2009 Legislative Session Final Report

BudVye February 28, 2009

Since we were unable to secure a patron to carry a bill to amend the vehicular code from the present passing distance of 24″ to 36″, as a number of states now have, (common responses I get from legislators are, “How many cyclists have been killed or injured while being passed by 24?”, or, “It’s unenforceable since no one has a ruler or yardstick out there anyway”), my #1 priority became the “Motorists to Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalks” bills.

First up of these was HB2386, patroned by Del. Adam Ebbin of Arlington. Narrowly being reported out of the House Transportation Sub-Committee by a 4-3 vote, its prospects didn’t look too promising. A number of contacts by RABA members to Del. Loupassi must have had some effect, since the bill was reported out in the full House Transportation Committee by a 16-6 vote, as two of the three votes against it in Sub-Committee (Loupassi of Richmond and Oder of Newport News) turned around and voted for it. Looking like it had a chance, it had its first and second reading on the House Floor, only to have it appear that someone realized that this bill was getting close to passage, so they had better de-rail it. On short notice, it was referred back from the floor to the Courts of Justice Committee, and then, promptly, referred to the Civil sub-committee of Courts of Justice, where it quickly was “gently laid on the table” (killed) by a voice vote, so that the individual votes are not recorded. Since the Speaker is the one who makes such decisions to refer a bill back to Committee once it has reached the House floor, one wonders who it is that has such a problem with this type of bill that they subject it (and its patron) to what amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment.” After seeing this type of treatment for similar bills go on for about a decade now, its become a challenge for several of us that have been supporting these bills, and we are encouraged that we seem to be inching closer to the finish line, year by year.

Over on the Senate side, Senator George Barker of Alexandria was having a much easier time with his SB1239. Without having to start in a Sub-Committee, it was reported from the Senate Transportation Committee by an 11-4 vote, and then was passed without any controversy by a 24-16 vote in the full Senate. No high fives yet, as we had already seen what had happened to Del. Ebbin’s bill over on the House side. Sure enough, after its first reading on the House floor, it was referred back to the House Courts of Justice Committee, which after a few days referred it back to its Civil sub-committee (which had earlier killed Del. Ebbin’s bill), and we could see where this was heading. But no, rather than killing the bill, the sub-committee referred it back to the full Courts Committee, and we thought we may still be alive. But no, that Committee promptly referred it to the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee, which then put it back in one of its sub-committees, consisting of 3 rural Republicans, and one Democrat from Blacksburg. After Sen. Barker did about as good a job of patroning the bill as could be done, Del. Shuler of Blacksburg moved to Report, but no second was forthcoming from the other two delegates, so the Chairman, Del. Cline of Lexington, declared that the bill “fails, for lack of a second.” Not the ending I expected, but not a surprising result. Once again, cruel and unusual punishment for the patron, which leaves one to wonder why all the machinations for what is a relatively minor bill in the overall scheme of things. So, we’ll try it again next year, with a somewhat different cast of characters in the House after November’s elections.

While all this was going on, three bills that would prohibit drivers from text messaging were conformed into Del. John Cosgrove’s (of Chesapeake) HB1876. I supported this bill since I feel that anything that will help to discourage actions that distract drivers is a good thing. (To the best of my knowledge, 10 of the 14 bicycle fatalities in Virginia last year were hit from behind by vehicles in broad daylight, and the driver often says, “I didn’t see the bicyclist”) As I’ve answered legislators when testifying who have asked, “How many of these fatalities resulted from the driver texting a message,” I don’t know, since there were no witnesses, and the drivers all have the cell phones secured by the time police are on the scene, but cyclists see drivers on the phone and driving erratically on a regular basis. With bi-partisan support, this bill moved through rather easily, clearing House Transportation, 15-1, being referred over to House Courts of Justice (which is customary for any bill that contains a penalty) where it was reported out 18-4, and then passing the full House 88-10. Along the way, it picked up a few amendments, and then moved over to the Senate, where it cleared the Transportation Committee 12-3, and the full Senate 33-6. Sen. McDougle of Hanover (a defense attorney himself, and cyclist) led the opposition since he felt that the Secondary Offense status and the $20 fine would give a motorist who killed a cyclist a minor offense to plead to that would take them off the hook from a much more serious Reckless Driving charge. The majority obviously didn’t agree, and felt that although it was a secondary offense and minor penalty, it was a start in the right direction. I think we will continue to see progress toward a total ban of cell phone use by drivers (unless hands free) next year, as many other states have done.

