BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 348
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 348 (Buchanan) - As Amended: April 27, 2011
SUBJECT : Highways: safety enhancement-double fine zones
SUMMARY : Authorizes, until January 1, 2017, local authorities
to create a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone (SEDFZ) on
specified segments of Vasco Road in Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties as long as certain conditions are met. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Specifies that Vasco Road, between the State Route (SR) 580
junction in Alameda County and Walnut Boulevard intersection
in Contra Costa County, may be designated as a SEDFZ upon the
approval of resolutions of the Alameda County and Contra Costa
County boards of supervisors supporting the designation.
2)Requires that each local authority, that chooses to designate
a SEDFZ must:
a) Undertake a public awareness campaign to inform the
public of the SEDFZ designation, its purpose, and
consequences; and,
b) Implement increased traffic safety enhancements,
enforcement, and other roadway safety measures, where
appropriate.
1)Specifies that the Vasco Road SEDFZ is subject to the rules
and regulations adopted by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) for uniform standards for warning
signs to notify motorists that increased fines and penalties
apply.
2)Requires the local authority with jurisdiction over the Vasco
Road SEDFZ to place and maintain warning signs identifying the
beginning and end of the SEDFZ.
3)Requires that Contra Costa and Alameda Counties jointly
conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the SEDFZ on
Vasco Road and submit the findings to the Assembly
Transportation Committee and the Senate Transportation and
AB 348
Page 2
Housing Committee one year before the Vasco Road SEDFZ
designation ends on January 1, 2017.
4)Requires that the findings contain a recommendation on whether
or not the SEDFZ should be reauthorized by the Legislature and
a comparative evaluation of the volume and speed of traffic,
number and severity of collisions and contributing factors
leading to the collisions prior to and following the
establishment of the SEDFZ.
5)Specifies that the Vasco Road SEDFZ does not increase the
civil liability of the state or a local authority with
jurisdiction.
6)Requires that only the base fine be increased and,
notwithstanding any other law, any additional penalty, as
specified, be based on the amount of the base fine before
enhancement or doubling.
7)Specifies that the Vasco Road SEDFZ, if established, would
remain in effect until January 1, 2017.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies conditions for designating a SEDFZ on a state
highway.
2)Specifies that state highways that are eligible for SEDFZ
designation include SR 12 between SR 80 junction in Solano
County and SR 5 junction in Joaquin County.
3)Specifies that the Golden Gate Bridge is eligible for SEDFZ
designation.
4)Specifies that certain segments of SR 1 in the City and County
of San Francisco are designated as a SEDFZ until January 1,
2014, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The purpose of a SEDFZ is to improve traffic safety
and reduce traffic injuries and fatalities on roadways with
particular safety problems by imposing higher traffic fines as a
deterrent. The law requires that the base fine for unlawful
passing and overtaking, excessive speed, reckless driving,
AB 348
Page 3
drunken driving, and other similar serious moving violations are
doubled in amount when committed in a designated double fine
zone.
As part of the initial SEDFZ program, Caltrans was required to
report to the Legislature by January 1, 2003, on the impact and
effectiveness of the SEDFZs, with a SEDFZ being deemed
successful if there were a "significant decrease in the number
of accidents, traffic injuries, and fatalities in the project
areas."
In its report, dated December 2002, Caltrans explained that,
while some reductions in the number and severity of collisions
did occur in some of the SEDFZs, 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 reductions in
collisions could be attributed to the doubling of fines.
Caltrans therefore concluded that the benefits of increased
fines alone could not be proven. Despite Caltrans' conclusion,
interest in using SEDFZs as a tool to reduce accident rates and
improve safety has remained high.
Since 2006, the Legislature has passed legislation authorizing
various SEDFZ segments including:
a) Vasco Road in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties until
January 10, 2010, (SB 3, Torlakson, Chapter 179, Statutes
of 2006);
b) SR 12 in Solano and San Joaquin counties with ongoing
review of the SEDFZ designation (AB 112, Wolk, Chapter,
258, Statutes of 2007); and,
c) Segments of SR 1 in the city and county of San Francisco
until January 1, 2014 (SB 1419, Yee, Chapter 121, Statutes
of 2008).
According to the author, Vasco Road is an interregional
connecter that is mostly a two-lane, undivided road with median
rumble strips and soft barriers. The author identified public
awareness campaigns and a number engineering improvements that
have been completed along the route to reduce accidents, yet
AB 348
Page 4
despite these improvements, and establishment of the Vasco Road
SEDFZ by SB 3 (Torlakson), accident rates remain high.
It remains unclear what impact the original SEDFZ had on
reducing accidents on Vasco Road. Caltrans was originally
charged 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, it was unable to complete the study.
Furthermore, accident data provided by the author is not
correlated with the SEDFZ designation so it is impossible to
determine with any confidence if the designation itself had the
desired deterrent effect. Generally, however, studies have
shown that doubling fines alone does not work to reduce
accidents but doubling fines in conjunction with other measures,
such as public outreach, engineering solutions, and enhanced
enforcement can result in fewer accidents.
The counties continue to make safety improvement on Vasco road
and this bill provides for a related public awareness campaign
to educate motorists along the road. Therefore, despite the
fact that the impact of the original SEDFZ designation is
undetermined, re-enacting the designation will assist the
counties in their efforts to reduce the number and severity of
accidents on Vasco Road.
Previous legislation : A large number of bills have been brought
before the Legislature with regard to the establishment of
SEDFZs between 1995 and the present. Relevant SEDFZs
legislation include:
SB 1419 (Yee), Chapter 121, Statutes of 2008, designated
specified segments of State Highway Routes 1 and 101 in the City
and County of San Francisco as SEDFZ until January 1, 2014. The
bill also required a report to the Legislature on a study that
included, among other things, a review of traffic volume, speed,
and collisions.
AB 112 (Wolk), Chapter 258, Statutes of 2007, modified the
conditions for designating road segments SEDFZ and requires
Caltrans, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol
(CHP), to certify that a road segment meets specified criteria.
That bill also designated a segment of SR 12, between the SR 80
junction in Solano County and the SR 5 junction in San Joaquin
County, as a SEDFZ, if specified criteria are met.
AB 348
Page 5
SB 3 (Torlakson), Chapter 179, Statutes of 2006, designates
Vasco Road as a SEDFZ, until January 1, 2010, and upon approval
of county resolutions, a segment of Vasco Road between the
Interstate 580 junction in Alameda County and the Walnut
Boulevard intersection in Contra Costa County. That bill also
established standards for a designation of a highway or road
segment as a SEDFZ, including a 4-year duration limit, and
required an evaluation by Caltrans of the designated segment.
AB 398 (Salinas), Chapter 481, Statutes of 2001, until January
1, 2004, designated a segment of Monterey County Road 16 as a
SEDFZ and required that Monterey County evaluate the double-fine
zone project and submit the evaluation to Caltrans by October 1,
2002, with failure to do so resulting in the immediate
termination of the project.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Sponsor)
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Alameda County Deputy Sherriff's Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California State Sherriff's Association
Contra Costa County Deputy Sherriff's Association
Contra Costa County Supervisor, Mary Nejedly Piepho
Oakley City Council
City of Brentwood Mayor, Robert Taylor
City of Livermore
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093