Movatterモバイル変換

THE APPARENT PROBLEM:

Since about 1925 the legislature has periodicallyenacted laws or passed resolutions to name all or parts of highways. Generally the named highways are signed sothat travelers are aware the roadways commemorate historical events orrecognize prominent people in the community. The Department of Transportation recently made an inventory of the namedhighways and published that inventory on a web site. SeeBACKGROUND INFORMATIONbelow.

The number of named highways has proliferated to adegree that has sometimes caused confusion. For example, the House Fiscal Agency notes that since one of theearliest highway naming bills was enacted near the beginning of the lastcentury to honor the poet Will A. Carleton [b. 1845, d. 1912; Michigan's poet laureate for four decades best knownfor his sentimental poems of rural life, the most famous being "Over the Roadto the Poorhouse," and his collected worksFarmBallads(1873),Farm Legends(1875), andCity Ballads (1885);namesake, too, for the town of Carleton in Monroe County], the practice continues to flourish at thebeginning of this century: seven suchbills were introduced in the 1997-98 session, 11 in the 1999-2000 legislative session, and already five inthis the 91st session of the Michigan legislature. Concern about the proliferation of road names has caused some tospeculate that some portions of roadway bear two different names. Concern also has been expressed about thecost of providing signs along the roadways.

In order to keep a timely inventory, avoid duplication,and reduce the cost of memorial signs, legislation has been proposed to createa single statute for the consolidation of state highway names.

THECONTENT OF THE BILL:

HouseBill 4878 would create a new act to be known as the Michigan Memorial HighwayAct, in order to consolidate and codify in a single statute more than 60highways and portions of highways that have been named in memory of individualsand groups having historical prominence in their communities. The bill would also require that theTransportation Department only provide for the erection of suitable signs atthe approach of any of the highways, after sufficient private contributions hadbeen received to pay the cost of erecting those markers. The bill would repeal 24 acts, 43 resolutions,and three administrative designations made by the highway commissioner thatnamed all or portions of various highways, in order to consolidate most ofthose acts, resolutions and administrative designations into the new memorialhighway act. Further, the bill wouldrepeal one act and six resolutions that are either outdated or duplicative.

BACKGROUNDINFORMATION:

All memorial highways are listed atwww.mdot.state.mi.us/misc/memhiways.

The highway designations repealed under House Bill4878 would include the following highways:

· PA 70 of 1952 - Arthur Vandenberg Memorial Highway onUS-16 from Detroit to Muskegon;

· HCR 9 of 1933 - William Howard Taft Memorial Highwayfrom Mackinac City to the Michigan-Ohioline (with no location specified);

· SCR 216 of 1975 - Michigan Bicentennial Freedom Way(1976 only) along I-75;

· HCR 401 of 1981 - I. L. "Curley" LewisHighway located without specification in the Upper Peninsula;

· HCR 67 of 1983 - Scenic route designation on US-23from Standish to Mackinaw City;

· HCR 34 of 1991 - Martin Luther King Memorial Highwaylocated on Skyline Drive in Battle Creek; and,

· HCR 25 of 1993 - Business 31 located on US-31 locatedin Berrien County.

FISCALIMPLICATIONS:

The House Fiscal Agency notes that although the costof sign fabrication and installation varies based on a number of factors,department sources estimate the cost to be from $700 to $1,000 per sign. To the extent that this bill would requireprivate rather than state funds to be used for the erection of highway namesigns, it could be considered to result in a decrease in state costs. (6-18-01)

The Senate Fiscal Agency notes that the bill would nothave a fiscal impact on the state, as the costs of erecting highway markerswould be borne by private contributions. Current practice requires highway markers to be paid for by privatefunds, regardless of whether a highway was named under a public act,resolution, or the authority of the state highway commissioner. (9-28-01)

ARGUMENTS:

For:

Historical events and prominent citizens deserverecognition in our communities. One wayto commemorate events and people and to ensure ongoing public awareness is toplace sign along a public roadway. Thislegislation allows this practice to continue, and would make more efficient thedesignation process in the Department of Transportation.

For:

The bill would repeal a combined total of 70 publicacts, resolutions and commissioner designations, and re-enact most of them in asingle memorial highway statute. It isclear from this legislation that the number of named highways has proliferatedover the years, and the method of naming highways has included the enactment oflegislation, the adoption of resolutions by the Senate or the House or both,and, in some past cases, a designation by the state highway commissioner. While most of the enacted legislation hasbeen codified in one place in the statutes, the resolutions are not similarlypublished together. This can lead toconfusion and duplication. To avoidthis result, and provide for an orderly inventory of named highways, the billwould consolidate them into one statute. At the same time, the bill would prevent the proliferation of signs thatcan result from duplicative names, and confuse motorists.

For:

Under the bill, the Department of Transportation couldnot put up signs for named highways until it had received enough privatecontributions to cover the cost. Thiswould codify the department's current practice, as well as reflect similarlanguage that has been included in recently enacted highway-naming legislation.

Against:

The proliferation of signs along the highway willincrease with time. As it does so, themany signs will provide more distractions for drivers so that travel becomesunsafe, and the sign placements will mar the natural beauty of the land- andstreetscape.

Analyst:J. Hunault

______________________________________________________

This analysis was prepared bynonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, anddoes not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.