A Critique of Georgia's Off-System Safety Improvement Program & Tennessee's Spot Safety Improvement Program

Much praise can be given to the states of Georgia and Tennessee for finally addressing the lack of progress local governments have made in terms of traffic control and safety improvements.  As recently as a decade ago, local governments were required to raise their own funds for any safety improvements.  The result of this was terrible maintenance in the vast majority of counties and cities.  Local resources were scarce for this work, training was poor and both materials and labor did not comply with proper state or federal standards.

Starting in 2004, Georgia began to lead the way to address substandard maintenance of traffic control devices.  Tennessee followed suit with a nearly identical program in 2009.  Georgia's began with a pilot program, and this program was created to address this most neglected aspect of local road maintenance.  It provided specific funding for:

• Traffic signs (regulatory and warning)
• Traffic control studies
• Pavement markings (striping, raised pavement markers, other pavement markings)
• Guardrail repair and replacement
• Mowing and brush cutting to provide better visibility 

Prior to this program, most local governments did not take this type of work seriously.  While stop signs and street name signs were obviously more frequently maintained, most local governments were neglecting this work.  In addition, other traffic control took more of a backseat when rural counties became responsible for posting D3-1 street name signs: a major local expense.  Old, worn out signs were common.  Many signs were 20 up to even 40 years old.  Local governments were likewise doing this work without any direction from a qualified traffic engineer.  The result were dangerous errors and omissions on road after road.  It was the equivalent of driving at your own risk.

What a difference proper safety improvements make!  This steep drop-off into Wolf Creek on Owltown Road in Union County previously had no signs warning of the hazardous condition along with inadequate pavement markings.  Federal-aid funding fixed this dangerous condition, but will county forces be able to keep it up?  These have been needed since the road was first paved in the 1980's.

Georgia's interest in this program coincided with a change in policy in the FHWA in regards to local safety improvements.  It was discovered that the highest accident rates and deadly crashes were not on the busy urban streets but on rural roads.  Duh.

When you have thousands of local governments thinking traffic control is a luxury item, it is going to cause people to get killed.  Thus, the federal government began funding safety projects if the states organized an acceptable means to distribute the funds.  As Georgia's plan evolved, the state has taken an increased role in making sure the projects have been done correctly.  The initial program mostly involved striping projects and replacing traffic signs in place with no engineering studies.  Today, the state's work includes full-scale renovations of specific roads awarded to counties, cities and towns on a first-come first serve basis, but proper traffic studies are by no means a uniform approach with only some districts and some local agencies taking this badly needed extra step.

In all, this plan has led to significant improvement, but the results are still very patchy.  It can easily be said that the majority of roads have still not been covered.  Many, many local agencies just replaced their existing signs without making any modifications, and GDOT's District 6 in particular has avoided financing traffic studies to correct engineering errors present along those roads.  Thus, in many cases an unsafe condition was replaced with another unsafe condition posted at the proper height that is easier to see at night.  Obviously other areas do not need as frequent of maintenance and have improved: especially road striping and guardrails.  If anything, both of those were vastly improved over the typically non-existent lines and neglected guardrails found on county roads prior to 2004.  Nevertheless, even guardrails sometimes need frequent repair.  A crash-prone guardrail cannot just be replaced once every 20 years.  It may need to be replaced more frequently: something that just does not happen in either a rural county or small city/town/township.

In all, maintenance is not a project to be rewarded infrequently.  It takes a constant effort to make sure that everything is where it needs to be, is done right and is continuously up to code.  Will these states shift their efforts when these federal-aid projects have fixed the majority of issues?  We can only hope so, but for now the plan as it exists could stand to have significant tweaking.

THE ISSUES WITH BOTH STATE'S METHODS

The federal-aid safety projects through the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRP) have made a huge improvement in the engineering and quality of county roads across both Tennessee and Georgia.  However, in many ways it is a big bandage covering a bigger problem in the two states who do in terms of traffic control devices.

1. The issues requiring a complete overhaul should not have been present in the first place, especially on federal-aid eligible roadways.
2. While the projects address most of the present safety issues, they do not address the larger issue in that these local agencies are still not equipped financially or structurally to maintain technical traffic operations work.
3. Many errors exist on these sign projects that are never corrected on a local level
4. Projects are spotty and happen every 5-10 years.  They do not overhaul entire road networks in individual jurisdictions.  Instead, they only address specific roads.
5. Neither state provides any maintenance nor traffic engineering services once these projects are complete
6. Guide signs are completely omitted from projects except for in-place replacement with no design modifications if the original signs were incorrect.  Proper guide signs should be considered part of safety and should be funded by the state even if federal funds do not cover it.
7. Traffic studies are not always performed on these projects resulting in signs that, while MUTCD compliant in design, height and reflectivity are not properly engineered thus creating a greater hazard since they "appear" correct.
8. Local governments are under no obligation to either maintain to the same standards nor eventually replace these signs under another agreement.  They will do little to nothing if another state administered federal grant is not provided.
9. Funding is not committed from a state level.  While there is (now) a state funding match (in Georgia), it is largely a federally-funded program.  The program will end if the federal program ends.
10. Federal funding in this program competes for other safety funding including on the state highway system meaning the funding could be stripped away from local governments to use exclusively on state-owned roads or used for purposes other than traffic control.
11. Local governments have broad powers to choose these projects and can decide against them if they do not want to maintain costlier compliant signage meaning that some local governments with the worst conditions deliberately opt out of the program.
12. Safety projects are often oversigned and are not planned with any consideration of the financial or structural capabilities of the local governments in maintaining them.

Below each point will be detailed in a single paragraph:

The issues requiring a complete overhaul should not have been present in the first place, especially on federal-aid eligible roadways

First, it should be noted that a complete sign overhaul proves that both the state and local agency was aware of a problem but was unwilling to do anything about it before work was commenced on a federal-aid safety upgrade.  If the road was being properly maintained in the first place, there would be no need for a full-scale re-engineering nor replacement of every sign.  Clearly in these situations both the local government and the state have failed in their duties.  The local agency has failed to set aside funding and properly supervise their own road system while the state has failed to develop a strategy where local work is properly inspected, planned and/or funded.  The result is that an unsafe condition has persisted for decades that has, in fact, only been addressed adequately for the first time.  Regardless of the improvement, the division of funding and responsibilities has failed the public and should be viewed as a serious concern.  If the traffic control devices were maintained correctly as it is, this work would consist of nothing more than small spot corrections and replacement of worn out signs.  A complete re-engineering demonstrates one of two things.  The first is that traffic engineering work was inappropriate, obsolete or incorrect in the first place.  The second is that no engineering studies have ever been conducted at all along a stretch of road.

