Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
02/24/2009 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB133 | |
| Federal Stimulus Package Update by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (dot&pf) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 133-TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES/HWY DESIGNATIONS CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to traffic control devices on highways and claims related to those devices; relating to designation of highway systems; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date." 1:03:29 PM KEITH UNDERKOFFLER, Intern, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, read a prepared statement, as follows: Fundamentally there is no more important principle with regard to traffic control devices than uniformity. When drivers see a red octagon they know to stop. When they see a green light they know to go and so forth. The certainty in the driver's mind of what action to take is increased because of his/her familiarity with uniform signs. No where is there, say, a green light that is intended to mean stop. This is precisely the issue that HB 133 addresses. Currently, the Alaska Traffic Manual (ATM), produced by the federal government and supplemented by the State of Alaska is not set out in statute and therefore local governments and private developers are able to use signs unfamiliar to drivers, making the roads more dangerous. This practice violates the federal Uniform Vehicle Code and could easily be ended by affirming the ATM in statute. Further, HB 133 ensures that the appropriate design is used for any given situation. The ATM makes very particular use of the phrases may, should, and shall, intending the "shall" statements to be mandatory regulations, the "should" statements to be recommendations, and the "may" statements to be permissible installations. Again, the intent of HB 133 in confirming these statements is uniformity. If regions or municipalities differentiated in their understanding of these statements driver safety would be compromised because they would not always know what to expect in each situation. By confirming a uniform, mandatory standard set out by the federal and state government, HB 133 makes it clear what exactly the state or municipality has to do to protect its citizens. It provides clear requirements and makes traffic control device installation uniform across the board. All Alaskans will benefit from knowing exactly what each traffic control device means. 1:06:49 PM CHAIR WILSON stated that she does not intend to move HB 133 today. 1:07:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked the bill sponsor and her staff for the well drafted statement as well as the work that is being done on traffic control devices. 1:07:16 PM MARK NEIDHOLD, P.E., Chief, Design and Construction Standards, Division of Design and Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that he is responsible for the development of the department's statewide procedures and standards for the design and construction of highways and airports. Additionally, he is responsible for the implementation of those procedures and standards by the regional offices. Alaska uses the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and an Alaska supplement to provide the direction and uniformity with respect to traffic control devices. The MUTCD is the federal standard while the Alaska supplement amends the federal document to addresses unique situations in Alaska. The Alaska Traffic Manual is a compilation of the two manuals mentioned and is approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA). He related that traffic control devices is the term the DOT&PF uses to describe all signs, signals, and markings as well as other devices that are used to warn, guide, regulate and inform traffic. He opined that markings are fairly self-explanatory. First, signs including stop signs, yield signs, curb warning signs, speed limit signals, and street signs. Second, signals include the 3- ball traffic signals used for vehicular direction, pedestrian signals, and railroad crossing signals. Third, markings include the paint lines so the stripes on the side of the road, the painted crosswalks, turn only arrow and the gore chevrons that mark interchanges. Traffic control devices are a compilation of all three devices. The ATM provides the direction regarding placement and application of those devices. 1:10:04 PM MR. NEIDHOLD stated that the ATM also provides where and when not to use the devices or direction to avoid overusing the devices. He opined that to preserve the highest level of safety to the public, uniformity is necessary statewide. He offered a scenario in which a person encounters many bump signs, but doesn't experience a bump. The person is conditioned to ignore the sign and not slow down for the signs. When the person does not slow down but encounters a sign followed by a bump, an accident or injury could occur. 1:11:22 PM MR. NEIDHOLD related that if speed signs are misused, the consequences are more severe since driving around curves at a high rate of speed could easily result in an accident. This bill makes the ATM the standard to ensure public safety and clarifies the department's role in classifying and designating highways. He explained the department would be able to designate and classify roads, apply different funding categories, and different design standards for road including sidewalk, curve radius and other requirements. He concluded by stating the DOT&PF supports HB 133 since it adopts the traffic manual and makes it the uniform statewide standard. 1:12:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether a definition for traffic control devices is provided in statute. MR. NEIDHOLD offered that the definition is included in the ATM manual. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thought that it would be helpful for the public to know what is intended and not just the traffic control person. 1:14:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the ATM will apply to trails as well. He inquired as to whether the DOT&PF will need to put numbers on houses or mailboxes. He also asked if a big problem exists in Alaska. MR. NEIDHOLD responded that the ATM does not cover mailboxes and house numbering, and is specific to traffic control devices that are used to warn, inform and regulate. In further response to Representative Johnson, answered that the ATM addresses pedestrian signage and contains many levels of guidance depending on the location and the use. He explained that it would include bicycle paths and some trails, but not trails in remote Alaska or West Glacier Trail at the Mendenhall Glacier. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the Joseph C. Williams, Sr. Coastal trail in Ketchikan would need different signage. MR. NEIDHOLD said he was not familiar with the coastal trails. He offered to provide information to the committee. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN clarified that the trail in question is the Joseph C. Williams, Sr. trail. MR. NEIDHOLD, in response to Chair Wilson, stated that the only signage that would be changed by the bill would be to replace signs that do not meet the national standard, such as if a community erected a pink stop sign. 1:18:40 PM MR. NEIDHOLD, in response to Representative Doogan, agreed that it would be safe to assume that signage put up by the DOT&PF would meet the signage standards in the ATM. 1:19:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to whether the rule apply to municipalities MR. NEIDHOLD answered yes. MR. NEIDHOLD, in further response to Representative Munoz, said he did not know for certain if the requirements would cause any financial burden. He recalled that some municipalities have supported adopting the ATM. He also explained that projects designed by local governments using federal "pass through dollars" are using current ATM standards. Thus, he said he would not anticipate any impact on those projects. 