Buried in Deena Winter's column today is a quick bit of info that the City would love to spend $1 million in federal cash on sixteen new "digital message signs". Really? That's one of our transportation infrastructure priorities? I think we can do better.
As far as I've been able to tell, the few message signs scattered around town do nothing. I have seen exactly one of them turned on exactly one time. Is it really worth $62k per sign to never use the things?
The portable signs now often used throughout the city seem like a better deal. They can convey just as much information, but since they are portable they can be placed wherever they are most convenient. I like that they can be placed along parade and road race routes as needed, for example. I have also seen them strategically placed in specific neighborhoods to announce public meetings relevant to that area (i.e. upcoming sewer line work).
If we do splurge for the unnecessary permanent signs, I hope we can at least put them to good use. I'm thinking Burma Shave ads for the morning commute.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Amen! Put the money into the roads, not these signs. What a waste of money!
could go to the Traffic Signal department so that they could buy the tools and the equipment they need to keep the traffic lights working properly. Have you seen the condition of the count down pedistrian crossing lights lately?
It looks like the City has several priorities in addition to this one.
We have a handful of these scattered around town, and never have I seen them display anything, even when a message would have been helpful.
The one over I80 east is helpful, though, with its permanent “DEPARTMENT OF ROADS TEST MESSAGE” display. Very nice.
Well, yes, but a million bucks is a million bucks.
I should have noted, however, that projects like this seem like an excellent use of money: “$19.4 million to rehabilitate more than 175 blocks of arterial streets.”
Maybe we should let advertisers buy them and put their logos on them. Works for signage at stadiums.
I don’t really understand the outrage here. This $1m is far down the list of priorities. Presumably, the “16 intersections” would be high-traffic intersections, and I imagine that once you factor in the time spent to move temporary signs in and out of these locations, something more permanent would save on labor costs and free up temporary signs for less-traveled areas and more temporary uses.
A total of $8.8 million would be allocated “to mill and overlay downtown streets and replace traffic signals” and “to replace obsolete traffic signals at 20 intersections.”
I worked for nebco for a while and they own traffcon. The city rents lots of stuff from them. Every red cone is being rented. Might be cheaper to buy them. Just sayin, jeeeshhh, gosh.
And I do agree that it’s strange that they’re not using the signs they have. Maybe they’re planning on putting the signs at 14th and Q…
“Nothing to see here, move along.”
😉
“Outrage” is much too heavy a word. These signs are, imho, “nice to haves”, not “need to haves”. There are a whole bunch of infrastructure improvements to be made across the City. Personally, I’d rather this $1 million go toward something higher on the priority list and with a bigger long-term payoff.
Like Mr. Wilson said, a million dollars is a million dollars. I’m not sure I’m willing to presume that:
1. the signals would go to high-traffic intersections
2. the signals will be used at all (based on the usage of existing signals)
If they could make a case for them, I wouldn’t be opposed. It just seems ridiculous based on the current practices with permanent signs.
You’re right
Sorry, I meant to make this as a reply to Foxspit’s comment up above. Didn’t mean to break the thread!
What difference does it make that it’s only 2% of the total? That context is irrelevant. Instead, the relevant context is the placement of these signs on our list of infrastructure priorities. From that perspective the signs don’t look too good. I can list hundreds of millions of dollars worth of local transportation infrastructure needs I would place before those signs, Antelope Valley, the South Beltway, and the East Beltway being the Big 3 on the list.
We live in a country with a host of transportation infrastructure problems. So what do government officials across the country want to spend tax dollars on? Silly little road signs and a whole bunch of pork. What a waste.
Why isn’t the context relevant? The “placement of these signs on our list of infrastructure priorities” is only kept out of the bottom by $100,000 on traffic cameras. 2% reflects that
I too have seen the ones at 27th and Old Cheney (northbound and westbound) on one time during the entire 2-4 (??) years that they’ve been there. (They’re so small it’s almost funny.) A total waste in my opinion. Spend it on something more useful.
I don’t even buy that they’re ‘nice to haves’ because I’ve never even seen them being used. I drove up and down O St every day for 3 years and saw the signs near the 33rd intersection on exactly one time, and that was a test message.
If they were used AT ALL, then I could listen to an argument for buying more. Until then, a request for more is asinine.
The infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ was much less than 2% of the federal budget, but we know how people feel about that. A $400M bridge that goes to a community of 200 people makes about as much sense as message lights that don’t say messages and don’t make any light.
Yep. One time. I think it was something about an upcoming public meeting about some street work.
If they’ve got to have them, use them. Drive safe. Buckle up. Hang up the phone. I don’t care, just use them.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.