The latest MUTCD and states following it to a "T"

[Mergingtraffic]

Why does it seem most states are following the new/latest MUTCDto the "T"? It seems in years past most states still did their regional signing practices etc.

Now it seems there's a rush to replace old signs that have been ignored in previous manuals and seemed ok. Or even a state's querky signing practices.

[Pink Jazz]

I know in 2012 Arizona did a massive sign replacement on I-40 between Flagstaff and the New Mexico border, replacing all the button copy signs with new retroreflective signs in Clearview.

While most states are following it, not all cities are.  Some cities here in the Phoenix area continue to install all-caps street name signs.  The City of Mesa installed ruby-red colored street name signs in the Fiesta District in 2010, despite the 2009 MUTCD stating that street name signs shall only have green, blue, brown, or white backgrounds (with white text on a green, blue, or brown background and black text on a white background).

[roadfro]

Why does it seem most states are following the new/latest MUTCDto the "T"? It seems in years past most states still did their regional signing practices etc.

Because they're supposed to 

In reality, each state is supposed to either adopt the national MUTCD, or create their own state MUTCD (or state supplement to the national version) that is in substantial conformance with the national version. I think the FHWA has reigned in a little bit on the state versions since the 2009 manual.

I would guess also that as the MUTCD has evolved, that it has adopted new signage and regulations to cover more practices that used to be somewhat unique to a state/region. A state has less reason to maintain unique signs and standard details if there is a national standard that covers the situation just as easily.

Now it seems there's a rush to replace old signs that have been ignored in previous manuals and seemed ok. Or even a state's querky signing practices.

It might not be so much a rush to replace old signs that are now non-compliant. It is likely that old signs are nearing end of service life and need replacing anyway (so the replacement signs are installed to meet current regulations).

For some older sign types, there are (were?) provisions in the 2009 MUTCD that mandated removal of certain non-compliant traffic control devices by a certain date. Some states/municipalities have been more responsive to these provisions than others. There could also be a reason at the state level--such as the DOT or state law no longer allows a certain type of sign to be posted.

Some cities here in the Phoenix area continue to install all-caps street name signs.  The City of Mesa installed ruby-red colored street name signs in the Fiesta District in 2010, despite the 2009 MUTCD stating that street name signs shall only have green, blue, brown, or white backgrounds (with white text on a green, blue, or brown background and black text on a white background).

Well, each state had about two years to adopt the 2009 MUTCD or a state version/supplement, as measured from the effective date of that manual. This put compliance date with national version (or adoption of state version) at January 2012. Doesn't explain still installing all-caps street name signs though.

[AMLNet49]

It seems that recently, the feds have been bullying the northeast specifically into changing to full MUTCD standards. Massachusetts started doing it in like 2005 (before the current MUTCD came out) and apparently did it of their own accord. However, Rhode Island was bullied into it right when the new MUTCD came out. Connecticut tried to slide by and hold out for a while by moving the exit tabs to the sides but finally they were pressured into changing as well. The NJTP flat out said no but now they've been forced to change. The only state left in the northeast still putting up traditionally unique signs is New York, and that's only because they don't deviate from the MUTCD all that much other than the obvious difference of sign material.

[vdeane]

The shifts in NY are visible too.  New signs use the MUTCD exit tab instead of the NY rounded corner one and new tenth mile markers in R1 are the official MUTCD version instead of the traditional green and white.  The enhanced reference location markers are also appearing all over the place, and arrow per lane signs are appearing as well.

[AMLNet49]

Yeah I notice the new tabs, but I take consolation in the fact that at least the sheeting they use is more unique than the tabs were, and at least they haven't ditched that. If the feds made them switch to normal sheeting I would be quite mad, as that would represent the completing of the dismantling of the northeast's unique signs by the FHWA.

[cl94]

I've been seeing a lot of MUTCD-standard speed limit signs for 55 lately in New York. Don't know if it's just R5, but there's a lack of "state" in every new sign that goes up.