1:20:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 5, to paragraph 13 of HB 133, to the definition of "traffic control device" that includes devices such as pedestrian facilities, bicycle trails, and multi-use pathways. He inquired as to whether any other items should be included in the definition. MR. NEIDHOLD said that the definition is based on the national standard so he is comfortable that the definition is comprehensive. He acknowledged he had forgotten the definition for traffic control device was included in the bill. 1:21:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether HB 133 adopts the federal standards for signage. MR. NEIDHOLD related that the federal rule requires states to use the national standard. 1:22:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification as to whether the standards are construction standards such as for curb and gutter or solely for signage. MR. NEIDHOLD related his understanding that lane width, curb and gutter relates to the DOT&PF's role in classification. He explained that the classification defines which design standard will be used. Thus, the bill clarifies the DOT&PF's role in the act of classifying the routes. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that the Municipality of Anchorage holds discussions about classification of routes such as whether the road is a collector or feeder road. He further asked whether the state is supplanting the MOA's ability to classify a road differently than the DOT&PF would classify a road. He offered that signs would be one thing, but design and construction of roads is more comprehensive and would cover trails, gutters, drainage, and bike paths, 1:25:18 PM SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Transportation Section, Department of Law (DOL), stated that he is assigned to the transportation section. He answered, with respect to Representative Johnson's question, that the federal standard or the MUTCD is a "floor" and the DOT&PF is adopting the federal standard. He explained that with the Alaska supplement the DOT&PF can be more protective than the federal standard. He further explained that the state classification of roads determines which standard applies to state roads. This bill will not change the structure of the road classification but would repeal section AS 19.10.040, and merge it into AS 19.10.020, which is the requirement by DOT&PF to designate roads in the highway system. 1:27:43 PM MR. LYNCH, in response to Chair Wilson, answered that the bill does not change the classification system that the state currently uses. 1:28:06 PM MR. LYNCH, in response to Representative Johnson, agreed that the standard applies to public roads. He offered that municipalities have some municipality-owned roads. He related that the federal standard is a minimum or "floor" standard nationwide. He stated that the signage for roads in municipalities and villages is designed to the minimum federal standard. 1:28:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether signage requirements would change when a state road traverses through a municipality. MR. LYNCH explained that this bill does not add any additional burden or modify the relationship between the state and municipal roads. He detailed that when a road segment, depending on ownership and traffic count could be classified differently and could have different standards. JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), answered that the key words are "functional classification". He explained that the DOT&PF, under federal law, performs the functional classification of all public highways of the state, regardless of ownership. He offered that periodically the process is updated since traffic volumes change and the purpose of the road changes. He related that at the highest level, such as the Parks Highway or Glenn Highway in Anchorage is to carry traffic from place to place and the roads do not have driveways or sidewalks except in controlled fashions at interchanges. While, at the other spectrum are local roads that consist of low speeds and light traffic volumes. However, in between the two extremes are minor and major collectors, and minor and major arterials and interstate or interstate-like roads. The DOT&PF, through a public process, identifies roads. He opined that most communities clamor to have their roads elevated to a higher classification even if signage requirements change since eligibility for federal funding is generally more available. He related that higher roads tend to score better in the funding system. Thus, while a burden may exist, communities generally push for the higher road classification. He related that process is currently underway to reclassify Alaska's roads and is a revolving process that has happened since statehood. 1:33:26 PM MR. OTTESEN, in response to Representative Johnson, opined that he did not think there is anything in the bill to worry about, that the classification of roads is ongoing and the DOT&PF is asked to elevate road classifications for communities and not lower them. 1:35:45 PM MR. NEIDHOLD, in response to Representative Gruenberg, stated that the intent of the bill is traffic control devices, specifically signals, markings, and signs, but is not intended to apply to traffic calming items such as islands, curb and gutters, or green strips. 1:36:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether the definitions should include those items, and if not, he suggested adding an amendment to the definition of "traffic control devices" to state "or other similar devices" since he said he thought the language was slightly confusing. 1:37:13 PM MR. LYNCH asked to address the question. He stated that the intent is to adopt the MUTCD and the Alaska supplement as the state standard. He related his understanding that the MUTCD only addresses signs, signals and markings as defined in the federal manual, but does not cover islands or greenways. Thus, this bill is limited to adopting the national standard. 1:38:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested reviewing the language so that is really clear to the lay person. He said that he does not have a problem. However, he suggested that perhaps a reference to the manual would make the definition clear to the public. 1:38:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN referred to page 2, to paragraph 4, of HB 133 and asked for a brief explanation of overruling the Guerrero v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp., P.3d 966 (Alaska 2005). MR. LYNCH explained that the case, which involved a child who was hit while on a street, which subsequently resulted in charges against the DOT&PF for negligent design. He stated that the court found that the design engineer exercised his/her discretion, and the DOT&PF could not be held liable except for the issue of signage. He stated that the MUTCD used the term "should" and the court inquired as to why the DOT&PF did not include a sign. He related that this provision attempts to make the distinction between the "shalls" in the MUTCD, which are required, and the "shoulds", which are discretionary decisions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to put on the record his gratitude for the cooperative process that Chair Olson and the DOT&PF are using with HB 133. [HB 133 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|