Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/01/1994 05:00 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 1994
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Richard Foster, Chair
Representative Gary Davis, Vice-Chair
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Bill Hudson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Curt Menard
Representative Jerry Mackie
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 437: "An Act relating to the operation of bicycles on
state highways; prohibiting motor vehicle
operators or occupants from harassing bicycle
operators; and encouraging the safe use of
bicycles as a basic means of transportation."
MOVED FROM COMMITTEE
*HB 367: "An Act relating to the control of outdoor
advertising."
MOVED FROM COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
Room 418, State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811
465-4457
Position Statement: Sponsor of HB 437
SIMON RAKOWER
3875 Geist Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
474-8184
Position Statement: Via teleconference, supported HB 437
LORN CAMPBELL
Highway Safety Planning Agency
Department of Public Safety
450 Whittier Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
465-4374
Position Statement: Provided DPS input on HB 437
ROGER ALLINGTON
Director of Planning
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
465-4070
Position Statement: Provided DOT/PF input on HB 437
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Room 110, State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99811
465-4859
Position Statement: Sponsor of HB 367
JERRY LUCKHAUPT
Legislative Affairs Agency
Division of Legal Services
Goldstein Building, Rm. 401
Juneau, Alaska 99811
465-2450
Position Statement: Answered questions on HB 367
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 437
SHORT TITLE: BICYCLES ON LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIES,Brown,Finkelstein
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2256 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2256 (H) TRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/07/94 2291 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN
02/22/94 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/01/94 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 367
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OLBERG
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/94 2052 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/13/94 2052 (H) TRANSPORTATION, JUDICIARY
02/23/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/01/94 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-7, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR FOSTER called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. He
introduced REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES as the sponsor of HB
437 and thanked him for attending.
HB 437 - BICYCLES ON LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS
Number 006
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES introduced HB 437 by stating:
"Bicycles are an economical, environmentally sound and
healthy form of transportation that should be encouraged by
the state. However, current regulations prohibit bicycles
on many highways. This type of policy has the effect of
discouraging bicycle use as a basic form of transportation.
HB 437 would prohibit regulations that restrict bicycle use
on highways. It would prohibit the harassment of
bicyclists. Additionally, this legislation would direct the
department to consider the safe use of bicycles when
planning, designing, and constructing highways. Finally,
the department would be required to encourage the safe use
of bicycles as a basic means of transportation."
Number 041
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Representative Davies if there is
a statutory standard for safe bicycle operation.
Number 060
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded that, to his knowledge,
there is currently no statutory standard safe bicycle
operation, but there are regulations which provide that when
you operate a bicycle on the highway, you must comply with
all of the standards set for motor vehicle operators. He
added that a significant amount of bicycle safety operation
would be useful in avoiding traffic fatalities, although he
had not called for such programs in this bill.
Number 096
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Representative Davies how the
prohibition against harassment contained in the bill would
be enforced.
Number 103
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded that, as already contained
in Title 28, harassment of a bicyclist would be
characterized as a general misdemeanor, with a maximum
possible penalty of $500.00 or 90 days.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES directed the attention of the
committee to a suggested amendment he had prepared in the
event that the committee felt it would improve the bill.
The amendment would define harassment in a more specific
way.
Number 145
CHAIR FOSTER moved that the amendment be incorporated in the
bill and asked if there was objection.
Number 153
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he did not understand the
amendment and wondered why the definition of harassment
should be limited to acts directed at bicyclists rather than
just harassment in general, against anyone.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented to Representative Davies on
the use of the word "intimidating" in the bill text, and
asked what was meant by the word, since he sometimes felt
intimidated just showing up at committee meetings.
Number 167
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded that his intent was to
address situations where bicyclists are lawfully biking down
the road and motor vehicle operators come along and make
threatening or abusive gestures in an attempt to suggest
that the bicyclists don't belong on the roadway. He added
that the purpose of this bill is to encourage the safe use
of bicycles on the road; the suggestion, by motor vehicle
operators, that bicyclists don't belong on the road is one
he finds offensive.
