Major changes needed to MUTCD to improve uniformity of traffic control devices

The MUTCD maintains a myopic position when it comes to traffic control and traffic control authority.  Whether by political persuasion, convenience, blind faith, or something else entirely they continue to permit full authority of tiny local jurisdictions to handle this duty without any oversight or proof that anybody within that agency can actually plan, install, and maintain it correctly.  Liability is curtailed, excuses are made, and for decades nothing was done at all.  The current approach of providing federal-aid for safety projects has helped, but it in no way guarantees that the work was done right or that maintenance will be frequent and thorough enough to even justify the cost.  

The City of Baltimore maintains a portion of I-83 through the city.  Overhead guide signs are in tremendous disrepair along city-maintained portions.  While interesting from a historical standpoint (button copy lettering), the complete lack of maintenance proves that the city is incapable of adequately maintaining large overhead guide signs meaning that the state should be in charge of such activities regardless of local ownership.  (Source, AARoads)

Federal Aid Safety Projects: an inadequate solution creating other problems

Observing past projects, these roads are full of missing signs, damaged signs/posts that aren't repaired, planning errors that aren't corrected, and most of all the signs are covered with dirt since the local agencies never did have any regiment of actually just cleaning the signs.  If a new project did not commence to replace damaged signs/guardrails/pavement markings, the initial project within a decade of installation, the same decay that existed on older projects in the 1970's comes back.  It also has not caused any ineffective local jurisdiction to "turn a new leaf" and suddenly improve their traffic operations on other roads they maintain.  The fact that this is even needed at all shows that a toxic culture exists where nobody is admitting that the problem existed in the first place, nobody is taking responsibility, and nobody is saying anything.  It turns out that in these same states that the state DOT operations are often far less than consistent and professional as well, so even if the problem exists on a local level, it falls on the state DOT who is unwilling to study and introduce an effective solution.  Local governments will listen to professional expertise, and if the professionals are shirking their duties, you can bet the local governments are as well.  If it was important to them, they would find a way to reallocate existing resources in a way to fix this.  They would also recommend strategies to the legislature to create a legal means of doing so.  This just is not happening.  

When it comes to roads, local governments are not self-reliant

Perhaps part of the problem is the "state as a solution" culture that persisted in the mid-20th century where a bad road was only fixed if the state took over the job either as a construction project or as a new state highway.  Local governments threw up their hands, refused to work with other local agencies, and basically got used to going to the "rich uncle" to fix a problem they could not afford to fix.  At the time, the priority was always to get rickety 19th century bridges replaced and dirt roads paved: preferably with a highway-quality farm-to-market road.  For the counties lucky enough to get the state to take over those roads as well as fix them, this more than satisfied the local government who were relieved of both the cost and maintenance of many roads they previously owned.  Many of these roads were not important enough to be state highways, but in states with small counties or a township-based system who operated based on squeaky wheel politics and a tight budget due to small allocation, this was seen as the only answer with no other options to even consider.  Only in the Midwest were cooperative efforts effectively devised (on a county level) to address these issues, but the states that pulled this off were typically ones with limited county ownership of roads (only major local roads were county), a state DOT that was more willing to assist with nuts and bolts work for counties, and a very small state highway system that allowed greater funding directed to local governments.  Even then, it did not mean every road on a local level was great, just that the local governments were steered in the right direction.  

State DOT's using local forces: it does not always work

Additionally, many states allow cities to have partial or complete control of traffic control devices on both roads owned by the city and by the state.  In the cases of the state roads, there is no guarantee that the city in charge is actually maintaining signs along state roads to the level that the state would otherwise.  In many larger cities, it is often found that route and guide signs are very old or inconsistent and that other traffic safety devices are in similar disrepair.  Financially, the consolidation of responsibility to a city level makes sense, but this does not in any way guarantee that what is there is being kept to either modern engineering standards, MUTCD standards or maintained at adequate frequency to meet acceptable standards.  Self-policing simply does not work in regards to traffic control devices.  If a city, county, or town does not have the framework in place to provide this service, giving them the full responsibility creates substandard and unsafe conditions.  If they are unable to meet certain engineering standards, tasks that require engineering expertise should not be part of the agreement.  At the very least, any local maintenance on a state highway should be structured where the local agency is responsible for non-technical work while the state expands its technical operations onto those roads, likely providing it for them.  

