Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
03/26/2009 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB194 | |
| HB181 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 181 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2009
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 194
"An Act relating to the operation of low-speed vehicles."
- MOVED CSHB 194(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to the use of headlights when operating a motor
vehicle."
- MOVED HB 181 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 194
SHORT TITLE: LOW-SPEED MOTOR VEHICLES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
03/18/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/09 (H) TRA, JUD
03/26/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 181
SHORT TITLE: USE OF HEADLIGHTS REQUIRED
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAWASAKI
03/12/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/09 (H) TRA, JUD
03/24/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/24/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/24/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/26/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REED HARRIS, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the prime sponsor of
HB 194, Representative Peggy Wilson.
KURT SMITH, Traffic and Safety Engineer
Division of Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 194; testified during the discussion of HB 181.
MEGAN PASTERNAK
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 194.
GERALD HERBRANDSON
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 194.
RUSSEL SEGAL, Representative
Alaska Conservation Alliance (ACA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 194.
WALTER C. PASTERNAK
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 194.
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 194.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 181.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:55 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives
Gruenberg, Johnson, Doogan, and Wilson were present at the call
to order. Representatives Johansen and Munoz arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
1:06:01 PM
HB 194-LOW-SPEED MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 194, "An Act relating to the operation of low-
speed vehicles."
1:07:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 194, labeled 26-LS0715\E,
Luckhaupt, 3/25/09, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ objected for purposes of discussion.
1:08:23 PM
REED HARRIS, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Wilson, prime
sponsor, stated that the purpose of HB 194 is to increase the
number of roads available to low-speed vehicles (LSVs) to
promote their use in smaller communities. The proposed
legislation seeks to accomplish this by allowing LSVs to have
access to roads which have a maximum speed limit of 45 miles per
hour (mph), thereby increasing the limit from the current
standard of 35 mph. He related that the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines a low-speed
motor vehicle as a vehicle that has four wheels and can attain a
speed of 20 mph but not more than 25 mph. Three-wheel vehicles
are not covered under the proposed bill. A medium-speed vehicle
is a vehicle that reaches speeds in excess of 25 mph.
Additionally, the LSV must have a gross weight of less than
3,000 pounds; it is a small vehicle. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Harris reiterated that the minimum
speed allowable is 20 mph and the maximum speed is 25 mph in
order for the vehicle to qualify. He explained that many of the
LSV can reach speeds of 45 mph but are equipped with governors
that reduce the speed to a maximum speed of 25 mph.
CHAIR WILSON offered that in her town people use golf carts.
1:10:04 PM
MR. HARRIS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said Vespa
scooters would not qualify under the bill.
1:10:12 PM
MR. HARRIS opined that this bill would provide a unique
opportunity for smaller and rural communities to use another
form of transportation. The bill was requested mostly by
smaller communities in Chair Wilson's district since LSVs are
convenient and are less expensive to use for trips of a shorter
duration. He indicated that the LSVs use less gasoline and
satisfy a demand for reduced emission transportation. He
pointed out the vehicles can be powered by gasoline,
gasoline/electric hybrids, or highly efficient gasoline engines.
He further opined LSVs could cut down dramatically the amount of
airborne pollutants that a community produces. He highlighted
several concerns such as safety and congestion caused by their
use. The NHTSA has adopted regulatory language that requires
many of the technologies found in passenger vehicles, including
headlights, taillights, turn signals, reflectors, a windshield
that conforms to federal standards, and seatbelts, for all
designated seats. Thus, these provisions disqualify golf carts
as well.
MR. HARRIS emphasized that backups can occur when faster
vehicles are traveling behind LSVs, which is why the bill limits
the LSVs to roadways with a posted speed limit of 45 mph or
less. This bill imposes conditions that must be met by
communities such that LSVs can be operated in communities with
populations of less than 25,000 people. This excludes the
communities of Anchorage and Fairbanks. Furthermore, the
vehicles cannot be operated on any roadway that is directly
connected to those cities.
1:12:13 PM
MR. HARRIS stressed that LSVs may cross highways with speeds
greater than 45 mph only if the crossing is made at an
intersection on which an LSV is authorized to drive. He related
that responsible driving habits by LSV owners may cut down on
accidents and congestion. He closed by stating that HB 194 is
flexible and available to qualifying communities. The power to
authorize the use of LSVs is made at the local level;
communities must pass an ordinance in order to allow LSV usage.
1:13:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the only
difference between the original bill and Version E is the
language on page two, lines 3 and 4, of Version E, which
stipulates that the operator of a low-speed vehicle may only
cross a highway "at intersections where the highways on either
side of the highway to be crossed are eligible for low-speed
vehicle operation under this section". He stated that he is
somewhat confused by the language in Version E. He asked how
there could be highways on either side of the highway to be
crossed.
MR. HARRIS related that DOT&PF provided the language for Version
E. He said according to DOT&PF, all roads are highways.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that even if "road"
is used in place of "highway", the language still is not clear.
1:14:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN referred to the language, "not connected
by road to Anchorage or Fairbanks". He said that language is
often used to describe rural roads; however, there are a number
of remote, small communities not included in the bill because
they are connected by road to Anchorage or Fairbanks. He asked
if any consideration had been made to include those communities.
MR. HARRIS answered that the intent of HB 194 is to allow the
use of LSVs in isolated communities. He acknowledged that some
of the smaller communities to which Representative Doogan
referred may also wish to use LSVs; however, they lie on the
major road system along the Railbelt. He reiterated that this
bill is aimed at smaller communities. He mentioned that one
conservation group has requested the bill be expanded.
CHAIR WILSON related that drivers are accustomed to driving
slower in small communities, such as the small communities in
her district that are on islands.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled Talkeetna is a small community
that is at the "end of the road." He suggested that the sponsor
contemplate other uses for LSVs.
1:17:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered her understanding that there is a
new dealer of [LSVs] in Southeast Alaska. She inquired as to
whether resistance by local authorities to the use of LSVs in
communities is what precipitated [the proposed legislation].
MR. HARRIS responded that he has heard from one person who
stated that he is not happy to have to follow behind an LSV on
the road. Conversely, he stated that he has received a letter
of support from an LSV owner in Sitka. Furthermore, he recalled
that one source indicated there are approximately 19 known LSVs
currently in operation in Alaska. He recalled that one person
in Petersburg expressed interest in a dealership.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ reiterated that she would like to know if
the reason for the proposed legislation is linked to there being
a lack of communities allowing the use of LSVs through
ordinance.
MR. HARRIS indicated that the reason for the bill is related to
a desire to allow LSVs to operate on roads with higher speed
limits; the proposed bill would seek to expand the allowable
roads to those roads with speed limits up to 45 mph. He noted
that included in the committee packet is a schematic of roads
color coded by speed limit. He indicated that the number of
allowable roads for LSV usage would be greatly expanded under
the bill.
1:18:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN related his understanding that the
vehicles' top speed would be 35 mph, yet they would be allowed
on roadways with speeds of 45 mph. He imagined that vehicles
would want to pass the slower LSVs. He related that horse drawn
trolleys are used in Ketchikan during the summers, but are not
licensed by the state. He noted the trolleys are not considered
vehicles; therefore, they can travel any speed they like, which
frustrates some people.
1:20:08 PM
MR. HARRIS reiterated the definition of an LSV. He said a
responsible LSV driver would pull over if he/she was blocking
traffic. Additionally, LSVs accelerate from zero to 25 mph
within a mile, so LSV drivers need to be aware of the slow
acceleration speed and not pull out in front of faster moving
vehicles.
CHAIR WILSON related that the bill also requires a public
hearing, since the matter would need to go before the city
council before LSVs would be allowed in a community.
1:21:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked the reason that a car capable of
going 45 mph would be altered to operate at a reduced speed of
25 mph.
MR. HARRIS stated that the only advantage is licensing, since
the safety features on the vehicles are not held to the same
standards as other vehicles. He offered his understanding that
NHTSA believes holding LSVs to a lower speed standard makes it
safer for the occupants.
1:22:22 PM
MR. HARRIS, in response to a question from Representative
Johnson, said LSVs have standard license plates.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he still does not understand the
incentive for taking a vehicle that can go 45 mph and turning it
into one that can only go 25 mph. He inquired as to what
savings might be involved.
MR. HARRIS offered his understanding that the reason for
limiting the speed is purely for safety purposes and has nothing
to do with saving money on licensing. He mentioned that LSVs
cost between $12,000 and $25,000 with a limited range of 60 to
80 miles. He characterized LSVs as eco-friendly. Owners plug
in their LSVs at home, then unplug them and drive away.
1:24:03 PM
MR. HARRIS, in response to Representative Johnson, explained
that NHTSA sets LSV limits. He noted that medium-speed vehicles
travel at higher rates of speed, are covered under other
regulations, and are not addressed under HB 194.
1:24:51 PM
MR. HARRIS, in response to Representative Johansen, stated his
belief that removing the governor from an LSV in order to
increase its speed is a practice of unscrupulous owners. He
stated that he does not know how often LSVs are checked to
ensure the governor is still in place.
1:26:15 PM
KURT SMITH, Traffic and Safety Engineer, Division of Design &
Engineering Services, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that the department does not oppose
HB 194 as currently written. However, DOT&PF has serious
concerns about the safety and congestion impacts of LSVs on 45
mph roads. He highlighted that DOT&PF believes it is important
to limit where LSVs are allowed. He explained that LSVs are
limited by federal law to operate at 25 mph. Currently LSVs are
allowed on roads limited to speeds up to 35 mph. The proposed
legislation would allow LSVs to be operated on some roads with
speed limits of 45 mph. He stated that DOT&PF has safety
concerns, since it is more likely that an LSV will be involved
in accidents due to speed differences and will be less able to
protect its occupants. He opined that LSVs are more likely to
be in an accident due to the speed differential. He stated that
LSVs at 25 mph or slower, will be at least 20 mph slower than
other vehicles. He offered that DOT&PF has charts that
demonstrate the likelihood of crashes, and LSVs are five times
more likely to be in a crash due to the closing speed of
vehicles and other vehicles will attempt to pass the LSVs. He
advised that LSVs are less likely to protect occupants, since
they are not equipped with safety features such as airbags or
crush zones, as well as simply having a less protective
structure. Thus, when large vehicles collide with small
vehicles, the small vehicles "generally lose." He said it is
worth noting that in some states, dealers are required to
provide disclosure statements to ensure that buyers are aware of
crash worthiness issues with LSVs.
1:28:37 PM
MR. SMITH highlighted that on some busy 45 mph streets, LSVs
could cause backups, which could significantly increase
congestion. He mentioned that in those instances, the fuel
economy of the backed up vehicles would also be reduced. He
pointed out that the current bill does not eliminate these
concerns. However, it specifies that the 45 mph provision only
applies within municipalities when they vote to allow it. He
related that DOT&PF supports having the decision whether or not
to allow LSVs made at the local level, so the community can
weigh the benefits against the safety and congestion concerns.
The bill also would prohibit the use of LSVs on roads limited to
45 mph if the roads are on the connected road system where there
is likely to be through traffic. With these provisions included
in HB 194, DOT&PF does not oppose the proposed bill.
1:30:32 PM
MR. SMITH explained that the original bill language would
unintentionally prohibit LSV crossings of 40 and 45 mph roads.
He related that DOT&PF believes LSVs should be allowed to cross
any roads when the approach roads have speed limits that allow
use of LSVs. He referred to language in the original bill -
"highway that is authorized for low speed vehicles" - which
implies that someone in DOT&PF would actively authorize the road
as an LSV road. He stated that DOT&PF does not make that
designation.
1:30:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained he has drafted some language
that may better address what the sponsor wants to accomplish.
MR. HARRIS stated that the idea is the approach road and the
departure road would have speed limits that would allow LSVs.
1:32:19 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked to postpone any amendments to the bill.
1:32:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that slower traffic causes more
problems. He inquired as to whether there is any place in
Alaska with minimum speed limits.
MR. SMITH related his understanding that there are not minimum
speed limits. In response to Representative Johnson, he agreed
that a truck operated at 25 mph would be just as dangerous as an
LSV, although a truck would be more capable of protecting its
occupants.
1:33:45 PM
MEGAN PASTERNAK stated that there are approximately 19 LSVs in
Southeast Alaska and 2 in Kodiak. She stated that the bill is
not just about cheap transportation, but would also help reduce
pollution. She offered her belief that increasing the allowable
roadways may encourage some who have had reservations due to the
restriction to roads with speed limits of 35 mph. She offered
that as an LSV driver, she is conscious of the traffic and does
not impede drivers who want to go faster than 25 mph. She noted
that many LSVs have been in use in Europe. She opined that LSVs
are safe since they are lightweight and tend to bounce away
during any impacts. She opined the bill is flexible, since
local communities can decide whether to allow LSVs.
1:36:03 PM
MS. PASTERNAK related her understanding that some people have
expressed concern that LSV owners do not purchase fuel or pay
gasoline taxes. She offered her willing to pay taxes on her
LSV, but said she thinks her 1,200 pound vehicle does far less
damage to roads than trucks. She encouraged legislators to
consider increasing the allowable speed limit for electric
vehicles to 35 mph.
1:36:54 PM
GERALD HERBRANDSON suggested that the state should promote the
use of alternative energy, including the use of LSVs. He opined
that LSVs are ideal for small communities, reduce dependence on
fossil fuels, and fill a transportation niche. He offered his
belief that 80 to 90 percent of driving is to the post office,
the grocery store, or school. He stated that trips of short
duration of 10 to 20 miles per day are hard on internal
combustion engines. He further stated that those motors do not
perform well until they warm up and are operated at a higher
rate of speed. Thus, LSVs are ideal for inner-city driving.
These vehicles will not be found on high-speed roads. He noted
that most of the small communities are posted at 25 to 35 mph.
He further noted that in Petersburg, some stretches are posted
at 40 mph. Thus, opening up some small stretches will give LSV
drivers access to the whole community. He emphasized that LSV
drivers are not attempting to access high speed roads. Many
residents enjoy LSVs, since they are already driving at [low]
speeds. He related that the local police chief is very
supportive of LSVs.
MR. HERBRANDSON explained that he has an LSV dealership, and
there are currently 10 LSVs in Petersburg. People are hesitant
to buy LSVs until the law supports their use, and this bill
would help provide that support, he concluded.
1:40:44 PM
RUSSEL SEGAL, Representative, Alaska Conservation Alliance
(ACA), explained that ACA is a coalition of 40 Alaskan
conservation organizations, with a combined membership of over
38,000. He offered ACA's support of HB 194. He stated that
allowing LSVs to be operated on more roads will allow those who
own LSVs to obtain more use of their investment. He further
stated that LSVs are a must for communities who are working
towards energy self-sufficiency. He explained that Sitka hopes
to become a zero carbon or all electric community. This bill
will make cheap, efficient vehicles more practical. He
expressed concern that in an instance in which one community
opted for LSVs and an adjacent community did not, it would be
difficult to draw the line. He recalled that some amendments
addressed safety issues such as limiting LSVs to roads not
connected to a main road system, and limiting LSV use to towns
with populations of 25,000 or less.
1:43:10 PM
MR. SEGAL explained that he was raised in Seward and has a cabin
on the Herman Leirer/Exit Glacier Road. The road leads to
Seward, but is posted at 45 mph. Thus, since the road is
connected to Anchorage, people can not currently drive an LSV on
this road to Seward, which is approximately a three mile stretch
of road. Additionally, he observed that on Douglas Island, near
Juneau, a portion of the road is posted at 40 mph. He related
that he has noticed, while walking to work, a white electric car
parked. He mentioned that if the population in the Juneau area
is greater than 25,000, residents would be prohibited from
driving [an LSV] to the City of Juneau.
1:44:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN commented it is great that Sitka is
attempting zero emissions.
1:45:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
gave her perspective on LSVs. She related that from downtown
Douglas to Juneau is about a 3-mile stretch, and she offered her
understanding that the posted mileage from the bridge to Douglas
is 45 mph.
MR. SEGAL offered his understanding that one section adjacent to
the City of Douglas is 30 to 35 mph, then there is a section
that is 40 to 45 mph, and it then changes to 35 mph near the
bridge.
1:46:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ expressed willingness to amend the bill to
provide the opportunity for the City and Borough of Juneau to
allow the use of LSVs. She said she believes Douglas is not
considered separate from Juneau, thus it would be considered
part of the overall 35,000 population of Juneau.
1:46:53 PM
CHAIR WILSON referred to the bill and stated that it would apply
to roads with a speed limit of 45 mph within a municipality or
within an area of an unorganized borough outside of a city not
connected to Anchorage or Fairbanks. She asked how much the
population limit would have to be increased.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that the
population of [the City of Juneau] is 35,000.
1:47:39 PM
WALTER C. PASTERNAK stated he and his wife bought a 1,200-pound
electric car. He opined that 25 mph is too slow to operate on a
road that is 45 mph, but 35 mph still qualifies as a LSV. He
related that his LSV is light, does not damage the roads, and -
since Sitka operates with 90 percent hydroelectric power - does
not require diesel to recharge the vehicle. He pointed out that
he purchased a converter and an alternating current (AC) motor
to increase the LSV's speed capacity to 35 mph, which is still
too slow for some roads in the larger communities of Juneau,
Anchorage, and Fairbanks. He said:
Believe me, I thought when we started this process we
were doing the right thing. You know, I watch
overloaded trucks hauling rocks and creating problems.
And ... we've got three electric cars here in town,
that they've taken the gas engines out and put
batteries in them, but those cars are allowed to go
faster than 25 [mph]. And, you know, it's mind-
boggling, this car, I took Representative Wilson for a
ride in it. And we looked at another LSV owned by the
[U.S.] Park Service, here in town. Here in town our
cost of driving our car is 2 cents per mile. But
since we've had to make it go 25 mph, you know, I feel
like I'm impeding things. And even on a slow-speed
vehicle, it's 25 or 35 [mph]. I'm just not sure why
Alaska passed this statute a few years ago.
1:49:40 PM
MR. PASTERNAK opined that hydropower should be the key, since
charging the LSVs does not require diesel fuel. He offered his
belief that the issue will be resolved due to declining oil. He
offered that Sitka residents would like to be able to drive
their LSVs at 25 or 35 mph. He related that this has been a
learning experience.
1:51:33 PM
CHAIR WILSON shared that it was fun to ride in the Pasternak's
LSV. She related her understanding that the LSVs do not have
all the safety features of regular cars. She opined LSVs
provide a perfect solution for many people who live in small
towns that can afford the LSVs.
CHAIR WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 194.
1:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved] to withdraw his motion to adopt
Version E.
1:53:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
1:54:08 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated her preference to work with Version E, since
it contains language that was requested by DOT&PF.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he would maintain his motion to
adopt Version E as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew his objection.
CHAIR WILSON stated that before the committee was Version E.
[The committee treated Representative Munoz' earlier objection
as though it had been removed.]
1:54:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment
1 to Version E, as follows:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete 25,000
Insert 35,000
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that she is offering Conceptual
Amendment 1 in response to the public testimony heard. She said
the amendment would offer an opportunity for Juneau to
participate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected for the purposes of discussion.
1:55:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed interest in the definition of
municipality in order to determine which communities would be
affected by Conceptual Amendment 1. He related that Ketchikan
is a 7,000-person city within a 12,000-person borough.
Additionally, he offered his understanding that the City of
Fairbanks is smaller than the Fairbanks North Star Borough. He
stated, "And I'm not sure ... whether this would include or
exclude the opt-out version." He asked for comments.
CHAIR WILSON stated that the bill should not capture the
Fairbanks community, since LSVs would need to traverse major
highways.
1:56:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 11 and 12, of
Version E, and noted that the language there specifies that no
roads that connect to Fairbanks or Anchorage would qualify. He
stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 would not change that.
1:56:58 PM
MR. SMITH stated that DOT&PF would not object to Conceptual
Amendment 1, since it is still up to the community and the city
whether or not to adopt an ordinance to allow LSVs.
1:57:31 PM
CHAIR WILSON, in response to Representative Johnson, said Mitkof
Island [includes] the community of Petersburg.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there are any areas outside
of municipalities that should be included in the bill. He asked
whether a village could opt into the bill.
1:58:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related that an unorganized borough "takes
in" all the smaller communities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that that being the case, his
question is moot.
1:58:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:59:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
handwritten as follows [original punctuation provided]:
page 2 lines 3-8 delete all language and insert:
(2) cross a highway at intersections if the
highway upon which the LSV is being operated is
eligible for LSV operation under this section
[THAT HAS A MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT OF MORE THAN 35
MILES AN HOUR IF THE CROSSING IS MADE AT THE
INTERSECTION WITH A HIGHWAY THAT IS AUTHORIZED
FOR LOW-SPEED VEHICLES].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for the purposes of discussion.
2:00:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he was confused by the
language on page two of Version E, and he explained that he has
attempted to clarify that language through Conceptual Amendment
2. He referred to a diagram [included in the committee packet]
labeled, "Map," which illustrates a highway crossing of an LSV.
He interpreted the language in Version E as addressing instances
in which an LSV traveling on a highway at 35 mph intersects a
highway with a speed limit of 65 mph.
2:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN inquired as to whether it is necessary to
refer to all roads as highways. He suggested calling one of two
roads by another term to simplify the discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he thought that "highway" is the
term used in Title 28 for all types of roads.
2:02:10 PM
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), cited
AS 19.59.001(8), which read as follows:
(8) "highway" includes a highway (whether
included in primary or secondary systems), road,
street, trail, walk, bridge, tunnel, drainage
structure and other similar or related structure or
facility, and right-of-way thereof, and further
includes a ferry system, whether operated solely
inside the state or to connect with a Canadian
highway, and any such related facility;
MS. SIROKY stated that "highway" is the term DOT&PF uses for all
roads.
2:03:18 PM
CHAIR WILSON suggested the following language: "only cross a
highway at intersections where a lower speed highway intersects
with a higher speed highway". She then read a portion of
Conceptual Amendment 2.
2:04:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN opined that there ought to be language to
specify that the LSV must be on allowable highway both before
and after it crosses the higher speed highway. He reiterated
that it is confusing to call all roads highways.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled Mr. Smith had suggested
language that may address the issue just raised.
2:05:02 PM
MR. SMITH suggested language as follows: "cross the highway at
intersections if the approach and departure highways, upon which
the LSV is being operated are eligible for LSV operation".
2:05:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] a [conceptual]
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2, to insert "approach and
departure" between "the" and "highway", and to change "is"
between "operated" and "eligible" to "are". The portion of
Conceptual Amendment 2 that would be affected by the proposed
amendment would read as follows:
(2) cross a highway at intersections if the approach
and departure highway upon which the LSV is being
operated are eligible for LSV operation under this
section
2:06:09 PM
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that the second occurrence of the word
"highway" should be pluralized to read "highways".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acquiesced.
There being no objection, the conceptual amendment, as amended,
to Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:07:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, as amended. There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted. [The objection previously
stated by Representative Johnson was treated as withdrawn.]
2:08:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that in some states, such as
Pennsylvania, slow vehicle signs, such as the orange triangle
signs that are universal signs, are used to identify slow-moving
vehicles and are placed on the back of the vehicles to alert
other drivers. He stated that he does not want to slow down the
bill, but thought the signs might be worth consideration.
MR. SMITH indicated the use of such signs has not been
considered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated he does not wish to slow down
the bill, and he stated, "I think they could probably do that
through statute without any kind of legal requirement."
2:08:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report CSHB 194, Version 26-
LS0715\E, Luckhaupt, 3/24/09, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 194(TRA), as amended was reported
from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
2:09:34 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:09 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.
HB 181-USE OF HEADLIGHTS REQUIRED
2:11:26 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 181, "An Act relating to the use of headlights
when operating a motor vehicle."
2:11:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 181, stated that several questions were
raised at the last hearing. He recalled testimony from the
Alaskan Bikers Advocating Training and Education (ABATE), an
organization that represents motorcyclists. He reported that
two studies were done to determine whether a "sea of headlights"
would prevent drivers from discerning motorcyclists. One study
was conducted in Norway that produced a non-statistical
significant increase after a "headlights on" bill was adopted.
A 2004 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) indicated that a "headlights on" policy
reduced daytime opposite direction crashes with motorcycles
between 23 and 26 percent. He offered to continue to work with
ABATE to understand why the organization opposes the bill.
2:13:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI recalled that Representative Johansen,
during a prior hearing on HB 181, had raised the issue of how
the proposed law would be applied in relation to drivers being
told by the Alaska Marine Highway System (AHMS) workers to turn
headlights off when in the AMHS parking lot. He explained that
since an AMHS parking lot is not a physical right-of-way, it
would not be an issue. However, if a vehicle is on board the
AMHS vessel, it actually is in the right-of-way, which creates a
possible conflict.
2:14:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI recalled the issue of turning off
headlights when approaching a military post. He showed
photographs of Fort Wainwright in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, [included in the committee packet], which depict signs
on base that inform drivers to dim their lights and prepare to
stop. He related similar signage is used at Elmendorf Air Force
base and the military facilities in Kodiak, in Ketchikan, and by
the Alaska Marine Highway System. He acknowledged that during a
previous hearing, the committee had expressed concern about what
might happen if a driver obeys a sign to dim his/her headlights
and there a nearby police office witnesses this. He pointed out
that current law requires drivers to have their headlights on
during night-time driving, beginning one half hour before sunset
and ending one half hour after sunrise. He stated that he has
never heard of a person being pulled over for dimming their
lights on base, thus, he opined that doing so is a non-issue.
He further explained that the definition of headlight systems is
found in regulation.
2:17:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN mentioned DOT&PF's plan to install two
signs "at ferry access to airport - both sides - on Tongass."
He noted that signs will be posted so that drivers of vehicles
will be advised to turn their headlights on. He asked if these
signs, at a cost of $3,500 each, would affect the fiscal note.
KURT SMITH, Traffic and Safety Engineer, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF), agreed that would
require two additional signs.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if that means there would be four
signs, at a cost of $14,000, within approximately 600 yards of
each other.
MR. SMITH responded that he is not familiar with the layout in
that area, but stated that DOT&PF would figure out where it
would be appropriate to place signs. If the department judged
that less signs would suffice, it would economize.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated it is nice to know the details
before passing a bill that requires funds; however, he said he
thinks DOT&PF can be counted on to make good decisions.
2:19:34 PM
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to whether the signs could be combined
to not require yet another sign that may clutter up the area.
MR. SMITH answered that DOT&PF would minimize the posts in the
field.
2:20:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the fiscal note and asked
about the necessity of a seven-foot-wide sign.
MR. SMITH related that some signs would be located at points of
entry to the state. He agreed that a seven-foot sign would look
big in a room, but once it is placed along a roadway it is not
that big. He maintained that the size would be necessary to
call motorists' attention to the law.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many entries there are to the
state.
MR. SMITH stated that DOT&PF has more entry points than listed,
but would attempt to provide signage for the most important
points.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the fiscal note is correct.
MR. SMITH maintained that DOT&PF would determine the most
important points of entry for the signage.
CHAIR WILSON reiterated that DOT&PF is attempting to minimize
the signage locations and place them at the most important
entrance points.
2:21:30 PM
CHAIR WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 181.
2:22:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HB 181 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 181 was reported from the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:22
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|