Committee weighs raising interstate speed to 80 mph and authorization for variable speed signs; debate includes fines overhaul

The Senate committee opened committee work on House Bill 12-98 and related amendments, including a proposal to set an 80 mph speed limit on interstates and language authorizing variable (dynamic) speed limit signs and a consolidated speeding‑fine table.

Representative Ben Koppelman, sponsor in the House, described two principal amendment themes: (1) authorization for the Department of Transportation to deploy variable speed limit signs and (2) a consolidated speeding fine schedule intended to simplify fines and eliminate local “doubling” of penalties. Koppelman said the variable signs would be a tool to improve interstate safety and that the amendment does not include funding for sign installation.

Matt Linneman, deputy director for engineering at the North Dakota Department of Transportation, said variable speed limits are a feature of “intelligent transportation systems” (ITS) that include digital message signs, roadway weather stations and pavement sensors. Linneman told the committee such systems are typically deployed first in high‑traffic corridors; DOT planners have conceptualized a pilot on I‑29 between Fargo and Grand Forks. He said dynamic signs are usually sited where static speed signs already exist and that typical spacing on the current interstate network is about four to five miles between posted speed changes, though urban deployments often require more frequent or overhead signs.

Derek Arndt, administrative services commander for the North Dakota Highway Patrol, endorsed the variable‑limit concept for winter safety and said the state lacks an operational mechanism to slow traffic quickly for sudden low‑visibility or high‑wind conditions. Arndt cited an Upper Great Plains analysis (Nov–Mar, 2019–2023) that found 594 commercial motor vehicle crashes during those winter months and said a high portion of those crashes involved winter driving conditions and out‑of‑state drivers; he said jackknife events and road closures frequently follow and that slowing trucks, in particular, would reduce incident severity and first‑responder risk. Regarding enforcement practice, Arndt said DOT/Patrol policy currently treats 1–4 mph over the posted interstate limit as a warning and 5 mph or more over as a citation; he told the committee that any change in posted limits would require internal discussion on enforcement thresholds.

Representative Koppelman also described an amendment that would simplify speeding fines to a one‑table structure that applies across road types and removes statutory doubling for local jurisdictions; he cautioned the change could raise fines that municipalities and drivers now view as low and said the proposal might jeopardize House floor support for the larger bill if adopted unchanged.

Stephanie Ingebretsen, appearing for the North Dakota League of Cities and the Chiefs of Police Association, said chiefs of police support raising some fine levels and moving to a single schedule that places cities, sheriffs and highway patrol on the same footing. She told the committee that many municipal courts currently operate at a loss and that a simplified schedule could reduce administrative complexity for local law enforcement.

Committee members asked practical questions about deployment cost, how rapidly signs could be changed to form a graduated slowdown, whether variable speeds could target truck traffic separately, and where a pilot should be sited. Linneman described a standard approach of placing dynamic signs near existing sign locations and said urban corridors require more density of signs; he noted the amendment allows DOT to authorize variable speeds but does not itself fund installations. Arndt said variable limits would be especially valuable in north‑wind, low‑visibility winter events and urged the committee not to let authorization language fail because of disputes over speeding‑fine language.

The committee did not take a final vote on the speed bill or its amendments during the session; senators signaled differing views about raising the interstate limit to 80 mph. Some members expressed concern about raising the top speed, while others supported the combination of variable‑limit authorization and consolidated fines as a comprehensive safety package. No adoption or final committee motion appeared in the transcript for House Bill 12‑98.

Ending

Committee members said they would continue work on the measure and suggested the variable‑speed authorization and the speeding‑fines consolidation could be refined in conference committee or in subsequent amendment rounds; no final committee disposition was recorded in the hearing excerpt.