AARoads Forum

http://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ opens in new window

I had the opportunity to look over the proposed changes today.  A couple of notes that jumped out:

MUTCD now specifically prohibits black-background shields on signs.  This affects NJ especially, given that NJ traditionally adopts the MUTCD with no supplement.  Other states also use the practice to small but not insignificant degrees.

MUTCD now requires mile-based exit numbering.  NYSDOT has indicated that they would not convert until forced to, but would then convert as soon as adopted.  So let's see how quickly they comply.  My guess is that some toll agencies, which receive no Federal funding, still won't convert because the FHWA can't hold anything over their head.

I saw a few of my comments addressed (I was one of the citizens) and at least it looks like they paid good attention to people's input.  One thing that did not come through in the written preamble (filed this morning to the Federal Register) is my comments on HOV signage.  And I know other people and agencies had similar comments regarding using green-background guide signs in managed lanes instead of the current white-background - it's hard to see the HOV diamond and they may be confused with general-purpose guide signs.  I did not crack open the pages with figures on them to check, but I would have thought that such a comment would have been discussed in the appropriate section of the preamble, and I did not find it.

Thanks for the heads up.  This should be an interesting read!

Downloading & reading right now.  This is gonna be fun . . . .

Thanks from me for the heads-up too.

I had a quick look at the Final Rule Notice to see how FHWA had addressed diagrammatic signs, which was the main burden of my own submission.  They did pretty much as I had suggested in my letter, though they did not go into detail on the reasons.  Stippled-arrow diagrammatics are still in the MUTCD, while arrow-per-lane diagrammatics are now an accepted design option.  (The relevant paragraphs in the Final Rule Notice are 200-201, or pp. 47-48 of the GPO PDF.)

As a general rule, private citizens and consultants are not identified by name, while state DOTs and some nonprofit trade organizations (like the ATSSA) are on occasion.  One way for a private citizen to gauge the influence he or she has on the process is to look at the extent to which FHWA recapitulates the reasoning given in the comment.

The diagrammatic is saved! Thanks for your hard work, Jonathan! Same goes to you, Steve. It's inspiring that the MUTCD committee at least takes comments from roadgeeks seriously. I think I'll try and get involved in the process for the next MUTCD, whenever that happens. Any tips?

I've downloaded it.  I'm not sure how much of it, I'll read though I'll probably just skim it and use it for reference.

But, it is interesting to see what the "rules" are.

This is fascinating. It's a shame that I probably can't use this to persuade Richmond DPW that it needs to sign the ends of VA 5, US 33, and US 250 (and improve signage for all the other routes)... :p

For those that are more visual or otherwise don't want to sift through all the commentary, there are PowerPoint files on the MUTCD's training webpage (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-Training.htm) that highlight the major changes with explanatory notes.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 16, 2009, 07:04:36 PM
MUTCD now specifically prohibits black-background shields on signs.  This affects NJ especially, given that NJ traditionally adopts the MUTCD with no supplement.  Other states also use the practice to small but not insignificant degrees.

I'm assuming you are referring to the black background of a route shield (such as a U.S. Route) having the black border when mounted on a green guide sign.  If so, Section 2D.11 (Design of Route Signs), paragraph 12 mentions this in a guidance statement, but it is not a specific prohibition--this statement encourages use of the black background if needed for contrast on other types of signs (i.e. regulatory or warning).

Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 16, 2009, 07:04:36 PM
One thing that did not come through in the written preamble ... is my comments on HOV signage.  And I know other people and agencies had similar comments regarding using green-background guide signs in managed lanes instead of the current white-background - it's hard to see the HOV diamond and they may be confused with general-purpose guide signs.  I did not crack open the pages with figures on them to check, but I would have thought that such a comment would have been discussed in the appropriate section of the preamble, and I did not find it.

The reason this wasn't addressed probably has to do with the fact that the 2003 MUTCD already used the white-on-green scheme for HOV guide signs. Figures 2G-15 and 2G-16 show HOV guide signage that more clearly indicates such signs are applicable to the HOV lanes. In addition to the diamond symbol in the upper left corner, a black-on-white banner (equal in height to the diamond symbol) extends across the top with the legend "HOV EXIT" or "HOV LANE".  I find this to be superior to providing a guide sign that is designed completely black-on white, as it is clearly a guide message but adequately conveys that its message is not for general purpose lanes.

For those of you curious, a new Standard Highway Signs Designs Book is due out Fall 2010.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm

Wow . . . that's a pretty big gap in time to wait.  Oh, well.

Quote from: burgess87 on December 17, 2009, 09:13:55 AM
For those of you curious, a new Standard Highway Signs Designs Book is due out Fall 2010.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm

Wow . . . that's a pretty big gap in time to wait.  Oh, well.

My guess is that over a year ago, they indicated they'd have this out in 2009.  Since it's now mid-December, they decided to go ahead and publish the text and worry about the signs later.  There are few changes to existing signs, by and large - just dropping a couple and adding several (plus a new color or two).

Well, the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD was accompanied by the 2004 SHS, so this isn't the first time this has happened.

Plus, they've indicated this won't be the SHS, but rather the SHSM (Standard Highway Signs & Markings). Presumably this added section will take some extra time to work on.

Interesting. I too wonder how long it will take NYSDOT to convert to distance based exit numbers.

Quote from: WNYroadgeek on December 17, 2009, 09:02:32 PM
Interesting. I too wonder how long it will take NYSDOT to convert to distance based exit numbers.

Given the state's history, I wouldn't be surprised if NYSDOT tries to fight it.

Question: Can withholding federal highway money be used as a stick to enforce compliance?

Quote from: mightyace on December 17, 2009, 09:24:33 PM
Question: Can withholding federal highway money be used as a stick to enforce compliance?

It has been for other things before (Montana's speed limits, Florida's colored shields), so it wouldn't surprise me.

Quote from: WNYroadgeek on December 17, 2009, 09:02:32 PM
Interesting. I too wonder how long it will take NYSDOT to convert to distance based exit numbers.

As much as I'd like to see it happen, it doesn't make sense to do unless the Thruway goes along with it to allow continuous mileage-based numbering for the entire lengths of I-87 and I-90.

Quote from: Jim on December 17, 2009, 10:51:02 PM

As much as I'd like to see it happen, it doesn't make sense to do unless the Thruway goes along with it to allow continuous mileage-based numbering for the entire lengths of I-87 and I-90.

how would they do that, given that right now the Thruway has its own exit number scheme that is independent of I-87 and I-90's mileage (and, at one point, I-90 is parallel to the Thruway but separate from it)?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 11:03:18 PM
how would they do that, given that right now the Thruway has its own exit number scheme that is independent of I-87 and I-90's mileage (and, at one point, I-90 is parallel to the Thruway but separate from it)?

I agree.  Also, just like the Ohio and Pennsylvania mainline turnpikes, the Thruway needs to have a consistent set of exit numbers for it's ticket system.  And, given the shape of the Thruway, just like I-376 in PA, one part of it will have numbers going the wrong way.  i.e. If the numbering is like the current sequential numbering, then the I-90 portion will be numbered backwards and if it is numbered from the PA border, I-87 will be numbered backwards.

My thoughts/questions so far:

* Instead of requiring a yield or stop sign for passive railroad crossings, how about "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"?

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

* It appears the requirement of using red arrows for protected only left turns on a separate signal head made it through unchanged.  Will be interesting to see how long it takes MoDOT to adapt to this change.

* Is the animated eye option for pedestrian signals really used anywhere?

