States that ignore MUTCD and go beyond

[roadman65]

NJ Turnpike paints lane striping with longer than MUTD maximum.

AK,CA, DE, GA ( some areas), IL,NJ,NY ( NYC) all have a second left turn signal head mounted on single lane left turns even though MUTCD requires only one.

There are more states as I have still not transited many in years or not at all. Feel free to add.

Please feel free also to list other situations where the road agencies go beyond the specs.

[roadfro]

NJ Turnpike paints lane striping with longer than MUTD maximum.

MUTCD does not have a standard for 'broken line' (typical lane line) lengths. It is just a guidance statement (3A.06p04): "Broken lines should consist of 10-foot line segments and 30-foot gaps, or dimensions in a similar ratio of line segments to gaps as appropriate for traffic speeds and need for delineation."  However, I think most agencies use lengths as listed in this guidance.

AK,CA, DE, GA ( some areas), IL,NJ,NY ( NYC) all have a second left turn signal head mounted on single lane left turns even though MUTCD requires only one.

Add Nevada to that list.

But also that's not ignoring MUTCD. And in reality, MUTCD doesn't have a specific requirement for number of signal heads for a turning movement when there's only one turn lane (although if there's not a through movement, then the dominant movement does require two signal heads). There is guidance that if there are two turning lanes, then two primary signal faces should be used, but there aren't any other standards that apply to number of signal heads for turning movements.

Exceeding the minimums, especially when the minimum is "one", is good for redundancy purposes. It's still baffling to me that agencies will use a single signal head for some movements...but that's me living in Nevada where redundant far side mounts are used at over 95% of installations.

[Big John]

NJ Turnpike paints lane striping with longer than MUTD maximum.

MUTCD does not have a standard for 'broken line' (typical lane line) lengths. It is just a guidance statement (3A.06p04): "Broken lines should consist of 10-foot line segments and 30-foot gaps, or dimensions in a similar ratio of line segments to gaps as appropriate for traffic speeds and need for delineation."  However, I think most agencies use lengths as listed in this guidance.

Wiscon keeps the porportion, but uses 12.5' line and 37.5' gap.

[jeffandnicole]

These aren't ignoring the MUTCD.  It's providing more than the minimum requirements. 

I would think every state has examples where they go above the minimum.

[Hobart]

Alaska maintains a completely different set of recommendations about overhead signal head positioning and numbers than in the national MUTCD; it usually calls for one less thru signal on the mast arm than the national MUTCD would reccomend, and requires one be mounted to the far right side so you can see it around trucks.

Although it calls for less overhead signals than the MUTCD, it is pretty slick and arguably better than putting everything overhead. The far right signal is good for seeing around tall vehicles in front of you.

[ran4sh]

AK,CA, DE, GA ( some areas), IL,NJ,NY ( NYC) all have a second left turn signal head mounted on single lane left turns even though MUTCD requires only one.

That's more of an old standard for GA to use 2 signal heads for protected-only left turns from a single lane. The current standard is to use just 1, but it has 2 red lights in it.

[regarding side signals being necessary to see around trucks]

I've never understood that argument. It's safer to not be so close to a truck, so if a truck were in front I would leave enough space to be able to see an overhead signal.

Overhead-only signal mounting, as is found in GA, is perfectly fine.

[kphoger]

[regarding side signals being necessary to see around trucks]

I've never understood that argument. It's safer to not be so close to a truck, so if a truck were in front I would leave enough space to be able to see an overhead signal.

Overhead-only signal mounting, as is found in GA, is perfectly fine.

I disagree.  How many car-lengths are you prepared to leave between you and the truck?  So many that the in-pavement sensor thinks there's no more traffic coming and the light goes red?

An example (three blocks from my house) of why I think all intersections should have post-mounted signals in addition to whatever overhead signals there are:


Is the light red or green?  Who knows!  Imagine sitting in a line of vehicles at a red light, and you're twelfth in line.  With that many cars having made it through a green light, there's a really good chance it'll turn red before you get there.  You might be able to see the red just before getting to the intersection (as the truck clears your line of vision), but the driver of the pickup in front of you won't see it until he's already made it to the stop line.

[Scott5114]

I never really understood the value of the post-mounted signals until I drove around Las Vegas, which goes what I would consider hilariously overboard with them. They are really nice to have.

[Dirt Roads]

[regarding side signals being necessary to see around trucks]

I've never understood that argument. It's safer to not be so close to a truck, so if a truck were in front I would leave enough space to be able to see an overhead signal.

