BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair S
2007-2008 Regular Session B
1
4
1
SB 1419 (Yee) 9
As Introduced February 21, 2008
Hearing date: April 8, 2008
Streets and Highways Code
MK:mc
HIGHWAYS: SAFETY ENHANCEMENT-DOUBLE FINE ZONES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 112 (Wolk) - Chapter 191, Statutes of 2007
SB 3 (Torlakson) - Chapter 179, Statutes of 2006
SB 988 (Migden) - Chapter 593, Statutes of 2006
AB 452 (Yee) - vetoed 2005
SB 1084 (Torlakson) - failed Senate Public Safety
29.10 hearing 2004
AB 2721 (Laird) - failed Senate Public 2004
AB 2568 (Yee) - failed Senate Public Safety 2004
AB 1009 (Pavley) - failed Senate Public Safety 2004
(double fine zone
removed after it failed)
AB 2001 (Nation) - failed Senate Public Safety 2004
AB 1238 (Firebaugh) - Chapter 729, Statutes of 2003
SB 848 (Karnette) - failed Senate Public Safety
2003
AB 1886 (Jackson) - Chapter 590,
Statutes of 2002
AB 19 (Jackson) - held Assembly
Appropriations 2001
AB 280 (Zettel) - Chapter 521, Statutes of 2000
(double fine zone removed from bill after it failed
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageB
Senate Public Safety)
AB 2132 (House) - failed Senate Public Safety 2000
SB 1526 (Kelley) - Chapter 446, Statutes of 2000
AB 280 (Zettel) - failed Senate Public Safety 1999
AB 386 (Scott) - held in Senate Public Safety
without a hearing 1999
SB 155 (Knight) - Chapter 169, Statutes of 1999
AB 827 (Thompson) - Chapter 709, Statutes of 1997
SB 1367 (O'Connell) - Chapter 488, Statutes of 1996
AB 827 (Thompson) - Chapter 709, Statutes of 1997
SB 414 (Thompson) - Chapter 841, Statutes of 1995
Support: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency;
California State University Employees Union; Walk San
Francisco; San Francisco Bicycle Coalition; San
Francisco Board of Supervisors; a number of individuals
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD A SAFETY-ENHANCEMENT DOUBLE FINE ZONE BE CREATED ON STATE
HIGHWAY ROUTE 1 BETWEEN JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD AND LAKE STREET?
SHOULD A SAFETY ENHANCEMENT-DOUBLE FINE ZONE BE CREATED ON HIGHWAY
ROUTE 101 BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE AVENUE AND LYON STREET IN THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO?
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INCLUDE IN THEIR STUDY OF
THESE NEW SAFETY ENHANCEMENT-DOUBLE FINE ZONES SPECIFIED INFORMATION
RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create two new safety
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageC
enhancement-double fine zones in the city and county of San
Francisco and provide specifics regarding pedestrian safety that
should be included in a report on these safety
enhancement-double fine zones.
Existing law establishes a process for designating Safety
Enhancement-Double Fine Zones (DFZs). Under this process, a
highway segment may be designated a DFZ if the following
conditions are met:
The highway segment is named in statute as eligible for
designation.
The Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in
consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP),
certifies that the highway segment meets all of the
following criteria:
o The highway segment is a conventional
highway or expressway and is part of the state
highway system.
o The rate of total collisions per mile, per
year on the segment under consideration has been at
least 1.5 times the statewide average for similar
roadway types during the most recent three-year
period for which data are available.
o The rate of head-on collisions per mile,
per year on the segment under consideration has been
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 CHP or local agency having traffic enforcement
jurisdiction has concurred with the designation.
The governing board of each city, or county with respect
to an unincorporated area, in which the segment is located
has by resolution indicated that it supports the
designation.
There exists an active public awareness effort to change
driver behavior.
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. (Streets and Highways
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageD
Code 97(a).)
Existing law provides that designation as a segment as a DFZ by
Caltrans shall be done in writing and written notification shall
be provided to the court with jurisdiction over the area where
the highway segment is located. The designation shall be valid
for a minimum of two years from the date of submission to the
court. (Streets and Highways Code 97 (c).)
Existing law provides that Caltrans, in consultation with CHP,
is required to assess DFZs designated according to these
conditions every two years to evaluate whether the highway
segment continues to meet the conditions. If so, Caltrans shall
renew the designation for another two-year period. (Streets and
Highways Code 97(d).)
Existing law provides that Caltrans or the local authority
having jurisdiction over the segment is required to place and
maintain signs that warn motorists that they are entering and
leaving a DFZ. Increased penalties will only apply if
appropriate signage is in place. (Streets and Highways Code
97 (f).)
Existing law provides that only the base fine may be enhanced
(doubled), but not any penalty enhancements. (Streets and
Highways Code 97 (d)(1).)
