The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Joan Moseid, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session and requested a motion to introduce three bill draft requests (BDRs).

SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 43-400.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR-35-1522.

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

BILL DRAFT REQUEST 10-226: Requires audible alarm on certain gates. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 302.)

SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 10-226.

SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 152 and noted, for the record, "This bill has nothing to do with changing the percentage of alcohol or changing the limits that are in the current law."

Suzanne Harmon, Criminalist, Breath Alcohol Section, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, spoke in favor of S.B. 152. Ms. Harmon presented a copy of a report to Congress on alcohol limits titled, "Driving Under The Influence" (Exhibit C). She then referred to and recited page 2, paragraph 2 (Exhibit C); "Alcohol concentration in terms of the weight of ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) in a volume of blood or breath." Ms Harmon asked the committee to review the footnotes at the bottom of page: " ’Percent’ in U.S. toxicological circles means grams per 100 milliliter; this is a weight per volume measure and does not carry the usual meaning of percentage." Ms. Harmon pointed out the language in S.B. 152, and said, in no way will the percent by weight of alcohol change the concentration of the minimum level of alcohol for a driver "Driving Under the Influence" (DUI) law. She iterated that it would continue to have the same value and the same minimum of .10 percent, and be expressed in scientific terms.

Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Harmon if the two terms (.10 percent or one-tenth) were similar, even though the terms show the same percentages or they would show the same equation. Ms. Harmon responded, in 1989 the law was changed to enforced breath testing; and, as a result, breath alcohol and blood alcohol both became indicators of an intoxicated individual. She noted that both indicators typically are very similar but would not be exactly the same. She pointed out that 2 years ago the Legislature made changes in Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) chapter 484, regarding the ignition interlock devices, and this exact language was used in the concentration of alcohol. This was a bill draft in the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session that was not introduced. Senator Jacobsen stated that many years ago the committee members were used in a demonstration for the Breathalyzer test and was curious about the results of this demonstration.

Senator Washington asked the committee members if they had received a report showing the effectiveness of the Breathalyzer statute that was given during the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session. Ms. Harmon stated that this statute has been in the initial stage; three devices were tested and showed accuracy for measuring alcohol on the breath. The State of Nevada does approve of this law.

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Patrol Division, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, requested an amendment to S.B. 152. Chairman O’Donnell informed Captain Nadeau that the bill drafters have a new rule for bills in skeleton form that have passed from one house and received favorable reception from the second house. This bill would be amended after this process.

SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 152.

SENATOR AMODEI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell closed the work session on S.B. 152 and opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 155.

SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 155.

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Chairman O’Donnell opened the work session on Senate Bill (S.B.) 203.

*****

Vice Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 174.

Senator William R. O’Donnell, Clark County Senatorial District No. 5, stated this bill would provide a curb cut in Las Vegas; on Desert Inn Road, between Valley View Boulevard and the overpass. He presented a petition with 140 signatures of people who reside or work in this area, and would like to request the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) do a curb cut that would allow an individual to make a turn to access the business area (Exhibit D.) Senator O’Donnell stated this bill is a simple bill. He iterated that in Las Vegas, on the Desert Inn Road arterial between Valley View Boulevard and Paradise Road, is predominantly a mini-freeway. He indicated once a person drives on this arterial there is only one other way to exit, which is Highland Drive. He pointed out if a driver does not exit at Highland Drive the driver would have to drive until he/she reaches Paradise Road; and at this point, cannot make a U-turn. The business owners north of Desert Inn Road and east of Valley View Boulevard are disenfranchised, and are not allowed to go into their businesses without taking the right exit. Senator O’Donnell indicated that it is not clearly marked as to which exit it is and that these constituents would have to take the right exit by driving underneath the overpass and then drive at least a half mile. Senator O’Donnell stated his reason for submitting this bill is to accommodate the petition.

