House Transportation reviews Act 135 pilot for automated enforcement in highway work zones

Montpelier — Members of the Vermont House Committee on Transportation on April 16 reviewed the implementation challenges of Act 135 of 2024 (S.184), a time-limited pilot authorizing automated traffic law enforcement (ATLE) systems in limited-access highway work zones to improve crew safety and reduce crashes.

Ben Novogrovsky, legal analyst at the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee the statute allows the Agency of Transportation (AOT) to contract with a vendor to operate radar‑triggered cameras that only activate when a vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit by 10 miles per hour. "The overall purpose of the statute was to improve work crew safety and reduce traffic crashes in limited access highway work zones," Novogrovsky said.

The nut graf: Committee members heard that the law is narrowly written — three pilot sites, operation only in designated work zones when workers are present, sign-posting and data‑retention limits — but law‑enforcement capacity, vendor contracting and privacy concerns have delayed full implementation.

Supporters from the construction industry told the committee they back the pilot but urged a practical rollout. "This is about saving lives," Sarah Mierhoff, director of advocacy and communications for the Associated General Contractors of Vermont, said in support of the law. Kellen Cloud, director of operations for Green Mountain Flagging, described on‑the‑ground hazards: "It is a very scary job," he said, recounting training, past incidents and the limits of flaggers' ability to deter speeding by themselves.

Committee discussion reviewed key statutory mechanics and implementation hurdles. Under the statute, AOT must select up to three designated work zones for the pilot, ensure engineering analyses justify each site, post at least two signs notifying motorists before entry and one on exit, and keep daily logs (retained by AOT for three years) documenting dates, times, test results and operator checks. Novogrovsky summarized evidence and limitations in the bill: recorded images are retained by the vendor for up to 12 months or until resolution of a violation, the images may be used only to determine traffic violations in the pilot, and an annual report on deployment and outcomes must be filed with the House and Senate committees on judiciary and transportation.

The committee reviewed the statutory penalty structure: the first infraction within 12 months is assessed as a $0 civil notice (intended as a warning); a second violation within 12 months can carry an $80 civil penalty (treated as a second violation only if it occurs within 30 days after notice of the first); third and subsequent violations within 12 months are $160. Novogrovsky noted the law includes language about exemption from certain court surcharges and explained how notices must be mailed to the registered owner and sworn by a law‑enforcement officer who reviewed the images.

AOT Chief Engineer Jeremy Reed summarized practical constraints the agency encountered while preparing for rollout: the agency drafted an RFP and obtained federal highway safety funds but heard that the Department of Public Safety and other law enforcement entities lack the manpower to process an uncertain volume of civil complaints generated by the pilot. "One of the challenges we were having is law enforcement didn't have the the resources or the manpower to follow through with the [judicial bureau] process, with an unknown amount of violations in our three sites," Reed said.

Committee members and witnesses discussed several options to proceed without overburdening law enforcement: (1) operate a non‑enforcement "pilot of a pilot" that deploys cameras only to measure the number of recorded infractions; (2) authorize the vendor, by contract and with statutory backstops, to mail an initial educational notice (the current law's $0 notice already serves as a warning) while reserving sworn law‑enforcement validation for subsequent civil complaints; or (3) amend enforcement authority to allow additional categories of officers to validate and issue the civil complaints. Novogrovsky advised that some statutory language would be needed to authorize contractor mailing or to adjust which category of officer may complete the sworn verification.

Privacy and civil‑liberties tradeoffs were raised repeatedly. Novogrovsky and members said the statute limits data collection to license‑plate images and specific uses and prohibits general surveillance; civil‑liberties groups such as the ACLU previously testified on privacy concerns and were expected to return for further comment. Committee members asked about military‑service protections and how the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act (referenced in the statute) would apply to notices mailed to addresses in military records.

No committee decision or amendment was adopted during the hearing. Members said they want follow‑up testimony from the Department of Public Safety and from the DMV about enforcement capacity and certification levels, and some members urged immediate enforcement of the law as written. AOT officials said the procurement process and federal funding constraints make an immediate, full‑scale start difficult without further administrative or legislative adjustments.

Ending: Committee chairs said they would continue the review in committee discussion and consider drafting amendments to the statute's implementation deadlines, enforcement mechanics or contractor roles. The pilot remains legally in effect; the statute includes a prospective repeal in 2027 unless extended or modified by subsequent legislative action.