Federal Mandate Forcing Street Sign Replacement

Federal Mandate Forcing Municipalities Across the U.S. to Replace Street Signs

Amendments made in December 2009 to the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) says street signs now must use both lower and uppercase letters, instead of all uppercase lettering (using the "Clearview" font). The Federal Highway Administration has given a 2018 deadline for municipalities across the United States to replace the signs. Other federal guidelines adopted in 2003 mandate that traffic signs be replaced with ones made from a material that increases their "retroreflectivity." Additionally, the posts and foundations for these signs are to be replaced. The Federal Highway Administration says the 2018 deadline gives jurisdictions plenty of time to replace signs.

Rich Carter, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, said the new rules were drafted and put into place by the nation’s administration but never came before Congress for vote. This unconstitutional federal mandate is coming at a time when local and state governments are experiencing severe budget shortfalls. And this type of regulation should be grandfathered-in, meaning each sign should be replaced with the newer sign only when it must be replaced for another reason.

So why is this waste of money being forced on the nation from our masters in Washington? Many motorists believe that our old street signs are just fine and that the money used to replace these signs could be better spent repairing bridges and paving roads. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, more than 26%, or one in four, of the nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; and poor road conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs, and cost 14,000 Americans their lives.

The Federal Highway Administration says this mandate is necessary for saving lives. They claim that nighttime street sign visibility is becoming an increasing concern as the nation’s population ages; and that of the 42,000 people killed on the country’s roads in the past eight years, about half of the fatal crashes occurred at night, when darkness reduces drivers’ ability to see visual cues.

Sign Foolishness: Federal Government Forcing Changes

October 2, 2010

Watertown Daily Times - Communities across America will be wasting millions and millions of dollars over the next few years to meet another ridiculous federal mandate.

The Federal Highway Administration has ordered municipalities to change the lettering on their street signs. Street signs bearing names in all capital letters will have to be changed to use both uppercase and lowercase letters. So STATE ST will become State St. It will be Main St instead of MAIN ST.

It's not enough that the letters must change, the font must also conform to Washington's whim. It will have to be printed in Clearview with 6-inch letters.

Washington says the new signs will be easier to read and so be safer by reducing by a fraction of a second the amount of time drivers have to take their eyes off the road to read the sign. And just how many accidents have been attributed to unreadable street signs?

Communities will have a number of years to change the signs, so the costs may pass unnoticed. However, New York City officials estimate the Big Apple will spend $27.5 million to make the change.

This kind of nonsense is one reason why the tea party's anti-government tirade resonates with voters.

$27.5 Million to Change Font of Street Signs in New York City

September 30, 2010

Radio Voice Online - This is one of those stories that will really get TEA Party members all worked up, but it’s for the wrong reason. It makes sense to change from all UPPERCASE to Lowercase as the signs need to be replaced since they really are easier to read. There are issues however.

The federal government has come out with new mandates for street signs, you know, the ones that tell you what street you’re on. Other than the fact the uniformity of all of the signs certainly is boring when it comes to community identity, and the federal government mandating such a thing is totally unconstitutional, the lowercase change does make sense.

The city of New York has more than 250,000 of these signs that will be replaced during the next decade and a half. At a cost of $110 per sign, that’s where the New York Post came up with their $27.5 million figure. That’s an expense paid out over 15 years.

Here’s are the real questions, and I really don’t know the answers.

1. How can it cost $110 to replace one sign?
2. How does the city of New York “wear out” 8,000 of these signs each year?

Get worked up about this if you’d like, but I can not figure out why these signs need to be replaced an average of every 10 years. Out in the suburbs, you would think our corner street signs should last triple that time, and could be replaced for about $25 each. Is there that much abuse in the city? Are these things really that expensive?

A quick search online indicated the larger high quality signs were upwards of $80 each if you buy only one. Wow!

I generally enjoy reading Warner Todd Huston’s stuff as a contributor to Gateway Pundit, but he’s barking up the wrong tree on this one.

One other thing. Follow the money. Who owns the companies that have the contract to make these signs?

3M Sign Grant Program Helps Municipalities Meet Federal Transportation Mandate

January 12, 2009

Business Wire - 3M Traffic Safety Systems is launching the 3M Sign Grant Program, a new program designed to significantly reduce road sign replacement costs to local and state governments to meet the latest federal retroreflectivity standards set by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to improve traffic safety. The 3M Sign Grant Program begins January 5, 2009 and will run through November 30, 2009.