Number 206
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there was precedent in other
states for this proposed legislation.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded that he does not know if
such legislation exists in other states.
Number 217
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if this bill would result in a
need for more or wider bike path areas along the side of
highways, resulting in fewer funds available for more lane
miles. He expressed concern that the parameters in the bill
be seen as mandates for wider shoulders.
Number 236
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded that his understanding was
that when the DOT designs highways, they take bicycles into
account, and they follow a guide which says unless bicycles
are specifically prohibited, design should take into
consideration that the highway will also be used by
bicycles. He added that his personal intent, in introducing
the bill, is simply to provide a good shoulder, which are
needed for other purposes anyway, so it shouldn't actually
cost a great deal more, since the DOT is already doing this.
He said that further considerations needed to be made at
interchanges.
Number 263
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Representative Davies why a
separate lane would be more dangerous than being on the
highway.
Number 267
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded that, generally speaking,
when separate bicycle paths are constructed, they often
cross a series of driveways, and there is a tendency not to
observe the traffic on the bicycle path when it is separated
from the edge of the road. He added that in Fairbanks, for
example, bike paths are not maintained in the winter, so
don't work very well.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the bike paths being
built in the Interior are being built as separate paths.
Number 304
SIMON RAKOWER, via teleconference, wished to express support
of HB 437, adding that until one has been harassed while
riding a bike, one cannot understand the impact. He
concluded by saying that he concurred with everything
Representative Davies had said, and that 15 other states
allow bicycles on interstates.
CHAIR FOSTER thanked Mr. Rakower and asked if the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) had any comments to make.
Number 328
LORN CAMPBELL identified himself as being with the Highway
Safety Planning Agency (HSPA), DPS. He stated that the
concern with the bill is that a lot of highways in the state
are not set up for the scenario mandated in the bill, and
that safety is a great concern. He added that HB 437 would,
in effect, nullify many of the HSPA's efforts at maintaining
highway safety. He concluded that HB 437 asks for
accidents, although HSPA would be supportive of the separate
bike path concept.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that safety is an important
consideration, and noted some Juneau area bike paths which
are separate from the road. He asked Representative Davies
if bicyclists should be licensed, if the highways are to be
opened up to them.
Number 368
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded that licensing would be a
fine thing to do, and called the committee's attention to
line 7 of the bill, which provides that the commissioner
would regulate the manner of operation of bicycles. He said
he is of the opinion that the DPS has the authority to set
regulations.
Number 383
MR. CAMPBELL made the point that under the federal ISTEA
(Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), states
are asked to look at specific bicycle areas in conjunction
with the regular highways, but with some of Alaska's narrow,
curvaceous roadways, it could be fairly costly.
Number 391
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that breakdown lanes are already
being constructed in Alaska.
Number 401
MR. CAMPBELL concurred with Representative Davies' comment
about breakdown lanes, but added that there are a lot of
highways that are not up to breakdown lane standards. He
cautioned that the commissioner should be able to regulate.
Number 404
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated that he would not be opposed to
an amendment which would allow the commissioner to regulate
in those cases where there was an alternate route available,
or where there is an unusual safety hazard.
Number 416
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved that the committee adopt
Representative Davies' proposed amendment.
Number 422
CHAIR FOSTER asked if there were any objections by the
committee. There were none, and the amendment was declared
adopted.
Number 427
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON motioned that the committee move HB
437, as amended, with individual recommendations.
Number 439
ROGER ALLINGTON identified himself as the Division Director
for Statewide Planning for the DOT. He stated that the DOT
has some concerns about the mixture of slow-speed bicycles
and high speed traffic, and proposed that the words "where
feasible and appropriate" be added to the text of the bill
rather than require bicycle accommodations in all
situations. This, he concluded, would also be consistent
with ISTEA.
Number 480
CHAIR FOSTER added that the motion made earlier also
included the words "where appropriate and feasible" to be
added, if there were no objections by the committee. There
were none.
