BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 516|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 516
Author: V. Manuel Pérez (D), et al.
Amended: 7/14/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM : 6-1, 6/28/11
AYES: DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley, Rubio,
Simitian
NOES: Gaines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman, Huff
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-20, 6/2/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Safe routes to school
SOURCE : PolicyLink
DIGEST : This bill modifies the state Safe Routes to
School program to help ensure increased participation from
low-income communities.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Requires the state Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), in consultation with the California Highway
Patrol (CHP), to establish and administer a Safe Routes
to School (SRTS) program for construction of bicycle and
pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects.
CONTINUED
AB 516
Page
2
2.Requires Caltrans to award grants under this program to
"local government agencies" based on the results of a
statewide competition. (Caltrans program guidelines
define an eligible applicant as "an incorporated city or
county within the State of California.") The competition
requires local agencies to submit proposals for funding,
which Caltrans rates based on all of the following
factors:
Demonstrated needs of the applicant.
Potential of the proposal to reduce child injuries
and fatalities.
Potential of the proposal to encourage increased
walking and bicycling among students.
Identification of safety hazards.
Identification of current and potential walking and
bicycling routes to school.
Consultation and support for projects by
school-based associations, local traffic engineers,
local elected officials, law enforcement agencies,
school officials, and other relevant community
stakeholders.
1.Provides that any annual budget allocation to fund SRTS
grants shall be in addition to any federal funding
received by the state that is designated for this
program.
2.Provides that Caltrans shall distribute any federal
funding received by the state for SRTS under the
competitive grant process, consistent with federal
requirements.
3.Requires Caltrans to consult with and obtain approval
from the CHP prior to awarding any construction grant or
using any funds for an SRTS construction project
encompassing a freeway, state highway, or county road to
ensure that the project does not conflict with the CHP's
Pedestrian Corridor Safety Program and that the project
is consistent with its statewide pedestrian safety
statistical analysis.
4.Encourages Caltrans to coordinate with law enforcement
CONTINUED
AB 516
Page
3
agencies' community policing efforts in establishing and
maintaining the SRTS program.
This bill:
1.Adds the following factors to those that must be
evaluated by Caltrans when awarding SRTS grants:
Use of a public participation process, including a
public meeting that involves the public, schools,
parents, teachers, local agencies, the business
community, key professionals, and others; identifies
community priorities and gathers community input to
guide the development of projects included in the
proposal; and ensures that community priorities are
reflected in the proposal.
Benefit to a low-income school, defined as a school
where at least 75 percent of the students are eligible
to receive free or reduced-price meals under the
National School Lunch Program.
2.Requires Caltrans, when developing SRTS program
guidelines, to consider fully the needs of low-income
schools.
Background
In 1999, AB 1475 (Soto), Chapter 663, established the state
SRTS program, the first in the nation, for the construction
of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming
projects that improve safety and promote walking and
bicycling to school. In 2005, the federal transportation
funding bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, established
a federal SRTS program. Caltrans administers both the
state and federal programs, but administers them as
distinct programs because they are subject to different
requirements under state and federal laws. This bill makes
changes only to the state program.
In administering the state SRTS program, Caltrans
determines how much will be made available to each of
Caltrans' 12 districts in proportion to the number of
CONTINUED
AB 516
Page
4
students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade, with
no district receiving less than $500,000 per funding cycle.
State law permits "local government agencies" to submit
applications, though Caltrans restricts applicants to
cities and counties. Cities and counties must work
collaboratively with other local partners, including school
officials and community stakeholders, to develop project
proposals. Each Caltrans district office ranks each
proposal it receives, based on the criteria outlined in
statute, and forwards the top ranked proposals to Caltrans
headquarters for final approval.
