MUTCD on private property?

[hbelkins]

A story in the Estill County Tribune from Irvine (pronounced "Ervin," not like they do in California) discusses new MUTCD standards for reflectivity that are being forced upon the county government.

The county judge-executive (a friend of mine, by the way) discussed the standards at a recent fiscal court meeting and said the county has three years to replace first its stop signs, then road name signs, that meet the reflectivity standards.

But he also said that private businesses will also be required to replace their signs with ones meeting the reflectivity standards.

Huh? Can the feds do this?

[NE2]

Property is theft.

Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655.603 states that "for the purpose of MUTCD applicability, the phrase 'open to public travel' includes toll roads and roads within shopping centers, parking lots, airports, sports arenas, and other similar business and recreation facilities that are privately owned but where the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. Except for gated toll roads, roads within private gated properties where access is restricted at all times are not included in this definition. Parking areas, driving aisles within parking areas, and private highway-rail grade crossings are also not included in this definition."

In other words, if it looks like a public road, it shall quack like a public road.

[D-Dey65]

So if I own some property that stretches along a decommissioned paper road, I can't put an old yellow "Dead STOP End" sign at the end and use a bunch of old cut-up telephone poles as a barricade?

[myosh_tino]

A story in the Estill County Tribune from Irvine (pronounced "Ervin," not like they do in California) discusses new MUTCD standards for reflectivity that are being forced upon the county government.

The county judge-executive (a friend of mine, by the way) discussed the standards at a recent fiscal court meeting and said the county has three years to replace first its stop signs, then road name signs, that meet the reflectivity standards.

But he also said that private businesses will also be required to replace their signs with ones meeting the reflectivity standards.

Huh? Can the feds do this?

Apparently, they can.  California got smart and deleted any reference to private roads in the 2012 California MUTCD *unless* there local ordinances are enacted to require private roads to follow the MUTCD.

Personally, I think this provision to require private road owners to pony up the bucks to "be in compliance" with the 2009 MUTCD is horse-pucky and I'm glad California has enough sense to remove these provisions.

In other words, if it looks like a public road, it shall quack like a public road.

Unless you're in California...   

[NE2]

I didn't read the quote.

[agentsteel53]

good grief.  private roads - and here I refer to mall parking lots - have much worse problems than lack of MUTCD compliance.  try an utter lack of signage; and ridiculously strange design principles like unsigned (lines only) 3-way-stop intersections.

the only way major collisions are prevented is because everyone is moving slowly because they have no idea just what the fuck they are supposed to do.

[hbelkins]

good grief.  private roads - and here I refer to mall parking lots - have much worse problems than lack of MUTCD compliance.  try an utter lack of signage; and ridiculously strange design principles like unsigned (lines only) 3-way-stop intersections.

the only way major collisions are prevented is because everyone is moving slowly because they have no idea just what the fuck they are supposed to do.

And the oft-seen "Incoming Traffic Does Not Stop."

[agentsteel53]

And the oft-seen "Incoming Traffic Does Not Stop."

not around here...

there's a particularly bad mall intersection near where I live with three out of four stop lines that I've learned to treat as a four-way because everyone else seems to...

[NE2]

good grief.  private roads - and here I refer to mall parking lots

Parking lots are specifically excepted. Only the normal-looking roads that lead to the parking lots are to comply OR ELSE. (Generally else means that they can be liable if someone fails to see a stop sign and crashes.)

Here are a few examples of roads that would require compliant signage:
Vista Boulevard, Disney World (presumably those Mickey ear signs are OK under the wayfinding provisions)
unnamed loop road, Florida Mall (but not the parking area to the left)
South Access Road, Orlando International Airport

Anything posted 'no trespassing' or such would not be included. (Hence my snippy reply to D-Dey65.)

[NE2]

And the oft-seen "Incoming Traffic Does Not Stop."

If you mean Oncoming, that's W4-4b in Standard Highway Signs.

[kphoger]

No, what is meant is the common layout wherein traffic entering the complex from a main road doesn't have to stop at the next intersection (which would otherwise likely be a four-way stop; this is apparently to prevent the queue from backing up into the main road.

