Michigan Notes

[rhen_var]

I think that's actually pretty neat.  It's funded by Cavenue, not taxes, and regular cars can still use the lane (except for dedicated testing times, which, as noted in the video, only happens when the loss of the third lane isn't an issue).  It's also now a unique little stretch of freeway which is cool to see.

It's still less versatile, though, since you can't just move into that lane to pass people.  It's basically a separate one-lane carriageway, so you're stuck behind whoever the slowest driver in it is.

It's only a couple of miles though.  Not really a big issue.

[GaryV]

It's an issue if there's a blockage 1.5 miles into the couple of miles. And you can't get out.

[Flint1979]

That's stupid just like the flex lanes are stupid. I-94 is only three lanes in each direction with very heavy traffic volumes and should have been widened across the entire state 20-30 years ago just like US-23 between Flint and Toledo should have been. If I was in this lane and got stuck behind some one moving slow a a mile or so into the lane then I can't get back over to get around the slow moving vehicle because of those cones in the way. I seriously hope that MDOT isn't thinking about doing this anywhere else. They have come up with some very stupid things over the years and this is indeed one of them.

[Flint1979]

I think that's actually pretty neat.  It's funded by Cavenue, not taxes, and regular cars can still use the lane (except for dedicated testing times, which, as noted in the video, only happens when the loss of the third lane isn't an issue).  It's also now a unique little stretch of freeway which is cool to see.

It's still less versatile, though, since you can't just move into that lane to pass people.  It's basically a separate one-lane carriageway, so you're stuck behind whoever the slowest driver in it is.

It's only a couple of miles though.  Not really a big issue.

In that area of I-94 it most certainly is an issue.

[Flint1979]

It's an issue if there's a blockage 1.5 miles into the couple of miles. And you can't get out.

And with I-94 traffic to contend with.

[KelleyCook]

think that's actually pretty neat.  It's funded by Cavenue, not taxes, and regular cars can still use the lane (except for dedicated testing times, which, as noted in the video, only happens when the loss of the third lane isn't an issue).

   

I and the rest of Michigan Residents paid for those lanes (and pay the gas taxes to maintain them).  Now 1/3rd of it has been removed for a test by Cavenue who convinced someone it was OK to rent a mile and half section of an always busy freeway for some purpose not quite articulated to those of us who paid for the road.

And furthermore Cavenue's rental fee wasn't refunded back to me for this stupidity, they gave money to the bureaucrats.

Flint is right, all of I-94 should be 3 or 4 lanes all the way to the Indiana Border. This boondoggle takes that in the opposite direction.

[sprjus4]

I genuinely don't know why DOTs in certain states still think implementing one lane, barrier separated, segments of freeway is a good idea.

Back here in Hampton Roads, they opened a new stretch of HO/T lanes that is a single lane with zero passing permitted. I tend to avoid it altogether, unless traffic is heavy enough in the GP to warrant it, because despite a higher speed limit, you seemingly always get stuck behind a slow driver and a stack of cars builds up quickly. I've, on more than one occasion, seen people use the enormously wide 14-16 ft shoulder to pass people - and I can't say I blame them.

So this "pilot" on I-94 just creates a zone where drivers get trapped in the left lane, completely ignoring the principles of how a freeway works with left lane for passing only. This is only going to worsen traffic, cause lengthy stacks of vehicles, and cause reckless passing, despite it "not taking away a lane". Adding a barrier will impact traffic and decrease safety, toll / restriction or not.

[Plutonic Panda]

Colorado loves to do that and to a lesser extent I've seen it in Texas. Absolutely moronic that DOTs haven't noticed this. Though I usually speed well over the limit I'll be happy if the speed if traffic is moving at the speed limit and even better if it's moving slightly faster than GP lanes.

But with some exceptions, I swear traffic in these lanes moves slower, than the regular ones. It's infuriating.

[sprjus4]

Colorado loves to do that and to a lesser extent I've seen it in Texas. Absolutely moronic that DOTs haven't noticed this. Though I usually speed well over the limit I'll be happy if the speed if traffic is moving at the speed limit and even better if it's moving slightly faster than GP lanes.

But with some exceptions, I swear traffic in these lanes moves slower, than the regular ones. It's infuriating.

Bingo. Going to my original example, the new single HO/T lane on I-64 is posted at 65 mph while the GP lanes is 60 mph. What seems to happen every time though is that the GP lanes (60 mph speed limit) are moving 67-70+ mph, whereas one guy in the HO/T lane (65 mph speed limit) is going between 61-63 mph with about 10 to 15 cars stacked behind him because he's oblivious. Or even if he's going exactly 65 mph, traffic is still exceeding that in the GP lanes.

Those single HO/T lanes, here or anywhere, are a trap in my eyes, especially if there's long distances between exits. If you're paying a toll, you should be able to legally pass slower drivers. Or in the case of I-64, the "toll lane" should've never been anything except a third free general purpose lane in either direction.