That reminds me of a professional warning found on the back of a semi-trailer seen today on I-85/I-40 in North Carolina:  "Blinky thing means I'm changing lanes".

[JoePCool14]

NJ Turnpike paints lane striping with longer than MUTD maximum.

The Illinois Tollway and the Indiana Toll Road also use longer white paint stripes on their highways.

[epzik8]

NJ Turnpike paints lane striping with longer than MUTD maximum.

This is typical of a lot of turnpikes in the country. It's also the case on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

[paulthemapguy]

22 states, DC, and Puerto Rico have a supplement to the MUTCD that institutes additional standards that revise or go beyond standards that are suggested or mandated by the base document.  Here's Illinois's supplement, for example:

https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-&-Handbooks/Highways/Operations/Illinois%20Supplement%20to%20MUTCD.pdf

10 other states have their own separate state MUTCD that's based on the original document, but again, institute additional standards that supplant or go beyond original standards.  Only the remaining 18 states use the national MUTCD without supplementation (shown in red here): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/index.htm

[jeffandnicole]

Alaska maintains a completely different set of recommendations about overhead signal head positioning and numbers than in the national MUTCD; it usually calls for one less thru signal on the mast arm than the national MUTCD would reccomend, and requires one be mounted to the far right side so you can see it around trucks.

Although it calls for less overhead signals than the MUTCD, it is pretty slick and arguably better than putting everything overhead. The far right signal is good for seeing around tall vehicles in front of you.

I don't get this reasoning.  If you're behind a truck, the driver on the left side of the car somehow will have to look thru the truck to see the far right signal. 

If seeing around trucks was the proper reasoning, then having a signal on a left post (either far or near) would be more beneficial.

NJ, which may use more post-mounted signals than any other state, almost always has a signal head on the near side, either overhead over the opposing lanes and/or mounted on at least one post.  Each intersection is uniquely studied for the best location(s); there's no one preferred option where signal heads will always be located.

[jakeroot]

Alaska maintains a completely different set of recommendations about overhead signal head positioning and numbers than in the national MUTCD; it usually calls for one less thru signal on the mast arm than the national MUTCD would reccomend, and requires one be mounted to the far right side so you can see it around trucks.

Although it calls for less overhead signals than the MUTCD, it is pretty slick and arguably better than putting everything overhead. The far right signal is good for seeing around tall vehicles in front of you.

I don't get this reasoning.  If you're behind a truck, the driver on the left side of the car somehow will have to look thru the truck to see the far right signal. 

If seeing around trucks was the proper reasoning, then having a signal on a left post (either far or near) would be more beneficial.

If you're inches off the truck in front of you, maybe seeing the far right corner of the intersection isn't possible. But if you're maybe a car-length back, or more, should be able to see the far right corner pretty easily from the driver's seat.

Still, perhaps related to your concern, British Columbia does require far left corner signals; far right corner signals are supplemental. Typical small intersections will have one signal overhead and one on the far left corner. I will admit, I find them more helpful than supplemental far right corner signals, but it's sort of a moot point as we move away from shared left turn signals and towards dedicated left turn signals.

NJ, which may use more post-mounted signals than any other state, almost always has a signal head on the near side, either overhead over the opposing lanes and/or mounted on at least one post.  Each intersection is uniquely studied for the best location(s); there's no one preferred option where signal heads will always be located.

NJ definitely uses a lot of supplemental signals, but I think they have about as many overhead supplemental signals as they do post-mounted supplemental signals. In terms of raw number of post-mounted signals, I would nominate California, where the standard four-way intersection has at least twelve post-mounted signals (one near-side, one far right, one far left, repeat for other three approaches). Wisconsin may either tie, come second to, or beat California's number depending on the age, location, and design of the intersection.

[jakeroot]

But also that's not ignoring MUTCD. And in reality, MUTCD doesn't have a specific requirement for number of signal heads for a turning movement when there's only one turn lane (although if there's not a through movement, then the dominant movement does require two signal heads). There is guidance that if there are two turning lanes, then two primary signal faces should be used, but there aren't any other standards that apply to number of signal heads for turning movements.

This may be a slightly different situation, but I believe the MUTCD recommends having a second supplemental left turn signal when that left turn is heavily used by trucks. Though, this could also be a WA-specific addition to the MUTCD.

[Henry]

GA, IL, UT and WA include exit numbers on the sign instead of a separate panel. However, most of the newer exit signs do follow the MUTCD convention of having the numbers on separate panels, with an example coming from westbound I-90/I-94 at the just-redone Jane Byrne Interchange.

[ran4sh]

GA, IL, UT and WA include exit numbers on the sign instead of a separate panel. However, most of the newer exit signs do follow the MUTCD convention of having the numbers on separate panels, with an example coming from westbound I-90/I-94 at the just-redone Jane Byrne Interchange.

Considering that your example sign is an APL, it should be noted that GA switched to MUTCD-style exit panels before APLs were used in the state, so all APL signs in GA use MUTCD exit panels and not the full-width style.

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/53070265419
Is having a DO NOT ENTER and WRONG together MUTCD compliant?


I always thought one was to be used at top of the ramp while the other at the ramp.

[roadfro]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/53070265419
Is having a DO NOT ENTER and WRONG together MUTCD compliant?

I always thought one was to be used at top of the ramp while the other at the ramp.

I don't think this is national MUTCD compliant–that typical signing practice usually has "wrong way" signs further up the ramp and "do not enter" at the ramp terminal. But what is pictured here is a common practice in California, and may be in the CA-MUTCD.

[machias]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/53070265419
Is having a DO NOT ENTER and WRONG together MUTCD compliant?


I always thought one was to be used at top of the ramp while the other at the ramp.

NYSDOT did both on one assembly, followed by WRONG WAY / GO BACK down the ramp back in '70s but they switched to the two separate installation in the '80s.

Here in Arizona ADOT does both on one assembly at the top of the ramp and WRONG WAY again further down and it looks "right"  and makes sense to me. This should be the standard.

[US 89]

GA, IL, UT and WA include exit numbers on the sign instead of a separate panel. However, most of the newer exit signs do follow the MUTCD convention of having the numbers on separate panels, with an example coming from westbound I-90/I-94 at the just-redone Jane Byrne Interchange.

There are some older signs sticking around in Utah with the number in the sign, but standard exit tabs have been used for about the past 15 years.

[Scott5114]

The current westbound signage sequence for the I-70/Kansas Turnpike split on the east side of Topeka is really nice–it alternates traditional diagrammatics and APLs, so you get both the benefits of a diagrammatic (clarifying the general layout of the junction and what road goes where) and the APL (clarifying lane assignment). I would like to see more states doing this, although I know most of them are not quite as eager to put up signs that have the square footage of a house as Kansas is.

[wanderer2575]

The current westbound signage sequence for the I-70/Kansas Turnpike split on the east side of Topeka is really nice–it alternates traditional diagrammatics and APLs, so you get both the benefits of a diagrammatic (clarifying the general layout of the junction and what road goes where) and the APL (clarifying lane assignment). I would like to see more states doing this, although I know most of them are not quite as eager to put up signs that have the square footage of a house as Kansas is.

I too like how this looks, although not sure I'm sold on the need to clarify the general layout.  What makes it work is that the diagrammatics are positioned before the APLs.  A diagrammatic following an APL would be confusing.

[mrsman]

The current westbound signage sequence for the I-70/Kansas Turnpike split on the east side of Topeka is really nice–it alternates traditional diagrammatics and APLs, so you get both the benefits of a diagrammatic (clarifying the general layout of the junction and what road goes where) and the APL (clarifying lane assignment). I would like to see more states doing this, although I know most of them are not quite as eager to put up signs that have the square footage of a house as Kansas is.

I too like how this looks, although not sure I'm sold on the need to clarify the general layout.  What makes it work is that the diagrammatics are positioned before the APLs.  A diagrammatic following an APL would be confusing.

Absolutely.  The diagrammatic is great for general layout but is terrible for keeping track of the lanes.  How many of us count the lanes on a diagrammatic, it's basically impossible at highway speeds.  The APL is far better for delineating which lane goes where.

Now part of the problem is that many interchanges that are more complicated than a split, it is still hard to delineate precisely which lane goes where within the spaces of a sign.  Think of the following scenario:

Left two lanes stay on highway 1
Next lane allows traffic on highway 1 or highway 2 north
Next lane allows traffic on highway 2 north or highway 2 south.

Now with the regular APL this can be confusing as you'll see the straight and right arrows in two places.  There are certain variants like done in MN that put in little lines that help distinguish, but again, it is a little tricky.  It seems that while the APL is very good for the one highway splitting into two situation, it does lack something in the more complicated interchanges where multiple highways come together.

[roadman65]

Here I think we can make an exception.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vQoK6xqHUtxCo4Ay8
Both roads do head to New York and is the only destination that could fulfill the requirement of a said control city.

The MUTCD does not suggest two roads to use the same place.