Government agencies are able to apply for onetime grants to receive significant cost savings to upgrade road signs to meet and exceed the FHWA Minimum Levels of Retroreflectivity. Finalized in January 2008, the FHWA standards require state and local agencies to assess their road signs and develop a replacement plan for non-compliant signs within four years. Non-compliant warning and regulatory signs must be replaced within seven years, and guide and street name signs within 10 years.

"Our goal with the 3M Sign Grant Program is to encourage agencies to start the planning process now to meet the new standards and to begin replacing underperforming signs," said Tom McGlynn, highway safety business director, 3M Traffic Safety Systems. "We'll work alongside agencies to improve traffic sign brightness and visibility to help meet and exceed the elevated safety standards."

Fatality rates are three times higher at night than during the day. To help improve traffic safety at night, the FHWA has raised the minimum reflectivity of road signs to increase sign visibility ...

3M Diamond Grade DG Reflective Sheeting and 3M High Intensity Prismatic Reflective Sheeting will help agencies meet the new standards and provide safer roads, life cycle cost savings and environmental benefits when compared to older optical technologies, such as the engineering grade reflective sheeting ...

For more information on the 3M Sign Grant Project or to apply, visit www.3MSignGrants.com.

3M™ Diamond Grade™ DG³ Reflective Sheeting

Introduced in 2005, 3M's optimal performance Diamond Grade DG³ sheeting meets the recently established ASTM Type XI specification and is used around the world to help improve roadway safety. 3M offers a full line of pre-screened reflective traffic control and guidance sign faces for application to standard sign substrates. Also offered are several fabricated items including cut-out letters, numbers and borders to aid in the production of high quality signs made with 3M Reflective Sheeting. All conform to the U.S. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards.

Minimum Levels of Retroreflectivity

FHWA Minimum Levels of Retroreflectivity Ruling became effective January 22, 2008 Replace non-compliant traffic signs to meet new federal retroreflectivity standards Improve sign brightness and visibility to help meet safety goals

Fifteen years ago the Congress of the United States acknowledged the importance of nighttime visibility of road signs and markings as important safety tools. The 1993 DOT Appropriations Act stated that the "Secretary of Transportation shall revise the MUTCD to include a standard for a minimum level of retroreflectivity that must be maintained for traffic signs and pavement markings which apply to all roads open to public travel." The Federal Highway Administration’s Minimum Levels of Retroreflectivity Ruling for traffic signs went into effect on January 22, 2008.

Summary of MUTCD Revisions

From January 22, 2008 (the effective date of the ruling) agencies have:

• Four years to implement and continue using an assessment or management method to maintain traffic sign retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels.
• Seven years for replacement of regulatory, warning and ground-mounted signs (except street name signs) that fail to meet the established minimum levels.
• Ten years for replacement of street name signs and overhead guide signs that fail to meet the established minimum levels.

For details and additional information about the FHWA Minimum Levels of Retroreflectivity Ruling, check out www.minimumreflectivity.org. To learn more about bright, durable 3M prismatic reflective sheetings, traffic sign upgrade services and flexible funding programs, contact your 3M representative or contact us.

3M Sues Rival Over Reflective Patents

June 29, 2010

Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal - 3M Co. has sued rival Avery Dennison Corp. over the patents behind new reflective sheets for road signs and other safety applications.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, alleges that Avery’s new OmniCube T-11500 prismatic reflective film violates 13 3M patents.

Pasadena, Calif.-based Avery has not yet filed a response to the Maplewood-based company’s suit, and could not be reached for comment.

"This lawsuit is about protecting our investments," said 3M spokeswoman Donna Fleming Runyon.

The domestic reflective material market for road signs, commercial vehicles and work zone equipment is worth $250 million per year, she said. 3M has been in that market for more than six decades.

3M wouldn’t say how much its Traffic Safety Systems Division, also headquartered in Maplewood, makes for the company every year, and estimates of market share were not available. But Chief Financial Officer Pat Campbell told investors in April that the division had double-digit sales increases in the first quarter of 2010 and maintained "solid profitability."

Avery is 3M’s chief competitor in the market, and according to the suit asked 3M to license the reflective technology for patents it holds. 3M wants the court to invalidate those patents, enforce 3M’s, and award unspecified damages for the alleged infringements.

It’s not the first time the two companies have tangled. In May, Avery sued 3M over label sheet assembly patents. Avery also sued 3M over reflective sheeting patents in 2001.

Attorneys Ann Cathcart Chaplin and John Adkisson of Minneapolis law firm Fish & Richardson filed the suit for 3M. Cathcart Chaplin, the firm’s managing principal for the Minneapolis office, declined to discuss the suit.

See: DHS Backs ‘Intellistreets’ - Street Lights and Street Signs That Double as Sophisticated Surveillance Devices