Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
04/08/2014 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB317 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 317-TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NEAR SCHOOLS
1:04:38 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act relating to official traffic-
control devices at schools and in school zones."
[Before the committee was CSHB 317(CRA).]
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 317, labeled 28-LS1442\C, Gardner, 4/8/14
as the working document.
CHAIR P. WILSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:06:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 317, stated that the bill would require the
DOT&PF and municipalities to install schools zones for all
public, private, and religious schools while still allowing
the discretion for the municipality on the location to
place signs, speed zones, lights or other measures where
appropriate. This bill was introduced in response to
public concerns about increased safety for children
traveling to and from school. More specifically, concerns
were brought forth with respect to speeding traffic near a
charter school in Anchorage. The Municipality of Anchorage was
contacted about adding additional signage but the traffic
engineer indicated that signage for charter schools is treated
differently than signage for regular district schools and is
determined on a case-by-case basis. The charter schools don't
have a specified school zone to be marked.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he has held many conversations but did
not receive any opposition to the bill or for the need to slow
traffic down near schools. Most, if not all, drivers understand
the need to keep children safe. Many of us can drive on "auto
pilot" and not notice what is happening around us. Adding
school zones will alert drivers to pay more attention. He
pointed out his practice of automatically slowing down even when
school is not in session. He has also had some concern
expressed about associated costs, but he emphasized that every
student should be able to get to school safely no matter what
type of school they attend. This investment is worth it if it
results in preventing an injury or death. The safety and well-
being of all Alaskan children should be a top priority. School
zones are essential regardless of the type of school or the
funding it receives. It is shocking that Alaska doesn't already
have required mandatory school zones for each school. Drivers
should be alerted wherever children are present in large numbers
and at risk. By requiring school zone markings at all school
locations, we will slow traffic, improve student safety in the
vicinity of a school, and hopefully prevent tragic accidents.
1:09:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained Version C would address drafting
issues brought forth by the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the attorney general's office.
The proposed committee substitute combines AS 19.10.040, which
relates to marking and posting and AS 19.10.050 related to
traffic control devices and combines them under one section.
The proposed committee substitute also updates the language for
the Alaska traffic manual to reflect the current name of the
document used by the DOT&PF, which is the manual on uniform
traffic control devices.
1:09:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he liked the intention of this bill
and could see the need. He referred to Section 3, which directs
the municipality to place signs. He related that in North Pole
it is usually the DOT&PF that places the signage for the school
district. He further asked for further clarification the fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the bill requires the
municipality and also the state to place signs. He explained
that the fiscal note required DOT&PF to do its part to ensure
that the schools are properly marked.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked him to further explain.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that most schools are located on
municipal property but for those located on state road system
the fiscal note requires the DOT&PF to place the signs.
1:11:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the bill should also
indicate the DOT&PF or the municipality and update the fiscal
note. He further asked whether the sponsor has received any
feedback from the municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) also commented in a prior committee. He referred to
Section 1 [and 2] that relate to the DOT&PF but Section 3
relates to municipalities.
1:12:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to the fiscal note for $190,000
and an ongoing cost of $1.2 million.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK identified the amount as $1,200 and is not
$1.2 million. In response to a question, explained that there
are several fiscal notes from DOT&PF since one is for each of
the DOT&PF's regions.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON maintained that he had questions on the
fiscal note amounts.
1:14:55 PM
CONNIE MCKENZIE, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), acknowledged that
the DOT&PF prepared three fiscal notes, one for each region,
including the Central Region, Northern Region and Southeast
Region. The traffic and safety practitioners estimated the
number of schools in each region and based on the new definition
of schools determined 30 percent of the schools would be located
on state roads. The fiscal note covers the 30 percent of
schools located on state roads. Additionally, there are three
types of traffic devices, including school signs, signs and
crosswalks, and full traffic signals with flashing lights. Each
fiscal note indicates the type of device would be used for each
region. For example, the Central Region has three schools that
would need two signs, one for each direction, one school would
require a crosswalk and signs, and one school would need the low
speed zone sign with flashers. In response to a question she
agreed the cost would be $190,000 for the DOT&PF's Central
Region.
1:16:44 PM
MS. MCKENZIE added that the Northern Region and Southeast
Region's fiscal note is for $217,000 each. The total cost would
be $624,000 for the first year.
1:17:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding the state would
cover about one-third of the costs.
MS. MCKENZIE answered yes.
1:17:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the total effect statewide
for state and municipalities would be $1.9 million total. He
noted six signs totaled $217,000. He asked about the expense.
