U.S. rolls back rule requiring street sign changes

WASHINGTON Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:02am EDT

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Tuesday rolled back a proposal requiring states and local governments to replace street signs that did not comply with new safety standards.

The change is part of the administration's effort to reduce what it calls burdensome regulations but also followed criticism from officials in at least two states.

This one would cost municipalities millions to update signs by 2018.

"It's just plain common sense," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement on the proposal to eliminate 46 deadlines mandated by federal traffic control regulations.

Transportation planners still favor street signs with larger lettering and improved reflectivity, but have concluded that the deadlines for upgrades are impractical.

LaHood's agency will, however, retain 12 deadlines changes considered critical for public safety, including One Way signs at certain intersections and Stop or Yield markers at rail crossings.

(Reporting by John Crawley; Editing by Jerry Norton)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
Bossmechanic wrote:
I was wondering if anyone was going to see the stupidity of these regs. Government mandated arbitrary rules and regs that must be paid for by the local taxpayors. Kinda like the required shift in Medicaid funding to the states – thanks to Obumocare – only on the local level.

Aug 29, 2011 12:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:
This is what happens when politicians, many of whom have little or no business experience, make laws. Changing the specifications for these signs to make things safer, within reason, is great. Mandating that all the signs be replaced on a strict timeline, is stupid. The time requirement should have read “when they must be replaced anyway, due to age or condition”.

Aug 30, 2011 10:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:
I suppose the GOP and the righties are going to find a way to criticize this?

Aug 30, 2011 10:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.