Stinking Creek Road (NFA 1280) westbound at D.W. Baird Lane in Campbell County, TN.  This road was paved and realigned as a federal-aid project in 1960.  Note that the sign in the image is delaminated, which typically happens to traffic signs that have remained in place too long.  Even if this sign is replaced tomorrow, this shows that Campbell County has neglected traffic control for 55 years.  Image from Google Street View.

Farner Road southbound in Polk County, TN.  This sign was likely installed when the road was first paved and is covered in lichens (as well as faded to pale yellow).  While some other signs on the road were eventually replaced, many others are missing or incorrect.  This shows the half-hearted effort by the local agency.  Replacements also contain many errors like what was described in the discussion on curve warning signs.

While the projects address the issues, they do not address the larger issue in that these local agencies are still not equipped financially or structurally to maintain this technical traffic operations work

This situation of course highlights the point that the majority of local agencies are not able to handle traffic control to the levels necessary.  Budgets in low-income or rural counties simply are not adequate to address an effective traffic control strategy without taking significant funding from essential services and projects.  The economies of scale are also too low to provide the cost-efficiency necessary to overcome this.  Likewise, the local governments typically lack the equipment, standards, trained professionals or facilities to run a proper traffic sign maintenance operation.  Only wealthier and higher population cities, counties and states have the ability to handle this level of work to acceptable levels.  Even then, the ignorance on a local level in regards to traffic control operations mean that urbanized counties and cities in many cases may be just as bad if not worse than they tend to be in a lower population area.

Even if this sign was properly studied, the application and compliance is unacceptable.  This photo was taken October 19, 2014 in Gilmer County, GA on Whitepath Road.

This sign in the Cherry Log community of Gilmer County, GA was installed in 1989 as part of a state highway project and is clearly far past its service life.

Dahlonega, GA shows that while they seem to understand about post height that they are otherwise confused.  Are they advocating that you drive 25 MPH past a stopped bus?

This blind curve in Polk County, TN is not indicated with anything more than this completely non-compliant assembly.  The speed limit sign should be replaced with a W13-1 advisory and "SLOW" replaced with a right curve sign (W1-2R).  A curve with limited sight distance was noted on the hill past this sign.

While these federally-funded projects make it easier for these rural governments to maintain what they have, the fact is that a huge sudden uptick of traffic control devices to maintain is not realistic for a rural local agency.  When these signs wear out they will likely go without replacement for many years past their service life, missing and vandalized signs won't get replaced, obsolete signs will not get updated, and replacement signs may be incorrect/substandard.  This is evidenced by previous work completed in the 1960's and 1970's on locally-owned roads: much of it still in various states of decay today where the federal-aid safety grants have not been implemented.

Many errors exist on these sign projects that are never corrected on a local level

Another issue involves the sign projects themselves.  As in all roadway projects, a few errors are made that require correction after the contract has closed.  Humans are not perfect, and they make mistakes: especially if the mistakes are made in a situation that is less critical.  The problem with these sign projects is that errors are made that are not corrected.  When the project closes and the sign work is transferred back to the local government, there is no trained technician or engineer to point out the issues and quickly correct them.  Instead, the problem remains untouched for the next decade or more.  This was noted many times.

In a state-aid safety project project in Towns County, GA, it was observed that in one location a reverse turn (W1-3) sign was pointing in the wrong direction and a turn sign (W1-1) was used in two locations where a winding road sign was supposed to be.  These issues were not fixed, and this project was completed seven years ago.  The state was unable to fix them since they had no authority over the road.  On the other hand, the county lacked the funding, resources or interest in correcting the problem thus it never was fixed.  In the more recent Union County, GA project several errors were noted including an intersection sign for a private driveway on one road and a missing turn sign on another road (posted in the opposite direction).  These also are not likely to be fixed since the engineer's work on the project ceased when the contract ended and neither county has any staff engineers to inspect traffic control.  The state at this point has no authority to go back and make small changes to fix these issues.  Similar errors were noted in Tennessee along Sciota Road in Unicoi County, TN where the field work did not correctly match traffic studies with curve signs incorrectly applied in several locations.

Projects are spotty and happen every 5-10 years.  They do not overhaul entire road networks in individual jurisdictions.  Instead, they only address specific roads

This brings to the point the nature of such projects.  The federal government provides a small pool of money for this work.  Since it must be distributed a certain way annually in each district, this means that the state basically awards an amount to various local jurisdictions in lieu of a blanket federally-funded maintenance program.  Once every 5-10 years, a county, city or town usually receives road striping and replacement of signs on a few roads with the rest left untouched until the next project comes around.  If there are any remaining issues, then they must wait another decade or more to get fixed.  The overall result is that the local agency is left with a partially finished job where they then must theoretically come up with the rest for any other sign work, which they usually do not do.  Thus, you have a one-time job that is then returned to local control with errors that do not get fixed.  After the job is completed, nothing else significant is done until another contract that may or may not come in another decade depending on either the available state/federal funding and interest on a local level.  Moreover, the next job if it happens will likely not have another study meaning that the same problems will just be replaced in-kind with new problems.  Since the entire road system is usually not done, a future project will often not be applied along the same roads thus delaying work on the original roads for as much as 15-20 years.  That is not a sound maintenance strategy.

Monroe County, TN had a spot safety improvement project on many roads across the county.  However, that did not include this stretch of Old TN 68 just north of Tellico Plains.  In the first image, the reverse curve condition does not even exist any longer since the intersection was reconfigured into a stop condition.

Sign rot has overtaken this sign installed on Grandview Road in Pickens County, GA (a minor collector).  The signs on this road were installed in 1980 as part of a paving and realignment of the road.  Most have never been replaced.  Pickens County has also had at least two off-system safety improvement projects.  Most of those projects were not even done along major county roads such as this one.

Neither state provides any maintenance or traffic engineering services once these projects are complete

As was mentioned earlier, the state does not provide any traffic control maintenance to local governments after contracts are completed forcing cities and towns to again resume the responsibility they failed to do correctly the first time.  Cities and towns should not be depended on to provide this type of work in the first place, so clearly they should not be stuck with this job unless they find a way to pool their own resources into a statewide cooperative that can do this at or near state levels.  While the state should be able to take advantage of federal money, there should also be a guaranteed annual allotment distributed through state forces to provide traffic operations services on behalf of local governments.  At the very least, state funds should create a traffic control cooperative agency that allows local agencies to pool their available funds for traffic control while the state covers the operations costs on behalf of the local agencies.  In addition, local agencies should be required by law to follow the same engineering and maintenance standards of the state: something that will require the local agencies to either consolidate this function or jointly fund with other local agencies a private engineer firm to manage traffic control for local governments.  This does not mean the local government can never put up signs, but what the state does not fund should follow engineering plans, directives, and comply with state and federal standards.  Anything else should not be allowed on any public road in the state.  This means that even locally-funded work will be required to comply with nominal state and federal standards as a condition of state funding to the local governments.

