New MUTCD announced

[ran4sh]

Is there anything that states "mile-based exits shall be used"? 

The 2009 MUTCD already contained a prohibition on the sequential exit system. But if you're asking about mile-based exit numbers versus no numbers at all, I'm not sure if freeways with un-numbered exits are compliant

[ran4sh]

My opinion regarding the street name sign changes:

They clarified that the text size is based on the assumption that only users of street "A" will need to view the street name "B" sign, and vice versa (only street "B" users will need to view street name "A" signs). I'm not sure this is necessarily true. There are certainly some situations where you might want to, or need to, see the street name sign of a street you're already on. My opinion is that the text size should be suitable for whatever the highest-classification street is (i.e. if it's multi-lane and >45 mph, then all signs get that size of text)

They added a statement saying that if arrows are used to indicate that a certain street name only applies to one side (e.g. the same street is named "A" to your left and "B" to your right), the arrow must be omitted if it is illegal to make the turn onto that street (either because it is one-way or because of a No Left/Right Turn sign). They didn't actually clarify what is supposed to be done in that case. I'm used to the idea that sign placement even without arrows can indicate different street names to the left and right, but not all places do that.

[Scott5114]

A fun feature of this MUTCD is that the section on traffic lights starts on Page 666.

[kphoger]

Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..."

And after they get to their destination, and go to the mall or the zoo or wherever the next day, then on their way back, they might very well remember "take Exit 23A" as the important bit of info—except now they're coming from the other direction and "Exit 23A" isn't the right place to exit.

[roadfro]

Too bad I'm traveling today, or I'd spend this day off skimming through...

Disappointed that they're only releasing the new MUTCD in PDF format, and not making a compatible web version.

[kphoger]

Disappointed that they're only releasing the new MUTCD in PDF format, and not making a compatible web version.

Yeah, I'm with you on that.  No more right-clicking to copy-and-paste an image into this forum.

[PurdueBill]

We're also at the point where there really aren't many more highways being built. Unless a state decides to do a massive renumbering of their highway exits, this issue isn't going to occur all that often.

I'd fear if someone in charge wanted to play hardball and force states to change exit numbers to the bonkers new way if signs are replaced.  FHWA forces Mass to not show 128 on new BGSs under threat of taking away $$; they could do it for any other reason also. 

If the exit number is to identify the exit, then it shouldn't be different on opposite sides of the road because of other exits.  They are ostensibly concerned about confusion caused by skipping a letter; I think there will be more confusion than that caused by a single exit being required to have different numbers.

[kphoger]

If the exit number is to identify the exit, then it shouldn't be different on opposite sides of the road because of other exits.

Well, that's the question, isn't it?  In reality, the exit number identifies the exit.  Theoretically, though, that isn't necessarily the exit number's function:  I suppose it could be to help the driver know where in the sequence of exits his exit it.  With that in mind, it makes sense.

For what it's worth, Part C also shows an exit with differential numbers:  11A eastbound, 11 westbound.

[PurdueBill]

If the exit number is to identify the exit, then it shouldn't be different on opposite sides of the road because of other exits.

Well, that's the question, isn't it?  In reality, the exit number identifies the exit.  Theoretically, though, that isn't necessarily the exit number's function:  I suppose it could be to help the driver know where in the sequence of exits his exit it.  With that in mind, it makes sense.

For what it's worth, Part C also shows an exit with differential numbers:  11A eastbound, 11 westbound.

The letters having to be consecutive in order to indicate sequence isn't consistent with numerical exit numbers not necessarily being consecutive due to mile-based exits.  You don't know necessarily that Exit 34 is right after Exit 33; the previous exit number might be 29 and then 5 miles without an exit until 34.  Same has always been true of the letters; 23C comes after 23A eastbound, but it may not be very next, depending on if 23B is used that direction.  If it's not, it's because 23B is westbound-only.
The 11 vs. 11A thing is a common occurrence whereever an interchange has its exit ramps split one way but not the other.  The difference between that and the newly introduced boobery is that Exit 11(A-B) is still one interchange with no other logical way to do it, while now FHWA wants the same number used on different interchanges and a single interchange to have two entirely different numbers, neither of which is logical while the old way was logical.