* Section 4E.06, Standard 02:  Am I reading this wrong, or is this going to lead to great inefficiencies with pedestrian signals that display a walk when no peds are present?  Seems that a lot of left and right turn signals will have to be redone to have the flashing red.

* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

They're really getting tough on 8" traffic signals.  Cincinnati and a handful of other cities on this side of the Mississippi River still install 8" signals where they can.  It's going to be quite a bit harder now, even though existing ones are grandfathered in.

Previously, 8" signals could be used if the signals are less than 120' from the stop line (or between 120' and 150' from the stop line, if using a supplementary near-side signal), and the speed limit is 40 mph or less.  Now, they're only allowed if the signal is less than 120' from the stop line, with no exceptions, and the speed limit is 30 mph or less.  There's a LOT of 35 mph main roads that will now need to use 12" signals.

The change in positioning for shared signal faces at left turn lanes is interesting.  If a doghouse is used, for instance, it's not supposed to be directly in front of the left turn lane, but along its right edge, adjacent to the nearest through lane.  I suppose I can see the logic, but it seems a bit fussy. 

I like some of the roundabout signage, especially the right-pointing chevrons.  :)

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 18, 2009, 12:17:29 AM
* Instead of requiring a yield or stop sign for passive railroad crossings, how about "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"?

Probably because most people don't consider a railroad to be "cross traffic."  If I were to come upon a railroad crossing with a sign like that, I'd be looking for the street it applies to beyond the crossing, not at the track itself. 

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 18, 2009, 12:17:29 AM* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

This one makes sense to me for the ones mounted on the roof to indicate which lanes are open.  For one thing, it doesn't really make sense.  What would the yellow ball be used for anyway?  Also, it kind of looks like "oh, that lane is green, so I can blow through it."  I know, it takes a pretty good idiot to make that judgment, but there's no shortage of idiots in the world.  As for the payment signals at the toll booth itself, I'm not sure why they don't like those.  After all, it should be red to anyone who's approaching, though perhaps the very short (or completely missing) yellow phase is something they don't like. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2009, 11:03:18 PM

how would they do that, given that right now the Thruway has its own exit number scheme that is independent of I-87 and I-90's mileage (and, at one point, I-90 is parallel to the Thruway but separate from it)?

See Pennsylvania.  They just have to make sure that the exit numbers aren't the same on the ticketed portion - they can fudge up or down by 1 mile to make it happen.  The tickets just have to make clear I-90 exits, I-87 exits, and Berkshire Extension exits.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 18, 2009, 12:17:29 AM
My thoughts/questions so far:

* Instead of requiring a yield or stop sign for passive railroad crossings, how about "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"?

STOP and YIELD are the most commonly recognized signs and require certain actions to be taken.  You don't get that from your suggestion.

Quote from: Revive 755

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

Quote from: Revive 755
* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

It's because the red, yellow, and green have different meanings at a toll plaza.  Red X means "don't go in this lane", while red ball only means "stop".  Green downward arrow means "use this lane" but a green ball or other green arrow implies that you are free to go, whereas at a toll plaza you have to stop.  Yellow signal means slow down and stop, flashing yellow at a toll plaza means slow down for tolling.

Quote from: jjakucyk on December 18, 2009, 12:18:35 AM
They're really getting tough on 8" traffic signals.  Cincinnati and a handful of other cities on this side of the Mississippi River still install 8" signals where they can.  It's going to be quite a bit harder now, even though existing ones are grandfathered in.

Previously, 8" signals could be used if the signals are less than 120' from the stop line (or between 120' and 150' from the stop line, if using a supplementary near-side signal), and the speed limit is 40 mph or less.  Now, they're only allowed if the signal is less than 120' from the stop line, with no exceptions, and the speed limit is 30 mph or less.  There's a LOT of 35 mph main roads that will now need to use 12" signals.

I was the citizen mentioned as supporting 8" signals, and they even adopted some of my reasoning in the preamble (community context).  So at least they thought enough about it to permit it at all.

Quote from: jjakucyk on December 18, 2009, 12:29:34 AM

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 18, 2009, 12:17:29 AM* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

This one makes sense to me for the ones mounted on the roof to indicate which lanes are open.  For one thing, it doesn't really make sense.  What would the yellow ball be used for anyway?  Also, it kind of looks like "oh, that lane is green, so I can blow through it."  I know, it takes a pretty good idiot to make that judgment, but there's no shortage of idiots in the world.  As for the payment signals at the toll booth itself, I'm not sure why they don't like those.  After all, it should be red to anyone who's approaching, though perhaps the very short (or completely missing) yellow phase is something they don't like.  

Why would toll plazas even need a yellow phase for letting a vehicle go after toll collection?  The red and green are more than sufficient as the yellow phase is usually interpreted to mean "slow down" at other places such as intersections.

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. 

Quote from: jjakucyk on December 18, 2009, 03:46:30 PM
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!

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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmjr1990.webng.com%2FAARoads%2FLane%2520Drop%2520Example.jpeg&hash=55238c853a5408a9b1ba7602ca2ed5f0cd8f7317)

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)

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.

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

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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.

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 18, 2009, 03:37:44 PM

Quote from: Revive 755
* Figure 2F-5, Part A (http://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2f_05_longdesc.htm (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.

Quote from: Michael on December 18, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
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.

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2009, 09:01:03 PM
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?

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.

Quote from: mightyace on December 18, 2009, 09:05:14 PM
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.

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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...

Quote from: jjakucyk on December 18, 2009, 03:46:30 PM
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.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 18, 2009, 11:12:48 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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.

QuoteAlso, 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.

QuoteIt 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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2009, 11:56:26 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on December 18, 2009, 11:12:48 PM
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.

QuoteIt 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.]

Quote from: Brandon on December 18, 2009, 07:40:25 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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. 

Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2009, 12:01:30 AM
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".

Quote from: roadfro on December 19, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10)

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.

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.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2009, 12:42:44 AM
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!)

Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2009, 12:29:51 AM

Quote from: roadfro on December 19, 2009, 12:23:47 AM
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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10)

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

Quote from: doofy103 on December 19, 2009, 12:13:07 AM

Quote from: Brandon on December 18, 2009, 07:40:25 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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?

Quote from: doofy103 on December 19, 2009, 12:13:07 AM
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!

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 19, 2009, 10:49:06 AM

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??

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2009, 11:56:26 PM

QuoteAlso, 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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 19, 2009, 11:26:59 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 19, 2009, 10:49:06 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: deanej on December 19, 2009, 02:05:35 PM
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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 19, 2009, 11:26:59 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 19, 2009, 10:49:06 AM
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!  :pan:). 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.  ;-)

Quote from: treichard on December 19, 2009, 03:17:23 PM
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:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Ffixed-us-22-322-exit-gantry-for-us-22-business-lewistown.png&hash=48883b75a5692935f76b7fa2f4294eab9169a328)

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteI'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).

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2009, 06:51:55 PM

QuoteI'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? ;-)

Quote from: njroadhorse on December 20, 2009, 11:23:57 AM

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?

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2009, 06:51:55 PMThe preferred approach is something like this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Ffixed-us-22-322-exit-gantry-for-us-22-business-lewistown.png&hash=48883b75a5692935f76b7fa2f4294eab9169a328)

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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.m-plex.com%2Froads%2Fpamplex%2Ftreichard%2Fus22w_us322w_split.jpg&hash=95cd542829304e6155269a23dd0dcbe03ec11808)

And the new sign before construction had completely wrapped up, ~2004:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.m-plex.com%2Froads%2Fpamplex%2Ftreichard%2Fus22w_us322w_busus22w.jpg&hash=88c0f675e1a082bb8d751c6c3f814599a4e845ef)

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.  

