Regional Road Maintenance: Answers to Questions and Customization for Local Needs

Discussing the regional road plan with people has seemed to result in a lot of confusion as to how the plan works.  This proved that further discussion is needed into what a regional road plan actually means. In Part 2 of the original plan, it was discussed that three different options were available for such a plan.  Before discussing these, it is important to address the issues that were brought up that are viewed as problematic.  The greatest issues brought up in regards to this plan are:

1. Agencies are created out of thin air.  Thus, by all appearances they are too large to be involved with what should be local matters with not enough accountability.  This creates the potential for abuse of power. 
2. Regions appear to be too vague in their boundaries and overlap each other making them susceptible to conflicts between agencies under the regional agreement.
3. The creation of another layer of government would drive up costs while not really improving quality.
4. A region seems like an unnecessary layer of government when you could just have the state provide road maintenance for the local governments.
5. Regions are still too big.  A county is a big enough unit of government to handle local matters.

Agencies are created out of thin air.  Thus, by all appearances they are too large to be involved with what should be local matters with not enough accountability.  This creates the potential for abuse of power. 

Regional roads present an issue that is unusual in government in this country: the issue of creating a cooperative.  Obviously a cooperative presents a unique situation where decisions are made democratically by partner agencies instead of operating under a sole government structure like with a state DOT or county.  Is this a bad thing?  Nonetheless, these issues presented above were all considered when the plan was first written.  That is why this plan was written and revised considering all of the doubts and criticism over challenging the status quo model.  The issue of accountability is a tough one, because with road maintenance any level of government can be aloof and irresponsible with public funds.  Just like with a county, city or state there is no guarantee that every region will do a great job or will not be tarnished by corruption.  The hope is that these issues will be minimalized by the division of powers present in this system by keeping construction funds local while limiting the powers of the cooperative to engineering and routine maintenance.  In addition, the creation of an elected position just for each regional agency will also help to increase accountability.  In any case, a large pool of money is basically being entrusted to a few individuals making decisions on where roads are built, how much is spent, which roads are fixed and how well any of that is done.  For comparison, some states do a much better job than others.

What has been made very clear throughout this site are that the smallest local governments cannot be trusted to maintain roads to proper standards whether or not the roads are closer to the people.  While these roads are closer to the people, you have a number of potential issues that affect the ability of a local government to provide high standards, including:

• Poverty: County or municipality simply does not have the resources to provide much on their own
• Apathy:  Road maintenance or road maintenance standards are a low priority to the local governing body
• Ignorance:  Local agency is not aware of what constitutes proper standards or practices and nobody has made them aware of the problem
• Cronyism:  Agency is staffed properly, but is staffed largely with friends and relatives that 
• Stinginess:  Local agency knows their roads are inadequate, but does not want to put out the funding necessary to provide proper equipment, staff and training nor spend an adequate sum on materials.
• Laziness:  Nobody working on a local level cares about making the extra effort to properly supervise road maintenance even if the money is there.  Often tied to cronyism

Any combination of these issues is often the case, and even if the factors are right for awhile, this can quickly change.  It is not that these factors do not also exist on a state level, but there is safety in numbers.  A large enough population and higher levels of scrutiny by citizens and attorneys alike are more likely to keep a larger agency on their toes as to what is right and wrong.  The smaller agencies can plead poverty (not enough money) or ignorance ("Nobody ever told me that before, so I never thought it was an issue"), but the creation of regional roads as an option is designed to eliminate excuses.  If they are too poor, too ignorant, to cheap, too lazy or just do not care about keeping up their roads correctly, they should be encouraged to exit the road maintenance business redirecting their funds to an agency that is never incapable of anything related to roadway standards.

Burnet County, TX is just one of many counties in the country who are too small or too numerous to be accountable in terms of road standards.  This unmarked 90 degree turn on a county road demonstrates that the county has skimped on traffic control to fund other roadway priorities.  If grouped into a larger region such matters that are currently viewed as excessive in cost by the county could become routine for a more technocratic regional agency.  Nevertheless, the same region would be centered near or not far from Burnet County (most likely in an Austin regional system not connected with TxDOT) in lieu of being operated as a division of the TxDOT centered in Austin.  (Image from Google Street View).

Inversely, what has also been made clear is that state government is not always accountable with local level roads.  The controversies surrounding the centralized structures in Virginia and South Carolina are precisely what gave birth to the partially-decentralized regional node model.  With states refusing to raise revenues, diverting funding away from transportation, and putting pet projects ahead of maintenance it was considered that the state's role in maintenance on roads not otherwise designated state highways should be limited to maintenance and not construction.  Nevertheless, regions might be a good middle ground.  Even in Virginia it was proposed on Part 3 to create regional systems in the larger metropolitan areas while keeping the centralized state models in the rural areas less adept or capable of operating a successful regional model.  

Regions appear to be too vague in their boundaries and overlap each other making them susceptible to conflicts between agencies under the regional agreement

Because it is still a subdivision of the state, a region would obviously be far more accountable than either the state or the local governments.  It would be both removed from local politics while likewise being responsible to a specific region of similar needs and characteristics.  It means that neither a rural area and large city nor two cities will not have to compete for the same dollars when it comes to local level roads, but it also means that the revenue sources will be ample to provide state level maintenance on local level roads.

It was initially proposed just to have a minimum population threshold as the only plan on how to form a region, but an additional criteria was added based on the federal regional planning commissions.  This means that you have three required categories:

• Minimum population threshold of 300,000 residents
• Once the minimum threshold is met, regions must be tied to the boundaries of regional planning commissions
• Regional planning commissions should not be confused with metropolitan statistical areas.  RPC boundaries encompass every county, municipality and township within a state
• During the formation of regions, initial partnerships should not be restricted by RPC regions.  They should be divided off once every potential RPC region has at least 300,000 residents among its member local governments
• If regional population falls below 300,000 residents, the region must partner with the region with the next smallest population
• If the next smallest region is already partnered, then the region may partner with any other available region
• The region with the next smallest population is preferred if it is available

Picture if such a system exists in Texas.  Texas is clearly too large for a fully centralized road system, but a state within a state concept would help tremendously.  Here are the figures for Texas:

• 254 counties: the largest number in the United States
• A state population of 27,695,284
• Texas counties range from 82 residents (Loving County) to 4,092,459 residents (Harris County).  Many Texas counties have less than 1,000 residents and the largest population counties are carved into numerous cities and towns.
• The proposed rural regions are designed to have at least 300,000 residents
• 24 regional planning commissions exist in Texas
• 
  
• This means a maximum range of 55-92 regions thus consolidating road maintenance into far fewer entities covering far more terrain.   
• 24 MSA regions exist to successfully group urban and rural counties together
• The four largest MSA regions range from 1.7 million residents (Austin) to 6.4 million residents (Dallas-Fort Worth).  This would range from a combined approximately 4 regions in Austin to approximately 13 combined regions for Dallas-Fort Worth.
• The combined metropolitan regions would most likely result in an actual sum of 25-30 regions statewide.
• Texas has 1/4 of their roads under state control, but the regional model would permit TxDOT to transfer ownership of the farm-to-market roads to the regions in addition to the majority of county and municipal roads in the vast rural areas across the state.
• This division into regions would provide state-level maintenance to the local level for all of Texas while keeping funding localized to regions surrounding the state's largest cities.  Money for regions would not be doled out by Austin.  San Antonio would not have to compete with Dallas for funding and a large remote region in West Texas would not have to compete with Corpus Christi for dollars.  
• The regional plan frees the lower population counties to focus on other matters while making sure that roadway dollars stay close to home.  San Antonio road dollars stay close to San Antonio but will also extend beyond the Bexar County line to help the eight surrounding counties improve their own standards and stretch their local dollars further.

