Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[myosh_tino]

Just noticed California has adopted the 2012 California MUTCD which incorporates the 2009 national MUTCD.  I briefly skimmed through the new MUTCD to see what California changed.  Here are my brief observations...

Section 2E:
* Arrow-per-lane diagrammatic signs were left pretty much intact.  I'm still doubtful these types of signs will be used anytime soon because the old stipple-arrow diagrammatic signs were left in the old MUTCD but were never erected in California.

* Left exit signing also remains intact including the requirement of a LEFT panel within the exit number tab however the California MUTCD still refers to the current G-series exit tabs with do not allow for the addition of a LEFT panel.

Section 1A:
* ALL mentions of "private roads open for public travel" have been crossed out.

* California MUTCD shall not supersede current Standard Plans or Specifications and if there's a discrepancy, then the Standard Plans/Specifications will prevail.  If the Standard Plans/Specs are changed, then all MUTCD requirements must be met.  I find this particularly fascinating.  This must be one of California's "outs" for implementing some of the new requirements from the 2009 MUTCD.

* Section 1A-13... the statement that caused some furor from the other state DOTs regarding the definition of a Standard statement (can't be modified due to engineering judgement/study) has been crossed out by Caltrans.  This is another one of California's "outs".

Section 3B:
* Yellow school crosswalks still must be used in California due to CVC (California Vehicle Code) requirement.

The 2012 California MUTCD was given the green light by the FHWA (substantial conformance) on January 12th and has been adopted by the state of California on January 13th.

Will this mean guide signing practices in California are going to change?  In my opinion, probably not.

[J N Winkler]

* Arrow-per-lane diagrammatic signs were left pretty much intact.  I'm still doubtful these types of signs will be used anytime soon because the old stipple-arrow diagrammatic signs were left in the old MUTCD but were never erected in California.

Actually, there were isolated examples of stippled-arrow diagrammatics in California--including one on I-215 around the SR 91 exit which was removed during the major I-215/SR 60/SR 91 rebuild several years ago.

I actually think arrow-per-lane diagrammatics will be used because they are already more firmly established in California.  The Sacramento area has several.  The real test will be whether California uses them in all the contexts FHWA prescribes.  My guess on this one is probably No.

[Steve]

Just noticed California has adopted the 2012 California MUTCD which incorporates the 2009 national MUTCD.  I briefly skimmed through the new MUTCD to see what California changed.  Here are my brief observations...

Section 1A:

* California MUTCD shall not supersede current Standard Plans or Specifications and if there's a discrepancy, then the Standard Plans/Specifications will prevail.  If the Standard Plans/Specs are changed, then all MUTCD requirements must be met.  I find this particularly fascinating.  This must be one of California's "outs" for implementing some of the new requirements from the 2009 MUTCD.

* Section 1A-13... the statement that caused some furor from the other state DOTs regarding the definition of a Standard statement (can't be modified due to engineering judgement/study) has been crossed out by Caltrans.  This is another one of California's "outs".

Is the first one a legal requirement regarding the MUTCD? It seems to be worded as such. I would think the Standards were supposed to be updated at the same time as the Supplement. The second one isn't an "out;" the FHWA specifically said that agencies could revert to the old language.

[myosh_tino]

Is the first one a legal requirement regarding the MUTCD? It seems to be worded as such. I would think the Standards were supposed to be updated at the same time as the Supplement.

Here's the actual text from the California 2012 MUTCD...

On State highways, the California MUTCD shall not supersede the Department’s Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications but all Standard statements of the California MUTCD shall be met. On State highways, whenever there is a discrepancy between the specifications and requirements contained in the California MUTCD, and those contained in the Department’s Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications, the Department’s Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications shall govern.

Nothing contained in the California MUTCD shall prevent the Department of Transportation from modifying, changing or adopting new specifications as necessary. Any revisions to the Department’s Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions shall conform to the Standard statements of the California MUTCD.

This appears in Sections 1A.07 (Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices) and 1A.08 (Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices) as part of the Standard statement and note the italicized section stating that any revisions must conform to the current MUTCD but there's nothing about requiring revisions due to the release of the new MUTCD.

This language differs from what was included in the 2010 California MUTCD...

This California MUTCD (including the incorporated FHWA’s MUTCD) does not supersede the Department’s Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications. Nothing contained in the California MUTCD shall prevent the Department of Transportation from modifying, changing or adopting new specifications as necessary.

Note: 2010 California MUTCD is based on the 2003 FHWA MUTCD.

[Steve]

I guess it's a step forward, then. It's like the rule that if you do much more than repave an Interstate highway, you have to bring it up to modern standards.