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.

Quote from: MUTCDThe 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.

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

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F49%2FSpfd_MO_signblades.jpg%2F600px-Spfd_MO_signblades.jpg&hash=ae94558788fe9cbea4286a8f9e5fe24f65b19d70)

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

Quote
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnycosigns%2Fwayne.5.jpg&hash=2487f9229848d69f3d94bab0d32533adcf804be9)
Credit: Gribblenation

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.

Quote from: MUTCDThe 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/ (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.  :ded:

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 24, 2009, 08:40:38 PMSan 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.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 24, 2009, 08:45:21 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 24, 2009, 08:40:38 PMSan 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.   :eyebrow:

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.

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 24, 2009, 08:57:36 PM
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.

Why is the MUTCD worried about street signs? :eyebrow:

haven't they got anything better to guide?

Street signs are still traffic control devices.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 25, 2009, 02:50:38 AM
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. 

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.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 25, 2009, 03:15:24 AM
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".

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 25, 2009, 03:08:14 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 25, 2009, 02:50:38 AM
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. 

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
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.   :-o

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.

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?

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.

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 :|

that maybe be true - but not all jurisdictions get that (whether by own choice or not), and in my opinion, trickling down doesn't count ;)

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 25, 2009, 05:37:14 PM
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 :|

there's a world of difference between "sign in abomination font" and "arrow placement guidelines too restrictive".

is there a law that says MUTCD or else (in legalese of course)?

At the federal level, subordinate legislation--23 CFR whatever the hell it is--establishes the requirement that signing on federal-aid highways shall be in substantial conformance with the MUTCD.  I think the primary legislation which authorizes this chapter of CFR is a 1960's statute establishing the duties and powers of USDOT and its modal agencies, including FHWA.  At the state level, nearly every state has a provision in its primary legislation which requires adoption of the federal MUTCD, the federal MUTCD plus a state supplement, or some other type of traffic manual such as an own-state MUTCD.  Some states require additionally that adoption has to occur through a formal administrative action, such as amendment of the state's administrative code or a minute order signed by a designated official, while in others adoption is "automatic" (i.e., accomplished entirely by normal operation of the primary legislation:  on the date specified by FHWA in the 2009 MUTCD, the 2003 MUTCD becomes invalid and the 2009 MUTCD enters into force).  Depending on the type and degree of home-rule powers granted to localities within the state, some cities within the state may have a process for adopting the MUTCD via local ordinance.

FHWA's MUTCD site has FAQs addressing the generalities of applicability to federal-aid highways, while Part 1 of the MUTCD goes into more specific detail.

While micromanagement of local street signs may seem a tad silly, it's a non-issue in terms of costing money to change things. No signs will be changed until they're old and their time comes. And the types can mix. My town currently has over half dozen different specs of street sign in coexistence. Naturally, this includes some ancient leftover ones. The newest ones are all already mixed case, so no worries there!

There are compliance for street name signs listed in the MUTCD, but this is related to sign letter heights and not colors or mixed case.

I see no language relating to compliance dates for sign colors or mixed case legends. So unless I've missed something, there isn't a specific compliance date for these. Thus, the new standards apply solely to new or reconstructed installations. Any non-conforming signs would be brought into compliance through systematic upgrades/replacement of substandard signage pursuant to the "Highway Safety Program" of U.S.C. 23...  (Without having read the code, I'd assume that non-conforming street name signs could remain in place for the remainder of its useful life.)

Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2009, 01:34:37 AM
My town currently has over half dozen different specs of street sign in coexistence.

In comparison, San Francisco has used the all-caps black-on-white signs for decades, with no variance whatsoever.  If new installations have to have mixed case, they're going to stick out like sore thumbs amongst a forest of the traditional SF design...

Ironically, Lawrence has been in compliance with the 2009 MUCTD since the 1970s - I think whoever designed the Alphabet for Lawrence took part in designing the lower case letters for the rest of the FHWA series.

Regarding the mile-based exits: Will this affect I-19, and will OR I-84 be noticed?
I-84 uses sequential for exits 1-9 then switches to mileage from 10 on out, as the mileage east of I-205 is two miles higher than the distance signs to Portland (westbound). The discrepancy is from the never-built alignment that then I-80N was to take through SE Portland.

Also, does this mandate exit numbers on all freeways, not just Interstates?

The 2009 MUTCD has language in section 2E.31, paragraph 2, that I would interpret as every freeway requiring exit numbering. Furthermore, paragraph 4 requires numbering based on reference location signs.

Generally speaking, many changes that come up in new MUTCD versions apply to new construction, and existing signs (or markings or signals) can generally stay in place for the remainder of their useful service life. However, should there be any sort of rehabilitation project, any non-conforming signs must be changed unless there is a very substantial reason for keeping it. However, there are some specific provisions that are given "compliance dates". This means that the DOT or responsible agency must replace the signs or implement the provision by that given date. For example, the 2009 MUTCD has a compliance date of 12/31/2014 for implementing the black on yellow "left" plaque for left-hand exits.

With all that said, I would imagine that I-19 and I-84 would remain unaffected, unless there's some sort of rehabilitation effort that takes place. In particular, I-19 isn't overly affected because it has complied with the provisions of reference location exit numbering for years--the highway uses kilometers for reference posts, and the exit numbers are based on the km posts. However, ADOT is already planning to switch to mileposts and change exit numbering, as part of a larger sign replacement project funded by the stimulus (this was bought up in another thread).

Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2010, 12:48:28 AM
The 2009 MUTCD has language in section 2E.31, paragraph 2, that I would interpret as every freeway requiring exit numbering. Furthermore, paragraph 4 requires numbering based on reference location signs.

Does reference location signs mean milepost or mile markers?  If so, are these markers required on freeways in the 2009 MUTCD?  Wondering what the effect is going to be in California where Caltrans use postmile markers that reset at county lines.  The only freeway with mile post or mile markers is the CA-58 Mojave Bypass.

It won't affect California, as they decided to number every single exit in the state, based on mile distance from the highway's origin-- counting multiplexes (which routes in California don't do, legislatively). Some discontinuous routes, like CA 65, are oddball cases anyway, as there's a 300-some unconstructed gap through the eastern Central Valley; if that highway got built, the high exit numbers (if signed in the field; knowing CalTrans, it's possible they aren't yet) on the Roseville-Marysville portion may get renumbered.

Now, I wish that this would force ODOT to renumber OR 22's exit numbers east of Salem to reflect the entire length of the route instead of the hidden highway's origin at I-5. Or to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 12, 2010, 01:21:14 AM
Does reference location signs mean milepost or mile markers?  If so, are these markers required on freeways in the 2009 MUTCD?  Wondering what the effect is going to be in California where Caltrans use postmile markers that reset at county lines.  The only freeway with mile post or mile markers is the CA-58 Mojave Bypass.

"Reference Location Signs", in the context of the MUTCD, generally means the white on green mileposts depicted in the MUTCD and used by most states.  Section 2H.05, paragraph 2, of the 2009 MUTCD states as a standard that reference location signs shall be placed on all freeways as well as on expressway facilities where there is reference post continuity. "Enhanced Reference Location Signs", the ones that show the route shield and direction, can be used instead.

