RPC Reg Spotlight July 20, 2011

 

 

Regulatory Action in the Spotlight:

 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) mandates to replace road signs

 

 

Adverse Effects:

 

  • Increased budget pressure on state and local governments
  • More regulatory compliance for state and local governments

 

 

Response of the Obama Administration:

 

The Obama administration is further increasing regulatory requirements by pushing a revision to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) through the FHWA.  On December 16, 2009, the FHWA issued a final rule   (74 Fed. Reg. 66730) designating the 894-page December 2009 revision of the MUTCD as the next edition of federal regulations on street and traffic signs.  This compels state and local governments to adopt the 2009 MUTCD as their legal standard for traffic control devices within two years.  The rules would require most street signs in the United States to be replaced, and state and local governments to come up with a sign replacement policy by January 2012.  By 2015, regulatory, warning, and post-mounted guide signs will be required to meet updated retroreflectivity goals, and therefore will need to be replaced.   By 2018, street name signs and overhead guide signs that are identified as failing to meet the new established minimum standards levels are required to be replaced. 

 

 

Impact on the United States:

 

The new MUTCD requirements would cost state and local municipalities millions of dollars.  By January 2012, local authorities must increase the size of the letters on street signs from the current 4 inches to 6 inches on all roads with speed limits over 25 miles per hour.  The rule also states that the new signs cannot have ALL CAPITAL lettering.  As part of the same final rule, the revised MUTCD calls for maintaining minimum levels of sign retroreflectivity, which could further compel local governments to remove and replace street signs.  Failure to comply, however, could cost the loss of federal highway grants.  The State of Tennessee will see $50 million in expenses, and the $2 million bill in Milwaukee doubles the city’s annual traffic budget.  Officials in Dinwiddie County, VA would prefer to spend a quarter of a million dollars on, “education, or the sheriff's department or on public safety.”  Officials in Spartanburg County, SC estimate they will have to spend $1 million over six years to replace an estimated 60,000 signs.  Steve Belue, director of Spartanburg County’s Public Works Department voiced concerned for public safety, “(W)e’re taking money from intersection improvements, safety-related improvements, asphalt resurfacing…for this mandate.”  He added, “We’d like to see someone step up and pay for it, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.” 

 

 

In Closing:

 

The latest rules for traffic signage standards create a financial burden that state and local government budgets cannot afford.  On November 30, 2010, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood admitted, "I believe that this regulation makes no sense. It does not properly take into account the high costs that local governments would have to bear."  LaHood added, "There have got to be better ways to improve safety without piling costs onto the American people.  Safety is our priority, but so is good government.”  At the Secretary’s behest, the FHWA opened an additional 45-day period of public input on the MUTCD and the new road sign requirements on November 30, 2010.  According to the MUTCD website, the FHWA continues to be reviewing the public comments more than six months after the comment period closed.

Republicans in Congress agree with Secretary LaHood: On June 9, 2011, Rep. Nan Hayworth wrote a letter with 91 signatories to Secretary LaHood, calling on him to “prevent unfunded mandates that would require local governments to incur unnecessary cost burdens.” She added, “During this time of economic uncertainty, we urge you to prevent unfunded mandates that would require local governments to incur additional unnecessary cost burdens.” 

 

 

Relevant Legislation:

 

Earlier this month, Rep. Chip Cravaack introduced H.R. 2442, the Rural County Mandate Relief Act.  The bill would bar the Secretary of Transportation from issuing a minimum retroreflectivity level standard for a traffic control device that is applicable to a state or local government.  The bill also would make ensuring traffic sign retroreflectivity a local responsibility.