Senator Jacobsen asked Senator O’Donnell if U-turns are more common in the Las Vegas area than other states or if this request is a special instance. Senator O’Donnell responded that a lot of U-turns are allowed in the Las Vegas area, and indicated there are numerous traffic egresses and ingresses and modes of transportation. He also stated that several of these intersections have a double left turn which allow two cars driving parallel to make a left turn; and the car driving on the inside lane could make a U-turn, which is predominant in Las Vegas.

Senator Jacobsen asked Senator O’Donnell, "Are the emergency vehicles permitted to make U-turns or create their own right-of-way?" Senator O’Donnell testified that this is comical in Las Vegas; and explained how the emergency vehicles travel the wrong way on a street, because there is not any way an emergency vehicle can travel into the correct lane due to some of the traffic signals causing traffic backup through several intersections. Senator O’Donnell then emphasized that the emergency vehicle would have to jump the median and travel on the wrong side of the highway in order to get where they need to go.

Senator Shaffer asked Senator O’Donnell if he believed the construction cost would be more than $1 million. Senator O’Donnell replied that he has not contacted the Nevada Department of Transportation to determine what the cost would be, and he understood that the NDOT is in concert with the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County (RTC). They are partners in developing the Desert Inn Road arterial which means that the RTC has a responsibility for the arterial before getting the underpass for the strip location, and ultimately the underpass in the area between Paradise Road and the Catholic Church. Senator O’Donnell commented that this particular section of the road would be the RTC’s responsibility. He stated he has not approached RTC to determine their cost estimate. He claimed the cost would be well under a $1 million, or approximately $50,000.

Senator Wiener voiced concerns by asking if this area is considered a safe place to make a curb cut and/or what the speed limit is at the location. Senator O’Donnell replied the engineers would have to determine the location of the curb cut.

Senator O’Donnell acknowledged in the Sixty-fourth Legislative Session a similar bill was introduced regarding the Spring Mountain Road overpass and it pointed out, at that time, that Spring Mountain Road overpass was not considered a part of NDOT needs; however, a vehicle count was completed, and the committee was informed that their data was approximately 56,000 vehicles a day utilizing Spring Mountain Road overpass. He announced to the transportation committee that it had taken the Legislature up to 12 years to develop the Spring Mountain Road overpass.

Vice Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 174.

Chairman O’Donnell opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 154.

Joanne Keller, Highway Safety Coordinator, Traffic Safety Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), testified in favor of S.B. 154. Ms. Keller stated that in 1997 data was collected by DMV&PS relative to "Crashes of Children Fatalities." The results showed that 67 percent of fatalities occurred to children who were not wearing the child safety system, while 33 percent utilized the child safety seat. Ms. Keller iterated that these percentages compared to the 1997 statewide safety-seat usage rate of 70 percent, and showed that safety belts were worn more by adults than children. She voiced major concerns in reference to the language in section 1, subsection 1, line 3, where it states, "a child who is under 5 years of age and who weighs less than 40 pounds," are required to be properly restrained, and DMV&PS would like to recommend that "the weight less than 40 pounds" language be removed. Ms. Keller stated that an enforcement officer, while working in the field, would not typically know the age of the child. Only the driver would know this information about the child or children who are being transported. Ms. Keller believed that this language is a highly subjective determination for an officer and there would be a lot of interpretation required. Ms. Keller told the committee that on a national basis there are nine other states that have the "40 pounds" statute, and most of the states do have an age limitation whether it is 4 years, or 5 years. The second concern was the language in section 1, lines 6 through 9, giving indication to what standards the child safety seats would have to adhere.

