2009 Edition of the MUTCD

[Brandon]

I think that's just the problem.  Yellow has no use in a toll plaza, but the MUTCD doesn't allow signal phasing without a yellow.  Since the normal green-yellow-red-green phasing doesn't work in a toll plaza, then they shouldn't use a traffic signal to do the job there. 

Agreed, it shouldn't look like a traffic signal at all.  Here's how the ISTHA does theirs:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=41.764846,-87.907147&spn=0,359.928074&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.764982,-87.9073&panoid=LihGisu306WWSLmQ1_3CxQ&cbp=12,126.01,,0,13.75

The signal looks more like a pedestrian signal and contains the legends "STOP" (IIRC) in the red box and "THANK YOU" in the green box.  It's been a while since I went through a lane with one of them.  Dang, I love my I-Pass!

[Michael]

I sure hope New York supplements the new MUTCD to allow sequential exit numbering!

An approach I like at exits is instead of 3 foot dashes then a solid line is to use regular 10 foot dashes, then dashes outside a solid line, and then a wide solid line.  Here's a picture from the MUTCD I modified:


I like what the NY Thruway does at it's toll plazas.  Lanes are marked with the standard arrows and X's.  An EZ-Pass only lane has a flashing yellow beacon near the arrow.  All lanes have a three-phase stoplight, which is yellow, and turns green after an EZ-Pass tag is accepted.  The light stays yellow for cash customers.  The light only turns red when there's a problem with the tag.  This stoplight is also supplemented with messages such as "SLOW" (always with the steady yellow, cash and EZ-Pass), "EZ-PASS GO", and "ACCOUNT LOW" (EZ-Pass only)

[vdeane]

I wouldn't be surprised is NYSDOT allows sequential in the supplement, but I do hope they convert.  That said, they might just not convert without modifying the supplement.  The only effect the MUTCD had on the boxed street names was the conversion of two (and only two) signs on I-81 with the rest remaining, even though they are no longer allowed.

[Mergingtraffic]

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

[roadfro]

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

Suffixes, such as "Exit 12 A" and "Exit 12 B", are the provision for this.

[Brandon]

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

The same way Illinois does on the Dan Ryan and Kennedy Expressways, as Roadfro said, with letter suffixes.  The ones on the Kennedy go all the way (consecutively) up to H.

[Scott5114]

* Figure 2F-5, Part A (http://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2f_05_longdesc.htm) Roadgeek in charge of illustrations?

I can tell you this much - I know for a fact that a roadgeek worked on the MUTCD (FHWA employee).

I didn't know we had a roadgeek at FHWA. Do they post here? Can we get them a green star?

What does the figure have in it that suggests roadgeek influence? Because the I-21 there fits the grid? I'm sure a lot of day-to-day employees at FHWA are aware of the numbering grid, since they do work that might involve it at some point.

I sure hope New York supplements the new MUTCD to allow sequential exit numbering!

Why? Mileage-based numbering is so great when you get used to it. You can tell how far you are to your destination with simple arithmetic. It's easier for the DOT too.

I don't think NY could supplement in something that directly contradicts the MUTCD anyway. They could, but FHWA could refuse to pay for it. If FDOT capitulated over the prospect on losing federal funds for their dinky little US shields that cost maybe $20 a pop, I doubt NYSDOT would be falling over themselves to implement a policy that risks losing federal funds for freeway signage, which often costs $10,000 per sign.

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

If MoDOT can fit 24 exits within one mile and have the numbering come out okay, I'm sure ConnDOT can cope.

[mightyace]

I doubt NYSDOT would be falling over themselves to implement a policy that risks losing federal funds for freeway signage, which often costs $10,000 per sign.

Can the Thruway stick with sequential exits without affecting the rest of NY State?

[roadfro]

The language in regards to exit numbering on freeways seems to indicate that exit numbers are required on all freeways, period. That's a definite change from the last version.

Can the Thruway stick with sequential exits without affecting the rest of NY State?

The way the new MUTCD is written, they'd have to switch to mileage-based.  The MUTCD applies to all roads open to public travel, regardless of who maintains it.

I'm not familiar enough with the Thruway to know how reference-based exit numbering would effect numbers on the route. Hopefully, there's a route or some way to maintain some kind of logical continuity.

[Duke87]

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

My guess? CONNDOT will politely ignore the new ban on sequential numbering. And get away with it.
In most cases, the sequential numbers are in near parity with the theoretical milepost numbers anyway.

Also, the New Jersey Turnpike won't change. Their exit numbers are too entrenched in the local culture to change.


It will, however, be interesting to see what NYSDOT and NYSTA end up doing...

[Revive 755]

I think that's just the problem.  Yellow has no use in a toll plaza, but the MUTCD doesn't allow signal phasing without a yellow.  Since the normal green-yellow-red-green phasing doesn't work in a toll plaza, then they shouldn't use a traffic signal to do the job there. 

The MUTCD allows ramp meters without a yellow len (Section 4I.02, Standard 02).  I don't see much of a difference between a ramp meter and a signal releasing them from the toll plaza when the payment is accepted.

[Scott5114]

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

My guess? CONNDOT will politely ignore the new ban on sequential numbering. And get away with it.

FHWA will refuse to pay for signage that uses sequential numbering after the cutoff date. This is why FL kodachrome shields were done away with. Except more grave, because BGS signage costs thousands of dollars.

Also, the New Jersey Turnpike won't change. Their exit numbers are too entrenched in the local culture to change.

This is a good point. I could see FHWA granting an exception due to the influence of the numbers on Jersey culture.

It will, however, be interesting to see what NYSDOT and NYSTA end up doing...

With regards to the Thruway, there's a few different ways of doing things. It wouldn't be too hard to renumber it as appropriate, and then for internal referencing, either simply use interchange names, or a prefix: 87-19A, or 90-322 for instance. Suppress these suffixed numbers from the public.

Another possibility is to fudge the numbers by a mile one way or the other where two interchanges would conflict. Say there's an Exit 77 on both I-87 and I-90. Make one Exit 76 or 78, depending on which MP the interchange is physically closest to. Voila, it's no problem.

Another idea is to renumber the Turnpike mileage based in the same way as it is now (i.e. mileage from the beginning of the Turnpike), and then on the free portions of Interstate, reckon the mileage from their actual 0 mileposts (i.e. from the southern terminus of 87 in NYC for the Northway, from PA for the free portions of 90, etc.) This is the method the Kansas Turnpike uses; on I-70 eastbound, you see exit numbers in the mid-360s through Topeka. Then in Lawrence, since you're on the Turnpike, you get exit numbers in the 190s since these are reckoned from the 0 milepost of I-35 at the Oklahoma line. After the turnpike ends, I-70 numbering resumes, and you jump up to the 410s.

[hbelkins]

Also, the New Jersey Turnpike won't change. Their exit numbers are too entrenched in the local culture to change.

This is a good point. I could see FHWA granting an exception due to the influence of the numbers on Jersey culture.

It will, however, be interesting to see what NYSDOT and NYSTA end up doing...

Since the NJ Tpk doesn't take federal dollars (does it???) it can tell FHWA to go fly a kite. If it's funded solely by tolls or non-federal dollars, it doesn't have to worry about FHWA forcing compliance with the MUTCD via threatening the loss of federal dollars.

Is it just me, or is the MUTCD too (for lack of a better term) anal in terms of "shalls" and "musts?" I've always thought some of the specs to be a bit too rigid.

[Fixed quoting. -S.]

[Mergingtraffic]

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

The same way Illinois does on the Dan Ryan and Kennedy Expressways, as Roadfro said, with letter suffixes.  The ones on the Kennedy go all the way (consecutively) up to H.

Wouldn't just be easier to keep sequential numbering?  It seems they are making it more complicated then it has to be. I usually expect Exit 4 to be after Exit 5 if numbers are going down or Exit 6 to be after Exit 5 if numbers are going up. 

Could you imagine non-road people giving directions with mile based exits?  "It's off exit 12"  "er uh H", yeah "Exit 12-H"  It seems to be more complicated than it has to be.  Not a fan of the new MUTCD. 

[roadfro]

Since the NJ Tpk doesn't take federal dollars (does it???) it can tell FHWA to go fly a kite. If it's funded solely by tolls or non-federal dollars, it doesn't have to worry about FHWA forcing compliance with the MUTCD via threatening the loss of federal dollars.

Is it just me, or is the MUTCD too (for lack of a better term) anal in terms of "shalls" and "musts?" I've always thought some of the specs to be a bit too rigid.

That may be true. If the facility doesn't get federal monies, FHWA can't really do much to force compliance with the MUTCD other than rely on the bully pulpit.
---
The MUTCD kinda has to be anal in terms of "shalls" and "musts"...otherwise, you might end up with some agencies that interpret the standards as "you really should do this but ya don't have to if you don't want to".

[hbelkins]

The MUTCD kinda has to be anal in terms of "shalls" and "musts"...otherwise, you might end up with some agencies that interpret the standards as "you really should do this but ya don't have to if you don't want to".

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

[agentsteel53]

some deviations from standard are hideous, but a lot of them are actually decent ideas... for example Florida's colored route markers.  Others get adopted by the feds after being in place for several years; for example the 1970 federal interstate shield specification was in use in Pennsylvania as early as 1966.

[hbelkins]

Don't get me wrong, the idea of some measure of uniformity in signage as you travel from state to state is not a bad thing. The feds mandating minute details of things such as fonts and letter spacing and all just seems a little ... well ... unconstitutional to me.

[agentsteel53]

Don't get me wrong, the idea of some measure of uniformity in signage as you travel from state to state is not a bad thing. The feds mandating minute details of things such as fonts and letter spacing and all just seems a little ... well ... unconstitutional to me.

given that there is federal funding at stake, it seems like a valid contract between parties.  (whether the federal government has the power to raise such revenues is an entirely different constitutional issue!)

[Alps]

The MUTCD kinda has to be anal in terms of "shalls" and "musts"...otherwise, you might end up with some agencies that interpret the standards as "you really should do this but ya don't have to if you don't want to".

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

States can do whatever they damn well please.  Feds are under no compulsion to fund your roads.

[Brandon]

CT has exits that are really close together...how are the going to implement mile based exits....they can't!

The same way Illinois does on the Dan Ryan and Kennedy Expressways, as Roadfro said, with letter suffixes.  The ones on the Kennedy go all the way (consecutively) up to H.

Wouldn't just be easier to keep sequential numbering?  It seems they are making it more complicated then it has to be. I usually expect Exit 4 to be after Exit 5 if numbers are going down or Exit 6 to be after Exit 5 if numbers are going up. 

Could you imagine non-road people giving directions with mile based exits?  "It's off exit 12"  "er uh H", yeah "Exit 12-H"  It seems to be more complicated than it has to be.  Not a fan of the new MUTCD. 

I can imagine giving directions with mileage-based exits.  I tell people to use such things as Exit 51H or Exit 51I for the Ike or the Congress Parkway at the Circle Interchange.  I tell people to get off at Exit 57B on the Ryan if they want to go to the Museum of Science and Industry.  I tell people to use Exit 55A on the same road to go to Comiskey Park.

Point is, it can be done because it is being done.  Why can't New York be more like Chicago?

[Scott5114]

Wouldn't just be easier to keep sequential numbering?  It seems they are making it more complicated then it has to be. I usually expect Exit 4 to be after Exit 5 if numbers are going down or Exit 6 to be after Exit 5 if numbers are going up. 

Could you imagine non-road people giving directions with mile based exits?  "It's off exit 12"  "er uh H", yeah "Exit 12-H"  It seems to be more complicated than it has to be.  Not a fan of the new MUTCD. 

Sequential exit numbering works well...for a while. Then you have a new interchange built. It's between 12 and 13. What do you call it? It has to be 12A, and then it's no different than the mileage based system. Then what if you have to add another interchange between 12A and 12?

Here is the order of exits on I-95 in New York: 1, 2, 3, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, 8, 5B, 10, 6B, 12, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 8B, 9, 10, et al and the sequence continues up to 22. Because Exit 8 obviously belongs in between 4B and 5B.

Under the mileage-based system, it will go 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, 5A, 6A, 6B, 6C, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 8B, 8C... maybe a bit more difficult on the surface but it's better than the braindamaged mess NYSDOT has made of sequential numbering on I-95!

[agentsteel53]

Here is the order of exits on I-95 in New York: 1, 2, 3, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, 8, 5B, 10, 6B, 12, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 8B, 9, 10, et al and the sequence continues up to 22. Because Exit 8 obviously belongs in between 4B and 5B.

there are two exit 10s??

[City]

Also, the New Jersey Turnpike won't change. Their exit numbers are too entrenched in the local culture to change.

This is a good point. I could see FHWA granting an exception due to the influence of the numbers on Jersey culture.

The road is tolled anyways. As most of us know, no federal funding is received on tolled interstates. It wouldn't really matter if FHWA made BGS's full price to DOT's for using sequential numbers. The toll agencies always had to pay full price for them.

[vdeane]

Here is the order of exits on I-95 in New York: 1, 2, 3, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, 8, 5B, 10, 6B, 12, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8A, 8B, 9, 10, et al and the sequence continues up to 22. Because Exit 8 obviously belongs in between 4B and 5B.

there are two exit 10s??

Yeah, as NYSDOT was too cheap to do the conversion from mile-based to sequential numbers properly, so now it's only partway done permanently.  I-95 is the reason NY never went to mile-based numbers.