MS. MCKENZIE explained that the cost would be $3,000 each, with
6 signs totaling $18,000. The crosswalk and signage would take
4 signs plus painting markings for the crosswalk totaling
$21,000 per set. She said that the full flashing lights for
each side of the school would cost $151,000.
1:18:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE said it seemed high.
CHAIR P. WILSON acknowledged that people have to be paid to
install the signs.
1:19:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON agreed. He said he always wondered why
the DOT&PF costs were so expensive. He asked whether the
$217,000 for the Northern Region could be absorbed by the
current budget.
MS. MCKENZIE did not believe so, but she offered to check and
report back to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether studies need to be done
for signage.
MS. MCKENZIE said she was unsure.
1:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked for the difference in prices. He
asked whether any studies need to be done.
MARK NEIDHOLD, Chief, Design and Construction Standards,
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services, Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities, answered that
installation costs will depend on the location. In fact, some
may require an environmental document, including a clearance for
historic properties. In instances with existing right-of-way
and embankment the likelihood is much less, but depends on the
area. Sometimes it depends on how it affects the visual siting
of an historic area. He explained that many variables exist in
terms of construction costs and many requirements that have to
be satisfied. For example, the sign material and post must be
crash proof and the location must be evaluated to ensure that it
does not obstruct any other sign or create some traffic safety
concern.
1:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON pointed out that the department isn't
the only one bearing the costs. He asked whether someone could
just put up the signs.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered that the DOT&PF has a system in place and
the department has controls over advertising, signs, and
roadside memorials to maintain uniformity of the system. He
emphasized that it is critical that the department maintain
uniformity or it could increase the risk to pedestrians and
motorists. He suggested it would be a "bad" thing to allow
anyone to put up signs.
1:25:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked for a cost comparison between a
$5,000 hotel sign and a $3,000 school sign.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered that the department doesn't have any
standards for hotel signs or the location unless it is in the
right-of-way. He related that the department must follow
established accepted national standards for anything placed in
the right-of-way. This language addresses the national standard
and in using the standards, including a certain size, type of
post, crashworthiness, and appropriate height that it affects
the price, which is typically $3,000 per sign.
1:26:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked how to get signage accomplished in
a less expensive manner. He questioned the cost of installed
signs.
MR. NEIDHOLD acknowledged that signs for hotels in the rights-
of-way are covered. He argued that it could be made less
expensively by adjusting the standard; however, smaller signs
will mean the driver must spend more time processing the
information. He emphasized the importance of maintaining
uniform standards. The driver may become distracted and the
potential for distraction creates risk. He said he can say with
confidence that he did not think the department could reduce the
cost and maintain the standard that is expected and needed to
address safety issues.
1:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the department can recycle
its signs.
MR. NEIDHOLD explained that the federal manual establishes
minimum maintained reflectivity, which is a night time issue.
Signs are pulled due to a lack of reflectivity. The department
will sometimes use these signs for emergency use in special
instances. He reported that any signs pulled are either
inappropriate or are damaged and can no longer be used during
the normal rotation.
1:32:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to Section 1 and asked whether
this is "clean up" language.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered there were two motivations. First, this
would clarify any issues about schools that don't meet the
classification of public school. Secondly, the previous
language needed to be reorganized and clears up any ambiguity
with respect to the federal manual on uniform traffic control
devices.
1:34:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the manual on uniform traffic
devices is approved by U.S. Department of Transportation.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered yes.
1:34:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to the fiscal note. He asked
whether this could be put out in a public bid process.
MR. NEIDHOLD responded that the DOT&PF used public bid contracts
to arrive at the cost per square foot so it's unlikely to see
any reduction. He expressed concern that the cost might be
higher and the department would lose the economy of scale.
1:35:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how he could know unless it went
out for bid. He offered his belief that there are smaller
companies might love the business.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered that he did not know. He related from
DOT&PF's experience, that typically letting smaller projects
results in higher prices for the unit costs. That isn't to say
that there couldn't be an outlier event. He related that the
DOT&PF's charge in developing the fiscal note is to estimate the
actual costs. If he did anything else he would not be
representing what the department's reasonable expectation of the
cost.
1:36:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for further clarification on the
cost. He related his understanding the department bid a big
job, determined a per square foot price and used it to come up
with the cost.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered that he looked at the bid tabulation of
many projects to identify the typical cost per square foot with
an economy of scale. In those instances the contractor is
already geared up and wouldn't need to do so for one location.
