In addition to a bill seeking to prohibit future state funding on commuter rail, there were several other bills discussed in the New Hampshire House of Representatives Public Works and Highways Committee on Friday. Here’s a recap.
This bill adjusts the road toll upon the sale of each gallon of gas from $0.18 to $0.138 per gallon. Prime Sponsor Andrew Prout (R-Hudson) said that the change to $0.18 in 2014 was made to help fund the widening of I-93 from Manchester to Salem, and since that work has almost concluded, the change should revert as well.
Prout also felt that if New Hampshire’s gas tax is lower than the one found in Massachusetts, it would help gas stations near the border.
In its place, revenues would be taken from the state’s general fund. The New Hampshire Department of Safety estimated that the impact to the general fund would be $34,046,435. Jennifer Hall of the Department of Safety said that on average, New Hampshire drivers would see a change of $24 per year, although it was uncertain if those savings would be passed onto consumers.
American Council of Engineering Companies Alex Koutrubas also opposed the bill, saying the 2014 bill raising the rate was bi-partisan and the first change in 23 years. He added that the impact of federal and state taxes on gas prices is minimal.
Deputy New Hampshire Department of Transportation Commissioner Andre Briere opposed the bill as well, stating that if this bill passed, it would have an unknowable, but non-zero effect on the state’s bond ratings. He added that if this bill pass
Unknowable but non zero effect on bond ratings, a likely modification on the state’s 10-year-loan for the I-93 widening and an increased burden on New Hampshire taxpayers as the majority of road toll fees come from tourists rather than Granite Staters.
In response to a question from Steven Bogert (R-Laconia), Briere said that this could also have an adverse impact on future transportation projects, stating that whenever dedicated revenues are taken away that it makes planning less predictable. He also noted that revenues from the road toll have lowered in recent years in any case due to more fuel efficient vehicles.
Additional opposition came from New Hampshire Associated Contractors Executive Vice President Gary Abbott and Amy Charbonneau of Continental Paving.
Abbott and Charbonneau both voiced concerns on the impact of shifting the fiscal burden from this dedicated fund to the general fund increasing unpredictability, which could result in layoffs of those employed in road construction and repair.
Abbott noted that a gas tax reduction in Rhode Island during the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in any overall savings. Charbonneau also added that change in 2014 has benefited New Hampshire.
“People are now coming New Hampshire because they can,” said Charbonneau. “I-93 is awesome and nobody can really deny that, and that’s what the four cents got us.”
This bill impacts the redesign at the intersection of New Hampshire Route 302 and East Conway Road in Conway, two state-maintained roads. Specifically, it asks for a traffic light at the intersection rather than a roundabout requested by the Conway Board of Selectmen.
Tom Buco (D-Conway), the prime sponsor of the bill, said that the intersection currently does not have a traffic signal or a roundabout and there have been numerous accidents. Buco also said that a roundabout would be inappropriate given that the intersection is in an industrial area that regularly sees large trucks that would have difficult navigating the intersection.
Opposition to the bill came first from Conway Town Engineer and Deputy Town Manager Paul DegliAngeli, speaking on behalf of the Conway Board of Selectmen. DegliAngeli said that this legislation seeks to circumvent the normal public input process that normally occurs during the traffic design process.
He added that road safety program grant funding could be jeopardized if the results of that process are ignored and that trucks comparable in size to those normally used in the area managed to make their way through other roundabouts in the town without any issue.
Bill Oldenburg, Assistant Director of Project Development with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, also opposed the bill. Oldenburg said that the town already submitted a safety audit for the roundabout and funding for the plan was noted in the state’s ten-year transportation funding plan. He also said that large vehicles frequently use roundabouts elsewhere in the state, such as Broad Street in Nashua and Route 9 in Swanzey.
Steve Woodcock (D-Conway) lives on East Conway Road and said he is indifferent to whether there should be a roundabout or traffic signal, stating only that one or the other be chosen soon given the need for change at the intersection. He added that the delay in a decision has also cost the town in terms of construction costs given the varying costs for materials.
“We want something done and we want to be safe,” said Woodcock.
The majority of people testifying to the committee were in support of the bill, even though the general consensus was a roundabout would be acceptable if it were wider than the one proposed by the town.
Conway Resident Frank Sarro said that larger roundabout at that intersection would be difficult given adjacent wetlands and a scrap yard nearby. He also said that people do not yield for larger vehicles in roundabouts, meaning the attempts to increase safety at the intersection would be minimal.
Sarro also said that the town’s selectmen do not own property or businesses in the area, implying that they were out of touch with the needs of nearby business owners, and that only one person spoke in favor of a roundabout at that intersection at the public hearings mentioned by DegliAngeli.
Sarro added that in a Teletalk conducted by the Conway Daily Sun, 63 percent of respondents support a traffic signal at that intersection.
“Whatever you build, it will be there for our lifetime, and we have to live with it,” he said.
Jim Fedolfi (R-Hillsborough) asked if a temporary traffic light could be placed at the intersection for 60 days, which DegliAngeli said is possible, but would not be needed given the work already done studying the issue.
Michael Vose (R-Epping) was one of the two speakers on HB 456, which aims to collect road tolls on the output of separately metered electric vehicle chargers.