The "free flow" of traffic generally works best when you can slower traffic keep right, and to go with the flow. The second you eliminate the ability to pass, and the ability to natural flow of what the traffic wants to move, you create brake slamming, tailgating, illegal maneuvers, road rage in extreme cases, and overall a dangerous situation. Situations that didn't previously exist when you didn't have a single barrier separated lane. DOTs seem to ignore this though, and at the same collect revenue off it through tolls... because it's cheaper then properly building either two HO/T lanes or simply making the lane free.

[Flint1979]

I find it a little strange that MDOT bothered to widen the length of I-75 between the southern terminus of I-675 and the northern terminus of I-475 from six to eight lanes over the course of the last 20 years. Saginaw to Flint and vice versa traffic is higher and the weekend summer traffic is always fun but this is the only section other than the section from MM 155 to 164 that they bothered to do something like this. US-23 and I-94 sit there with four lanes (two in each direction) and have about the same traffic volumes as I-75 does between Flint and Saginaw if not higher in some areas. I'm complaining because I frequently fight traffic on these freeways.

[JREwing78]

MDOT at least has addressed two of the worst I-94 bottlenecks in Kalamazoo and Jackson. Assuming the Ford battery plant outside Marshall is still a go, MDOT will find its hand forced on 6-laning between Sprinkle Rd and I-69. The truck traffic is simply overwhelming and won't be able to be ignored.

MDOT has to figure out the highway funding riddle, however. They can't bond their way out of funding problems forever. They can't let the roads degrade further. Also, they need to find a solution for roads not under state maintenance that require repairs; the public doesn't understand or care about the idiosyncrasies of highway funding that ensures good funding for major highways but leaves everything else in pothole hell.

[triplemultiplex]

Michigan is sort of stuck with a lot of legacy infrastructure built mid-20th century when they thought they'd keep growing like gangbusters.  Things plateaued or even sunk since then, so they're stuck with a perpetual maintenance backlog.  Lots of rust belt states find themselves in a similar position.

Not much to do but either increase revenue or try and cut loose some assets that need maintenance.  But who's going to be the first city or county to volunteer to take over expensive maintenance of a facility currently in MDOT's purview?  Hence the grumbling about "user fees" (aka "tolls") that crops up regularly.

[Flint1979]

Old US-10/23 in Saginaw County is falling apart. They have resurfaced it in some areas but the majority of the route between Bridgeport and Birch Run is in terrible shape. You can see in this GSV the poor pavement quality https://www.google.com/maps/@43.315247,-83.8186408,3a,75y,1.1h,80.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1K5CxylZbHnV5E35nF2tNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

This road falls under the Saginaw County Road Commission which is located on Sheridan Avenue in Saginaw which is another street that was in poor condition that is now being addressed this summer. That is the road commission's garage on the right and of course a Dollar General on the left. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3979941,-83.9359852,3a,75y,6.49h,87.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss-dvvE_P67jb16w_SsNFlw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[afguy]

Michigan to study usage-based tax for road funding instead of gas tax

Roads could be funded in a new way in Michigan under a pilot program proposed as part of the state budgeting process.

Democrats in the Legislature have allocated $5 million in the Michigan Department of Transportation's proposed budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year for a "road usage charge study" that would evaluate what a "mileage-based revenue collection" might look like in comparison to the current system, which relies largely on taxes collected from fuel purchases.

The gas tax "is just not getting it done," Baruch Fiegenbaum, senior managing director of transportation policy for the Reason Foundation, said on the Michigan Department of Transportation's podcast.

"The gas tax is basically a rock star on his farewell tour," Fiegenbaum said. "It's been around for 100 years and it's been a great revenue source for 100 years, but because of the improvements in fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles and also the growing number of hybrid and electric vehicles, it's just not a fair way to fund roadways going forward."Michigan roads are quickly approaching a revenue cliff as the state this year begins to spend the last $700 million tranche of $3.5 billion the Whitmer administration borrowed in 2019 to pay for highway reconstruction projects after lawmakers rejected tax hikes.

When the $3.5 billion runs out next year, the state will be saddled not only with paying off the loans and interest of that program but also facing an estimated annual revenue shortfall of up to $3.9 billion to continue paying for needed road work across Michigan. There is no additional revenue available so the state is saddled with finding new funding sources, said Rep. Ranjeev Puri, a Canton Democrat who leads the House's transportation budget.

"If we continue to bury our heads in the sand as we have for decades as a state, that number is only going to grow," Puri said. "We really need to get intentional about how we're going to find this money."

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2024/05/09/michigan-road-funding-road-usage-charge-mileage-based-revenue/73630456007/#:~:text=Democrats%20in%20the%20Legislature%20have,system%2C%20which%20relies%20largely%20on

[The Ghostbuster]

With more fuel-efficient vehicles built over the last few decades, the federal gas tax not being increased in 30 years, and with gas taxes frequently being diverted to non-transportation uses, maybe it is time for Michigan (and other states) to find alternative methods for funding transportation improvements. This pilot program may be successful, and if not, something else will likely come out of the woodwork.