Ms. Keller suggested to the committee that DMV&PS would like to add the federal guidelines for child safety seats as opposed to what was previously adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation. She strongly stated by adding in the 49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 571.213, it would specifically explain the sections that are being brought forth, and the Nevada child safety-seat law would be in compliance with this code. Ms. Keller expounded that one of the problems that DMV&PS has had with child safety seats are how the seats are improperly fastened when installed into the car. The "National Safe Children Campaign" estimated that as many as 85 percent of the child safety seats are improperly installed. She suggested by adding the federal guidelines; DMV&PS maintains that this would help identify all the specifics. The third concern was the language from subsection 2 at the bottom of page 1, through subsection 4 on the top of page 2, and she acknowledged it as a loophole in the child safety-seat legislation. Ms. Keller iterated, currently if a driver receives a child safety-seat violation and goes to court, the driver would have to show evidence that a seat was purchased; the current language states that then the court shall void the citation. She defined that there are no preclusions to the purchaser of that child safety seat, after the citation is voided, to return the seat to the store and receive a refund. Ms. Keller restated that this is a "loophole" to avoid the citation and not achieve the spirit of the law, which is to protect the children in the car. She reiterated that DMV&PS recommended that the loophole be closed so that a driver can no longer purchase and return the child safety seat. The fourth concern was to help strengthen the safety of the children by deleting some language that would not allow demerit points to be assessed; and referred to page 2, line 6, where it says "violation of this section may not be considered." Ms. Keller requested that this language be deleted, to show that if a driver gets a child safety-seat violation, a driver can be subject to demerit points assessment.

Ms. Keller called attention to seven states throughout the nation that currently allow the assessment of demerit points in this law. She noted that the assessment points ranged anywhere from two to four points.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Keller if there was a bill with similar language on line 6 and recited, "A violation of this section may not be considered negligence in any civil action." Ms. Keller responded that this bill has some similarity to the "Adult Safety Seat Belts law."

Senator Care concurred and drew attention to the deletion of language outlined in S.B. 154 on lines 4 through 8, of page 2. He remarked that these items were the same proposed deletions in the current seat belt law, and suggested when the transportation committee schedules the work session on S.B. 154 they should discuss both laws at the same time.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, called attention to the provision in S.B. 154 that requires the car seat to be adjusted properly and fastened securely. She noted that the penalties would be significantly increased for inability or error by allowing the provision to be used for negligent or reckless driving. Ms. Lusk also expressed concern about applying the punishment of the law to genuine error rather than to the malicious or vicious acts that constitute real crimes. She urged the committee to avoid the results.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in opposition by stating that this provision brought back memories when she tried to fasten her own child into a safety seat in the car. Ms. Hansen referred to a subject broadcast on the news that pointed to the fact that many automobiles and other vehicles are not equipped to utilize the child restraint system that would comply with this law. She reiterated that such a person would like to comply but would not be able to because the vehicle he/she owns is not equipped; therefore this person would be penalized, under this law, because he/she does not own a modern automobile. She confirmed that this statute is considered a national problem. Ms. Hansen asked if this particular statute sets forth the federal law as to what specifically a citizen has to comply with.

Ms. Hansen queried how many parents know what the federal law specifically means, and emphasized that this law should be in plain language that would make the parents aware of why they would be guilty if they violate this law. She testified that she certainly does not know what the federal standards state and suggested that most single parents would not know them either. Ms. Hansen stressed another concern on the section is the statute that would fine a person between $35 and $100, and strongly indicated, if a person purchased a child safety system, this person would not be able to use this information in the court." She suggested that this provision would make it harder for a struggling family with smaller children to purchase a child safety system, if they have to use the $100 to purchase this system, instead of paying this amount in a fine. She shared with the committee that when she was a young and single mother, $100 was a lot of money to her, and she iterated that this would have been a difficult time for her to pay a fine, in addition to purchasing an expensive seat. Ms. Hansen commented instead of the objective of helping to protect children it actually does the opposite and believed if the committee keeps intercepting, it would allow people to be relieved of the burden of a fine. If a seat is purchased it would encourage and enable people to get the child safety system and use it. She pointed next to the area in the provision where a person would be acquiring demerit points and declared not only would the person or persons be punished with a fine, but it would cause their insurance rates to increase. It would also initiate civil liabilities for making a mistake and a probability that the car would not be equipped properly.

Ms. Hansen stressed that this provision is a punitive piece of legislation and does not reach the objective in trying to encourage people to use the restraints to protect their own children. Ms. Hansen summed up the testimony by saying that the citizens of Nevada could use an "information campaign" to help citizens understand how to use the restraints in a proper manner and be able to check their own automobiles.