The Texas example lays out how with a top-down population restricted model that state level efficiency can be achieved while not centralizing everything into the heart of state government.  The state-level centralized model works best in small states, but not so much in very large states such as Texas.  Of the four states that currently use the state-level centralized model, North Carolina is the largest.  For comparison, North Carolina's entire state controlled road system covering every county road still has fewer miles than Texas's non-centralized state highway system which controls 25% of the state's roads.

They say don't mess with Texas, but the road system could stand to be messed up in a good way.  Far too large for centralization, but far too fragmented to provide consistent road standards this plan carves the state into clusters of single purpose city-states for the sole purpose of road maintenance.  In the majority of cases the state-owned primary and farm-to-market roads would be maintained by the regions shown here along with most county roads and municipal streets in all the areas shown.  Because of the very low populations in rural areas and the very high populations of the metropolitan statistical areas, these regions cover a huge number of counties.  The smallest of these districts still has over 300,000 residents.

The concept of regional roads is a "city-state" model where 1-2 larger cities are sharing resources with the less populous surrounding areas.  For instance, Houston metro alone has 6.6 million residents: roughly the same population as the entire state of Massachusetts and only slightly less than Washington State!  Couldn't Houston alone greatly benefit all 10 counties in the region especially lower population Austin and Chambers Counties?  While regions would be somewhat more distant than a county, city or town, they would still be able to do a much better job than a smaller agency on their own.  Nevertheless, people do not want to deal with an aloof agency with no public connection.  As a result, controls were proposed for regions including boards that include local elected officials.  Another possibility is term limits for all positions and/or elections for chief traffic engineers thus rotating the position.  Regardless, the outcome of having a traffic engineering team overseeing a large number of roads that is able to pool resources and funding is going to be much better than a small county, city or town doing the same without the resources to fund traffic engineers, staff or purchase higher cost materials to complete the job.  When a geographic area made up of many small jurisdictions can act as high population area through one single agency, the potential for better roadway standards greatly increases.  Hopefully the Texas example demonstrates how this can work.

One thing that has been made very clear about the outcome of regions is that these are NOT overlapping entities.  They may overlay counties, cities and towns within the region but the boundaries are set and are set top-down.  With exception to pilot projects, the idea is that all parts of a single state must fall into at least one regional road district in effect carving the entire state into smaller regions that are much larger than single counties, cities or towns.  The boundaries touch each other, but they do not overlap.  This is not an issue of individual counties/cities opting out if they want more control or the establishment of vague and gentlemen's agreements for various services.  This is designed to be a clear and very public mandate that creates more local control than a complete state takeover of local roads and streets.  It has the express purpose of making sure that road funding creates the highest standards and is most effectively and efficiently spent.  Significant autonomy was worked into this plan for local agencies, and the general position is that regions primarily handle engineering and road maintenance with local agencies handling construction funding.  Picture in the case of Texas that Texas is essentially carved into 25 separate phantom states except that these 25 "states" are single purpose districts instead of general purpose mini state governments.  While it could be a model for regional autonomy, this is NOT the idea behind this plan.  All counties, cities and towns listed still retain the same powers they have except those exclusively given to the regions for roads.

The creation of another layer of government would drive up costs while not really improving quality

Another view of regions is that it will just create another layer of government.  Regional road systems are not a general purpose unit, and they are designed to replace full local government responsibility for road maintenance of non-state roads in the vast majority of cases.  They also do not carve up existing counties, cities and towns into smaller unit.  By design they are no smaller than a single county and in most cases much larger.  They serve a single purpose: to supervise the construction and maintenance of roads.  The plan is that they will assume the entire responsibility that is currently entrusted to smaller local agencies with exception to higher population counties and cities that are able to handle controlling the more local streets.  In those exceptional areas, regions would still be required to maintain federal-aid eligible roads not otherwise owned by the state and would also typically maintain state roads on behalf of the state.  As a whole they are designed primarily to relieve local agencies of road maintenance duties for the purpose of raising local road standards and improving cost efficiency.  While boundaries for regions would be flexible based on population changes, the boundaries would completely cover the state meaning that no agency is allowed to completely opt out once the regional plan is established.  Opting out would by necessity be restricted thus limited to only certain functions and/or certain roads as laid out in the three types of regional systems described below.

A region seems like an unnecessary layer of government when you could just have the state provide road maintenance for the local governments

The above example with Texas points out the reason why this statement is unrealistic.  The sad reality is that states for the most part would like to be out of the road maintenance business, and the huge population increases in the majority of states mean that the states would prefer to at least reduce, not expand their roles.  With the increased polarization of the population to larger cities, the balance between rural and urban needs no longer exists.  Urban areas need new roads and larger roads more quickly while rural areas do not want to be left behind.  Urban areas do not care if some far flung portion of the state does not have enough money to pave their roads while rural areas do not want to see a large chunk of the state's budget used just to rebuild a large interchange that could be used instead to improve a much longer major highway in their area.  When those same dollars are spread down to both the smallest subdivision street and gravel track with three houses on it, it creates the potential for conflict meaning the the states in turn want to concentrate all available dollars to the major roads with the greatest needs.  In this concept the state can turn more responsibility away without transferring it to a unit of government too small to keep the roads maintained to the same levels that the state had prior.

The potential is there for something much better than what we have today.  These two images show a well-engineered sign program for Jamestown Road in Chattooga County vs. what is unfortunately actually there.  It is designed by GDOT as minor collector, but is actually an important road extending over a long distance connecting Gadsden, AL to towns and sites in Broomtown Valley.  However, that will never happen as long as status quo is maintained (and obviously in a very half-assed way).

Having a more centralized, coordinated system based on regions gets rid of information holes created by multiple small jurisdictions that exhibit little interest in the functional needs of the road such as roadway realignments to eliminate unnecessary turns/doglegs, posting directional guide signs, and posting trailblazers.  Although signed for "New England" from I-59, Slygo Road has no further signage describing the two addition turns needed to reach it nor does it relay the needed turn to connect to the original highway, US 11. 

Along with the funding disputes, state DOT's laced with aging infrastructure also want the legal responsibility for less traveled roads off of their hands.  Moreso, state legislatures do not want to take credit for a huge tax increase required to maintain a larger road system at the same levels as in the past preferring to pass the responsibility to the local governments.  Local governments in turn do not want the state to dictate road standards including how and where road funding is spent.  This argument is not new.  The problem is that most local agencies are not suited for this responsibility and never will be.  They are too small in funding, road mileage responsibility, the structure necessary for a professional DOT-level agency, and in economies of scale required for efficient distribution of funding for both low and high cost improvements.  If the state completely refuses to offer to work as a contractor on behalf of these counties, where else can they turn?  This is how the regional idea was born.  The regional idea is designed with the intent on bringing state standards to local roads without having to funnel all of those funds through the state capitol where competition for funds strips funding from the local level.  The state conflict may not be solved, but this does not mean that regional matters should be forced on a small local government that lack the resources to do what a state or high population area can do much better.  The regions bring high population agencies to every corner of the state without relying on the state.  The fact that Georgia has the population to support multiple regions is the same reason that a centralized state agency is a bad idea: the ratio of employees to citizens on both levels is very out of whack.

