House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB35 - Committee on Transportation
Short Title
Operation of transit buses on certain right shoulders in Wyandotte county.
Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 1, 2017
Chairperson Petersen opened the hearing on this bill.
Paul Snider, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), called attention to the flier about KCATA that was distributed (Attachment 1). He noted there is a lot of excitement about a regional transit system that is easy to use and provides more access to everyone. KCATA operates and manages the regional transit service under the brand name, RideKC. KCATA was created in 1965 with a compact approved by Missouri and Kansas Legislatures and Congress. Kansas counties involved are Johnson, Wyandotte, and Leavenworth. Mr. Snider introduced Chuck Ferguson, Chief Planning Officer of KCATA. Mr. Ferguson worked for Johnson County Transit when the bill authorizing the bus on shoulder operation was first heard in 2010.
Mr. Ferguson provided proponent testimony (Attachment 2) and explained the bill. Exploring bus on shoulder was begun in 2009 and Kansas officials worked closely with KDOT while reviewing the program in Minneapolis, MN. That program has 300 miles of bus on shoulder. Currently, KCATA operates on the right shoulder along I-35 between 95th and Lamar Avenue in Johnson County. Buses can drive on that shoulder when the prevailing speed drops to 35 mph or below. Buses may operate at no more than 10 mph faster than the regular traffic on I-35. The program has been very successful in Johnson County and only two incidents have occurred with no injuries and no damage to any vehicle other than the bus. Bus drivers have had a month of training with the Highway Patrol following and leading them on the shoulder. Motorists like the bus on the shoulder because of the openness on the lanes. After proving this an operational success, KCATA is now asking that this program be expanded to Wyandotte County because congestion in the mornings and afternoons is more significant on I-35 in that county.
There is no fiscal note. Johnson County has remaining grant funds for this project. There are a couple of water drainage inlets that will be moved, one guardrail to be added, and pavement markings and signage will be added to remind motorists and buses where they are allowed to operate bus on shoulder.
Mr. Ferguson stood for questions. Senator Skubal said he has noticed the buses on shoulders and wondered if there had been talks about this program in Kansas City, Missouri. Mr. Ferguson said there have been talks, but the highway shoulders in Missouri are not constructed to the same lane width nor the same depth as in Kansas, so additional work would need to be done.
Senator Hawk asked what keeps motorists from following the buses. Mr. Ferguson said there had been significant public relations and education programs. Officials from Minneapolis, MN, which has had a program for some time, said there were very few people who did, and they were caught on camera and sent tickets. Signage includes only authorized buses are allowed on shoulders. Senator Hawk asked what happens in the case of a motorist breakdown blocking on the shoulder. Mr. Ferguson said the bus drivers sit up higher and can see obstacles on the shoulder at some distance and can merge the bus back into normal traffic. Sometimes they are radioed in advance through the Kansas City Scout system.
Senator Goddard asked the definition of a bus. Mr. Ferguson replied the Secretary allows only the big buses--29-foot and 40-foot buses--to run on the interstate. Senator Goddard also asked whether construction zones are evaluated to determine whether buses can transit on those shoulders. Mr. Ferguson said the buses do not operate on the shoulder during construction projects.
Senator Pettey stated this 3.6-mile stretch is the most congested between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Ferguson agreed and said that is the reason for the bill:to add Wyandotte because it is more congested. Senator Peterson asked whether Wyandotte County will maintain the signs and Mr. Ferguson indicated KCATA will manage and has grant funding that has been held for five years. Senator Petersen asked about removing the annual reports. Mr. Ferguson said that is in conversation with KDOT officials, who thought it was not necessary since operation has had no problems for a number of years. Senator Petersen stated that since this is the most congested stretch of the bus on shoulder project, perhaps the reporting could continue for one or two years.
Senator Tyson asked if there was a concern with the Johnson County legislators with this. Mr. Ferguson said some elected officials did not support public transit at all.
Joshua Powers, Johnson County Government, gave proponent testimony (Attachment 3). Mr. Powers noted he was State Public Transportation Manager for KDOT in 2015, and he testified in support of the 2015 version of this bill. Johnson County has supported this project initially since 2010, and the expanded operation will benefit the KCATA transit system as well as regional commuters in the metropolitan area.
Senator Petersen asked if the educational video from Minneapolis, MN is still available. He added that it was very impressive. Mr. Ferguson said he thought KCATA still has the video.
Tuck Duncan, Kansas Public Transit Association (KPTA), provided proponent testimony (Attachment 4). KPTA represents 150 agencies across the state. KPTA members provide general transportation services, and transit for adult and disabled persons throughout the state. The Association does support this bill. He noted there is a definition section already in the transportation law, KSA 75-5034, which talks about transportation systems, coordination, etc.. The current law provides that the Secretary of Transportation can adopt such rules and regulations necessary in order to implement this law, so if it ever became an issue of what vehicle meets the definition of a bus, it could be handled. It is not an issue because there is already a written agreement between the transit agency and the Department. Nothing happens unless the Secretary of Transportation so authorizes, so he has full control, which is a safeguard.
Mr. Duncan indicated the annual report requirement could stay in the bill and he added it was removed because that was one less thing that needed to be done annually. He said this may be the only bill that has zero fiscal note to the state this year. KDOT in its annual report cited the bus on shoulder as a very successful program, as well as the Transit Cooperative Research Program. Minneapolis, MN has had this for 25 years. Chicago has it.
Mr. Duncan said to increase passenger count, buses need to be timely for meeting schedules and be of better service. As recent improvements, he noted the new street car system on the Missouri side, while on the Kansas side, there is a coordinated system with KCATA, Johnson County, The Bridge (a system whereby a van picks up people for KU Med Center, bus as opposed to a cab). The bill would allow the KCATA to add to the improvements.
Senator Hawk questioned a fiscal note that indicated $250,000 would be the cost for signage, shoulder pavement markings, guardrails, and grading. Mr. Duncan noted money that was part of a federal grant has been available for five years and there will be no cost to the state.
Senator Hardy asked whether other counties such as Sedgwick or Shawnee should be added to the bill. Mr. Duncan noted it is not known if the shoulders in other counties are adequate, and the demonstrated need is Wyandotte County.
Reid Petty, KDOT, gave proponent testimony (Attachment 5) noting that KDOT does support this bill. The fiscal note was prepared before the agency realized that Johnson County has the money in the bank. The Secretary's approval is contingent upon agreement by Johnson County to pay those costs. Senator Petersen asked that the fiscal note be corrected.
Written only proponent testimony (Attachment 6) was furnished by Mike Taylor, Unified Government of Kansas City, Kansas.
A legislative history of the transit bus on shoulder operation had been prepared and distributed by KLRD (Attachment 7).
There were no opponents or neutral testimony presented. The hearing on this bill was closed.