Number 493
CHAIR FOSTER declared HB 437 to be moved out of House
Transportation, and thanked Representative Davies.
HB 367 - PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
Number 495
CHAIR FOSTER asked Representative Olberg to present the
committee with his bill, HB 367.
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG thanked the committee and introduced
HB 367 by stating:
"House Bill 367 would allow certain restricted exceptions to
the State's limitations on outdoor advertising, thereby
addressing the need for improved directional signage to
accommodate the state's traveling public. These changes
would facilitate efforts by roadside businesses to direct
motorists to available services and products. In response
to suggestions made by members of committees of both bodies
last session, I would like you to consider this work draft,
CSHB 367.
"This CS for HB 367 would allow one new exception to the
state limitation on outdoor advertising signs, display, and
devices. Directional signs could be placed in zoned/unzoned
commercial or industrial areas along a state highway,
subject to stringent restrictions. The draft bill would
also codify two existing DOT/PF programs in statute: the
airspace leasing program and TODS (Tourist Oriented
Directional Signing program). The changes proposed by CSHB
367 would help many small business owners while not
negatively impacting the scenery visible from Alaska's
highway. I strongly encourage your support for this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER moved that the committee adopt the CS
for HB 367.
Number 525
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY expressed concern over someone being
imprisoned if they violated this bill, were it law, and
suggested that there be no chance of imprisonment, but that
the fine be between $250.00 and $500.00.
Number 548
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG commented that he was not qualified to
respond to that suggestion, but the drafter of his bill was
in attendance.
Number 551
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed concern over the possibility
of imprisonment for noncompliance of this bill, if law,
adding that imprisonment would be unreasonable. He added
that an amendment of the dollar amounts of fines would be
different.
Number 558
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG expressed his amenability to changing
amounts of fines, and agreed that jail time seemed
excessive.
Number 560
JERRY LUCKHAUPT identified himself as being with Legislative
Affairs Legal Services. He noted that no jail time is
available for a violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act;
jail time provisions were exempted from violations of the
Outdoor Advertising Act.
Number 588
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY insisted that the penalty provision be
amended, since it hadn't been for 15 years.
Number 590
MR. LUCKHAUPT concurred with Representative Vezey.
Number 597
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY requested that the committee ask Mr.
Luckhaupt to prepare a section amending the penalty clause,
that it not be a misdemeanor, just a fine, a minimum $250.00
and maximum $2500.00.
Number 602
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that such an amendment would be easy
to do.
Number 611
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented to Representative Olberg
that administration of this bill would be a nightmare in a
municipality like Anchorage, and asked if this bill would
apply within municipalities.
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that municipalities can enact laws
which are more restrictive, with the exception of 6A.
Number 631
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented that Muldoon doesn't need
any more signs, and in fact, they're trying to get rid of
some of the ugly ones they already have.
TAPE 94-7, SIDE B
Number 005
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made several comments to the effect
that he had concerns about language to allow the department
to force that the signs be maintained, but wondered aloud if
the department's air space permit already addressed that.
Number 025
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented on the varieties of
applications of penalties within the statute, and expressed
the need, in the future, of going through and trying to
establish some uniformity.
Number 057
MR. LUCKHAUPT agreed that there should be other corrections
made.
Number 089
CHAIR FOSTER expressed the belief that it seemed the only
problems were with the penalty provisions.
Number 092
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER commented that this bill is consistent
with what was done in the '60s, during the Johnson
administration.
Number 113
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion that a new section be
added to change the penalty provision to a violation
punishable by a fine of $250.00 to $2500.00.
Number 120
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG expressed his amenability to the
amendment proposed by Representative Vezey.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested that the amendment be made a
conceptual amendment, and that Mr. Luckhaupt do the actual
preparation of it.
Number 134
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved CSHB 367, as amended by
Transportation, with conceptual amendments, to the next
committee of referral.
Number 136
CHAIR FOSTER asked if there were any objections. There were
none, and he declared CSHB 367 to be moved out of the House
Transportation Committee.
Number 138
CHAIR FOSTER adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|