Senator Washington agreed with Ms. Hansen regarding the "information campaign" to educate citizens in the usage of child safety restraints. Senator Washington stated there used to be provisions where a parent could go to the local welfare office and pick up a car seat, and he asked whether or not this provision still exists. Chairman O’Donnell responded by saying that law was changed due to the high liabilities for used car seats. Senator Washington queried whether or not the 33 percent for children wearing restraints were accurate versus the 67 percent fatality count for children not wearing restraints.

Kristine K. Jensen, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, testified that the removal of the language in section 1, lines 3 and 4, and "who weighs less than 40 pounds" would be a positive amendment to this bill because an enforcement officer does not carry a scale in a squad car. Ms. Jensen addressed concerns on the issue of demerit points being changed to a moving violation and questioned if there is "ill-intent."

Ms. Jensen stated that she always secured her five children while driving and noted that the children would play with and unfasten the child safety belts. She found herself reaching back and forth in securing them. Ms. Jensen indicated another concern regarding the proper installation time frame of a child safety system. She had observed on a national news broadcast that the experts took one and a half hours to install the car seat properly.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Keller if this bill was a requirement for the states to become strict, and asked Ms. Keller, as a safety engineer, if she had come up with the bill herself. Ms. Keller replied that she did not submit this bill. Ms. Keller explained that there is a national effort to increase seat belt usage nationwide and especially for the children, because of the technical expertise needed to properly install the seat belts. This need has increased because the car seats have a lot of gadgets today, along with the auto manufacturer having different models. Ms. Keller stated that not every car seat would fit into every car. She pointed out:

Ms. Keller iterated that this legislation has not intended to be overly punitive and it is a part of the statewide effort to increase child safety-seat usage. She expounded that the officers of the Traffic Safety Division have included, in their budget request, funding to have a statewide campaign. Ms. Keller informed the committee that there are only two "Certified Child Safety Seat Instructors" in the State of Nevada who instruct and certify technicians, using 16 hours of certification training. She said the technicians have to be well-trained in all kinds of car seats.

Ms. Keller stated early in the month of February, in Las Vegas, DMV&PS participated in a "Child Safety National Week" by having courtesy check points at four day care centers, and found that one of the difficulties is assessing the number of child safety seats that are installed properly. She informed the committee that during these check points only 4 percent were properly installed and supports the thought that it is not relatively easy without the educational endeavors.

Senator Washington asked Ms. Keller, if she thought the responsibility for the "Child Safety System" should be placed upon the automobile manufacturers, so that they would give instructions to consumers on how to install the child safety system in various cars. He stated that the legislation would be crossing the line between personal responsibilities of the market and consumers and felt if the automobile manufacturers provide the proper instruction when a vehicle is purchased, it would be left up to the consumer to purchase, read and follow the instructions for the safety of their child or children. Ms. Keller mentioned that it had been sometime ago since she was involved in the child safety-seat market and stated she does not know when a child safety seat is purchased if there are recommended models available; along with not knowing the extensiveness of the instruction for installation of the child safety seats.

Senator Care ask Ms. Keller if she had the annual count of people that have been cited for violation of this current law. Ms. Keller responded that she does not have that information presently and would check to see what information is available and provide it to the committee.

Chairman O’Donnell commented that an individual parent that puts a child in a car does not plan on having the child injured in any way, and stated, however, the seat restraint may or may not be part of this person’s thinking when the child is being put into the car. He acknowledged and disagreed with Ms. Keller’s statement that reflected the purchasing and returning of the child safety seat by a parent who had received a citation and gone to court. Chairman O’Donnell stated he was not as certain that many people would return the child safety seat for fear of being cited again. He, however, agreed with the proposed amendment regarding the "40 pounds."

Senator Washington asked for the clarification of the federal statute 49 C.F.R. § 571.213, so that the citizens of Nevada would be able to interpret this language. Chairman O’Donnell concurred and noted that Nevada citizens are being subjected to laws that even the Legislature, at times, finds difficult to understand.

