New MUTCD announced

[Rothman]

And to think they started as a bookstore...

[jeffandnicole]

What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

I guess I never thought about it like that. I just assumed that the DOT's at all levels of government would use it for guidance. Most badly substandard signage I've seen has been in parking lots and the like so I just chalked it up to it being manufactured/installed by a private company. But yes, add this to the list of reasons this one is not going away.

Guidance being the key word there. 

Can the feds hold money back for incorrect use of signage?  Yes.  Will they?  In all but very extreme circumstances, no. 

NY State is probably one of the few examples where they withheld federal monies due to their "I Love NY" signage. Even that was after numerous attempts to get NY to correct the signage, and they provided the money back after NY and the fed agreed on what "Compliance" would involve.  The amount withheld was just 1% of their federal funding.

[Rothman]

What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

I guess I never thought about it like that. I just assumed that the DOT's at all levels of government would use it for guidance. Most badly substandard signage I've seen has been in parking lots and the like so I just chalked it up to it being manufactured/installed by a private company. But yes, add this to the list of reasons this one is not going away.

Guidance being the key word there. 

Can the feds hold money back for incorrect use of signage?  Yes.  Will they?  In all but very extreme circumstances, no. 

NY State is probably one of the few examples where they withheld federal monies due to their "I Love NY" signage. Even that was after numerous attempts to get NY to correct the signage, and they provided the money back after NY and the fed agreed on what "Compliance" would involve.  The amount withheld was just 1% of their federal funding.

Heh.  Even less than that.

[ran4sh]

Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

FHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

• Parts 1 and 2.
• Part 3.
• Parts 4 to 9.

Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

FHWA used to print them, I think. They stopped at either the 2000 or 2003 edition

[fwydriver405]

Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

FHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

• Parts 1 and 2.
• Part 3.
• Parts 4 to 9.

Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

Additionally, starting with this edition of the MUTCD, only the PDF will be available, no HTML version will be available from this point on forward.

Starting with the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA no longer provides the MUTCD in a companion HTML format.

[CtrlAltDel]

Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

FHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

• Parts 1 and 2.
• Part 3.
• Parts 4 to 9.

Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

Additionally, starting with this edition of the MUTCD, only the PDF will be available, no HTML version will be available from this point on forward.

Starting with the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA no longer provides the MUTCD in a companion HTML format.

The MUTCD appears to be printed by AASHTO.

See this website for more.

This obsolete edition of the MUTCD is provided for those studying for the PE exam. The current edition is available as a PDF from the FHWA website here. Print copies will be available for sale by AASHTO this spring.

[Brandon]

Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

FHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

• Parts 1 and 2.
• Part 3.
• Parts 4 to 9.

Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

My experience with them and books as well.  I'd rather get books from B&N shipped as at least they'll be well packed and make it here without rips and tears.

[mgk920]

What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

A high-ranking judge rules that tickets written for violating that sign are invalid and cannot be enforced (sign is legally 'disarmed')?

Mike

[chrisdiaz]

Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

FHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

• Parts 1 and 2.
• Part 3.
• Parts 4 to 9.

Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

Additionally, starting with this edition of the MUTCD, only the PDF will be available, no HTML version will be available from this point on forward.

Starting with the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA no longer provides the MUTCD in a companion HTML format.

The MUTCD appears to be printed by AASHTO.

See this website for more.

This obsolete edition of the MUTCD is provided for those studying for the PE exam. The current edition is available as a PDF from the FHWA website here. Print copies will be available for sale by AASHTO this spring.

Thank you!!

[jeffandnicole]

What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

A high-ranking judge rules that tickets written for violating that sign are invalid and cannot be enforced (sign is legally 'disarmed')?

Mike

In order for a high-ranking judge to rule that way, the defendant would have to be stopped for failing to yield/stop at the stop sign (statute wording varies among states), request to fight the ticket in court, research to determine if the sign was installed to specifically slow down speeders, use that argument in front of the muni judge, be found guilty, then continue to appeal it numerous times to the state court, then the state supreme court.  The cost of fighting will grow easily into the thousands, if not the tens of thousands of dollars. 

Most people just pay the fine.  If they take it to court, they'll probably get it plea-bargained.  Even if they plan to fight it all the way thru the court system, they'll just decide the reduced fine and no points is a lot easier than the time and expense it'll take to fight it to the state capital.

Locally, they've installed some 4 way stops in neighborhoods that don't really need them, but the town's council or other official will often say "for pedestrian safety", knowing how the guidance works.  Now, if it were me, I would argue that a stop sign was installed, but there still isn't a marked crosswalk, signage regarding pedestrians, and the curbing hasn't been updated for handicap access, making it more likely that 'pedestrian safety' wasn't the motivating factor in installing that stop sign, especially if social media comments or board minutes allude to nearby homeowners wanting stop signs installed to slow down traffic.

[SEWIGuy]

What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

A high-ranking judge rules that tickets written for violating that sign are invalid and cannot be enforced (sign is legally 'disarmed')?

Mike

The remedy to non-compliant signage isn't that the signage itself becomes invalid in the eyes of the law. That is a leap no legitimate, non-quack judge is going to take because it would cause chaos. This is a violation of administrative procedure more than anything. The remedy is the state or feds saying "hey, remove that sign."

But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

My experience with the municipal level, at least in NJ, is that MUTCD requirements for traffic control are pure fantasy. If a municipality really wants a stop sign somewhere, the stop sign is going to get put there. It's not a decision that's made by engineers.

Municipality says "we want a stop sign at X intersection." No matter what, an experienced traffic engineer can/will be able to justify it. If not through the official warrants, then through "engineering judgement." At the end of the day an engineer could potentially find themselves in trouble for removing a stop sign, removing a crosswalk, removing a traffic signal. An engineer can confidently NEVER face any liability for ADDING those things. It doesn't happen.

And as others have already mentioned, taking away federal funding isn't such a scary threat when you don't get any in the first place.

[Revive 755]

But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.

At least in Illinois, Hanover Park (with the 'This Is A Stop Sign' plaque) and Macon County (with the 'Funky Intersection Ahead' sign) have experiences that indicate otherwise with the state DOT.

[Rothman]

My experience with the municipal level, at least in NJ, is that MUTCD requirements for traffic control are pure fantasy. If a municipality really wants a stop sign somewhere, the stop sign is going to get put there. It's not a decision that's made by engineers.

Municipality says "we want a stop sign at X intersection." No matter what, an experienced traffic engineer can/will be able to justify it. If not through the official warrants, then through "engineering judgement." At the end of the day an engineer could potentially find themselves in trouble for removing a stop sign, removing a crosswalk, removing a traffic signal. An engineer can confidently NEVER face any liability for ADDING those things. It doesn't happen.

And as others have already mentioned, taking away federal funding isn't such a scary threat when you don't get any in the first place.

Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

[CtrlAltDel]

Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?

[Rothman]

Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?

That's why I said, "Depends on where the stop sign is."

[SEWIGuy]

But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.

At least in Illinois, Hanover Park (with the 'This Is A Stop Sign' plaque) and Macon County (with the 'Funky Intersection Ahead' sign) have experiences that indicate otherwise with the state DOT.

That's a little different, but I was perhaps casting too wide a net with my statement, but the larger point remains.

[wanderer2575]

But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.

At least in Illinois, Hanover Park (with the 'This Is A Stop Sign' plaque) and Macon County (with the 'Funky Intersection Ahead' sign) have experiences that indicate otherwise with the state DOT.

That's a little different, but I was perhaps casting too wide a net with my statement, but the larger point remains.

Farmington Hills, MI posted "Aggressive Begging Prohibited" signs at the top of the exit ramps from I-696 at Orchard Lake Road.  They remained for several years so MDOT apparently didn't think it was enough of an issue to raise a stink.  But for a 2017 sign replacement project, the plans called for removing those signs.  Maybe other DOTs take that approach.

[CtrlAltDel]

Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?

That's why I said, "Depends on where the stop sign is."

I'm not sure I follow, except that this question rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. In any case, does this mean that they have some leeway on their own roads? And now that I think about it, what about where one of their roads intersects a state road?

[J N Winkler]

What about revenue sharing?  Can FHWA say to a state DOT, "We are yanking Y amount you would otherwise be entitled to because of the failure of municipality X to comply with the MUTCD," and then can the state DOT turn around and tell municipality X, "We're cutting your funding by Y?"

AIUI, part of the state gas tax in Kansas goes to local roads, but I don't know whether any of it is distributed as a block grant.

[Rothman]

Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?

That's why I said, "Depends on where the stop sign is."

I'm not sure I follow, except that this question rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. In any case, does this mean that they have some leeway on their own roads? And now that I think about it, what about where one of their roads intersects a state road?

No, it didn't rub me the wrong way.  And yes, on local streets, locals have jurisdiction.

For local and state road intersections, locals are only responsible up to the state highway boundary.  State usually has jurisdiction over traffic control at such intersections, but agreements can be reached.

Just had this issue at work, as a matter of fact.  Local agreed to update pavement markings leading up to a state road as part of their paving contract...

(personal opinion expressed)

[WhyLifeIs4]

Will The MUTCD ever become a print?

[Rothman]

Will The MUTCD ever become a print?

Does a chicken have lips?