California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB52

Introduced
12/5/16  
Introduced
12/5/16  
Refer
1/12/17  
Refer
1/12/17  
Report Pass
3/22/17  
Report Pass
3/22/17  
Refer
3/22/17  
Refer
3/22/17  
Report Pass
5/25/17  
Report Pass
5/25/17  
Engrossed
5/31/17  
Engrossed
5/31/17  
Refer
6/12/17  
Refer
6/22/17  
Refer
6/29/17  
Refer
6/29/17  
Refer
7/3/17  
Report Pass
7/11/17  
Report Pass
7/11/17  
Refer
7/11/17  
Refer
7/11/17  
Report Pass
9/1/17  
Refer
9/11/17  
Refer
9/11/17  
Refer
9/11/17  
Refer
9/11/17  
Enrolled
9/13/17  
Enrolled
9/13/17  
Chaptered
10/2/17  
Chaptered
10/2/17  
Passed
10/2/17  

Caption

State Route 39.

Impact

The passage of SB 52 is significant as it modifies existing laws governing the status of State Route 39, allowing for sections of the highway to be maintained and regulated by local authorities. This empowers cities like Anaheim to take ownership of highway management, potentially enhancing local governance and fostering a more tailored approach to infrastructure within the city. The bill also underscores a growing trend towards localizing highway management as communities seek more control over their transportation networks.

Summary

Senate Bill 52, introduced by Senator Newman, amends Section 339 of the Streets and Highways Code concerning State Route 39. The bill specifically permits the California Transportation Commission to relinquish jurisdiction of a designated segment of Route 39 to the City of Anaheim. This change is set to occur contingent upon an agreement between the City and the California Department of Transportation regarding the relinquishment terms. The bill aims to clarify and expedite the process of transferring responsibilities for certain highway segments from the state to local jurisdictions.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB 52 appears to be largely positive, particularly among local governments that stand to benefit from greater autonomy in highway management. Supporters of the bill see it as a means to improve local conditions and traffic management by allowing city officials to address the concerns of their constituents more effectively. However, there could be sentiments of concern regarding the effectiveness of local management compared to state oversight, as advocates for state control may argue that this could lead to inconsistencies in maintenance and safety standards.

Contention

While there has been general support for the bill, notable points of contention relate to concerns over the capacity of local agencies to manage former state highway segments adequately. Critics may argue that relinquishing state control could lead to uneven maintenance and regulation quality, especially if financial resources at the local level are constrained. Ultimately, ensuring that local authorities are fully equipped to handle the responsibilities associated with these relinquished highway portions is a key consideration that follows the enactment of the bill.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB989

State highways: Route 84: relinquishment.

CA SB757

California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership projects: fixed guideway.

CA AB512

State highways: relinquishment: infrastructural barriers.

CA SB7

Surplus nonresidential property and State Highway Route 710.

CA AB1810

Transportation: omnibus bill.

CA SB710

Sale of excess state highway property: State Highway Route 710 Terminus.

CA AB333

State Highway Route 185: relinquishment: County of Alameda.

CA AB2473

State Highway Route 185: relinquishment: City of San Leandro.