 

Regions are still too big.  A county is a big enough unit of government to handle local matters.

Very few parts of the country are able to see past this big lie that local control via counties, cities, and townships are an excellent way to manage roads.  The entire myth of this has to be at least a product of "NIMBYism" where the priviledged few that "got there first" get to hoard any available road funds just for them and be damned the rest of the state, a neighboring county, etc. as if their county, city, etc. is a big country club surrounded by the undeserving abyss.  What they fail to notice is that THEIR costs go up, quality goes down, and taxes also go up.  Inversely sharing services does NOT mean sharing everything.  Let the counties, cities, and towns build what they want, but that doesn't mean that they are going to provide suitable routine maintenance.  That is the goal here: to get both the state and the counties out of a business that they are failing at.  It is the creation of "just right" government vs. too big (GDOT) and too small (159 counties and over 500 cities).  The regions proposed here are likely no larger than the largest counties in Arizona or California, but they will have much larger populations to work with as a means to raise adequate funds for all roadway services. 

 

As was stated in another post, a low population county, city or town does not provide an efficient model for local services.  While proximity to the people has always been an ideal of small units of government, certain services cannot be provided at acceptable levels on a local level unless both the population is there and roadway services are shared among the municipalities in that county like they are in most cities in Los Angeles County, California.  In an ideal situation, a state will simply provide services to local governments as a contractor paid for by local funds or a retainer where their economies of scale, population and funding are just too low to handle it themselves.  In theory these local agencies would see that they are not able to do what the state or urban counties can do and ask for relief where the state then steps in and provides those services with no complaints from anyone.  A means test would be applied to those who do provide it, and an expectation that state and federal standards would be placed on all local governments along with ample funding from the state government.

In truth, the states rarely step in.  Outside of a few high class zip codes, most local governments are often teetering on bankruptcy with failing schools, inadequate facilities, and a total lack of accountability given the rampant nepotism found in local control.  Likewise, many local governments resist help when it is available because they put politics ahead of the public's best interest.  Typically local political machines are operated by just one or two wealthy families in the small communities with the only real accountability happening in more transient areas with higher populations.  Just because a person can drive 5 miles to talk to the mayor or county commissioners does not mean that either is willing or able to fix the problem.  Most likely the person in charge of fixing the problem is related to someone else and in that position for that reason alone not because they are actually qualified for that position.  While cronyism is found in all levels of government, it is routine in rural local agencies.

The perception people have of local roads and streets.

An actual local road (major collector carrying state highway traffic).

It should also be pointed out that nearly every county, most cities and most townships across the country were not designed with any intention of being able to handle road maintenance.  When they were established, most people were not even driving cars and most roads were unpaved wagon trails.  Modern traffic engineering expertise was thus needed less often and quite often road work was handled in a manner similar to jury duty with compulsory work crews brought in to repair and maintain roads.  Today, a typical county has the majority of its roads paved and must include as much as 50% of their budget for roads thus reducing available funds for other services.  With such a high demand, this leaves little left for items that are manageable for a larger unit of government such as traffic engineering services and specialized equipment.  Hiring contractors to do local matters has a profit motive thus additionally driving up costs forcing a local agency to permanently cut corners in a number of areas.  Most of these counties and townships would willingly hand the direct responsibility up to a higher level of government as long as they were able to maintain control over planning and have funding available to continue local construction projects, but right now nobody is offering!  The regional model is designed to make this easy for all local governments.

THE THREE TYPES OF REGIONAL ROAD SYSTEMS

As was discussed before, three different models are proposed for regional road systems.  These have varying degrees of control and responsibility.

1. Regional highway systems (A proportion of roads deeded to the region with local control retained for local streets)
2. A comprehensive regional system (All local road maintenance in the region consolidated into a single agency)
3. Regional engineering districts (Local control retained, but traffic engineering and traffic control consolidated into a regional agency) 

Among these types include combinations of these three types of systems as described below.

Regional Highway Systems

In regional highway systems, a portion of sales or gas taxes is transferred to a regional highway agency for the purpose of maintaining regionally important roadways that are not otherwise owned or maintained by the state.  A regional highway system can be roughly compared to the county road systems found in the upper Midwest where counties are responsible for mostly federal-aid eligible roads while townships are responsible for the truly local streets.  Thus, a regional highway system provides a three-tiered approach on a level higher than a county.  Here is how they would compare in different regions of the country:

• In the Southeast, a regional highway system carves off the most important county roads and municipal streets to be maintained by a region covering multiple counties and cities.  County roads and city streets would still exist, but they would be limited to roads that actually are functionally local while higher classification roads are the responsibility of either the state or region.
• In the Northeast, a regional highway system would cover multiple townships not necessarily overlaying existing county boundaries if no county highway system otherwise exists.  They would be based on population and township/municipal boundaries instead of the boundaries of the otherwise defunct counties thus a region may include part of a county, all of a county or parts of multiple counties.
• In the Midwest, a regional highway system would replace the county road system.  In these states, county authority for maintenance would be replaced with regional authority.  While this would mean fewer agencies involved the overall structure would remain with counties maintaining generally higher classification roads.
• In the West, a regional highway system would likely be less common due to the size of the counties and lack of population in outlying areas.  They would most likely exist closer to large metropolitan areas as well.  Most regions would either be single counties plus the cities except in rural counties where the population is low if they are used at all.  In very low population states like Wyoming or Idaho a regional road system would consist essentially of a separate division of the state DOT working on behalf of the counties and cities meaning a separate state agency.
• In very small states, a regional model may not work since the population and land area is already low enough that the state could essentially handle those services more easily with the population too low to form more than 1-2 regions.  In states like Vermont and New Hampshire, a regional road system would more than likely end up being the consolidate of engineering services and certain roadway functions to the state level.

While these regional roads under the first type would still be mileage-limited highway systems, a fundamental difference is that unlike the approach states are taking functional consolidation would still be pursued for remaining roads and streets.  This means that the region would typically handle maintenance for county, city, town and township road they do not otherwise own.  The difference in this model is that regions would not own roads beyond the roads they are required by legislation to maintain.  In these cases either the county/city/town voluntarily opts out of road maintenance handing the responsibility to the region and/or the local agency is required to use regional forces if the population of the local agency is too low.  Either way, the local agency and not the region would own those roads and would be responsible for their financing.  This means that basically the county/city/town pays the region to maintain their roads and streets while retaining exclusive jurisdiction for planning and financing larger roadway improvements on those roads.  The regional routes, on the other hand, would be collectively funded similar to state routes and would be solely regional responsibility.  Regional highway systems would likely also be contracted to handle routine maintenance of state highways within their regions similar to the set up that currently exists with county roads in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Elements of this plan can be compared to the Secondary State Roads Plan, Two Way Consolidated Road Maintenance Plan and Cooperative Maintenance Plan

Regional Road Maintenance Consolidation

In theory, the ideal plan is to cut out the middle man and transfer all roads presently designated county, city or town to the regional road agency.  This approach would provide the greatest cost efficiency and least bureaucracy.  It would be similar to how North Carolina revoked authority of counties to maintain their own roads except that in this case it would be handled by the "state within a state" regional agency.  Another fundamental difference from North Carolina is that the regional road maintenance includes cities and towns while the North Carolina approach typically limits or excludes cities and towns.  Why this approach was not considered exclusively is because a consolidation measure that completely revokes local authority by transferring that responsibility to a larger agency is controversial.  Accountability may be more difficult to achieve if the regional agency is solely responsible for every road not otherwise maintained by the state. 

