SB 578: Highways: Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2017-04-17
Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to designate a state highway segment as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone if specified conditions are met, including that the governing board of the city or county in which the segment is located has by resolution indicated that it supports the designation.
This bill would, notwithstanding these requirements and until January 1, 2021, designate the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, between the State Highway Route 580 junction in Alameda County and the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa County, as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon the approval of the boards of supervisors of Alameda County and Contra Costa County. The bill would also impose specified duties on the department and local governing bodies regarding that double fine zone.
Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to designate a state highway segment as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone if specified conditions are met, including that the governing board of the city or county in which the segment is located has by resolution indicated that it supports the designation.
This bill would, notwithstanding these requirements and until January 1, 2021, designate the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, between the State Highway Route 580 junction in Alameda County and the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa County, as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon the approval of the boards of supervisors of Alameda County and Contra Costa County. The bill would also impose specified duties on the department and local governing bodies regarding that double fine zone.
(a)Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 97, the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, between the State Highway Route 580 junction in Alameda County and the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa County, shall be designated as the Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon the approval of resolutions of the Alameda County and Contra Costa County boards of supervisors supporting that designation.
(b)Each local governing body in whose jurisdiction a double fine zone is designated by this section shall, prior to the establishment of a double fine zone, do all of the following:
(1)Undertake a public awareness campaign to inform the public of the double fine zone designation, where it is located, its purpose, and its consequences.
(2)Where appropriate, implement increased traffic safety enhancements, enforcement, and other roadway safety measures in coordination with the establishment of the double fine zone.
(c)The Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone is subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the department prescribing uniform standards for warning signs to notify motorists that, pursuant to Section 42010 of the Vehicle Code, increased penalties apply for traffic violations that are committed within a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone as authorized under Section 97 and related sections.
(d)If a double fine zone is designated pursuant to this section, the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, in consultation with the department, shall jointly conduct an evaluation of the double fine zones effectiveness and submit their findings in one report to the Assembly Committee on Transportation and the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing one year prior to the termination of the double fine zone. The report shall include a recommendation on whether the double fine 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 double fine zone.
(d)(e)The department or the local authority having jurisdiction over the Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone shall place and maintain the warning signs identifying these segments by stating that a Special Safety Zone Region Begins Here and a Special Safety Zone Ends Here. The department shall adopt rules and regulations for the administration of the Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone under this section.
(e)(f)The Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone does not increase the civil liability of the state or local authority having jurisdiction over the highway segment under Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code or any other law relating to civil liability.
(f)(g)(1)Only the base fine shall be enhanced pursuant to this section.
(2)Notwithstanding any other law, any additional penalty, forfeiture, or assessment imposed by any other statute shall be based on the amount of the base fine before enhancement or doubling and shall not be based on the amount of the enhanced fine imposed pursuant to this section.
(g)(h)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 2.Section 42010 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:42010.(a)For an offense specified in subdivision (b) that is committed by the driver of a vehicle within an area that has been designated as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone pursuant to Section 97 and following of the Streets and Highways Code, the fine, in a misdemeanor case, shall be double the amount otherwise prescribed, and, in an infraction case, the fine shall be one category higher than the penalty otherwise prescribed by the uniform traffic penalty schedule established pursuant to Section 40310.
(b)A violation of the following is an offense that is subject to subdivision (a):
(1)Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650) of Division 11, relating to driving, overtaking, and passing.
(2)Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348) of Division 11, relating to speed limits.
(3)Section 23103, relating to reckless driving.
(4)Section 23104 or 23105, relating to reckless driving that results in bodily injury to another.
(5)Section 23109 or 23109.1, relating to speed contests.
(6)Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or a violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, relating to alcohol-related reckless driving.
(7)Section 23153, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, which results in bodily injury to another.
(8)Section 23154, relating to convicted drunk drivers operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater.
(9)Section 23220, relating to drinking while driving.
(10)Section 23221, relating to drinking in a motor vehicle while on the highway.
(11)Section 23222, relating to driving while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(12)Section 23223, relating to being in a vehicle on the highway while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(13)Section 23224, relating to being a driver or passenger under 21 years of age possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(14)Section 23225, relating to being the owner or driver of a vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(15)Section 23226, relating to being a passenger in a vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(c)This section applies only when traffic controls or warning signs have been placed relative to a Safety-Enhancement-Double Fine Zone pursuant to Section 97 and following of the Streets and Highways Code.
(d)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the enhanced fine imposed pursuant to this section shall be based only on the base fine imposed for the underlying offense and shall not include any other enhancements imposed pursuant to law.
(2)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any additional penalty, forfeiture, or assessment imposed by any other statute shall be based on the amount of the base fine before enhancement or doubling and shall not be based on the amount of the enhanced fine imposed pursuant to this section.
