House Standing Committee on Transportation

Good morning. Convening today is Thursday agenda for the Committee on Transportation for 8:30 AM, 02/12/2026, here at Hawaii State Capitol in Conference Room 430. We have several measures before us today, and I just wanna acknowledge and thank both my staff, vice chair staff, and the support staff helping us get through our internal deadline here at the legislature for triples needing to go to the next committees. As we head to our first lateral deadline, this is for the next three hearings.

You have a lot more measures to consider before the committee, but it's gonna acknowledge the staff that helped make this building move.

So if I could start if I could start with our first agenda item for today, HB 1688 relating to general excise tax exemption for aircraft maintenance provides the general excise tax exemption for the sale material parts tools used for aircraft service maintenance for the construction of aircraft service. Maintenance facility. Vice chair for testimony, please.

Department of Taxation with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written testimony, providing comments, and I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines in support.

Chair, Vice Chair and Members, we will stand on our written testimony and can answer any questions you folks may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Kohala Coast Resort in support. Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii in support. Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We didn't really concur with Hawaiian Airlines comments that this is not a new exemption, but trying to clarify one that was already enacted several years ago. Other than that, we'd be sending on our testimony and be available for questions.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1688?

Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing none, if you can move on to our next agenda item before us, HB 2386 related to water carriers. Authorizes the public utilities commission to establish automatic adjustment mechanisms to address economic factors, respond day of application by a water carrier. Providers of Public Utilities Commission to establish a water carrier inflationary and cost index.

Automatic adjusting mechanism authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to waive or exempt any water carrier from the requirement under the Hawaii Water Carrier Act. I I wanna preface. I know there are over almost close to 200 pieces of testimony on this measure. And for the sake of I meant to share at the beginning for the sake of time if folks could just be mindful if they are testifying just so we can get through the committee as efficiently as possible. We'll always allow you the two minutes.

First, who's up? There goes the timer. And, and so if you are testifying, I if that's all I could ask, vice chair for testimony, please.

Department of Transportation with comments.

Hello, chair. Vice chair. It's Sniffen with the Hawaii DOT. We sent in our comments, but we're gonna be changing our testimony to support, and we'll send in further testimony as we go. We're part of the working group that the legislature put together in 2020, and which recommended this measure and will support it.

Thank you, Director. DCCA with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Michael Angelo, Executive Director, DCCA. I stand on our testimony. Providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Morning, Chair Kila and Vice Chair Miyake, Jon Itomura, Chair of the PUC. We stand on our written testimony, available for questions. Thank you.

Matson Navigation Company in support. The Maritime Group in support. Hawaii Farm Bureau with comments. Hawaii Harbor's Users Group in support. Young Brothers in support.

Aloha. I'm David Beltre. I'm associate general counsel. I work on regulatory and legal affairs for Young Brothers were responsible for transporting all local cargo between the islands by tug and barge. We support this measure to modernize the regulatory framework for water carriers, which includes the implementation of WICCI, which was the Hawaii State Water Carrier Working Group's top recommendation.

The state recognizes the vital role that interisland shipping plays in our supply chain and our way of life in the islands and regulates water carriers like Young Brothers like a traditional public utility. However, that traditional regulatory framework has not been meaningfully updated in decades. At the foundation of traditional public utility regulation is the regulatory compact. On one hand, customers receive safe and reliable service.

And on the other hand, the utility is supposed to be allowed to return to recover prudently incurred costs and a fair return on investments that make that service possible.

This balance has been slipping out of alignment at Young Brothers for years to the detriment of both customers and the company. Currently, any level of rate adjustment triggers a complex and often years long process known as a rate case, and that has proven contentious and resource intensive for both Young Brothers and the state.

While this process was designed to protect consumers, in practice, what's actually happening is that it's resulting in long periods between, rate increases and rates stagnate and no longer reflect the true cost of providing service. As time passes between rate adjustments, this gap inherently grows necessitating shockingly high catch up rate increases. So Wiki is a targeted modernization tool, which will help address that gap.

It does not replace regulation or reduce PUC oversight, and it certainly doesn't mean that YB can stop working to improve its business. There's clear guardrails. First, there's a scheduled annual adjustment that's tied to an existing Department of Transportation maritime benchmark for fee changes. Second, it's capped at 5%. Third, it's paired with mandatory and full rate reviews every three years.

In short, WICCI helps restore balance to the regulatory compact by ensuring rates stay better aligned with real world cost changes, enabling better enabling water carriers to operate sustainably and keeping our supply chain across the straight state strong. Mahalo again for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We also received five testimonies in support from Young Brothers port managers across the state. Hawaii Food Industry Association in opposition.

Hi. I'm on Zoom. Thank you guys for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Lauren. I'm here on behalf of Hawaii Food Industry Association, and we represent about 200 retail grocery stores, convenience stores, food supply companies. We are in opposition to this measure. I have to say that the level of frustration amongst our members is is very high, and, we do not think that automatic rate increases are the solution. We think that the underlying problem should be addressed.

We agree with, you know, what the PUC said in their last submission, when they approved the 25.75 increase in 11/17/2025 that, you know, there needs to be more effort put into looking at the expenses and maximizing operational efficiencies before we talk about automatic rate increases.

We do agree that there is a lot that could be done to improve the regulatory structure that we're operating under, And that's why we supported HB 177 to transfer the oversight to the Department of Transportation. We think that that would likely be a good place to start, and we're happy to be available for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you. Maui Brewing Company in opposition. Lanikai Brewing Company in opposition. Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Hawaii in opposition, Jennifer Lim in support.

Hello, chair and members. Thank you for your time this morning allowing me to provide comments in support of this measure. My name is Jennifer, and I'm an employee of Young Brothers.

And I spent the last two years with a team traveling across the state, meeting with businesses, community organizations, and many customers who rely on our interaction shipping every day. While their operations differ, the message has been clear to us. They know that our business and our rates must change, but what they want from us is transparency and predictability. They want to avoid large increases, large disruptive increases that come after periods of no increases at all.

They know that our these changes they wanna know how these changes are calculated, and they want most importantly, they wanna know when they're gonna change.

The measure developed by the State Water Carrier Working Group delivers exactly that. It replaces uncertainty with clear transparency clear transparent framework with an annual adjustment that's tied to an existing benchmark, and it's capped at 5%. And it also ensures that our rates are reviewed regularly. That clarity matters to our customers, and that's what they've told us so that they can budget more accurately. They can set their prices with confidence, and they can manage their inventory appropriately.

Our customers understand that Young Brothers needs to operate sustainably. They recognize that our current system could better serve their needs if we could break the cycle of artificially low rates and for extended periods followed by sudden disruptive catch up increases. And this bill creates a more modern system that is easier to understand and more manageable for our customers and communities we serve. That's what our customers across the way have told us that they want and they need.

Passing this measure would be a significant step towards ensuring that YB can continue to provide reliable Inter Island shipping service.

Thank you.

JD Chung in support. Not present. Sherian Sardina in support on Zoom. Not present. Not present.

Ashley Kishimoto in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Ashlee Kishimoto, and I'm the Director of Finance at YB. I'm testifying today in support of this bill and will focus on how it would help water carriers like Young Brothers operate in a financially sustainable way while continuing to deliver reliable service throughout the islands.

The challenge we face is a cycle created when rates and costs drift too far apart over time. Under recovery accumulates, financial pressure builds, and rates require larger increases to catch up after years of delay. We experienced this directly during our most recent rate adjustment. While working through that review last year, Young Brothers operated at a loss of more than 23 million.

That was not the result of a single decision or event, but rather a cyclical outcome stemming from prolonged under recovery due to regulatory lag. These financial challenges have real consequences. They make it harder and more expensive to access capital because investors and lenders look for stability and predictability.

When the cost of capital rises, our ability to reinvest in reliability is limited. The annual adjustments significantly improve this dynamic by allowing smaller, predictable, and capped adjustments tied to an existing maritime specific framework used by the state to maintain port infrastructure. By keeping rates more closely aligned with costs, the result is more transparent and consistent rates benefiting both customers and the business.

Financial stability and access to credit are critical in capital intensive businesses like Young Brothers because they enable the reinvestment needed to keep Hawaii's inter island shipping system reliable over the long term. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your support in providing water carriers with this tool that other utilities use to ensure they remain viable and continue fulfilling their important role in serving the state. Mahalo for your support.

