Tuesday, Jun. 2, 2015    Login | Register           

Here's your new sign

Peachtree City Public Services Director Mark Caspar shows off a new sign prototype that is being required by mandates from the federal government. The city will spend thousands in coming years replacing all street signs with models that have a higher reflectivity, and the new standard is for the whole sign to be reflective, not just the lettering, Caspar said. Photo/John Munford.

Topic: 
Location: 

Comments

phil sukalewski's picture

Why does the FEDERAL government have any say on the road signs on roads not part of the interstate highway system?

Phil Sukalewski

PTC Observer's picture

Because we take money from the Federal government for our roads.

The Federal government controls every aspect of our lives.

get those control devices that the federal government secretly implanted in your heads when you got your drivers license pictures taken removed at a clinic out in Idaho.

I think Frederic Bastiat said it best when he said

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."

Swift Death to Secret Control Devices In Our Heads!

Braves Win!

It comes from federal taxes on gasoline primarily.

If you don't want our share---don't take it! (Ohhhhh, but that's different!)

Collect taxes here and build own roads, OK? (Do you like gravel roads?)

Because they supply the money for most roads and signs, etc.!

Build our own roads and they won't have any say. Want to do that?

I have never been to Vegas but if Vegas were to take over the country that is how I would imagine the road signs.

Has this mandate actually passed? What kind of companies will be producing these signs?

ahavah_lachaim's picture

The implementation of these signs doesn't bother me nearly as much as the horrific color. Does no one else remember a few years ago when the "next turn" signs were erected first in the horrid yellow? They were more an eyesore than any kind of beneficial.

Well this is what we get when we currently have practically unreadable signs.

Some are behind one another and others can't be seen at night in the rain at all.

The signs are for Fire and police and stragers and relatives visiting and deliveries---not us.

Betsy Tyler's picture

The sign in the photo represents the new size of street signs on the state highways (that sign will go at Highway 74 S. and Kelly Dr.). Street signs on internal city streets will be smaller than this, but still larger than they are now.

All will remain the current dark brown backtground with white lettering, but the brown background will also be reflective (that feature, along with the dim lighting during Retreat for the presentations, makes the signs look much more orange than they will on the roadways).

Thanks!
Betsy

<strong><a href="http://www.peachtree-city.org/subscribe">Sign up</a> for our weekly e-mail newsletter or <a href="http://www.twitter.com/ptcgovernment">Follow us on Twitter #ptcgovernment </a>
http://www.peachtree-city.org

Regardless of their appearance, it's still another prime example of Federal interference in local issues that will cost a ton of money--all to no avail!

for the clarification. You do a great job.

rgspain's picture

Since the signs are going to be changed out why not sell the old signs. There could be a fixed price or a auction. People may want to purchase a piece of good old PTC.

hutch866's picture

Very good idea actually.

I yam what I yam

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Suggestions for Betsy:

Take bids ahead of time

Starting bid should be $100

Put cameras up at every street corner

Anybody (like treesarepeachy) that steals a sign ahead of time should be fined $200

Sell pictures of the mayor presenting the street sign to the winning bidder for $100 --- or if the recipient chooses $200 if the Chief and his squaw dress up in Native American garb.

Subdivisons that want to have all their old signs in the clubhouse get a discount - $75 per sign.

Live free or die!

PTC Observer's picture

This is a good idea, we can buy the sign twice! ;-)

No kidding, I think it's a great idea and I would suggest the city put it out on Ebay and put it in the newspaper for locals.

suggarfoot's picture

than someone trying to circumvent your vote..

if he tells you different..he is what everyone else knows him to be...a liar!

couldn't find a place to start a blog...this needs to be read

Decision would shield some lobbyist expenses from public

By Chris Joyner

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Lobbyists can spend all they want influencing state bureaucrats and never disclose a penny, under a proposal before the state ethics commission Tuesday.

If the ethics commission approves a draft opinion, those payments will be hidden from the public despite calls from a coalition of groups arguing for more transparency in government.

Stacey Kalberman, executive director of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, said her reading of the law would allow lobbyists to withhold information about what they spend on public employees, even though they must disclose what they spend
on elected officials and their family members.

“We’re not a court,” she said. “We interpret the act, but we don’t have the right to go as far as a court can.”

State employees are the ones who implement and interpret the laws and regulations passed by the Legislature and often can have a significant effect on the interests of lobbyists and their clients.

William Perry, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, called the situation “a mess.”

“A lot of money is spent on staff,” Perry said. “It’s a loophole that needs to get fixed.”

A ruling on the issue was requested by Douglas Chalmers, legal counsel for House Speaker David Ralston, after revelations that lobbyists paid to take Ralston, his family and staff to Europe last year at a cost of $17,000. Under the new understanding of disclosure laws, the costs for staffers would not be reported.

Chalmers said his clients that lobby the state government, including the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, asked him for guidance following stories by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution detailing the trip and an internship given by a firm to Ralston’s son. Some of his clients were worried because they were not reporting money spent on public officials’ families and government staffers, he said.

“My interpretation is that is not something you disclose,” he said.
In a Feb. 11 letter to the commission, Chalmers asked whether money spent on “an employee or family member of a public officer” must be publicly disclosed.