TARC report . In February 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger
directed Caltrans and the Safe Routes to School Technical
Assistance Resource Center (TARC) to study the
socio-economic status of federal and state SRTS grantees
and to research ways to increase low-income schools' and
communities' access to these programs. TARC is a joint
project of the California Department of Public Health and
the University of California, San Francisco. In June 2010,
TARC released an analysis which found that low-income
schools, defined as those with 75 percent or more of
students eligible for free and reduced-price meals, receive
more federal and state SRTS grants than schools in middle-
or high-income categories. Specifically, low-income
schools, which represented about 33 percent of California
schools, received 44 percent of all federal infrastructure
grants compared to 30 percent and 26 percent of middle- or
high-income schools, respectively. In addition, low-income
schools received 36 percent of federal non-infrastructure
grants, compared to 32 percent each for middle- and
high-income schools. Finally, low-income schools received
35 percent of state SRTS grants, compared to 32 percent and
33 percent of middle- and high-income schools,
respectively. The TARC analysis noted that the low-income
schools did not submit more applications than the middle-
or high-income schools.
According to the TARC report, "low-income communities
continue to suffer disproportionately higher rates of
obesity and pedestrian/bicycle injury than their
higher-income counterparts." The report noted, however,
that Caltrans had already taken steps to encourage the
participation of low-income communities in SRTS, such as
CONTINUED
AB 516
Page
5
adding free and reduced-price meal eligibility data from
schools in application requirements and directing Caltrans
district staff to meet with unsuccessful applicants to
review applications and provide recommendations for future
applications. TARC recommended that "Caltrans continue the
excellent steps it has already begun and place a special
focus on providing training and technical assistance to
low-income communities." The report also recommended
setting a goal to increase the number of low-income schools
that participate in the SRTS programs by at least five
percent in future funding cycles, which could be achieved
through measures such as additional technical assistance
and involving low-income and other community advocates in
the local review process.
Related Legislation
Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2147 (V.
Manuel Pérez), which was largely the same as this bill.
The Governor's veto message noted that:
"While this bill is intended to enhance the position
of low-income communities to compete for SRTS funds,
based on the recent success of those communities
receiving SRTS program funding, this bill may be
unnecessary. A recent review of the SRTS Program
determined that low-income schools, which comprise
approximately one-third of California schools, have
received 35 percent and 44 percent of all SRTS grants
awarded over the past five years through the state and
federal programs, respectively. Additionally, to the
extent funding is provided to weaker proposals
receiving additional credits by benefitting low-income
schools, this bill could have a negative impact on
project delivery and may not result in the intended
long-term increases in walking and biking that the
program funds are intended to encourage."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/11)
PolicyLink (source)
CONTINUED
AB 516
Page
6
Advancement Project
American Cancer Society
American Diabetes Association
Calexico Unified School District
California Association of School Transportation Officials
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California State PTA
California WALKS
City of Westmorland
Heber Elementary School District
IBEW Local 569 San Diego
Imperial County Board of Supervisors
Imperial County Office of Education
Imperial Unified School District
Imperial Valley College
Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Los Angeles WALKS
San Francisco Bay WALKS
Sierra Club California
The City Project
TransForm
WalkSanDiego
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/18/11)
Department of Transportation
WALKSacramento
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
many child pedestrians are hit each year by motorists due
to lack of clearly delineated school zones and an excessive
number of vehicles speeding near schools. Disadvantaged
and rural communities often lack the necessary
infrastructure, such as sidewalks, storm drains, and
stoplights, to keep these children safe. While SRTS has
been a popular and effective program in ensuring that
schoolchildren are safe when walking or biking to and from
school, it is unclear whether the program targets those
communities most in need of safe routes. In addition, the
author notes the lack of an established public
participation process in the development of SRTS grant
applications. Finally, the author notes that a lack of
CONTINUED
AB 516
Page
7
safe routes to schools has been linked to health problems:
less than 15 percent of children walk or bicycle to school,
and 20 percent of children are considered overweight or
obese.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : WALKSacramento is concerned
with the provision adding the criterion of use of a public
participation process, including a public meeting.
WALKSacramento argues that it is unclear what entity is
supposed to convene the meeting, when in the process must
occur, and what entity pays the costs. According to
WALKSacramento, "Several local jurisdictions have informed
us off the record that this unfunded and unclear burden
might cause them to reconsider even applying for Safe
Routes grants."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-20, 6/2/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley,
Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani,
Gatto, Gordon, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
Pérez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Bill Berryhill, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Garrick,
Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Silva,
Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell, Hall, Miller
JJA:nl 8/22/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 516
Page
8
CONTINUED