Any excuse for devolution: the devil is in the details

The ideal framework is one that politically has been snubbed: a consolidated engineer-driven effort for construction and maintenance oversight with local funding available to advance and complete projects for what the larger agency is unable to budget or afford.  In the USA, gas taxes are a touchy issue.  Most states are unwilling to have statewide taxes that are far in excess of what other states charge thus relying on hidden tax hikes through local governments.  However, having locally-funded projects is not a bad thing given that states are not always the best stewards of project allocation nor are they always effective at planning critical projects in time.  The problem then lies that many state legislatures keep playing a game.  They tell the local governments, "Okay, we gave you money for road projects: now it's your responsibility to maintain the roads.  That's not the state's job."  Okey dokey.  So the legislature has made sure that the roads will never be good since you're trading in good engineering for trash engineering just to get a few more roads paved.  

This is why local governments attempt to resist unfunded mandates, because they know this is likely to happen.  Too many in politics think devolution is some magical solution and get some devious pleasure into seeing road standards tossed out the window while costs go up due to a massive duplication of services.  It's like this: several large pieces of equipment are needed and a traffic engineer is needed to oversee work on many roads.  If one agency who can afford it is replaced with ten agencies who would have to share the costs to do so, it means that those ten agencies will have to rely on third parties and likely will NOT shoulder the cost for that otherwise deeming it unnecessary for everyday operations.  That is a fallacy and proven failure.  Consolidation of services does NOT have to be on a state level or with a state DOT, but in the US no level of government is ever created between a state and county level that can do it.  It is insane to think that a town of 1,000 people or a county of 10,000 people is perfectly capable of doing just as good of a job as the state or a populous local jurisdiction on roads.  It is likewise insane to assume that an urban county carved up by many municipalities is going to effectively plan, engineer, and maintain a local highway system.  Legal ownership should not mean actual responsibility for a road, but unfortunately in the vast majority of instances it does in a country that is too pragmatic for its own good.  County roads do not have to be maintained by the same county, city streets do not have to be maintained by that city, and state roads do not have to be maintained by a state DOT.  In some cases, different agencies can handle different operations such as the state handling traffic operations, the county providing heavy roadway repairs, and the city or township providing street cleaning/winter maintenance all on the same stretch of road!  A group of cities, townships, or counties could form a region to handle all the engineering and maintenance for their collective road systems while they maintain ownership of part or all of those roads.  Other agencies can be created to right-size that responsibility when allocation of resources is too much or too little.  Are the powers that be too cynical or just afraid of change?  

Where are you going?  Local roads rarely tell you

The biggest atrocity of local home rule is in guide signs.  No federal funds exist to plan, install, or maintain these signs.  States typically treat guide signs as something only needed on state-owned roads meaning major local roads are almost void of any road user information.  Many have severely cut back on these signs to the point where state roads are becoming useless for navigation.  What is posted is typically so substandard and shoddy that it might as well not be there.  This includes directional signs, route signs, trailblazers, and even street name signs given that numerous local agencies do not design these signs correctly, use correct fonts/colors, or make them large enough to read.  

The recent addition in the MUTCD for overhead signs at multi-lane intersections is laughable, because there is literally ZERO chance that local governments will go back and install interstate grade overheads at these intersections if they were not there already.  The states would have to do it, but if they are unwilling to provide ANY maintenance on a local road they are installed on, they will become illegible, contain outdated information, and likewise create a roadway hazard due to lack of maintenance on the overhead supports.  The states themselves need a massive overhaul of their own guide signs, and a proper system would lay out guide signs based on roadway functional classification NOT ownership.  This means scaling back some information on less important state roads and adding tons of signs to more important local roads.  

Directional guide signs need to be planned as a network.  The current approach has them handled as a spot treatment (such as intersection improvements) or an individual highway basis ignoring side roads and other highways.  Fixing this is a multi-billion backlog, and in no way will this ever be right without a solution that allocates funding in a way to make sure that these can be planned, funded, installed, and maintained effectively.  Other western countries post extensive directional guide signs on all classes of roadways.  Why are we being so cheap?  Part of it is the system as it is designed is broken.  Literally the only states that have done this are states that have at least 1/3 of their roads state controlled or have a cooperative mechanism in place with local agencies.  If you do not believe this, pull up street view in the wealthier parts of Europe and Asia, Australia, South Africa, or New Zealand and observe how it is done.

How the MUTCD can help

A case was made above for a badly needed rewrite of several sections of the MUTCD.  What the MUTCD should require is that, regardless of actual ownership, the responsibility for traffic control devices should shift that responsibility to the agency that has the best organized government unit for that purpose and that states are liable for not ensuring that these resources are equally available to all local governments large and small.  This means that in most cases, the financial, regulatory and engineering responsibility should fall either on the state itself, a statewide traffic control cooperative developed by the state, or regional traffic operations based on federal planning regions.  This should also override or limit any local home rule that allows local agencies to otherwise operate without any federal oversight.  States that fail to implement these programs would lose federal funding.  This thus pools resources in a way that local governments can easily afford to have roadway engineering and safety improvements properly funded and supervised at a cost that is within their budgets.  In the case of the District of Columbia, this authority should fall either on the federal government (Corps of Engineers) who at present is the only authority above the city itself or should include a cooperative with local governments in adjacent states such as Arlington County, VA, City of Alexandria, VA and Montgomery County, MD.

Likewise, traffic control features in public parks, schools and government facilities should also be overseen by something besides the park, school or facility themselves since they are technically a public road.  Since some roadways fall under the U.S. Forest Service, Department of the Interior or other federal agencies that similarly are understaffed for that purpose, perhaps that responsibility should be centralized into the Corps of Engineers as well.

Maple St. approaching Brush Hill Road in Litchfield Township, CT is an example of local government too small to be able to manage traffic control devices.  With a population of 8,466 the town clearly does not have the resources to hire an engineering staff so traffic control maintenance is sparse and incorrect.  In this image you see an incorrectly applied combination curve/warning sign with a speed limit in lieu of an advisory.  The brook in the foreground lacks any object markers or guardrails (only driven in wood posts).  No sign at all is posted in the opposite direction for the hazardous curve condition, either.  Also note the faded out lines.  Behind this image is a three-way stop with 24" Stop signs (no longer standard), no "ALL-WAY" plaques and no "Stop Ahead" to warn of the condition northbound (image from Google Street View).

Another view of Maple St southbound approaching the above mentioned four-way stop.  This is a bit further north.  Note the "Slow Children At Play" haphazardly placed under Stop Ahead.  This road is a fairly straight road except for a couple sharp curves.  With a proper approach to centralizing traffic control responsibility away from the township, this road could have far better engineered traffic signs at minimal cost (image from Google Street View).

While the states may not be currently prepared to accept this responsibility, the focus of federal funding should also shift to make this possible.  While grant programs help, dedicating part of federal transportation dollars just to finance safety improvements is a wise step to assure that not only are states in compliance but also that local agencies are given the resources necessary to provide this service to their local community.  Likewise, the states should explore ways to consolidate many government functions in a manner to make such work as financially feasible as possible.  If states like Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Delaware, all states with limited revenues, can handle the responsible of traffic control devices on both state and county road systems through full state control, the other states who do not take this approach can certainly find a way to centralize this specific government function in which local agencies have proved unreliable, inconsistent and often inept at doing on their own.

What is this sign?  Is it a curve or is it a turn?  Also note the single line in the center in lieu of double lines.  This mess is found on Harrison Road northbound in New Hartford Township, CT.  Another one of many New England townships with shoddy traffic signs, these make up the functionally defunct Litchfield County.  As part of a county with 190,000 residents, revenues would likely be adequate to maintain all traffic signs correctly if traffic engineering and traffic signs were centralized to a county, regional or state level.  (Image from Google Street View)

Note that what is being said here is NOT that the state will have to do everything for the cities and counties.  There is room for local control, but local control must be engineer-driven including checks and balances to be effective.  Any county, city, town or township potentially could comply with the changes below simply by being properly trained by state authorities, having or using proper equipment, receiving conditional funding from the state or federal government just for that purpose, purchasing only from state-approved vendors, having all traffic engineering handled by qualified engineers and coordinating with state authorities on all traffic control procedures instead of operating independent of the state.  But "could" is the key word.  How much could they do if the budget in a township is $850,000 and hiring a PTOE alone would cost 12% of the budget?  Is it realistic to think that any local agency with a low population and small tax base has what it takes to do everything listed above?  They could do all of this, but not alone.  Likewise, the states could use more help with signage themselves.  

