- Cape Rolling Out Bloomfield Road Art Trail (8/21/19)1
- Donors Pledge Almost Two Grand To Replace SEMO's Possibly Sentient ‘Gum Tree' (8/16/18)
- SEMO and The Will To (Become A Consultant) – Part 2 (6/14/18)
- SEMO and The Will To Do (You Really Want To See That Legal Notice?) – Part 1 (6/4/18)
- Judge, Jury... Trashman (6/1/18)
- Diary of Cape Girardeau Road Deconstruction (5/11/18)
- Trying To Save A Tree From City “Improvements” (4/30/18)2
Is MODOT Being Run By A Kindergartener?
Once, when I was 5 years old, I was given a dollar for a piece of candy and told to bring back the change. The piece of candy only cost a quarter, but since I had a dollar and I was 5, I picked out a few other pieces and spent the whole buck.
I think that a 5 year old may be running the Missouri Department of Transportation.
That's not to say that MODOT spent every bit of the $2.7 billion in revenue that its financial report claims it brought in for fiscal year 2008. According to the document, they only spent $2.4 billion. Perhaps their accounting department was actually budgeting for the likelihood of a revenue shortfall for FY2009.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of fixing broken roads and failing bridges.
However, I've noticed 3 instances of questionable interstate expenditures that have little to do with those items and makes me believe that we may have a figurative kindergartener loose in the MODOT candy store.
First of all, let's talk about mile markers. They're pretty simple items. A metal pole stuck in the ground with whatever the given mile is printed in basic reflective green. Not surprising they can be found just about every mile on both sides of your average interstate.
A perfectly fine system, not needing replaced or fixed.
So then why did MODOT need to replace perfectly fine mile markers with new signs that are in color and located at every 2/10 of mile intervals on I-55? While I have only observed this on that particular highway, I presume this was done Missouri-wide on all of the interstates.
In addition, each of these "new-and-improved" markers identify the highway it is marking. Was this really a problem? How often are you on an interstate and not have any idea as to which one it might be?
If you frequently find yourself on an interstate and have no clue as to which one, then you should not be driving or allowed to have a driver's license. Period.
And why did MODOT feel the need to add markers every 2/10 of a mile? Unless a hill is in the way, you can usually see from one mile marker to the next. The four fractional mile markers in between are a waste of taxpayer money.
MMMMmmm. Milk Duds.
And then there is the case of the interstate digital message boards.
I see the value of these electronic signs in the metro areas around St. Louis and Kansas City. They are quite helpful in managing the flow of traffic during rush hour.
But what was MODOT thinking when they erected two of them on I-55 between Cape Girardeau and the Bloomsdale exit in Ste. Genevieve County?
I've driven this 60-mile stretch of highway hundreds of times. Traffic has never been a concern.
Ever.
Rush hour on this part of the interstate is non-existent. So why spend tens of thousands of dollars putting up digital sign boards reminding motorists "not to drink and drive?"
Oooooooh. Gummi bears.
And finally, whose decision was it to put up 10 plus miles of cabling right next to the south-bound lane of I-55 in Cape Girardeau County?
Don't get me wrong. Everything I've read about this type cabling system indicates that it is a good thing. They're usually installed in the center of the median to help lessen the severity of cross-over accidents on divided highways.
But in Cape Girardeau County, MODOT chose to snuggle these cables right up to the inside south-bound lane. God help you if you need to attempt an emergency stop there.
Wait, no, a Gobstopper.
I work and live in Cape Girardeau, so I typically only use I-55 once a month or so. If I noticed these misspent funds just by taking the occasional interstate trip, I have to wonder what other money is being flushed away by MODOT elsewhere in the state. I realize these expenditures account for a miniscule amount of MODOT's budget, but it all adds up.
As a taxpayer, I'm given the impression that MODOT is spending money because they have it, and not because we the taxpayers actually need it.
Ahhhh. That's it. A nice big Sugar Daddy.
Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires a subscription.