The choice between smooth roads and rehabilitated bridges on the one hand, and new signs on the other, is often a false one. Within certain limits (one of which is no bridges on the system at imminent risk of collapse), money spent on new signs can often deliver a higher rate of return than money spent on resurfacing or bridge rehabilitation. This is because signing work, even on freeways, is typically much cheaper than other heavy construction items. Good design is critical, however--it does little good to replace bad signing in kind.
The complaint I was expressing about Act 44's focus on resurfacing was essentially a personal one. Construction plans for resurfacings and bridge rehabilitations are very boring. I wasn't passing comment on the economic or practical necessity of such work compared to other potential uses of the money.