Bill Tanger of Roanoke, the Chairman of Friends of the Rivers of Virginia (FORVA) was the point man in supporting HB2088, in an effort to secure cooperation from the railroads in getting access across their tracks at certain points for fishermen and paddlers to get to a river. Bill had gotten his local Delegate, William Fralin, to patron the bill which started out by “Requiring the Va. Dept. of Rail & Public Transportation (DRPT) to consider right-of-way and public access issues as preconditions to making grants to any publicly held railroad” and to “promulgate regulations governing public comment and consideration when the making of any grant to a publicly held railroad is being considered by the Department.” The timing for this legislation was the result of DRPT being in the process of making $40 million grants to both Norfolk Southern and CSX for a multi-modal transfer center near Roanoke and for improvements to the Virginia Crescent line that roughly parallels the I-81 highway, and a desire to secure some cooperation from the railroads now that they would be receiving public grants. I got involved in supporting the bill since the mountain biking people had an interest in it in connection with trails that crossed railroad tracks, and in the hopes that it might further progress to establishing trails along active railroad lines.

The railroads agreed that access would be granted as long as a culvert would be built at each proposed crossing location, at a budgeted cost of $300,000 per culvert, that would be paid by others, and not out of the grant funds. DRPT chimed in that they would be happy to hold public hearings, at a budgeted cost of $10,000 per hearing, but that they did not presently have funds in their budget to cover them. Since both of these conditions were “deal breakers” and the railroad reps cautioned that if too many strings were attached to these grants they would have to turn down the money, it was back to the drawing board for the language of the bill. This resulted in the substitute language being worked out around the Capitol’s reception desk, and being handwritten by Del. Fralin, while the House Transportation Committee was hearing a controversial bill that would govern tow truck operators. At length, we re-entered the room and Del. Fralin distributed the hand written bill (which he had hurriedly gotten photo copied) as one of the committee members chuckled and stated, “At least its not on a napkin.” After all that, the committee reported the watered down bill by a 14-1 vote and it breezed on through the full House, Senate Committees and full Senate, without a dissenting vote. Here’s how it reads in its final version:

1.§ 1. No later than December 1, 2009, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation shall develop a process to coordinate and evaluate public recreational access and safety issues directly related to new railroad projects, if appropriate, that is funded in whole or in part by the Commonwealth, and shall send a report to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Transportation Committees communicating the results.

Not an earth shaking piece of legislation, but representing some progress in establishing an official avenue of communication between the three affected state agencies, the railroads, and the recreational interests involved.

Another bill came along at the request of the State Police, who had written tickets to bicyclists for riding on Interstate Highways in Northern Virginia, only to have cases thrown out in Traffic Court (even though the standard “No Hitch Hiking, No Bicycling, etc.” signs were posted at the entry ramps) on the grounds that such prohibition is not contained in the Virginia Code. Del. Robert Brink of Arlington carried HB2008 at the request of the State Police and I supported it, but wanted to make sure that the blanket prohibition did not diminish the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s authority to prohibit or permit bicyclists on Limited Access or Interstate Highways on a case by case basis. Once VDOT realized that a blanket prohibition would cause problems with bike lanes that they have on the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95) and along sections of I-66, those exceptions were written into the bill. With the inclusion of this paragraph, the bill breezed through all committees and both Houses without drawing a single opposing vote:

That the provisions of this act prohibiting the operation of bicycles on Interstate Highway System components shall not apply where the Commonwealth Transportation Board has authorized the use of bicycles provided the operation is limited to bicycle or pedestrian facilities that are barrier separated from the roadway and automobile traffic, and such facilities meet all applicable safety requirements established by federal and state law.

The final bill that I spent any time on was HB2019, patroned by Del. Thomas Rust of Herndon at the request of the Secretary of Transportation, which establishes the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment of the Secretary of Transportation. My main concern was that bicycling and pedestrian accommodation be represented in the mission of this office. Since the following language:

To coordinate the adequate accommodation of pedestrian, bicycle, and other forms of nonmotorized transportation in the six-year improvement program and other state and regional transportation plans;

and,

The assessment shall consider all modes of transportation.

appears in the final version of the bill, I felt that our interests are well represented in the mission of that office, and the bill sailed on through, with no dissenting votes at any level.

Thanks to all who responded to my requests to contact their legislators in support of the various bills. Your efforts did make an impression, and contributed to the success we had in this session.

Related Articles: