Is the MUTCD taking away idenities of each state?

[roadman65]

As we all know from another topic on this forum that discusses the effect the change in policy for a NJ Toll Road, that the issue is taking away from what made that particular road what it is today. The tone of that particular thread seems that many on this forum seem to be a little worried that the end of an era (so to speak) is at hand.

I was wondering just how much we all feel about the MUTCD in general is robbing each state of their identity as we know it.  To me growing up and seeing each state have their own way of signing roadways was interesting as the many different styles of clothing on each of us.  It was interesting to see NYCDOT use "Geo Wash Br" to sign the George Washington Bridge, and NJDOT using LGSes to for auxillary signs and not afraid to use shields at exits on the side of the road in addition to the normal guide signs.  Even Pennsylvania using text for route numbers and NYS still using directional suffixes on exits where other states use A, B, C, etc.

I think that things should be standardized, but the individual states should be able to interpret the way it is enforced.  I think the NJTA should continue to use its current large letter exit numbers and overhead exit numbers instead of gore types and the Feds should not interfere with it at all!  If it works and makes the point that they want it to make, then why waste toll revenue to do this thing, when the NJ Turnpike has other issues far more important to deal with.

[jeffandnicole]

As long as the signs stay consistant enough for the below-average driver, then good enough.

Many drivers don't even realize how the whole mileage-based exit system works.  Green, Blue, Brown, Purple - doesn't mean a thing to them.  Put in a "Only" lane, whether it be Exit Only or EZ Pass only, and motorists don't have a clue what "Only" means.

Something like the NJ Turnpike signs should've been low...way low...on the priority list.

[roadman65]

Tell me about the EXIT ONLY thing.  Nobody sees that, just like you can post many TOLL ROAD warnings on a toll road entrance ramp and still you will have someone enter a toll facility complaining to the toll collector "Why don't you post signs telling us this is a toll road."

No there are other things that the Feds could be more interested in.  To me this is pork barrel stuff and the money could go to other much needed things.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

How about getting PA to rid the Breezewood connection for starters?  That is more of a nuisance than having the NJTA change its signs, especially with fuel consumption and emissions at stake with that annoying traffic signal and zig zag you make in that small Pennsylvania town.

[NE2]

HOLY CRAP STATE'S RIGHTS

[briantroutman]

I don't know the financial specifics of the NJTPA, and if they're outright wasting funds or neglecting other issues while redirecting money to replacing otherwise serviceable signage, that certainly isn't a good thing. Funds need to be prioritized, and I don't think there's a single highway department in the country that shouldn't be watching every last cent.

But that's a completely different issue than the question in the heading.

As roadgeeks, we might get a kick out of the little differences that separate the states' signing practices, but the remaining 99.9% of the population just says "Gee, the highway signs really suck in [name of state]."

Signage isn't the place for local personality. In my experience, when states violate the MUTCD, the result is nearly always worse, not better. If a state has a practice that's better than the MUTCD standard, they should petition to have it added. And going forward, all new signage should comply with this evolving standard. I'm not suggesting that all existing non-standard signage should be scrapped immediately, but it should be replaced with more standard signage as replacement schedules allow.

We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?

[J N Winkler]

I don't think the MUTCD is, on the whole, a threat to local identity in signing.  There are many state-by-state variations in signing which are just not addressed by the MUTCD, or are allowed by divergent interpretations of various MUTCD provisions.  What has happened to the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway is a special case:  squeezing out of a sui generis toll road signing system.  This has been going on for almost as long as there have been public-authority toll roads.  I have managed to get copies of the original signing plans for the New England Thruway, the Kansas Turnpike, the Kentucky Turnpike (now part of untolled I-65), and the Oklahoma turnpikes, and in all cases the signing differs considerably in format from that now used.

I don't know the NJTPA's motivation for getting rid of its one-of-a-kind signing at this particular moment in time, but I would imagine a major consideration for them was the recent proliferation of MUTCD standards that are specific to toll roads.  The 2003 MUTCD did not have a separate chapter dealing with toll roads, while the 2009 MUTCD has two (Chapter 2F deals with toll roads directly while Chapter 2G deals with managed lanes).  For the NJTPA this raises two issues.  First, it exposes them to the argument that their signing system provides an inferior level of service to drivers compared to the one recommended by the MUTCD.  Second, if FHWA ever decides to propose expensive revisions to the toll road signing standards, NJTPA has more leverage to oppose them as part of a bloc of toll road authorities following existing FHWA standards than it does on its own.

[The High Plains Traveler]

. . .

We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?

I'd like the signage to be consistent so that ONLY in Nevada means the same thing as ONLY in Arkansas, but don't deprive me of the joy in driving into Florida and saying, "Oh look - the signs have round corners."

[flowmotion]

We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?

For the average person, this goal was largely achieved decades ago.

There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different. (Other than perhaps sequential-based exit numbering.) Most of these issues are completely trivial and unnoticeable to anyone who isn't a roadgeek/highway-engineer.

[NE2]

There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different.

Puerto Rico

[KEK Inc.]

There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different.

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico fits the MUTCD better than California.

[agentsteel53]

Puerto Rico fits the MUTCD better than California.

is there a special Spanish-language supplement to the MUTCD?  if so, you are correct.  if not, California is more in agreement.

[kphoger]

Puerto Rico fits the MUTCD better than California.

is there a special Spanish-language supplement to the MUTCD?  if so, you are correct.  if not, California is more in agreement.

but just barely.....  right?

[roadman]

We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?

For the average person, this goal was largely achieved decades ago.

There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different. (Other than perhaps sequential-based exit numbering.) Most of these issues are completely trivial and unnoticeable to anyone who isn't a roadgeek/highway-engineer.

Don't forget lawyers.

[vdeane]

I would think Puerto Rico's "same signs but in Spanish" is more compliant than California's "cram everything in where we can fit it".

[agentsteel53]

I would think Puerto Rico's "same signs but in Spanish" is more compliant than California's "cram everything in where we can fit it".

sloppy signage with too much information placed into too small a space is not uniquely a California phenomenon.  ever been to Oklahoma? 

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

"Is the MUTCD taking away the identities of each state?"

Yes, absolutely.  The Federal MUTCD needs to be scaled back, quite a bit.

For instance, Wisconsin.  The 2009 MUTCD mandates one signal head per lane at all intersections with a speed limit above...45mph, I believe it is.

Result?  Wisconsin's unique signal installation design is now giving way to a standard mast arm with vertical signals.  Read: Anywhere, USA.

For...what?  Very few nations in the world have one signal head per lane.  Plenty of countries still don't even have overhead signals.  Those that do usually only use one overhead signal, regardless of number of lanes.  It's utterly ridiculous.

[Big John]

^^  Yes, 45 MPH or over

Guidance:
07 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on an approach to a signalized location is 45 mph or higher, signal faces should be provided as follows for all new or reconstructed signal installations (see Figure 4D-3):

    The minimum number and location of primary (non-supplemental) signal faces for through traffic should be provided in accordance with Table 4D-1.
    If the number of overhead primary signal faces for through traffic is equal to the number of through lanes on an approach, one overhead signal face should be located approximately over the center of each through lane.
    Except for shared left-turn and right-turn signal faces, any primary signal face required by Sections 4D.17 through 4D.25 for an exclusive turn lane should be located overhead approximately over the center of each exclusive turn lane.
    All primary signal faces should be located on the far side of the intersection.
    In addition to the primary signal faces, one or more supplemental pole-mounted or overhead signal faces should be considered to provide added visibility for approaching traffic that is traveling behind large vehicles.
    All signal faces should have backplates.

Table 4D-1. Recommended Minimum Number of Primary Signal Faces for Through Traffic on Approaches with Posted, Statutory, or 85th-Percentile Speed of 45 mph or Higher Number of Through Lanes
on Approach    
Total Number of Primary Through Lanes / Signal Faces for Approach* / Minimum Number of Overhead-Mounted Primary Through Signal Faces for Approach
1    2    1
2    2    1
3    3    2**
4 or more    4 or more    3**

Notes:

* A minimum of 2 through signal faces is always required (see Section 4D.11). These recommended numbers of through signal faces may be exceeded. Also, see cone of vision requirements otherwise indicated in Section 4D.13.

** If practical, all of the recommended number of primary through signal faces should be located overhead.


But it should be noted that WisDOT started installing the vertical overhead signals as soon as 2004, but is now done everywhere.

[roadfro]

For instance, Wisconsin.  The 2009 MUTCD mandates one signal head per lane at all intersections with a speed limit above...45mph, I believe it is.