Guide signs are completely omitted from projects except for in-kind replacement with no design modifications if the original signs were incorrect

In these off-system grants, guide signs have been treated like a stepchild.  State DOT's and counties alike have begun treating guide signs as something "nice to have, but not necessary", but poor information to the road user can be just as hazardous as inadequate warning signs.  Road networks are confusing and GPS systems do not always guide motorists on suitable roads.  Guide sign funding can help finance better street name signs, fund signage for county farm-to-market routes, pay for advance intersection signs and manage traffic flow in a way that reduces congestion on major highways.  Guide signs being described here usually include the green destination and distance signs typically found along state highways, route markers (interstate, US, state, county and town), recreational guide signs, larger expressway guide signs and informational signs such as facilities, airports, stream crossings and jurisdictional boundaries.

The signs above was replaced "in-kind" from an earlier even more non-standard sign.  No effort was made to review guide signs for accuracy or proper design.  Even if federal funds do not cover it, these projects should include proper re-design and review of directional and distance guide signs.

While guide signs are typically not viewed is as critical as warning and regulatory signs, a confused motorist taking the wrong road can lead to accidents or worse.  Local governments in far too many states as well as many state DOT's have proven that they do not see the installation and maintenance of guide signs as important.  From the unsigned, but designated alphanumeric county highways in California to the decayed former state route signs in Florida to the shoddy workmanship of route and guide signs maintained by many cities/towns along state-owned roads in Virginia, guide signs are a low priority compared to other signs.  It is not uncommon to see still-useful guide signs decades old along former highway alignments that ultimately disappear instead of being replaced.  Unfortunately, the current policy is essentially that unless a guide sign is already in place the federal funding will not cover their replacement.

This left over guide sign on Old TN 68 first installed by the county before Mecca Pike was a state highway was never MUTCD compliant in the first place, but its lack of maintenance is fairly typical for guide signs on rural local roads.  When the roadway was moved, the state should have still been installing and maintaining guide signs along the local roadway.   If this was upgraded today, it would most likely be replaced with simply a trailblazer directing traffic to TN Routes 39 & 68.

Efforts by local governments to design and install guide signs are lazy at best.  This atrocious guide sign was found in Cherokee County, GA at the intersection of East Cherokee Drive and Old GA 5.  It was a replacement of a very old guide installed in a state-aid road project on East Cherokee Drive in the late 1960's and was not replaced until around a decade ago.  Guide signs such as this are extremely rare in this county or along hardly any roads under the authority of local governments since they take very low priority.  Off-system projects also do not offer to rework these numerous issues along local systems.

Trailblazer signs are rarely found along locally-owned roads, and when they exist they were usually installed prior to a shift in control to the local agencies and thus ignored.  This sign is found along Old GA 5 in Cherry Log.  On certain local roads, being able to find the nearest highway should be something posted frequently and by state forces.  

In addition, little effort is made into using the right dimensions or planning the design for these signs.  A general 48" x 24" size has been applied to most directional guide signs in both states meaning difficult to read crowded legends on signs that were possibly larger and more legible before.  Route markers, including essential trailblazers, are almost never funded or posted in such projects.  If local control meant local function, this would make sense but in both states a significant amount of roadways under local control are functional collectors (major collectors in Georgia, mostly minor collectors in Tennessee).  In addition, guide signs as it is are a black eye for states with strong local control.  If a local agency is not even going to put up proper curve warning signs the chance of them posting trailblazers, directional guide signs and other information-oriented signs is slim.  What does get put up is usually very non-compliant.

In the early 2000's this guide sign assembly was installed in Union County at Skeenah Gap Road and Old US 76.  This required outside involvement to get this engineered and installed since previously the arrow sign was deteriorated and no guide sign was present.  While the guide sign was not properly designed, it is closer to MUTCD compliance than the current sign.  The object markers next to the arrow are also a typical state practice.

Later it was determined that the mileage to Blue Ridge was incorrect.  This image shows how this could have been updated with proper routine maintenance provided through the state's traffic operations office and state-aid funding.  The 72" x 24" sign would have been corrected to proper specifications and dimensions, object markers replaced with MUTCD-correct design and double arrow likewise replaced with a correct standard sign.  This image, however, is a fake photo and this never happened.

Instead, the sign was replaced "as is" except the lengthy legend was squeezed into a 48" x 24" sign.  This sign is so skinny that it was impossible to make it MUTCD compliant plus the text height was reduced.  The object markers were removed per decision of the engineer.  While the sign on the left is correct, the sign on the right was an "as is" replacement with no effort put into properly designing the sign to MUTCD standards.  If this sign had not previously existed, it would not be here at all.

Even if local governments are entrusted to put up state-funded signs as they are in states like Virginia and Maryland, guide signs are more of a statewide issue.  Planning of guide signs requires an integrated approach where destinations that typically extend far beyond the local borders need to be identified with the best possible route.  The state also understands connectivity and roadway classifications better than the local agencies.  Thus, the duty to post any type of guide signs on roadways NOT maintained by the state should fall on the state or at least a statewide agency whose duties can be integrated to cover many counties and cities at once.  This means that guide signs should always be included in any budget for local sign maintenance in addition to inclusion in the federal-aid safety projects.  This also means that the duty to install these signs on any road should fall completely to the state or a regional highway agency with local governments focusing on street name signs.

Traffic studies are not always performed on these projects resulting in signs that, while MUTCD compliant in design, height and reflectivity are not properly engineered thus creating a greater hazard since they "appear" correct

Another major issue with the federal-aid safety programs is the fact that sign replacement projects often do not require an engineering study.  Much of the time, sign replacement work is "as is" meaning that no matter how many errors in judgment are made by the local government or how haphazard the sign work is, all signs are pretty much replaced as they were found.  Much of the funding used in both Georgia and Tennessee has included these "as is" replacements that replaced a sign that was substandard enough not to be trusted into a sign that "looks" official but is not correctly used.  This endangers the public more than the prior condition due to the expectation that the conditions shown on the sign line up with conditions along the road because the sign looks official.  Missing signs, incorrect curve signs such as "curve" used in a 90 degree turn and random sign work not backed by an engineering study is typical.  What's worse is that these agencies have used up their available funds and think the work is adequate meaning that these conditions will likely not be corrected for years.  This is not something that can be remedied when the work is transferred back to local control.  The state needs to be able to oversee spot treatments and thus be able to make corrections.  If a new curve sign requiring an advisory is posted incorrectly in one direction and not at all in the other, then the state will need to replace the signs on that post and put up a whole new sign in the other.  Maybe they can't fix the whole roadway, but they can certainly correct any discovered errors.