Note that, other than its placement within the manual, the language regarding reference location signs has not changed from the 2003 MUTCD. I haven't reviewed the California MUTCD that came after the 2003 MUTCD for this specific policy, but I'm more than 99% certain that the federal standard was changed in the California manual. Caltrans seems pretty committed to the postmile system, and probably won't change anytime soon. Thus, I would expect that Caltrans will change the language again in their modification to the 2009 MUTCD to continue using their postmile system...with maybe leaving federal milepost design available as an option.


I think this is one of those things that isn't a major sticking point as far as FHWA is concerned. California is using a roadside referencing system which aids in location finding for maintenance, emergency personnel and motorists (to a lesser extent), which is the main purpose behind mileposts. Their new exit numbers comply with the general provisions of numbering by reference location and done on a statewide basis.

Along the same lines, Nevada uses a reference system similar to California's. The difference is that NDOT puts federal mileposts on the two major Interstates in addition to the county-based postmiles. So for the freeway portions of US 95 and US 395, Nevada is technically in noncompliance with the MUTCD...but the exits are numbered according to statewide miles, so I think FHWA hasn't made a big stink about this.

Quote from: Bickendan on January 12, 2010, 04:19:35 AM
Now, I wish that this would force ODOT [...] to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

Having the zero milepost be at the south or west terminus of the route (or south/west state line for multi-state routes) is a guidance and not a standard, so it's not a requirement.

In this case, the zero milepost isn't on US 97. It's on US 197.

Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2010, 04:28:15 AM

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 12, 2010, 01:21:14 AM
Does reference location signs mean milepost or mile markers?  If so, are these markers required on freeways in the 2009 MUTCD?  Wondering what the effect is going to be in California where Caltrans use postmile markers that reset at county lines.  The only freeway with mile post or mile markers is the CA-58 Mojave Bypass.

"Reference Location Signs", in the context of the MUTCD, generally means the white on green mileposts depicted in the MUTCD and used by most states.  Section 2H.05, paragraph 2, of the 2009 MUTCD states as a standard that reference location signs shall be placed on all freeways as well as on expressway facilities where there is reference post continuity. "Enhanced Reference Location Signs", the ones that show the route shield and direction, can be used instead.

Note that, other than its placement within the manual, the language regarding reference location signs has not changed from the 2003 MUTCD. I haven't reviewed the California MUTCD that came after the 2003 MUTCD for this specific policy, but I'm more than 99% certain that the federal standard was changed in the California manual. Caltrans seems pretty committed to the postmile system, and probably won't change anytime soon.

Had a quick look at the current California MUTCD and the Reference Location Signs language is located in sections 2D.46 and 2E.54.  For the purpose of this post, I'll refer to these signs as "Mile Markers".

In Section 2D.46, Caltrans removed wording that says the Mile Markers are to be used for maintenance purposes and to identify where emergency incidents are.  This makes sense since the white postmiles seen on our freeways are what's used for maintenance purposes.  Also removed is the provision to install Mile Markers on exit or entrance ramps.  Caltrans added a new "Standard" section that prohibits the use of metric markers of any sort.

In Section 2E.54, Caltrans did change "shall" to "may" when it comes to the installation of Mile Markers thus making the Mile Marker signs purely optional instead of mandatory.  There is also another notation that metric markers are prohibited.

Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2010, 04:28:15 AMThus, I would expect that Caltrans will change the language again in their modification to the 2009 MUTCD to continue using their postmile system...with maybe leaving federal milepost design available as an option.

Yeah, I expect there will be quite a few changes California will make to the 2009 MUTCD (this being one of them).  California has until January 2012 to fold the 2009 MUTCD changes into the current California MUTCD.

Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2010, 04:34:15 AM

Quote from: Bickendan on January 12, 2010, 04:19:35 AM
Now, I wish that this would force ODOT [...] to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

Having the zero milepost be at the south or west terminus of the route (or south/west state line for multi-state routes) is a guidance and not a standard, so it's not a requirement.

According to Section 2E.31, Paragraph 11 (page 216), it's required because of the word "shall":

QuoteRegardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.

Does this mean that freeway segments of a route will need to be numbered using the mileage of the entire route and not just the freeway portion's terminus?

I've also seen recent discussion on the "Road-Related Illustrations" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg50725#msg50725) about California's exit "tabs".  I'm not sure how they will handle the requirement (again, because of the word "shall") for separate exit tabs (Section 2E.11, Paragraph 1, Page 212):

QuoteThe exit number shall be displayed on a separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign.

Quote from: Michael on January 12, 2010, 03:11:28 PM

Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2010, 04:34:15 AM

Quote from: Bickendan on January 12, 2010, 04:19:35 AM
Now, I wish that this would force ODOT [...] to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

Having the zero milepost be at the south or west terminus of the route (or south/west state line for multi-state routes) is a guidance and not a standard, so it's not a requirement.

According to Section 2E.31, Paragraph 11 (page 216), it's required because of the word "shall":

QuoteRegardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.

Note that this only says so about the exit numbering system.  From a quick glance, I didn't see anything that requires that the exit numbering system be based on the reference marking system.

--Andy

Quote from: Michael on January 12, 2010, 03:11:28 PM
Does this mean that freeway segments of a route will need to be numbered using the mileage of the entire route and not just the freeway portion's terminus?

California is extremely inconsistent as far as this is concerned - the exit numbers for the San Mateo County spur I-380 factor in the unconstructed milage from I-280 west to Route 1, while Route 14's exit numbers begin at I-5 with an explicit disregard for the unbuilt Reseda extension southward.

Quote from: TheStranger on January 12, 2010, 06:09:35 PM

Quote from: Michael on January 12, 2010, 03:11:28 PM
Does this mean that freeway segments of a route will need to be numbered using the mileage of the entire route and not just the freeway portion's terminus?

California is extremely inconsistent as far as this is concerned - the exit numbers for the San Mateo County spur I-380 factor in the unconstructed milage from I-280 west to Route 1, while Route 14's exit numbers begin at I-5 with an explicit disregard for the unbuilt Reseda extension southward.

From what I understand, if there are no plans to complete a route like in CA-14's case, exit numbering will start at the current western endpoint.  This means, there are still "plans" to complete I-380 from CA-1 to I-280.

From Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org...
Note: Caltrans is following the convention of when a route originates within a State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus shall be the beginning point for exit numbering. Sometimes, the terminus is the end of the constructed or determined portion to the S or W, if there are no plans to ever complete the legislative route. Examples of this are Route 170 and Route 14.

Quote from: Michael on January 12, 2010, 03:11:28 PMI'm not sure how they will handle the requirement (again, because of the word "shall") for separate exit tabs (Section 2E.11, Paragraph 1, Page 212)

Like I posted in the Road-Related Illustrations thread, the current California MUTCD, which is based on the 2003 MUTCD, contains a number of crossed-out "Standard" sections and numerous "shall" statements have been changed to "should" or "may".

It appears that the MUTCD is a bit contradictory on exit numbers and mileposts. Section 2E.31 requires exit numbering begin at the south/west point of the route or state line, and that numbering should be reference location based. However, Section 2H.05, paragraph 13, only gives guidance that mileposts should have the zero point at the south/west terminus or state line.  I suppose it is theoretically possible to number exits based on mileage, but backwards from the order of increasing mileposts...  :pan:

One point that should be made clear when discussing the MUTCD:

For those states that use the federal MUTCD without supplement or state version, what's listed in the federal version is the standards that state should be following.