Result?  Wisconsin's unique signal installation design is now giving way to a standard mast arm with vertical signals.  Read: Anywhere, USA.

That's a guidance statement, not a standard (therefore, not mandatory). Wisconsin doesn't have to do one overhead signal per lane...but being guidance, it's highly encouraged.

The principle at hand, from the MUTCD perspective, is to make the experience for the road user better by increasing uniformity and expectations. Better driver expectation (i.e. what an "only" panel means, where you can find the right signal head for your lane, uniform symbol signs, etc.) and uniformity means less confusion or interpretation for the driver and generally leads to safer roadways in general.

[J N Winkler]

Another consideration:  compliance with MUTCD provisions is often quite poor when they are not highly visible.  One example that comes to me forcefully now that I am engaged in a guide-sign shield drawing project is the minimum height of digits in route markers.  For freeways the MUTCD requirement is uniformly 18" in 36" shields except for state and US routes at minor interchanges, for which values as low as 12" are permitted.  This is a "Shall" condition:  the minimum height values themselves are tabulated, but an accompanying "Shall" statement directs that the dimensions given in the table shall be used.

So what do various states do?  A selection of states whose route markers I have recently drawn:

MN:  Uniformly 15" (does not comply).  Minnesota uses its own manual, but the verbiage dealing with height of guide-sign shield digits is word for word the same as that in the federal MUTCD, so Minnesota is not even complying with its own manual, let alone the national one.

OR:  18" in two-digit shields (complies) but 16" in three-digit shields (does not comply).

SD:  18" for all state routes (complies; SD uses the same shield outline for both two- and three-digit routes).

WI:  18" for all state routes (complies).

MT:  18" for primary state routes (complies), but 12" maximum for state secondary routes (does not comply--and the shield has to be an obscenely large 40" x 42" to access the 12" digit height).

This one I have not drawn, but studied:

NV:  No 18" height available for any size of shield (does not comply)--largest size available is 15", which necessitates 36" x 48" (two digits) or a truly humongous 40" x 48" (three digits).

[spmkam]

As we all know from another topic on this forum that discusses the effect the change in policy for a NJ Toll Road, that the issue is taking away from what made that particular road what it is today. The tone of that particular thread seems that many on this forum seem to be a little worried that the end of an era (so to speak) is at hand.

I was wondering just how much we all feel about the MUTCD in general is robbing each state of their identity as we know it.  To me growing up and seeing each state have their own way of signing roadways was interesting as the many different styles of clothing on each of us.  It was interesting to see NYCDOT use "Geo Wash Br" to sign the George Washington Bridge, and NJDOT using LGSes to for auxillary signs and not afraid to use shields at exits on the side of the road in addition to the normal guide signs.  Even Pennsylvania using text for route numbers and NYS still using directional suffixes on exits where other states use A, B, C, etc.

I think that things should be standardized, but the individual states should be able to interpret the way it is enforced.  I think the NJTA should continue to use its current large letter exit numbers and overhead exit numbers instead of gore types and the Feds should not interfere with it at all!  If it works and makes the point that they want it to make, then why waste toll revenue to do this thing, when the NJ Turnpike has other issues far more important to deal with.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I drive in NYS often and the directional exits are incredibly helpful, I think the NYS standard is much clearer and aids the average motorist more so than an and B exit. I think the practice is especially helpful with meeting highways. I mean Exit 26E- I-287 E Rye is a lot more helpful than Exit 26A. I also think bridges are helpful like a trucker may not be familar with White Plains, NY, however he might be familiar with the Tappan Zee. I think signage is less a problem than lane and traffic control practices (length of acceleration lanes, left exits, style of ramps, speed enforcement, etc.) 

[myosh_tino]

Another consideration:  compliance with MUTCD provisions is often quite poor when they are not highly visible.  One example that comes to me forcefully now that I am engaged in a guide-sign shield drawing project is the minimum height of digits in route markers.  For freeways the MUTCD requirement is uniformly 18" in 36" shields except for state and US routes at minor interchanges, for which values as low as 12" are permitted.  This is a "Shall" condition:  the minimum height values themselves are tabulated, but an accompanying "Shall" statement directs that the dimensions given in the table shall be used.