Nevertheless, a rural region may willingly adopt such a strategy.  If a region consists entirely of lower population counties or townships, obviously these local agencies will not be financially capable of providing state-level maintenance standards on their own for any road and may be struggling to fund road maintenance at all.  Unlike a state where a transportation plan must be evenly applied statewide, individual regions have flexibility.  While a more urbanized region may adopt the  first regional highway plan, a rural region where all counties have low populations may be more willing to completely transfer responsibility to the region.  In this case, a region would likely gain complete taxation power with all local agencies avoiding direct responsibility other than seed funding road improvements through local property taxes.

Elements of this plan can be compared to the State Contracting Plan and Secondary State Roads Plan.

Regional Engineering Districts

A regional engineering district is the most stripped down portion of the plan.  While it is less likely to be cost efficient, it would be just as effective in improving road standards.  The idea of a regional engineering district is to consolidate traffic engineering into one unit while otherwise retaining local control.  This means that while every local street department remains intact, day to day operations fall under the authority and supervision of a regional traffic engineering unit.  The regional engineering district is also the primary method which local agencies could combine forces without any state involvement.  Essentially all counties, cities and towns involved pool resources to fund a regional engineering unit who is responsible for providing engineering for all agencies involved.  In such a plan the engineers look for ways to streamline certain functions and responsibilities while keeping others separate.  

A regional engineering district should retain one duty exclusively in such an arrangement and that is traffic control.  Federal guidelines state that traffic control is required to be supervised by a registered civil engineer which most local agencies lack.  Thus, traffic control is consolidated into a single unit serving the entire region so that every single road and street has traffic control handled by a staff of engineers.  This means a single traffic operations facility, joint purchasing and engineering decisions made by a team working for the entire region.  Other efficiencies that could be adopted include shared equipment, shared materials (street cleaning, mowing, plows and road salt) and co-location of facilities.  While each local agency would otherwise by responsible for constructing and maintaining their own roads, the specific responsibility for traffic control and implementation of roadway projects requiring a civil engineer would fall to the region.

It should also be noted that for best results state maintenance standards should be applied in all regional engineering districts since the population and revenues would be sufficient to cover higher cost materials.  This means that traffic control devices installed and maintained by the region should be in substantial compliance with both the MUTCD and state standards.  The beauty of the concept of regional engineering districts is that the state will be able to far more easily supervise regional work and mandate best practices while a county, city or town can claim weak finances or local control as an excuse to shun them.

It is also important to note that civil engineers are among the highest paid employees of any local agency, which is why they are typically not affordable for most local governments without special state funding in states with a large number of counties.  Not all states offer this.  Alabama is a good example.

• In Alabama, county engineers are paid $90,000 a year.  
• This covers 67 counties meaning that the state pays $6,000,000 or 1.2% of the state's roadway budget annually for this purpose.
• If Alabama carved the state into 12 regions (with an average population of 400,000 residents per district), the state could have four engineers per region budgeting 48 engineers a year after attrition. 
• This means a cost savings of $1.7 million with a better distribution of workload and/or a raise for the chief engineer to $125,000 a year: still 75% of the initial $1.7 million savings.
• This would also create a team of engineers meaning that greater accountability and specialization is possible than with a single county engineer.
• In addition, if additional engineers are needed a region could easily fund an additional employee.
• This also means that all engineers working for the region will have plenty to do handling at most 100,000 miles a piece when at present the responsibility ranges from a high of 650,000 residents in Jefferson County to a low of 9,045 residents in Greene County.  
• In the region including Greene County, the county would need to budget $2,245 per year to fund an additional engineer if funded on a proportional population ratio basis.  Obviously the Greene County engineer presently does not have enough to do.

Considering this number, a team of at least three engineers is preferred running at about $270,000 a year for a region of 200,000 residents.  If this is split among for instance eight counties, each county pays on average $33,750 a year meaning that they pay nearly a third of the cost for three full time engineers when just one would have costed them three times as much.  Having a team allows specialization and less dependence on state forces for technical matters.

As was also stated before, the regional engineering district is the best approach to start a pilot project for regionalization of roads.  The engineering district is the bare bones approach to regional roads where the organization is in place but can just as easily be dismantled because the structural changes are very limited covering what could be as few as 10 full time employees.  The success or failure of a pilot project should be used to determine if a more permanent approach (the first two options) can be chosen since real cost savings are less likely to be achieved maintaining separate street departments under a region.

Elements of this plan can be compared to the Consolidated Traffic Operations Plan

ONE SIZE DOES NOT HAVE TO FIT ALL

In a statewide road system, flexibility is not typically allowed.  One DOT district cannot decide to maintain county roads while another refuses to do so.  Individual districts also have no authority over taking over or turning back roads relying on the DOT board to make those decisions.  This makes the process even more political when a more logical means can be used to designate such roads within a smaller region.  While state laws and guidelines are needed, this does not mean policies and goals cannot differ per region.

Consider a region involving a large metropolitan area such as Atlanta.  The Atlanta metro region would most likely adopt the highway system approach consolidating the most expensive roads to a metro region to streamline costs for maintenance while retaining local control for more lightly traveled roads and streets in subdivisions.  A rural area on the other hand may not want any direct road responsibility at all considering that the costs take too much of the local budget.  Unfortunately, in most cases it may be difficult to radically reform the road system due to home rule.  In those cases, an engineering district may be the solution allowing a form of regionalization that is highly specific and limits direct control to only technical matters.  This version incorporates the "consolidated traffic operations plan" while the former plans are closer to the secondary state highway system plan and state contracting plans.  In this plan state maintenance levels can be achieved without having to operate on a statewide level allowing a more voluntary approach to shared services in other areas.

Single-county regions would typically have a hybrid of the either the first and second plan or first and third plan maintaining major streets in the cities and towns within the county while maintaining all county-level roads if townships are not present.  Monroe County, NY has a hybrid of the first and third plan (see page 6) where the county handles traffic control for both the largest city (Rochester) and all of the townships within the county as well as consolidating some other functions.  Nevertheless, local control is retained making it an example of the "regional engineering district" plan involving a metropolitan area.

In all, the beauty of the regional plan is that local control is retained in respect to a larger region in lieu of a single county or municipality or an entire state.  If adopted by states across the nation, it would result in substantially higher standards and cost savings without the complications involved in centralization to a state level.  This plan is tailored essentially to benefit states the most that are either too large to be operated from a state level or too fragmented to efficiently manage from a local level.  The main issue, however, is that the plan must be laid out clearly in a top-down fashion essentially requiring the reorganization of local governments to provide road maintenance services in a fashion that is more typical of state government and less typical of small local governments.  The idea behind this is to achieve sound engineering practice, more balanced road maintenance and supervision by qualified personnel often missing on a smaller local level.  Hopefully the issues that have been brought up have been clearly addressed and the more detailed explanation of the three options will clear up confusion as to what exactly a regional road system entails.