[kphoger]

The letters having to be consecutive in order to indicate sequence isn't consistent with numerical exit numbers not necessarily being consecutive due to mile-based exits.  You don't know necessarily that Exit 34 is right after Exit 33; the previous exit number might be 29 and then 5 miles without an exit until 34.

I'd say that, with mile-based exit numbering, it's common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit numbers.  But, because the vast majority of letter-suffixed exit numbers have only sequential letters, I'd say it is not common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit suffix letters.

For example, try this quiz out with some random non-roadgeek friends:

Question #1 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 52?

Most likely answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Correct answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Question #2 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 203A?

Most likely answer — 203B, of course.

Correct answer — Well, it depends.  Is there a partial interchange somewhere between MP 203 and MP 204?

I'm betting that zero people you quiz will come up with the right answer to Question #2.

The 11 vs. 11A thing is a common occurrence whereever an interchange has its exit ramps split one way but not the other.  The difference between that and the newly introduced boobery is that Exit 11(A-B) is still one interchange with no other logical way to do it, while now FHWA wants the same number used on different interchanges and a single interchange to have two entirely different numbers, neither of which is logical while the old way was logical.

But my point is that it's a single interchange that carries two different numbers, depending on which direction you're traveling.  "Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?"

In other words ...

[GaryV]

Is there anything that states "mile-based exits shall be used"? 

The 2009 MUTCD already contained a prohibition on the sequential exit system. But if you're asking about mile-based exit numbers versus no numbers at all, I'm not sure if freeways with un-numbered exits are compliant

It was a dig of the Metrication thread.

[PurdueBill]

The letters having to be consecutive in order to indicate sequence isn't consistent with numerical exit numbers not necessarily being consecutive due to mile-based exits.  You don't know necessarily that Exit 34 is right after Exit 33; the previous exit number might be 29 and then 5 miles without an exit until 34.

I'd say that, with mile-based exit numbering, it's common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit numbers.  But, because the vast majority of letter-suffixed exit numbers have only sequential letters, I'd say it is not common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit suffix letters.

For example, try this quiz out with some random non-roadgeek friends:

Question #1 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 52?

Most likely answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Correct answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Question #2 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 203A?

Most likely answer — 203B, of course.

Correct answer — Well, it depends.  Is there a partial interchange somewhere between MP 203 and MP 204?

I'm betting that zero people you quiz will come up with the right answer to Question #2.

The 11 vs. 11A thing is a common occurrence whereever an interchange has its exit ramps split one way but not the other.  The difference between that and the newly introduced boobery is that Exit 11(A-B) is still one interchange with no other logical way to do it, while now FHWA wants the same number used on different interchanges and a single interchange to have two entirely different numbers, neither of which is logical while the old way was logical.

But my point is that it's a single interchange that carries two different numbers, depending on which direction you're traveling.  "Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?"

In other words ...

I agree on those Exit 11s.  I used the number 11 instead of 15 referring to Part B of the figure, which shows 15A-B one way and 15 the other for the same interchange.  (It is a very busy figure...I was looking at Part B of it but the 11 number drifted around on me.)
I think we agree that separate interchanges should have separate labels--I think we also agree that 11 westbound should be 11A if it's a whole different interchange than the 11B one eastbound.

Fwiw, Ohio has exampleso of both types near each other on I-76 and 77, with only a B exit northbound (123B) on I-77 while there are A-B southbound, and 21A only westbound and 21B only eastbound on I-76, with 21C both ways.  No one ever batted an eye.

The numbering in Part D of the cartoon is possibly a touch worse, as it uses the number 25B for two totally different interchanges, while in C at least the same number doesn't get used for different exits.  Instead, C has the same exit with different numbers (at least not repeated the other direction for different exits) depending on the direction, kinda the opposite problem.

All I know right now is that if it is this hard to even describe the obvious problems with their new rule, it's more evidence that it was a mistake to make the rule. 

[kphoger]

I think we also agree that 11 westbound should be 11A if it's a whole different interchange than the 11B one eastbound.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with that.  I tend to agree, but I can also see why it wouldn't be good.  For example:

If I'm heading westbound on the Part C highway, and I'm looking for Exit #10B, and I come to Exit #11A, then I will assume there's still at least one more exit before mine.  But there isn't, and therefore I might miss my exit.

