As much as the business is good for the companies fabricating these signs, it does not seem to be the right time to try to push this kind change through (and with such a small deadline). I agree certain directional signs need to be made larger and more visible, but forcing small cities in particular to have to change all the signs within such a short period of time? And from the federal government? A more gradual phase out of the older style signs should be included... if any changes now at all...
~Amy Donahue
Cities, counties expect big expense for sign changes
“For the federal government to tell us how large the letters should be on our street signs is ridiculous,” Kleis said. “I don’t think that’s the role of the federal government.”
Yet, for Siobhan Kathleen Brady of Woodbury and dozens like her nationwide, the rules aimed at making road signs more visible can’t be implemented quick enough.
“I’m getting to an age where it is a little harder to see at night,” Brady said in an online comment on the issue. “Bright signs do help me see better and know where I am going; when to turn, for example.”
Such a divide poses a dilemma for the Federal Highway Administration as it culls through hundreds of comments on the agency’s compliance dates for traffic control regulations that range from crosswalk timing to road sign reflectivity. The guidelines, contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, include replacing all street-name signs that are in uppercase letters with signs that are in uppercase and lowercase.
The FHWA, as the agency is known, will have to decide in effect whether to side with public officials or private citizens on its timetable, but comments by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood may provide a clue to which way the agency will lean.
“I believe that this regulation makes no sense,” LaHood said in a Nov. 30 statement. “It does not properly take into account the high costs that local governments would have to bear. States, cities and towns should not be required to spend money that they don’t have to replace perfectly good traffic signs.”
Along with his statement, the secretary opened a new 45-day public comment period. The issue drew more than 550 responses before the period closed Jan. 14. More than two dozen Minnesotans commented, including some members of the Minnesota Association of Townships.
At issue are the compliance deadlines for the regulations, which were enacted under the George W. Bush administration. The FHWA wants all jurisdictions to have a plan by January 2012 for evaluating and replacing street signs. By January 2015, warning and ground-level guide signs must meet federal reflectivity standards. And by 2018, overhead guide signs and non-compliant street signs must meet those standards. There is no deadline for the lettering on street-name signs.
Safety, costs
The heart of the issue is public safety, and it comes on the cusp of a sizable increase in the population of older Americans as the first wave of baby boomers reach age 65 in 2011. The number of licensed drivers older than 65 will reach 57 million by 2030, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In 2008, older people accounted for 15 percent of traffic fatalities and 18 percent of pedestrian fatalities, according to the agency.
Public works officials say they are all for safety, but they balk that the regulations are an unfunded mandate at a time when local governments are struggling to take care of the basics.
“We have significant budget issues, and our priority is to make sure cops are on the streets,” said Kleis, who estimated the cost of complying with road sign regulations would run “several hundred thousand dollars.”
The financial strain is particularly onerous for smaller communities.
“The impact of the new sign program will hit the public on so many levels because it affects safety signs, road signs and even those in the parking lots of our favorite shopping areas and malls,” said Eugene Dufault, special-programs coordinator for the Minnesota Association of Townships. “The cost will be enormous for those entities that have not or haven’t been able to keep up the sign replacement.”
Seeking flexibility
Such concern stirred Sen. Al Franken to urge the FHWA to give states and local communities more leeway in meeting the requirements.
“At minimum, FHWA should provide more flexibility in meeting the 2018 deadline and make additional funds available to assist local governments with the costs of meeting these requirements,” Franken said in a Jan. 10 letter to FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez.
Franken’s letter said the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates the cost of meeting the requirements would be $55 million to $76 million statewide. That figure is derived from the state’s estimate of costs for typical townships, cities under 5,000 population, cities over 5,000 population and counties.
For example, the typical township has about 30 miles of roadway with an average of six traffic signs per mile. The average to replace each sign would be $150. The annual replacement cost to meet the 2015 deadline for all warning and ground level signs would be $5,400. For small cities, it would be $65,000. For larger cities, the annual cost would be $260,00, and for counties it would be $400,000.
The city of Minneapolis estimates complying with the sign reflectivity requirements would cost more than $5 million during the next four to seven years, as half of the city’s nearly 100,000 signs would have to be replaced.
“A realistic goal for sign reflectivity is to consider existing documented maintenance programs in correlation with the characteristics of the roadway ... and limit the program requirements to what the local authorities deem as priorities,” city engineer Steven Kotke said in a Jan. 11 comment.
In a Jan. 11 comment, the National Association of County Engineers urged the FHWA to allow state and local governments to replace signs as they wear out, rather than on the agency’s schedule. The NACE said the agency’s new Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices strips the ability of local and state road experts to “exercise engineering judgment” on when to replace signs.
“That dilution of the authority of state and local agencies does not advance safety but does pile costs on the backs of state and local governments,” the engineers group said.
Those costs are small when measured against the public safety value of the new sign regulations, say many of those who commented on the issue.
“The economic benefits of replacing noncompliant signs outweigh the economic losses that will be incurred,” wrote Gerald Bauer of Woodbury on Jan. 11, citing insurance claims, emergency responses and court action stemming from roadside accidents. “This is one of those instances where we need to be proactive and set a deadline and hold ourselves to it to prevent more economical loss than what it takes to prevent the loss.”
Dufault said local communities need more time to adjust their budget priorities. He, too, called for a more flexible schedule while recognizing that public safety is a shared goal.
“Safety is a big concern for all governments large and small, and I think everyone wants to be responsible and responsive,” Dufault said, “but this is an unfunded mandate in a time when everyone is strapped.”
By Larry Bivins • Times Washington correspondent • February 21, 2011
