Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/15/2004 09:06 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 255(STA)
"An Act relating to traffic preemption devices."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this legislation would "reserve the
use of traffic preemption devices for legitimate authorized
users" such as emergency response providers and road maintenance
and public transit vehicles. He specified that CS SB 255(STA),
Version 23-LS1397\Q was before the Committee, and he reminded
that previous concerns regarded whether to use the word "or" or
"and" on lines six and seven of Section 16, subsection (a) on
page one of the bill that reads as follows.
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession or
use of a traffic preemption device if the person possesses
or uses a traffic preemption device and that person is not
at the time of the possession or use operating an emergency
vehicle.
Co-Chair Wilken also noted that another concern was whether to
include public transit vehicles in the exemption, as specified
in Section 1, subsection (b)(2) on page one, line 13 through
page two, line one that reads as follows.
(2) a person operating a motor vehicle involved in highway
maintenance or public transit that has been authorized by
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or a
municipality to possess or use a traffic preemption device.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that the Department of Health and Social
Services supports this legislation.
DENNIS MICHEL, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, the bill's
sponsor, noted that he had worked with Co-Chair Green's staff to
address the concern regarding the language "possession or use of
a traffic preemption device" as specified in Section 1(a).
Continuing, he noted that changing this language to "possession
and use of a traffic preemption device" would present "a
loophole in prosecuting people caught using these devices." He
pointed out that "these devices have no other use than to
preempt traffic."
Co-Chair Green acknowledged that she is comfortable with the
bill's existing language.
Senator Dyson stated that, while he appreciates the logic of the
discussion, he "fundamentally disapproves" of criminalizing the
action of possessing "a piece of hardware" as it furthers "our
culture's" tendency to penalize people who have done nothing
wrong. He likened this situation to anti-gun activists who
claim, "that owning a weapon, that is only designed for defense
as in shooting people, ought to be outlawed." In summary, he
voiced being uneasy about "the slippery slope of criminalizing
something when no negative behavior has ever been demonstrated."
Senator Olson voiced similar concerns in that a person who might
possess but not be able to operate such a device "would be held
outside of the standard of being innocent until proven guilty."
There being no further discussion regarding the language in
Section 1(a), Co-Chair Wilken directed the discussion to Section
1(b)(2).
Mr. Michel communicated that utilizing traffic preemptive
devices for public transit needs is not uncommon and "does have
some merit" as these devices are currently utilized to address
traffic problems in such cities as Portland Oregon, Seattle
Washington, and Chicago Illinois.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that the bill's sponsor has provided
Members with "An Overview of Transit Signal Priority"
publication [copy on file] that reviews these and other cities'
experiences with the traffic exemption devices.
TOM WILSON, Director, Public Transportation, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, and
explained that the Municipality's transit system has identified
the implementation of traffic preemptive devices as something
they would like to pursue at some point. He stated that a common
complaint of most transit systems is "that buses don't run
frequently enough and that there is too much time" between
scheduled runs. He stated that implementation of developing
technology such as traffic preemptive devices could assist in
addressing these concerns. He stated that although "long-term
field studies" have been not conducted in the United States,
information does indicate that "significant advantages and
efficiencies" could result by the implementation of "low
priority" traffic preemptive devices as opposed to "high
priority devices, which would be reserved for police and fire."
Mr. Wilson explained that the low priority systems utilized in
some cities are automated and have resulted in "significant
reductions in trip times." Continuing, he noted that the
benefits derived from trip time reductions would include such
things as an increased use of the public transit system;
decreased use of single occupancy vehicles on the roadways;
decreased road maintenance; and reduced emissions. He stated
that because of these benefits, "it would be an unfortunate
oversight to preclude" public transit system from the ability to
utilize these devices. He stated that the Anchorage transit
system would coordinate use of these devices with a number of
municipality ad hoc committees to include the traffic engineer,
the traffic department, and the police and fire agencies.
Senator Dyson voiced concern that allowing the transit system to
utilize these devices might result in a scenario wherein two
lanes of private citizen traffic might be backed up while a city
bus, going another direction, preempts the traffic signal in its
favor. Therefore, he asked how the program could be implemented
to address the competing needs of private citizens.
Mr. Wilson responded that this "is a commonly raised concern,"
and he noted that existing studies indicate when the system is
"adequately designed" there is "little or no impact on the
travel times of other motorists." Continuing, he explained that
rather than being a manual system operated by individual buses,
the device could be tailored to specific areas and would be
operated by a centralized traffic management center.
Furthermore, he stated that once the parameters of the system
are established and entered into a traffic management computer,
activation rules would limit its use to those times, for
instance, when a bus was running ten minutes behind schedule. In
conclusion, he stressed that studies indicate there to be little
impact on other traffic and that motorists in the vicinity of a
bus might benefit by taking advantage of the situation.
Senator Dyson voiced disappointment that the response did not
include utilization of the device in low traffic times to
provide a bus with a green light as opposed to requiring it to
wait at an "arbitrary" red light when there was no cross
traffic. Therefore, he surmised that routinely the devices are
limited to high traffic times. In conclusion, he stated that the
response did not assure him that the device's impact on the
motorists would be minimal.
Mr. Wilson voiced the understanding that the system would allow
for protocols to be established in the computer system.
Therefore, he continued, Senator Dyson's concerns "could be
addressed in that fashion." He stressed that "the predominant
application" of the devices has been to address congestion
rather than wait times. He informed the Committee that transit
vehicles normally spend 15-percent of their trip time waiting at
traffic signals, and therefore, he noted, studies indicate that
this device would "significantly reduce" that wait time by up to
40-percent on average. This, he stated, would reduce a 60-minute
round-trip to 55-minutes and therefore, providing "a more
competitive service."
Senator Dyson disclosed that he would be more comfortable with
the implementation of traffic devices were they approved through
a local citizen or local assembly vote process. He noted that
the residents of Anchorage have not, historically, been
supportive of the local transit authority. He asked whether the
communities that have implemented the device did so upon voter
consideration.
Mr. Wilson responded that everything he had seen indicated that
the device was "implemented through local ordinances and local
processes, but not necessarily subject to a vote."
Mr. Michel noted that language in Section 1(b)(2) on page one of
the bill specifies that implementation of the preemptive device
must be authorized by the local municipality. He opined that
this language, which reads as follows, should address Senator
Dyson's concern.
(2) a person operating a motor vehicle involved in highway
maintenance or public transit that has been authorized by
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or a
municipality to possess or use a traffic preemption device.
Co-Chair Wilken observed that the language includes the word
"or" and could therefore allow for authorization either by the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) or the
municipality.
Mr. Michel concurred but stated that due to the fact that DOT
does not have a bus system, the authorization would be by the
municipality.
Senator Bunde commented that this language would "not allow for
a vote of the people."
Senator Bunde understood that the Anchorage transit system does
not currently own any traffic preemptive devices.
Mr. Wilson responded that is correct. He noted that a limited
number of intersections in the Municipality are equipped with
the devices of which only the fire department could activate. He
was unsure as to whether the police department was equipped with
the devices.
Senator Bunde asked for a cost estimate for outfitting the bus
transit system.
Mr. Wilson responded that an initial cost study indicates that
the transit system's portion of the total cost of purchasing
transmitters, receivers, and computers would amount to three
million dollars. He noted that the majority of the transit
system's expenses would be eligible to receive federal
"intelligent transportation system" funding "which frequently
requires no local match."
Senator Olson asked how the Municipality of Anchorage with a
population of less than 300,000 could compare its transportation
needs to those of "much larger cosmopolitan areas."
Mr. Wilson responded that rather than comparing Anchorage to
those larger cities that have these devices, the intent was to
provide examples of the affects of the traffic preemption
devices. He pointed out that this is an emerging technology of
which, currently, only larger areas have implemented.
AL STOREY, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety,
testified via teleconference from an offnet site to comment that
the Department is in support of restricting the use of these
devices to emergency vehicles in order to address the concern
that unrestricted use could corrupt an entire traffic management
system and result in chaotic and dangerous situations. He noted
that while the fire and police department devices have priority
status with the signaling system, a situation could arise
wherein an individual could trigger a device prior to a police
officers approach to a signal and create confusion.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that, in addition to these devices being
used in Anchorage, the city of Fairbanks has utilized these
traffic devices effectively for more than ten years.
Senator Dyson asked whether the bill's definition of an
emergency vehicle is sufficient as he questioned whether someone
such as a supervising officer in a non-official vehicle might
require use of the device in an emergency.
Mr. Storey explained that there is a very restrictive criterion
regarding the use of the device. He allowed that while an
extreme "aggravated" situation such as a hostage situation might
support expanding the authorized use of the device, he would be
surprised were, as a matter of routine business, the restrictive
criteria and usage guidelines expanded.
Senator Dyson questioned whether the definition of a emergency
vehicle should be broadened to include a person such as the
volunteer fire department chief, in addition to the current
definition that limits use to fire, police, or medical emergency
vehicles.
Mr. Storey replied that although volunteer firefighters and
others who must respond to emergency situations are important,
the decision to broaden the definition should be a Committee
decision.
Senator Bunde asked how the system would function were two
emergency vehicles approaching an intersection from different
directions.
Mr. Storey remarked that fire and police vehicle transmitter
devices could be programmed to supercede signals from lower
priority devices utilized in transit system buses or maintenance
vehicles. He voiced the hope that the priority vehicle devices
would also supercede illegal devices. In response to Senator
Bunde's question, he stated that were two priority vehicles to
approach a common intersection there might be conflict; however,
he noted that the emergency vehicle drivers could coordinate
their positions via their communication radios and use of
professional courtesy.
Senator Bunde, noting that he is unfamiliar with these devices,
asked whether the ones available on the market emit low priority
signals. Furthermore, he questioned the need for this
legislation were the high priority emergency devices to
supercede low priority devices.
Mr. Storey responded that the purpose of this legislation is to
offset criminal acts of those who possess these devices and who
might use them, for instance, to "corrupt the traffic management
system" in order to get to work on time. He noted that there is
also the possibility that priority emergency vehicles signals
might be interfered with, as he was unsure of the priority
configuration of "bootlegged" devices.
Mr. Michel informed the Committee that volunteer firefighters
utilize a blue light system on their vehicles. Continuing, he
noted that while these volunteers are trained and authorized to
use these lights, they are not authorized to exceed posted speed
limits. He recommended against broadening the scope of the
definition to include persons such as volunteers.
Mr. Michel further explained that a tier system is incorporated
into the traffic preemption device system that would disallow a
low priority vehicle such as a snowplow or transit bus from
interfering with an emergency vehicle signal. However, he
stressed, that without this legislation, it would be unclear as
to whether bootlegged devices could interfere with emergency
vehicle devices. He clarified that when two high priority
vehicles approach a signaled intersection, "it is a first come,
first served basis."
Senator Dyson stated that he would accept the language in
Section 1(a). However, he suggested language in Section 1(b)(2)
be altered.
Conceptual Amendment #1: This amendment deletes the word
"municipality" in Section 1, subsection (b) (2) on page one,
line 15, and replaces it with "municipal or city assembly." The
amended language would read as follows.
(2) a person operating a motor vehicle involved in highway
maintenance or public transit that has been authorized by
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or a
municipal or city assembly to possess or use a traffic
preemptive device.
Senator Dyson moved for the adoption of Amendment #1. He
informed that this amendment would provide local citizenry the
ability to have a public process through which to weigh in on
whether to allow their local transit system to have these
devices.
Senator Bunde objected to inform that he would be presenting an
amendment that would remove the entire public transit language
from the legislation. He recalled that Mr. Wilson had testified
that the transit system "has no present plans" to implement
these devices. Continuing, he noted that he would be open to the
idea in the future, were the citizens of Anchorage provided the
opportunity to participate in the decision were the transit
system to advance this effort.
Senator Bunde removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Conceptual Amendment #2: This amendment deletes the language "or
public transit", and "or a municipal or city assembly" as
amended by Amendment #1, in Section 1, subsection (b)(2) on page
one, lines 14 and 15. The language would read as follows.
(2) a person operating a motor vehicle involved in highway
maintenance that has been authorized by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to possess or use a
traffic preemptive device.
Senator Bunde moved for the adoption of Amendment #2.
Senator Wilken objected.
Senator Bunde stated that this amendment would remove the
transit system from the legislation due to the fact that there
is currently no plan underway to institute these devices in
Anchorage's transit system and, therefore, authorization is not
currently required. Continuing, he noted that this issue could
be readdressed in the future. He declared that he does not agree
that these transit devices would not "inconvenience" other
motorists.
Co-Chair Wilken maintained his objection, as he stated he is
comfortable with allowing the transit system to remain in the
bill; especially in light of the language added by Amendment #1.
Senator Olson commented that, as a physician, it is difficult to
discuss emergency vehicles and transit buses in the same
conversation.
SFC 04 # 83, Side A 10:42 AM
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Olson and Senator Bunde
OPPOSED: Senator Hoffman, Senator B. Stevens, Senator Dyson, Co-
Chair Green, and Co-Chair Wilken
The motion FAILED (2-5)
Amendment #2 FAILED to be adopted.
Co-Chair Green moved to report the bill, as amended, from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Wilken objected in order to request that Members read
the analysis included with the new fiscal note provided by the
Public Defenders Office of the Department of Administration.
Co-Chair Wilken removed his objection.
There being no further objection, CS SB 255 (FIN) was REPORTED
from Committee with zero fiscal note #1, dated February 9, 2004
and zero fiscal note #2, dated February 6, 2004 from the
Department of Public Safety; zero fiscal note #3, dated February
10, 2004 from the Department of Law; and a new indeterminate
fiscal note, dated April 6, 2004 from the Department of
Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|