Curve Warning Signs: A Need For Better Federal Guidelines

One of the biggest problems with lack of uniformity in traffic sign application across the US has much to do with the inconsistent layout and maintenance of curve warning signs.  While a few states have more specific guidelines, the fact remains that the frequency of use of these types of signs and application varies from state to state and even more strongly varies on roads maintained by local governments.  Across much of the US, it is not uncommon to find few to no curve warning signs on local roads and streets regardless of terrain or traffic volumes.  Sometimes populous counties and municipalities do a terrible job while some less populous rural counties are more thorough.  What is worse is that there are a very high level of jurisdictions who post these signs without any proper engineering study done to determine their correct usage and locations.  This means that actually having these signs in place poses a greater risk to the driving public than if no signs were installed at all.

The list above shows most of the signs that need better nationwide standards.  Federal guidelines need to be expanded to push for not only greater state oversight but a more clear and consistent method of application that balances traffic volumes and funding.  

The rules when it comes to posting curve warning signs, chevrons and arrows are more clear than they once were but that has not exactly changed state and local practices everywhere.  Here are the typical rules for curve warning signs according to the most recent MUTCD:

• Curves are supposed to be laid out so that curves/turns are marked as reverse curves/turns or winding roads if the distance between two or more alternating curves is less than 600'.  Note that this rule usually requires some flexibility in mountainous conditions where a winding road has one or more curves that is sharper than others in a series of curves or turns.  
• Curve warning signs with advisory speed signs are mandatory when a curve or turn is determined to require traffic to slow 10 MPH or more below the posted speed limit to safely maneuver
• Turn (W1-1) and Reverse Turn (W1-3) is supposed to be use when a curve has a posted advisory speed of 30 MPH or below.  Exceptions usually are noted on roads with already low speed limits such as roads posted 40 MPH or below.
• Advisory speeds are also required to be determined using a ball bank reading, design speed equation (usually determined when a new road is being designed) or combination of ball bank meter and accelerometer.  The results of the advisory speed study determine if a curve should be signed and the type of curve sign to use (curve/reverse curve or turn/reverse turn).  The technology to determine advisory speeds has improved making this work easier and faster than in the past, but it is not being done consistently
• Chevrons (W1-8) must be spaced evenly based on the advisory speed posted from beginning to end of the curve (a table describing the required distance between signs was added in the most recent MUTCD).  For instance, a curve with an advisory speed of 35 MPH requires 120' spacing.  
• Chevrons may be posted only on the outside of a curve or turn.
• Two chevrons must be in view in all times when mounted in a curve or turn from beginning to end of the condition.
• Either chevrons or large arrow signs (W1-6) are mandatory on all curves and turns that have an advisory speed of 15 MPH or more below the posted speed limit.
• A licensed civil engineer is required to either oversee or conduct studies to determine locations of all curve warning, chevron and arrow signs (in addition to other signs).

Typically these are the common engineering deficiencies related to each point listed above:

• Improper Usage:
• Reverse curve/turn and winding road signs installed when distance between two or more curves or turns well exceeds 600'
• Curve or turn instead of reverse curve or reverse turn used when distance between curves is under 600' (sometimes on each curve)
• Use of W1-2 curve instead of W1-1 turn for a 90 degree or acute angle turn when speed limit is above 30 MPH presenting a special hazard to motorists who may not notice the lower advisory speed due to suggestion the curve is less sharp than it is.
• Lack/Excess of Curve Signs:
• Curve warning signs are not posted at all when a curve requires slowing to 10 MPH less than the posted speed limit
• Curve warning signs are posted when a curve is too gentle to require any signing and/or speed reduction.
• Inconsistent application is not uncommon: especially when knockdowns are not replaced
• Lack of documentation of curve sign locations meaning signs are forgotten about
• Improper Advisory Speed Study:
• Advisory speeds are frequently "determined" using methods that are based on nothing more than field observation by non-engineers or untrained technicians.  
• This involves basically just driving the curve and getting a "feel" for the curve.
• These non-technical measurements are likely to lead to incorrect advisory speeds creating a hazardous situation for motorists, because one employee might "feel" that a very slow speed is a safe speed for a curve while another "feels" that a much higher speed is safe.
• The variation in field observation based on "feel" will lead to drivers ignoring underposted advisory speeds while excessively high advisory speeds can cause a vehicle to leave the road.
• Incorrect Posting of Chevrons/Arrows:
• Chevrons are often posted in a manner not conducive to MUTCD standards such as posting them in the fashion of arrow signs, posting only one in a curve or turn or posting them in clusters on only one part of the curve.
• Chevrons used where object markers or diamonds are required
• W1-6 arrows used improperly in the fashion of chevrons
• Lack of Supplemental Required Chevrons/Arrows
• Many, many curves and turns with advisory speeds 15 MPH or more below the posted speed limit lack any chevrons or arrows
• No prior speed reduction with W3-5 and R2-1 to adjust speed limit in hazardous curve area so that chevrons/arrows are not required when advisory speed is otherwise 15 MPH or more below the typical speed of the roadway
• Lack of Staffing on a Local Level for Curve Sign Studies
• Most local agencies lack the resources to hire, even as a consultant, a licensed traffic engineer just to conduct traffic sign studies.
• While the state may assist in this matter in state or federal-aid projects, there is nobody on the local staff properly trained to identify and correct errors or conduct traffic studies.
• States will not provide traffic studies for the local governments without charging as much as a private consultant
• This is how these errors become common.  Some states do have state-funded county engineers, but this is no guarantee that the county engineer is actually handling traffic control matters as evidenced by the prior post about Morgan County, AL.  

This curve sign marks a 90 degree turn on Cox Street in Eden, NC.  A city-maintained street, the city has posted an incorrect advisory speed sign, a curve sign instead of a W1-1 turn sign and no large arrow in the turn despite the road ending straight ahead.   This highlights common engineering deficiencies on a local level.  (Aerial image from Google Maps).

Laying out a proper curve warning sign plan is the most technical work in traffic control proving to be even more complicated than guide and route sign assemblies especially when working in mountainous conditions.  In addition, maintenance management of such signs is difficult.  Here is what is typically required to maintain these signs:

• Data and Documentation:
• Extensive documentation must be kept of sign plans with a dedicated replacement program to identify and replace worn out signs, stolen signs and knockdowns [records kept by transportation agency]
• A GPS database is needed showing sign locations, identifying their condition, age, location and MUTCD sign ID's
• Traffic Studies:
• Every public road, not just state roads, are supposed to have a traffic study conducted by a licensed traffic engineer with a traffic engineer thus overseeing work after sign projects are completed to make sure that signs remain consistent, none are missing and all meet MUTCD standards
• Few local agencies have this or can afford to have a dedicated traffic operations unit headed by a PTOE to make sure this is done
• Engineering Errors:
• Care must be taken to correct engineering mistakes such as signs placed in the wrong location, the wrong sign used or signs that were not identified in traffic studies (e.g curve posted in only one direction)
• These errors typically require someone with special knowledge on how to identify these errors meaning either state traffic operations must have supervisory authority on local roads or a regionally-funded PTOE must be hired full time to oversee roadways otherwise maintained by multiple local agencies since a single local agency lacks the resources for this
• Attention to Accuracy and Detail:
• Signs should be replaced correctly so that a W1-4 reverse curve sign is replaced with just that and not a W1-3 reverse turn or W1-2 curve sign
• Speeds Must be Accurate and Safety-Based
• Advisory speeds must be set correctly based on proper engineering studies
• To avoid excessive use of signs on very winding roads, speed limits should be adjusted lower in areas where an unusually high amount of curve warning and chevron signs would be required otherwise  
• Deferment of Traffic Control Supervision to a Larger Agency:
• A local agency that lacks a staff engineer or its own traffic operations unit should be able to defer that responsibility to the state DOT or partner with other cities/counties in the region for that purpose, but this rarely happens.  Note that the MUTCD recommends the latter.
• The first calls for state contracting, which most states refuse to provide to local governments while the second calls for regional services which are not available in most states.