This scene along Blue Ridge Highway in Union County, GA demonstrates one of those errors.  While the sign is intending to say that the voting precinct is at the fire station, that is not the purpose of an emergency vehicle warning sign.  These signs should have been separated and likely never will since the state is currently not in a position to point out that this is not in compliance with the MUTCD.  Errors like this are not uncommon when a large number of changes are needed, and situations like this are "as is" replacements since this assembly existed in this fashion prior to this replacement.  While not the worst case, it shows that traffic control decisions should be a centralized to a level where it is engineer-driven and not a localized function.

The sign above "appears" correct due to post height, sign design and reflectivity being adequate, but this is in fact a significant and unfortunately common engineering error.  This is found on Gapland Road (a county-maintained road) in Frederick County, MD.

Local governments are under no obligation to either maintain to the same standards nor eventually replace these signs under another agreement.  They will do little to nothing if another state administered federal grant is not provided.

The idea behind the off-system safety projects is to aid local governments, not do the job for them.  When you aid somebody you do that under the expectation that they can handle the rest themselves.  The problem is that is rarely the case in terms of local traffic control, so aiding them in the form of a single project every few years is not a solution.  Since all but a couple states have anything near a state mandate in place, most local governments obviously are under no obligation to maintain what the state has provided in any form other than potential liability issues.  Georgia and Tennessee at present have no policy in place to regulate local agencies thus permitting them to do as they wish regardless of whether the local efforts reflect sound engineering practice.

Cowan Road Connector in Acworth, GA opened in 2001.  When it opened, all new signs were engineered correctly.  Unfortunately, this sign demonstrates that an improperly operated local agency can mess that up.  The "No Trucks" sign is not MUTCD compliant, added incorrectly under a warning sign and the warning sign itself is in need of its first replacement.  While the road was engineered correctly, including traffic signs, the city did not continue proper maintenance.  If the city had been under supervision of the state for traffic control, errors like this would not have happened.

Even if the work is done so beautifully that a county road is indistinguishable from a state highway when the signs are still brand new, the fact is that this once in awhile change in signs is not typically reflected by a change in local policy.  Local governments are not legally obligated to maintain what was given to them at the same levels as the state and without proper supervision will typically mess up what was done correctly the first time (such as adding speed limit signs under warning signs).  When signs go missing, get damaged or wear out, the only obligation the local agency is under is liability for causing an accident due to defective signs.  That is not enough of a deterrent considering that prosecution for engineering errors on a local level is rare.  While those circumstances sometimes are successful, usually the local governments prove more difficult to prosecute than the state making it very easy for them to successfully weasel out of situations like this or these problems would not be so common.  Most of the time older or missing signs either do not get replaced or replaced in the manner that they were first installed.  Sometimes conditions on the roads change such as a new subdivision or traffic operations change that is never corrected in the older signage.

This is where the state must step in and pursue measures that consolidate that responsibility to a statewide level.  Either the state DOT must begin to maintain this work for the local agencies or they (with the help of the state legislature) needs to help organize a statewide agency to do this instead.  They must also penalize local agencies who fall out of compliance if they do this work incorrectly on their own.  The original traffic studies should be held by both agencies, reviewed and periodically checked for compliance with modifications added for changing roadway conditions.  Standards should become uniform on all levels of government, and this function needs to be centralized to make sure that a qualified agency is always on top of traffic engineering.

Funding is not committed from a state level.  While there is (now) a state funding match (in Georgia), it is largely a federally-funded program

Of course, all the logic presented here still comes back to funding as well.  Neither the state nor the local governments want to take responsibility for funding this type of work.  Instead they point fingers, refuse to budget adequate amounts for traffic safety and thus are unwilling to take charge of the problem.  How can you rely on 159 counties and 538 cities in Georgia to consistently and reliably do the job correctly?  Likewise how can Tennessee residents depend on all 95 counties and 346 municipalities to do the job correctly?  The answer is that the state should not rely on any of them.  Instead, they should create either a single statewide agency or a few engineer-driven regional agencies that are able to do that for them.  They should then likewise dedicate a significant portion of state transportation funding to local traffic control relieving the counties and cities of that specific responsibility.  At present, neither Georgia nor Tennessee have dedicated any state transportation dollars to local safety work other than matching the funding for federal grants.

The signs in the image are all properly engineered and fully comply with MUTCD standards along Old TN 68 in Monroe County, TN.  This road, however, had its signs in horrible condition prior to this project with few warning signs and what was left old and incorrect.  The last time this road was state maintained was 1977-78 and many of the warning signs on that road dated back to that era.  The county has not changed its policies, so what is the realistic chance that the county will maintain these signs to the standards they were when first installed?  Slim.  This is where the state should be developing a means that traffic control is not directly supervised from a local level, especially on roads like this that are eligible for federal-aid upgrades.

If the states are not willing to otherwise maintain local roads, at least 1% of state highway funding should be set aside annually to finance operations of statewide or regional traffic control centers operating either as part of or independent of the state DOT.  Their duties would be to pool local resources from each local agency to properly plan, install and maintain traffic control devices on roads owned and maintained by local governments while the state pays for the engineers salaries, employees and facilities.  If any additional funding is available to fund traffic control on behalf of local governments in forms of federal-aid safety grants or state funding, this should be supervised by this agency not by the local government itself.  Otherwise, the local agencies would be paying into it.  That is what is described in the Traffic Control Cooperative Plan.  The state could also expand its capacity for local traffic control by swapping low-tech services with counties and cities such as winter maintenance, summer mowing/weed control, ditch clearing and pothole patching in turn for assisting local governments in sporadically installing, replacing and correcting traffic control.  Instead of paying a local agency to maintain roads on behalf of the state or vice versa, the state places the local agency in charge of specific maintenance activities in turn for equivalent payments primarily for local traffic control and traffic studies allowing funding to be adequate for most paved roads to have the majority of traffic control serviced by the state.  This is what is described in the Local Exchange Plan.

At the very least, having the state government expand its traffic control responsibility to roads they do not own such as collectors and arterials would be of great benefit meaning that these efforts would not be in vain.  If as-is replacements are full of errors, the state would still have good "bones" to work with in that all signs and posts in the field are to the most up-to-date standards and in good repair.  At the very least they could make some adjustments to work completed in projects and add to what is there if needed.