“It appears that the answer to this question is ‘no,’” he wrote.

A Jan. 22 story in the AJC detailed a trip to Germany and the Netherlands over Thanksgiving paid for by lobbyists interested in building a high-speed rail line between Atlanta and Chattanooga. It was the most costly single lobbying expense reported since at least 2005.

Part of that bill went to pay for Ralston’s chief of staff and spouse. The new finding by the ethics commission would hide such expenses from the public in the future.

Ralston’s spokesman Marshall Guest would not comment on the new interpretation because the ethics commission had yet to vote on it. However, he said Ralston is unaffected by the decision.

“Whatever they do decide, it will not impact what has already been reported in the past,” he said.

Chalmers is out of town, but he said he might try to participate in Tuesday’s meeting by telephone to argue his case for not disclosing expenses on family members.

On Feb. 4, the AJC reported that a lobbying firm had hired Ralston’s son as an intern, a fact discovered only because it was listed as a lobbying expense in public records. Ralston has opposed caps on spending by lobbyists, advocating public reporting of those gifts instead.

Some public employees, such as executive department heads, are also legally “public officers,” but most are not. Lobbyists commonly spend money on gifts and meals to state employees, particularly staff members of lawmakers.

“A chief of staff might be a perfect example,” Kalberman said.

For example, records show insurance industry lobbyists treated Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens’ chief of staff, Jim Beck, and Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner Justin Durrance to a series of lunches since the start of the year. The expenses total $354.43.

Hudgens’ spokesman Matt Kilgallen said the department supports disclosure of the expenses, but said there is nothing wrong with them.

“A dozen or so modest-priced, get-acquainted meals in the first three months of a new administration is not unusual,” he said.

Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, has advocated for greater transparency in government ethics and called the commission’s proposed opinion “distressing.”

“If anything, we need to be moving in a direction of greater clarity and disclosure,” he said.

Debbie Dooley of the Georgia Tea Party Patriots said lawmakers needed to take up the problem immediately.

“We would encourage the Legislature to introduce legislation to close that loophole,” she said.

yellowjax1212's picture

I know how dangerous it is to assume things but I will assume that these Federal mandates do not come with any federal dollars?
Unfunded mandates are killing local and state governments and just another area the feds have no business in. I don't read anywhere in the Constitution that addresses the reflectivity of road signs.
Does anyone know how much this is going to cost us?

Mike King's picture

First, the darn things are hideous and if they come with a price tag, just refuse to accept them. Does antone other than roundabout believe federal troops will be sent if we refuse? Enough cities saying no, and then states following suit then perhaps the feds will understand their irrelevance.

No, no troops sent for installing signs!

It amounts to whether or not we wish to continue getting gas tax benefits from the government!

Now you know we can't do what you said. We would soon look like the Florida rabble raiser preacher---burning up government signs, etc.

You know we can't half see the conglomeration of hidden signs that we have now.

But if you want, go ahead and pay for the ones you want and have them hung!

Kinda like no flags on the putting greens or no ugly tee markers! By the way, h government contributed to building many of the golf courses in the USA--especially those in the defense department.

Cyclist's picture

MUTCD: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Here's some "as proposed" details from the Federal Register concerning this:

The new minimum sign retroreflectivity requirements were
intended to assure adequate nighttime visibility of traffic signs, especially for older drivers, but with significant safety
benefits for all drivers, as clearly documented by research. Further, the
7-year and 10-year compliance periods were set based on expected service life of sign sheeting materials.

January 22, 2015 (7 years)—replacement of regulatory, warning, and postmounted guide (except street name)signs that are identified using the
assessment or management method as failing to meet the established minimum
levels;

and (3) January 22, 2018 (10 years)—replacement of street name
signs and overhead guide signs that are identified using the assessment or
management method as failing to meet the established minimum levels.

For more info see the following hyperlink.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-11-30/pdf/2010-29587.pdf

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

What hacks me off about this especially is that Congress has time to entertain trivial changes like this that will cost taxpayers a ton but can't find the time to pass budgets to fund operation of the Government. And BTW that's one of their primary missions every year but it just doesn't seem to pass their priority test! They should be ashamed, for they failed their constituencies. And they can only say "Sorry, no budget BUT we got you some shiny new street signs! Thanks a pantload.
On second thought, a question" Was this some sort of mandate from some regulatory agency? If so, their authority to regulate should ve voided.

Cyclist's picture

I'm not sure that Congress had anything to do with this. The "guv" will allow agencies to manage their kingdoms. I know the FAA will modify language without input from the legislative group. For example, a few years back, 14 CFR 145 (Repair Stations) went through a total rewrite without congressional input. I suspect it's the same for the FHWA and the new MUTCD requirements.

Of course Congress can and do change CFR's. The recent extension of pilot retirement age for 121 air carriers (14 CFR 121.383) was signed into law by Bush 42.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

and stick it in your nether regions. What a WASTE of monies.

Here is another example of the stupid federal government passing another law that will cost millions of dollars to broke tax payers. Please shut them down at midnight. We will be much better off. The Donald is right. All other countries are laughing at the U S A. We are the butt of jokes world wide.

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content