What many do not realize is that once devices are in place, the cost of maintenance is far lower than the initial major improvements if the responsible local jurisdiction is adequately maintaining them, can properly allocate resources for it, and the devices were correct to start with.  Major overhauls are only needed because those in charge failed or were unable to comply with proper standards, keep a proper sign inventory, properly invest in such work, or place traffic control devices without following proper protocols.  Knockdowns and stolen signs should be located and replaced, worn out signs should be replaced, damaged guardrails should be repaired, faded road striping should be replaced, signs should comply with sign plans and all traffic signs should be designed properly and those with proper knowledge should be able to point out significant errors with the ability to get them changed.  

By doing it correctly the first time and every time, costs would be reduced and safety would be greatly enhanced regardless of what road or what state one happens to drive on.  Obviously in the real world that means that some economies of scale are needed, and the best way to create those is to accept that consolidating some things such as highly technical matters to a more concentrated or higher level of government should be policy instead of optional.  Indeed, some things need to be handled from a level where following a proper process is not financially difficult or impossible.

Overbuilding leads to worse roads

Another problem that should be mentioned in regard to local control is overbuilding.  Unlike most centralized systems, local governments tend to overestimate the importance of roads they maintain by building roads that are too expensive to maintain.  This means lane width in excess of what is needed, road projects that are not needed, and speed designs that require larger, sturdier safety improvements than they can afford.  This also means simple things like placing center and edge lines on low-volume, functionally local roads that take resources from other needs for what amounts to expensive paint.  This actually promotes more hazardous conditions, because it makes these roads look and feel like highways when the roads are not maintained or retrofitted at the same level as a highway.  The cost of maintenance also takes funds away from road projects on more important roads leading to greater hazards on those roads as well.  This falls under the "squeaky wheel politics" problem of local control where "showy" things like nicer, faster roads take priority over "less showy" routine maintenance work and lower cost solutions.  Very often, the "showy" road that is upgraded does not need it while the ones that do are ignored.  

Inversely, local control also leads to primitive roads in poorer, rural areas.  States that do not invest in local road network improvements lead to rural areas having few paved roads compared to those who do.  This creates hazards from the road surface itself while also creating gaps in collector routes that force more traffic onto other roads that do not need additional traffic since through traffic typically avoids or is required to avoid (such as trucks) severely substandard roads.  

SUGGESTED MUTCD REFORMS IN REGARDS TO RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

NOTE: To traffic engineers who read this next part, this is NOT to be viewed or adopted as an actual change in public policy unless adopted and approved by FHWA and the NCUTCD.  If these changes were adopted, they would become part of the actual MUTCD.  This is a suggested revision based on field observations in many states, and this is an entirely independent analysis.

The suggested changes to Section 1A.07 should be as follows.

Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices
Standard:
01 The responsibility for the design, placement, operation, maintenance, and uniformity of traffic control
devices shall rest with the public agency or the official having jurisdiction the state agency, multi-jurisdictional regional agency of adequate population threshold or federal agency authorized to regulate public roads in their respective state, federal land or federal district, or, in the case of private roads
open to public travel, with the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. 23 CFR 655.603
adopts the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway,
bikeway, or private road open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13). When a State State or other
Federal agency manual or supplements are is required to clearly define state or federal specific signs, sign standards and regulations that are otherwise not otherwise present in the National MUTCD.  , tThat manual or supplement shall be in substantial conformance with the National MUTCD.
Guidance:
08 States should adopt Section 15-116 of the “Uniform Vehicle Code,” which states that, “No person shall
install or maintain in any area of private property used by the public any sign, signal, marking, or other device
intended to regulate, warn, or guide traffic unless it conforms with the State manual and specifications adopted
under Section 15-104.”
09 States should not permit individual local authorities to have exclusive jurisdiction or responsibility for the layout, installation and maintenance of traffic control devices.
10 Supervision of all traffic control devices should be under a qualified traffic engineer, preferably with a PTOE certification.
11 Any government agency unable to afford to hire one or more traffic engineers whose specific responsibility is to oversee traffic control should partner with the state or other local agencies to the extent that they are capable of affording it.
12 States, statewide agencies working on behalf of local governments, private engineering firms working on behalf of the state or statewide agency, regional traffic control cooperatives or federal agencies should design, engineer, install and maintain traffic control devices in all local jurisdictions that are financially or structurally incapable of fully maintaining traffic control devices to MUTCD standards.
13 Any state, district, territory or subdivision of a state, district or territory may partner with an adjacent state, district or territory or subdivision of a state, district or territory for the purpose of maintaining traffic control devices.

