To the Editor:

It is incredible that The Enterprise again reports that the Cornell Local Roads Program (CLRP) continues to diminish the importance of the role New York Vehicle and Traffic Law plays in addressing the safety of workers and the traveling public in local highway operations [“Willful negligence puts the traveling public at unnecessary risk,” Dec. 8, 2023].  

Think about this: The CLRP is subsidized by your tax dollars, state and federal, to specifically address the safety of local highway operations. But in the past, the director’s first quoted responses to clearly documented violations of V&T Law in Berne portrayed the MUTCD [Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices] as just a casual guideline! 

When pinned down by The Enterprise last week, the CLRP director goes from portraying the law as a casual guideline in earlier reporting, to admitting there are some “shalls” that have to be followed. But then suggests “shoulds” don’t need to be followed.  

The MUTCD is a document, adopted into New York law, that is best interpreted by a professional engineer in the context of the specific project or infrastructure condition he or she is evaluating. That document covers everything: interstates, state highways, U.S. routes, county roads, local roads, local rural roads — even bicycle paths. 

That engineer's interpretation of how the MUTCD applies to the safety of her or his specific local project is crucial to the safety of workers and the traveling public. That engineer’s license is on the line in that scenario. If her or his interpretation of the MUTCD for that project gets tested in court in the event of a serious incident, a career is on the line and a settlement could cripple his or her employer. 

Design engineers look at how the MUTCD applies to their project with very careful, deliberate consideration. I’ve been there. That’s what makes V&T Law 1680 work to protect you. If the MUTCD says something “should” be done, do you really think an engineer can ignore that? 

According to Enterprise reporting, CLRP portrayed the law as just a casual guideline. They portray the guidelines as confusing. Who knows how to interpret “should” and “shall”? They make hypothetical excuses for well documented, clearly unsafe local highway operations and conditions. Then they portray rail systems as one of the least important safety considerations in highway projects. Just leave it off until you get a chance next year.

Berne routinely overlays long segments of highway with CHIPs [[Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program] funding that include significant stream crossings and lane widening with no consultation and no plans.

Dangerous drop-offs are left at the edges of the travel lanes long-term, even through winters without the protection required by the MUTCD. The lanes are widened with no adjustment to the roadbed width so there are long ranges of highway left with permanent drop-offs right at the edges of the travel lanes. 

Completely deteriorated rail systems are left lying on the ground in rehabilitation projects. I guess the highway superintendent gets the CLRP message!

The road is not typically closed at the work sites in Berne culvert-replacement projects. That’s how we ended up with a minivan in a deep excavation. It’s very fortunate there were no laborers cleaning up in the bottom of the excavation. 

There were no signs or barricades at the actual work site. The dump truck drove away to dump, and it appeared to the minivan driver that an excavator was just parked along the road.

Did the highway department learn anything? They continue this ridiculous practice. I challenge Mr. Orr to find a legitimate PE designed project like that where a deep excavation across a highway without barricades or signs is approved by that Engineer. 

I also challenge Mr. [David] Orr [director of Cornell’s Local Roads Program] to find a New York Professional Engineer designed stream crossing project like the Gifford Hollow Road project (with similar 8-foot drop-offs) where that designer justifies opening that structure with no rails at all and no temporary drop-off protection, not even signs. CLRP says not to worry about the few locals who may be exposed to this hazard. 

You should be concerned. While the state funds these projects, the state is not concerned about the safety of the operation or the final product. They are not concerned about the integrity of the work either.  The state’s priority is to see that the funding is spent legitimately. 

To protect the taxpayer investment and address the safety issues inherent in local projects, the state will reimburse the town for engineering, survey, and construction inspection costs. They also subsidize CLRP to educate the public and local officials. That is how the state handles these issues.

The big problem? New York state assumes someone competent and ethical is using the funds and they assume CLRP is doing their job.

The costs of responsibly progressed projects are reimbursable so local taxes would not be impacted. The town could employ licensed surveyors and professional engineers to evaluate situations and design plans at the more critical areas along local projects and have those parts of the project inspected during construction. Work-zone safety and temporary traffic control can also be reimbursed. 

I think the system designed to protect workers and the traveling public from unsafe local highway operations has broken down due to a statistical cluster of very bad actors:

— The town clerk, in violation of Town Law 65a, destroyed the records of numerous highway defects for years. Why? To protect the superintendent from political scrutiny! Documentation provided [posted online with this letter];

— Knowing all these notices by dozens of people were being destroyed since 2016, the superintendent of highways ignored those notices. Numerous dangerous defects remain unaddressed to this day.  Documentation provided;

— The current supervisor very blatantly lied repeatedly, making a motion in his official capacity as a board member. Then he lied again, denying those lies in the next meeting [ submitted recordings posted with this letter]. Why did he do this? To protect the highway superintendent from political scrutiny!

His falsely justified motion eliminated a board-approved initiative to have the dangerous Berne highway operations evaluated by independent, objective professionals. (This was before the tragic fatality attributed by state investigators to multiple violations of PESH [ Public Employee Safety and Health Bureau] safety standards).  

These dishonest people are dangerous!

Joel Willsey

East Berne

Editor’s note: David Orr did not respond to the assertions made in this letter.