Sources of Revenue:

Special Fund

Legislation creates:

Neither Program nor Fund

Fiscal Note Summary

Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.

Passage of this legislation will have a significant impact of the State Road Fund since the bill would require larger signage to display the duel speed limits. Please see the Memorandum portion of this Fiscal Note regarding other DOH concerns, i.e., the impact to drivers and the conflict the legislation would create with National guidelines.

Fiscal Note Detail

Effect of Proposal	Fiscal Year
Effect of Proposal	2009 Increase/Decrease (use"-")	2010 Increase/Decrease (use"-")	Fiscal Year (Upon Full Implementation)
1. Estmated Total Cost	330,000	660,000	660,000
Personal Services	0	0	0
Current Expenses	0	0	0
Repairs and Alterations	0	0	0
Assets	0	0	0
Other	0	0	0
2. Estimated Total Revenues	0	0	0

Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):

The following is a rough estimate and assumptions are noted. Only the two sign types (regulatory speed limits and necessary companions as well as distance signing) mentioned in the Bill are considered. • Conventional Road (2 lane typically US/WV/higher volume CRs)- Speed limits (essentially inclusion of metric would be roughly the same as adding another sign) . Last year approximately 1800 speed limit signs were taken from inventory. Additional cost on an annual basis (sign & post only no labor) is estimated at $90,000. • Speed limit change ahead (essentially inclusion of metric would be roughly the same as adding another sign). Estimate $45,000 annually. (includes only speed reduction areas) • Distance signs on US & WV 2 lane routes (assume roughly 130 reinstalled per year). Square footage will need to be added to each sign to accommodate both units. Additional supports will most likely be needed to accommodate increased sign size for at least 1/3 of these signs. Estimate $20,000 annually. • Expressway (Interstate, APD, and other 4 lanes) signing -Roughly 75 miles, 20 Interchanges and 10 significant intersections are included in sign renovation projects each year. Additional square footage to accommodate dual units can mean significant modifications to supports including footers, breakaway posts, and overhead structures. Typically each of these signs are designed individually so estimating the additional costs can be within a large range. This affects at least six advance guide signs, two distance signs and two final exit signs for each interchange. Estimate $150,000 annually. • Speed limit signs. Based on inventory usage, it is estimated that about 120 are replaced annually. Again assume the need for a full additional sign. Estimate about $25,000 annually including signs and posts (in many cases break-away) • Annual costs for increases in sq ft/additional signing/additional posts/support modifications, etc. is estimated at $330,000. This estimate does not include the majority of signs noted above (not mentioned in the Bill) which could easily double or triple this cost.

Memorandum

• WVDOH has no authority to change/modify the MUTCD, the manual which is referenced in the Bill as this is a National manual adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. • The MUTCD makes no reference to dual posting of speed limits or distance signing (on either a single assembly or separately) in English and Metric units. Each sign is shown as an “or” condition. See MUTCD page 2B-9, attached. • From a safety perspective, it is very concerning that a motorists could mistake a dual English/Metric speed limit assembly for maximum and minimum speed limits. Typically motorists are used to seeing either a Truck/Car or Max/Min speed limits on a single assembly. • It should be considered that this posting dual system speed limits would give motorists ammunition in court to ask for their tickets to be dismissed; as one, the signing could be confusing particularly at higher speeds and two, that there is no support in the MUTCD (which has been adopted by the State of West Virginia as the standard through a Commissioner’s Order). • Evidence could not be found that any other State is using both systems for anything but experimental purposes in extremely limited locations. You may wish to review the US Metric Associations website at: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/signs/ • Discussions with other states, in particular Delaware, indicate that their experiences posting both units on a specific highway have been problematic. Delaware described it as a colossal failure. • Changeable message boards, typically used to convey speed and distance only have the capacity for 24 characters (3 lines/8 characters of text). A movement to extend the dual post concept would utilize valuable message space • Exit numbers are based on mileage. Trying to dual post different exit numbers will be particularly confusing for motorists. • While it is understood that the proposed phased implementation has been suggested to limit the overall costs to implement, it is thought that for the motorists this would be the most confusing way to implement this concept • Maintenance of additional signing is also budgetary concern for future years. • Examples of signing that was not considered in the Bill that will also be affected is shown below: 1. Advance guide signing on expressways-typically 6 per interchange with distance to next exit 2. Work zone speed limits 3. Logo signing on ramps 4. School zones (we would be posting 25 kmph) 5. Advisory speed plaques on warning signs 6. Distances or distance plaques on warning signs 7. Weight Limits (normal posting, silhouette, coal resource silhouette) 8. Low clearance signs 9. Mile-markers (Recently redesigned and installed to include route, direction, ½ mi. increments)

Person submitting Fiscal Note: Kathy Holtsclaw
Email Address: Kathy.J.Holtsclaw@wv.gov