Bonnie S. Weber, Lobbyist, Nevada Republican Assembly, testified by objecting to the language, "40 pounds," in S.B. 154, and stated that her son is under the age limitation and is too tall for the requirement for this statute. Ms. Weber explained to the committee how she tried to inquire about the various kinds of child safety seats by calling several resources, and she had no success in gathering any information. She stated this is why she thought it would be an excellent idea for the state to have a "Child Safety System Information Campaign" so that more people would become well-informed.

Chairman O’Donnell announced from the transportation committee standpoint they are not against the "Child Safety Seat Law" and iterated that the committee does have some difficulties with the provisions in this bill. Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Keller to list the budget item requested by the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety for the "public service announcement (PSA) for child safety." Ms. Keller stated that the request is in the budget account number 101-4688, which is The Executive Budget for the Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety Highway Safety Plan and Administration. She pointed out the enhancement module in the budget for $26,000 over the biennium, is not to do only public service announcements but to encourage and train the technician so that he/she would gain knowledge as to what type of seat is appropriate for the age limitation. She iterated that this type of information would be more readily available. Chairman O’Donnell asked for a cost breakdown. Ms. Keller responded it would cost $15,000 in the first year and $11,000 in the second year. Chairman O’Donnell quoted, "That is not going to go very far." Ms. Keller commented that at least it would be a start.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Ms. Keller if the DMV&PS receives any monies from the bicycle safety and pedestrian fund. Ms. Keller replied yes, but stated this is a separate budget account (101-4688) and said these are fees that are charged when a person applies for a driver’s license. Ms. Keller said the main source of funds available for occupant protection are the federal funds coming from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Chairman O’Donnell questioned the total amount of the fund. Ms. Keller made clear there are two separate funds, one is for $187,000 and the other for $7800, which totals $265,000. Ms. Keller mentioned that there is also an incentive fund which is called "section 405" and used for occupant protection. One of the purposes of the federal money is to act as seed money to initiate a program that would develop self-sufficiency or be supported by the State of Nevada. She stated that the $26,000 budget request would be the first attempt that DMV&PS has made to receive state funds to support the ongoing federal program which is the state program that started out with federal funds. Chairman O’Donnell confirmed that DMV&PS is receiving funds from the federal government, plus DMV&PS has asked for an augmentation in the state funds for account number 101-4688. Ms. Keller concurred. Chairman O’Donnell asked the committee to monitor account number 101-4688 and commented that it would be the will of the committee to ascertain that the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety receives the funds to start educating the people in the State of Nevada. He felt that this process would go a long way toward accomplishing the Legislature’s goals. Ms. Keller agreed and said that DMV&PS definitely could use the help since there are only two technicians available in the entire State of Nevada.

Senator Wiener stated that the "Safe Kids Program," in Las Vegas, has a regular campaign several times a year and iterated that they install thousands of child safety seats a year. Ms. Keller agreed and said the "Safe Kids Coalition," in Las Vegas, is very active and, unfortunately, DMV&PS does not have a counterpart that she is aware of in northern Nevada. She concluded that the "Safe Kids Coalition" does work very closely with the "Safe Community Partnership," in Las Vegas, which is a much larger group with a lot of coalition efforts there, and stated this has not occurred in the north.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 154 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 200.

Senator O’Donnell testified on behalf of S.B. 200 and stated this bill could prove who is the responsible party in an accident, while traveling through lanes provided for bicycles only. Senator O’Donnell gave a presentation by illustrating an incident occurring at an intersection congested with traffic backed up in both directions of a multi-lane street. Traffic cannot continue through the intersection but a vehicle in the opposite direction is allowed to turn left through the intersection and is collided into via a vehicle trying to make a right-hand turn by driving in the bicycle lane. He stressed the current law does not allow drivers to use bike lanes for turning lanes.

Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Nevada Department of Transportation, testified in support of S.B. 200. Mr. Fronapfel presented and summarized the proposed amendatory language (Exhibit E). He stated as S.B. 200 is written the only changes that NDOT has requested could be found in subsection 3 which says, "Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2," and pointed out the list of exemptions as to when a driver could drive in a bicycle lane and requested, also, the deletion of subsection 2 paragraph (a). Mr. Fronapfel confirmed what Chairman O’Donnell had testified about using bicycle lanes. He explained the way the current law reads vehicles are allowed to enter a bicycle lane when preparing to make or making a turn which would eliminate the provision and restrict the use of bicycle lanes for people making turns within the bicycle lanes. Chairman O’Donnell remarked how could this happen when, in Las Vegas, the bicycle lane is the right-hand turn lane. Mr. Fronapfel said the bicycle lane is generally a separate lane or designated as a shoulder in most cases, and the bicycle lanes are separated by the solid white lines. The solid white lines designate the edge of the travel lane so this would indicate that the travel lane is to be used essentially for travel purposes, as well as making the right turns and not using the bicycle lane or the shoulder itself for making right turns. Chairman O’Donnell commented this would mean that all the streets would have to be re-striped and asked if these provisions apply to Reno, as well. Chairman O’Donnell ask Captain Nadeau if he knew how these provisions apply to Reno. Captain Nadeau responded that the shoulder of a bicycle lane does extend through driveways.

Chairman O’Donnell iterated if a driver has to make a turn this could cause more problems than what is being solved because drivers are going to drive in the far right-hand lane to make a turn. The legal driver would not cross the white line and stay over one lane or out of the bicycle lane and then try to make a right-hand turn in front of the driver who is illegal. He reiterated that this could cause more accidents than solved because everybody uses the bicycle lane as a turning lane. It is legal to do that now and this proposed language would be undoing that. Mr. Fronapfel agreed that is it very common for drivers to use these lanes and stated NDOT was trying to provide the safety for the bicycles. When the lanes or shoulders are designated for bicycle use it eliminates or restricts the use of the bicycle lanes as travel lanes for motor vehicles.

Senator Care said he recognized the solid white lanes in Las Vegas and asked if there is a uniform sign for bicycle lanes in the State of Nevada, and he would like to know if the list of exemptions would be needed for Citizens Area Transit (CAT) buses. Mr. Fronapfel remarked that there are a number of categories for bicycle facilities. There is an actual bicycle lane shoulder that is used as a bicycle route and it does not have to have anything specific for markings per se. It does make a distinction between the travel lane and the shoulder of the roadway, which historically is used for disabled vehicles, parking and so forth. Chairman O’Donnell replied that Senator Care had brought up an excellent point regarding the buses and whether the buses would have to stop in the slow lane and not in the bicycle lane. Mr. Fronapfel agreed on the issue of buses and said he did not think about the bus situation at all. He concluded his remarks by saying S.B. 235 has the same sections of statutes that S.B. 200 proposes to amend and he would be happy to revisit the proposed amendments.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 200 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 235.

C. Joseph Guild, Lobbyist, State Farm Insurance Companies, chief proponent of S.B. 235, gave a brief overview of the similarities of the two bills. He stated that S.B. 200 is a little more specific and general, but is coincidental for the same reasons that S.B. 235 is. It expresses basically the problems that occur when people using the right-hand lane are going through the intersection and causing an accident or being a part of an accident. Mr. Guild iterated that this could lead to a court or claim-adjustment situation where there is no way to reconcile fault, because the law does not provide for an illegality in this situation and there have been cases thrown out of court because there is no law that points to this in the statutes. He pointed out the language on page 2, of the bill, and said there is a new subsection 4 added to NRS 484.305 which illustrates prohibiting travel through a right lane of traffic; and in section 3 of the bill there is a reference to prohibition or what must be done from the right-turn lane that references back to the new subsection 4, on page 2, of NRS 484.305. Mr. Guild passed out an amendment to the committee to add a new paragraph at the end of section 2 (Exhibit F). He explained that S.B. 235 might address Mr. Fronapfel’s concern, as well, in S.B. 200. Mr. Guild suggested that this amendment would follow the end of section 2 of the bill, on page 2, and asked the committee to review Exhibit F. He stated that the key words in this amendment are "not specifically designated" and "200 feet" and said these words would account for situations such as the bicycle lanes, and it gives the specific amount of travel lanes that would be accomplished.