Existing law provides that projects on DFZs shall not be
elevated for state funding purposes. (Streets and Highways Code
97 (h).)
Existing law requires Caltrans to conduct an evaluation of the
effectiveness of all DFZs and report its findings to the
Legislature. (Streets and Highways Code 97 (k).)
Existing law further requires Caltrans to conduct a study that
assesses potential criteria relating to pedestrian safety that
may be used to designate future DFZs. (Streets and Highways
Code 97 (j).)
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageE
Existing law currently designates two highway segments as DFZs:
a portion of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County and a portion of
State Highway Route 12 in Solano and San Joaquin counties.
Vasco Road was designated prior to establishing the specific
conditions enumerated above and sunsets January 1, 2010.
(Streets and Highways Code 97 (b), (i) and 97.4)
Existing law provides that for specified in subdivision offenses
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. (Vehicle Code 42010.)
This bill designates two road segments in the City and County of
San Francisco as DFZs: State Highway Route 1 (19th Avenue)
between Junipero Serra Boulevard and Lake Street and State
Highway Route 101 between Golden Gate Avenue and Lyon Street.
This bill revises the requirement that Caltrans conduct a study
assessing potential criteria relating to pedestrian safety to
include specific factors that must be considered in the study
and to require that the research design measure change before
and after the designation.
This bill requires that Caltrans submit the findings of its
study to the Legislature, including a recommendation regarding
whether the two DFZs designated by this measure should be
reauthorized, by January 1, 2013.
This bill Sunsets January 1, 2014.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California continues to face an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageF
remains nearly exhausted as prisons today continue to be
operated with a significant level of overcrowding.<1> A year
ago, the Legislative Analyst's office summarized the trajectory
of California's inmate population over the last two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<2>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
--------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007); see
also, court orders, infra.
<2> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageG
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<3>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
The federal court has appointed a receiver to take over the
direct management and operation of the prison medical health
care delivery system from the state. The crisis has continued
to escalate and, in July of last year, the federal court
established a three-judge panel to consider placing a cap on the
number of prisoners allowable in California prisons. It is
anticipated that the court will reach its decision this year.
---------------------------
<3> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageH
In his order establishing the judicial panel, Judge Thelton
Henderson stated in part:
It is clear to the Court that the crowded conditions
of California's prisons, which are now packed well
beyond their intended capacity, are having - and in
the absence of any intervening remedial action, will
continue to have - a serious impact on the Receiver's
ability to complete the job for which he was
appointed: namely, to eliminate the unconstitutional
conditions surrounding delivery of inmate medical
health care.
. . . (T)his case is also somewhat unique in that even
Defendants acknowledge the seriousness of the
overcrowding problem, which led the Governor to declare
a state of emergency in California's prisons in October
2006. While there remains dispute over whether crowded
conditions are the primary cause of the constitutional
problems with the medical health care system in
California prisons, or whether any relief other than a
prisoner release order will remedy the constitutional
deprivations in this case, there can be no dispute that
overcrowding is at least part of the problem. . . .
The record is equally clear that the Receiver will be
unable to eliminate the constitutional deficiencies at
issue in this case in a reasonable amount of time
unless something is done to address the crowded
conditions in California's prisons. This Court
therefore believes that a three-judge court should
consider whether a prisoner release order is warranted
. . . . (Hon. Thelton Henderson, Order dated July 23,
2007 in Plata v. Schwarzenegger (N.D. Cal) No. C01-1351
TEH (citations omitted).)
Similarly, Judge Lawrence Karlton stated:
There is no dispute that prisons in California are
seriously and dangerously overcrowded. () The
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageI
record suggests there will be no appreciable change
in the prison population in the next two years.
(Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior Judge, United
States District Court, Order dated July 23, 2007 in
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (E.D. Cal.) No. S90-0520
LKK JFM P (citations omitted).)
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Last year, the Legislature approved and the Governor
signed Assembly Bill (AB) 112 which requires that a
street's rate of head-on collisions per mile per year be
at
least 1.5 times the statewide average in order to
receive a double fine zone designation while also
immediately declaring Solano County's Highway 12 as a
double fine zone.
However, a number of deadly corridors, including 19th
Avenue in San Francisco, do not have head-on collisions,
but instead have high numbers of pedestrian related
accidents and deaths.
San Francisco pedestrians have equaled or outnumbered
motorists and automobile passengers in traffic
fatalities in nine out of the past ten years.
Pedestrians account for 49% of motor vehicle deaths in
San Francisco. That statistic pales in comparison to
the national figure where pedestrians account for only
12% of motor vehicle deaths.