Many states have a state supplement or state version of the MUTCD. For those states, they have a period (usually about two years from adoption of the national manual) to implement changes into their supplement/state version. Many states, notably California, will make alterations to the federal MUTCD provisions when adopting their own manual. The FHWA requires that the state versions be in "substantial compliance" with the federal version, but do give the state leeway to adopt stricter standards or modify certain provisions. This is how Caltrans can modify the California version to not explicitly use milemarkers but postmiles, etc.

So with this explanation, it can be seen that changes to the national MUTCD do not necessarily bring automatic changes to the states. Now, what changes and provisions constitute in state versions amount to "substantial compliance" is for the FHWA to decide...

For reference, you can determine whether a state uses a state MUTCD or state supplement here (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/index.htm)

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 12, 2010, 06:24:41 PM

From what I understand, if there are no plans to complete a route like in CA-14's case, exit numbering will start at the current western endpoint.  This means, there are still "plans" to complete I-380 from CA-1 to I-280.

There are two things that this makes me think of:

1. I understand the point of the legislative routes, but it seems like honestly route designations should be left to Caltrans (and be independent of maintenance, as opposed to the odd way that routes now have to be defined in context with segments no longer maintained by the state)
2. Honestly, I-380 west of I-280 (which would cross the San Andreas Fault) is just as unlikely as the Reseda Freeway to exist in our lifetimes...so who determines whether these "plans" are realistic enough to adjust the exit numbering for them?

Quote from: TheStranger on January 12, 2010, 10:14:46 PM
2. Honestly, I-380 west of I-280 (which would cross the San Andreas Fault) is just as unlikely as the Reseda Freeway to exist in our lifetimes...so who determines whether these "plans" are realistic enough to adjust the exit numbering for them?

Caltrans  :sombrero:

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 12, 2010, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Michael on January 12, 2010, 03:11:28 PMI'm not sure how they will handle the requirement (again, because of the word "shall") for separate exit tabs (Section 2E.11, Paragraph 1, Page 212)

Like I posted in the Road-Related Illustrations thread, the current California MUTCD, which is based on the 2003 MUTCD, contains a number of crossed-out "Standard" sections and numerous "shall" statements have been changed to "should" or "may".

In an e-mail I received from NYSDOT regarding exit numbering, I was told that a State Supplement would not be able to use sequential exit numbers.  I posted the e-mail earlier in this thread, but here it is again for convenience (emphasis added):

Quote
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.

If this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2010, 07:04:22 PM
It appears that the MUTCD is a bit contradictory on exit numbers and mileposts. Section 2E.31 requires exit numbering begin at the south/west point of the route or state line, and that numbering should be reference location based. However, Section 2H.05, paragraph 13, only gives guidance that mileposts should have the zero point at the south/west terminus or state line.  I suppose it is theoretically possible to number exits based on mileage, but backwards from the order of increasing mileposts...  :pan:

I stand corrected (concerning the connection between the exit numbering system and the reference marker system).  I knew that was somewhere in there.  I just couldn't find it immediately.  The context of the statement indicates that it is about the sequencing of the exit numbers, not that it be connected to the existing reference marking system.  This keeps a state from having to change it's reference marking system which would be a monumental project for any DOT as all records concerning positioning of things on highways use the existing reference marking system from construction projects to route logs.

--Andy

Quote from: Michael on January 13, 2010, 01:52:48 PM
In an e-mail I received from NYSDOT regarding exit numbering, I was told that a State Supplement would not be able to use sequential exit numbers.  I posted the e-mail earlier in this thread, but here it is again for convenience (emphasis added):

Quote
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.

If this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

You answered your own question.  It's CalTrans and California.  California seems to believe it is special within the Union, and therefore, exempt from whatever it chooses to be exempt from.

Quote from: Brandon on January 13, 2010, 03:52:12 PM
You answered your own question.  It's CalTrans and California.  California seems to believe it is special within the Union, and therefore, exempt from whatever it chooses to be exempt from.

Yeah, California is not a separate country, yet!  :sombrero:

Quote from: Michael on January 13, 2010, 01:52:48 PMIf this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

The only way to do it legally that I am aware of is to confine the alterations and cancellations of "shall" statements to signs or signing situations which simply don't exist in California.  I haven't gone through the California MUTCD to check whether such alterations are so confined.  I think there are probably a few California MUTCD provisions which flat-out contradict "shall" statements in the federal MUTCD (things like yellow for crosswalks come to mind) but for which Caltrans has some sort of side deal (I am not sure how formal it is) with California FHWA to come into compliance on an incremental basis.  When the California MUTCD supplement came out in 2004, there were a number of PowerPoint presentations posted to the Caltrans website (where they may still be), and in one of them a representative of the California FHWA office used the phrase "low-hanging fruit" in relation to things like exit numbers.

The law is the law, but in reality enforcement is selective even for public agencies.  California has about 50 Congressmen, most of whom would consider it a matter of constituent service to make a fuss if FHWA tried to push through drastic enforcement actions like cutting off all federal highway aid to California.

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 15, 2010, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: Michael on January 13, 2010, 01:52:48 PMIf this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

The only way to do it legally that I am aware of is to confine the alterations and cancellations of "shall" statements to signs or signing situations which simply don't exist in California.  I haven't gone through the California MUTCD to check whether such alterations are so confined.  I think there are probably a few California MUTCD provisions which flat-out contradict "shall" statements in the federal MUTCD (things like yellow for crosswalks come to mind) but for which Caltrans has some sort of side deal (I am not sure how formal it is) with California FHWA to come into compliance on an incremental basis.  When the California MUTCD supplement came out in 2004, there were a number of PowerPoint presentations posted to the Caltrans website (where they may still be), and in one of them a representative of the California FHWA office used the phrase "low-hanging fruit" in relation to things like exit numbers.

In looking for one of those PowerPoint presentations, I found this letter (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/fhwaconformanceletter.pdf) (PDF) from FHWA California Division regarding California's 2004 adoption of the national MUTCD with state supplement and the issue of "substantial compliance".

It indicates that the 2004 California MUTCD has a number of items/changes that are unacceptable in relation to the national manual (yellow crosswalks near schools is given as a specific example). Such non-conforming items have been "grandfathered" in at the state level, if in place prior to May 2004. California FHWA believes that California transitioning to the national MUTCD will provide a vast number of safety benefits, and immediate insistence on banning non-conforming devices would have significantly delayed (or even prevented) the state's adoption. Further, FHWA recognizes that California has agreed to take further steps toward compliance, including a senior engineer position to deal with MUTCD issues, specifying use of reflective sheeting on guide signs, and implementing exit numbering.

The letter also states that any changes made to the California supplement after May 2004 must conform with the national MUTCD. So it is possible that several non-standard uses, such as yellow crosswalk lines, may continue to exist forever, so long as Caltrans doesn't modify that specification in their MUTCD supplement.

Historically speaking, hasn't non-compliance with the MUTCD standards resulted in yanking of federal funds for things?  A certain color-coding of US shields in Florida seems to come to mind.  Or perhaps California is just so flush with money given their current budget surplus that they're not concerned about it.  Oh wait. :)

Well, it's may not necessarily be that non-compliance results in yanking of federal funds. However, FHWA certainly won't be paying for anything that's non-conforming, as anything funded with federal aid must conform.

As I stated, California is making great strides to implement a lot more conformance with the MUTCD.  FHWA realizes this and is willing to grant California some latitude on full compliance right now.

