Changes to the MUTCD – Where Do We Stand?

At Municipal Supply & Sign Company, we often get questions from our customers concerning the proposed changes to the 2009 MUTCD.  Promulgated in 2007, these changes caused quite an uproar.  Cities and states were supposed to meet minimum standards for retroreflectivity of traffic signs, such as stop signs, by 2015 and by 2018 for street name signs. Last summer, Ray LaHood, the nation’s top transportation official, proposed dropping those deadlines.

But, and it’s a big BUT, the minimum retroreflectivity standards were here to stay.  Comments on the proposed legislation were received until the 60 day period ended October 31, 2011.  To date, in January 2012, there has been no official response.  It is important to understand what changes were proposed and what they mean regulatory agencies.

Many issues regarding the proposed legislation were raised in the 592 comments received.  Some comments seemed to show confusion.  Some examples:

• “Perfectly good signs replaced before they wear out”
• “Large number of compliance dates”
• “Confusion over what is required”
• “Where do I get the money?”
• “Street name plates needing new letter heights, mixed case lettering, minimum retroreflectivity levels- all when our signs are perfectly clear.”

So, if nothing has been decided, refresh our memory on where we stand.  Here is what the FHWA had to say at a seminar last fall regarding maintaining retroreflectivity levels.  It is worth quoting Section 2A.08:

“Implementation and continued use of an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain regulatory and warning sign retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels.”  This code section would be implemented two years after the effective date of the new statute.

There are two takeaways in that statement.  First, the focus is now on regulatory and warning signs, not traffic signs in general.  Second, the emphasis is on maintaining retroreflectivity not just achieving the level of retroreflectivity.

So, let’s break it down.  What is significant?

• First and foremost, the new retroreflectivity standards will still be adopted.
• All compliance dates are removed.  Any sign the jurisdiction identifies as not meeting established minimums still must be replaced, but there is no specific date.  The big catch:  The jurisdiction would need to defend its replacement scheduling decision if a liability issue should arise.
• The MUTCD language requiring agencies to have and use a systematic method of evaluation and replacement is not changing, but you get two years to implement and use the system. This requirement pertains only to regulatory and warning signs.  There are no specific dates for guide signs and other signs.
• The requirement to maintain retroreflectivity standards puts a premium on the decision regarding the sheeting that is used for the sign.  Life cycle cost analysis should be performed.  The new standards require a contrast ratio that is difficult to maintain with the lower grade products.  The new sign may be okay for the first 3 years, but trouble may lie ahead after that.

What have we heard in the marketplace?  Well, source of funds is always the first response, although many jurisdictions have found a source for the money.  Several jurisdictions list the liability risk as being too great and simply proceed to change the signs to avoid an unfavorable suit down the road.

They feel the cost benefit ratio is in their favor.  Others feel if they are changing a sign today, it is best to go for the new standard just to avoid another installation cost.  Give us a call and we can discuss your situation.