Thank you. We received also 164 testimonies in support and one in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2386? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you, Members. I just wanna comment before I open up to questions. Like, this is a if not the exact same bill that this committee and this body deliberated on all the way up until conference last year. And I preface that it continues to come back because of the concerns that have have occurred. But to no fault of anybody's own. If I could ask Chair of PUC a question, please?

Chair, congratulations on your appointment, and it's your first time I think before the committee this session, hopefully, hopefully the last. But I have a question. So I know I saw your folks testimony, right? And I understand what you folks are asking for. But across the country are there still models of having regulatory framework like the water carriers that other states do or do not do?

If I may ask two things. First, for subject matter expertise, may I also up...

Yes. Of course. Please.

Analyst, Andrew Okabe. Also, secondly, could I ask you to clarify the question?

I think I'm wondering, are other states still regulating water carriers, or are they moving to models of no regulation? I know that's necessary that subject matter of the bill, but I think committee understanding.

Thank you, Chair. In actuality, I think that Hawaii is very unique in this case because we do regulate, you know, our the water carriers here, both YB and Hone Heke or Lāna'i, they call themselves. But there are other, you know, jurisdictions that have authorities that regulate their own ferry systems. I know that YB is not a ferry. So so I wouldn't say that they, you know, we're the US is moving towards deregulation of their water carriers. I think we're fairly unique in thatwe do regulate our water carriers here.

No. That's good for context. Thank you.

And if I may add. You know, it's not that there is a potential lack of competition. It was specifically granted to YB. Therefore, that's why it is regulated.

I think, like, when I think of the framework that was established in PUC, and I think of the time of the establishment compared to Hawaii and its most modern day and age, I think it's a product of our own success and consequence of Hawaii being a much more larger industry and what's being requested and what's being done. So it's no fault of anybody's own. Right? I always acknowledge things are totally meant and suffice the time of implementation. So thank you for the context. Members, any questions? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, folks. Okay.

I'll move on to our next agenda item before us. HB 1691, related transportation. Authorizes supporting documents used to transfer the ownership of a motor vehicle to an insurer after payment of damages as a result of a total loss insurance settlement to be signed electronically. Requires direct... Sorry. Requires insurance companies indemnify and hold harmless finance for claims resulting under issuance of motor vehicle titles utilizing documents signed electronically without a notary. Effective January 1, 2027. Vice Chair for testimony, please.

Okay, I'll move on to our next agenda item before us. HB 1691, related to transportation authorizes supporting documents used to transfer the ownership of a motor vehicle to an insurer after payment of damages as a result of a total loss insurance settlement to be signed electronically. Requires the direct, sorry, requires insurance companies to condemn and fine hold harmless direct finance for claims resulting from the issuance of motor vehicle titles utilizing documents signed electronically without a notary, effective January 1, 2027. Vice Chair for testimony please.

City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services in support. Hawaii Insurers Council in support, Copart in support on Zoom.

Copart, we'll come back to you.

Oh, I can, I didn't know you were ready for me. I apologize.

Thank you.

Good morning, Aloha. Sorry for the confusion. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, just thank you for the time. My name's Mark Binder. For the records, B-I-N-D-E-R.

And I'm testifying on behalf of Copart in support of this bill with technical amendments. They're very small amendments that, honestly, are just an oversight in the writing of the original language that's been agreed to with the industry to fix a slight error. We operate - what we are: Copart is a vehicle auction service company across the United States, which we actually have a facility in Kapolei, and we service the whole state. Our our business involved working closely with insurance companies.

So, if you ever had a total loss vehicle, you wonder what happens to my car, well, more than likely, it comes to Copart or our competitor, after it's been declared a total loss and following claims settlement.

What this bill does is it modernizes the vehicle title transfer process and allows electronic signatures for transfers, just on this one targeted transaction, not opening it up for every title transfer, but just in this one target and removes the notary requirement. This will, in our opinion and we've seen throughout the country, this will significantly reduce the delays for consumers. And right now, if you think about it, a vehicle owner who has a total loss, they have to go get documents signed.

They have to go get a notary and then ship the documents back to the insurance company, which could be on the mainland. And they're doing all this without a vehicle because their vehicle's in our lot or it's a total loss.

So, how do you go get something notarized when you don't have a car and when you could just sign it electronically? What this will do is allow the potential of a one phone call transaction. So, you could have the settlement agreed to. You can sign the documents, and then you could insurance company could issue payment all at one phone call, which currently is multiple days or weeks. And this is also supported by federal national authorities, so we just ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. American Property Casualty Insurance Association in support. One individual in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1691? Seeing none, Chair. It's all yours.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Mark, I have a quick question. Oh, Mark?

Yeah. Yes.

You - I just, for clarity for the committee, the other counties and municipalities for modernization have allowed this and have found success with implementation.

Yes. We have approximately 40 other states that allow this type of transaction, and we've met with a few of the counties here, and we have received, support from the counties in in Hawaii. But I don't know if you can see this, but I've got a map here. Everything in the in the light green shows the states that allow this, and the ones in blue, you know.

If you don't mind, would you be able to follow-up with our office? And then you can email me that, and I'll try to disperse that to the committee for updates. Absolutely. And I I want to applaud the county for coming on board in support of this measure. I know how hard it can be sometimes.

You're welcome.

Sorry. Rep Cochran?

So I'm glad that you folks have the same agreement for some of the county support. Thank you, Mark. Members, any other

Can I ask mister Binder a question?

Yep.

Mister Binder, aloha, representative Cochran here. So do you know the impacts on the counties? Do you have that information?

Yeah. There's yeah. And that's the only thing that will change for the counties is when they process a title application, the the signed form will look different. There's no cost involved. There's no integration electronically.

Nothing like that. Just the document will be printed. So it will just be this form looks different, than it did previous.

Okay. Good. Thank you so much for that information.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Members any other questions?

Seeing none.

We want to next agenda item before us. HB 1680 relating to Vehicle Transfers requires each County Director of Finance notify applicable state and local agencies upon receipt of official notification of a vehicle transfer from transferer requires each County Director of Finance established a centralized notification system to applicable agencies for every vehicle titled for every vehicle transfer by 07/01/2027, Vice chair for testimony.

City and County of Honolulu, Department of Customer Services in opposition and one individual in support.

Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1680?

Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you, Members. There's nobody asked questions of.

So we want our next agenda item. HB 2516 relating to Helmets, increases the age of an individual who's required to wear a helmet for electric foot scooters and bicycles. Prove it's a person from operating a high speed electric bicycle or class three electric bicycle unless that person wears a helmet.

Vice chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Chair, vice chair member, Ed Sniffen with DOT. Stand in support.

Thank you. Department of Health in support.

Chair, vice chair. Garrett Hall with the Department of Health, State EMS Office. And we stand up with our written testimony.

Thank you. AAA Hawaii in support.

Hawaii Bicycling League in support.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. We stand in support on our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2516?

Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you, members. Sorry. Director Sniffen, I have a clarifying question.

Yes, chair.

I'm gonna, I've I if I was looking at the bill and how it's worked in. I know you worked with the introducer on this one. I think because of the way that, if we're moving forward with framework of the previous measure HB 2021, I'm inclined to try to have consistency of classifications if the department would be okay with that.

That was part of our recommendations, Chair. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we want to our next agenda item before us. HB1993 relating to deaf individuals authorizes deaf motor vehicle owners who register their vehicle as being owned by a deaf individual so that a deafness designation appears when a law enforcement officer accesses the motor vehicle's information. Vice Chair for testimony.

City County Honolulu Department of Customer Services with comments. Employed Disabilities, right center and support.

Yes. Yes. Good morning.

Members. I'm Lou Ordeshek. I'm the director of the Disability Rights Center. I'm here on Zoom. And, thank you.

I think it's pretty easy to envision how it how an encounter between a deaf individual driving a car and a law enforcement officer could get could get could go south pretty fast. Officer could go south pretty fast.

