AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Great Lakes and Ohio Valley => Topic started by: leifvanderwall on April 09, 2010, 01:49:47 PM

Title: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: leifvanderwall on April 09, 2010, 01:49:47 PM
Every so often I notice a new sign or new traffic light being put up in Michigan. And all those emergency highway signs. I live along I-94 and on Red Arrow Hwy., I see emergency 94 arrow signs all over the place; I wonder how much those cost.

In Ohio and Pennsylvania, I see traffic lights that were put up in the 1970s are still in operation, while in Michigan , traffic lights that still working and signs that are still readable get replaced. I caught the MDOT replacing a sign on the M-51 /I-94 jct. a few years ago that was still very readable for a clearview sign.

My question to you all is: Would the repaving of I-94 from M-51 to the Coloma exit be done quicker if Michigan would put off replacing traffic lights and signs that are still in working order? Or perhaps would more bridges be replaced or reconstructed?
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: froggie on April 09, 2010, 02:29:59 PM
Doubtful, since signs are extremely cheap as compared to bridge replacements or even repaving.  Generally speaking (specifics will vary depending on location and type of road), $1 million will get you one of the following:

- Traffic signals for 4 large intersections.
- Signs for about 15 miles worth of freeway (based on 4 sign replacement projects planned on I-35W in Minnesota next year).
- About 4 lane-miles (1 mile worth on a 4-lane road) of repaving, assumng basic mill-and-overlay and not a full pavement reconstruction, which costs a lot more.
- Maybe half of a 2-lane bridge, in a rural area.  Less in an urban area or a wider road., or several overhead signs (to say nothing of even larger numbers of smaller signs)

Another thing to consider, which may or may not be the case here, is that often, signs and traffic signals are replaced with highway safety money...especially if there's a documented safety issue at the location.  That's money that cannot be used for bridges or repaving.

Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: Hellfighter on April 09, 2010, 03:33:16 PM
Well, right now, I-275 from I-94 to I-696/M-5 is getting the clearview makeover. Also, MDOT is replacing message signs on I-96, I-275, and the Lodge. I think they're trying to do everything they can do, before the funds are cut next year.
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: rawmustard on April 09, 2010, 04:01:34 PM
You have to remember that in Ohio, local jurisdictions maintain all streets, signage, and signals, including those on state highways, so that's why you're likely to see a wide variance of ages of different signals in that state. I can't speak to PennDOT's practices, but I know that MDOT tries to keep signage refreshed every 10-15 years since that's about when signs start to lose reflectivity. Even though they may be legible during the day for many more years, their legibility at night is a much greater concern. And I for one would much prefer they be replaced well before they lose their night legibility.

As for why MDOT replaces signals so often, it's much tougher for a statewide agency, even with regional divisions, to maintain indivdual signals to a level where they can last for several decades, whereas a small city or village could. MDOT usually can get 15-20 years out of a signal, and typically when controller equipment and wiring gets replaced, the signal heads get replaced, too. It just makes good financial sense to do all that at once from MDOT's perspective.
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: hbelkins on April 18, 2010, 01:10:28 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 09, 2010, 02:29:59 PM
Another thing to consider, which may or may not be the case here, is that often, signs and traffic signals are replaced with highway safety money...especially if there's a documented safety issue at the location.  That's money that cannot be used for bridges or repaving.



Not necessarily. In my home county we're getting ready to do a safety project that involves paving to improve superelevation and try out a skid-resistant pavement at a spot with a high accident rate.
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: froggie on April 18, 2010, 07:27:37 AM
But is KYTC using Federal HSIP money for that?  If not, then it doesn't relate to my earlier statement.

I double-checked HSIP...skid-resistant pavement is eligible for HSIP, but regular paving is not.
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: The Premier on April 18, 2010, 12:48:53 PM
I don't get why MDOT would want to replace things that are already in good working order, regardless of how old it is. If it still works, it still works. Period. All MDOT is doing replacing the traffic signals is a total waste of money, something that can be used to update their roads.
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: PAHighways on April 18, 2010, 04:04:49 PM
Quote from: leifvanderwall on April 09, 2010, 01:49:47 PMIn Ohio and Pennsylvania, I see traffic lights that were put up in the 1970s are still in operation, while in Michigan , traffic lights that still working and signs that are still readable get replaced.

There is no rhyme nor reason to signal replacement here.  I know of places where signals have been changed three times since the 1980s, a few changed a couple times since the 1990s, and other places where signals have been in use for decades.  Even in the same borough on the same street, you can find brand new signals at one intersection and ones installed in the 1970s at the next intersection.

Signal operation is the responsibility of the city, borough, township, etc. that requested it's installation, not PennDOT.  They just merely approve or reject signal installations.
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: US12 on February 27, 2011, 06:06:40 PM
M DOT is always replacing signs. Most of the signs on  U.S 12  by my house were installed in 2001 according to their sticker. They are due to be replaced in 2012. The signs are in great shape and do not need to be replaced. I don't understand when M DOT replaces signs so rapidly and why the don't sell them to the general public. They could make more money selling to collectors than scrapping them.
Title: Re: Michigan Priorities: New signs, new traffic lights, or repaving of highways?
Post by: tvketchum on February 27, 2011, 06:29:46 PM
Sign blanks can be reused when they aren't damaged. And selling to collectors could bring up an issue if someone were to post the sign on a public road.