14 Preferably, states should structure their road system so that any technical operation, including traffic control devices, are planned, designed, installed, and maintained by a public agency that functions at a level comparable to the state DOT and completes this work on behalf of multiple counties, cities, and towns within a defined region or the state as a whole

The suggested changes to Section 1A.08 should be as follows.

Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices
Standard:
01 Traffic control devices, advertisements, announcements, and other signs or messages within the highway
right-of-way shall be placed only as authorized by a public authority or the official having jurisdiction the state agency, multi-jurisdictional regional agency of adequate financial and/or population threshold or federal agency authorized to regulate public roads in their respective state, federal land or federal district, or,
in the case of private roads open to public travel, by the private owner or private official having jurisdiction,
for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic.
02 When the public agency or the official having jurisdiction over a street or highway or, in the case of
private roads open to public travel, the private owner or private official having jurisdiction, has granted
proper authority, others such as contractors and public utility companies shall be permitted to install
temporary traffic control devices in temporary traffic control zones. Such traffic control devices shall
conform with the Standards of this Manual.
03 All regulatory traffic control devices shall be supported by laws, ordinances, or regulations in compliance with state and/or federal law.
Support:
04 Provisions of this Manual are based upon the concept that effective traffic control depends upon both
appropriate application of the devices and reasonable enforcement of the regulations, thus state and/or federal agencies must have final jurisdiction over devices and regulations regardless of whether roadway is under state, regional or local ownership with states instead of local agencies responsible for regulating such devices regardless of the actual agency responsible.
05 Although some highway design features, such as curbs, median barriers, guardrails, speed humps or tables,
and textured pavement, have a significant impact on traffic operations and safety, they are not considered to be
traffic control devices and provisions regarding their design and use are generally not included in this Manual.  Responsibility, however, must be treated the same as traffic control devices with jurisdiction falling under the same state and federal agencies to assure uniformity in application and maintenance.
Standard:
07 Signs and other devices that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed within the highway
right-of-way shall not be located where they will interfere with, or detract from, traffic control devices.
Guidance:
08 Any unauthorized traffic control device or other sign or message placed on the highway right-of-way by a
private organization or individual constitutes a public nuisance and should be removed. All unofficial or nonessential

traffic control devices, signs, or messages should be removed.  
09 The state has the authority to determine if such devices are non-compliant and may require correction or removal along roadways maintained by local or regional authorities unless those regional authorities possess the same technical knowledge, hold the same professional standards as the state agency, and are able to demonstrate that they can meet or exceed all state or federal requirements.
10 The appropriate federal agency where no conflict of interest is present has the authority to determine if such devices are non-compliant and may require correction or removal along roadways maintained by various federal agencies or the District of Columbia.

The suggested changes to Section 2A.03 are as follows:

Section 2A.03 Standardization of Application
Support:
01 It is recognized that urban traffic conditions differ from those in rural environments, and in many instances
signs are applied and located differently. Where pertinent and practical, this Manual sets forth separate
recommendations for urban and rural conditions.
Guidance:
02 Signs should be used only where justified by engineering judgment or studies, as provided in Section 1A.09. 03 Engineering judgment or studies should only be performed under supervision of the responsible state, regional or federal agencies.  Local agencies may not perform engineering studies without subsequent review and approval of all plans by the state, regional or federal agency with ultimate oversight over a particular jurisdiction.  Engineering judgment by local authorities is subject to review by state or federal agencies.
04 All federal-aid eligible roadways, regardless of jurisdiction, are required to have engineering studies reviewed by the state or federal agency responsible and must comply with MUTCD standards in order to receive federal funding.

