BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 564 Hearing Date: 4/14/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cannella |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |2/26/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Erin Riches |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Vehicles: school zone fines
DIGEST: This bill imposes an additional $35 fine for specified
violations occurring in school zones and directs revenue from
the fine to the state's Active Transportation Program (ATP).
ANALYSIS:
Existing law establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph
when approaching or passing a school building or school grounds.
This speed limit applies while children are entering or exiting
during school hours or the noon recess period; in cases of
school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a
fence, gate, or other physical barriers, while the grounds are
in use by children; and where the highway is posted with a
standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. This sign may be posted at any
distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.
Existing law governs speed limits and imposes fines for speeding
violations. Existing law authorizes a local authority, upon
determining via an engineering and traffic survey that the speed
limit of 25 mph in a particular school zone is too high to be
reasonable or safe, to establish a prima facie speed limit of
either 20 or 15 mph, as deemed appropriate by the survey.
Existing law also authorizes doubling of fines for speed limit
violations in highway construction or maintenance zones, under
certain circumstances.
SB 564 (Cannella) Page 2 of ?
The state Judicial Council annually adopts a uniform traffic
penalty schedule for all non-parking infractions outlined in the
Vehicle Code. Existing law establishes the base fine for
speeding in a school zone as $35 for traveling 1 mph to 15 mph
over the speed limit ($289 total fine with fees and court
costs), $70 for traveling 16 mph to 25 mph over the speed limit
($418 total fine with fees and court costs), and $100 for
traveling 26 mph or more over the speed limit ($541 total fine
with fees and court costs).
This bill:
1.Imposes a $35 fine, in addition to the amount otherwise
prescribed and in addition to any other penalty assessments of
fees, for most major offenses committed by the driver of a
vehicle under either of the following conditions:
When passing a school building or school grounds when
children are entering or exiting during school hours or the
noon recess period; the building or grounds are contiguous
to a highway; and the highway is posted with both a
standard "SCHOOL" warning sign and an accompanying sign
notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for
traffic violations committed within that school zone.
When passing school grounds that are in use by children;
are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or
other physical barrier; and the highway is posted with both
a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign and an accompanying sign
notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for
traffic violations committed within that school zone.
1.Requires the additional fines authorized by this bill to be
deposited in the State Transportation Fund for purposes of
funding school zone safety projects within ATP.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. The author states that while Highway Safety
Corridors, "Slow for the Cone Zones," and doubled fines in
construction zones all promote safe driving and protect
individuals in sensitive areas, existing law does not afford
school children the same level of protection. Many school
zones lack infrastructure for children to safely commute to
school, exacerbating the risk of pedestrian injury or
fatality. The author states that this bill will help support
SB 564 (Cannella) Page 3 of ?
infrastructure projects, traffic calming measures, and
non-capital projects such as education. This bill will also
help contribute to obesity prevention, which is especially
prevalent in communities of color and low-income areas.
2.Active Transportation Program. ATP, established by the
2013-14 budget agreement, consolidates several existing
federal and state transportation programs, including Safe
Routes to Schools (SRTS), the Bicycle Transportation Account,
and others, to encourage increased use of active modes of
transportation. The Governor's proposed budget allocates $120
million in state and federal monies to ATP. Of these funds,
the California Transportation Commission distributes 40% to
metropolitan planning organizations, 10% to rural and small
urban areas, and 50% on a statewide competitive basis. For
each of these portions, 25% must be targeted for disadvantaged
communities.
The administration's original ATP proposal aimed to streamline
the application and review process by establishing a single
program within which all eligible projects would compete. The
2013-14 budget agreement, however, established a minimum
funding level of $24 million for SRTS, of which $7 million was
targeted for non-infrastructure projects such as education.
The legislation also included intent language to honor the
SRTS agreement for fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16. While
this bill does not specifically cite SRTS, it directs funds to
"school zone safety projects" within ATP.
3.Double-fine zones. AB 1886 (Jackson), Chapter 590, Statutes
of 2002, authorized several counties and cities to established
double-fine zones near schools. AB 1886 required those
revenues to fund school pedestrian and bicyclist safety
programs. A May 2006 report to the Legislature by the
California Highway Patrol found that sign installation was
costly; very little money was generated from the additional
fine and therefore no school pedestrian-bicyclist safety
programs were created; and some police departments did not
have adequate staff to patrol the schools. The report also
noted that due to insufficient resources of participating
schools and police departments, local agencies collected very
little data. The report concluded that "the findings do not
support continuation of the program," and it ended in 2007.
4.Committee policy on double-fine zones. To ensure that
SB 564 (Cannella) Page 4 of ?
double-fine zones help improve a real public safety issue, the
Legislature established a process in statute authorizing
Caltrans to designate highway segments as double-fine zones
under certain circumstances, including if collision rates meet
a certain threshold. This committee will not consider any
bill establishing a double-fine zone that is not subject to
the process outlined in statute. This bill adds onto the base
fine, rather than doubling it, meaning it does not double the
attendant fines and court fees. Because this bill does not
double the base fine, it does not violate this committee's
double-fine zone policy.
5.Trying again. SB 1151 (Cannella), which was almost identical
to this bill, passed this committee on a 10-0 vote in 2014 but
was subsequently vetoed. The Governor's veto message stated
that "Increasing traffic fines as a method to pay for
transportation fund activities is a regressive increase that
affects poor people disproportionately. Making safety
improvements in school zones is obviously important, but not
by increasing traffic fines." The author states that this
bill will complement the Governor's renewed commitment to
address both the infrastructure and environmental needs of the
state.
Related Legislation:
SB 632 (Cannella), which will also be heard by this committee
today, would allow a city or county to establish a 15 mph prima
facie speed limit near a school building or school grounds.
SB 698 (Cannella), which will be heard in this committee
subsequent to Environmental Quality Committee, provides a
continuous appropriation of cap-and-trade funds in an
unspecified amount to fund school zone safety projects in ATP.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 8, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
Safe Routes to School National Partnership (sponsor)
SB 564 (Cannella) Page 5 of ?
Alliance for Community Research and Development
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California State Association of Counties
OPPOSITION:
None received.
-- END --