As previously stated, New York's variations have historically been minor and, other than enhanced location markers, mixed-case name blades and APLs, little has changed.

[route17fan]

When is the next MUTCD due to be released?

[seicer]

The shifts in NY are visible too.  New signs use the MUTCD exit tab instead of the NY rounded corner one and new tenth mile markers in R1 are the official MUTCD version instead of the traditional green and white.  The enhanced reference location markers are also appearing all over the place, and arrow per lane signs are appearing as well.

The original guide signs had right-aligned exit tabs, so I wonder when and why the shift towards an off set occurred? I have seen just a few of the new right-aligned tabs but I thought those were just one-off errors.

What does an enhanced reference marker look like? I wish that the state had traditional mile markers instead of tiny green signs that I'm not sure what to make of. (And perhaps it's because of my ignorance of those, but they are not easy to interpret by the layman.)

[Revive 755]

When is the next MUTCD due to be released?

Rumors have it after 2020.

[J N Winkler]

The original guide signs had right-aligned exit tabs, so I wonder when and why the shift towards an off set occurred? I have seen just a few of the new right-aligned tabs but I thought those were just one-off errors.

Isn't this something that varies from region to region?  I just went through a stack of NYSDOT sign face layout sheets (252 new sheets added to the 8,628 already in the NYSDOT tarball) and there were plenty of offset tabs.

What does an enhanced reference marker look like?

Enhanced location reference marker is the formal term for a marker that has route shield, cardinal direction, and mileage down to tenths.

I wish that the state had traditional mile markers instead of tiny green signs that I'm not sure what to make of. (And perhaps it's because of my ignorance of those, but they are not easy to interpret by the layman.)

Those "tiny green signs" are reference markers and there are decoding rings in multiple places on the Web.  As a severely occasional visitor to New York (multiple visits 1996-1998, then none at all until 2017), I can see (without looking anything up) that the top line is a "book" number for the route while the rest is milepointing information that takes account of the county, but the underlying point is that, just as with Texas' reference marker system and Pennsylvania's white-background SR markers, state residents have more opportunity and incentive to learn the system than casual visitors.

[ilpt4u]

So is the elimination of States as Controls going to be strongly encouraged?

IL, especially Northern IL, has embraced Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa as controls for I-80, I-88, I-90, I-94, and I-294.

MO uses Illinois in STL approaching the Poplar St (Approaching on I-44, and carrying I-55 and I-64) and Stan Musial (I-70) Bridges

There are other State-based Controls out there, but these are ones I am most familiar with

I-80 and I-88 West in IL can be the Quad Cities or Des Moines. Or if ISTHA and IDOT want to be snarky, they could use Kansas City for I-88 West, with that whole CKC thing...
I-90 West can be Rockford and Madison
I-94 West can be Milwaukee
I-294 North can be O'Hare Airport (if that is allowed) and then Milwaukee

For I-80, I-90, and I-94 East and I-294 South, Indiana works really well, because once one reaches NW Indiana, there are enough Control City Options depending on where you are going...But if you had to go Cities...

I-80 and I-90 East: South Bend or Toledo
I-94 East: Detroit
I-294 South: O'Hare Airport (if allowed), then Detroit (Picking Detroit for I-294, since Detroit would be Parent I-94's Control)

But I really don't like that, since Indy isn't a Control anywhere, and plenty of traffic on all those interstates entering Indiana is headed for I-65 and Indy

And I really don't see IDOT and ISTHA being in a big hurry to change those Controls

As far as the Interstates crossing the Mississippi into IL from STL...
I-64 East and I-55 North/Poplar St Bridge: Louisville and Chicago
I-70 East/Stan Musial Bridge: Indy

But again, Illinois works really well, because about a mile or two after entering IL, there is the Junction of I-55, I-64, and I-70, where your choice for what Interstate and Control makes more sense

So if the MUTCD doesn't like State-based Controls, does it give guidance on Area-based Controls? Looking at "*Directional* Suburbs"  on the Chicago Expressways and Tollways, such as South, Southwest, West, Northwest, North Suburbs, which appear on at least I-88, I-290, and I-355. Those are worse than State-based Controls, IMHO

[vdeane]

The original guide signs had right-aligned exit tabs, so I wonder when and why the shift towards an off set occurred? I have seen just a few of the new right-aligned tabs but I thought those were just one-off errors.