Quote from: Michael on January 13, 2010, 01:52:48 PM

If this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

From the FAQ section this how CA probably gets around changing shall statements


Q: What does substantial conformance mean in regard to State Supplements and State MUTCDs?


A: In 2006 a specific definition of substantial conformance was added to the Code of Federal Regulations. 23 CFR 655.603(b) states that "substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements included in the National MUTCD" and that "the guidance statements contained in the National MUTCD shall also be in the State Manual or supplement unless the reason for not including it is satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment, specific conflicting State law, or a documented engineering study." This section of the CFR also allows FHWA to grant exceptions in cases where a State MUTCD or supplement cannot conform to standard statements in the National MUTCD because of the requirements of a specific State law that was in effect prior to the January 16, 2007 effective date of this provision, if FHWA determines the non-conformance does not create a safety concern. Also, legal precedents have determined that State Supplements and State MUTCDs can be more prescriptive than the national MUTCD. This means that a State can make a national MUTCD "should" condition a "shall" condition in that State, can allow in that State only one of several national MUTCD optional designs for a particular device, or can prohibit the use in that State of a particular optional device. However, State Supplements and State MUTCDs cannot omit or change a national MUTCD "shall" to a "should" or change a "should" to a "may". The FHWA reviews each State Supplement and State MUTCD and makes determinations as to substantial conformance.

Quote from: roadfro on January 20, 2010, 04:45:38 AM
Well, it's may not necessarily be that non-compliance results in yanking of federal funds. However, FHWA certainly won't be paying for anything that's non-conforming, as anything funded with federal aid must conform.

As I stated, California is making great strides to implement a lot more conformance with the MUTCD.  FHWA realizes this and is willing to grant California some latitude on full compliance right now.

I think it's more history than anything.  California (and New York, for that matter) was one of the first states to develop standards.  Over the course of the years, California kept innovating - for example, they developed among the first 3-digit shields that I know of - so there's been a history of California pushing the FHWA, instead of vice versa as it is for most other states.  Why California gets a pass - a) they've been doing this a long time and b) there are a lot of people / political influence there to keep the power.  New York, meanwhile, after developing its own standards for a number of years, is now a laggart when it comes to the MUTCD...

Quote from: AlpsROADS on July 30, 2010, 05:12:23 PM
California kept innovating - for example, they developed among the first 3-digit shields that I know of

it was, of all places, Massachusetts.  They had two distinct sizes of state route by 1930.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19300011i2.jpg)

MA had a 17x16 US-202 shield to go with their 16x16 shields in other sizes as early as 1934, when US-202 was signed.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19302021i1.jpg)

it took Michael Summa and me three days to figure out just why the Hell we couldn't straighten out that 202 shield in that photo.  The proportions were just not coming out - either the shield edge would line up, or the numbers, but not both.  Then we added an extra inch of width to the shield and it worked out perfectly.  It ends up looking like this.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19302021t202020.jpg)

New York had those oversized three-digit US routes starting in 1931.  

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19391041i1.jpg)

before that, they used the federal standard shield shape, before changing over to the slightly wider two-digit shields, and the much larger three-digit ones (albeit, with the double border).

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19270061i1.jpg)

I've never seen a photo of a three-digit 1920s New York shield, but their state signing manual from 1927 mentions "16 1/2 by 16 inch" for US route marker with no exception.

California had three-digit-wide interstates on overhead guide signs starting in 1958.  In fact, they had five separate widths of US, state, and interstate shields, between 1956 and 1961, when they went with the standard federal two widths.  That way, they could more accurately conform to the various widths of one to three digit routes, including digit "1" which is about half a digit wide.

I do not know who invented the surface-level three-digit interstate shield; as far as I can recall, its earliest mention is in the 1961 federal MUTCD, but I may have a California specification that says 1958 or 1959, as opposed to 1962, which is when California adopted the federal 1961 standards.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2009, 12:42:44 AM
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.

Those fonts, sizes, and spacings are there for a reason. Politicians skimped on the signs before the MUTCD, and made the lettering too small to be read at speed.

---

Post Merge: August 03, 2010, 10:48:56 PM

---

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 25, 2009, 03:08:14 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 25, 2009, 02:50:38 AM
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. 

Wanna bet? I had a cop stop me because I was slowing down at intersections to read unreflectorized white on maroon street signs at night. He thought I was driving drunk. I was looking for an address.

Have you noticed the changes in traffic signals?

- Yellow trap is abolished (as it was in the 2003 MUTCD, with compliance by 2008). But I am still seeing signals that do it everywhere.

- The 4 and 3 section flashing yellow arrows faces are now part of the MUTCD.

- The 3 section flashing red arrows face is now part of the MUTCD.

- Dallas phasing is no longer allowed.

- New installations may not have circular green over or in front of the left turn lane.

- The language is now repaired to eliminate an ambiguity that caused some people to think a green arrow could be shown turning across a crosswalk having a walk or flashing don't walk signal.

- Exclusive left turn signals must have red arrows.

- Turns on red arrows require a sign permitting the turn, or a flashing red arrow.

- There must be two signal faces for straight ahead, as well as two signal faces for the major movement.

- If a shared turn and straight lane exists, the turn and straight greens must begin and end together. The turn signal may change between permissive and protected during the straight ahead green, but it must not be red.

- Countdown vehicle signals are prohibited, as are any early indications of change visible from the stop line.

- Countdown pedestrian signals are3 required for new installations.

- Pedestrian signals must have filled in indications, not outlines.

- Hybrid signals for fire entrances and pedestrian crossings - not at intersections!

- New U-turn indication, but not to be used where left turn indication exists.

- Backplates can have yellow reflective background. These are good if the power fails.

Quote from: Troubleshooter on August 03, 2010, 10:19:06 PM
Wanna bet? I had a cop stop me because I was slowing down at intersections to read unreflectorized white on maroon street signs at night. He thought I was driving drunk. I was looking for an address.

I believe those are now "non-standard" (ie violate the MUTCD)

I'll be attending a conference next week and one of the sessions is on changes in the 2009 MUTCD. I'll be sure to take copious notes.

I am glad that Barnwell County, S.C. will be FORCED to change their street signs, I DO NOT LIKE THOSE UGLY SIGNS THEY HAVE UP AT ALL!!!

I also hate like the fact that neighboring Aiken County must also change their signs as I see nothing wrong with their signage. Every county in the nation could learn from Aiken County on how to make a proper street sign.

I'm a little surprised that this isn't a HUGE topic here (given all the attention on the cable news channels and broadcast networks):

QuoteU.S. Department of Transportation Calls for New Round of Comments on
Compliance Dates for Key Traffic Regulations

WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood today called for additional public input on compliance dates for a number of federal traffic control regulations, ranging from road sign reflectivity to crosswalk timing.

"Given the difficult economic conditions states currently face, asking for additional input on compliance dates is the right thing to do,"  said Secretary LaHood. "We want to be sure these safety requirements are reasonable, fair and cost-effective."

The public will have 45 days from tomorrow to submit comments to the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to www.regulations.gov.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which has been administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since 1971, is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation's changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools and traffic management techniques.

In finalizing updates to the MUTCD, FHWA works with and receives input from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, composed of more than 250 key stakeholders representing state departments of transportation, city and county governments, academia, and trade groups such as the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The FHWA also seeks input from the public on changes to the MUTCD, including compliance dates. Comments are solicited from the general public, state and local highway agencies, the insurance industry, law enforcement agencies, incident management and maintenance personnel, academic institutions, planning, construction and engineering organizations, and other industry stakeholders.