WHY THESE SITUATIONS WITH INCORRECT CURVE WARNING SIGNS ARE SO FREQUENT

Local governments clearly have the most difficult time properly managing a curve warning sign program, but even states have difficultly managing this work despite having multiple engineers and years of experience available to handle this task.  Part of this is due to the cost of this work and the fact that non-engineers are typically not allowed to perform these operations on their own.  A lack of a certified traffic control technician as a legal position has hampered the ability to address issues on miles of local roads due to the shortage of qualified engineers available to do this work.  County and municipal engineers usually need trained assistants or traffic operations units to help them with the management of this work since a county engineer's load is usually too heavy to properly oversee day-to-day traffic operations.  This is why more than likely this work falls on an employee without adequate training or any certification to handle traffic operations.  Anybody that works in traffic operations should be required to enter an intense training program taught as a year-long course.

After the creation of this field, only civil engineers with the PTOE certification or licensed traffic control technicians will be permitted to do this work with nobody else permitted to plan, design or install traffic control devices.  Obviously, the licensed traffic control technician (LTCT) will have some limitations in that they will not be permitted to design larger structures such as sign bridges or any other overhead structure, but otherwise they should be capable of handling those responsibilities on condition that they are able to handle the math requirements.  The license means that like an engineer they would be personally liable for not following proper engineering protocol.  Breaking off this work from civil engineers placing the responsibility on a licensed non-engineer would make sense as a way of lowering the cost and raising the output thus raising standards.  By doing this it would be possible for traffic control operations to be overseen by someone whose entire position involves collecting data, analyzing data, creating sign plans and then using a GIS database to store the records of that work with a legal requirement that is as binding as it is for the PTOE.  A licensed traffic control technician would work under direct or indirect supervision of a PTOE and would typically still require a civil engineer to review all work plans.  If working for a local government without an engineer on staff, the LTCT would be under supervision of the state's district engineer.

Overall, the extremely high amount of situations where this work is non-existent or incorrect shows how difficult this is to manage and is a major reason why State and Local Road Reform believes that most local governments are not well suited to handle the engineering and maintenance of traffic signs independent of a state agency or regional government unit.  One of those reasons is because local governments were largely laid out based on antiquated principles, especially county and township government.  The layout of most counties, small towns and townships was not done with any consideration of the high costs and organizational structure needed to meet modern transportation demands.  Modern transportation demands cannot be effectively met without high economies of scale, people who know what they are doing and the benefit of adequate tax bases: both usually well above what the typical county or municipality can provide.

In addition, the author believes that states need a better policy to handle this work.  Some or even most states do not have a written policy on how to manage the installation and maintenance of curve warning signs.  This leads to situations where roads are oversigned well above the level of risks present or traffic volumes.  Many situations exist where curve signs are posted in places where sight distance is clear and no speed reduction is required even if the driver is 5-10 MPH above the posted speed limit.  Those resources could be better distributed to other sign needs if sign clutter like this is removed.  In fact, the only instance where signing a gentle curve makes sense is where a very straight road has a bend that requires driving at a speed 0-5 MPH below the speed limit, which is typically not high to require an advisory speed.  Otherwise, it not only diminishes the importance of other signs while making maintenance more difficult and costly, but also it becomes less likely that the truly dangerous curves are properly identified both by highway agencies and motorists.  For instance, a W1-5 winding road sign might be posted for a situation where one curve requires no speed reduction while two other curves are sharp turns requiring a speed drop to 20 MPH below the posted speed limit.  A driver might not take the situation as seriously seeing a gentle curve, take the first curve fast and then crash on the second curve.  Similarly if a series of curves are signed that do not require any speed reduction then a driver is less likely to notice signs posted for a curve that require slowing down to safely navigate.  

THE SOLUTION ON A FEDERAL LEVEL

Further in this post a plan will be described that details how roadway classifications, traffic volumes and overall functions should be added to the MUTCD as a means of correcting extremes in curve warning sign policy ranging from too many signs to not enough signs.  Overall, the federal government needs to be a better steward of traffic sign policy on both a state and local level.  While the federal government does not have an iron clad way of policing bad traffic sign engineering practice, they should begin to hold states liable for this work not only on the state's own road system but also the local road system.  If the state has not developed an effective strategy to permanently correct traffic control deficiencies including curve warning signs on local roads bringing them in substantial uniformity with MUTCD standards, then this will need to change.  While all signs need to be in substantial compliance, focus is badly needed on proper curve warning sign engineering.  Since the public and many states do not recognize the importance and technical nuances involved in this type of work, the federal government needs to have more authority in this area.

The best way to do this is to define safety improvements as a substantial amount of federal-aid given to states.  Currently the federal government has some limited funding for this program, but it may be necessary for the federal government to begin to primarily fund traffic control devices to assure that states and local governments are installing and maintaining these devices correctly.  Funding would be distributed to states to be divided between the state and local governments for traffic control devices.  This funding, however, will be based on ratios of state control.  This means if a state has 10% under state control and 90% under local control, then the state must spend 90% on local roads and 10% on state roads.  Using the ratio method assures that states do not feel pressured to transfer roads to local governments as a means of raising and distributing funding.  The ratio simply changes with the level of state control.  This also puts less pressure on states to finance traffic safety work entirely on their own.

However, this federal funding must come with a catch.  The federal funding to be used on local roads may not be distributed directly to local governments.  It must be handled exclusively by state agencies and engineered through either state forces or private engineering firms hired by the state.  Signs used on local roads must be purchased through state-approved private vendors and meet state standards with the states becoming liable for not just installation but also maintenance of these signs on local roads as long as federal funding is provided for continued maintenance.  While the entire duty for traffic signs will not fall on the state governments, this new responsibility will require that state governments require local governments to meet the same specifications on anything they install thus creating a mechanism that states police local governments or else they will be required to handle that responsibility for local governments.  This federal funding clause will also force local governments to organize traffic control cooperatives with other counties and cities as a way to properly finance and supervise traffic control when today the federal government generally ignores local government actions.  Either way, the funding should be at a level to assure that local governments who are incapable of providing technical services on their own are provided a means to pool resources to either the state or regional level.  States that fail to properly manage this federally-funded work for local governments and follow MUTCD standards will also risk losing all federal funding unless conditions are met to acceptable federal guidelines.

On federally-maintained roads and roads in the District of Columbia, a slightly different approach should be taken where one of three things occurs:

1. DC contracts traffic control with an adjoining state or neighboring local jurisdictions to form a larger regional body that includes parts of adjoining states.
2. Authority for traffic control shifts to the US Army Corps of Engineers
3. Authority shifts to another federal agency that can oversee this work in a manner similar to a state government.