He used the figures from several projects in each region to
identify a reasonable cost to do the job, based on using the
economy of scale rather than looking at single sign contracts.
1:37:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the department employs
people who do signs.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered yes.
1:38:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the person is paid whether
they work on this sign or another one.
MR. NEIDHOLD responded that the maintenance and operation rates
are established for labor are beyond his expertise.
1:38:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON acknowledged that he's discussing an
issue that relates to an inherent problem he has with how the
DOT&PF charges, bills, or budgets. He pointed out that it is
nothing personal.
1:39:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to one of public comments noting
that signage for charter school is treated differently and is
determined on a case by case basis. He asked whether anything
in the manual of uniform traffic control devices differentiates
between types of school.
MR. NEIDHOLD answered that the current manual outlined the
process of involving stakeholders, including the school
district. Thus, each school's signage would be dependent on
location, traffic volumes, and the functional classification of
the routes. If the signs aren't handled differently; it is
possible the department would place an inappropriate traffic
control device in certain locations. Therefore, the signage is
handled on a case-by-case basis, but it is not unique to charter
schools, but is consistent with all schools. He emphasized
what's nice about HB 317 is that that this bill treats all
signage in terms of the process, but it doesn't mean that every
school gets the same devices, but they will all get traffic
control devices.
1:41:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE related his understanding that a school is
a school, but whether it is a charter school, a public school,
or a religious school doesn't factor in.
MR. NEIDHOLD offered his belief if there was any hiccup in the
past, that HB 317 will resolve the issues.
1:41:58 PM
SHANA MALL, Principal, Winterberry Charter School, said she is
also a mother and a teacher. She has loved that the
municipality works together on these issues. She offered her
belief that this bill will help look after school children. She
was previously told by the municipality and the school district
that the charter school could not have signage on the corner of
2nd and E. She started her school without any school zone
markings and parents would need to transport students across the
street. They had many close calls and until a visitor from the
MOA's traffic division dropped off a student that the signage
was addressed. She said that charter school is tucked behind
Northern Lights. She indicated that the municipality says the
road is a DOT&PF road and signage can't be changed. Thus, this
bill will help the safety of all school children. It would also
provide the designation of a school zone, including a drug free
zone.
1:45:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIET DRUMMOND, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that she helped get a traffic signal installed on Lake
Otis Parkway where Kimberly Osborne died in 2003. Her mother,
Corrine, would not have cared about the cost of the signs if one
of them had been placed at the intersections since her daughter
would not have died. The Osborne family lived across the street
from Hanshew Middle School, where Kimberly was a student, down
the street from Spring Hill Elementary school, with a combined
number of up to 1,500 students being transported each day.
Across Lake Otis Parkway was a dense residential area. Because
the street was state-controlled, with a 45 mile per hour speed
limited, the intersection at Reeve's Court and Lake Otis was
deemed not needing a signal since students could walk to the
tunnel three-fourths of a mile away, which was a disgusting
tunnel to use since inebriates or animals frequented it.
Instead of crossing her street she needed to walk three-eighths
of a mile, cross using the tunnel, and backtrack to the driveway
of the Hanshew Middle school. She was late one morning and ran
across the street and was hit by a mom in a minivan. Kimberly
died a few days later. It took quite several years for the
MOA's traffic engineer and school district to put in signalized
intersection that was much safer. She offered her belief that
the DOT&PF doesn't always pay attention to pedestrians.
Children can't make the best decisions. She cautioned against
waiting for another accident. She related that the MOA was
responsible for traffic signals since it was too complicated to
have two systems to determine traffic devices for an
intersection so signal issues were referred to the municipal
traffic engineering, although the DOT&PF might be responsible
for the installation of the signs, but afterwards the control of
the approximate 250 signals falls under the MOA.
1:49:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND was amazed that a charter school is not
treated the same way as neighborhood schools. She related that
all of the public schools in the MOA have traffic devices. She
pointed out it makes sense to treat all eight charter schools
and schools in the same manner.
1:50:12 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 317.
[HB 317 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB317 (CRA).pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB317 Sponsor Statement for School Zones.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB317 DOT Central Region Fiscal Note.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB317 DOT Northern Region Fiscal Note.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB317 DOT Southeast Region Fiscal Note.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB 317 Ketchikan Gateway Borough support ltr.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB317 School Zone Standards - MUTCD 2003 FINAL(1).pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB317 Support Letters.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| HB317 Support Airport hgts.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |
| CS HB317 Version C draft.pdf |
HTRA 4/8/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 317 |