"Safety is our priority, but so is good government,"  said Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez. "Listening to the public helps to ensure both."  
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/fhwa6410.html (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/fhwa6410.html)

What do you guys think of the potential reversal of the new street sign rules?

Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2010, 02:32:10 PM
What do you guys think of the potential reversal of the new street sign rules?

Hear, hear.

The federal government has no business dictating minutiae such as letter case, font, letter height, etc. to state and local governments.

Aren't most states several years behind MUTCD compliance? I mean, aren't some states just now putting up new signs that conform to, say, the 2003 or 2004 MUTCD?

Quote from: Quillz on November 30, 2010, 05:10:12 PM
Aren't most states several years behind MUTCD compliance? I mean, aren't some states just now putting up new signs that conform to, say, the 2003 or 2004 MUTCD?

The vast majority of rules don't have compliance dates only new devices must be compliant.

http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-street-signs-regulations-112910,0,3448291.story

Local MUTCD Compliance story

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_711628.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_711628.html)

One of the Pittsburgh papers also ran a street-sign story today.

As an aside, the few times I've driven thru Franklin Park, I've never much cared for the vertical post "signs".

Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2010, 02:47:01 PM
Hear, hear.

The federal government has no business dictating minutiae such as letter case, font, letter height, etc. to state and local governments.

May 3" tall all-caps Comic Sans signage guide you on all your journeys.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2010, 02:47:01 PMHear, hear.

The federal government has no business dictating minutiae such as letter case, font, letter height, etc. to state and local governments.

This is a marvelous opportunity for you to put your money where your mouth is (not that any money has to change hands; commenting is free) and try to get FHWA to buy your states'-rights argument.  I look forward to reading your comments.

Indeed.  I'd like to hear your reasoning, HBE...

I agree with the general principle HBE espouses.  However, IMHO, whatever "states' rights" argument you come up with becomes irrelevant once you start taking Federal $$.

Because there's a basic fact of life that I've learned.  It's sometimes called "the other Golden Rule" (not the one in the Christian Bible).  It is basically this:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Washington, DC used this to enact the now defunct National Speed Limit and things like the 21 minimum drinking age.  Congress has no direct authority to enact this legislation, those are states matters.  What the laws and others like them say is, "Do this the way we in Washington want, or you won't get money from us."

It's my belief that Federal highway funding should only be tied to highway related initiatives.  Minimum drinking age 21 is not highway related.  They try to tie it together, but it's a very flawed argument.  On the other hand, sign uniformity is certainly highway related.

I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other. But yet we allow states to design their own state route markers, which could cause some confusion. Kentucky uses the bland circle for its state route sign. But two of our neighboring states use that same symbol for two distinctly different classes of roads. In West Virginia that is a county route and in Virginia it's a secondary route. Seems to me a better case could be made for requiring uniform markers for state and county routes than for dictating letter case and font in street signs.

Why should the federal government be involved in deciding what letter case and font local governments use in marking local routes? Why shouldn't that be a local decision?

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2010, 09:04:23 PM
I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other. But yet we allow states to design their own state route markers, which could cause some confusion. Kentucky uses the bland circle for its state route sign. But two of our neighboring states use that same symbol for two distinctly different classes of roads. In West Virginia that is a county route and in Virginia it's a secondary route. Seems to me a better case could be made for requiring uniform markers for state and county routes than for dictating letter case and font in street signs.

Why should the federal government be involved in deciding what letter case and font local governments use in marking local routes? Why shouldn't that be a local decision?

As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

But don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2010, 09:04:23 PM
I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other.

I think Maryland's version of the "Lane Ends" sign would work the best.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.680212,-79.219317&spn=0.003039,0.006968&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.680214,-79.219464&panoid=Mdf8I525Gf2rSl_UHVg5Sw&cbp=12,306.96,,1,3.55

Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 09:22:55 PM
As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

Oh heck no.  I like that states can have their own route markers.  The only thing is that I would force no state to use a "circle" or "square" for state routes UNLESS they mention the state name in them.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2010, 09:04:23 PM
Why should the federal government be involved in deciding what letter case and font local governments use in marking local routes? Why shouldn't that be a local decision?

As has been posted in response to this question here several times before, it is because FHWA Series fonts have a known set of properties that produce a constant value of legibility that can be used to calculate appropriate letter heights.

I do think, however, that since we have had a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2686.0) on this topic before, we should resurrect that instead of allowing this subject to clutter up this general 2009 MUTCD thread.

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 01, 2010, 09:30:00 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2010, 09:04:23 PM
I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other.

I think Maryland's version of the "Lane Ends" sign would work the best.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.680212,-79.219317&spn=0.003039,0.006968&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.680214,-79.219464&panoid=Mdf8I525Gf2rSl_UHVg5Sw&cbp=12,306.96,,1,3.55

Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 09:22:55 PM
As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

Oh heck no.  I like that states can have their own route markers.  The only thing is that I would force no state to use a "circle" or "square" for state routes UNLESS they mention the state name in them.

That's a good compromise, too, and I should be clear that in no way to I actually want every state to be forced into a certain state route shield, but that doesn't change the fact it might help alleviate possible motorist confusion.

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 01, 2010, 09:30:00 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2010, 09:04:23 PM
I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other.

I think Maryland's version of the "Lane Ends" sign would work the best.

I've already seen examples of those in Delaware and Virginia.

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 01, 2010, 09:30:00 PM

Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 09:22:55 PM
As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

Oh heck no.  I like that states can have their own route markers.  The only thing is that I would force no state to use a "circle" or "square" for state routes UNLESS they mention the state name in them.

I agree with rickmastfan.

Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 09:22:55 PM
As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

At least one state uses British-style alphanumeric combinations in rectangles.

Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 09:22:55 PM
But don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

Does the new MUTCD say anything about the shields can be painted on highways?

Quote from: stormwatch7721 on December 02, 2010, 12:00:10 AM
Does the new MUTCD say anything about the shields can be painted on highways?

Yes. There are detailed drawings of proper dimensions and layouts, even.

Oh ok. I remember seeing the photo captions on Steve Alpert's website about them.

Quote from: NE2

Quote from: QuillzBut don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

Minnesota's a better example, since unlike Wisconsin, Minnesota county roads are bona-fide county roads.

Quote from: stormwatch7721 on December 02, 2010, 12:00:10 AM
Does the new MUTCD say anything about the shields can be painted on highways?

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/part3b.htm#section3B20

Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2010, 03:54:04 PM

Quote from: NE2

Quote from: QuillzBut don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

Minnesota's a better example, since unlike Wisconsin, Minnesota county roads are bona-fide county roads.

Eh? Doesn't each county maintain their county trunk highways?

Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2010, 04:42:46 PM

Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2010, 03:54:04 PM

Quote from: NE2

Quote from: QuillzBut don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

Minnesota's a better example, since unlike Wisconsin, Minnesota county roads are bona-fide county roads.

Eh? Doesn't each county maintain their county trunk highways?

Yes.  Adam, I think you're confusing Wisconsin with Michigan.  In Michigan, they cross county lines (H-58 in the UP, A-2 in the LP for example).

No, Michigan also has "real" county roads in the sense that counties maintain them. Missouri, however, has lettered state secondary routes.

Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2010, 07:23:42 PM
No, Michigan also has "real" county roads in the sense that counties maintain them. Missouri, however, has lettered state secondary routes.

Maybe Adam actually was confusing Wisconsin and Missouri. X-( In any event, Michigan's county-designated highways are county-maintained except for those few routes which run concurrent with a state trunkline.