[lordsutch]

Some things of note while scrolling through:

   
• EV CHARGING is now a recognized category for service signs.

GDOT jumped the gun a little bit; at exit 101 of I-75 they had already installed a yellow "EV Charging" tab a few weeks ago on the logo for the Pilot travel center that has EVgo/Ultium chargers at the interchange, as seen in Figure 2J-4.

[Shedingtonian]

I have a question about Figures 2E-39 and 2E-40. Shouldn't, in both signs, the rightmost lane have the "EXIT ONLY" banners? This is promptly indicated in the advance exit APL's, but not in the gore sign.

Edit: Also, in Figure 2E-44, BOTH lanes (option and exit only) are indicated as "EXIT ONLY"! I'm not reading right now, because it's 1AM and I just heard about this new edition's release. So, if anyone explains, I'll be very grateful.

[kphoger]

I have a question about Figures 2E-39 and 2E-40. Shouldn't, in both signs, the rightmost lane have the "EXIT ONLY" banners? This is promptly indicated in the advance exit APL's, but not in the gore sign.

I'm on the fence about that.  Honestly, in 2E-39, all the EXIT ONLY could be removed entirely with little to no ill effect.  But I do agree that, in order to be consistent with 2E-44, it should get an EXIT ONLY.

Also, in Figure 2E-44, BOTH lanes (option and exit only) are indicated as "EXIT ONLY"!

That has been the standard for some time now, and a lot of us on here aren't too happy with the decision either.

[vdeane]

Partial-width APLs are also now the standard for option lane signing at more minor freeway interchanges.

I'd like to know people's opinion about this.  Pages 356-358.

While I like full-width APLs most, I support the partial APLs as well. Dumb-as-rock motorists appear to understand their meaning.  If there's a partial width signage, I still prefer the older style signage with 'Exit (arrow) Only' over the one lane and the white on green (arrow) over the option lane.

One of the more boneheaded things that they proposed and went ahead with as a "shall" standard is that the exits to the same street on different sides of a freeway can be required to carry different letters based on how many lettered exits there are for that number.  This serves to do nothing but increase confusion really.  Supposedly people were confused by exit 21C followed by 21A without a 21B (which only serves the opposite direction), but now the remedy is to require that an exit to the same street within the same interchange(!) must be numbered differently each way.  (Figure 2E-3, Part D.)  The figure they show literally has the exit to one street as Exit 25B one direction, 25C the other, at the same interchange, because the westbound direction doesn't have an exit at eastbound's Exit 25B.  They can't sincerely think that this actually makes things easier for anyone.  Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?  It's literally making thinsgs sequential for no good purpose. 

I'm kinda neutral on this.  I want to say this is stupid.  Exits should be the same number on both sides.

For motorists that rely on exit numbering and could be coming from either direction, it'll be a pain for them to understanding that the exit numbering for one direction could be different than the exit numbering for another direction.

Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..." and "Going South, Take Exit 23B, then turn Left onto Route 5 East..." and if they're obeying the correct directions, they'll still take the correct exit and make the proper turn.

We're also at the point where there really aren't many more highways being built. Unless a state decides to do a massive renumbering of their highway exits, this issue isn't going to occur all that often.

It's going to come up with business advertising.  If the exit has a different number in each direction, the business can't just say "just off I-81 exit 32B" on their radio/TV/internet ads.

Given that their are states/roads that still haven't converted from sequential, this situation will come up in those places.  I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes yet another impediment to conversion.

[rschen7754]

Too bad I'm traveling today, or I'd spend this day off skimming through...

Disappointed that they're only releasing the new MUTCD in PDF format, and not making a compatible web version.

There is actually one being worked on at Wikisource: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Manual_on_Uniform_Traffic_Control_Devices_for_Streets_and_Highways,_11th_Edition_(December_2023).pdf

[Henry]

Downloaded it the other day, and I'm ready to redesign some signs, as well as add any new ones that may appear in the latest edition (that is, if I'm able to recreate them).

[PColumbus73]

Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..." and "Going South, Take Exit 23B, then turn Left onto Route 5 East..." and if they're obeying the correct directions, they'll still take the correct exit and make the proper turn.