Shoddy Signs Spotlight: Coffee County, TN

Tennessee counties are among the worst when it comes to proper installation and maintenance of traffic control devices.  With adequate state level revenues, the fact remains that very few counties in the state do it correctly.  Prior to the High Risk Rural Roads grant program, the state for decades has also made no direct investment in helping counties in this area.  In fact, the majority of rural roads in Tennessee have few to no traffic signs posted at all regardless of whether they are a designated collector route or a functionally local road.  One of those reasons is that very few counties have a county engineer (less than 10 out of 100 counties) due to resources being spread thin over many rural counties.  It's not that these counties make no effort at all, but the interest in having consistent standards or full compliance with the MUTCD is a low priority and, prior to HRRRP, absolutely no portion of state funding was applied to correcting or updating safety issues on Tennessee's county roads.

Perhaps it should also be noted that cities are favored over counties for state-aid by a wide margin meaning counties are pretty much left on their own.  It is telling in the way that consolidated city-counties and larger cities tend to do a much better job with traffic control even in high population areas.  In fact, Tennessee has been second only to Georgia in their push to consolidate city and county governments indicating that there is definitely a funding problem for counties.

Tennessee also has some of the most mountainous terrain in the United States, so this makes rural county roads particularly dangerous.  TDOT also functionally classifies all local roads outside of urbanized areas with no classification higher than "minor collector", which makes the former federal-aid secondary roads apparently ineligible for federal-aid.  By extension this makes it more difficult to invest in improvements on the most heavily traveled county roads.  With sharp curves, steep drop-offs and often narrow roadways without any shoulders these are the roads that should have the most safety upgrades.  In geometry, they are quite similar to Virginia's secondary state roads except for the dearth of adequate safety improvements.

In Tennessee, the culture of local control with little state interference is also strong.   In fact, Tennessee is unique in that road commissioner is an elected position separate from the county mayor.  Because of this separate elected position, there is even less accountability in regards to road standards than other states where roads fall directly under the county administration.  Most rural counties in Tennessee are also quite poor, so when the money for road improvements starts flowing, safety improvements take a very low priority.  It is not uncommon to see traffic signs from federal-aid projects left over from the 1960's that never get replaced, although TDOT's rural safety program has at the very least replaced many of these decrepit signs.  What does in fact get replaced is also quite substandard.  Likely those federal-aid projects are also the only instance that any actual traffic study was ever completed for signs.  Roads also only tend to be restriped after being repaved making roads that have not been resurfaced in a number of years very dark at night.  Guardrails installed in the 1960's with blunt end guardrails also are still commonly found along county-maintained roads.

Since Tennessee is among the worst states for MUTCD compliance on local roadways, a large number of counties will eventually be featured on the "shoddy signs spotlight" feature of this site.  While this is likely to offend these counties and cities who do this, they may not even be aware that there is a problem.  It is hoped that seeing this will inspire them to consider strategies like those proposed on this blog to fix these issues.  Counties will not be the only thing shown, though as municipalities in most states actually have far more issues than the counties.

COFFEE COUNTY, TN

Coffee County, with a population of over 50,000, is actually not one of the worst cases for poorly maintained traffic safety improvements in the state.  The county was picked initially partly because they actually have made an effort beyond what other counties in the state have done.  Because of this, it is far easier to showcase the numerous issues with visible roadway features than to show a county that has little in the way of signage at all.  This post is actually to show what they're doing wrong and how it could be done better.  Most likely at least the signs themselves that will be shown here will eventually be corrected through the federal-aid safety projects, but it is important to note that what might look okay to the naked eye actually is not and also needs policy changes.  Several locations will be highlighted with images showing the problems in this post.  

Westbound Rutledge Falls Road.  The Rutledge Falls parking area is to the right.  The curve ahead is actually the sharpest turn in the beginning of a series of curves with two sharper curves.  It is posted with a turn sign eastbound as is shown in the next image. (Google Street View)

Eastbound Rutledge Falls Road approaching the same sharp turn as above, but posted instead with a turn sign.  Using a curve or turn sign in a sharp turn is not optional depending on the direction or what type of sign is available in the shop.  It's either a turn or a curve.  (Google Street View)

A short ways to the west of the sign above is this winding road assembly marking the two sharper and two smaller curves in the vicinity of Rutledge Falls.  The terrain forms a small hollow along a low plateau where the curves are located. (Google Street View)

Rutledge Falls Road shown here is designated by TDOT as a minor collector.  It has some pretty typical errors for rural counties in Tennessee.  This series of turns on Rutledge Falls Road was shown to highlight the typical lazy work being done by local governments in many states.  It appears at some point the county road commissioner decided to install curve warning signs county-wide, but they never hired a traffic engineer nor did they correctly follow the MUTCD in the process.  A number of issues are noted in these images:

1. The advisory speed posted does not appear to have actually been determined properly (ball-bank study).  The way that it is posted for the W1-2L curve southbound but the W1-5L winding road northbound is misleading.  Likely the advisory speed would be higher.
2. The curve in the first two photos is posted as a curve southbound, but it is posted as a turn northbound.  You can't have two different types of curve warning signs in different directions marking the same condition.  If the 15 MPH advisory speed is correct, then only W1-1 turn signs should be posted.
3. Warning signs posted are 24" signs.  While this was still compliant when these signs were posted, this is no longer a compliant practice to use 24" signs for curve warning situations.
4. "SLOW" signs are posted.  Slow (formerly W42-2) is a removed MUTCD sign and are basically useless as a warning sign giving a vague message to drivers.  It was removed from the MUTCD in 1961.  At least in this instance it was included with a 15 MPH advisory speed although better ways to enhance the sign could be used such as orange diamonds, flashing beacons and larger signs.
5. The signs look cluttered.  While overlapping of warning and advisory signs is not expressly forbidden, it has a knack for making signs look less important and thus less noticeable and more difficult to read.  Most likely this was done, because the county did not specify anything higher than an 8' direct-driven post.  It is known that many rural counties lack sign trucks and thus are unable to post taller signs.
6. The post height is way too low.  On the clustered curve/slow/advisory combos, the bottom of the signs almost touches the ground.  Rural applications are supposed to have a minimum of 5' above the edge of pavement per the MUTCD.  In no way is this the case here where signposts appear to be near uniformly no more than 5-6' above the ground county-wide.  The reasons are specified in #5 above.
7. The southbound curve sign in the first image is not MUTCD-spec.  This non-standard W1-2 design was applied county-wide with at least half of the curve signs posted with that look.  This was likely either an in-house job or a purchase from a sign vendor that was not state-approved (or not properly reviewed for compliance).  Many of the cheaper sign vendors produce traffic signs with designs that are not in compliance with the MUTCD.
8. As typically noted statewide, the lines on the roadways are faded out and need to be re-striped.
9. The double arrow sign posted at the junction of Cat Creek Road and Rutledge Falls Road is bolted to a tree and warped by tree growth.  It also has incorrect design and dimensions.
10. Stop signs (not shown) are 24" x 24" and are no longer compliant needing replacement with standard 30" x 30" signs.

The image above annotated from Google Earth highlights all the issues with potential corrections to each traffic engineering issue.  Also included was a D1-1 guide sign to indicate the change of direction along the minor collector routing.

The situation presented on Rutledge Falls Road is by no means an isolated condition.  County-wide, severe traffic hazards are present because of shoddy sign work.  The next series of photos captured from Google Maps will highlight some of the many other areas where major improvements are needed.  The hope is that elected officials will find the means to begin to correct these issues, form a cooperative with other cities/counties to improve standards/oversight and/or push the state for a direct role in maintaining roadway safety features.  The county should also pursue a combination of resources with cities to help improve economies of scale and normalize roadway standards.  

Powers Bridge Road west of Manchester features a very dangerous situation with the guardrail on the left side lacking any anchor whatsoever located very close to the edge of the roadway.  The background sign is also incorrect using a T-intersection sign (W2-4) instead of the appropriate W2-2.  Also note the faded out condition of the lines on the roadway.  If full road striping is too costly then at least the centerline should be well-maintained.  (Google Maps)

Old Woodbury Highway north of Gowan Road has W1-8 chevrons posted on the wrong side of the road and posted incorrectly.  This is a 90 degree turn.  Behind this only a W1-1 turn sign is used (no advisory). (Google Maps)

These non-standard curve signs were found county-wide a decade ago, and are still found in most areas of the county.   This sign was noted on Wayside Road east of Pete Sain Rd. They do not have a correct design and were loosely applied to nearly every condition that involved a curve.  As noted in the background, chevrons are posted.  Chevrons are usually posted if the curve has an advisory speed 10 or more miles less than the roadway. (Google Maps)

