Monday, December 8, 2014

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

Currently the MUTCD permits any government jurisdiction to have the authority to engineer, install and maintain traffic control devices.  The problem is that this clause in no way guarantee that a particular agency is actually adept at handling this responsibility.  While local control has its place, it is in no way an effective way to manage traffic control devices.  With enforcement on a state level of local agencies virtually non-existent in most states and local agencies are rarely being audited by federal authorities, the MUTCD has turned into an inside joke.  What this means is that the possibility of a roadway off of a state-maintained road having incorrectly laid out and/or maintained traffic control devices is almost certain.

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.


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)

Likewise in most states, the authority to manage traffic control devices does not extend beyond the defined state highway system in almost all states.  With numerous small local agencies placed in charge of a responsibility that they are often ill-equipped for either structurally or financially, the responsibility should not always be falling on the local authorities just because they own a stretch of road.  Because of this, a badly needed rewrite of several sections of the MUTCD is recommended to shift that responsibility to the agency that has the best organized government unit for that purpose.  This means that in most cases, the financial, regulatory and engineering responsibility should fall either on the states or a traffic control cooperative developed by the states or federal planning regions that pools resources in a way that local governments can afford to have traffic control 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 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 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.

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 and they 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, 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.

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 a PTOE to oversee traffic control should partner with the state or other local agencies to the extent that they are capable of affording to hire this employee
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.

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 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.
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.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

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.