Date Requested:February 18, 2005
Time Requested:12:48 PM
Agency: Highways, Division of
CBD Number: Version: Bill Number: Resolution Number:
2005R73 Intro HB2032
CBD Subject: Traffic Lights
FUND(S)
State Road Fund (9017)
Sources of Revenue
Special Fund
Legislation creates:
Neither Program nor Fund

Fiscal Note Summary

Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.

    
    
    Traffic engineers estimate that there are approximately 64 traffic signals in the three counties. Signs would have been posted at each approach to a traffic signal to allert drivers of the proper method to proceed through the light.
    
    The initial cost of a study followed by implementation for a four year trial is estimated $212,800 for three counties. The increased cost for the trial period are an cost estimate of the replacement lights and their installation.
    
    For those municipalities which have signals on their roadways, the cost is unknown.
    
    

Fiscal Note Detail
Over-all effect
Effect of Proposal Fiscal Year
2005
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
2006
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
Implementation)
1. Estmated Total Cost -212,000 -350,000 -350,000
Personal Services 0 0 0
Current Expenses 0 0 0
Repairs and Alterations 0 0 0
Assets 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
2. Estimated Total Revenues 0 0 0
3. Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):
    
    
    Signage:
     250 Signs @ 200 $ 50,000
    Implementation Cost: 12,800
    Study Cost: 150,000
    TOTAL $212,800


Memorandum
Person submitting Fiscal Note:
Kathy Holtsclaw
Email Address:
kholtsclaw@dot.state.wv.us
    
    1. The estimate provided does not included the cost of signage, installation, and maintenance of signals at locations owned by muncipaalities of the three counties identified in the legislation.
    
    2. The proposed pilot project, if passed, would be very hard on incandescent bulbs and our flash transfer relays. This would result in intermittent heating and cooling of the filaments of each bulb…which reduces the life span of the bulb considerably…thus increasing the maintenance cost of replacing bulbs by…possibly several hundred dollars per year/per intersection.
    
    3. Most states do not use this flashing operation as the wear and tear condition of energizing and de-energizing the flash transfer relay causes the relay to heat up and at times becomes non-functional. If there is a conflict of any sort and the flash transfer relay is non-functional when this occurs, the DOH is at risk of creating a conflict hazard. Essentially, if the flash transfer relay burns out, and the intersection goes under a conflict for any reason, the signal would revert to an existing steady burn with the continuance of a conflict which could cause a catastrophic accident. A non-functioning flash transfer relay effectively renders our Conflict Monitor, our primary equipment safeguard, inoperable.
    
    4. There would also be safety issues when the traffic signal controller is switched from one state of logic to another. Motorists may have the green on the side street approach when the signal begins flashing amber on the main highway which would have the right of way.
    
    5. Since this is not a national recognized method of traffic flow, motorists unfamilar with the pilot project and/or the area will be unsure how to react should they be at the signal and it suddenly start from its normal operation process into a flashing mode at 11:00 pm or 6 am.
    
    6. Signs would have to be installed at each affected intersection to advise all motorists of the flashing operation at night and how to proceed.
    
    6. Most of the affected traffic signals in this area are either now traffic responsive or in the process of being modified to be traffic responsive. A traffic responsive traffic signal ordinarily "rests" in the mainline green phase at night so motorists on the main highway already experience very little delay at night when volumes are low.