[vdeane]

With more fuel-efficient vehicles built over the last few decades, the federal gas tax not being increased in 30 years, and with gas taxes frequently being diverted to non-transportation uses, maybe it is time for Michigan (and other states) to find alternative methods for funding transportation improvements. This pilot program may be successful, and if not, something else will likely come out of the woodwork.

Politicians: It's infeasible to raise this tax that inflation and other factors have reduced the value of due to politics.
Also politicians: Establishing a totally new tax that will be more of a burden to collect and force our citizens to face trade-offs in the form of privacy or paying for things out of state?  Perfectly fine.

[JREwing78]

Michigan's legislature could certainly opt to punt by raising the fuel tax, and even indexing it to inflation. I think it's inappropriate not to do so as part of a funding solution. At *some* point, however, electric and partially-electric vehicles are going to throw off that calculus.

We also have the issue of the fuel tax being regressive - it makes the largest demands on those least capable of paying for it. This is partially mitigated by it being a consumption tax, but there's limits on how you can raise fuel taxes without seriously screwing over poor people.

The challenge, as always, is to somehow match the relative fairness of the fuel tax in terms of road usage - the folks who drive the most tending to pay more fuel taxes. The dispersed nature of EV charging (you can do it anywhere you can find a 110V outlet) means paying "at the pump" is impractical. 

GPS is a non-starter, as it should be (though, let's face it - any modern vehicle can be tracked right now). I'm not opposed to a mileage-based payment scheme where monthly payments are made based on the vehicle's current mileage. The challenge there is making sure that information is accurate, and that payment can be collected. It also means some kind of revenue sharing scheme between states becomes important, since there's no mechanism to fund my road use out of state.

The Michigan Dems have to survive another sketchy-at-best election season to maintain executive and legislative control. They're not announcing anything that gives people a reason to vote Republican anytime soon. This announcement of funding for next fiscal year to look at the issue is an effort to keep that issue from bubbling up during election season.

[vdeane]

Michigan's legislature could certainly opt to punt by raising the fuel tax, and even indexing it to inflation. I think it's inappropriate not to do so as part of a funding solution. At *some* point, however, electric and partially-electric vehicles are going to throw off that calculus.

We also have the issue of the fuel tax being regressive - it makes the largest demands on those least capable of paying for it. This is partially mitigated by it being a consumption tax, but there's limits on how you can raise fuel taxes without seriously screwing over poor people.

The challenge, as always, is to somehow match the relative fairness of the fuel tax in terms of road usage - the folks who drive the most tending to pay more fuel taxes. The dispersed nature of EV charging (you can do it anywhere you can find a 110V outlet) means paying "at the pump" is impractical. 

GPS is a non-starter, as it should be (though, let's face it - any modern vehicle can be tracked right now). I'm not opposed to a mileage-based payment scheme where monthly payments are made based on the vehicle's current mileage. The challenge there is making sure that information is accurate, and that payment can be collected. It also means some kind of revenue sharing scheme between states becomes important, since there's no mechanism to fund my road use out of state.

The Michigan Dems have to survive another sketchy-at-best election season to maintain executive and legislative control. They're not announcing anything that gives people a reason to vote Republican anytime soon. This announcement of funding for next fiscal year to look at the issue is an effort to keep that issue from bubbling up during election season.

Honestly, I'd like to see EVs addressed via an electricity tax that would be split between transportation and modernizing/improving the electric grid (for example, to weather solar storms like the one that's going on right now).  I don't like taxes that are "in your face" or have a burden on the person being taxed to do paperwork and pay it.  Right now, the gas tax is just built into the price; it's seamless and practically invisible.  Sales taxes are noticeable mainly if you look at your receipt or added up the base price of everything before you got to the cash register, but are otherwise not too hard to ignore.  Property taxes suck, but they're also invisible if you rent.  Even income tax, I make sure to always withhold enough that I always get a refund (I even go so far as to have extra money withheld from my paychecks, because otherwise there's a good chance I'd owe a small amount), I never owe.  Adding a mileage tax like that would basically require duplicating the apparatus and process that's currently used for income taxes, except now everyone would owe.  It would take a tax that is currently seamless and invisible and make it very much an in-your-face proposition.  Now, those who would like to discourage driving by placing a price tag on it probably consider that a feature and not a bug, but I don't like it.

Of course, who knows if EVs will even become king at this point.  It seemed inevitable just a year or two ago, but the non-Tesla charging network has had a LOT of growing pains (and it wasn't that good even before), and now Tesla laying off their entire Supercharger team placing the switch to NACS and competition opening up between the Supercharger network and Electrify America/ChargePoint in doubt, it's very much "wait and see" at this point.  Who knows, maybe we'll actually end up going for hydrogen after all, and that can be taxed just like gas.