2009 Edition of the MUTCD

[treichard]

Did the new edition of the MUTCD address guide signs that needlessly ignore a lane on a freeway?

Example: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.58153,-77.535625&spn=0,359.971547&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.581678,-77.535395&panoid=8hQNLVJgpcUvMg-uYXmH4A&cbp=12,252.54,,0,5

The central barrier is in the way, but there are two through lanes for US 22/US 322 and an exit lane that begins on the right for the Bus. US 22 exit.  The left overhead sign addresses the left through lane but not the right through lane (no 2nd down arrow).

I've seen this style at a small handful of places in PA.  Its problem is that it triggers  unnecessary lane changes for through traffic that thinks it needs to move from the right through lane to the left through lane to stay on the through highway.

[Michael]

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.

I just e-mailed NYSDOT to see if they are going to comply or request a waiver.  I'll post when I get a reply.

[Duke87]

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??

Actually, new signs on the Cross Bronx have put some of the old numbers back. The first 10 is back to being 6A. 12 is back to being 6B. 8 is back to being 5A, except on one overhead southbound where it's still 8 (missed one, guys!  ). The first 3 was never fully converted, many older sings with 1C are still in place. 1 and 2, however, remain 1 and 2. No current signs to my knowledge have them as 1A and 1B.
It should be pointed out that exits 9-22 (sequential) are on the New England Thruway, and thus maintained by NYSTA, not NYSDOT.

Also, Scott, you forgot 8C.  

[J N Winkler]

Did the new edition of the MUTCD address guide signs that needlessly ignore a lane on a freeway?

Example: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.58153,-77.535625&spn=0,359.971547&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.581678,-77.535395&panoid=8hQNLVJgpcUvMg-uYXmH4A&cbp=12,252.54,,0,5

I don't think the MUTCD has encouraged or even allowed this particular arrangement in any recent decade.  The problems with this way of using downward-pointing arrows were recognized in the mid-1960's and possibly even earlier.

The preferred approach is something like this:

The central barrier is in the way, but there are two through lanes for US 22/US 322 and an exit lane that begins on the right for the Bus. US 22 exit.  The left overhead sign addresses the left through lane but not the right through lane (no 2nd down arrow).

In situations like this (simple exit, no lane drop), it would be superfluous to have downward-pointing arrows on the pull-through sign, or indeed a pull-through sign at all.  For that matter, the same would be true of a lane drop without optional lane.

I've seen this style at a small handful of places in PA.  Its problem is that it triggers unnecessary lane changes for through traffic that thinks it needs to move from the right through lane to the left through lane to stay on the through highway.

Yes, that is exactly the problem with it, and also the reason it was dumped sharpish in the mid-1960's (except, it seems, in Pennsylvania).

[njroadhorse]

I've seen this style at a small handful of places in PA.  Its problem is that it triggers unnecessary lane changes for through traffic that thinks it needs to move from the right through lane to the left through lane to stay on the through highway.

Yes, that is exactly the problem with it, and also the reason it was dumped sharpish in the mid-1960's (except, it seems, in Pennsylvania).

When has Pennsylvania ever been with the times on road standards?

[agentsteel53]

When has Pennsylvania ever been with the times on road standards?

you mean other than inventing Clearview, in which aspect they are painfully avant-garde?

[treichard]

The preferred approach is something like this:



In situations like this (simple exit, no lane drop), it would be superfluous to have downward-pointing arrows on the pull-through sign, or indeed a pull-through sign at all.  For that matter, the same would be true of a lane drop without optional lane.

That left sign of course would make more sense - either 0 or 2 arrows, but not 1.

The pull-through sign in this case was useful when it was installed.  It was installed during an interchange reconfiguration project that flipped which route exited at the interchange.   Travelers needed some emphasis to know to not exit for US 322 anymore even though they formerly did.

For fun, here's the old sign from the old configuration from ~1960. Both mentions of US 522 should have been preceded by "TO" since US 522 isn't actually there and never was. And the pull-through sign again has 1 arrow for 2 lanes.


And the new sign before construction had completely wrapped up, ~2004:


So it's good that PA's newer signs aren't lost in the 1960s for the most part.

===

To be fair, PA does sign non-freeway state route intersections (e.g., a pair of two-lane undivided back roads) with roadside sign assemblies better than many of its neighboring states:  The two sets of advance warning signs along with a third set  at the intersection, the effort to tell you a route is ENDing (or sometimes BEGINing) ahead when it does, direction banners being standard for an intersecting state route at and on the approach to the intersection, multiplexes well signed with multiple direction banners as needed, etc.  

[SSOWorld]

There's one sign at the US 18/151 split near Dodgeville, WI that has one arrow for 2 lanes - not replaced when the through route went from one lane (the split ended the expressway) to two.

[City]

The lettering for names of places, streets, and highways on conventional road guide signs shall be a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.

I've heard proposals about this. Well, it seems like they've mandated mixed-cased lettering on street signage. More interesting is that on illustrations, they've been using mixed-case Series D. It looks like that the MUTCD has finally broke out lower-case Series B-D, and in a major way. I personally prefer Series B-D signage to be all upper-case, but it's OK to me.

[Scott5114]

Springfield MO has been using mixed-case Series C street blades for a few years now. They don't look that bad.

[Michael]

I got a reply about New York's exit numbering.  It looks like they're going to bite the bullet.

As for exit numbering, last week FHWA released the 2009 edition of the National MUTCD.  It contained a standard that all exit numbering be mile base rather consecutive numbers.  Only seven states, mostly in the northeast still number exits consecutively.  It is my understanding that the compliance phase in period will be ten years.  Since it is a mandate (SHALL statement), there will be no waiver possible nor can we alter it via our State Supplement.  FHWA allows states to deviate in their Supplement if it is guidance (SHOULD) or an option (MAY), but not a standard (SHALL).  The 2009 edition becomes effective January 15, 2019 so the work would have to be completed by January 2020 if the compliance is indeed ten years.

As for blade signs, Wayne County does a great job.  They use mixed-case (Series C I think), so they already comply with the new MUTCD.  All intersections are signed, even in the middle of nowhere.  Here's an example sign:

Credit: Gribblenation

[burgess87]

My local village DPW uses a mixed-case Series B on their street name blade signs, it looks like.  I was never a fan of them.

[myosh_tino]

The lettering for names of places, streets, and highways on conventional road guide signs shall be a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.

Looks like a number of cash strapped cities in California will need to pony up additional cash to replace their all uppercase street blades with mixed case.  For the life of me, I don't see what's wrong with all upper case blades.  San Francisco is probably the largest city in California to be affected by this new rule.

To see how many communities will be affected check out this Flickr photo set on city street signs.  Most are from southern California but a few northern California cities are included.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikelakers/sets/72157600113142964/

My own city, Cupertino, replaced all their street blades recently with new reflective Bookman mixed case blades on a royal blue background.  The city's sign blades used to be either all caps or mixed case Series D on either a royal blue background (these were typically all caps) or navy blue background (these were typically mixed case).

Another community near me, Los Altos, just replaced all their brown all-caps blades with new reflective brown all-caps blades.  Looks like they'll need to replace these again real soon to comply. 

[agentsteel53]

San Francisco is probably the largest city in California to be affected by this new rule.

especially given that they have so many of the old white porcelain street blades.

somehow, the junction of Haight and Ashbury in green retroreflective, with mixed case, just won't look right.

[myosh_tino]

San Francisco is probably the largest city in California to be affected by this new rule.

especially given that they have so many of the old white porcelain street blades.

somehow, the junction of Haight and Ashbury in green retroreflective, with mixed case, just won't look right.

You're right.  I bet if they replace their blades, they'll keep the white background.  BTW, is the green background mandated?  If so, there will be loud howls from towns and cities all over California who have moved to white, tan, blue (both royal and navy), brown and black blades.

I'll restate my question though.  What was the motivation to ban the "all-caps" street blades?  To me, it seems that there are alot of cities using "all caps" blades and to change would be very, very expensive.   

[Scott5114]

The MUTCD allows green, blue, and brown as acceptable street blade background colors. White, yellow, and red backgrounds are not permitted because these colors carry connotations that street name signage should not have. If you have a white sign for Barge St reading simply "BARGE", it would be legally equivalent to a white regulatory sign with the positive instruction that the driver must barge. Now obviously this is a nonsense example, and in most contexts people would be able to tell the difference, but someone somewhere has apparently gotten burned by this at some point ("the white–and thus regulatory–sign said "Speedwell", so I sped well! Don't you try telling me that's the name of the street and that it has a 25 mph limit!") Brown and blue, recreational and service respectively, are both subsets of guide signage and thus they don't carry distinct connotations.

All-caps has been shown by several studies to be less legible than mixed-case signage. The mind perceives upper-case signage as a monolithic block, whereas mixed-case words carry a distinct shape that the mind recognizes and which aids in reading the words.

[rawmustard]

You're right.  I bet if they replace their blades, they'll keep the white background.  BTW, is the green background mandated?

Blue, brown, and white are the only acceptable alternatives to green according to 2D.43 par. 18. The first two must use white legend, while the last one must use black legend.

[SSOWorld]

Why is the MUTCD worried about street signs?

haven't they got anything better to guide?

[Scott5114]

Street signs are still traffic control devices.

[agentsteel53]

Street signs are still traffic control devices.

but they're such low criticality that to put in a mandate into the 2009 MUTCD that is, in effect, a complete overhaul of the street blade system seems to be a waste of taxpayer money. 

[Scott5114]

I doubt they're mandating that all cities go out RIGHT NOW in the midst of the blizzards and start changing out street blades. There's probably a deadline* on the order of ten years from now, far enough away that if they continued their standard regimen of maintenance and replacement they would all be replaced by the deadline. If a truck runs off the road and kills an all caps street blade, they're going to replace it with a mixed-case one, but if it was still functioning properly and not yet slated for replacement I bet they'd leave it up. And as we all know how sign replacement goes, there's always a few that the agency forgets about and leaves up forty years after the standard it was created to was deprecated.

*If there even is a deadline. I don't think the MUTCD applies retroactively in the vast majority of cases, only to new signage installs. The only exception tends to be things that would make less sense if old signage was allowed to stand, e.g. exit numbering systems, and things they want to show they mean business on, e.g. retroreflectivity standards.

[myosh_tino]

I doubt they're mandating that all cities go out RIGHT NOW in the midst of the blizzards and start changing out street blades. There's probably a deadline* on the order of ten years from now, far enough away that if they continued their standard regimen of maintenance and replacement they would all be replaced by the deadline. If a truck runs off the road and kills an all caps street blade, they're going to replace it with a mixed-case one, but if it was still functioning properly and not yet slated for replacement I bet they'd leave it up. And as we all know how sign replacement goes, there's always a few that the agency forgets about and leaves up forty years after the standard it was created to was deprecated.

Even with that said, there are cities near me that recently (within the last year or so) replaced their street blades with ones that now do not conform to the 2009 MUTCD (street names are in all-caps).  Around here, a typical street blade has a lifespan of well over 30 years so to tell cities they have to get new ones within 10 years will have many of them grumbling.  If the feds are willing to give the cities money to comply that's one thing.  If not, I can hear local governments using the words "unfunded mandate".

Street signs are still traffic control devices.

but they're such low criticality that to put in a mandate into the 2009 MUTCD that is, in effect, a complete overhaul of the street blade system seems to be a waste of taxpayer money. 

Agreed 100%.  To specify what street blades should look like (no all-caps, must be certain colors, etc) sounds like they've gone too far.  I can easily see San Francisco and it's iconic street blades giving the MUTCD the one finger salute.   

Finally, regarding the new section on Changeable Message Signs, I'm glad they banned advertising messages.  Hopefully that will squash a really dumb idea in Sacramento to raise funds by selling ads on our CMS.  I'm also glad they included language to allow AMBER alert and safety messages (Click it or Ticket, Report Drunk Drivers, etc) so California doesn't have to add them to the supplement.

[SSOWorld]

The MUTCD is meant to provide uniformity but it isn't the law.  The worst that the feds can do is withhold funds - and I don't think that's possible in this case.  It's one thing for the feds to regulate what Interstate Highways to look like because they're federally funded, but state, county and local street routes?

[vdeane]

I believe those also get funded in the form of grants and transfers of money from one level of government to another.  Almost all projects in New York, for example, use federal funding.

[Scott5114]

Interesting how many people cry out when there's a Helvetica sign out there but as soon as something gets in the MUTCD they disagree with, they're all in favor of ignoring it