The bill aims to address the discrepancy between electrical vehicles and gas-powered vehicles when it comes to gas taxes, as gas taxes help pay for highway maintenance and construction, and there is no current equivalent under state law for electric vehicles.
Vose acknowledged that it might not be the ultimate solution, but it was important to begin the conversation on this topic.
Committee Chairman Mark McConkey (R-Freedom), one of the bill’s sponsors, recused himself from chairmanship during the public hearing on the bill and echoed Vose’s sentiments.
He told the committee he was working on a comparable bill before learning about Vose’s efforts.
Clifford Newton (R-Rochester) asked if this would be fair given that electric vehicle owners that charge their vehicles at their homes and asked if the wording of the bill could potentially make certain other recharging devices in public areas exempt from the fee. McConkey said that they would not be impacted by this bill, reiterating later in a similar question from Barry Faulkner (D-Swanzey) that this is just the beginning of the process to create fairness between electric vehicles and gas-powered vehicles.
Sam Evans-Brown of Clean Energy New Hampshire said that his organization opposed any contribution to the highway fund, but said that electric vehicle owners should begin to pay into the fund soon once electric vehicle charging infrastructure became more widespread in New Hampshire.
Evans-Brown said that placing fees or taxes on electric vehicles now would stunt the growth of that infrastructure, which could eventually dissuade tourists with electric vehicles from visiting New Hampshire.
In response to a question from Bogert, Evans-Brown said that fees at the time of car registration or fees related to mileage in a certain timeframe may be other methods of making sure electric vehicle owners pay their fair share. However any methods like the one recommended in this bill should be delayed and then phased in as the number of charging stations and electric cars grows.
Bill Boyd (R-Merrimack) and Faulkner also asked specific questions regarding how much electricity would be needed to power New Hampshire’s electric cars and how much money would be raised from the funding within this bill versus comparable taxes and fees for gas-powered cars. That information was not available.
Another bill addressing electric vehicles, this one would require electric vehicle charging stations at any state-owned building or building receiving state funding. Prime sponsor Lucius Parshall (D-Marlborough) noted that it’s only a matter of time before electric vehicles overtake gas-powered vehicles and it is a responsibility of the state to ensure charging stations are available for those vehicle owners.
Parshall could not answer a question from Bogert asking who funded the first gas stations, but said that electric companies would benefit if they were required to pay for the construction of electric vehicle-charging stations.
Martin Jack (D-Nashua) asked if the requirement would extend to state-funded housing and Parshall said it would not, but it was not a bad idea.
Rebecca McWilliams (D-Concord) was the first person to testify on this bill, which would require the New Hampshire Department of Transportation to adjust its road maintenance and repairs to fall in line with Complete Streets program standards.
A concept urged by the U.S. Department of Transportation, “Complete Streets” are streets that are designed with not just cars in mind, but also pedestrians, bicyclists and public transportation riders.
Currently, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation helps communities with Complete Streets initiatives, but it is not a requirement for state-led road projects.
McWilliams said that the primary purpose of this bill was to ensure that road construction and maintenance in non-highway areas includes a focus on pedestrians and vehicles that go below 35 miles per hour as well as those that go above 35 miles per hour.
Ivy Vann, a former state representative from Peterborough, said that the bill would help communities transform state-owned roads that often cut across their communities into roadways that are more integrated with other nearby streets.
She added that designing road networks around multi-modal approaches also helps local economies.
“It turns out that cars don’t buy things, people do,” said Vann.
In response to a question from Boyd, Vann noted that communities had the right to opt-in to the program and specific streets needed to be named.
Bill Watson, a Planning and Community Assistance Administrator with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, noted that the state already works with communities regarding Complete Streets initiatives through public outreach and collaboration whenever communities request assistance.
He added that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation works with communities in narrowing streets when asked to create traffic calming, but narrowing it too much can cause safety concerns.
Watson also added that an organization noted in the bill, “the National Association of City Traffic Officials”, is a typo as it does not exist to his knowledge. There is an organization called the National Association of City Transportation Officials.
Additionally, he noted that this requirement would create an additional burden on routine maintenance and construction of state roads.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation and New Hampshire Municipal Association also noted that capital costs and maintenance costs could increase due to new requirements accommodating the new modes of transition, but it would be impossible to determine how much money that would cost.
Jaci Grote (D-Rye) brought the final bill of the day to the committee, a piece of legislation originally meant to give membership on the Pease Development Authority Board of Directors.
Grote said a late amendment was made to the bill that would instead require a member of the board appointed by the Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to the Pease Development Authority provide reports to the two towns, each have harbors and ports that partially lie under the auspices of the authority.
Thomas King, Vice Chair of the Rye Select Board, preferred the original form of the bill, saying that it helped give his town a seat at the table whereas the new form of the bill makes it seem as though Rye and New Castle have no input in the authority’s affairs.
Pease Trade Authority Board of Directors member Bob Cheney said that members of the board have fiduciary responsibilities to the state rather than specific towns where they are located as the Pease Development Authority is state-owned.
Although it was unclear at first, Boyd noted that he received an email from Pease Trade Authority Board of Directors Chairman Stephen Duprey stating that Duprey was in opposition to the bill.