THE SOLUTION ON A STATE LEVEL

A federal solution is not necessary if state governments take the initiative to handle this responsibility correctly on their own.  The solution for a poorly executed curve warning sign policy will require that states take one of two approaches:

1. A Contracting Approach
• States select individual roads annually in every county (or entire counties) for a review.  They  hire a private engineering firm to study these individual roads, including both state and local roads, to determine where there are missing signs (also including intersection warning signs) and to identify that hazardous curves and turns that require speed reduction
• The state will either provide funding to the local agencies to install the signs according to the study or provide the results expecting the local government to fund the install based on the review within a 2 year span
2. A Consolidation Approach
• This involves the frequently discussed approach of using state forces or special regional cooperatives to provide this service on behalf of the local governments so that all errors and emissions can gradually be identified and corrected
• The consolidation approach includes routine maintenance while the contracting approach requires periodic projects and updating of prior work to occur at least once every 10-15 years

Either approach will require sweeping reforms, and the cost of upgrades will be costly.  The consolidation approach will not increase costs, but for conditions to improve in a shorter time frame additional funding will be required.  The contracting approach, however, will require a significant annual investment from both state and federal funding.  Using these findings this means that at the very least many existing curve warning signs will need to be:

1. Modified if information is correct, but is displayed in a non-standard way
• e.g. R2-1 used instead of W13-1
2. Removed to reduce clutter if signs are excessive
3. Corrected if existing condition is wrong or outdated
• curve used where reverse curve is needed
• modify existing W1-2 and or W1-4 to W1-10 signs for intersections found in curves
• 24" curve signs used
4. Installed if signs that are needed are missing
• curve posted in one direction, but not the other
• chevrons/arrows are needed in curve
• sign locations are identified in studies, but none in the field

By removing excessive signs from the roadway, the state or local government will be able to better finance the signs that they have while promote safer driving conditions.  This is because hazards on the roadway will become more readily noticeable because the number of signs will not overwhelm the driver.  It should also be noted that these state roads refer primarily to roadways in states where fewer than 20% of the road network is under jurisdiction of the state government.  In states with larger state road systems, the lesser secondary routes should be reviewed based on roadway conditions and functional classification for the purpose of better distributing state resources in regards to curve warning signs.  

THE SOLUTION ON A LOCAL LEVEL

It was stated earlier how the local conditions are far more serious than those on the state roads, but the need for curve warning signs is very different from state highways.  Most state highway systems carry higher functional classifications in addition to the bulk of traffic while local roadways usually only carry heavier traffic in either more populous areas or on longer rural collector roads that are not otherwise maintained by the state.  Other local roads are often shorter, carry less traffic and often do not serve through traffic.  Regardless, the fact that local conditions vary means that it is far more difficult for local governments to properly budget and develop an effective curve warning sign program when they are responsible for a far higher percentage of roadways of all different classifications.

With no clear rules on the best approach based on traffic volumes, roadway characteristics and speeds, to a local agency it appears that every winding road and sharp corner needs curve warning signs when the budget for that work is simply not there.  The result is that local governments typically either neglect the issue or take a very half-hearted approach.  These are the questions a local government often might ask themselves:

• Should we install more signs than they can afford to maintain or do they take a modest approach and leave most roads void of any curve warning signs?
• Should we install and maintain signs well below MUTCD standards because having anything there is better than nothing at all?
• We are a mountainous area, so should we post any curve warning signs at all?  
• We don't have the money for traffic studies, so should we just randomly post winding road signs on mountainous roads?
• Should we only post a curve sign where a previous accident occurred?
• Should we spend a million to fix every sign when there is no way we can afford to maintain that many signs?  

This is how most rural roads in many states ended up with few to no curve warning signs at all while curve warning signs issued through state-aid roadway projects during the 1960's and 70's ultimately were left to rot by those same local governments within those same states states.  This is especially true in those cases where small, low population local agencies were in charge.

No matter how that question is answered, the truth is that on a local level that local governments typically have not been consistently successful at handling curve warning signs.  Many avoid any corrective action fearing high costs and greater liability to maintain a high cost sign maintenance program even when terrain is flat enough and roadways are straight enough that the cost is far more manageable.  When budgets are primarily only large enough to post stop signs and a few street name signs every year, an investment in thousands of warning signs that did not exist before on roads that do not carry state highway traffic is not a popular idea.  Instead of hiring a traffic engineering firm to help correct deficiencies, these local governments often rely on in-house employees with little to no actual experience with that line of work.  A more dedicated employee given a larger budget might do a better job, but the evidence that no traffic study was ever undertaken is evidenced by common errors similar to the list of engineering deficiencies above.  Below are some examples with photos: 

• Incorrect curve sign used (e.g. posting W1-2 curve signs with no advisory speed for sharp 90 degree turns where a W1-1 is required)

Leman Rd eastbound at JE Waters Rd in Emanuel County, GA has this incorrect curve sign posted in the advance of a sharp 90 degree turn.  While the signs were state funded it is unclear who is responsible for this engineering error.  (Photo from Google Street View, March 2014)

• No advisory speeds posted on any curve signs

S Cedar Cove Road meets N Cedar Cove Road in Morgan County, AL at a 135 degree turn.  This turn sign includes no advisory speed to indicate how fast this turn should be taken.  (Photo from Google Street View, June 2014)

• R2-1 speed limit signs used to indicate advisory speed where W13-1 signs are supposed to be used

Old Federal Road in Murray County, GA (since corrected via an off-system safety grant) has speed limit signs used in place of advisory speeds.  It is unclear whether that is the actual speed limit or the advisory speed for the curve when this is done.

Old TN 68 in Sweetwater, TN features another instance of this practice.  Is the speed limit 20 MPH or do I need to slow to 20 MPH for the curve?

• No identification nor replacement of missing curve signs

Welty Church Rd in Washington County, MD is posted at 35 MPH but includes this S-curve that has no advance warning that likely requires a 10 MPH speed reduction.  (Photo from Google Street View)

• Incorrect advance placement distances (sign too close or far from condition)

This curve sign in Floyd County, GA has no advanced warning.  Also note the chevron signs on the incorrect side of the roadway.

• Non-compliant devices (e.g. incorrect design or dimensions)

This winding road sign and advisory sign violates MUTCD standards in every way.  The dimensions of the winding road symbol are wrong and the advisory speed plate has both incorrect fonts and incorrect dimensions.  This is found on Old US 441 northbound in Rabun County, GA.

• Improper use of signs (e.g. "Dangerous Curve Ahead")

Although later corrected with a state grant, this sign was used to mark a sharp turn in Fannin County, GA in the late 1990's.

This sign was discovered last fall on Steve Tate Road in Dawson County, GA.  The winding road sign in the background is also incorrect and too close to the curve.  It is actually a reverse curve/turn.  This sign is useless and should be replaced with the proper curve sign and advisory.

• Incorrect chevron placement (e.g. chevrons do not follow through on curve, chevrons are on wrong side of the road or only one chevron is posted in a curve)

This curve on Edgemont Road north of Mong Road in Washington County, MD has incorrect chevron placement.  Note that while "two are in view" they do not follow through from beginning to end of curve.  Note the two chevrons in the opposite direction.  (Photo from Google Street View, September 2012). 