Federal funding in this program competes for other safety funding including on the state highway system meaning the funding could be stripped away from local governments to use exclusively on state-owned roads or used for purposes other than traffic control

Obviously state funding needs to be committed to maintenance as well as safety construction projects.  It is not enough to randomly do these projects then just leave them to each local agency to do what they want with.  At some point the state will need to develop a regional maintenance structure for this work to make sure it is done right, consistently and well.  There is no guarantee that the off-system safety funds will always be available or that they will continue to be used for this purpose, so better maintenance will mean that millions spent for traffic studies and upgrades that seldom happen will not be in vain.  Many competing needs exist as traffic volumes increase.  Because of this street signs, guardrails and traffic paint will always take a low priority next to more pressing roadway projects.  Thus, the state must eventually be committed to funding at least supervision of this service on behalf of local governments with or without federal-aid even if it means local governments are not making every decision.  That may even require a small tax increase to achieve, but it is worth it to provide safer, less cluttered and better maintained roads.

Local governments have broad powers to choose these projects and can decide against them if they do not want to maintain costlier compliant signage meaning that some local governments with the worst conditions deliberately opt out of the program

It should also be noted that these safety projects are not a blanket improvement.  Not all local agencies want to be stuck maintaining thousands of new street signs on roads where none existed before.  Perhaps they feel that the state's work oversigns their roads beyond what they can afford.  In Georgia's case, that may actually be true considering that the state has no policy in regards to curve warning signs in that many curves that do not pose a hazard nor require speed reduction that are signed.  The fact is that many local agencies have not signed on for these improvements on any significant level.  Instead, they choose to focus funding on road striping, as-is replacements, guardrail repairs or other improvements that present a lower cost to maintain and less demand.  If this is no longer their responsibility, then this will become less of an issue as an engineer-driven approach will mean that a balanced and cost-efficient approach will allow even the poorest counties to maximize use of their resources.  If a county has $10,000 to spend in one year and $500 the next, if that $10,000 is used only on fully compliant devices with the purchases pooled with that of many other local governments, it will stretch much further than if the county was paying for it themselves.  Most local governments would likely appreciate having an agency better equipped and more knowledgeable take care of roadway safety improvements as long as they retain regulatory authority to determine speed limits and vehicle restrictions on their own and have the financial muscle to make sure that their needs are being addressed.

A dangerous S-curve was improperly signed in Dawson County, GA after the county opted out of sign work for their county roads instead using the funding only for pavement markings.  This is a typical error with the curve misidentified (winding road) and instead of posting an advisory speed and chevrons they resulted to this redundant and useless sign.  The road here, Steve Tate Road, is a major collector meaning that it is potentially eligible to be a state route and carries according to GDOT state highway-level traffic yet the road is treated far less important.  

THE VIEW OF FEDERAL-AID SAFETY GRANTS OVERALL

Many will argue that this strategy is better than nothing being done at all, and they are right.  Many states refuse to delve into local matters at all, and the states taking even an indirect role in local traffic control is a huge improvement over the 1990's where state-aid in both states was limited to local paving projects and major construction.  Indeed, it is a step in the right direction and a continuation of even this program will have a lasting impact that will bring both state's local systems closer to full compliance.  However, it is still not an effective long-term strategy to bring an entire state into uniformity due to the fact that it does not actually correct the root of the problem.  Engineering problems will still exist, maintenance will still be inadequate and the majority of local government agencies will still not be qualified to handle traffic control matters by themselves.

The reason for this is that traffic control maintenance is not a touch and go strategy.  It requires an active approach that local agencies simply have not done well enough to be entrusted with.  While local control has many benefits, the cost to local governments for safety improvements is simply too high while the need is too low for it ever to take adequate priority.  Because of this, states as a whole, including the two state examples here, need to expand this program by funding regional traffic control cooperatives that not only place the authority for off-system safety projects under their jurisdiction, but also place maintenance authority for traffic control on local roads with them regardless of the level of funding provided by the local governments for that purpose.  States like North Carolina, Virginia and Delaware have demonstrated that even with tight budget constraints that a centralized strategy to traffic control is not only very effective but may actually reduce overall costs.  Likewise, it is not acceptable to place technical matters in the hands of a small local agency without any staff engineers or purchasing power with the expectation that this is something they will be able to handle well.  Such duties must be collectivized into larger units to be effective whether it be the state government or a statewide cooperative.  Overall, states are better trained, better organized and better able to absorb costs like this far more easily than a local agency that is sensitive to population, unit costs, politics, income levels of residents and capacity.

Shoddy Signs Spotlight: Morgan County, AL

Morgan County is a moderate population county located to the south of Huntsville.  With 119,490 residents, the unincorporated county has over 40,000 residents with its largest city Decatur dominating the county in population serving as a bedroom community for Huntsville.  Considering its population, most people would think that traffic safety improvements would be excellent.  They would be wrong.  Quite possibly no county has surpassed Morgan County, AL in atrociousness when it comes to traffic sign standards.  This is unfortunate considering that the county otherwise appears to otherwise have an excellent road system.

The first photo is on Lando Cain Road southbound where it transitions into East Byrd Road via a 90 degree turn.  This atrocity is what you see as you come up to that dangerous turn.  A street name sign is posted on top of the curve sign for a particularly confusing experience.  Additionally, a single off-center chevron with the curve sign in the middle of the sharp turn are all that greet drivers.  There should either be at least two chevrons visible from each direction or large arrow signs (W6-6). Westbound in the second photo only a (very incorrectly designed) curve sign is posted.   As to the curve signs, this appears to be a contractor purchase that wasn't inspected to make sure that what they were buying was MUTCD-compliant.  Granted you could shoot into either driveway if you miss the curve, but most drivers would be close to highway speed before being surprised by the severity of this curve an otherwise arrow-straight road.  Because of that, the risk of hitting a car coming from the other direction is pretty high (Photos from Google Street View, June 2014).

This is the intersection in question from Google Maps

The issues with the signs are quite numerous.  Extremely poor traffic engineering is the tip of the iceberg.  The design of nearly every warning and regulatory sign is completely wrong, maintenance is poor, post height is incorrect and what signs exist are rather sparse.  Furthermore, county routes still appear on maps, but signage has completely disappeared even though these county routes have not been assigned or posted with names.  Street name signs also do not meet MUTCD standards and do not include cross-street names meaning traffic coming from a side road will need GPS to even know what road they are approaching.  How can a county that otherwise has smooth, well-built roads have such poor management of traffic signs?  This is the county paradox, and this is why safety improvements as a whole are something that should typically not be handled from an individual county or municipal level with exception to a few high income, high population areas.  Reason would say that you would be punishing the ones that do it right, but clearly self-policing does not work, and if those "good ones" know something that this county does not, then that knowledge needs to be shared in a way that changes are permanent and for the better.

