DOT says taking over OptiComm maintenance would expand workload; bill seeks centralized responsibility

Representative Mark Pru introduced House Bill 181, which would shift responsibility for traffic‑signal preemption systems (OptiComm and similar technologies) from municipalities to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT).

"The department does not take a position on this bill, but I'm here to provide some basic information," Lee Baronas, State Traffic Engineer and Bureau of Traffic administrator at DOT, told the committee. Baronas summarized how optical preemption systems work, why municipalities have maintained them historically and what shifting maintenance to DOT would mean.

Baronas said traffic signal preemption systems include vehicle‑mounted initiators, detectors at intersections and preemption circuitry in the signal cabinet. He said disparate local capacities have led to wide variation across municipalities: some cities have in‑house signal crews (Concord, Manchester, Nashua) while others rely on a road agent or hire contractors. "Some towns don't need it. Some don't use it," he said. DOT currently assists municipalities but is not routinely responsible for ongoing maintenance of preemption systems on state highways.

DOT provided a fiscal note estimating workforce needs. Baronas told lawmakers DOT has four traffic signal crews and "we would need at least 1 more crew of 2 plus a vehicle" to absorb the expected workload. He said the fiscal note excludes work on vehicle emitters (the strobes or initiators mounted on emergency vehicles) and assumes an optical‑only approach rather than higher‑cost, GPS/cloud‑based systems.

Supporters of centralized maintenance told the committee that state responsibility could provide consistent performance and consolidation of training. Opponents and several members warned the change would remove local control and could deprioritize rapid local responses when state crews must triage requests statewide.

Representative Jack asked whether municipalities already receive documentation about responsibilities when DOT installs or upgrades intersections; Baronas said municipal agreements are now part of projects going forward but acknowledged historical projects sometimes relied on handshake agreements.

The committee closed the public hearing with testimony recorded; DOT said it could assist with outreach to municipalities to clarify responsibilities and that additional funding would be necessary to provide the statewide maintenance role required by the draft.

Ending: DOT asked lawmakers to define scope (optical vs other technologies), funding and whether municipal signals would be included; the fiscal note and the operational impact of adding crews were central to the committee's technical discussion.