Mike Ferrell, Estimatics Team Manager, State Farm Insurance Companies, in Las Vegas, stated that he has seen and been involved with the handling of many claims. Mr. Ferrell declared that S.B. 200 clarifies the issues discussed in the statute. He iterated that his main purpose for bringing this bill forward was to try to get the far right-hand lane defined. Mr. Ferrell acknowledged, in some cases, that the right-hand lane is a bicycle lane and the diamond symbols indicate that it is a bicycle route, and in other cases there are not any symbols. Mr. Ferrell referred to Flamingo Road and Sandhill Road in Las Vegas and said; "This is a perfect example; on Flamingo Road there is a solid white line and when you drive up to Sandhill Road, whether eastbound or westbound, there are no signs of any kind that designate what that far right-hand lane is or can be used for; so theoretically people can drive through this intersection in that lane because there is not a law that says that they cannot." He concluded if this lane can be defined it could be determined who is at fault if there is a liability, along with giving the general public a better definition.

Senator Washington asked if this bill would have an effect on motorcycle drivers. Mr. Ferrell responded the same rules should apply.

Senator Care asked Mr. Ferrell to define the solid white lines on the shoulders of the roads in Las Vegas. Mr. Ferrell said after doing research on what is considered a bicycle lane, to his understanding, there is no definition of these lanes, and he does not believe it is designated to be used as a bicycle lane. This is very confusing to the general public not knowing whether they can drive through this lane or not. He replied that he does not think that the solid white lines are considered a bicycle lane by displaying a diamond symbol, and this is his opinion. Mr. Ferrell noted that in some intersections there are signs posted to read right-hand turn only and in the Flamingo Road and Sandhill Road it is not defined. He said that these lanes are being used different ways and these are the results of accidents.

Chairman O’Donnell closed the hearing on S.B. 235 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 168.

Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark County Senatorial District No. 8, testified that he has lived in Clark County for years, along with some concerned constituents that have acknowledged the traffic problems, while traveling north to south, and east to west, and other roads such as Desert Inn Road, a major arterial, where the contractors have built the underpass under The Strip and the overpass over the freeway. At the same time the roads being worked on for 1 year to 2 years definitely interferes with the flow of traffic. Senator Schneider noted that concerned constituents would like to see a difference in the construction time frame in these areas by offering a bonus if the work is completed early. He referred to California’s earthquake and how the construction was completed early due to the State of California offering the contractors a bonus. Senator Schneider called attention to the language and asked for assistance from the committee in correcting the language. He pointed out that "around the major shopping malls during the holiday season, as well as the major arterial Interstate 15 (I-15) with the exits onto The Strip," and asked if these roads could stay open during this time of the season. Due to the contractors closing the roads in these areas this makes it very inconvenient for the tourist, and the 350,000 cars driving in these areas; let alone the citizens.

Chairman O’Donnell asked Senator Schneider why he chose the time frame of December 1 to January 2. Senator Schneider replied that the bill drafter drafted this time because he had asked for the time around the holidays, and he would like to leave this language section up to the transportation committee expertise.

Chairman O’Donnell stated it would make more sense to let the contractors know that the Legislature does not preclude the construction, maintenance or operations of the highway during this period of time by making sure that the contracts are written so that the highways are completed before the appointed time frame. He recommended that this bill should make sure that the roads are not under construction and there are no barriers, no cones, and no barricades. Senator Schneider agreed.

Senator Wiener recommended the date of January 3, because January 1 could fall on a Friday where the weekend is considered a part of the holiday. She referred to the "double-penalty fine" bill that was passed in the Sixty-ninth Legislative Session for drivers speeding through the construction zones, and would like to know how would this affect this bill. Senator Wiener also stated not all construction projects are completed in a year and the Legislature is carving a time period. "How would the construction projects be resolved," she asked; for an example, like the spaghetti-bowl?" Senator Schneider responded, "Namely, this would be the bonus given to the contractor that would influence him to complete it early." He reiterated that the contractors linger on and on to complete construction projects and it becomes frustrating to the general public. Senator Schneider stated that he has seen a billion dollar hotel built and completed in ample time, and with efficiency. Chairman O’Donnell commented that Senator Schneider made a good point, especially when Las Vegas is looking at widening, in certain instances, the I-15 corridor.

