Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee backs bill to coordinate traffic signals; sponsor cites $3.11M capital cost and $300K annual staff
Summary
A Transportation committee-backed bill to create a statewide traffic signal coordination committee was presented to the Senate, with the sponsor estimating about $3.11 million in capital costs over 5–7 years and roughly $300,000 a year in staff support; senators pressed on funding, local roles and implementation schedule.
Sen. Marine presented Senate Bill 69 to the Senate floor after the Transportation and Public Safety Committee reported the bill out favorably, asking members to support a statutory traffic coordination committee to oversee signal timing across jurisdictions. "The cost would be approximately $3,110,000 over a 5 to 7 year period for capital costs, and also about $300,000 a year in staff support for this," Sen. Marine said, adding the measure aims to improve traffic flow and air quality along the Wasatch Front.
The sponsor framed the bill as both a formalization of ongoing local efforts and a funding mechanism: "It formulates that committee in a formal form in the state law, plus it puts some money into the area where they can go ahead and have some funds to be able to do the work that's needed," Sen. Marine said. He cited out-of-state examples to illustrate potential benefits, saying California projects had large benefit-to-cost ratios and estimating statewide motorist savings "could be approximately $5,000,000 annually." Those figures were offered as part of the sponsor's justification, not as an independently verified statewide estimate.
Several senators asked procedural and fiscal questions. Sen. Story urged caution about assuming local planners have not been coordinating signals and asked whether the bill creates unnecessary new bureaucracy. Sen. Levitt expressed similar concerns about adding an organizational layer and asked whether the program could be funded from existing DOT allocations. Sen. McCallister pressed for clarity on the fiscal note and whether the first-year figures reflect a full year of costs.
Sen. Marine responded that local and state entities have tried to coordinate but lack the funding to implement broader changes; he said the bill includes a funding formula that anticipates contributions from the transportation fund and participating local governments. On implementation timing, the sponsor said he preferred a staged, multi-year rollout to allow the state and communities to adjust technology choices.
The committee report on SB 69 was adopted on the floor. The discussion on the floor focused on the bill's cost assumptions, who would bear ongoing expenses and how the committee structure would interact with municipal and county authorities. No final enactment vote on the bill itself is recorded in the transcript excerpts provided; the transcript records the committee report being adopted and the floor discussion summarized above.
