By now, most of you have probably noticed the highway sign work being done on I-89, and, if you’re anything like me, you’ve probably wondered, “What the f*#k are they doing?”
To the layperson it may appear we are spending oodles of time, money and resources replacing and moving highway signs a couple of feet that were in perfect order where they were. The layperson would at least be right about one thing, oodles of money is being spent, $6.9 million to be exact.
The layperson however doesn’t see what David Dill, Vermont’s Secretary of Transportation sees. For that perspective I went to him directly.
Below you’ll find the transcript of our back and forth email dialogue. To his credit, Secretary Dill responded to my queries promptly and in detail as you will see below. Unfortunately, I think he still misses the point. So this is a highlight of our federal tax dollars at work. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Paving the way to a brighter future.
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:30 PM
To: Dill, David
Subject: Road Work Question
Secretary Dill,
As Vermont’s Secretary of Transportation, I’m hoping you’ve honed a really good rationalization for the sign work being done on Interstate 89 in Central VT. From the looks of it, it has to be one of the most egregious wastes of money the state has seen in a long time. With so much road, bridge, and infrastructure work waiting in the wings and rapidly deteriorating, it seems preposterous that the highway signs, which were totally fine, would need replacing, or moving a couple feet this way or that which seems to be the primary objective. I think the voters in the state would be interested in hearing what the agency’s rationale is for this work considering the state’s dire economic straits, job losses, and tax increases looming on the horizon. I am also including the news staff at VPR on this message hoping they could bring this story to the greater Vermont community.
Thanks.
On Jul 27, 2010, at 6:43 AM, Dill, David wrote:
I too would prefer to put every available dollar into paving and bridges, but we do have to address our other responsibilities as well. From an engineering and safety perspective, those signs were not “totally fine”.
In 2008, the Federal Highway Administration established new requirements regarding sign retro-reflectivity. The goal of this reflectivity is for all states to provide signs that are legible during all times of day and weather conditions. This is largely accomplished through the retro-reflectivity of the sign sheeting. While the life of sign sheeting has improved over the years, today the expected life of this sheeting to meet the retro-reflectivity standards is approximately fifteen years. Many of the signs on our interstate system are at least twenty years old, and some that were recently replaced on northern portions of I-91 were the original signs from back in the 60s and 70s. According to the federal mandate, states and other governmental bodies have seven years to assure that their signs are in compliance with these minimum values.
The posts and foundations for these signs are also being replaced. As background, all sign posts are designed to be “breakaway” if struck by an errant vehicle or during heavy wind loading. All of the larger signs and many of the smaller signs have base connections that consist of bolts and plates that are installed with the appropriate amount of torque to ensure that they activate appropriately. These truly are structural safety systems that if they were to fail, could result in serious consequences to occupants of vehicles.
Over time since their original installation, weather, frost, mowing, etc., have taken their toll on the metal and concrete that make up these systems. Therefore, it is prudent to replace them when investing significant expenditures on the signs that they support. In addition, in the time period since the signs were last replaced, some sign post design criteria have changed, most notably the design wind speed. Vermont is now listed as an area to be designed for a 90 mph wind speed as opposed to a 70 mph wind speed under the previous standards. This increase in loading criteria requires larger posts and foundations.
I trust this adequately addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
David Dill
Date: July 27, 2010 7:00:15 AM EDT
To: “Dill, David”
Subject: Re: Road Work Question
Secretary Dill,
Thank you for your timely and detailed response. Just a few points. I’d be curious to know how many serious incidents have been attributed the lower retro-reflectivity? Are we talking about someone missing their exit and having to double-back? Seems like the few instances low retro-reflectivity would negatively effect drivers on Vermont’s Interstate would be reason enough to put the money elsewhere. Two, I am certain the Federal Highway Administration has equally strict standards for the quality of our roads and bridges and that upgrading those would take precedence to the reflectivity issue since they are much more likely to cause serious issues. And, three, since I’m sure it is public information, can you tell me the cost of the entire sign upgrade project?
Thanks.
On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Dill, David wrote:
To follow up…..