No confusion at all.  Wisconsin's kinda a weird one.  Yes, the county maintains the county trunk highways in that state.  But the county also maintains state highways and even Interstates.  WisDOT doesn't do maintenance...it's all at the county level regardless of the road type.

The other reason I specified Minnesota is that, unlike Wisconsin, MnDOT leaves it up to the counties as to how they sign their county routes.  Some choose the blue pentagon exclusively...others the white square exclusively.  And some do a mix.

Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2010, 10:56:56 PM
Some choose the blue pentagon exclusively...others the white square exclusively.  And some do a mix.

I thought there was a well-defined pattern to this: state-aid routes get the pentagon and solely county-funded ones get the white square.  Is this not correct?

Meanwhile, the Wisconsin state MUTCD supplement contains this interesting statement within:

"The M1-6 County Route Sign illustrated in the MUTCD is intended to identify a special system of important County Highways, and shall not be used unless the Wisconsin Counties Association has established a state-wide system as prescribed by the National Association of Counties.  The standard County Route Sign (M1-5A) shall be a white square with black border and legend."

Apparently, what sets Wisconsin's county highways apart from those of other states is that they aren't important.  :eyebrow:

Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2010, 07:23:42 PM
No, Michigan also has "real" county roads in the sense that counties maintain them. Missouri, however, has lettered state secondary routes.

Missouri also has county routes signed with the pentagon.

Quote from: froggie on December 02, 2010, 10:56:56 PM
No confusion at all.  Wisconsin's kinda a weird one.  Yes, the county maintains the county trunk highways in that state.  But the county also maintains state highways and even Interstates.  WisDOT doesn't do maintenance...it's all at the county level regardless of the road type.

On my jaunt up US 61 in Wisconsin during the summer, WisDOT trucks and personnel were out throwing cold mix into potholes and cracks in the pavement.

QuoteI thought there was a well-defined pattern to this: state-aid routes get the pentagon and solely county-funded ones get the white square.  Is this not correct?

Not correct.  It's up to each county how they choose to sign their county routes.  I believe I've mentioned this before on here.

Some (like Hennepin and Anoka) use only the blue pentagon, regardless of state aid status.  Others (Olmstead, Carver, and Washington among them) use only the white square.  Then there are those (namely Stearns, Freeborn, and Dakota) that do as you describe.

QuoteOn my jaunt up US 61 in Wisconsin during the summer, WisDOT trucks and personnel were out throwing cold mix into potholes and cracks in the pavement.

Are you sure they were WisDOT trucks?  In the past, WisDOT provided the funds, but the county did maintenance.  It's definitely still that way for snow removal.

Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2010, 01:40:01 PM
Are you sure they were WisDOT trucks?  In the past, WisDOT provided the funds, but the county did maintenance.  It's definitely still that way for snow removal.

Even in Michigan, MDOT has subcontracted some maintenance activities (snow removal being a major one) to county road commissions and municipal governments. But that technically doesn't change the fact that MDOT is responsible for state trunklines while counties and municipalities are responsible for their local roads.

Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2010, 01:40:01 PM

Are you sure they were WisDOT trucks?  In the past, WisDOT provided the funds, but the county did maintenance.  It's definitely still that way for snow removal.

Yes. Given where I work, I tend to notice such things.  :-P

Quote from: Andrew T. on December 02, 2010, 11:17:25 PM
Meanwhile, the Wisconsin state MUTCD supplement contains this interesting statement within:

"The M1-6 County Route Sign illustrated in the MUTCD is intended to identify a special system of important County Highways, and shall not be used unless the Wisconsin Counties Association has established a state-wide system as prescribed by the National Association of Counties.  The standard County Route Sign (M1-5A) shall be a white square with black border and legend."

Apparently, what sets Wisconsin's county highways apart from those of other states is that they aren't important.  :eyebrow:

Anyways, I really *LIKE* Wisconsin's standard county signs.

:cheers:

Mike

Resurrecting this thread, I thought some of you (Mr. Winkler in particular) would find this presentation (http://www.richardcmoeur.com/pres/trb2011s354-moeur.pdf) of interest.  It was given by Richard Moeur of Arizona DOT (some of you may remember him from MTR many years ago) at one of the TRB annual meeting (http://www.trb.org/AnnualMeeting2011/Public/AnnualMeeting2011.aspx) workshops yesterday.

Of particular note is page 25.  ADOT estimates the price of full compliance with the 2009 MUTCD at $400 million.

Quote from: froggie on January 25, 2011, 07:49:23 AM
Of particular note is page 25.  ADOT estimates the price of full compliance with the 2009 MUTCD at $400 million.

$400 million better spent elsewhere.  those few remaining button copy signs all seem perfectly serviceable to me. 

There's FAR MORE involved with that figure than just repalcing a few button copy signs.

is there anything that is wildly, dangerously out of compliance?  like Templin Highway Stop Sign level of terrifying?

Froggie--many thanks for sharing the link.

The $400 million figure for one-time compliance costs in Arizona sounds a tad high to me, but then the detailed basis for that calculation is not given and I have never had to price traffic control device installation for local agencies.  Sign rehabilitations are broken out separately:  $3 million funding annually to maintain a 30-year replacement cycle, which will have to triple to go to a 10-year replacement cycle.  That is about $120 million extra over 20 years.

BTW, Arizona DOT seems to have stopped letting signing replacement jobs as construction contracts.  Instead, they are being done as procurement contracts.  Last September ADOT awarded a sign replacement contract (spanning seven TRACS numbers and covering long lengths of I-40, I-17, I-10, I-8, and Loop 202) to two vendors.  The total award amount was about $6 million.

If Arizona is saying that it will cost them $400 million to be fully compliant with the 2009 MUTCD, then I would dare say that California's estimate of $500 million to $1 billion for full compliance is a low-ball number when considering the highway networks of each state.  Assuming Arizona's estimate is accurate, then a more realistic estimate for California would be in the $2-4 billion range.

^^^

Unless there's a lot of pork or graft in Arizona's figure.

I don't mean to resurrect a thread that's not seen any activity in the past 5 months but California *finally* released drafts of Parts 2D and 2E of it's 2011 California MUTCD.  These sections pertain to guide signs and covers the somewhat controversial arrow-per-lane diagrammatic introduced in the 2009 MUTCD.

Link: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2011_draftrevisions.htm

I've had a chance to skim through it and found that California did not modify it as much as I thought they would.  In fact, the sections covering street sign (no more all caps), arrow-per-lane diagrammatics and one-down-arrow-per-lane sections were pretty much left intact.  Whether that means California will follow these new standards is another story... remember, this is only a draft.  If Caltrans does use the arrow-per-lane diagrammatic, it will be interesting to see how this type of sign will be implemented given the current 120" maximum height of BGS in California. It's worth noting that in previous versions, California did leave the diagrammatic signs in the MUTCD but rarely used these signs.  The same might be said for the arrow-per-lane signs.

Caltrans is accepting public comment on these sections until June 30th, 2011.

Mods: If you feel the need to split this post off into it's own thread either on this board or the Southwest board, feel free to do so.

Quote from: doofy103 on December 19, 2009, 12:13:07 AM

Quote from: Brandon on December 18, 2009, 07:40:25 PM

Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 05:49:00 PM
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. 

Florida and Georgia have switched recently with little confusion. Georgia didnt even put up OLD exit tabs

South Carolina will switch to the new MUTCD in two and a half weeks.

BTW, North Carolina has already switched over too.