[myosh_tino]

Piggybacking off of NE2's post, does that mean Disney World is going to have to replace these types of signs with standard white on green guide signs....


If so and The Mouse refuses what can the FHWA do about it?  Withhold Florida's highway funding?  File a lawsuit?

[NE2]

Piggybacking off of NE2's post, does that mean Disney World is going to have to replace these types of signs with standard white on green guide signs....

Actually those are mostly on public roads (owned by the Reedy Creek Improvement District), so they've always been noncompliant. I don't think there are any overhead ones on private roads, meaning those can qualify as "wayfinding signs".

[agentsteel53]

No, what is meant is the common layout wherein traffic entering the complex from a main road doesn't have to stop at the next intersection (which would otherwise likely be a four-way stop; this is apparently to prevent the queue from backing up into the main road.

which is all well and good in theory, but if side traffic stops and then goes again, assuming inbound traffic is also going to stop ... then inbound traffic had damn better stop, despite the absence of signage.

the laws of the State of California are nothing compared to the laws of physics!

[Alps]

In other words, if it looks like a public road, it shall quack like a public road.

What if it looks like a ducksheep?

[vdeane]

Piggybacking off of NE2's post, does that mean Disney World is going to have to replace these types of signs with standard white on green guide signs....


If so and The Mouse refuses what can the FHWA do about it?  Withhold Florida's highway funding?  File a lawsuit?

The laws requiring private compliance are on the state level.  That said, I doubt there's anything the state can do against Disney without protest.

[mightyace]

^^^

Well, if Disney has any tax breaks, they could be taken away!

[realjd]

^^^

Well, if Disney has any tax breaks, they could be taken away!

You underestimate the influence that Disney has here and their relationship with local government entities. Google the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Those are public highways built by the RCID government, and I suspect that the RCID used "tax dollars" to install the signs.

[mightyace]

^^^

Actually, I have no idea how much influence Disney actually has in the region.  I just picked them as an example that came easily to my head.

Even so, tax breaks or infrastructure improvements could, theoretically be held over a company's head.  realjd does have a valid point in whether it is a point of leverage or not.

[NE2]

Perhaps a better example of the MUTCD not applying de facto on public roads in tourist areas is Universal Orlando, where the main roads are Orlando city streets: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.477967,-81.460732&spn=0.004197,0.008256&gl=us&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=28.47797,-81.460627&panoid=DOdQqEfJPwiyn0AsR7mkNA&cbp=12,254.59,,0,3.74

[Scott5114]

^^^

Actually, I have no idea how much influence Disney actually has in the region.  I just picked them as an example that came easily to my head.

Forget the region... Disney has enough influence on the federal government that they've gotten copyright law changed several times to keep Mickey Mouse from going public domain.

[realjd]

Perhaps a better example of the MUTCD not applying de facto on public roads in tourist areas is Universal Orlando, where the main roads are Orlando city streets: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.477967,-81.460732&spn=0.004197,0.008256&gl=us&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=28.47797,-81.460627&panoid=DOdQqEfJPwiyn0AsR7mkNA&cbp=12,254.59,,0,3.74

Those would seem to qualify as wayfinding signs better than the big purple Disney signs. Universal isn't trying to put up non-compliant speed limit signs the way Disney does for instance.

From what I remember, Universal uses MUTCD-compliant I-4 shield assemblies on the exits to the parking garages.

[NE2]

Those would seem to qualify as wayfinding signs better than the big purple Disney signs.

Wayfinding signs shall not be overhead (the necessity of this rule can be argued).

Universal isn't trying to put up non-compliant speed limit signs the way Disney does for instance.

What's non-compliant about this? The font?

[agentsteel53]

what is a "wayfinding sign"?  when I imagine one, I think of something like this:



why are those not to be overhead?

[NE2]

what is a "wayfinding sign"?

Those nonstandard things that cities post to guide tourists to local destinations:

(What the hell is an Epic Center?)