Congress recently directed the Federal Highway Administration to adopt a national standard for retro-reflectivity for traffic signs and pavement markings. These new standards, which were established in 2008, apply to all roads open to public travel. Compliance with these new retro-reflectivity rules is a requirement that VTrans must meet by 2015 to continue to receive the critical federal-aid highway funds that come to Vermont.
To put this in perspective, Federal-aid highway funds make up $250 million of the state’s $595 million transportation budget, and are used in all facets of the state’s highway and bridge programs. Not complying with the federal mandate to replace our signs would place these funds, or at least a portion of these funds, at risk in the future.
While many national studies have identified a high benefit-cost ratio for sign improvement projects, no crash analysis specific to Vermont was conducted. Thus I unfortunately cannot directly answer your question regarding serious accidents related to the lower retro-reflectivity. However, as I mentioned in my previous email, the foundations for these new signs are also being replaced. All new signposts are designed to be “breakaway” if struck by a vehicle. This modern technology is a valuable safety tool that will prevent injury and save lives.
On the financial front, the good news is that the sign projects do not tap funds that otherwise could be used for bridge or pavement projects, so they are not in conflict with those programs. Instead, the new signs are 100 percent federally funded with Section 148 Highway Safety Improvement Program funds, which can only be spent on safety-related projects.
Sign improvements are one of several allowable project categories under Section 148. The federal government identified sign retro-reflectivity as an important safety feature, which led to the Highway Administration’s adoption of the mandate requiring states to upgrade their existing signs. In total, the three I-89 Interstate sign projects (Royalton-Middlesex, Waterbury-Winooski, and Colchester-Highgate) have a total expected cost of $6.9 million, which includes both engineering and construction costs.
I hope this adequately answers your questions.
David Dill
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:21 AM
To: Dill, David
Subject: Re: Road Work Question
Thanks again, David. I appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns. A cursory look at Section 148 allows for expenditures on a wide range of safety related infrastructure projects, and highlights “high risk rural roads” for special concern; roads we are steeped in that are in desperate need of work. While I appreciate your dedication to what you understand to be the letter of this 2015 mandate, a state like VT needs to spend any and all available funds much more wisely it would seem to me, and that retro-refelctivity and breakaway sign issues would come way down on the priority list. $6.9 million, while not a huge amount of money in terms of infrastructure projects, when spread out intentionally could probably have gone a lot further towards alleviating safety concerns around the state. I am sure most Vermonters would agree, the relative reflectivity of our highway signs is not of great concern to frugal and prudent Vermonters.
On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Dill, David wrote:
It appears I may have given you the wrong impression – that we’re spending safety funds on only these sign projects. That’s not the case.
We are guided by the principles laid out in The Road To Affordability (http://www.aot.state.vt.us/RoadAfford.htm), adopted by the Agency in 2007 and highly endorsed by the Legislature. Utilization of Section 148 funds is no different as we balance the dollars across various safety needs throughout the state. For example, Section 148 funds are paying for various signal, pavement marking, and intersection improvements such as Winooski Exit 15 northbound off ramp currently under construction. Additionally, High Risk Rural Roads provides us with $360,000 per year. We also work with towns on minor safety upgrades to intersections and segments of roadway which have proven to be high crash locations.
In other words, we seek a balanced approach and believe we are spending those dollars wisely.
and she commented as well on the apparent lack of need for the new signage over there. She was visiting me in St. Albans and brought the subject up when we passed a couple of signs near I-89 that clearly do need to be replaced because the paint has faded to such an extent as to be hard to read even in broad daylight. It does raise the question as to how replacement of those other signs came to be a greater priority than signs that are so obviously ready to be replaced!
I would sure love to see $6.9 million spent on improved bicyle infrastructure in the state. Road safety concerns is the number one issue limiting use of bicycles for recreation, commuting, and transportation in Vermont. The League of American Bicyclists has ranked Vermont 44th among states in terms of bicycle infrastructure (see rankings). Pathetic for a state that considers itself to be “green” and “outdoorsy”. I don’t need new highway road sides. I need bicycle lanes and paths.