• No chevrons or arrows posted at all in a curve that requires a speed reduction of 15 MPH or greater from the posted speed limit
• Signs are dirty, old or not mounted correctly

Misty Meadow Road northbound north of Watery Lane in Washington County, MD has a very old and worn out reverse turn sign (Photo from Google Street View, August 2012).

Stinking Creek Road in Campbell County, TN is a typical example of a rural county with no budget for curve warning signs.  Most curve signs posted on this road were installed when the road was originally paved by the state.  All but a few are gone including this arrow sign above and reverse curve sign.  (Photos from Google Street View, April 2014).

The issues above are not uncommon.  Because of this, correcting curve sign deficiencies on a local level will require a top down approach that expands beyond single state-aid sign projects.  Traffic sign studies are prone to errors and omissions that go unnoticed while most local agencies are not equipped to maintain a larger number of traffic signs.  Unfortunately, most rural governments are not going to fund either the installation or maintenance of this kind of effort on their own.  

Obviously the best approach for maintenance is to transfer traffic sign engineering and maintenance of all warning signs, but especially curve warning signs, either to the state or to statewide regional engineering districts to handle this duty.  It is also important to create a method of signing these roads based on actual need.  A functionally-local, low speed, low volume rural road in a mountainous area is not going to need to have 500 curve warning signs, chevrons and arrows when the budget is not sufficient to allow it and a lower speed limit or the identification of a few particularly hazardous curves would be sufficient.  In many cases it would be best to have nothing at all.  When far too many signs are in place, the ones most likely to find these signs useful on very lightly traveled roads are vandals who will steal them, use them for target practice and/or spray paint profanities while local or state authorities will likely forget they are even there.

These unnecessary signs create a greater liability to whatever agency is in charge of that road.  Setting the speed limit to reflect conditions would be a far less costly strategy or simply adopting a "drive at your own risk" strategy posting a sign like "No Curve Warning Signs" with a plaque reading "Next X Miles". Inversely, this does not justify setting speed limits artificially low just to avoid posting curve signs.  Speed limits should be set based on either roadway characteristics (majority of curves cannot be safety driven over 35 MPH) or prevailing travel speed.  This means posting an arrow straight two mile long rural road at 25 MPH just because of a single 90 degree turn halfway through is not the intent of this policy.  Likewise, residential streets, unpaved roads and low speed roads do not need the same investment in curve warning devices that roads with higher speeds require.

A "No Curve Warning Signs" sign could be adopted by either the states in their own MUTCD supplement or the federal MUTCD as a means of alerting motorists that they are on a lightly traveled road whose traffic volumes are too low to dictate the use of curve signs and thus must be alert for alignment changes that are not warned.  This sign should be used with a "NEXT X MILES" plaque.

However, a major collector road with low traffic volumes and a 35 MPH-55 MPH speed limit presents a different situation.  There is a potential of non-local traffic, higher speeds are present and the likelihood of hazardous conditions will require longer reaction time.  With roads like this typically better constructed, they are less likely to be oversigned yet still have a higher risk of accidents due to wildlife entering the roadway, traffic entering from hidden driveways, different roadway conditions (e.g. lack of shoulders or narrow lanes), less light during evening and nighttime hours and a lower expectation by drivers of encountering other vehicles.  Obviously driver error due to poorly engineered or maintained curve warning signs is also a frequent factor in these accidents as drivers leave the roadway due to inadequate or incorrect information.  Since speed limits are often statutory and not actually based on design speed or conditions, it is important that curve warning signs are consistent, uniform in practice and accurately display the needed information to help drivers adjust their speed for hazardous conditions.  

The table below lays out a curve warning sign plan.  This is a suggested method to use, regardless of jurisdiction, where a state or regional agency dictates how and where curve signs are laid out as a means of keeping consistent, uniform and well-maintained curve warning signs on the roads where they are the most needed.  This will also make it easier for states to develop a strategy to aid local governments.  

The table above describes the conditions that should be considered for curve warning signs designed to unify curve warning sign standards nationwide across multiple jurisdictions and states.  At present there is no uniform approach taken from state to state.

OVERALL CRITERIA FOR THE NEW CURVE WARNING SIGN POLICY

The table above shows the new method proposed for determining curve warning sign locations along roadways based on the criteria of functional classification, traffic volumes (using population density when traffic counts are not available), posted speed limit and roadway surface (paved/unpaved).  This policy dictates that curve warning signs are placed on roadways based on actual need regardless of ownership.  Thus, drivers will come to expect that a roadway that lacks these signs is smaller, more lightly traveled road while a roadway that has these signs is a through road or has heavier traffic.  States can then set budgets more effectively to determine the amount of resources needed to cover traffic control devices while local governments will be more willing to work with states if their resources for warning signs are concentrated on roads that carry higher traffic volumes or are more important.

Creating an environment where more qualified employees exist to address traffic control needs would be helpful to improve curve warning signs as well as traffic signs everywhere.  The current model of restricting this work to licensed civil engineers is clearly not effective given that most agencies cannot afford the cost required to hire a full-time engineer or engineering firm to do this work nor are the available engineers able to budget adequate time to this type of work.  A licensed traffic control technician could help to focus efforts on an employee whose primary task is to handle traffic control work requiring a lower cost to hire than a civil engineer.  This would help to bring more employees into the field with the knowledge and expertise to properly recognize, design, correct and install traffic control devices.  

Obviously, this policy should be coupled with the strategies presented on this site.  States need to not only reform their own policies but also preferably take over traffic control engineering duties for local governments unless a regional multi-jurisdictional regional structure can be adopted.  No matter what method is adopted, the typical local agency lacks the financial capabilities to properly oversee or fund this type of work and it is shown by the inconsistency and the enormous amount of errors in regards to curve warning signs.  Such a program would be far easier to execute if states would not blindly assume that local governments that are already not doing an acceptable job are going to follow the recommendations above unless they do this themselves.  This will, however, help states to better manage available state and federal-aid funds by concentrating funds on qualifying roads while not wasting resources on unnecessary signs.  

Three plans proposed would help to easily steer resources to cover the cost of correcting and maintaining warning signs as part of a uniform policy on both state and locally-owned roads.  They are:

• Traffic Operations Cooperative Plan
• This engineer-driven approach creates the ideal conditions for unifying standards and creating uniform policy by removing primary responsibility for traffic control from the local agencies and transferring it to regional cooperatives or the state DOT
• Two-Way Consolidated Road Maintenance Plan
• This plan creates conditions where local control of traffic control is limited only to local agencies with the population and resources to adopt this strategy with additional heavy state-aid funds while entrusting the state DOT or regional cooperatives to handle all of the other roads across the state
• Local Exchange Plan
• This plan frees up resources available on the state level to gradually chip away at traffic control deficiencies by allowing the state to transfer resources typically used for labor-intensive maintenance work to technical work thus allowing the state to make incremental changes based on state DOT policy, which would likely include this new curve sign policy

However, state agencies can only do so much.  The only way to assure a uniform and effective strategy to correct the currently ineffective curve warning sign methods is to create a more detailed nationwide policy that better explains to states and local agencies how to prioritize the installation and maintenance of warning signs.  They can, of course, exceed these standards but this approach provides the best balance for resources between urban and rural areas while preventing roads that are sparsely traveled from being oversigned.