Major engineering, safety and sign design issues are found on Short Springs Road (part of the same minor collector route as Rutledge Falls Road) in the City of Tullahoma (inside Coffee County).  The first shows a completely non-standard device used to mark the curve approaching the Bobo Creek bridge.  This is followed by a short blunt-end guardrail segment approaching a bridge with no railing.  However, the object markers on the bridge were applied correctly. (Google Maps)

It was noted through Google Earth that a highway safety project was underway in 2013 in Coffee County along Fredonia Road as well as work noted on Maple Springs Road.  While it is possible that further issues are planned for correction through the Local Roads Safety Initiative (TDOT's application of the HRRP similar to GDOT's Off-System Safety Improvement Program), it is important to note that these issues should have never been present and that the HRRP is a goal-oriented program financed largely with federal funds.  This does not fix a systemic problem.  The improvements do not mean that any local policies were changed.  While the county should continue to seek help at improving these issues, the county should begin to improve many practices on their own.  As a middle population county, the resources are available to do a better job than they've been doing if used efficiently.  The steps the county alone should take are:

1. ENGINEERING STUDY: Hire a PTOE or traffic engineering firm with a PTOE to review all of the county's signs and guardrails with priority given to roadways designated collector or arterial.  This should include a traffic study that corrects every engineering issue and details modifications whether or not funding is available to fix them.
2. POST HEIGHT: Correct post height issues throughout the county.  Signs need to be much higher than they are posted now so that they at least comply with the 5' minimum clearance.  The cheapest short-term way to do this is to take the existing posts, pull them out of the ground and install a 3' soil anchor cleaning off the base of the taller post.  This will automatically add 3' in post height.
3. TDOT STANDARDS: Adopt TDOT standards including purchasing signs only from state-approved vendors to correct sign issues.
4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TRAINING: Send employees involved with installation, layout and maintenance of traffic control devices to seminars to learn how to do it correctly.
5. INSPECTION: Have an engineering consultant annually spot inspect traffic control devices for errors.
6. MUTCD STANDARDS: Follow MUTCD standards when installing and replacing any sign.  This means at the very least make sure signs comply with designs in the Standard Highway Signs manual and that sign dimensions comply with the charts in the MUTCD.
7. FUNDING/REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE: Continue to use state/federal help whenever possible and budget an annual zone installation/replacement schedule on roads that received traffic engineering studies.
8. DATA INVENTORY: Inventory all new signs installed with GIS mapping and GPS coordinates.
9. GUARDRAIL SAFETY: Replace dangerous guardrails and guardrail anchors county-wide.
10. BRIDGE RAILS: Improve bridge rails with either guardrail treatments, repairs or new railing.  Using surplus railing is acceptable as long as it has proper breakway anchors, is installed correctly and is not too low.  If the railing is concrete, contract with the state for those repairs.
11. COOPERATIVE MAINTENANCE: Develop a regional traffic control cooperative based on the planning region with adjacent counties and cities for layout, installation, fabrication and maintenance of traffic signs, guardrails and pavement markings.  If TDOT offers, hire them as a contractor to maintain these items on behalf of the county.
12. SERVICE SWAPPING WITH TDOT: Broker a service swap agreement with TDOT that amounts to the county providing specific road maintenance services on behalf of the state in turn for an equivalent amount of traffic control maintenance on county roads.

TDOT should also note this as an example of how even middle-population counties struggle to provide proper maintenance of traffic safety devices.  This and many other examples should lead to a plan to provide annual funding from the state DOT budget to counties and cities with the state either furnishing safety items for local governments or reimbursing local work if that work complies with TDOT standards and engineering studies.  At no point should these safety improvements been allowed to become this substandard.  If Coffee County formed a cooperative, then state-aid should be applied to the cooperative to allow a more efficient and effective plan for upgrading and replacing defective devices.

It is hoped that examples such as Coffee County will lead to changes that assure that even with limited funds that what is in place on the roads is done the correct way.  If a local agency cannot install and maintain traffic signs to proper specifications, then they should not be posting them at all.  It is better that any local agency does not post any signs than for them to post them incorrectly.  The latter is actually far more hazardous and is not very effective.  It is hoped that by highlighting all of these issues that action will be taken to systematically correct these problems in the best manner possible while funding on a state level is available to make the process far more feasible.