2026 Caltrans MUTCD

[Max Rockatansky]

It seems that Caltrans has revised their MUTCD.  While Mile Markers were all the rage by off forum posters they failed to notice what happened to the cutout US Route shields on this revision:


https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/2026/2026-camutcd-2026-2d-a11y.pdf

[Henry]

Outside the additions from the 2023 national MUTCD and their alterations, I don't see much changing here.

[cl94]

I'll need to look over this in detail when I have a minute, but I noticed the lack of cutout US shields when I did a quick glance at signs earlier. IMO, that's the most notable change, and probably the one that makes me saddest.

They've been teasing standard mile markers for a while and I figured it was only a matter of time. My guess here is that they'll go the Nevada route of green mile markers on Interstates (or freeways in general) and postmiles elsewhere.

The change to Interstate shields is dropping the 50s spec (CA G27-1/2) in favor of the M1-1(a). Appears that the state name will still be on standalone shields for now, but using the specs in use elsewhere.

[Scott5114]

The wiki folks noticed this a few weeks ago. There's some skepticism about what the intent is here—someone dug up the meeting minutes where this was put together and there appeared to be no actual discussion of the shields, so it's possible that incorporating the federal shields was done entirely by mistake.

For what it's worth, Caltrans still has the California-specific shields listed as active specs on their site and has not made any moves to mark them as deprecated.

[Sani]

Will they eventually release an update of their own manual that isn't just portions of the MUTCD with the things they don't like crossed out? (Boy, they REALLY hate the generic state route shield marker.)

[jdbx]

I read the revised text and I think that a belief that the cutout US shield was dropped by mistake is wishful thinking.  I am going to be very sad to see them go, even though it is going to take years.  Each revision seems to move California more and more in-line with the rest of the country, which I think is kind of a shame, since unique signage and standards are one of the things that make this hobby so interesting.

[TXtoNJ]

I read the revised text and I think that a belief that the cutout US shield was dropped by mistake is wishful thinking.  I am going to be very sad to see them go, even though it is going to take years.  Each revision seems to move California more and more in-line with the rest of the country, which I think is kind of a shame, since unique signage and standards are one of the things that make this hobby so interesting.

They want to be able to contract with out-of-state vendors for sign replacements, I'm thinking. They don't like the cutouts because of cost.

[The_Ginger]

I'll need to look over this in detail when I have a minute, but I noticed the lack of cutout US shields when I did a quick glance at signs earlier. IMO, that's the most notable change, and probably the one that makes me saddest.

I agree. It's a shame to see them go. Were they any more visible than the white-on-black shields, though?

The change to Interstate shields is dropping the 50s spec (CA G27-1/2) in favor of the M1-1(a). Appears that the state name will still be on standalone shields for now, but using the specs in use elsewhere.

I'd say that's what the West Virginia Interstate shields are like now. The standalone shields have the state name, and guide signs have no state name.

This document shows the full spec.

[ClassicHasClass]

someone dug up the meeting minutes where this was put together and there appeared to be no actual discussion of the shields

Where was this?

[Scott5114]

someone dug up the meeting minutes where this was put together and there appeared to be no actual discussion of the shields

Where was this?

The meeting minutes are at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/ctcdc/meetings

I believe the relevant meetings are 10/21/25, 10/28/25, and 11/6/25.

(Note that I didn't dig into this myself; Jonathan Winkler and Minh Nguyễn were discussing it on Discord and I was just sort of Around™.)

[cl94]

I read the revised text and I think that a belief that the cutout US shield was dropped by mistake is wishful thinking.  I am going to be very sad to see them go, even though it is going to take years.  Each revision seems to move California more and more in-line with the rest of the country, which I think is kind of a shame, since unique signage and standards are one of the things that make this hobby so interesting.

The other thing to remember here is that California has been slowly moving closer to the national standard ever since the feds started playing hardball about it 15-20 years ago. It was always a matter of time before the unique signs disappeared. Federal conformance was also behind external exit tabs. It's also why northeastern states are being dragged kicking and screaming into renumbering exits and why Ohio dropped the "dancing arrows".

As I have been saying to everyone wanting California to conform with federal standards, be careful what you wish for. Conformance with federal standards includes all of them, even the quirks that people like.

[Max Rockatansky]

I read the revised text and I think that a belief that the cutout US shield was dropped by mistake is wishful thinking.  I am going to be very sad to see them go, even though it is going to take years.  Each revision seems to move California more and more in-line with the rest of the country, which I think is kind of a shame, since unique signage and standards are one of the things that make this hobby so interesting.

The other thing to remember here is that California has been slowly moving closer to the national standard ever since the feds started playing hardball about it 15-20 years ago. It was always a matter of time before the unique signs disappeared. Federal conformance was also behind external exit tabs. It's also why northeastern states are being dragged kicking and screaming into renumbering exits and why Ohio dropped the "dancing arrows".

As I have been saying to everyone wanting California to conform with federal standards, be careful what you wish for. Conformance with federal standards includes all of them, even the quirks that people like.