They are, mostly.  A few signs have them, and of course the Thruway manages to not care.  I was referring to the shape, not the placement.  We've had quite a few:
-Classic
-Rounded corner era
-Modern
-Thruway Classic
-Thruway Clearview
-Thruway Modern

[DaBigE]

Why does it seem most states are following the new/latest MUTCDto the "T"? It seems in years past most states still did their regional signing practices etc.

Now it seems there's a rush to replace old signs that have been ignored in previous manuals and seemed ok. Or even a state's querky signing practices.

Because it allows states to be lazier. Less red tape to have to deal with. Easier legal challenges. It's much easier to have to reference one national spec than to have to explain regional adjustments/how the regional engineer felt that day.

[J N Winkler]

Because it allows states to be lazier. Less red tape to have to deal with. Easier legal challenges. It's much easier to have to reference one national spec than to have to explain regional adjustments/how the regional engineer felt that day.

The trend in recent years seems to have been to try to accommodate more state-specific applications (notably in the 2009 MUTCD) while enforcing the MUTCD more stringently.  We have seen this with exit numbering in California (no longer allowed not to have exit numbers on Interstates), conversion from sequential to mileage-based exit numbering (several Northeastern states), MUTCD conversion on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, etc.  But, at the same time, there are MUTCD provisions which appear to be receiving no enforcement attention, such as the requirement to implement distance-based exit numbering on freeways other than Interstates.

I have wondered if staff resource is a factor.  Prior to the millennium edition of the MUTCD, there were a number of small own-manual states like Alabama, Indiana, and South Carolina as well as really large ones like New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, and California.  In the almost 20 years since, all of the small and most of the large own-manual states have become either supplementers or direct adopters.  Moreover, the format of the ruling manual in the remaining own-manual states has changed from content grouping specific to each state to what amounts to an interspersed supplement, with state-specific provisions interleaved with text abstracted directly from the federal manual.  (California briefly attempted to maintain a separate MUTCD supplement and so was the largest supplementer state, but found this approach cumbersome and returned to being an own-manual state with an interspersed supplement.)

There is also a distinction between MUTCD as adopted by the state (directly, with a supplement, or substantively through the state's own manual) and a lower level of implementation guidance, which is often obscured from the public.  In Kansas, for example, KDOT has a Highway Signing Manual which establishes the distinctive look of KDOT signing, which departs significantly from vanilla MUTCD on conventional-road state highways notwithstanding KDOT being a MUTCD direct adopter.  This KDOT manual is nowhere online.  Similarly, in Missouri MoDOT has a SHS supplement that is not online and can be obtained only through an open records request (cost of about $90 since it has over 300 pages and the standard fee for supplied documents is 25c/page).  And Illinois DOT's Chicago district has a district-specific signing and marking manual that used not to be online, but now is.

[Scott5114]

In Kansas, for example, KDOT has a Highway Signing Manual which establishes the distinctive look of KDOT signing, which departs significantly from vanilla MUTCD on conventional-road state highways notwithstanding KDOT being a MUTCD direct adopter.  This KDOT manual is nowhere online.

I have always suspected such a thing exists (owing to KDOT's fastidiousness about certain "house style" practices that are in compliance with, but not part of, the MUTCD, such as following a street name with a line break and then spelling out the suffix). Is it only available in hard copy, or...?

[hbelkins]

I've noticed that Kentucky is dividing destinations with white lines, and sometimes mileage signs as well. Is this new in the MUTCD?

[J N Winkler]

I've noticed that Kentucky is dividing destinations with white lines, and sometimes mileage signs as well. Is this new in the MUTCD?

It is not.  There was a 1962 paper by the UCLA psychology professor Slade Hurlburt, one of the big names in midcentury human factors research, that found it was beneficial for driver comprehension of destination-and-direction signs.  I believe it resulted in California implementing "underlining" (use of ruled horizontal lines to group destinations according to direction) for such signs.  However, the typicals for destination-and-direction signs in Standard Highway Signs have never used grouping of this kind, and I think the MUTCD is silent about it except possibly as a mentioned option in Chapter 2D (the conventional-road guide signing chapter).  California also does not use underlining on mileage signs.

There is a cost to underlining since it increases sign panel area if space padding requirements are not compromised.  As an example, the MUTCD default is 6 in legend with 6 in padding horizontally and vertically.  Since padding is provided between legend and the nearest other design element such as a border or ruled line, a ruled line between two elements of legend effectively doubles the spacing between those lines of text--from 6 in to 12 in since the width of the ruled line itself (1 in) is ignored in laying out the sign.

Underlining as studied by Hurlburt is a system for grouping destinations on a single panel and so is not equivalent to "strip-style" signing as formerly used in, e.g., Utah, where every destination appears on its own strip with the appropriate directional information (mileage or arrow) and minimal vertical space padding, and complete sign assemblies are made by stacking strips on a set of posts.  (AFAIK, Utah DOT has not installed any new strip-style signs in over a decade.  The D-series signs I see in UDOT plans and proposals are now pretty close to vanilla MUTCD.)

[seicer]

It makes sense to add separations where there could be confusion. There was one sign assembly that I could not comprehend at 70 MPH without having to re-scan it - the two towns listed on the sign had no separation - line or not, so it read like one. On another assembly, there was one town on two lines using the same amount of spacing.

[J N Winkler]

I think the MUTCD is silent on underlining partly because there is so much spread in how conventional-road guide signs are designed in the US.  On the one hand you have California, with underlining and mixed-case 8 in UC/6 in LC Series E Modified, and on the other you have small states with low speed limits like Vermont, where there is seemingly an effort to use 6 in UC/4.5 in LC Series B by default and smaller whenever possible.

[roadman65]

Does the latest MUTCD rule out using "Canada" as a control city like in NY and MI do on their roads leaving the country?

[J N Winkler]

Does the latest MUTCD rule out using "Canada" as a control city like in NY and MI do on their roads leaving the country?

I don't think the MUTCD envisages (or in the past has envisaged) use of control points that are not in fact cities of one kind or another, but I see little evidence this is actively enforced:  "Delaware Water Gap," "Wisconsin," "Indiana," "Northwest Suburbs," "Canada," "Interstate 80," etc.

[hotdogPi]

Does the latest MUTCD rule out using "Canada" as a control city like in NY and MI do on their roads leaving the country?

I don't think the MUTCD envisages (or in the past has envisaged) use of control points that are not in fact cities of one kind or another, but I see little evidence this is actively enforced:  "Delaware Water Gap," "Wisconsin," "Indiana," "Northwest Suburbs," "Canada," "Interstate 80," etc.

Delaware Water Gap is a community, so that one is technically allowed.

However, you forgot:

Thru Traffic
other Desert Cities

[kphoger]

Does the latest MUTCD rule out using "Canada" as a control city like in NY and MI do on their roads leaving the country?

I don't think the MUTCD envisages (or in the past has envisaged) use of control points that are not in fact cities of one kind or another, but I see little evidence this is actively enforced:  "Delaware Water Gap," "Wisconsin," "Indiana," "Northwest Suburbs," "Canada," "Interstate 80," etc.

Delaware Water Gap is a community, so that one is technically allowed.

Yep.  If you exclude Delaware Water Gap, then you must also exclude State College.  Both are boroughs.

[myosh_tino]

On the one hand you have California, with underlining and mixed-case 8 in UC/6 in LC Series E Modified

Underlining?  AFAIK, California does not underline anything on guide signs.