These winding road signs are just two examples of poorly designed signs pandemic around the county.  Both are atrociously designed and do not comply with the MUTCD located on County Road 55: a major collector road.  Note that the post height is less than 5' on the first sign and that both signs are 24" x 24" on a major road with a 45 MPH speed limit (both signs are required to be 30" x 30").  Also note that the road curves to the left.  This is actually a left reverse curve, not a right winding road.  The second sign was witnessed in other counties suggesting a contractor that was not properly vetted for compliance.  The first image is on CR 55 eastbound west of Fowler Road and the second on CR 55 westbound west of Chambers Ln (Google Street View, September 2013).

Curve in question on Google Maps.  It's fairly obvious from here it is a left reverse curve not a "winding road".

It should be noted that this county does have an engineer, and this engineer clearly has no interest in this aspect of the county road system.  However, is this engineer a PTOE?  Alabama has provided county engineers, but nobody like this for traffic control.  Otherwise, it would be much better.  Obviously no traffic study has been conducted on any of these roads or there would be advisory signs under the curve signs, signs would be posted at the correct height, signs would be in the correct place and the signs would look like standard signs.  If nothing else, an engineer's right to oversee any county road system when funded by the state should rest on the engineer's compliance with state standards for safety improvements, but preferably the county engineer should not be wearing "many hats" with something like traffic control being a side job, which is clearly what is going on here.  Clearly Alabama has no mandate that counties and cities follow these standards despite providing ample funds for this purpose.  Since Morgan County was not a captive county, there was also never at any recent time any state help to upgrade these signage deficiencies.   To fix this problem, it would be best to be handle this problem from a state level or regional level.  Could it be fixed from a local level?  Partially, but it's doubtful that the efforts would be enough to truly correct the issues.  It did appear some newer signs were more compliant, but that's not enough.

WHAT THE STATE SHOULD DO

It is very clear that Alabama needs to change its approach to county roads.  With counties and cities unwilling to consistently and effectively engineer and maintain roads, a greater state role is needed.  According to "Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program by the FHWA" on page 16 it states, "Alabama trained county engineers in data analysis and low-cost safety improvements. Alabama dedicates all HRRRP funding to qualifying municipal and county roadways. In the first year Alabama divided available HRRRP funds equally among the State’s 67 counties as they developed a specific procedure. In coordination with relevant stakeholders, including local agency representatives, ALDOT developed a process requiring county engineers to participate in data analysis and low-cost safety improvement training to qualify for funding."  If that is so, then why aren't the traffic signs in far better shape?  This Alabama approach isn't requiring them to do anything or show any results.  This program didn't really require any real changes at all.  A few small areas look to have been improved, but no major changes have been made with this program.  It also appears that Alabama has not really worked to identify these issues on a state level meaning it's up to the counties to regulate themselves.  In addition, the lack of a "qualified vendors list" for traffic signs does not provide any means for local agencies to screen private vendors.  Many other states have this, including Georgia.  These counties by and large appear to have used this funding for other issues not related to traffic control devices.  Neither are any quality controls in place for those local agencies assigned with this task to assure that the best materials are being used.

Community Lane just west of Gum Springs Road in the northern part of the county did not disappoint with terrible signs.  The Stop Ahead sign and the reverse turn sign both have undersized, incorrect symbols on posts only about 2' off the ground.  While the conditions are correct, the signs are not.  The reverse turn sign should also have an advisory and either chevrons or arrows on the turn ahead (which it does not).  (Google Street View, June 2014)

A start would be for Alabama to carbon-copy Georgia's "Off-System Safety Improvement Program".  This program requires little to no local investment, demands state standards are followed, uses state forces to identify problem areas and takes this work out of the hands of local engineers.  Some GDOT districts have also hired private engineering firms to conduct traffic studies for these safety projects meaning that roads in many, many counties that have never before had any traffic study nor were in compliance with MUTCD standards have been able to have their safety issues corrected to where they meet or exceed standards found along state highways.  By privatizing the process, Georgia took the work out of the hands of counties who were not doing the job right.  While Georgia's county road agency structure is different from Alabama's, the state finally understood that technical issues are best addressed outside the scope of local politics at least for the purpose of distributing federal funds for safety improvements.  Georgia's approach by no means has been a cure-all nor has it necessarily corrected local maintenance deficiencies after projects are completed, but it gives local governments a chance to do something well that they were unable to do very well before by showing them how to do it the right way and making sure that funds are spent in a way that brings local signage into compliance with state and federal standards.  How well these are ultimately maintained in the future, however, remains to be seen as currently no structure is in place to provide statewide or regional traffic control services to local governments.  This latter situation is quite similar to Alabama, but the former situation has placed Georgia well ahead of Alabama.

South Cedar Cove Road transitions to North Cedar Cove Road in what is a sharp turn even less than 90 degrees.  With that much of a hazard, the only thing posted is an undersized and non-standard turn sign (no advisory) and two chevrons stacked at one point in the curve.  If nothing else, large arrows should be stacked and better warning signs should be posted.

The curve in question from Google Maps

In addition to centralizing federal-aid funding, the best strategy by far is the development of a regional traffic control district.  This can either be a decentralized model based on planning regions or a centralized one that operates as a local arm of ALDOT.

Regional Traffic Control District: Planning Region Option

The first option is to take traffic control out of the hands of the county engineer and replace it with a more centralized program where traffic engineering is a multi-jurisdictional operation jointly funded by multiple counties and cities across a larger region.  It is important to note that the region is very rural and that by itself that Morgan County would still not have adequate population coupled with its own planning region (North-Central Alabama Regional Council of Governments), but if combined with the NW Alabama Council of Local Governments, this would bring the region up to eight counties with a population exceeding 500,000.  Could Morgan County then afford a PTOE?  Of course.  If every county and city participated, the cost of a PTOE would be less than $10,000/year for Morgan County alone!  The idea is that a regional traffic control operation separates that responsibility from the county engineer so that resources can be pooled enough to fund an agency whose sole purpose is traffic control planning and maintenance.  Clearly the county is not able to do it alone, but when coupled with so many other cities and counties, a benefit that was lost when the "captive county" program was eliminated will not only be given to Morgan County, but will return to five of the counties in the region that used to be part of the captive county system up until 1979.

This top-down approach would create an umbrella regional agency operating as a superlocal division of state government whose sole responsibility is traffic control for multiple counties and cities large and small allowing resources to be pooled to a point that a "state within a state" would replace ineffective and substandard traffic control like this.  However, the fact that such an approach is untested means it will be difficult to establish.  Will a bunch of neighboring counties be willing to share a service like this?  This is why this was not offered as the only strategy.

Nearby to Cedar Cove Road, Gum Springs Road has this infamous combination of speed limit doubling as advisory sign and curve sign screw-up like what was seen on County Road 55 (Google Street View, June 2014).

Regional Traffic Control: State-Administered Option

Another option to consider would be using the state government to make this happen.  This can be done one of two ways:

• The Contracting Method: An individual county or city basically pays a fee to ALDOT to have the state administer their local traffic control program. 
• The Statewide Cooperative Method: The state legislature or state DOT sets up an umbrella agency separate from ALDOT where local agencies pool resources to provide statewide oversight of local traffic control by becoming "members"

Both plans in the second option have in common an operations fee, but on either plan the state can finance the operations alone and can thus waive the fee allowing poorer counties to avoid any excess costs to fund professional services.  In the planning region option, the operations fee cannot be waived, because the operations are self-funded by every member local agency.  In contrast, the state-administered option has the operations fee dictated by ALDOT with the fee used to add on any necessary employees, equipment or facilities to the existing state operations.  Any additional funding provided by the local agency must be returned in kind by the state in labor and materials.  The second plan is basically functions like a bank in that each participating local agency is a member and deposits money that can only be used on their roads.  However, this "bank" has an operations fee which is used to finance facilities, equipment, staff engineers and other employees whose sole purpose is to plan and maintain traffic control on local roads in all member counties and municipalities.  If the state decides it is able to cover it, that would remove all barriers to poorer rural counties, right?  ALDOT would not own this agency, but would be provided some regulatory oversight.  The second option would most likely require the creation of an elected position to keep the activities of the cooperative accountable to the voters.

On Option 2, the important thing to consider is the potential for permanence in such a situation.  Would the state commit to this plan long term or ax it when the budget got a little too tight?  The cooperative model is more stable, because it operates outside the realm of ALDOT or the legislature.  In addition, the idea with either plan is not to shun the private sector.  For instance, in the ALDOT plan the strategy would most likely be that the state plans all traffic control and requires local agencies to purchase from a list of qualified private vendors pooling resources for any large purchases.  The state may provide certain materials at a price to the local agencies such as guide or route signs, but the majority of signing materials would come from private vendors.

What drivers actually see approaching a long S-curve with a hidden intersection in the curve on County Road 55 eastbound approaching Patton Rd. (Image from Google Street View, June 2014)

 

What drivers should be seeing.  The signs in this image were added to the street view image slightly further west.  Advisory speeds were not included in this image since it is unclear what they would be if used.  A W16-8 street name sign was included underneath the W2-1 cross road sign for Patton Road and Moses Road so that drivers would not have to slow down to read the street names in a curve.  Yellow "signposts" were used to make them more visible in the image.  A close-up of the W16-8 sign is shown here for better visibility.

Here is the area shown on Google Maps.

Here we have OZ Davis Road east of Old Eva Road.  A local connecting road, it has a very sharp reverse turn with no signs whatsoever approaches travelers westbound at the end of a 3/4 mile bee line.  Having an appropriate independent engineering study would locate and correct missing signage like this.  Since no speed limit is posted, this is essentially a basic speed law road.  (Google Street View, June 2014).

Area in question along OZ Davis Road.  The trailers visible in the Street View image above are in the lower middle of the aerial image for reference.

In another case here, a dangerous curve with a hidden intersection passed it is noted on Nat Key Road and not even marked at all.  The latter image took the Street View image and added appropriate warning signs designed to be at proportionally correct heights.  Some specific ALDOT standards were incorporated as well such as the object marker under the arrow sign and the oversized advisory speed sign.  The yellow posts are not specifically ALDOT standard, but are used to show how these could be yellow-painted for greater emphasis. (Google Street View, June 2014).

Aerial image from Google Maps showing the sharp curve and intersection as shown above.  The image is just east of the sharp curve on Nat Key Road with Gibson Road in the middle.

Summary of the Two Plans

In all options, the county's direct involvement in planning, designing and installing traffic control devices is eliminated, but this does not necessarily mean local funding is eliminated.  What changes is the management of the devices entrusting it to authorities better trained and suited to handle such matters with a more disciplined approach to engineering standards.  It is clear from these images that enforcement of MUTCD standards is not a priority for the state, but if the responsibility was centralized to a certain point, it would create conditions where instead of the liability falling on the county or state, it would fall directly on a licensed PTOE whose career is on the line if the signs are not designed and maintained correctly.  This is the only enforcement mechanism, and this needs to be done: traffic control should be placed with an authority whose SOLE PURPOSE is traffic control and who has a vested interest in making sure it is handled the correct way every single time.  Morgan County is not doing this, and apparently they have little vested interest in the quality or consistency of traffic control.  Unfortunately Morgan County is one of many counties and municipalities across the nation with this attitude.  Public safety is simply not important enough to invest heavily in traffic control, and part of that is that nobody on a county level seems to understand the problem well enough.

County Road 55 in Eva has this completely incorrect speed limit sign in Series B.  Eva is a city, but mostly contracts road maintenance to the county.

County Road 55 east of Nat King Road has yet another Series B speed limit sign that appears to be 1 foot too low considering the sign is down slope from the pavement.  The original and then the correction (fake) is posted just below it.  (Google Street View image, June 2014).  

The above sign, also on County Road 55, is even worse and is in disrepair.  It is located west of Union Hill Church Road.  Except in the instance of a kangaroo court, this sign cannot even be enforced if found to be defective, because it is not considered a traffic control device.

The last one is the worst one.  Not only is the speed number smaller than the words "SPEED LIMIT" but the sign is also barely two feet off of the ground.  This one is located on Indian Hills Road north of Bethel Road in the NW part of the county.  

Bridge rail issues are pretty typical in low budget states with a poor safety investment.  While an interesting historical novelty, it should be pretty clear from the damage on both rails that these antiquated designs pose a serious hazard to motorists.  The two safety plans proposed on a state level should help better fund corrections to this.  The first is on Robinson Creek Road over Flint Creek.  Two other bridges to the north are low-water bridges with no railing.  The second is on Nat Key Road over Robertson Branch.  Strangely the county does not seem to have as significant issues posting object markers on bridges as they do with other signs, but the posts need to be leveled out to be more effective.

At this location on Robinson Creek Road just west of Appleton Road, pipes run close to the roadway without any adequate safety devices in place to warn drivers that they could drive off into the creek.  A flood gauge is also needed here seeing that this is a low area.   This road is otherwise unpaved.  (Google Street View, June 2014).

However, none of these plans can be brokered without broader support from the state legislature, key local officials and/or discussions among many counties and municipalities that evolve into a regional and/or statewide agreement.  Like every other county in the state, local authority for routine maintenance would transfer to regions pretty much eliminating issues like those that exist in these images.  On the second and third plans especially, Morgan County would no longer have any excuse for the deplorable condition their traffic signs are in.  With the expanded purchasing power created by sharing this responsibility and professional expertise available to point out problem areas, the funding available would be more than sufficient to correct every deficient sign within 5-6 years even without any any federal funding used.  Essentially the situation with the defective and incorrectly engineered traffic signs is not just a failure on the part of the county, but also the state to not provide any dedicated funding, programs or oversight to make sure that local efforts were matching state efforts.  This plan is designed to correct that.