(a) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 97, the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, between the State Highway Route 580 junction in Alameda County and the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa County, shall be designated as the Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon the approval of resolutions of the Alameda County and Contra Costa County boards of supervisors supporting that designation.
(b)Each local governing body in whose jurisdiction a double fine zone is designated by this section shall, prior to the establishment of a double fine zone, do all of the following:
(1)Undertake a public awareness campaign to inform the public of the double fine zone designation, where it is located, its purpose, and its consequences.
(2)Where appropriate, implement increased traffic safety enhancements, enforcement, and other roadway safety measures in coordination with the establishment of the double fine zone.
(c)The Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone is subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the department prescribing uniform standards for warning signs to notify motorists that, pursuant to Section 42010 of the Vehicle Code, increased penalties apply for traffic violations that are committed within a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone as authorized under Section 97 and related sections.
(d)The department or the local authority having jurisdiction over the Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone shall place and maintain the warning signs identifying these segments by stating that a Special Safety Zone Region Begins Here and a Special Safety Zone Ends Here. The department shall adopt rules and regulations for the administration of the Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone under this section.
(e)The Vasco Road Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone does not increase the civil liability of the state or local authority having jurisdiction over the highway segment under Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code or any other law relating to civil liability.
(f)(1) Only the base fine shall be enhanced pursuant to this section.
(2)Notwithstanding any other law, any additional penalty, forfeiture, or assessment imposed by any other statute shall be based on the amount of the base fine before enhancement or doubling and shall not be based on the amount of the enhanced fine imposed pursuant to this section.
(g)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 2.Section 42010 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:42010.(a)For an offense specified in subdivision (b) that is committed by the driver of a vehicle within an area that has been designated as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone pursuant to Section 97 and following of the Streets and Highways Code, the fine, in a misdemeanor case, shall be double the amount otherwise prescribed, and, in an infraction case, the fine shall be one category higher than the penalty otherwise prescribed by the uniform traffic penalty schedule established pursuant to Section 40310.
(b)A violation of the following is an offense that is subject to subdivision (a):
(1)Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650) of Division 11, relating to driving, overtaking, and passing.
(2)Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348) of Division 11, relating to speed limits.
(3)Section 23103, relating to reckless driving.
(4)Section 23104 or 23105, relating to reckless driving that results in bodily injury to another.
(5)Section 23109 or 23109.1, relating to speed contests.
(6)Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or a violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, relating to alcohol-related reckless driving.
(7)Section 23153, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, which results in bodily injury to another.
(8)Section 23154, relating to convicted drunk drivers operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater.
(9)Section 23220, relating to drinking while driving.
(10)Section 23221, relating to drinking in a motor vehicle while on the highway.
(11)Section 23222, relating to driving while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(12)Section 23223, relating to being in a vehicle on the highway while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(13)Section 23224, relating to being a driver or passenger under 21 years of age possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(14)Section 23225, relating to being the owner or driver of a vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(15)Section 23226, relating to being a passenger in a vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(c)This section applies only when traffic controls or warning signs have been placed relative to a Safety-Enhancement-Double Fine Zone pursuant to Section 97 or 97.1 and following of the Streets and Highways Code.
(d)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the enhanced fine imposed pursuant to this section shall be based only on the base fine imposed for the underlying offense and shall not include any other enhancements imposed pursuant to law.
(2)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any additional penalty, forfeiture, or assessment imposed by any other statute shall be based on the amount of the base fine before enhancement or doubling and shall not be based on the amount of the enhanced fine imposed pursuant to this section.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2018 | Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. |
| Apr 24, 2017 | April 25 hearing postponed by committee. |
| Apr 17, 2017 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| Apr 13, 2017 | Set for hearing April 25. |
| Apr 13, 2017 | April 18 hearing postponed by committee. |
| Apr 4, 2017 | Set for hearing April 18. |
| Mar 2, 2017 | Referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| Feb 21, 2017 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23. |
| Feb 17, 2017 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Contra Costa County District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis | ** Support | Apr 20, 2017 |
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: SB 578 Hearing Date: 4/25/2017
Author: | Glazer | ||
Version: | 4/17/2017 Amended | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Erin Riches | ||
SUBJECT: Highways: Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone.
DIGEST: This bill reinstates the Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone (DFZ) on a segment of Vasco Road in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Provides that fines for specified traffic offenses are doubled if they occur within a construction zone on a highway while work is being performed.
- Provides that a state highway segment may be designated as a DFZ if:
- 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.
- 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.
- The governing board of each city, or county with respect to an unincorporated area, in which the segment is located has indicated by resolution that it supports the designation.
