In
my phone conversation with the national advisor for temporary
sign regulations (MUTCD national) he admits that this case
appears where Denver is not following what is written in the
mandatory rule book for traffic sign regulations- i.e. it is not
compliant with the MUTCD. Specifically, that speed limit signs
and Higher Fines and Double Fines signs may NOT be used on
portable signs after 3 days, and must adhere to the 7 feet above
the pavement requirement (urban) and 5 feet above the pavement
(rural). Further, those signs that are permissible on
portable stands (under 3 days, and limited signs), must be at
least 1 foot above the pavement, and not as is illustrated at
this site in the photos below.
This opinion by the agency that writes and
publishes the book would render any speeding violation at this
location invalid, per Municipal Code 54-100.
*
* *
The City of Denver is
fining thousands of drivers at road work sites throughout the city - and
they are not compliant with the Federal Regulations in regards to
the posting of changed speed limits and Double Fines signs,
amounting in millions of dollars of fines from drivers. And this has been going
on unabated for years.
Thus, it has been established with my conversations today
August 20, 2012 with the
Federal Highway Administration, who literally wrote and publish the
book (the MUTCD The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices)- the
manual by which the city and state MUST adhere, or lose millions of
dollars of Federal construction funds.
I won a similar case against the city of Denver in 2003 for this
exact same thing, as well as the same situation in Glendale that
same year by another driver.
The entire purpose of speed limit signs and Double Fine signs is to
caution drivers to ensure safety on the roads-- for drivers and
workers.
But if you can't see the signs- what good are they- except for
raising millions of dollars of revenue for the city from fines when
drivers miss the signs?
It is collusion between the construction
companies doing the work who are responsible for correct placement
of regulatory signs, the City and County of Denver who is
responsible for oversite and site inspection to see that the
federal law is being followed, and the Denver Police Department and
Courts, who then fine people and double their fines simply because
the regulatory sign has been thrown on the ground- and not where it
properly belongs.
According to Denver Municipal Code
54-100, driving regulations are prohibited from
enforcement unless the regulatory signs are in "the proper position
and placement"- established by the MUTCD federal guidelines. In every case around town observed, the laws
regarding sign placement are in non-compliance, rendering every
ticket given in these locations invalid.
What is going on is that the construction
firms are cutting costs by
throwing portable temporary signs on the ground lowering speed limit
and doubling fines-- and not placing the signs at the minimum
required height of 7 feet- where drivers can actually see the signs
and make the driving adjustments. This saves the company the money
and trouble of sticking the sign on a post- and incidentally drives up the incidents of speeding, and thus fine revenues.
Everybody who is responsible is
looking the other way, because it pays.
In the case of the Denver road construction site currently going on at 56th and Quebec,
months in the process, it
has meant speeding tickets as easy as shooting fish in a
barrel. Multiply this by every site where the police are
giving out double fine tickets in construction zones.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Below is the case in which I am currently involved- and thus
far, the city is in complete denial that they have broken the
regulations at that site and elsewhere.
TO: Jess Ortiz, PE Senior Engineer/Project Manager Capital Projects Management Denver Public Works Department
Dear Mr. Ortiz,
I have left a phone message regarding this situation today, and I am
emailing you these details.
I am simply requesting a letter acknowledging the inadequate and
non-compliance of the speed limit and double fines signage at the
construction site at
56th and Quebec for the date of August 14, 2012 that I may present
to the city attorney to dispute a traffic violation citation (speed)
I received on that date.
The city municipal code, Sec. 54-100 states:
REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE City and County of DENVER, COLORADO
Sec. 54-100. - Obedience.
(b)No provision of this chapter for
which official traffic-control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged
violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not
in proper positionand sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person.
In my particular case- entering 56th Ave from Spruce Street
(northbound) onto 56th Ave (eastbound) , there were no speed limit
signs that were compliant with the height requirement of the MUTCD,
nor was the single Fines Double sign compliant (both in height and
location).