I feel like mileage-based exit numbering is more intuitive than sequential. I see we've been using standard diamond and half-diamond interchanges as examples for/against mileage based numbers, but how about parclos, with two ramps from one direction and one from the other, or other complicated interchanges? Using the logic that every exit should have the same number, then if I-90 East has one exit at Exit 25A, and I-90 West has two exits at Exit 25A, then how does that work? Are both westbound exits 25A?

I think it's overthinking it a little that because one direction is Exit 25A, then the other direction has to be Exit 25A as well. Using A, B, C... is just a suffix. I can understand that if I'm approaching Exit 25A, that means there are more than one exit within MM 25. With sequential exits, Exit 25 might be two miles from Exit 25A and then another 15 miles from Exit 26.

I also think mileage based numbers is more adaptable with added or removed ramps.

[Revive 755]

In other words ...

On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

[ran4sh]

In other words ...

On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

If it were to scale, sure. But in any case, that has always been the preferred MUTCD method of rounding. If you or your state prefers rounding to nearest milepost (e.g. rounding 25.8 to 26), then instead of line "D" from the diagram, consider a situation where "25 A" is at 24.6, "25 B" NB is at 24.8, and "25 C" NB is at 25.4 . You would have a similar issue there.

[Duke87]

On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

If you want to be a purist, yes, however in practice more often than not exit numbers are assigned by always rounding down - so any exit from MM 25.00 to 25.99 gets numbered 25.

As far as the specific policy on assigning numbers, I can see where neither option in this situation is necessarily perfectly desirable. Having 25A and 25C with no 25B might trip people up, and so might having 25B go different places westbound vs. eastbound.

I do wonder though if this isn't one of those things where while we as roadgeeks will likely be more bothered by the latter, someone normal may actually be more bothered by the former, especially if they're unfamiliar with the area (which is who signs are primarily designed for). A normal person in 2023 isn't going to look at a map and say "this interchange has this number" and get bent out of shape if the same interchange has a different number in each direction. Indeed, they're not going to look at a map period, they're going to do whatever their gee pee ess tells them and will only care what the signs that they see as they're driving to their particular destination at the moment say. And if they want exit 25C to get where they're going, they will expect exit 25B to precede it and may be caught off guard if there is no 25B. Meanwhile they won't notice or care if exit 25B in the opposite direction goes to a different place because they're not driving in the opposite direction so that isn't relevant to them.

It's stupid and I hate it, but I see the reasoning. Normal people are stupid and I hate them, I guess. 🤷

[ran4sh]

Some things of note while scrolling through:

   
• EV CHARGING is now a recognized category for service signs.

GDOT jumped the gun a little bit; at exit 101 of I-75 they had already installed a yellow "EV Charging" tab a few weeks ago on the logo for the Pilot travel center that has EVgo/Ultium chargers at the interchange, as seen in Figure 2J-4.

The EV charging category is for businesses that are not gas stations. Because the MUTCD/FHWA have decided that a business that offers EV charging without gasoline, does not qualify for the "gas" sign. Gas stations that have EV charging can still be shown on the "gas" sign and be in compliance with the MUTCD.

[Shedingtonian]

I'm on the fence about that.  Honestly, in 2E-39, all the EXIT ONLY could be removed entirely with little to no ill effect.  But I do agree that, in order to be consistent with 2E-44, it should get an EXIT ONLY.

That has been the standard for some time now, and a lot of us on here aren't too happy with the decision either.

I totally agree. It should be for consistency and also to depict the lane movement options accurately.

The EV charging category is for businesses that are not gas stations. Because the MUTCD/FHWA have decided that a business that offers EV charging without gasoline, does not qualify for the "gas" sign. Gas stations that have EV charging can still be shown on the "gas" sign and be in compliance with the MUTCD.

So if I'm getting this right, an exclusively EV charging site will bear the D9-11b sign, but a gas station with EV charging will bear both D9-7 and D9-11b? Perhaps D9-7 and D9-11bP? Or would it be only D9-7? (Figure 2I-I)
Here's how each case would be signed in my state for reference:




Also, what are your thoughts on Figure 2D-10? Using APL's on local streets? I get it's just an example, but I still feel it's over the top. And why not merge the Broad St South sign into the APL if we're going the extra mile to have it at all?