Senator Washington asked Senator Schneider if the bill could be amended to change the population to 400,000."

Les Henley, Construction Division Manager, Clark County Public Works, stated there is a concern with the way the original bill was written in regards to breadth of the bill. Clark County does not understand the intent and found it difficult to conceive how the bill might apply to Gold Bird Court or Cottonwood Road and Canyon Road, or a number of the rural facilities in Clark County. Mr. Henley asked if Clark County could do what Senator Schneider had suggested, and perhaps have language incorporated in the bill to where it would be tied to adjacent land use such as commercial land uses. Clark County would certainly be in favor of modifying the bill to reflect this intent. Chairman O’Donnell asked Mr. Henley if he would be willing to work with Senator Schneider in order to develop some language that might be acceptable. Mr. Henley concurred.

Rod Johnson, P.E., Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), stated the department’s position on the incentives of section 7 and section 8 in S.B. 168; and he said that NDOT is in favor of incentives and the department does use them. Mr. Johnson emphasized that NDOT believed that incentives should be used only on critical projects where there are large traffic inconveniences and severe traffic interruptions; or where there is substantial benefits to the users if the project is completed early. He indicated that NDOT has a large number of projects that are less than a million dollars and a lot of the projects have to do with maintenance-oriented surface- sealing type projects working on signal systems, etc.. NDOT does not think an incentive would do much for these projects. Mr. Johnson added, in fact, most of the contracts for NDOT end up with several projects, and he insisted that it is conceivable that a contractor would have a couple of projects that are not quite as critical as working on I-15. He iterated that the contractors might choose to put their resources on the projects that are not so critical to make sure they maximize the benefit on this job and not focus their resources on the critical jobs, which is what NDOT really would like to see them do. Mr. Johnson reiterated that NDOT is in favor of the use of the incentives, but not to apply them to every project.

Senator Wiener drew attention to the language on line 36, page 3 of the bill, giving the incentive to those who complete the project "before the date for completion of that construction," and acknowledged this date could be the day before. The Legislature should consider the language; "up to 6 weeks before or 3 months before," or so that it would be an additional incentive. Mr. Johnson commented to the committee that NDOT has used this kind of incentive on a daily basis and then, also, on a phased basis, for example on the "Spaghetti Bowl;" and he believed the Legislature would defeat the purpose of what is being done if every contract had incentive in it. Mr. Johnson also pointed out the period, from December 1 to January 2, and stated that it is NDOT’s position to try not to close any roadways if possible but sometimes it does not work. He stated that there are periods of time where the contractors have to close some roads depending on utilities, or whatever.

Mr. Johnson asked the definition of closure:

Chairman O’Donnell remarked that the committee does understand what the intent is, as far as the road closure, even if there are two lanes open; the committee is not so sure if this is the bill’s intent but there might be situations where there is a year-long contract and there is no way around it. The contractors would have to close a lane or two. Chairman O’Donnell complimented that the intent of the bill is good and the committee would have to work out some flexibility for NDOT.

Mr. Johnson voiced his concerns on the substantial cost that would occur if the equipment is idled for a month.

Senator Jacobsen asked Mr. Johnson if there would be a limitation to increase the cost of a project. Mr. Johnson responded if, in fact, NDOT ran into a situation where they had a closure and planned to open it and did not get to because of an unforeseen delay, there would be some cost to NDOT in the equipment stand-by issue, for sure. The delay to the job, for a month, is an impact to the traffic or users, but the financial burden would be if the contractor was not able to work the key portion of the project. Senator Jacobsen asked if NDOT had the capability, in an emergency case, to have funds to increase the cost of the project. Mr. Johnson replied the projects have a built-in contingency to deal with change orders.

Vice Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S.B. 168, and adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Joan Moseid,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

DATE: