MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-First Session
March 20, 2001
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2001. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman
Mr. John Carpenter
Mrs. Barbara Cegavske
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. John J. Lee
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mrs. Debbie Smith
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, excused
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst
Geri Mosey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bryan Gresh, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Robert Crowell, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Lee Gibson, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
Kimberly McDonald, representing the city of North Las Vegas
Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation
Mike Lawson, Chief of Traffic Information System, NDOT
Warren Hardy, representing the city of North Las Vegas
Assembly Bill 83: Increases authorized weight limit for certain vehicles used for public mass transportation. (BDR 43-1020)
Bryan Gresh, Robert Crowell, and Lee Gibson, members of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), came forward to present testimony in support of A.B. 83, a bill introduced on their behalf. Mr. Gresh explained the RTC had worked closely with Jeff Fontaine and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to derive the amended language (Exhibit C). Robert Crowell reported that the RTC proposed a new bus with a wider tire and a potential axle weight beyond the current limit for a single axle, hence the amendment adjustment for a 20-inch single tire for public mass transit up to 29,000 pounds.
Chairwoman Chowning asked for an explanation of the remainder of the bill: the rationale, the necessity and benefit for the community. Lee Gibson spoke of the continued demand for public transportation service in Las Vegas. From 1993, the system had grown from 22 routes and 550,000 annual service hours to 1.2 million service hours on 49 routes, and from 14 million to 51 million passengers per year. RTC sought new and innovative methods to serve the community, including vehicles that contributed to clean air and bus rapid transit. The bus rapid transit service operated on a dedicated bus lane, producing significant timesavings, thereby providing more service at less cost per service hour. Mr. Gibson continued in this vein, explaining the advantages of the advanced design vehicle that carried more passengers, boarded and exited passengers faster, allowed for efficient wheelchair boardings through the use of an optical guidance system, and saved time. Vehicles had become heavier and longer. In his handout (Exhibit D), Mr. Gibson presented the axle weights of several new, larger buses.
Assemblyman Nolan disclosed that he worked for the American Transportation Company (ATC), the primary service contractor for the fixed-route system in Las Vegas. He claimed this project was a benefit to the community; his company would see no financial gain from it. He endorsed the project as an innovative and exciting method of public transit.
Assemblyman Gustavson said there was no question this improvement was needed in Las Vegas. However, he was concerned about the load rating on the tires. As a safety factor, if one tire failed, the double tire offered some protection. And, was RTC required to tie down a wheelchair on a bus?
Lee Gibson responded he did not have the load rating of the tire with him but he said it was more than adequate to handle the full load of 168 passengers. Mr. Crowell responded that the wording of the amendment said NDOT could make the determination regarding the safe and efficient operation of the bus on the highway. In response to the second question, Mr. Gibson stated there would be two, possibly three, user-friendly tie-down areas.
Assemblywoman Cegavske raised a question of curiosity, whether there was a possibility the older buses might be used for transporting high school students. Mr. Gibson said Citizen’s Area Transit (CAT) attempted to run the fixed route lines near high schools to provide service to students and the workforce there. CAT had also discussed with school officials ways to improve the service to the schools.
Chairwoman Chowning asked what the typical maximum capacity of a regular city bus was, and would there be a park and ride facility. Mr. Gibson replied that a park and ride facility would be installed on Route 15 as soon as they had the vehicles to run that route to serve Nellis Air Force Base. With respect to vehicle capacity, RTC expected to see at most 74 passengers on this new bus, slightly more than the standard sixty-foot bus. The design capacity was 168.
Ms. Chowning asked where the bus was manufactured. Mr. Gibson confirmed that it was coming from France and RTC had received a Buy America waiver from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). This was wrapped into the demonstration program project that the DOT was funding.
Assemblyman Oceguera knew of many accidents involving the side mirrors of the RTC buses. He asked if the optical guiding system would be a problem as well. Mr. Gibson did not see this as a problem but possibly a minimizing of it.
Bryan Gresh added that the bus had the capacity to communicate with the traffic lights and could signal the light to remain green so the bus could pass through, keeping the traffic moving. Also, the light would turn green first for this vehicle to allow it to get into the travel lane. Assemblyman Lee questioned this. He believed the fire department, by statute, was the only entity permitted to use the opticom unit. Mr. Gibson clarified that the bus did not preempt the traffic signal as the emergency vehicles did.
Kimberly McDonald, representing the city of North Las Vegas, for the record very strongly supported A.B. 83 with the proposed amendment.
Jeff Fontaine, Deputy Director, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), and Mike Lawson, Chief of Traffic Information System, NDOT, came forth in support of A.B. 83. Mr. Fontaine felt it gave NDOT the authority, discretion and controls to permit the buses and thereby balanced the needs of the RTC and protected the state highways. NDOT would be evaluating the new bus in terms of its effect on pavements and how it mixed with traffic. With regard to the safety concern of Mr. Gustavson, Mr. Fontaine went on record as stating:
We don’t necessarily have that kind of expertise in-house but we would have to, of course, rely on others and would seek out the advice and opinion of others to try to make those determinations in our ultimate decision, in terms of whether to grant a permit to these buses or not. So, I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Fontaine if the committee could be assured that before the permit was granted, all their safety concerns had been addressed. He replied affirmatively.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall heard that the new bus would make it easier for wheelchairs to board and exit. She did not understand how they currently did that and, what would be different. Mr. Gibson said it depended on the model of the bus. A low floor bus had a small ramp with a comfortable slope. Higher floor vehicles used a lift to raise the chair. The former was faster. RTC policy was that all wheelchair passengers received assistance; however, they wanted to arrive at a point where those passengers felt comfortable enough to do it themselves.
Assemblyman Nolan assumed NDOT would monitor the wear on the asphalt but questioned how often that would occur. Mr. Fontaine could not say but was certain pavement measurements would be taken frequently.
Chairwoman Chowning pointed out the language “used in a public mass transportation demonstration project,” and asked, because this would be put into statute, was that something that would last forever? Bob Crowell, RTC, said the purpose of the wording was two-fold: to avoid the permanence of law if the project failed, and to specify that the RTC not attempt to expand the axle weight of vehicles on a basis that became permanent without NDOT analyzing its propriety. At such time as the project was deemed permanent, the word “demonstration” would be removed.
Ms. Ohrenschall noted the bill showed an effect on the state and asked what fiscal note this carried. The fiscal note was based on what NDOT thought it might have seen in pavement failure, Mr. Fontaine said. However, he was not concerned about the fiscal impact at this point because NDOT would have control over monitoring that situation.
Chairwoman Chowning remarked that this committee had been part of the monorail project, a huge undertaking, and was proud to have been involved with the innovation. She commented they were pleased to be working on this as well.
Warren Hardy, representing the city of North Las Vegas, lent his support to A.B. 83.
Chairwoman Chowning presented a second amendment to A.B. 83 (Exhibit E). Bryan Gresh, RTC, stated this one-sentence amendment made it easier for buses to merge back into traffic once they had pulled over into a bus turnout. A similar law was on the books in Washington and Oregon. Assemblymen Nolan and Manendo received an e-mail from a Las Vegas man, which asked why Las Vegas did not have a “yield to bus” sign. Such a flashing, illuminated sign would be located near the left tail light that, when activated, would give the bus the right of way to pull back into the first lane of traffic, thus maintaining the schedule. The primary purpose was that of safety: bus turnouts were safer. The signals were only to be used to reenter traffic from a turnout.
Assemblywoman McClain said this amendment did not state that it was only turnout lanes. Ms. Chowning felt that was inferred with the term “entering the traffic flow.” Mr. Gresh volunteered to change the amendment to specify the turnout lane. Assemblyman Gustavson agreed that the wording should be clarified. Ms. Chowning stated that the proposed change merely added the words “from a bus turnout lane.”
Assemblyman Nolan monitored accidents in about 30 different states and the highest frequency of accidents occurred where large vehicles attempted to pull back into traffic. Motorists were unwilling to yield.
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO AMEND WITH BOTH AMENDMENTS AND DO PASS A.B. 83.
ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
Chairwoman Chowning said the committee had another bill to introduce on behalf of Lyon County
ASSEMBLYMAN LEE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 32-335 AS A BILL.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
There being no further business, Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 2:32 p.m.
Linda Lee Nary
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
DATE: