BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 564| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 564 Author: Cannella (R) Introduced:2/26/15 Vote: 21 SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/14/15 AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/27/15 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen SUBJECT: Vehicles: school zone fines SOURCE: Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership 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: 1)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 SB 564 Page 2 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. 2)Governs speed limits and imposes fines for speeding violations. 3)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. 4)Authorizes doubling of fines for speed limit violations in highway construction or maintenance zones, under certain circumstances. 5)Provides that the state Judicial Council annually adopts a uniform traffic penalty schedule for all non-parking infractions outlined in the Vehicle Code. 6)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. SB 564 Page 3 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 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 schoolchildren 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 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. 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 budget SB 564 Page 4 agreement 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. 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. Trying again. SB 1151 (Cannella, 2014), which was almost identical to this bill, passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on a 10-0 vote 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. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified4/27/15) Safe Routes to School National Partnership (source) Alliance for Community Research and Development California Pan-Ethnic Health Network California State Association of Counties SB 564 Page 5 California Walks Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program OPPOSITION: (Verified4/27/15) Safer Streets L.A. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The sponsor of this bill, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, states that the fine increase in this bill puts a greater burden on drivers to obey existing laws in school zones. The sponsor further states that increased fines apply in construction zones to protect highway workers; schoolchildren deserve the same safety considerations. Dedicating the increased fine revenues to school zone safety projects and programs will ensure that revenue generated through effective enforcement in school zones is invested back into safety improvements around schools throughout the state. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Writing in opposition to this bill, Safer Streets L.A. states that this bill, however well-intentioned, will not enhance safety for children in school zones and will increase confusion for motorists, subjecting them to increased penalties without proper warning. Safer Streets L.A. states that rather than increasing penalties, which has not been shown to result in a decrease in collisions, the Legislature should consider enhanced education and engineering countermeasures as a means to improve roadway safety for children traveling to and from school. Prepared by:Erin Riches / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121 4/28/15 15:31:24 **** END **** SB 564 Page 6