According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2129 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state of Texas. The bill increases criminal fines for certain violations at railroad grade crossings, specifically raising penalties for drivers who disregard warnings from flaggers. While the change could lead to a modest increase in fine revenue, it is anticipated that any such increase would be minimal and would not meaningfully affect the state's budget or financial planning​.

At the local level, the bill is similarly expected to have no significant fiscal implication. Enforcement responsibilities related to traffic violations are already handled by local law enforcement agencies and municipal or justice courts, so the increased penalty amounts would not impose new operational costs or staffing burdens. Additionally, any minor revenue from the higher fines would likely be offset by administrative and judicial processing costs, resulting in a negligible net fiscal impact on local governments.

In summary, SB 2129 is designed to enhance public safety through stricter penalties without creating new expenditures or substantial revenue changes for state or local agencies. The Office of Court Administration, the Comptroller of Public Accounts, and the Department of Public Safety reviewed the bill and did not identify any significant financial effects.

SB 2129 proposes an increase in penalties for drivers who disregard warnings from a flagger at a railroad grade crossing, amending Section 545.251(f) of the Transportation Code. The current fine for this offense ranges from $50 to $200, and the bill would raise that range to $100 to $400 when a flagger’s signal is ignored. This targeted enhancement is intended to improve public safety at railroad crossings, where driver negligence can have particularly severe consequences.

The bill supports the liberty principles of personal responsibility and individual liberty by holding drivers accountable for hazardous actions while not introducing new legal prohibitions or infringing upon civil liberties. The conduct being penalized—ignoring a direct safety warning—is already a clear violation of traffic law, and this bill merely adjusts the consequences to better reflect the potential danger involved.

However, from the standpoint of limited government, there are concerns about relying solely on increased fines as a deterrent. Without offering flexibility for first-time or non-willful violators, the law could disproportionately affect lower-income Texans or those unaware of the heightened penalty. While the bill does not expand the scope of government enforcement, it could be improved by incorporating non-punitive compliance alternatives, such as mandatory safety courses or judicial discretion for reduced penalties in appropriate circumstances.

The fiscal implications are minimal, with the Legislative Budget Board stating that no significant financial impact on state or local government is anticipated​.

Given the bill’s positive safety intent, limited scope, and minimal fiscal burden, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2129 but also strongly suggests they consider amendments to better balance safety objectives with proportional enforcement and the preservation of limited government principles.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not introduce new restrictions on behavior, nor does it create new crimes. It simply increases the penalty for a narrow class of existing violations involving railroad crossings. As such, it does not infringe upon a person’s freedom to move, associate, or act lawfully. Rather, it seeks to protect the rights of others to safety and life by discouraging hazardous actions. In this way, it may be seen as preserving individual liberty for all by regulating the conduct of those whose disregard could harm others.

• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle that individuals are accountable for their actions, especially when those actions endanger public safety. By increasing the fine for drivers who ignore warnings from a railroad flagger—a clear act of negligence—the bill aims to deter reckless behavior and encourage greater mindfulness behind the wheel. The legislation promotes responsible decision-making in high-risk environments, which aligns directly with this principle.

• Free Enterprise: The bill does not directly regulate businesses or impose costs on commercial entities. However, drivers of commercial vehicles—especially in logistics or freight—may be affected if violations occur. Still, this impact is indirect and incidental. It neither hinders nor promotes free enterprise in any meaningful way.

• Private Property Rights: The legislation concerns public safety in shared spaces and does not affect the ownership, use, or transfer of private property. It has no bearing on eminent domain, land use rights, or government encroachment on private land.

• Limited Government: While the bill does not create new government programs or regulatory agencies, it increases the scope of punitive authority by raising criminal fines. If left without additional safeguards—such as allowing judicial discretion, alternative compliance options (like safety courses), or income-based fine scaling—this could edge toward disproportionate punishment, especially for non-dangerous or first-time offenders. A narrowly tailored penalty should avoid unnecessarily expanding state enforcement power and maintain respect for proportionality in law.

• HB 1772 (Same As)