The single speed limit sign between Spruce and the traffic policeman
stationed on 56th Ave west of Valentia St. was on a portable stand,
and approximately 14" off the ground, non-compliant with the height
requirements,
and was in fact obscured and not visible to me by the traffic.
(Shown below) There is an identical sign at the same height on
the left side of the street, also obscured by traffic.
The flashing electronic sign is located west of Spruce, and not
visible to traffic entering 56th Ave from that intersection, and in
any case, does
not forgive the non-compliance of all of the other regulatory signs.
As a matter of fact, there are no speed limit signs that meet
MUTCD requirements whatsoever at this road construction site at this
date.
In 2003, I was faced with a similar situation in which the
regulatory signs governing my vehicle operation were also
non-compliant with the MUTCD, and Joel Walker from your department
was kind enough to supply me with a letter acknowledging the situation which I presented to the
city attorney. A copy of that letter is below. Following his help,
the city changed the signage as well at that location.
From the previous case:
"Mr. Slade,
Joel Walker of our Traffic Engineering Service's
staff (City of Denver) will be following up with you
regarding the possible signage and operational enhancements that we are considering for
the Best Buy retail center driveway onto Mexico Ave.
Joel is going to look at the recent accident history at this
location prior to making a final decision about
whether to enhance the existing signage or remove the left turn restriction
altogether.
Either way, we agree that you have a valid point
about the current signage being inadequate per the
stipulations of the 2000 edition of the MUTCD. Joel will author a letter
to this effect per your request. While we do not
have direct control over the enforcement efforts of DPD, we will lobby
them to suspend enforcement until changes are
implemented at the Best Buy driveway. I also cannot speak to what sort
of amnesty could be created for persons who have
been recently cited for an illegal turn at this location. Joel will
draft your letter in such a way that others could
use the same letter when they appear in court to contest their citation.
Please contact Joel by calling xxxxxxxx to get an
update on the status of the letter and let him know
if you have already been assigned a court date. Thanks again for
bringing this situation to our attention."
1) In the case of the speed limit signs, the height requirement is
found in the MUTCD 2009 edition, with 2012 updates, on page 577,
paragraphs 04-06, Section 6F.03 Sign Placement:
MUTCD (Federal Law on Traffic Signs)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2012 Edition
Chapter 6F. Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices
Section 6F.03
The minimum height, measured vertically from the bottom of the
sign to the top of the curb, or in the absence of curb, measured
vertically from the bottom of the sign to the elevation of the
near edge of the traved way, of signs installed at the side of
the road in business, commercial, or residential areas, where
parking or pedestrian movements are likely to occur, or where
the view of the sign might be obstructed, shall be 7 feet (see
Figure 6F-1) The minimum height , measured vertically from the
bottom of the sign to the sidewalk, of signs installed above
sidewalks shall be 7 feet.
2) In addition, the Double fines
sign was not located appropriately past the intersection of Spruce and
56th Ave, and it was also not at the required height. This is regulated in
the MUTCD, page 59, Section 2B.17 Higher Fines Signs and Plaque
(R2-6P, R2-10, and R2-11), paragraphs 01-04:
Section 2B.17
If increased fines are imposed for traffic violations within a
designated zone of a roadway, a BEGIN HIGHER FINES ZONE sign shall
be used to provide notice to road users. If used, the Fines Higher
plaque shall be mounted below an applicable regulatory or warning
sign in a temporary traffic control zone.
If used, the Begin Higher Fines Zone sign should be located at the
beginning of the temporary traffic control zone and just beyond any
interchanges, major intersections, or other major traffic
generators.
When I spoke with the site
construction assistant project manager, Alison Barber, we read the
MUTCD together which she had in her truck. She referred to a single
drawing on page 582 that she claimed justified the use of portable
stands and signs one foot off the ground and she claimed that
temporary signs do not need to adhere to the 7 foot height
requirement (which is untrue). I then showed her the references
above, as proof, as well as the "Guidance" on page 581 that clearly
states the only exceptions to the height requirements, which do NOT
include R2 type signs (speed limit, double fines). , i.e. "The R9-8
through R9-11a series, R11 series, W1-6 through W1-8 series, M4-10,
E5-1," See page 581 paragraphs 11-12.
Photographs provided below.
Thank you very much for your help in this situation. Neil Slade
Signs at sidewalk level west of Spruce at 56th.
The one and only Fines
Double sign, level with the sidewalk, and before the last
intersection- behind the weeds.
BELOW: The intersection beyond the LED sign (seen in the background) to
enter 56th Ave. eastbound. This is where I entered 56th.
BELOW: The speed limit sign on the right side of the road,
non-compliant MUTCD height and easily obscured by normal traffic, between Spruce and Valentia.
It is behind this jeep:
Here is the sign hidden in the photo above, about 14" above the
pavement on a portable stand.
There is another sign
on the left side of the road, at the same non-compliant height.
BELOW: Illustrated guide and exception guidance, Figure 6F1 as referred to
in the MUTCD code above:
Portable signs not meeting the
height requirements are disallowed after 3 days, with the exception
of specific signs, specifically defined and not including R2 type
signs (i.e. "R9-8, R9-11a, R11, W1-6,
W1-8, M4-10, E5-1" as stated below).
UPDATE, Monday August 20
I met
with Jess Ortiz in person on Friday August 17th, at which time he
promised me that he would look into the matter. At that time he
seemed to acknowledge that I was correct in my observations in this
matter, and was conciliatory in this regard.
However, on Monday
August 20, Mr. Ortiz told me by phone that his consultation with
other city staff indicated that the city was in compliance
with the MUTCD. His claim was that portable signs were allowed, per
paragraph 16 in section 6F.
It is clearly not.
Paragraph 16 simply states that if a sign is allowed on a portable
stand, it should be 1 foot off the ground- not that speed limit and
Fines Doubled signs are allowed on portable stands after 3 days and
exempt from the minimum height regulation. Obviously, if every sign
could be mounted indefinitely on a portable sign, the minimum height
requirement would not even exist.
From the MUTCD
section 6F.03
Standard: 15Sign supports
shall be crashworthy. Where large signs having an area exceeding 50
square feet are installed on multiple breakaway posts, the clearance
from the ground to the bottom of the sign shall be at least 7 feet.
16The bottom of a sign mounted on a barricade,
or other portable support, shall be at least 1 foot above the
traveled way.
This was clearly
not a factual claim reflecting the intention nor the clear wording
and diagrams found in the MUTCD.
When asked,
he could not provide me with any
proof of such a claim in the MUTCD in any section.
I then informed
him that I would have to contact the federal agency in charge with
enforcement of these regulations, the Federal Highway
Administration, who also provides funds for road construction sites
such as the site at 56th and Quebec.
Following my phone call from Mr. Ortiz this afternoon sharing the
"bad news" that I am wrong about the non-compliance by the City of
Denver regarding the height requirements of speed limit and Fines
Double signs I called the agency that wrote
and publishes the actual book on the subject (MUTCD),
the Federal Highway Administration , their FHWA office in Lakewood Colorado, and
shared with them the same information, i.e. the photos, and the
descriptions of the regulations.
In the opinion of a FHWA staff member, it is not
myself that is wrong, but indeed, the City and County of Denver-
including Traffic Engineering, and anyone else who claims there is
no minimum height requirement for these signs.
I was told that the portable sign stands are NOT excepted from this
regulation, as I've tried to point out to the city, and that the
city is not appear to be in compliance- habitually so.
By virtue of
Denver Municipal code, no traffic ticket given at ANY location where
signs are not in compliance with MUTCD are valid.
I will be speaking further with officers at the Federal Highway
Administration on August 21- and was told that this project at 56th
and Quebec is receiving Federal Funds that are monitored by this
department, and they are very interested in seeing that this
situation is corrected.