Go south pretty fast. If the person in the car doesn't understand the commands, if they're being told, for example to put their hands up, or get out of the car and show their license, and the police officer doesn't know the person's deaf, and a deaf person doesn't know what the police officer's asking. So this seems like a very sensible idea, so we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. PL Fritz, individual in support on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Peter Fritz. I am a hard of hearing attorney and advocate for the disabled, and I'm the 1 that brought this idea to the deaf blind task force. I am a member after reading about it in 1 of my New Jersey bar journals. I support the intent, of this Bill, but I respectfully request or suggest 2 amendments.

The first is changing deaf to deaf and hard of hearing and removing the word of impairment in paragraph D. I also recommend adopting the threshold that was used in the New Jersey law, which is for applicants required to have a hearing loss demonstrated by the pure tone average of 500 comma 1,002 hertz of 41 decibels in the better ear.

82 is a high decibel number, which would exclude many people who are hard of hearing such as The final change is just to remove the reference to the proof being used in the income tax code. I used to work for the Department of Taxation. I can tell you that this is more or less a declaration.

And the reality is that, in terms of proof, it's really not the proof. It's more a checkoff that might be discovered in audit that somebody doesn't meet the particular requirements. I believe that these changes will ensure that the Bill better serves individuals with a hearing loss because it broadens the class and it will reduce the risk of miscommunication with law enforcement officers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

If anyone would like a copy of the New Jersey Bill that this was based on, I'll be happy to supply a copy of it.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Mister Fritz. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB1993?

Hi. Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Brian Mick. I'm here on behalf of the disability communication access board and our acting executive director, Christine Pagano. Our legislative committee was going to review and take an official position on this Bill on Monday, but unfortunately, of course that meeting had to get pushed.

But staff was gonna recommend support for this Bill. So we're hoping that it advances and hopefully, we'll be able to get it in official testimony at this next hearing. Certainly, it's an issue that's been discussed a lot recently. So thank you. Thank you very much. Certainly.

Sorry, Chair. We also got 4 individuals in support on this testimony. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB1993?

Sorry, DeKalb. I have a question. Would so commenting to Mr Fritz proposed amendments. Would you folks welcome them? Yeah.

I'm just thinking we'll probably add that to our recommendation to the Okay. Committee to support them.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, I'd like to Sorry.

The attorney Fritz mentioned the New Jersey law. Yeah. Is there a way I'd like to.

Mister Fritz, would you be able to send that out to our office so I can distribute the law to our committee members, please?

Yes, sir. I'd be happy to do that. I'll send it to you, Chair, if that's okay.

Please. And I'll distribute it to the members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very much. Thank you, Mister Fritz. Okay. Moving on to our next agenda item before us relating to HB2442 relating to parking for disabled persons beginning 07/01/2027. Increases the number of required accessible and van accessible parking spaces and parking lots of more than 25 parking spaces that are covered by title 2 or title 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Please share your testimony.

Disability and Communication Access Board in support.

Hi. Once again, Brian Mick here on behalf of DCAB and Acting Executive Director Kristine Pagano. We'll stand on our submitted testimony in support of this bill, but I also want to respond to some points raised in testimonies in opposition.

The retail merchants may be telling their organization that they see plenty of available accessible spaces, but that's the opposite of what our permittees are telling us. We surveyed 2,600 permittees back in 2021, and the lack of available spaces was the number one barrier reported.

People in all four counties also report that the larger a parking lot is, the more difficult it is to find in available space. This is logical as the ADA formula trends down as parking lots get bigger, going from a minimum of 4% in lots with 100 or less total spaces to a straight 2% in lots with 500 or more total spaces. This bill tries to smooth out that formula and make sure that the minimum is always set at 4%.

We know that almost 8% of Hawaii residents have a park. University of Hawaii brought up that there's no definition of parking lot in the bill, so the committee may wish to amend the bill and use the term parking facility.

That's actually the term the ADA uses and has a definition in the ADA of parking facility. I may be misreading UHS testimony, but they seem to be saying they're aggregating different parking facilities on one campus purposes of calculating the minimal number of spaces. The ADA actually requires that calculation be done separately for each parking facility. So if you have a a surface lot and a parking garage, even if they're serving the same facility, those have to be calculated separately.

DAA allows you to relocate the spaces once you've done the calculation if that provides more accessibility.

But I don't think the bill even is currently written is as difficult as I read that testimony. UH Manoa probably has a minimum of at least 15 parking facilities on its campus that I can think of. So that's, yeah, that's our testimony and, again, we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Aloha Chairs. The Council stands on for the testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Disability Rights Center in support.

Yes. Thank you. The ADA just basically sets a floor, a minimum level under federal law but it also allows the states to be more protective of people with disabilities. So we're certainly in strong support. We think this is a good idea and we hope that the state will adopt that. Thank you.

Thank you. University of Hawaii with comments and two individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB2442?

Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions?

Okay. Seeing none, nice to move on to our next agenda item before us. HB1510 relating to License Plates. Conditions the issuance of a certificate of inspection upon a vehicle not being equipped any cover or shield installed over the license plate.

Immense the penalty for obstruction of a license plate allows Cedar County Parking Enforcement Officers issue citations for vehicles with the cover shield, obstructing license plate and repeals the requirement that the cover shield shall be intended to alter the with the visibility, legibility or identification of a license plate by law enforcement or traffic enforcement systems. Vice chair for this one.

Department of Transportation in support.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members. Ed Sniffen with Hawaii DOT stand in support.

Thank you. And one individual in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1510?

Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions?

Seeing none. Let's move on to our next agenda.

Sorry. Chair

Cochran?

County Parking Enforcement Officers are those not like actual put county police officers. Those would be like the private parking lot attendants type people.

I think the intent, I can't speak to what the introducers intent but from my understanding of the measure for the citation that would call under HRS, they would actually have to be a county or state law enforcement. I mean, a county law enforcement officer, which have the titles for parking lots.

Oh, okay.

Just wanted to sure.

But not necessarily the intent of private folks.

Private security?

No.

Right. Okay. That's what I was wanting to get clear on.

Thank you.

Yep. Okay. Members, next measure before us, HB 1958 relating to Public Safety.

Establishes us for City with the population greater than 300,000 enforcement procedures to prevent domiciling or storing a proper personal property on public property within a bus stop area for person does not intend to use the public transportation services. Vice Chair for testimony.

ACLU of Hawaii in opposition.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Wookie Kim. I'm the Legal Director at the ACLU of Hawaii. I'm gonna just get right to the point. This bill does not meaningfully improve bus stop safety.

What it does do is criminalize poverty and create serious constitutional problems. I have four quick points, and our written testimony elaborates on these. The first problem is that this bill is just too vague. Enforcement turns on whether someone, quote, intends to use the bus stop. The problem with that is intent isn't something you can determine just from appearance.

Officers are going to do that, though. They're gonna rely on their on people's appearance and assumptions to decide that someone is not intending to use the bus stop. Another problem too is that the bill authorizes, quote, reasonable polite inquiries. That's just a euphemism for interrogation in this context. And what that means is it opens the door for any bus stop user to be questioned by police.

The second point I wanted to make is that the preamble frames this as protecting Kupuna, Keiki, and people with disabilities. We all support that goal, but the problem is it suggests that houseless people are not those groups as well when we know, for instance, that a lot of people who are houseless are Keiki, are Kupuna, do live with disabilities.

So this bill really is otherizing our houseless neighbors and targeting them for criminal punishment.

The third point I wanna make is that we already have obstruction laws that address a lot of the issues that are intended to be addressed through this bill. But what this measure does on top of that is create and perpetuate a system of criminalization where the same people are being constantly cited, and again, without increasing public safety for transit access.

And the final point I wanted to make is and I realize my time is up, is that this bill's property removal timeline directly conflicts with the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Davis versus Bissen. Our written testimony elaborates on this. Thank you for your time, and we ask that you hold this this measure.

Thank you. I also just wanna acknowledge that, until 09:30, the sorry. Off topic. The zipper lane is open. So if anybody is currently stuck in traffic. Mahalo, DOT for opening it to all motorists.

Continue. Thank you.

We also got three individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1958?

Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions?

Chair.

Representative Cochran.

For, ACLU.

ACLU, please.

Thank you. Just a part.

Thank you, Sir, for being here. So do you foresee should this move forward as is, foresee litigation? Just looking at the Davis versus Bissen in Maui County, have similar situations occur?

The bill in its current form is in our view, legally problematic. Whether there would be or is any plan to litigate this is a separate question. But the problem is that there's a difference between taking and storing property that is in public spaces for a period of time and giving property owners the ability to challenge the taking and to recover the property.

But what this bill authorizes is that after several hours, if property isn't removed, it can be and the language is in the bill. I interpret this to mean destruction because it says, any remaining unclaimed property may be removed and disposed of.

And that is extremely problematic under Davis versus Bissen. And if to be honest, there's a lot of case law, not just in the Hawaii Supreme Court, that would call into question the current framework, which really, from the moment that the first verbal warning is given, if I'm understanding the math of the, you know, the first citation, the second citation, it's seven hours from that first verbal warning. That's just constitutionally insufficient.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any questions?

And just to clarify

Represent Muraoka.

You're saying that seven hours is insufficient time to remove your property from the bus stop once the first warning has been given?

Just to clarify, what I meant by constitutionally insufficient in this context is whether the whether there's that is sufficient time under constitutional due process to warn or let someone know that their property might be taken and destroyed, not about whether practically speaking, a person could or could not remove their property from a space within that period. We look at this from the perspective of constitutionality.

I have so much more, but I'll pass.

Thank you, Rep. Muraoka. Members, any further questions?

Seeing none, I'd like to move on to our next. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, I'd like to move on to our next agenda item before us, HB 1915 relating to injurious materials, permits placing, dropping, or leaving injurious materials on highways, lanes, roads, streets, and alleys.

Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. Ed Sniffen with DOT in support.

Thank you. Halehua Townhouse Association in support. We got Paul Goloju in support on Zoom.

Good morning. Michael Goloju Junior, he, him pronouns. Well, as somebody who has grown up on Drive for it's sad that we actually need this bill. Given the impetus behind this is that somebody purposely went out and placed screws on our Drive.

And the fact that it that we actually need to put this on the books and making sure that that that we can punish people that actually inter and go out there and damage our roadways, damage our vehicles is sad a sad state of affairs, but we do I do encourage you to pass this bill so they can actually prosecute these people that, intentionally destroy, property. Mahalo.

Thank you. We got one individual with comments and three individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1915? Seeing none.

Thank you. Members, any comments, questions? Sure. Representative Cochran?

For Director Sniffen. Is he on the line? Oh, good morning, director.

Good morning.

So I had no idea this was a problem, but I get what it's pointing towards. I'm trying to I don't have the bill printed in front of me. I'm sorry. But there's a portion I believe where it's in someone's testimony that says or unless authorized by an appropriate government agency. Do are you familiar with that sentence?

And, I mean, what I'm trying to ask is would the, like, DOT tell somebody to do such actions that this bill is trying to address? I don't understand if that is truly the case.

Yeah. The deal fee would not direct anybody to damage anybody's property.

But, I mean, that's why I'm sorry if I'm taking this out of context, chair and director. Okay. I mean

Thank you.

I figured so, but sorry. I'm trying to sorry. I have to see where I get that from.

You good, Rep Cochran?

Yes. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, I'd like to move on to our next agenda item before us, members. HB 1692 relating to traffic safety. Requires drivers of vehicles approaching stationary motor vehicles stopped on the shoulder or roadside due to traffic collision or vehicle maintenance or mechanical problems to slow down and make a lane change if necessary.

Vice chair for testimony.

Director of I'm sorry. Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Ed Sniffin with Hawaii DOT in support.

Thank you. Attorney General's office with comments on Zoom. Oh, sorry. In person.

Good morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyake, and Members of the committee. Michael Moriyama, deputy attorney general. The Department of Attorney General supports expansion of the current law to require drivers to slow down when approaching a stationary vehicle whose emergency To ensure that the law is enforceable, the law, department has a few recommendations. First, the department recommends deleting the requirement that a stationary vehicle be stopped from the roadside or shoulder. So a vehicle may not always be stopped on the shoulder of the roadside.

It could be stopped within the roadway or traffic lane, especially if the vehicle is disabled. The second, the department recommends that the condition that a stationary vehicle be stopped, specifically due to a collision or a mechanical problem also be deleted. Enforcing a violation, it may be difficult to prove that an approaching driver could reasonably determine that the stationary vehicle was stopped specifically because of a collision or a mechanical problem.

So deleting that condition will require drivers to slow down when approaching any stationary vehicle as it's emergency light is flashing. Third, the current law requires drivers to slow down only when they're approaching an emergency road situation.

So another current law, an emergency vehicle will be stopped for an emergency, a routine traffic violation, or to render assistance. So under the current law, there's no responsibility for a driver to slow down if the emergency vehicle stop for a routine traffic violation or to render assistance. So deleting that condition will also require drivers to slow down when they're approaching any emergency vehicle, that stopped that has its emergency lights flashing. And lastly, the department recommends that the definition of stationary vehicle be deleted.

A vehicle is already defined in HRS 2862. Stationary simply means stopped or not moving, so the department feels that there's no need for further definition. Thank you very much, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Chelsea Dowell with Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. We stand on our written testimony. We just wanted to make ourselves available for any questions regarding our support with comments since the companion bill on at the Senate side received some questions about the suggestions we posed in our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. AAA Hawaii in support. Thank you. Hawaii Transportation Association in support.

Not present. Okay.

Not present. And one individual with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1692? Seeing none.

Thank you, Members. Any questions? Seeing none we can move on to our next agenda item before us. HB 1524 related pedestrians establishes that fines for pedestrians violations under Chapter 291c hereby the revised statute shall not exceed $25, requires state and county agencies to revise applicable schedules of fines, rules, and procedures to comply with the monetary limit. Vice chair for testimony.

State of Hawaii judiciary with comments. Department of Health with comments.

Chair and Vice Chair, the Department of Health stands on its testimony of providing comments on its merits. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Appleseed in support.

Hello, House Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Abby Sites. I'm here testifying on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed in support of this measure. We support it as we believe, our current pedestrian fines are overly excessive and vastly disproportionate to the action at hand. For example, the fines and fees for crossing outside of a marked crosswalk is a $130.

In comparison, fines for speeding, which caused much higher public safety, and roadway, issues on Oahu start at $62. Many people, especially those relying on walking, do not own a vehicle, cannot afford these steep pedestrian fines, and left unpaid, they can cascade into larger consequences, such as debt collection, damage credit, and the like. We believe this bill has taken the right step to mitigate these harms, caused by overly excessive fines. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Get Fit Hawaii in support. Two individuals in support and one individual with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1524? Seeing none Chair.

Excuse me, sorry, Members. Questions? Okay. Seeing none I move on to the next agenda item before us. HB 1884 related to transportation requires installation of leading pedestrian intervals, accessible pedestrian signals, other safety improvements as necessary at state owner operator, you need pedestrian signal heads, provides Department of Transportation and coordination with the counties to develop a program to that allows pedestrians and community members to request installation of accessible pedestrian signals at specific intersections, appropriate funds by share for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you. We stand in support.

Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Department of Health in support.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the committee. I'm Lola Irvin testifying for the Department of Health. So the Department of Health supports this measure, and we do have new data to share. And so our evaluation organization in the University of Hawaii interviewed, with surveyed adults from May to June in 2025, a statewide sample of over, 1,400 people. And they were asked on a scale of one to 10 from do not support at all to complete support.

They showed strong public support for leading pedestrian intervals, 7.8. So they strongly supported it. So I think as someone who is very short and who cannot be seen by someone driving a big truck or SUV, I have often stood there waiting at the light and lost the opportunity to cross the street. So having that leading pedestrian interval so that I can have the right to walk first and then the car can go and they've clearly seen me would be a safety measure that we support. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Addison Bulusan, City and County Of Hawaii, Hawaii Association of the Blind in support. Howard Lesser? Yep. Oh, yes.

Good morning. My name is Howard Lesser. I'm Chair of the advocacy committee of the Hawaii Association of the Blind, Chair and Vice Chair and committee members. Hawaii Association of the Blind or HAB is in strong support of this bill. We believe that it's high time to install accessible pedestrian signals, what I used to call audible pedestrian signals or APS. I know it's being proposed that a number of APS would be installed in high traffic areas and supported by the Department of Transportation.

Thank you. And a number of our members have been injured by automobiles crossing the street. This bill would not just help individuals with visual impairments or who are blind, but it will also help individuals with intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities, senior citizens like myself and many others. And we think that it's high time that APS be installed, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill.

Thank you, Mister Lesser. Hawaii Disability Rights Center in support?

Yes. Thank you. On Zoom, I'm Louis Erteschik, Director of the Center. And, Howard, by the way, is one of our advocates. So we also stand in strong support.

You know, on these lead signals, I think we can all relate to an experience where we're trying to cross. We finally get the walk signal and you start to go and then somebody's making a right turn, you know and you're looking at them like, hey. I thought I got the right of way. So I think that lead time would makes a lot of sense. Also, if you're blind, trying to cross the street is obviously a challenge.

And so any kind of technical device or assistance that's gonna make that easier is clearly a good safety move. So we stand with our colleagues in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Bicycling League in support. Not present. Hawaii Appleseed in support.

Aloha again, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm speaking on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed in strong support of this measure, which, as mentioned by others, would require the installation of leading pedestrian intervals as well as accessible pedestrian signals at new as well as a a number of existing intersections per each year.

Leading pedestrian intervals for those who may not be familiar, also called LPIs, is a very technical term for simply adjusting signals to allow pedestrians a few extra seconds to start crossing the street before the light turns green. Doing this makes it much easier for drivers to see the pedestrian and greatly reduces the likelihood of collisions. Because of the their low cost and effectiveness, this has been a critical component for how many cities have been reducing pedestrian fatalities.

I explained this in our written testimony and highlight cities such as Seattle, where they have implemented LPIs. They've seen a thirty-four percent reduction in pedestrian injuries and fatalities. It's also crucial to pair these types of improvements with accessible pedestrian signals, which provide audible and other cues for those who are blind or low vision to give them the confidence and information to start to cross the street safely.

So in the wake of our rising pedestrian fatalities with 2025 being one of the most dangerous years in almost two decades, it's critical for us to improve the safety of our intersections, and we urge the committee to pass this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Get Fit Hawaii in support. Hawaii Association of the Blind, President Cabanilla in support. People for Active Transportation Hawaii, in support. Hawaii Public Health Institute, in support on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Transportation Committee. My name is Patti Hatzistavrakis, and I am the Active Transportation Specialist with Hawaii Public Health Institute. And we, as well as the statewide Healthy Eating and Active Living Coalition, are in full support of this measure. As mentioned by previous testifiers, this would go a long way to helping improve the safety for our vulnerable road users and reduce the amount of vehicle pedestrian collisions at marked intersections.

So I thank you very much for your time today, and I look for I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Hawaii Association of the Blind Board Member Antonio Vega in support. Another board member, Vicky Kennedy in support. Our children's trust in support. Disabilities and Communications Access Board and support.

I'll be glad we'll just stand in support. Thank you.

Oh, James Gashel in support. Not present. And nine individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1884? Seeing none, sir.

Thank you, Director Sniffin.

Yes, Chair.

I have two questions. You folks are doing this already in some intersections?

Yeah. We're already doing this. Well, we haven't we don't have any LPIs set right now. We're working the city for the evaluation of our system, and we're moving it forward already.

Okay. And that was my next question. How does that work when on Honolulu County, we don't own any of the inner stoplights?

Yeah. So we we contract with the city who who takes care of our system for us, and they do a really good job. But we're working with them right now for analysis of which intersections benefit from the LPI's for safety and how to move forward quickly.

Okay. Members, any other questions? Representative Cochran?

Director Sniffin. Good morning again.

Good morning.

So in your response to Chair Kila that you're already rolling out this program, the current the current chapter two nine one c is you're you're striking some words. Basically, I'm taking a look at your recommended changes here.

Yes.

So if I'm understanding this right Section two, chapter 291c, Item A, removing the signals shall be installed to May evaluate. And I think you were just saying that's what you're doing now is may is you're evaluating. So are have so have you been in the process of installing, it says, in the current, the current law, that you shall install 25 no less than 25 annually. So you've been doing this and

We have not been.

Okay. Yeah. So now you wanna remove the shell install, no fewer than 25, to you will evaluate, I guess, basically, the need to install in certain areas.

That's correct.

Okay. I just feel like the shall into may evaluate is less preventative and more, like, I guess, reactive in a sense. I prefer to be, you know, get ahead of having deadly intersections.

I totally agree. So the shall the change from shall install is to shall evaluate. That's what we're that's what we're advocating for.

Right.

What we wanna do is make sure we have the requirement to evaluate. What we don't wanna do is have a a requirement to install if there's no benefit to the community at a at a at a cost. There's two issues that that are in this still right now. One is the LPI. That is a no-cost ad that we're evaluating to put in at each intersection where it makes sense.

The other portion is APS. That's 4 to $8,000,000 per intersection. If we shall install 25 per year, that's a 100 mil per year that we're putting in areas where it's very difficult to do so. So the request is for us to turn the shall install to shall evaluate.

Okay. And Chair. And then you're also wanting to remove the description intersections with high collision rates. So you just don't wanna look into what intersections have these problems?

There should be there should be all data that's included. If we just look at high collision rates, it could be collisions for different reasons for different users. If we're looking for pedestrian crashes, we should be looking at that. We should be also be looking forward, not being reactive, in your words, to see what volumes of pedestrians you have in those areas. There's some areas where we have significant conflicts with possessions and vehicles that don't have any crashes yet.

We wanna make sure we get ahead of that.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. It's unfortunate about that 93 year old woman yesterday. Okay.

Thank you, Director Sniffin. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. I'd like to move on to the next measure. Agenda item before us, HB 1523, relating to the statewide traffic code. Removes references to countdown timers as early pedestrian control signals, including a requirement that pedestrians must begin crossing a road before a countdown timer begins. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in opposition.

We stand in opposition.

Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Department of Health with comments.

The Department of Health stands on its testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Appleseed in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I am testifying once again on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed in support of this measure. This bill proposes to modify HRS 291C to remove the requirement that pedestrians must start crossing the street before the countdown time. Currently, pedestrians do start crossing the street after the countdown timer has begun even if they have enough time to finish crossing the street before the don't walk or the don't walk sign arises, they can be given a citation for $130.

We believe these rules go against conventional understanding of the use of the countdown timer, which exists not only to tell pedestrians to not cross the street, but rather to provide pedestrians with additional important information, specifically how much time they have to that remains to safely cross the street. Again, we support this measure as we believe that this step in a right direction to simplify our overly complex and burdensome pedestrian regulations. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Get Fit Hawaii in support. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

Good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Transportation Committee. Patti Hatzistavrakis here with the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We also stand in support of this particular measure. Updating the statewide, excuse me, traffic code to remove the language pertaining to countdown timers at designated crosswalks would provide additional freedom to pedestrians to cross safely using the entire walk cycle, which would improve the safety of all road users. We ask that you please pass this bill, and thank you very much for your opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Council Member Addison Bulosan, County of Kauai in support, and three individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1523?

Thank you. Members, any questions?

Seeing none. I'd move on to our next agenda before us, relating to pedestrians HB 2213 specifies that the driver of the vehicle must wait until pedestrian has crossed half of the crosswalk. Plus an additional lane of the roadway before the driver can proceed. Vice chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you, chair. Stand in support.

Welcome Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. One individual in support, one individual in opposition, and one individual with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2213?

Seeing none. Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions?

Seeing none. Move on with our next agenda item. HB 2186 related to Pedestrian Safety, clarifies drivers obligations at crosswalks requires drivers to stop and remain stopped for pedestrians and crosswalks, strike ins, penalties for traffic violations, particularly in school zones.

Creates additional criminal penalties when pedestrians suffer bodily injury, provides heightened protection for blind and visually impaired pedestrian.

Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you. Stand in support.

Thank you. Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento. I'm a member of the Office of the Public Defender representing them here today. Please understand we do not oppose the spirit and the purpose of the law, but just the language that is used. In the first section dealing with pedestrians in the crosswalk, we do feel that current HRS statutes already cover everything that's being, that has concern here in this bill.

We've offered one simple amendment to the current law, which would then encompass everything that this bill, at least on this section of the bill, is trying to prevent and protect our members of the public with. And so we've outlined the reasons why we feel legally we need to have this consistent and stick with the current statutes instead of trying to create a protection within the HRS to deal specifically with these issues.

The second concern that we have deals with the second part dealing with pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired. In the first part of the bill, causing somebody injury with a vehicle in a negligent manner is a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the situation. The second part dealing with people who are blind or visually impaired is also being treated as a misdemeanor. And it's not causing harm, it's really asking the public to show the consideration that it should show to the members of our public that need perhaps a little extra care on our part.

And so, you know, misdemeanor conviction in a sense sometimes people believe might be just benign, but it's not. It can have an impact on a person's employment, where they can work, and even more concerning now on a person's immigration status if they're not a citizen in the state of Hawaii. So these are the concerns that we have. We've offered some amendments and solutions, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bento. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Department of Health in support.

Department of Health stands on its testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Bicycling League in support. Not present. People for Active Transportation Hawaii in support. And Kauai Police Department in support. James Gashel in support in person. Not present. And two individuals in support and one individual with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2186?

Aloha, Vice Chair, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Tiara. I'm a House legislative aide here in the capitol. Wanted to take time off to testify for HB 2186. Firstly, I wish to honor and offer my condolences to the family of the 93 year old kupuna who died crossing the street in a marked crosswalk yesterday.

That news saddens me. It also strengthens me to deliver my testimony in support of this bill. Last year, I was hit by a car in a crosswalk with a good friend of mine. It was a Sunday night, and it was one of the best days that I had in a while during that time. We went on a hike, we went to the beach, we got poke after.

When the day neared its end, my friend and I were walking arm and arm to cross this crosswalk so we could go home. I remember thinking in that moment of getting hit that, of course, on a good day like this, you'd never expect to die. But clearly, I'm standing here in front of you guys alive, so I'm not dead. But, the first few months of healing were terrible. Our heads broke through the windshield, and we suffered severe concussions for a month.

Our bodies dented the hood of the car. I obtained a tailbone fracture to preexisting injury, high ankle sprain. My friend, on the other hand, was not so lucky as me. Of her injuries, the worst were fractures and grade three tears of the ligaments of her knee. Where she used to be one of the most active and lively individuals I know, a surfer, a swimmer, hiking and running, she is still today not able to do any of those things, and she doesn't know if ever will.

This bill is important to me because while we're dealing with the injuries of our accidents, all the repercussions of it, the woman who hit us under current Hawaii statute simply had to pay a traffic violation of $150. So she paid a fee that was treated like a parking ticket, which is a slap to our faces when the penalty doesn't match the harm.

But let me tell you to imagine that it could have been a lot worse, a kid crossing or a blind individual or your loved one, and the circumstance could be so unpredictable as to be that you might not ever see them again. Mahalo. I urge you to pass HB 2186 because right now Hawaii is facing safety, pedestrian safety crisis.

Thank you very much, Tiara. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2186? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. And Tiara, thank you for sharing your testimony. We are glad you're alive and well as well. Members, questions? Seeing none. Move on to our next agenda before us?

HB 2163, relating to pedestrians. Requires the driver of a vehicle to stop for pedestrian who's crossing the roadway within a crosswalk and not to proceed until the pedestrians completely exited the crosswalk and the driver can safely proceed. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you. Stand in support.

Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Department of Health with comments.

Department of Health stands on its testimony offering comments on the merits of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Executive Office on Aging in support. Two individuals in support, one individual with comments, and one individual in opposition. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 2163? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Move on to our next agenda item before us. HB 1908, relating to Makakilo Drive Extension project. Transfers land from the City and County Honolulu Department of Transportation to complete Makakilo Drive Extension project. Establishes Makakilo Drive Extension task force for the project, authorizes the use of provide Green Infrastructure Special Fund to support sustainable design elements of the project, appropriates funds. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in opposition.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Ed Sniffen with Hawaii DOT. Stand in opposition.

Thank you. Palehua Townhouse Association in support. Free Access Coalition in support. Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Gwen Yamamoto Lau, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority stands on our written testimony with comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Michael Golojuch Jr in support on Zoom.

Good morning. Michael Golojuch Jr, he/him pronouns. The City and County of Honolulu has failed the people of Makakilo for a generation. When we first moved into Makakilo in 1981, there were a little over 7,000 people, and we were promised a second access then. Here we are 40 plus years later, 45 years later, and we still do not have that second access.

I am sorry to hear that the Department of Transportation does not deem this as a priority for us. We, the good pay taxpayers of Makakilo, have this is not just an inconvenience. This is a safety concern for our for everybody that calls Makakilo a home. We have a gas station at the bottom of our hill. Should something happen there, we would be trapped in Makakilo with no way in and no way out. Whether it was waterway, there's a minor inconvenience, but we're talking anything else and we are in trouble.

So we ask you to pick up the slack, take care of what the city has failed to do for us for over 45 years, and let's get this done. Give the people of Makakilo what we were promised from the 70s, in the 80s, the 90s, and now we are here in 2026. We wanna thank our Representative for introducing this bill. We wanna thank you for hearing this bill. We encourage you to do what's right, what's pono for those of us at Makakilo, and get us our second access and help save some lives. Mahalo.

Thank you. We also got eight individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1908? Seeing none, Chair.

Vice Chair. I mean, thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Members, questions? Seeing none. Last measure before us, HB 1910 is related to Department of Transportation. Requires the Hawaii Department of Transportation to identify any other roadways other than Makakilo Drive to be used as emergency egress route in Makakilo. Requires department to plan for design and construct an emergency egress route in Makakilo people under certain circumstances. Appropriates monies. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in opposition.

Thank you. We stand in opposition.

Thank you. Michael Golojuch, Jr. in support.

Aloha again. Michael Golojuch, Jr. He/him pronouns. I stand in full support of this measure. We ask that both this and the previous bill be passed because we know it's gonna take a while for the second access to actually be built, but we definitely do need the emergency access out, emergency exit out of Makakilo. For everything I said before, I encourage you to pass this bill and help us since the city and county will not. Mahalo.

Thank you. CARES in support on Zoom. And two individuals in support. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1910? Seeing none, Chair.

Members, questions? Seeing none. We're gonna recess.

Thank you, members. Reconvening our committee hearing here in the House Committee on Transportation. Members, I'd like to go back to the top of our agenda.

And for HB 1688, I'd like to adopt the h t one. Members, I'm gonna define air carriers defined by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Members will do tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. HMS sold to defect the effective date, and I wanna no tax no tax requested effective date committee report for further deliberation consideration. Members, questions, comments, or concerns?

Representative Cochran.

So Do taxes comments you are incorporating.

Yes. So right now we're gonna defect the effective date, but I'll notate in the committee report. Do taxes requested effective date should be adopted. Okay. Great. It's a delay of implementation.

Weren't they also asking for more clarification on description of what type of aircraft this is applying to or not applying to?

So I feel when I'm clarifying that air carrier is defined by Federal Aviation Act, that should give a little bit more substance and scope. And because the bill currently is already from my interpretation, this is a cleanup. Giltex has I I know what they're submitting, but from my position, I feel like it is clear.

It's addressed.

As far as you're concerned. Uh-huh. Okay. Alright.

Yes.

Thank you. Members, any other questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair, for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Representative Kerrick is excused. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, I'd like to move on to your next agenda item, HB 2386. So we had previously heard and discussed this measure before the committee and it as the bill we heard previously in the last committee, and this one it is continuation and discussion about the concerns that have arisen.

I thank PUC for coming before us today, and I just I need to just further expand that I continue to thank the work that PUC is doing, but I think there is still large concern from the work that is not able to continue. And as I shared previously, it is the committee's intent I think in the future to see more support for our water carriers and motor carriers because these industries in order to thrive need a supportive system and this is part of the mechanism I think of giving them a supportive system.

I want to thank the hundreds of testimony that came in and knowing what the what the intent of this measure is trying to accomplish. So for that, Members, I want to adopt the HD 1. And defect the effective date and tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Noting the excused absences of Representative Grandinetti and Pierick for the remainder of this hearing. Any Members voting with reservations? Reservations for Representative Cochran. Any no votes? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. HB 1691, relating to transportation. I was gonna continue to do I think one safety within the committee, but also to try to modernize our systems to make it easier for Hawaii residents. This is a measure I believe that should have significant impact in the situations that we need to adopt this. So, Members, I'd like to adopt the HD 1 for this one.

I want to adopt Copart's recommendations for amendments. So I just want to defect the date and any technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, question, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 1691. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no vote?

Was that a reservation, Rep Cochran?

No. Sorry. I was just scratching my nose.

The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members Next one. HB 1680, relating to vehicle title transfers. I want to adopt an HD 1 with tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Defect the effective date. I'll acknowledge the concerns raised by the county. But I want I think that you understand what the introducer is trying to do, and there are other municipalities across the country that do something similar. But for the further deliberation, I would ask that our state and local agencies... Sorry.

I'd like to request that the next committee, should they want to hear the measure and the folks providing testimony in opposition or support, further deliberate on the applicable quotes of state and local agencies in section 2 of the bill. Members, questions, comments, and concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 1680. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Reservations for Representative Cochran. Any no votes? The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. HB 2516, related to helmets. I'd like to adopt a HD 1 for this one. So previously, we heard HB 2021, which gave us our foundational definitions of what a bicycle, electric bicycle is and is not. So for the purpose of consistency, I like to amend the definitions as proposed in this measure and replace them with the codified classifications of different class bikes from one, two, and three, micro mobility, and foot scooters, and any other applicable definitions for consistency.

HMS will defect the effective date on this measure as well and tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. And noting that it's again is another traffic safety measure because I think that as we want to work with motorists on safer driving behaviors.

I think it's also imperative upon folks who are using our road to put themselves in the best position for safety, and that is a measure like this. That should you partake on our roadway, wearing a helmet. There's data that supports that your likelihood of survival is significantly increased. So for the purpose of that, I'd like to adopt the HD 1. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Representative Cochran.

Yeah. I support this. Is this prohibiting, the prohibition is only on the class threes?

Sorry. So I would say, the original intent of it was to they wanted only helmet used for class three, but my amendments would actually require it for all bicycle users and micro mobility and foot scooter. So there's no... So there's consistency and understanding that if you're on a bike, you have to have a helmet. So there's no parity at all.

Okay. And a follow-up, Chair. And so you're not saying that you cannot operate even the class ones or twos without a helmet, though. Right?

No. No. So pretty much that you have to have a helmet if you're gonna be using it. And then their definition is clashing with our definition of a high speed electric device, which we already prohibit from roadway use at all. So there is no high speed electric bicycle in HRS as of right now. So for consistency, having our definitions match this for the purpose of how many uses applicable in all of those operations.

Okay. Yep. I understand where you're coming from. Thank you so much.

Sorry. Yeah. So it increases the age of individuals for using as an 18. And I'll note in the committee report that should DOT want to further elaborate if we're looking to use helmet use on pretty much all folks. And I would say it is the position of the committee that we'd like to require actually all road users for helmets. Sorry. Let me clarify.

So our amendment is that I'm gonna amend the bill that all road users have to use helmets as defined in this bill, have the consistency of the definitions as previously adopted in HB 2021. And making it clear we have no age exemption. You're gonna ride a motorcycle. I'm sorry. You're gonna ride a bike or motorbike or foot scooter, you need to wear a helmet. And there are helmets for all sizes, all ages that exist in the market. And with that, Members, any further comments? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Thank you, Chair. HB 2516, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of Representative Pierick and the excusal of Representative Grandinetti. Any reservations? Reservations for Representative Cochran. Any no votes? None. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Our next measure before us, HB 1933, relating to deaf individuals. Authorizes deaf... Sorry. I'd like to adopt the HD 1 for this measure. I wanna adopt Mr. Fritz's proposed amendments for the purpose of the bill's effectiveness.

Note in the committee report, New Jersey's bill that we have referenced as a framework. I want to delay the implementation date per the testimony that was received. HMS will defect the effective date. Any other technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. Sorry. Representative Cochran.

I just wanna say thank you for adopting those amendments.

Yeah. It's a good bill. And, obviously, it's trying to, as we say, modernizing, we're trying to also make an equitable system and acknowledging that these folks are often added disproportionately affected by systems that do not modernize. So I understand what the introducer is trying to attempt. So thank you. Members, any further comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 1993, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Our next agenda item, HB 2442, related to parking for disabled persons. I'd like to just adopt HD 1 for this measure and defect the effective date. Members, questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 2442. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. HB 1510. For this measure, I'd like to adopt the HD 1. I want to add that any state or county law enforcement could enforce this alongside the parking enforcement folks and this issue continues to arrive. This issue continues to rise before the committee as we think about how folks have used these things to also not just escape code enforcement but also obscure their license plates.

I believe the introducer had shared that there was an individual in his community that was involved in an accident. And because the license plate was obscured by a shield, you could actually not report the individual that was involved in the accident. So I think for that purpose and also trying to make clarity consistency of who can enforce it and also who is liable for it, I appreciate the introducer for working in this measure. Members, questions, comments or concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 1510. The recommendation is pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. HB 1958. I'd like to adopt the HD 1 for this one. I know there was concerns raised, I'm gonna allow the next committee for further deliberation. So I'd like to adopt HD 1 and amend on page 2, line 19 to reference any city with a population of 300,000 or more and change that to any county.

In the state HRS, we have municipalities that operate by the county. So for consistency, that is a definition I'd like the adopt. I also wanna add that a state law enforcement agency could be an enforceable agency for the purpose of this measure, make any technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I request that HMSO defect the effective date. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Representative Cochran.

I appreciate this moving forward because I'm in the next committee too, but reservations due to the ACLU's comments.

Totally fine. Thank you, Representative. Members, any other questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 1958. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting Representative Cochran reservations. Any other reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none, Chair. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. HB 1915. I'd like to adopt the HD 1 for this one. Members, I'd like to amend that the use of destructive or injurious materials in subsection c and d are for consistency are used instead of injures and obstruction. I'd like to lower this from a class c felony to just a misdemeanor offense.

Requesting the committee report further clarifications of defining destructive or injurious material should the next committee like to take this measure up? Do any technical amendments for clarity, consistent, style and HMSO to defect the effective date. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Representative Cochran.

The question I was trying to get at with Director Sniffen, I read it in this testimony from Terry Welch. And he's saying injurious materials prohibitions item a that no person shall intentionally, you know, do this unless the person is authorized to do so by an appropriate governmental agency.

So I'm not really sure. It just that's kinda all it that's in his testimony. So I was trying to figure out where that is, if it is, in fact, in the bill because that seems like what is that telling us. And I don't understand why some government agency would potentially say it's okay to do any of these injurious actions. So, anyways, are you...

No I was trying to figure out that too, but I couldn't.

Is there any, you know, like, does that justify...

I couldn't see any validity to it, but I think to the purpose of requesting the next committee, destructive or injurious materials, I mean, could be viewed in any case for anything. And so I think if the next committee should take it up, if there's a way that there could be further clarification on what those potentially could be. Because it could be argued at anything what that could be. But I think that I think the introducer is trying to address instance that has occurred in their perspective.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I definitely support this, but just was that was curious about that testimony and comment. It's coming, it may come to JHA, so I have another opportunity.

Thank you, Representative. Members, any further question, comments, or concerns? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 1915. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. HB 1692 related to traffic safety. I—we were working on this measure in the interim, given trying to also modernize our safety standards across this country to have our state come into the modern, modern day. I believe it was in the 90s when this first act was adopted, but I think it, at the time, left out for further expansion, and I, I acknowledge that there was an instance of somebody losing their life.

I believe in the beginning of the New Year. One, unfortunately, was on the side of the road. And so, I think for the committee, as we've taken up different measures, it is also the committee's position as we try to make the roadways safe. It's safer for all, so for expanding from just emergency vehicles to any vehicle in our shoulder lane or stopped, because I would not want anybody to have to lose their life just waiting to be assisted, or us—or fixing their vehicle in the worst-case scenario.

Members, I'd also like to insert a new section in this bill regarding 291-14. So, we're gonna amend 291-14, as relates to pickup trucks, and they'll be revised statutes. Members, like to prohibit the operation of a pickup truck with passengers in the beds on roadways posted at 46 miles per hour or more.

I like to prohibit the operation of a pedestrian or, sorry, people on the back of a pickup truck on roadways with three or more lanes traveling in the same direction and increase the minimum age for passengers in the bed of a truck from 12 to 18. I also wanna provide that the exemption for the operation of should this occur in a pickup truck for transportation.

Sorry, the exemption for operating with pickup truck with transportation of agriculture or farm workers, purposes of law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service vehicles engaged in official duties, and military vehicles engaged in official operations. Members—I, I don't know. Inserting this, be noting that it has also happened this year regarding the one instance. And from my prerogative as a committee chair, I would like to say one is too many.

And I—it has not happened, me chairing this committee until now. So, it is my intent, as this measure is also related to traffic safety, continue to strengthen our traffic safety laws. I—it is modeled actually after Texas law that made the exemption for farm workers.

I think running the back of the trip pickup truck is so synonymous with Hawaii, and I think in modern days—modern day today—it has come into conflict, noting that roads have gotten significantly more dangerous, and we are no longer just operating on one-way roads.

We have highways and significant road traffic and trying to keep our roads safe and also understanding that the identity of Hawaii is synonymous with a pickup truck. The adoption of this is to make sure that, really, we can still allow it, but a lot more confined for the purposes of riding a back of a pickup truck.

And I, I acknowledge our rural communities, and that is why I, I adopted the 46 miles per hour posted speed limit because you can still actually get around your county safely in those regards and instances.

And so, on top of that, I also like to adopt the Attorney General's testimony requesting for amendments in this bill, as it relates to the move over law, and notate impose requested amendments and committee report for the next committee to consider HMSO defect the effective date and do technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, questions, comments, or concerns?

Chair.

Represent Cochran.

Thank you for adopting AG's comments. That was one point I was gonna ask. So, you're—this new section, is there a way to get that, though? I mean...

Yes. I'll make sure.

I wanted to see the whole thing. That's why.

Yep. I will make sure that upon the adoption of the language at HD 1 that they will be circulating to each host.

Okay. And then you said in 45 miles.

46.

Six or less than, right?

No. In any posted area with the speed limit exceeding 46 miles per hour or more. So, we use intervals of five for most, but at that point, roads that are in your rural communities, the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour on the most fast roads.

What we brought? Okay.

Yeah.

So, the post, post speed limit that exceeds 46 miles an hour.

Okay. Because a lot of our highways in line are, like, 30.

No one follows it.

Yeah.

Yeah. Representive Pierick.

Just curious, the road from Kala'atula to Kahului and Maui, I think it's, like, three lanes, but you can go really fast on it. Could you go—could you ride in the back of that, that road?

Nope. That's prohibited and roads and—roads with three or more lanes in the same direction. So, I don't—we're not trying to acknowledge that there are three more lanes in a, in our core, but, really, it's for three or more lanes in those large areas that are where the speed limit exceeds 46 miles an hour. Yep. Members, any other questions, comments, or concerns?

Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. HB 1524. I'd like to adopt the HD 1 on this measure. I'd like to do tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. HMSO defect the effective date and blank the fines in this measure and note in the committee report of $25 as introduced. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Representative Muraoka.

You know, with all these bills in front of us, and we've heard so many highlighting the dangers. Yeah? I'm gonna be a no vote on this because everybody shares responsibility in traffic safety. So I just feel like you're going against that by reducing the fine of a pedestrian. Pedestrians have just as much responsibility to make sure they're crossing in a marked crosswalk, you know, in the right area. So reducing a fine for that, I cannot agree with. So I'm a no on this.

And I have concerns as well. So for me, notating that the introducer put it at 25. I wanna blank the fines to allow further deliberation so that we can potentially explore a more feasible number because I would share the same concern. 25 does not accomplish what we are trying to before trying to modernize, I believe, our... I believe the introducer is trying to modernize, but I would be remiss to not sure I have the same concerns.

So blanking it out and as this should it be further, further deliberated upon the next committees, noting the number. And should have bill make it all the way to conference, the lead committee is Transportation. Thank you, Representative. Members, any further questions, comments, or concerns? Representative Cochran.

Sorry. I didn't know if you said you're gonna do amendments. Judiciary had some points that they're making in their testimony in reference to instead of having the effective date now, they wanted to push it back, I think, a year, 1-1-27, to update their, you know, their systems, to do their forms and training, whatever. So are you implementing?

No. Okay. So for I can notate in the committee report the requested defective effective date should it be adopted for the legislature. And as of right now, any effective date is defective. So I'll note in the committee report, should the act take into effect, their requested effective date.

Okay. And yeah. It's just anyways. And just seeing Appleseed's comments about 3.8 million has been in fines, which sounds like astronomical when the fines are, like, $25. And only a quarter have been actually recouped. Like, what's going on there?

Yeah. I can't speak to county law enforcement, but I think for folks who have seen this as, for lack of better words, social justice issue, they're trying to not have these fines be prohibitive upon the person. But to Representative Muraoka's comments, if we are going to do it and modernization and enforcement on motorists, I still believe there is a responsible, Kuleana onto our pedestrians as well, and I don't know if $25 makes it to the point we're trying to make.

Because I think the committee could agree that all road users, both motorists and pedestrians, and the like, have a shared responsibility for safety. But I understand what the introducer is trying to accomplish. Members, any other further questions, comments, or concerns? Representative Pierick.

Appreciate the intent. Wanting to be tough on crime and reduce crime when it comes to road safety.

That's fine. Thank you, Representative. Members, any further questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1524, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Reservations for Representative Cochran. Any no votes? No votes for Representative Muraoka, Representative Pierick. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. On our next agenda item before us, HB 1884. Members, for further consideration, deliberation, like to defer decision making on this measure to February 17 at 9:15am in this room for decision making. We have a posted agenda for that already. We'll amend it appropriately.

Next measure before us is HB 1523. The same, the same thing. I would like to defer decision making on this item for February 17, 9:15am in this committee, and we will amend the committee report, I mean, the posted agenda item as needed. Members, HB 2213, relating to pedestrians. I'd like to defer this measure because the next two are potential vehicles for moving this discussion further.

And Members, HB 2186. I like to adopt the... Oh, sorry. For this one as well, I think to defer decision making to next week Tuesday, February 17, 9:15am for decision making. HB 2163, relating to pedestrians. I like to adopt the HD 1 for this measure and acknowledge, I think, all three of the introducers on the last three measures are trying to clarify and make consistent across their traffic.

Responsibility of road users and also responsibility of pedestrians, but also trying to make it more safe. And I acknowledge what we're trying to accomplish. And so for that, I'd like to just defect the effectively and notate any other further in the committee report, the testimony raised. Members, any other further questions, comments, concerns? Representative Cochran and Representative La Chica.

Sorry. I'm just going back to your deferrals on the 2213, is it? You said defer, but you didn't notate February 17 on that one.

Oh, sorry. I'd like to defer the... No. I'm sorry. Complete deferral.

Okay. That's what I was wondering. Okay.

Thank you. Yes. Members... Oh, Representative La Chica. Sorry.

I just wanna mahalo, Chair, for hearing these measures and also for your work to really advance pedestrian and road safety. I know we're gonna the previous bill will be considered next week, but I think it really is our intent to look at how we can really get to zero fatalities, as mentioned in testimony. We just had another fatality yesterday for the 93 year old who was appropriately crossing in a marked crosswalk with the flashing beacon.

And all of these single, all of these deaths that have occurred on the road are all preventable, and it's just gotten really to a point where something really needs to be done to change behavior. And I'm just glad that we're taking this up in committee because, you know, every single life, yeah, is valuable. And I just hate to see unnecessary loss due to how drivers are on the road, how people are distracted, including pedestrians. But I'm glad we're taking this all up in committee. Thank you, Chair.

And I would echo the same sentiment. I appreciate all the Members on the Committee of wanting to expand further protections and safety for all road users and the willingness to continue these discussions as they come before the committee. Members, further questions, comments, or concerns? HB 216, relating to pedestrians. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 2163. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no vote? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. HB 1908. For this one, I'd like to defer the measure and notating that the Department of Transportation's opposition and also, there were comments provided by the city and county of Honolulu. And I think HDOT's op—opposition—is warranted, and I hope the city and county of Honolulu can find a path forward on this project.

HB 1910. I also like to defer the same thing, citing DOT's testimony that this is already in the works and the county will continue to be partners with the state. Seeing no further agenda items before the committee, this committee is adjourned.