In 1998, 53.3% of all traffic fatalities in San
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageJ
Francisco were pedestrians (32 out of 60 motor vehicle
deaths) with 987 pedestrian injuries. This gives San
Francisco the highest rate of pedestrian deaths and
injuries of any county in California by a factor of two.
In 2001, the second leading cause of injury death to San
Francisco residents, behind drugs and poison, was motor
vehicle injuries. Motor vehicle injuries were the
leading cause of injury death for tourists.
In 2001, motor vehicle crashes in San Francisco were
more likely to kill pedestrians than any other type of
travel.
Between 2000 and 2005, there were 786 accidents on 19th
Avenue resulting in 1,205 injuries and 12 deaths, with
most of the fatalities being pedestrians. A number of
accidents over the past two years have resulted in even
more pedestrian deaths.
2. "Double fine zones" History
Over the years, twelve "double fine zones" have been established
on state highways throughout the state (including one zone on a
local road) where generally the number of traffic accidents and
injuries is elevated and where particular traffic enforcement
problems have been evident. The Department of Transportation
reported to the Legislature in 1998 that while the rate of
traffic accidents and the frequency of traffic violations
declined after the imposition of the "double fine" requirements
on the individual highway segments, the department could not
conclusively determine that enhanced fines were the chief
contributing factor for the improved level of traffic safety.
These designated highway segments were also provided an enhanced
level of law enforcement presence and increased roadway repair
and maintenance efforts. The department was required to submit
a second report to the Legislature on January 1, 2003, on the
results of the pilot projects, including a determination whether
the projects "were successful." The Vehicle Code and Streets
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageK
and Highways Code sections creating "double fine zones" sunseted
on January 1, 2004. A new section designating a section in
Arcata was created in AB 1238 (Firebaugh), Chapter 729, Statutes
of 2003, however that bill failed to extend the sunset on the
penalty section in Vehicle Code Section 42010. SB 3 (Torlakson)
Chapter 179, Statutes of 2006, reenacted Vehicle Code Section
42010 and also enacted a double fine zone on Vasco Road in
Alameda County.
The Department of Transportation report concluded:
[T]his report illustrates that the use of the DFZ
[Double fine Zone] reduced collisions somewhat but the
reductions were not statistically significant. When DFZ
are used with other treatments there have been
significant reductions in fatal and injury collisions
but it is difficult to determine how much the collision
reductions are attributable to the DFZ. Also, where
appropriate, consideration should be given to applying
DFZ as an interim measure.
The Department of Transportation report also made specific
recommendations for when a road should be designated a Double
Fine Zone. The recommendations are:
Designation of a road segment as a DFZ should be based on
safety investigations and concurrence from the CHP or the
appropriate enforcement agency.
A field investigation should be followed by an analysis of
collision frequency and severity to establish the cause of
collisions before recommending safety improvements.
DFZ should be used in combination with other safety measures.
DFZ treatment should be considered as a temporary measure on
roadways where engineering solutions would result in physical
changes to the roadway that cannot be implemented in a short
time or if the implementation solutions have not mitigated
ongoing safety concern.
DFZ limits should be selected where there are distinct roadway
features so that a motorist would logically conclude that
driving conditions are changing.
Consideration should be given to introducing DFZ on a
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageL
temporary basis on combination with public awareness campaigns
to improve their effectiveness.
Use of alternative measures to encourage better compliance
could be considered. These may include changeable message
signs, speed warning signs, or flashing beacons to warn
drivers they are entering a DFZ.
Installation and removal of a temporary DFZ should be done in
consultation with the appropriate enforcement agencies since
their ability to provide enforcement within the DFZ is
essential to the success of the program.
The report also suggests that a DFZ should be removed when:
Enhanced enforcement is not consistently used on the segment.
A before and after study evaluates other safety improvements
used in conjunction with DFZ recommends removal of DFZ.
Implementation of other safety improvement projects improves
traffic safety and DFZ enforcement is determined to be
ineffective by a traffic engineering study.
3. AB 112 (Wolk) Chapter 191, Statutes of 2007
AB 112 (Wolk) which was passed and signed into law last year,
took a different approach than prior Safety Enhancement-Double
Fine Zone bills by setting up a process by which a segment of
highway can be designated a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone.
Under the process in this bill, the Legislature will first have
to pass a bill that states a particular highway segment is
eligible for Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone designation.
Once a highway segment has been deemed eligible by the
Legislature, the Director of Transportation in consultation with
the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol must certify
that the segment meets the following specified criteria before
it will be designated a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone:
The highway segment is eligible for designation pursuant
to Streets and Highways Code Section 97 (a).
The Director of Transportation in consultation with the
Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, certifies
that the segment identified meets all of the following
criteria: the highway segment is a two or three-lane
conventional highway or expressway; the rate of total
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageM
collisions per mile per year on the segment under
consideration has been 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 rate of
head-on collisions per mile per year on the segment under
consideration has been 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 Department of the California Highway Patrol or local
agency having traffic enforcement jurisdiction, as the case
may be, has concurred with the designation.
