BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.S.B. 876
By: Cain (Madden)
04-26-95
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

Photo ticketing is an enforcement tool that has been used in about
40 countries around the world for the last 15 to 20 years.  This
method can positively identify a violator's vehicle in a non-discriminatory fashion producing photographic evidence that also
shows the date, location, and other relevant information.  This
method eliminates the need to build expensive enforcement areas in
future constructions of high occupancy vehicle lanes and hazardous
and costly enforcement operations on congested freeways.

PURPOSE

As proposed, S.B. 876 authorizes a municipality to implement a
photographic preferential traffic lane enforcement system; provides
for a civil penalty.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency, or institution.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS.  Defines "photographic preferential traffic
lane enforcement system," "Photographic traffic-control system,"
"Preferential traffic lane," and "traffic control signal."

SECTION 2: PHOTOGRAPHIC PREFERENTIAL TRAFFIC LANE ENFORCEMENT
SYSTEM (a)Authorizes a municipality, by ordinance, to implement a
photographic preferential traffic lane enforcement system (system)
and provide that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for a civil
penalty if the vehicle is operated in violation of a limitation
imposed on the usage of a preferential traffic lane.
(b)Provides that a municipality by ordinance may implement a
photographic traffic-control system and provide a civil penalty for
drivers operating in violation of traffic control signals and red
lights as specified by V.T.C.S., Article 6701d, Section 33(c).
(c)Sections 2-8, except Sections 5(4) and 5(5), Article 6701d-24,
V.T.C.S., apply to an ordinance adopted under this Act as if a
violation described in Subsection (a) were a violation of a
municipal ordinance relating to the parking or stopping of vehicle.
(d)Authorizes an adopted ordinance to provide that a photograph
taken by a system is admissible in an administrative adjudication
hearing and is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the
vehicle identified by the photograph was operated in violation of
the limitation imposed on the usage of the preferential traffic
lane.
(e)Authorized a municipality which adopts such an ordinance to set
the amount of the civil penalty.  This penalty may not exceed the
maximum prescribed by the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on
Highways (V.T.C.S., Article 6701d, Section 33(c).
(f)Provides that an ordinance adopted under (b) of this section may
specify that (1)a photograph taken by photographic traffic-control
system is admissible in a hearing and is sufficient evidence to
identify a vehicle in violation of a traffic signal and (2)the
owner is not liable for a penalty if  (A)he/she is in the business
of leasing or renting motor vehicles and the vehicle in question 
was operated by the lessee of the vehicle or (B)the vehicle was
stolen and operated without consent of the owner.
(g)Provides that a civil penalty on the owner of a vehicle in
violation is not a conviction under this Act.

SECTION 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF SYSTEM.  Authorizes a municipality
that implements a system under this Act to install and operate the
system or contract for the installation or operation of the system.

SECTION 4: EFFECT OF ACT ON OTHER LAWS.  This section provides that
this Act or an ordinance adopted under Subsection (b) of Section 2
of this Act does not affect enforcement of the Uniform Act
Regulating Traffic on Highways (V.T.C.S., Article 6701d, Section
33(c).  In addition this section specifies that no person shall be
liable for a civil penalty imposed under Section 2, Subsection (b)
if the person has been convicted of a violation under V.T.C.S.,
Article 6701d, Section 33(c).

SECTION 5: Effective date:  September 1, 1995.

SECTION 6: Emergency clause.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

In Section 1, C.S.S.B. 876 adds definitions of Photographic
traffic-control system and Traffic-control signal to the
definitions in the original S.B. 876.  Section 2 of C.S.S.B. 876
adds (b) which provides that a municipality by ordinance may
implement a photographic traffic-control system and provide a civil
penalty for drivers operating in violation of traffic control
signals and red lights as specified by V.T.C.S., Article 6701d,
Section 33(c).  Subsection (b) of the original becomes (c).  In
addition C.S.S.B. adds Subsections (e), (f), and (g) as follows:
(e)Authorizes a municipality which adopts such an ordinance to set
the amount of the civil penalty.  This penalty may not exceed the
maximum prescribed by the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on
Highways (V.T.C.S., Article 6701d, Section 33(c).  Subsection (f)
provides that an ordinance adopted under (b) of this section may
specify that (1)a photograph taken by photographic traffic-control
system is admissible in a hearing and is sufficient evidence to
identify a vehicle in violation of a traffic signal and (2)the
owner is not liable for a penalty if  (A)he/she is in the business
of leasing or renting motor vehicles and the vehicle in question 
was operated by the lessee of the vehicle or (B)the vehicle was
stolen and operated without consent of the owner. Subsection (g)
provides that a civil penalty on the owner of a vehicle in
violation is not a conviction under this Act.  The original S.B.
876 did not include these subsections.  Finally, C.S.S.B. 876 adds
Section 4 which specifies the effect of this Act on other laws. 
This section provides that this Act or an ordinance adopted under
Subsection (b) of Section 2 of this Act does not affect enforcement
of the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways (V.T.C.S.,
Article 6701d, Section 33(c).  In addition this section specifies
that no person shall be liable for a civil penalty imposed under
Section 2, Subsection (b) if the person has been convicted of a
violation under V.T.C.S., Article 6701d, Section 33(c).  Section 4
of the original becomes Section 5 in C.S.S.B. 876 and Section 5 of
the original becomes Section 6 of the substitute.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

Pursuant to a public notice posed on April 13, 1995 at 4:14 p.m.,
the House Committee on Transportation met in a public hearing on
Wednesday, April 19, 1995 at 2:00 p.m., or upon adjournment, in
Room E1.014 of the Capitol Extension and was called to order at
2:16 p.m. by the Chair, Representative Clyde Alexander.  The Chair
laid out S.B. 876 and recognized Representative Madden to explain
S.B. 876.  The Chair recognized the following person who testified
in support of S.B. 876.  Sergeant Sam Cox, Texas Municipal Police
Association, Austin Police Department.  George Human,
Transportation Director City of Richardson.  There were no
witnesses testifying in opposition to S.B. 876.  The Chair left
S.B. 876 pending before the Committee.  Pursuant to a public notice
posted on April 21, 1995, at 4:04 p.m., the House Committee on
Transportation met in a public hearing on Wednesday, April 26,
1995, at 2:00 p.m., or upon adjournment, in Room E1.014 of the
Capitol Extension and was called to order at 6:13 p.m. by the
Chair, Representative Clyde Alexander.  The Chair laid out S.B. 876
by Cain, which was pending before the Committee.  Representative
Alexander laid out the Committee Substitute to S.B. 876, and
without objection, the Substitute to S.B. 876 was adopted. 
Representative Alonzo moved to report S.B. 876, as substituted, to
the local and consent calendar and the full House with the
recommendation that it do pass.  The motion was denied by the
following vote: Ayes (6), Nayes (2), Absent (1), Present not voting
(0).  Representative Uher moved that the Committee report S.B. 876,
as substituted, to the Calendars Committee and the full House with
the recommendation that it do pass.  The motion prevailed by the
following vote:
Ayes (6), Nayes (2), Absent (1), Present not voting (0).