Q&A – What the FDOT Does & Doesn’t Allow on Florida’s Roads
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station page in the iHeart app.
Today’s entry: Brian, maybe I’m a simpleton when it comes to pride displays on roads but what is the actual legal argument here with cities fighting to maintain pride displays on roads? Is it that traffic laws apply unless you want to make a political statement on a road (I’m kidding)? What does Florida law actually say about this stuff? Thanks.
Bottom Line: You bet. The battle continues this week over the FDOT’s ordered removal of ‘pride’ themed streets in Delray Beach, Key West and Miami Beach among others, with Friday set to be a key day as an administrative hearing in Orlando will take place. As the state has consistently said, the street displays are in violation of state law. But as for what state law it starts with this:
- The Department of Transportation shall adopt a uniform system of traffic control devices for use on the streets and highways of the state. The uniform system shall, insofar as is practicable, conform to the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials and shall be revised from time to time to include changes necessary to conform to a uniform national system or to meet local and state needs.
So that’s the key. Florida’s base standards are the federal standards as are adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials. Those standards are known as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. It’s a manual that’s been in place by the Federal Highway Administration since 1971. As is stated in the overview of the manual:
- The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), by setting minimum standards and providing guidance, ensures uniformity of traffic control devices across the nation. The use of uniform TCDs (messages, locations, sizes, shapes, and colors) helps reduce crashes and congestion, and improves the efficiency of the surface transportation system. Uniformity also helps reduce the cost of TCDs through standardization. The information contained in the MUTCD is the result of years of practical experience, research, and/or the MUTCD experimentation process. This effort ensures that TCDs are visible, recognizable, understandable, and necessary. The MUTCD is a dynamic document that changes with time to address contemporary safety and operational issues.
As for what the directive is pertaining to public roads: all traffic control devices, including pavement markings, must emphasize safety and traffic control. The manual then lays out specific colors that may be used for specific road markings. Clearly ‘pride’ displays aren’t there to emphasize safety and traffic control, in fact they’re in place of the prescribed markings for safety and traffic control and the colors used are in violation of traffic code as well. So, there’s a clear violation of the established standard with these displays. But that’s not actually the only violation of state law.
In this year’s legislative session, the state passed a revised transportation law that explicitly states: The Department of Transportation may, upon receipt and investigation of reported noncompliance and after hearing pursuant to 14 days’ notice, direct the removal of any purported traffic control device that fails to meet the requirements of this section, wherever the device is located and without regard to assigned responsibility under s. 316.1895. The public agency erecting or installing the same shall immediately bring it into compliance with the requirements of this section or remove said device or signal upon the direction of the Department of Transportation and may not, for a period of 5 years, install any replacement or new traffic control devices paid for in part or in full with revenues raised by the state unless written prior approval is received from the Department of Transportation. Any additional violation by a public body or official shall be cause for the withholding of state funds deposited in the State Transportation Trust Fund for traffic control purposes until such public body or official demonstrates to the Department of Transportation that it is complying with this section.
What’s more is that earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation ordered the removal of all road displays under a directive of the Safe Roads initiative within all 50 states. Providing additional context to the directive Secretary Sean Duffy said: Taxpayers expect their dollars to fund safe streets, not rainbow crosswalks.
So that’s what the law says about this stuff. Based upon existing federal law, state law adopted under national standards in place for 54 years, and a new national directive for the standards to be enforced throughout the country – it's quite clear that communities that continue with pride and like displays on public streets and roads are in violation. It would be hard to imagine that a judge would rule that established street safety shouldn’t be the top priority for marks on a street. Although it’s quite remarkable that cities would argue virtue signaling with street displays is more important than established public safety as well, and yet here we are.