BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 348| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 348 Author: Buchanan (D), et al. Amended: 7/7/11 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM. : 6-3, 7/5/11 AYES: DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley, Rubio, Simitian NOES: Gaines, Harman, Huff SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 5/5/11 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Vasco Road: double fine zone SOURCE : Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors DIGEST : This bill allows, until January 1, 2017, the designation of a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone on a segment of Vasco Road in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, upon approval of resolutions by the boards of supervisors in both counties. ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes that the conditions for designating Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zones (DFZs) are: 1. The segment is part of the state highway system. CONTINUED AB 348 Page 2 2. The segment has a rate of total collisions per mile per year that is at least 1.5 times the statewide average for similar roadway types during the most recent three-year period for which data are available. 3. The segment has a rate of head-on collisions per mile per year that is at least 1.5 times the statewide average for similar roadway types during the most recent three-year period for which data are available. Additionally, existing law requires the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), every two years, in consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to certify that a road segment meets the aforementioned criteria. SB 3 (Torlakson), Chapter 179, Statutes of 2006, designated a segment of Vasco Road between the Interstate 580 junction in Alameda County and the Walnut Boulevard intersection in Contra Costa County, upon approval of county resolutions, as a DFZ until January 1, 2010. The bill required Caltrans, one year prior to the termination of the DFZ, to evaluate the effectiveness of the DFZ to reduce traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities and to recommend to the Legislature whether the DFZ should be reauthorized. This bill: 1. Allows the counties of Contra Costa and Alameda to designate the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, between the SR 580 junction in Alameda County and the Walnut Boulevard intersection in Contra Costa County, as a DFZ upon the approval of resolutions by both counties' boards of supervisors. 2. Requires the local governing bodies, prior to designating the DFZ, to do each of the following: A. Undertake a public awareness campaign to inform the public of the DFZ, its location, purpose, and consequences. B. Implement increased traffic safety enhancements, CONTINUED AB 348 Page 3 enforcement, and other roadway safety measures. 3. Requires the local authority to place the signage at the DFZ beginning and end points. 4. Requires the counties, in consultation with Caltrans, jointly to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the DFZ and report the findings to the Assembly Transportation Committee and the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee one year prior to the termination of the DFZ. The report must include a recommendation on whether the zone should be reauthorized by the Legislature, as well as a comparative evaluation of the volume and speed of traffic, the number and severity of collisions, and the contributing factors that led to collisions prior to and following the establishment of the DFZ. 5. Requires that only the base fine be doubled. 6. Specifies that the DFZ remains in effect until January 1, 2017. Background As part of an earlier DFZ program, statute required Caltrans to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2003, on the impact and effectiveness of DFZs, with a DFZ being deemed successful if there was a "significant decrease in the number of accidents, traffic injuries, and fatalities in the project areas." In its December 2002 report, Caltrans explained that, while some reductions in the number and severity of collisions did occur in some of the DFZs, the reductions were not statistically significant. Caltrans also noted that, a number of uncontrolled variables, such as physical improvements to roadway segments, changes in enforcement levels, and the initiation of public awareness campaigns made it virtually impossible to ascertain how much, if any, of the decrease in collisions was attributable to the doubling of fines. Caltrans, therefore, concluded that the benefits of increased fines alone could not be proven. Upon expiration of various DFZ authorizations, legislators introduced several bills to reinstate previously authorized DFZs. The CONTINUED AB 348 Page 4 efforts were largely unsuccessful due to concerns that the DFZs had not been proven to be effective and that they could be misused as a tool to generate revenue. Reporting accident statistics and effectiveness . It remains unclear what impact the original DFZ had on reducing accidents on Vasco Road. SB 3 (Torlakson), Chapter 179, Statutes of 2006, charged Caltrans with the responsibility to report on the impact of the original designation but, because Vasco Road is a county road and not a state highway, Caltrans did not complete the study. In response to this bill, Caltrans used CHP data to determine accident rates for Vasco Road. Caltrans staff analyzed collision and head-on collision rates on Vasco Road from 2000-09 and compared those with rates from conventional two and three lane roads on the state highway system. The analysis shows that the annual collision rate declined from 2004-08, increased in 2009, but for all years was significantly higher than the statewide average. For head-on collisions from 2007-09, however, the average for Vasco Road was 0.14 head-on collisions per mile per year was lower than the statewide average of 0.15 head-on collisions per mile per year. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 8/15/11) Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (source) Alameda County Board of Supervisors Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs' Association Alameda Transportation Commission American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California State Sheriffs' Association Cities of Brentwood, Livermore, and Oakley Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association Contra Costa Transportation Authority ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 5/5/11 (Consent) AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill CONTINUED AB 348 Page 5 Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Furutani, Garrick, Gorell, Hall, Jones, Mansoor, Nielsen, Vacancy JJA:mw 8/15/11 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED