BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 492
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: galgiani
VERSION: 6/26/12
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
SUBJECT:
San Joaquin Regional Transit District: civil infraction process
DESCRIPTION:
This bill adds the San Joaquin Regional Transit District to the
list of transit agencies that may establish an alternative civil
infraction process for specified transit violations committed by
an adult.
ANALYSIS:
Current law allows the City and County of San Francisco
(operator of SFMuni), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the
Sacramento Regional Transit District, Long Beach Transit,
Foothill Transit, the North County Transit District, and the
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to establish an
alternative civil infraction process for the following transit
violations when they are committed by adults within their
systems:
Fare evasion.
Misuse of a transfer, pass, ticket, or token with the intent
to evade the payment of a fare.
Unauthorized use of a discount ticket or failure to present
acceptable proof of eligibility to use a discount ticket.
Eating, drinking, or smoking in areas where the system
operator has prohibited those activities.
Expectorating.
Skateboarding, roller skating, bicycle riding, or roller
blading, except as necessary for utilization of the transit
facility by a bicyclist.
Playing sound equipment.
Willfully disturbing others by engaging in boisterous or
unruly behavior.
AB 492 (GALGIANI) Page 2
Carrying an explosive or acid, flammable liquid, or toxic or
hazardous material.
Urinating or defecating, except in a lavatory.
Willfully blocking the free movement of another person, except
for lawful first amendment activities.
Under these provisions, the named transit districts may adopt
and impose an administrative penalty and adjudication process
that is similar to the process for issuing and enforcing parking
tickets. The issuing officer serves the alleged violator with a
"notice of fare evasion or passenger misconduct violation,"
which includes the date, time, location, and nature of the
violation, the administrative penalty amount, the date by which
the penalty must be paid, and the process for contesting the
citation. If the alleged violator contests the citation, then
the issuing agency or its contracted processing agency must
provide an initial review. If the citation is not dismissed
after the initial review, the alleged violator may request an
administrative hearing for which the issuing agency or its
contracted processing agency must provide an impartial
administrative hearing officer but at which the citing officer
is not required to appear. If the alleged violator is
unsatisfied with the results of the administrative hearing, then
he or she may file an appeal in Superior Court, which hears the
case de novo.
Current law allows these transit providers to set the
administrative penalty amounts for these infractions but
provides that the amounts shall not exceed the maximum statutory
criminal penalties for the same offenses. All administrative
penalties the transit providers collect accrue to the general
fund of the county in which the citation was issued.
This bill adds the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD)
to the list of transit agencies that may establish an
alternative civil infraction process for the transit violations
specified above.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, SJRTD's bus
rapid transit (BRT) system is one of the most successful in
the country, with standing room only on most trips throughout
the day. BRT serves thousands of passengers every day and
provides SJRTD's biggest opportunity to increase fare
revenues. Currently, SJRTD's two BRT routes account for about
AB 492 (GALGIANI) Page 3
35% of its overall ridership. SJRTD continues to build on the
success of this service and will launch the third BRT route in
July 2012.
SJRTD uses the honor system for fare collection on its BRT
lines. SJRTD's limited fare enforcement options, however,
cause SJRTD to lose a significant amount of fare revenue and
frustrate paying customers who see others board without a
proper fare. SJRTD conducted a comprehensive fare inspection
survey, which showed a 19% fare evasion rate. This translates
to an estimated fare revenue loss of nearly $220,000 per year.
This bill adds SJRTD to the list of transit agencies that
have the authority to implement an administrative process for
fare and misconduct violations in the hopes of increasing fare
enforcement tools.
2.Why not all transit agencies ? The first bill to allow a
transit district to utilize a civil infraction process was SB
1749 (Migden), Chapter 258, Statutes of 2006, which applied
only to the City and County of San Francisco (operator of
SFMuni) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. SB 1320 (Hancock), Chapter 493, Statutes of 2010
expanded this authority to the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, the Sacramento Regional Transit
District, Long Beach Transit, Foothill Transit, and the
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District. AB 426 (Lowenthal),
Chapter 100, Statutes of 2011 added the North ÝSan Diego]
County Transit District and the Southern California Regional
Rail Authority (Metrolink). This bill now authorizes a tenth
transit agency to create and use a civil infraction process.
The current authorizations are not pilot programs. They do
not sunset, and there are no reporting requirements. Instead
of continuing to add transit agencies on a yearly basis, the
time may have come to authorize any transit agency to
establish a civil infraction process. Staff is not aware of
any concerns with the current authority. The committee may
wish to consider extending the existing civil infraction
authority to all public transit agencies in the state.
3.Chaptering conflict . This bill has a chaptering conflict with
AB 2247 (Lowenthal). The author will need to resolve this
conflict.
4.Double-referral . The Rules Committee has referred this bill
to both this committee and the Public Safety Committee. While
the author has removed the provisions that fall within the
AB 492 (GALGIANI) Page 4
jurisdiction of the Public Safety Committee, this committee
must still refer the bill to Public Safety to later be
withdrawn.
Assembly Votes:
Previous votes are not relevant.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 2247 (Lowenthal) adds the sale of any goods, merchandise,
property, or services in a public transportation system without
the express written consent of the system operator to the list
of violations which specified transit districts may enforce
through an alternative civil infraction process. This bill is
in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 27,
2012)
SUPPORT: San Joaquin Regional Transit District (sponsor)
Mayor Ann Johnston, City of Stockton
Sacramento Regional Transit
OPPOSED: None received.
AB 492 (GALGIANI) Page 5