What drivers see as they approach the CR 73/35 junction in Eva on CR 55 westbound.

What they should be seeing.

The curve above in Eva is actually a very sharp left turn where CR 55 turns at Morgan Drive to junction with Eva Road (shown here as CR 35).  The signage is clearly negligent considering that this is a sharp turn left needing an advisory, turn instead of curve sign, large arrow signs, a stop ahead sign and a junction route assembly for the approaching county highway.

The "curve" here is actually the beginning of a winding road on a downhill section of County Road 55 westbound.  Most likely the county did not have a winding road sign that day when it came time to replace it.

The last is on Nat Key Road marking a very sharp winding road section where another "drunken" winding road sign without an advisory speed marks the curve.  (All images from Google Street View image, June 2014).

WHAT THE COUNTY SHOULD DO

Traffic signs like you see on these roads make driving these roads significantly more dangerous especially in adverse weather conditions such as rain, fog and during the nighttime.  Morgan County could do much better, and the county could and should do this with or without any cooperative efforts.  In all, they should take a multi-faceted approach to correcting this problem with or without any state help at all.  Here are the most steps the county needs to take with or without the development of a cooperative region:

1. The county needs to consider consolidating the county's traffic sign program with the county's seven cities. This will help to pool resources so that safety work can be coordinated, costs can be reduced, facilities can be consolidated, equipment purchased more cheaply with standards subsequently raised.  This could also open the possibility for the hiring of a PTOE and development of a countywide traffic operations unit allowing the county engineer to focus on other matters.
2. The county commissioners need to recognize that this is a big problem creating substantial local liability. 
3. The county commissioners should redirect funds into a significant investment on a local level to fix these problems.  This includes the hiring of a private engineering firm to perform traffic studies on all federal-aid eligible roads (arterials and collectors) that are under county control followed by remaining paved roads with costs to be spread over a five year period.  These studies need to identify the proper locations and types of warning, regulatory, guide and route signs needed.  Traffic studies should include roads in cities where Morgan County is responsible for road maintenance such as Eva.  HRRP funds should be used to finance this part of the process.
4. Morgan County needs to budget at least 2% of the county budget for traffic safety improvements until all traffic signs and pavement markings are brought to state and MUTCD standards.
5. Morgan County needs to adopt ALDOT standards for traffic signs, guardrails and pavement markings on all county-maintained roads.
6. Major reform is needed in traffic sign standards.  Employees need to be formally trained in proper design, installation and maintenance of signs according to the MUTCD, Standard Highway Signs manual and state standards.  Post height needs to be corrected, signs need to have correct dimensions and symbols and fonts need to match drawings in the Standard Highway Signs manual.  This is a training matter that does not require a full-time engineer.
7. The fabrication of signs in-house other than street name signs should be suspended until newer and better equipment is purchased.  This new equipment should have all proper fonts, MUTCD signs and plotting equipment.  An independent PTOE should review and recommend materials purchased.
8. Vendors who have sold traffic signs that fall below MUTCD standards should no longer be used.  It needs to be recognized which signs are not correct with signs removed as soon as possible.  If possible, the county should request from ALDOT a qualified vendor list.
9. The original statewide county highway system should be re-established in the county with routes posted along major county roads.  Numbers should match those as assigned originally by the state.  These should be signed within city limits of cities and towns using county funds (e.g. County Road 55).  
10. Directional and distance guide signs should be installed at the junction of major county routes with other major county routes and state highways.

The above shows yet another county error.  It's possible the city of Eva paid for these guide signs even though the county otherwise maintains their roads.  While they are genuinely helpful, they are non-compliant, difficult to read and in a poor location.  The image below shows what is needed instead, and the Google Earth edited image below shows how the intersection should be laid out based one direction.  Guide and route signs like this are needed county-wide along major county roads like these.  (Google Street View, June 2014)

The annotated drawing here with aerials from Google Earth relates to the images above.  This shows the needed route and guide signs along major county road intersections.  Both roads shown here are major collector routes.  Also note that CR 35 is shown as CR 73 on the ALDOT functional classification map but likely was originally CR 35 when the state-numbered system was still intact.

Many other counties and cities across Alabama have adequately addressed their sign issues simply through sufficient interest from the county engineer.  It is unfortunate that Morgan County has not taken this approach.  It is hoped that the county commissioners will see this and take the steps necessary such as these recommendations here to review and overhaul the county sign program.  While the county sign issues need specialization from a PTOE and traffic operations unit, at the very least some smaller steps can be taken to improve on what is already there by simply reviewing existing conditions and comparing them to MUTCD standards.  Instances such as a post height of less than 5 feet, typical signs that do not match Standard Highway Signs manual, a winding road sign for an obvious reverse curve and omission of signs in obviously hazardous conditions are all conditions that are simple to fix and do not require an engineer: they only require a commitment from the local government and local authorities to identify and replace.

CONCLUSION

Morgan County was chosen for the spotlight to highlight that issues with MUTCD compliance (traffic control devices) do not necessarily relate to either population or even access to professional engineers.  Morgan County has the population and funding to do a far better job than they're doing, and this is why requiring counties and cities to have complete control of this and other safety improvements that typically require the supervision of a licensed traffic engineer with a PTOE certification endangers the traveling public and constitutes a misuse of public funding.

This was a longer post to highlight that a local hands-off approach is not an effective solution even if counties and cities are provided with engineers and have the population to do it.  If 50% of the counties in the state do a good job and the other 50% are not, then why should the 50% that are doing it correctly bother if the others can do as they please?  Fixing the problem is not even about punishing the "good" counties: it's about recognizing that a failure in even one county or municipality constitutes the need for systemic reform.  It also highlights the weaknesses of self-policing when it comes to public safety.  While ALDOT or the legislature stepping in might better fund this problem, the only real way to put teeth into local practices is to remove the supervision of this responsibility from the local governments itself placing it instead with regional cooperatives who are able to do it well.  Nonetheless, counties and cities statewide can also do this themselves by realizing that local control is not always best when it comes to routine maintenance thus combining that responsibility into a statewide cooperative to pool resources, consolidate purchases and improve engineering standards.  Traffic safety devices are not a "small part" of road maintenance.  They are a very big part and should not be mishandled just to pave an extra road or two.  This post highlights the problem while recognizing that the problem is deeper than just the local government: it recognizes that this is a function best handled when that responsibility is handled collectively across many jurisdictions in order to establish adequate resources and supervision.