While Tables 2E-2 and 2E-4 (Minimal Letter and Numeral Sizes for Expressway/Freeway Guide Signs) are retained in the California 2012 MUTCD, California inserted Table 2D-101(CA) which also spell out route shield sizes *and* numeral heights.  In this table, route shield sizes are determined by the letter heights of the primary legend on the guide sign.  Route numeral heights are determined by the shield size and, in some cases, whether the digit "1" is part of the route number.

Interstate Shields


US Route Shields


California State Route Shields


So basically, Caltrans utilizes 15-inch numerals for all overhead guide sign route shields except when 3-digit Interstate and California State Route numbers do not contain a "1" in which case 12-inch numerals are used.  So while it does violates the 2009 National MUTCD, it does not violate the California MUCTD because of changes Caltrans made to Section 2D.11 referencing Table 2D-101(CA).

Note...
The use of 12-inch numerals on the 3-digit Interstate and California route shields is not terribly common, especially on newer signs.  Older, button copy signs often use 12-inch Series E numerals for 3-digit shields but newer signs are using 15-inch numerals with reduced intercharacter spacing for 3-digit Interstate and California route shields.  See the below drawing...



On a related note, I am seeing a disturbing trend where new sign installations are using 12-inch numerals on the 36x36 2-digit Interstate and California route shields.  Way too small IMO.

[vdeane]

As we all know from another topic on this forum that discusses the effect the change in policy for a NJ Toll Road, that the issue is taking away from what made that particular road what it is today. The tone of that particular thread seems that many on this forum seem to be a little worried that the end of an era (so to speak) is at hand.

I was wondering just how much we all feel about the MUTCD in general is robbing each state of their identity as we know it.  To me growing up and seeing each state have their own way of signing roadways was interesting as the many different styles of clothing on each of us.  It was interesting to see NYCDOT use "Geo Wash Br" to sign the George Washington Bridge, and NJDOT using LGSes to for auxillary signs and not afraid to use shields at exits on the side of the road in addition to the normal guide signs.  Even Pennsylvania using text for route numbers and NYS still using directional suffixes on exits where other states use A, B, C, etc.

I think that things should be standardized, but the individual states should be able to interpret the way it is enforced.  I think the NJTA should continue to use its current large letter exit numbers and overhead exit numbers instead of gore types and the Feds should not interfere with it at all!  If it works and makes the point that they want it to make, then why waste toll revenue to do this thing, when the NJ Turnpike has other issues far more important to deal with.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I drive in NYS often and the directional exits are incredibly helpful, I think the NYS standard is much clearer and aids the average motorist more so than an and B exit. I think the practice is especially helpful with meeting highways. I mean Exit 26E- I-287 E Rye is a lot more helpful than Exit 26A. I also think bridges are helpful like a trucker may not be familar with White Plains, NY, however he might be familiar with the Tappan Zee. I think signage is less a problem than lane and traffic control practices (length of acceleration lanes, left exits, style of ramps, speed enforcement, etc.) 

This actually varies by region.  NYSTA and most regions use them.  Regions 4, 5, and 6 don't.  Region 2 doesn't use exit numbers period.  Region 7 continues to use directional suffixes even on I-781 which has mileage based numbers, so it's not like they haven't read the MUTCD.

[agentsteel53]

US Route Shields
[2dus and 3dus]

so where did this shield ever come from??



It is almost '61 spec with the outer white margin removed, but the bottom point is a bit too pointy.  it looks pretty garish, but is seen all over California.

also, I have noticed a stretched 2dus being used as a 3dus but do not have a photo offhand.  I believe it is I-15 northbound at US-395, but I tried not to look at it for so long, fearing blindness.

[agentsteel53]

On a related note, I am seeing a disturbing trend where new sign installations are using 12-inch numerals on the 36x36 2-digit Interstate and California route shields.  Way too small IMO.

that is actually the 1957 specification, so it isn't totally wrong.



I certainly prefer that to neutered "triangle shields".  I don't have a photo of a neutered triangle, but here is a state-named one.  it is a standard 1961 45x36 shield compressed to 36x36.

[myosh_tino]

so where did this shield ever come from??



It is almost '61 spec with the outer white margin removed, but the bottom point is a bit too pointy.  it looks pretty garish, but is seen all over California.

I have seen those types of US shields popping up all over California on newer guide signs and, like you, have no idea where these shields came from.  I want to say this is a contractor's error but these shields are so prolific, it can't possibly be an error.

I'm not entirely familiar with how signs are fabricated in California.  Does Caltrans have sign fabrication consolidated into a couple of shops?