- An active public awareness effort to change driving behavior is ongoing by either the local agency with jurisdiction over the segment, or by another state or local entity.
- Other traffic safety enhancements, including but not limited to increased enforcement and other roadway safety measures, are in place or are being implemented concurrent with the designation of the DFZ.
- Requires the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans), every two years, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to certify that the DFZ meets the above criteria. If the segment no longer meets the designation, Caltrans shall revoke the DFZ designation.
This bill:
- Designates as a DFZ the segment of Vasco Road between the Interstate 580 junction in Alameda County and the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa County, upon approval of resolutions by the board of supervisors for each county, until January 1, 2021.
- Requires the two counties, in consultation with Caltrans, to jointly 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 DFZ 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 the collisions prior to and following the establishment of the DFZ.
- Requires Caltrans or the appropriate local authority to place and maintain warning signs identifying the Vasco Road DFZ.
- Requires Caltrans to adopt rules and regulations for the administration of the Vasco Road DFZ.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. The author states that prior to the designation of Vasco Road as a DFZ, there were a total of 123 injury-related collisions reported between 1997 and 2000. A large number — 41% — of these collisions were caused by speeding, while 33% were caused by right-of-way violations. A statutorily required report found that between 2010 and 2015, a total of 167 injury-related collisions were reported. Adjusting the data to reflect the increase in average daily traffic during that period, the data analysis in the report showed that speeding was a primary factor in just 31% of injury-related collisions, and right-of-way violations a factor in only 31% of injury-related collisions — a 24% and 6% reduction, respectively. In addition, speeds in the DFZ have remained relatively constant: 53.9 miles per hour in August 2008 versus 53.8 miles per hour in June 2016. The author states that the DFZ designation has been effective in reducing speed- and injury-related collisions.
- Background. The purpose of a DFZ is to improve traffic safety and reduce traffic injuries and fatalities on roadways with particular safety problems by imposing significantly higher traffic fines as a deterrent. The base fine for unlawful passing overtaking, excessive speed, reckless driving, drunken driving, and other similar serious moving violations is doubled when committed in a DFZ. The first three DFZs were authorized on segments of Highway Routes 4, 37, and 74 by SB 414 (Thompson) of 1995. The designation of DFZs eventually expanded to a total of 15 throughout the state. As of last year, only one remained, a segment of Vasco Road in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. This DFZ, first designated by SB 3 (Torlakson) of 2003, expired on January 1, 2017.
- Are DFZs effective? As part of the initial DFZ program, Caltrans was required to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2003 on the impact and effectiveness of the DFZs. A DFZ would be 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 DFZs, the reductions were not statistically significant. Further, 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 DFZs could not be proven. To help address these concerns, SB 3 (Torlakson) of 2003, which established the Vasco Road DFZ, also established conditions and criteria for establishing DFZs, including the requirement that the CHP concur with the designation.
- Committee policy. The Transportation and Housing Committee’s policy on DFZs states that “The committee will not consider any measure which would designate a specified highway segment as a ‘Safety-Enhancement-Double Fine Zone’ unless the highway segment is subject to the designation process established in Section 97 of the Streets and Highways Code.” As noted above, that statute requires that the segment has a rate of total collisions per mile per year, and 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. Caltrans is still working to determine whether this road segment meets the statutory criteria. If it does not meet the statutory criteria, committee policy dictates that this committee cannot hear this bill.
- Slightly longer than prior DFZ. The Vasco Road DFZ established by AB 348 extended from the Highway 580 junction in Alameda County to the Walnut Boulevard intersection in Contra Costa County. This bill would establish a DFZ from the Highway 580 junction in Alameda County to the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa County. The new designation is approximately 1.1 miles longer than the prior designation. The author indicates that this change is due to the redesignation of the portion of Vasco Road between Walnut Boulevard and Marsh Creek Road from a state to a county road.
Related Legislation:
AB 348 (Buchanan, Chapter 290, Statutes of 2011) — allowed, until January 1, 2017, the designation of a DFZ on a segment of Vasco Road in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
SB 988 (Migden, Chapter 593, Statutes of 2006) — established general standards for designating a highway segment as an SAZ, and authorized SAZ designation for the Golden Gate Bridge.
SB 3 (Torlakson, Chapter 179, Statues of 2006) — allowed, until January 1, 2010, the designation of a DFZ on a segment of Vasco Road in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
SB 414 (Thompson, Chapter 841, Statutes of 1995) — established three DFZ pilot projects on portions of Highway Routes 4, 37, and 74 until January 1, 1998.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
April 19, 2017.)
SUPPORT:
Contra Costa County District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis (sponsor)
OPPOSITION:
None received.
END
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):
