HOV lane access restrictions in these
29 uncongested HOV lanes.
30 (e) The federal regulations provide a mechanism for
31 California and other states to remove congested HOV
98
I
-3— AB 71
1 lanes, or portions thereof, from having access by
2 single-occupant ILEVs, thus guaranteeing that ILEVs
3 cannot be a cause of congestion in HOV lanes.
4 (f) The federal regulations affirm a state's authority to
5 establish ILEV identification requirements, in addition to
6 the EPA requirements, that are necessary and
7 appropriate to facilitate enforcement.
8 (g) California's urban air quality is the worst of any
9 state in the United :Mates, with over 80 percent of our
10 population living in areas that do not meet federal or state
11 ambient air quality standards, and approximately 75
12 percent of our urban smog coming from mobile sources,
13 primarily light-duty cars and trucks.
14 (h) The people of California want and need healthful
15 air quality, and are well served by incentive-based
16 approaches to encourage early deployment of cleaner
17 vehicles at little or no cost to the state.
18 SEC. 2. Section 5007.5 is added to the Vehicle Code,
19 to read:
20 5007.5. (a) For the purposes of implementing
21 Section 21655.9, the department, in consultation with the
22 Department of the California Highway Patrol, shall
23 design and make available for issuance, for a fee
24 determined by the department to be sufficient to
25 reimburse the department for actual costs incurred
26 pursuant to this section, distinctive special license plates
27 for inherently low-emission vehicles (ILEVs) in a
28 manner that clearly distinguishes them from other
29 vehicles.
30 SEG -
31 (b) The department shall include a summary of the
32 provisions of this section on each motor vehicle
33 registration renewal notice, or on a separate insert, if
34 space is available and the summary can be included
35 without incurring additional printing or postage costs.
36 SEC. 3. Section 21655.9 is added to the Vehicle Code,
37 to read:
38 21655.9. (a) Whenever the Department of
39 Transportation authorizes or permits exclusive or
40 preferential use of highway lanes or highway access
98
AB 71 —4-
1
4--•1 ramps for high-occupancy vehicles pursuant to Section
2 21655.5, the use of those lanes or ramps shall also be
3 extended to inherently low-emission vehicles (ILEVs), as
4 defined in Part 88 (commencing with Section 88.1.01-94)
5 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, regardless
6 of vehicle occupancy or ownership, which display
7 distinctive special license plates issued pursuant to
8 Section 5007.5.
9 (b) No person shall drive an ILEV upon a
10 high-occupancy vehicle lane pursuant to this section
11 unless the special license plates issued pursuant to Section
12 5007.5 are properly displayed on the vehicle.
O
98
1
SENATE BILL No. 14
Introduced by Senator Rainey
December 7, 1998
An act to add Section 162.2 to the Streets and Highways
Code, relating to highways.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEUS DIGEST
SB 14, as introduced, Rainey. Highways: exclusive-use or
preferential-use lanes for high-occupancy vehicles.
Existing law requires that, prior to establishing
exclusive-use or preferential-use traffic lanes for
high-occupancy vehicles (HOV lanes), the Department of
Transportation and local authorities, with respect to highways
under their respective jurisdictions, make competent
engineering estimates of the effect of the lanes on safety,
congestion, and highway capacity.
This bill would require the department to complete a study
to create a set of criteria for measuring the effectiveness of
state highway lanes proposed to be designated or constructed
as HOV lanes. The results of the study would include a
projection for the estimated level of use of the HOV lanes
during peak traffic hours.
The bill would prohibit the department from designating or
constructing any new HOV lanes until after the study has
been completed.
The bill would require the department, on or before 18
months have elapsed from the date that an HOV lane became
operational, to review the use statistics and patterns for that
lane to determine whether it is being used in a manner that
is consistent with the criteria developed by the department
99
SB 14 —2—
under
-2—
under the study. If the result of the review conducted is that
the lane is not being utilized at or above the department's
estimated level of use, the bill would require the department,
in consultation with the local transportation authority, to
propose a strategy to increase the level of use to meet that
estimate. The bill would require the department to review the
use statistics and patterns for the lane, on or before 12 months
have elapsed from the date the proposed strategy was
instituted. If the result of that review is that the lane is not
being utilized at or above the estimated level of use, the bill
would require the department to initiate immediately a
process to convert the lane to mixed-flow use.
The bill would require the department to review the usage
patterns of HOV lanes that were made operational before
January 1, 1999, to determine whether traffic congestion relief
has been achieved as a direct result of the operation of those
lanes. If the result of that review is that traffic congestion relief
has not been achieved, the department would be required to
propose strategies to achieve that relief, including a strategy
to convert any HOV lane to a mixed-flow lane, if the
department deems that strategy to be appropriate for that
lane.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as fellows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 162.2 is added to the Streets and
2 Highways Code, to read:
3 162.2. (a) The department shall complete a study to
4 create a set of criteria for measuring the effectiveness of
5 state highway lanes proposed to be designated or
6 constructed, as exclusive-use or preferential-use lanes for
7 high-occupancy vehicles (HOV lanes). The results of the
8 study shall include, but not be limited to, a projection for
9 the estimated level of use of the HOV lanes during peak
10 traffic hours.
11 (b) The department may not designate or construct
12 any new HOV lanes until after the study required under
13 subdivision(a) has been completed.
99
-3— SB 14
1 (c) The criteria developed under the study shall be
2 applied to any HOV lane that is designated or constructed
3 on or after the operative date of this section, as follows:
4 (1) Can or before 18 months have elapsed from the date
5 that the lane became operational, the department shall
6 review the use statistics and patterns to determine
7 whether the lane is being used in a manner that is
8 consistent with the criteria developed by the department
9 under subdivision (a).
10 (2) If the result of the review conducted under
11 paragraph '(1) is that the lane is not being utilized at or
12 above the estimated level of use developed under
13 subdivision (a), the department, in consultation with the
14 local transportation authority, shall propose a strategy to
15 increase the level of use to meet that estimate.
16 (3) On or before 12 months have elapsed from the date
17 the strategy proposed under paragraph (2) was
18 instituted, the department shall review the use statistics
19 and patterns for the lane, as described in paragraph(1).
20 (4) If the result of the review conducted under
21 paragraph (3) is that the lane is not being utilized at or
22 above the estimated level of use, the department
23 immediately shall initiate a process to convert the lane to
24 mixed-flow use.
25 (d) The department shall review the usage patterns of
26 HOV lanes that were made operational before January 1,
27 1999, to determine whether traffic congestion relief has
28 been achieved as a direct result of the operation of those
29 lanes.
30 (e) If the result of the review conducted under
31 subdivision (d) is that traffic congestion relief has not
32 been achieved, the department shall propose strategies to
33 achieve that relief. The strategies proposed by the
34 departmentmay include converting any HOV lane to a
35 mixed-flow lane, if the department deems that strategy
36 to be appropriate for that lane.
O
99