The governing board of each city, or county with respect
to an unincorporated area, in which the segment is located
has by resolution indicated it supports the designation.
An active public awareness effort to change driving
behavior is ongoing either by 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 being implemented concurrent with
the designation of the Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone.
AB 112 further required that a written notification be made to
the court in the jurisdiction that a segment has been
designated. Every two years following designation, the
Department of Transportation in consultation with CHP shall
evaluate whether the highway segment continues to meet the
conditions required.
4. New DFZ in San Francisco
This bill creates two new DFZs in San Francisco. It also
provides for criteria for Caltrans to study and evaluate that
are in addition to those that were required in AB 112 (Wolk).
The study shall include:
a review of traffic volume, speed, the number of
severity of collisions, the number of severity of
pedestrian-related collisions, and contributing collision
factors; and
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageN
a before and after study on pedestrian and roadway
facilities, including, but not limited to, those facilities
that have been revised or updated.
(More)
a. 19th Avenue DFZ
This bill adds State Highway Route 1 between Junipero Serra
Boulevard and Lake Street in the City and County of San
Francisco as a DFZ. State Highway Route 1 at this segment
is also 19th Avenue. This segment has been included in
bills in the past.<4> According to the San Francisco
Bicycle Coalition, "19th Ave. has the 4th highest rate of
pedestrian collisions in San Francisco, but the highest
rate of pedestrian deaths in San Francisco." Because of
this, Caltrans, in cooperation with the city, is currently
undertaking a project that includes a variety of pedestrian
safety and signal synchronization improvements at 34
intersections. According to Caltrans, the measures include
replacement of existing traffic signal equipment, along
with installation of vehicle detectors, new controller
assemblies, mast arm signals where needed, and signal
interconnection with fiber optic cables to improve the flow
of traffic. The project also includes the installation of
pedestrian countdown signals and audible warning devices
where warranted. The supporters of this bill also believe
making this segment of highway a DFZ will reduce the number
of accidents.
Supporters note that the speed on this road is a factor in
the number of accidents and echo Board of Supervisor Carmen
Chu's statement that "[i]f we combine speed enforcement
with the City and State's collective traffic engineering
improvements and public education, we will have a strong
collaborative strategy in improving safety along this
heavily used corridor." This statement echoes the findings
in the Department of Transportation report on the original
double-fine zones, that it was not the DFZ alone that
caused the reduction in collisions. The question is why a
DFZ is necessary to increase enforcement and would
increased enforcement without the DFZ have the same result?
-------------------------
<4> AB 452 (Yee) Vetoed 2005; SB 1084 (Torlakson) - failed
Senate Public Safety 29.10 hearing 2004
(More)
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageP
SHOULD A SAFETY ENHANCEMENT-DOUBLE FINE ZONE BE CREATED ON STATE
HIGHWAY ROUTE 1 BETWEEN JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD AND LAKE
STREET?
IF MORE ENFORCEMENT IS NEEDED ON THIS SEGMENT OF HIGHWAY IN
ADDITION TO THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE, HOW DOES A DFZ
ADDRESS THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE?
b. State Highway Route 101 between Golden Gate Avenue and
Lyon Street in the City and County of San Francisco
According to the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee, Highway 101 was added to the bill at the
suggestion of Caltrans. Because Caltrans is asked to study
the effectiveness of the DFZ in reducing pedestrian
injuries and fatalities, it wanted to compare 19th Avenue
with a second highway segment with comparable
characteristics. As discussed, Caltrans is currently
working on a signalization project on 19th Avenue to
improve pedestrian safety. Because of this effort, it will
be difficult for Caltrans to assess whether any change in
pedestrian injuries and fatalities is due to a doubling of
the fine or to these other measures. In order to provide
some measure of "control" for purposes of comparison,
Caltrans selected Highway 101 (Van Ness Avenue), which is a
segment similar to 19th Avenue and which also exhibits a
significant level of collisions involving pedestrians, but
for which no pedestrian-related safety project is currently
planned. If, at the end of the study period, Caltrans
compares the two segments and finds that collisions have
dropped on Van Ness concurrent with the establishment of
the DFZ, that would provide at least some evidence that the
DFZ may be having an impact. However, it is unclear how
this comparison will address the need to develop criteria
to reflect pedestrian safety or how the comparison will be
valid if enforcement is increased on one segment and not
the other.
SHOULD A SAFETY ENHANCEMENT-DOUBLE FINE ZONE BE CREATED ON
SB 1419 (Yee)
PageQ
HIGHWAY ROUTE 101 BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE AVENUE AND LYON STREET IN
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO?
***************