BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|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
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/19/11)
Department of Transportation
CONTINUED
AB 348
Page
5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 5/5/11 (Consent)
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
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 Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Norby,
Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Furutani, Garrick, Gorell, Hall,
Jones, Mansoor, Nielsen, Vacancy
JJA:mw 8/22/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED