Talking Michigan Transportation

Bills would allow for work zone speed cameras, HOV lanes, other changes

• Michigan Department of Transportation • Season 5 • Episode 138

Share episode

On this week’s Talking Michigan Transportation podcast, a look at transportation-related legislation being debated.

Aarne Frobom, senior policy analyst at the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and Troy Hagon, MDOT director of government affairs, break down the proposals.

Among those discussed:

  • House bills 4132 and 4133. These bills, resurrected after very nearly making it to the governor’s desk in 2022, would allow the use of cameras to enforce speed limit violations in state trunkline work zones. As discussed on a previous podcast, the cameras have had a positive impact in other states.
  •  Senate bill 43. This legislation, also debated and nearly adopted in the previous legislature, would:
    • Require the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to use concrete barriers or equivalent crashworthy temporary traffic barriers when closing a freeway or a portion of freeway for construction, improvement, or repair.
    • Specify that the requirement would not apply if the freeway or portion of freeway were closed for not more than three days for an emergency repair, utility crossing, maintenance, or other short-duration operation.
    • Allow MDOT to exercise its engineering judgement in designing and placing concrete barriers or equivalent crashworthy temporary traffic barriers and associated traffic control devices for each closure of a freeway or portion of freeway. 
  • House bills 4352 and 4353 would allow for MDOT to restrict highway lanes to high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and allow road agencies to open a HOV lane to other classes of vehicles (trucks or automated vehicles). The legislation also allows enforcement of I-75 HOV lanes and Detroit and Grand Rapids bus lanes. 
Jeff Cranson:

Hello, welcome to the Talking Michigan Transportation podcast. I'm your host, Jeff Cranson. Today I'm going to be doing another legislative rundown. Some important bills to transportation are either in the process or have moved in the Michigan legislature so far this spring. I'm pleased to have with me again Troy Hagon, the director of governmental affairs for MDOT, to help explain the process and where those things stand, and then also Aarne Frobom, who's a senior policy analyst and studies these bills and gives us his analyses as they make their way from introduction until the floor, and he always has some good insight to share. Thank you both for being here.

Troy Hagon:

Hi, Jeff, thank you for having us.

Jeff Cranson:

Let's start with you, Troy. Would you call this a fairly busy session as far as transportation legislation goes?

Troy Hagon:

Yes, things are just starting to heat up now after the legislature has returned from their annual spring break. Prior to spring break, transportation-wise, the legislature was really focused on educating the new members on the respective transportation policy and appropriation subcommittees of transportation funding and the stakeholders that each are engaged in transportation issues. But those have now wrapped up and we are fully engaged in legislation being taken up by both the Senate and the House committees.

Jeff Cranson:

So part of that pre-work is you, and sometimes I go along in the director meeting with the various chairs and the committee members to explain what the priorities are and what these bills would do, and it sounds like that's paid good dividends. There's been a lot of interest. People want to know, obviously, what they're getting into, so that's been helpful.

Troy Hagon:

Yes, I could not agree with you more, Jeff. We did a whole host of meet and greets with members from the Senate and House transportation committees and then the Senate and House appropriation subcommittees for transportation, And it was really many of the members first, you know, meeting with Acting Director Wieferich, myself and you, Jeff, and we were able to educate them on our legislative priorities for this term, introduce ourselves and introduce MDOT and our MDOT colleagues and the valuable work that we do to the legislature. So those have really paid a lot of dividends and I feel starting to form a lot of good working relationships with not only members on our committees but the leadership of both the Senate and the House.

Jeff Cranson:

So, Aarne, when we talk about the bills that had horsepower, as you say, you know one of the first enacted signed by the governor was House Bill 4007, which dealt with prevailing wage. That didn't have necessarily a huge effect on MDOT, since the projects that MDOT does are primarily with Federal Aid and Davis Bacon already ensures that kind of wage standard. But tell us about that bill and what it really means.

Aarne Frobom:

Yeah, as you say, it's not strictly an MDOT issue, but it's the state version of federal law that requires publicly funded construction projects to pay the union scale wage. So it imposes restrictions on all our contractors and requires them to certify the wages that are being paid, which we would have to do anyway, since virtually all of our big projects are federally aided. So it's a it's a divisive issue in in some quarters because it's alleged that the combined state and federal laws unnecessarily drive up the cost of public construction. But it's something that we've gotten along with now for well, since the 1930s when it was enacted.

Jeff Cranson:

So, it won't make an appreciable change in our program or in our budgets, or in our administration. And then we've got some pretty important bills that we've followed very closely that deal with the safety of workers, protecting the workers that are in the danger zones doing this work, this road work. Could you give an overview, first Troy, of where Senate Bill 43 stands, the one dealing with the, I guess, enhanced use of concrete barrier, and then I'll ask Aarne to give us his analysis of the bill?

Troy Hagon:

Certainly, Jeff. So, Senate Bill 43 has been moved from the Senate over to the House, so now it's awaiting a hearing in the House Standing Committee on Transportation. So, it's already moved through one chamber. The legislature is in the second chamber.

Jeff Cranson:

So, Aarne, what's your synopsis, your take on Senate Bill 43?

Aarne Frobom:

Well, this most of the other bills we'll be talking about, we're very close to passage in the last legislature, but after the election and after the two houses changed hands, the last legislature pretty much gave up and went home.

Aarne Frobom:

So the bills that we're seeing now are the bills as they stood at the end of 2022. And this is one of what it would do is update the 1917 law that dictates how the department goes about closing roads during reconstruction. It would make a couple of very limited but still noticeable changes. It would apply only on freeway closures by this department, and what it would do is that if we close part of the freeway, including a shoulder or a lane, at night, the construction workers would have to be separated from the passing traffic by a concrete barrier or something similar. That's not too different from our current practice, which is always aimed at guaranteeing worker safety, but this would set firm rules about when concrete barriers are used, although it does give the department flexibility to come up with alternative plans for a project that has really unusual characteristics. Temporary closures are not covered, but where freeway work is conducted at night, it would have to be behind the concrete barriers.

Jeff Cranson:

Troy this grows out of a spike in crashes in work zones really a few years ago and just a renewed concern I guess heightened concern, among the various labor unions that do the road work and some of the contractors too. Can you talk a little bit about the hard work it took to get these over the finish line?

Troy Hagon:

Certainly so with any piece of legislation or most pieces of legislation, I should say. They're introduced and then there's hard work by both the department and stakeholders to get them into a fashion that actually would allow implementation by the department. So we worked diligently last term with the sponsor and again this legislative term with the sponsor, senator John Cherry from Genesee County, and the operating engineers, as well as MDOT colleagues, to get this into a position to be able to actually have an implementation would be possible by the department. So all parties really worked together well in a series of virtual meetings where we talked through issues and drafted language that allowed for implementation. So we moved from a position of when this concept first was introduced to the department. We moved from a concept of opposition to being able to support it. So we're just watching now when it will be taken up by the House Transportation Committee and then move on to through the full house and onto the governor's desk.

Jeff Cranson:

You feel pretty good about the prognosis right now.

Troy Hagon:

Yes, yeah, I don't think there should be any issues with Senate Bill 43 being signed into law by the governor.

Jeff Cranson:

So let's talk about a couple others that are tied together And, again, going to Aarne's point, came very close to making it over the line back in the 2022 session but didn't, and those are our house bills 4132 and 33, which we've talked a lot about, probably generates more media interest than any of these other bills, and that has to deal with the cameras and the work zones and automated speed enforcement. We've talked to several other states, closest being Illinois, which has done this for quite a while and has statistics to show that it really makes a difference in terms of getting people to slow down when they're dragging through those areas where people are working. Where do those stand right now, Troy? And then Aarne, I'm gonna ask you to give an analysis again.

Troy Hagon:

So both of those bills were actually referred to the House Standing Committee on Regulatory Reform. The Committee on Regulatory Reform took testimony on those and voted those out of committee last week. So those are now on the House floor to be taken up at some point in the future by the full house. Michigan State Police is lead agency on those bills And that is a second chair, and we are along with other stakeholders. We have provided some feedback to both of the sponsors of those bills that we think would improve those bills and improve the implementation of those bills. So we're just continuing to work with those sponsors and to hopefully make an amendment to the proposed legislation that would just, you know, make it a much better overall state statute moving forward.

Jeff Cranson:

So can you break those bills down, Aarne, and kind of give us a summation of what they would do?

Aarne Frobom:

Well, they're a departure from a longstanding policy in Michigan law which has been to prohibit the use of cameras to enforce traffic law. This would it'd be a very limited application that could only be done jointly by this department and Michigan State Police in MDOT construction zones. It won't be usable by cities or counties or any local agency and would apply only when workers are present in construction zones And, as you say, it seems to have been effective in at least a few other states in prompting drivers to slow down when otherwise they might not. The first bill, 4132, is the main bill that creates the program and sets the rules for issuing the tickets to vehicle registrants by mail. The second one covers the handling of the fines, which is also a departure from Michigan practice. For the first time the fines would be payable back to the road agency, that is, to hem dot for the administration of the camera system and restricted to work zone safety improvements. Otherwise, under state law, all traffic fines go to county libraries for violations of the state vehicle code.

Jeff Cranson:

And it's kind of human nature that the threat, the idea that you're being watched, that your speed's being monitored, is gonna make you slow down. I mean much like when a would- be thief sees a sign at a dwelling or a commercial enterprise that says it's protected by a security system. I think that's what other states have found. You, probably because you've studied these things a long time and followed them, you try to analyze and account for that balance between what could actually help in terms of safety and protecting workers and what gets into infringing on people's rights. But you feel like we've gotten to a pretty good place with these bills.

Aarne Frobom:

Yeah, I don't have much fear of improper use of cameras. In this case, with respect to signs, a late change to the bill requires a sign a mile in advance of the camera, because the goal of the whole program is not to make money off the fines but to reduce the violation rate to zero. So we'll have those signs to give drivers, forewarning that they might be being watched if there are construction workers at work there.

Jeff Cranson:

Well, I know that the Association of Contractors, the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, might have been strongly supportive and testified in favor, and so have some of the various labor groups. So we'll keep an eye on it. The bills made it out of the house, as Troy pointed out, and we'll see where they go from here. Let's talk a little bit about the bills that deal with railroad grade separations, which is a huge frustration for a lot of people in local communities. Troy, can you talk a little bit about those and where those stand?

Troy Hagon:

So on the Senate side, senate bills 124 and 125 were taken up for testimony by the Senate Standing Committee on Transportation last Tuesday. They had overwhelming support not only from MDOT but from a whole host of local communities, local law enforcement in the downriver area of Wayne County. They also received support from the Michigan Railroad Association. So I don't foresee any issues with those bills on the Senate side. I believe that they will move out of Senate Committee on April 25th and move to the full Senate.

Troy Hagon:

The House is bringing up the House version of those bills introduced by State Representative Jamie Churches from Grosseo.

Troy Hagon:

So those bills will be before the House Standing Committee on Transportation on Tuesday for testimony and I think it'll be that same wide support in the House from the same group of individuals, including MDOT and the Michigan Railroad Association.

Troy Hagon:

So I think that there will be a package of bills that swaps both chambers and I assume Senator Camilleri will get one bill and Representative Churches will get another bill. So it'll be a bicameral public act that's signed into law. We are supportive of that, supportive of creating the program within MDOT's Office of Rail, but of course, with any program of this nature and the huge need that is out there for this, for grade separations, along with the cost of grade separations, the next thing that needs to fall into line is an appropriation to fund the program. So we'll have the program established and then Representative Churches and Senator Camilleri will have to go to work to try to get us funding for the program, and we've always held strong that we certainly do not want that funding to come from existing comprehensive transportation or MTF, STF funds, that we want to make sure that this is new funding, because it will be primarily new infrastructure that is built on the local system anything to add on that front.

Aarne Frobom:

Aarne, yeah, the money is the important part of this. The problem with grade separation projects is that they can be hugely expensive bridge projects and they only benefit a relatively constricted geographic area, so it's hard for the department or a metropolitan planning agency to program a project of that size. That's why some of these projects have been wanted for 40 or 50 years in some cases, without the money ever being found. So if they're able to make an appropriation to this program that will build three or four or five of these projects, it will be a big benefit to the territory involved.

Jeff Cranson:

Can you think of the last place where a significant grade separation flyover was added in the state?

Aarne Frobom:

There have been a very few. There was the one on Bristol Road just north of the Flint Airport. There were two on Farm Lane in East Lansing which were funded by a special one-time federal handout. But beyond those I guess the only other one would be the reconstruction of the Miller Road bridge down near the Rouge plant in Dearborn, and again that's the subject of very special use of federal funds. It takes out of the ordinary funding to make one of these projects affordable.

Jeff Cranson:

And, as you point out, there are always a parochial concern, but to the people that are affected it's a huge deal. They're constantly delayed by trains. It's a very frustrating thing.

Troy Hagon:

And Jeff, I'd like to just add that I think the latest one that's being worked on in the state as Allen Road in Wayne County which is again as Aarne's pointed out was really able to happen because of a federal earmark from Congressman John Dingell, and State one-time funding was all pooled together to be able to get that one moving forward.

Jeff Cranson:

Stay with us. We'll have more on the other side of this important message.

MDOT Message:

Did you know that most work zone crashes are caused by inattentive motorists? It only takes a split second of distraction to dramatically change lives forever. The Michigan Department of Transportation reminds you to slow down, follow all signs and pay attention when driving through work zones, because all employees deserve a safe place to work. Work zone safety, we're all in this together.

Jeff Cranson:

Well, let's talk about another one that could be precedent setting and show up elsewhere in the state eventually, and that's House bills 43, 52 and 43, 53, which would make for high occupancy vehicle lanes on I-75 in Oakland County between South Boulevard and 12 mile road.

Troy Hagon:

So those, both of those bills were introduced this week at the request of the department and they are going to be taken up in committee on Tuesday in the house standing committee on transportation on Tuesday, April 25th, and it'll be Mark Dubay from the project manager for the I-75 modernization project myself and WSP will be presenting on to the committee and the need for those and Why we have requested that legislation and why we designed and built Segment three of the I-75 modernization project with HOV Lanes.

Jeff Cranson:

Talk about that, Aarne, with t he history has been in Michigan and you know what this could mean.

Aarne Frobom:

Yeah, these bills have been introduced now in the last three legislatures at the department's request because we have been developing the I-75 widening project in Oakland County with the expectation that it will contain an HOV Lane That will be an operation during the morning and evening peak hours only. There have been a Carpool lane used in Michigan just once before, but after that project was concluded on I-75 in Detroit, the language providing for enforcement of it was repealed. So what we have to do now, before the I-75 project is done, is reinsert that language into the vehicle code, that that gives the department the authority to limit the use of a lane to carpools or to other classes of vehicles like buses, and then gives the police the ability to enforce the restriction.

Jeff Cranson:

So I guess, Troy. What do you think are we expecting some bipartisan support for those?

Troy Hagon:

It's a little early to tell, but during our meet-and-greet meetings that we discussed earlier, there did not seem to be any opposition to them. It seemed to have bipartisan support when during our discussions. But we'll just really have to continue to work with, meet with members on those now that they've been introduced and then get them. The ultimate temperature will be able to be taken during committee on the 25th, but I don't foresee any issue with those moving forward. We have wide support from, you know, our consultant community on those and the department.

Jeff Cranson:

So there's, you know, several different folks working on them all together so, finally, this isn't really an MDOT Bill because MDPT doesn't have enforcement powers and doesn't do law enforcement, but MDOT certainly is concerned about the crashes and the way that crashes continued to rise the last few years, really I think I would say accelerated by the pandemic, after the numbers had been going down for a while. And you know, continued distractions are definitely a factor in that. So, Aarne, talk about the handhold, handheld cell prohibition that is being discussed now.

Aarne Frobom:

Yeah, this is a big, sophisticated package of three bills But, in brief, what it does is i t prohibits the use of handheld cell phones. Sometimes it's misreported as banning the use of all cell phones and cars, but it doesn't do that, which of course, makes sense, because there would be no way to enforce a hands-free cell phone. But these bills would prohibit is holding a cell phone up to your ear or tapping the address by hand into a navigation screen, or staring at a video o r texting. Right now, the only thing that's prohibited really is texting while driving. For auto drivers, use of all cell phones is prohibited for heavy truck drivers and also beginning drivers with a graduated license.

Aarne Frobom:

These bills got a lot of work in the last legislature and they eventually came to a really good package that lines up with the recommended practices of the National Corporation of Highway Research Program. So it's a state of the art law that came very close to passage last November, what was then dropped, but now it's been reintroduced in the same form And I really think that's when it passed. It will have an effect similar to the seatbelt law. When that was passed, which was only partial compliance with the seatbelt law, and once people realized that they might possibly get a ticket for failing to put on a seatbelt, it drove seatbelt use well over 90% in Michigan.

Jeff Cranson:

And Michigan would join some 24 states that have these handheld bans. But going to your point about the seatbelts, I mean, or you know, raising, lowering the standard for blood alcohol content for driving drivers. Do you see the federal government tying funding to states passing this kind of law?

Aarne Frobom:

No, I've heard nothing along those lines so far as always. We hope they wouldn't. There are now, I think, 38 different ways in which your federal aid can be withheld for failing to comply with congressional mandates, and writing her down those has become a real legal door. They'd be much better to just let the states proceed on their own.

Jeff Cranson:

So we'll see where those go. Well, anything else. Either one of you guys want to say about these bills broadly or the session.

Troy Hagon:

I just wanted to add, in regards to the cell phone bills, that I'd like to urge everyone, if they have a chance, to go to the House television site and search out Tuesday April 11th's committee hearing and watch that committee hearing. It was some very riveting and emotional testimony and really crystallizes the issue of distracted driving. I think that a lot of people would find that a great interest of the organizations that testified and the individuals who testified who have lost loved ones due to distracted driving.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, we can link to those for sure. Well, thank you both. I appreciate you taking time to do this.

Aarne Frobom:

Anytime Jeff.

Jeff Cranson:

I'd like to thank you once more for tuning in to Talking Michigan Transportation. You can find show notes and more on Apple Podcasts or Buzzsprout. I also want to acknowledge the talented people who help make this a reality each week, starting with Randy Debler, who skillfully edits the audio, Jesse Ball, who proofs the content, Courtney Bates, who posts the podcast of various platforms, and Jacke Salinas, who transcribes the audio to make it accessible to all.