FWIW I have refrained from jumping on the external exit tab bandwagon on Gribblation.  Strict MUTCD adherence has never been my bag and generally doesn't interest me much.  That and the prospect of reading people whine about what they don't like in Caltrans signage specs often outright annoys me.  I did get some amusement out of debunking the "not mile markers" on CA 17 in southern Santa Clara County on our Facebook page. 

I'll probably touch on the Caltrans MUTCD revision the next CA 12 CARouteXRoute podcast.  I'm debating doing something on our main page and also on Facebook.  I see the prospect of cutout US Route shields gradually dwindling as a way bigger story than exit tabs or mile markers. 

[kphoger]

I see the prospect of cutout US Route shields gradually dwindling as a way bigger story than exit tabs or mile markers. 

I agree.

California's mile posts → You guys are weird, but whatever, that's cool.

California's exit numbers → You guys are pathetic.

California's cutout shields → You guys totally rock.

[Scott5114]

I personally think the national MUTCD should adopt the cutout US shield. It actually was a national standard at one point—AASHTO adopted it for Interstate signage in its stopgap standards book until the 1961 MUTCD was ready. That MUTCD, though, took the "oversize" marker from the 1948 MUTCD and gave it a black background rather than simply incorporating the cutout into it.

Maybe one of you Californians can raise a stink with your Congressman to write the cutout shield into federal law the way the Texans did with Clearview in 2018. (I would do it myself, but there's no cutouts in Susie Lee's district; I think the only ones that have been posted in Nevada recently were in Amodei's district and he's getting the hell out of Dodge after this year.)

[ElishaGOtis]

There was also the things about leed spimits that included updated provisions about the 85th percentile and such. I am curious about something, however... Technically speaking, if the 85th percentile speed is 83 or higher, does that mean that the speed limit must remain at 65 compared to 70 since altering the default limit puts the new limit subject to the "shall" condition as specified (speed limits shall be within 12.4mph of 85th percentile)? I would think that it would have stated "except as otherwise provided" given that the 85th percentile is only supposed to be used for LOWERING speed limits (as the table at the end clearly states), but the way it's currently worded suggests that ALL speed limits other than the default must be within 12.4 of the 85th... Yes this is also a part of the CVC in addition to the MUTCD, but still...

Another funny thing to mention is the provisions regarding the default speed limits. They kept the provision requiring that the default speed limits be posted at the state lines, in addition to the provisions requiring that all speed limits be explicitly posted (downstream end of speed zone, sign next speed limit), yet they still have the "END XX SPEED LIMIT" signs.

There's also a new set of color contrasting signs for the truck speed limits. Additionally, they're no longer requiring the famous black contrast stripe for double lines.

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/2026/2026-camutcd-2026-2b-a11y.pdf

Full set here: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd

[FredAkbar]

yet they still have the "END XX SPEED LIMIT" signs.

My mom found those signs to be ridiculous on a drive we did a while back. As she put it, "I don't want to know what the speed limit isn't, I want to know what it is!"

[SeriesE]

I think cutout US Shields simply looks better and should be retained.

I wonder what was the justification of moving to non-cutout shields in the national MUTCD back then?

[kphoger]

I love cutout shields as much as the next guy, but I do think they blend into the surroundings more than the ones with a black border.

[Max Rockatansky]

I love cutout shields as much as the next guy, but I do think they blend into the surroundings more than the ones with a black border.

They could just make them green like the state highway shields.  Green and yellow are what the Division of Highways found to be the most visible when they made the change in 1964. 

[The_Ginger]

Maybe one of you Californians can raise a stink with your Congressman to write the cutout shield into federal law the way the Texans did with Clearview in 2018.

I'd write to Mr. Justice about it; I'm actually working on a letter to him anyway for a Scouting America rank requirement.

[pderocco]

Another little thing I noticed is that Table 2D-3 does not include Cyn as an abbreviation for Canyon. There are bazillions of those on signs in California.

[kphoger]

They could just make them green like the state highway shields.  Green and yellow are what the Division of Highways found to be the most visible when they made the change in 1964. 

Of course, California's green spade shields already run afoul of the 'should' language in the MUTCD...

Chapter 2D — Guide Signs — Conventional Roads

§ 2D.11 — Design of Route Signs

Standard:
10 — State Route signs shall be designed by the individual State highway agencies.

Guidance:
12 — State Route signs should be rectangular and should be approximately the same size as the U.S. Route sign.  State Route signs should also be similar to the U.S. Route sign by containing approximately the same size black numerals on a white area surrounded by a rectangular black background without a border, and should be devoid of complex graphics.  The shape of the white area should be circular in the absence of any determination to the contrary by the individual State concerned.

[pderocco]

Chapter 2D — Guide Signs — Conventional Roads

§ 2D.11 — Design of Route Signs

Standard:
10 — State Route signs shall be designed by the individual State highway agencies.

Guidance:
12 — State Route signs should be rectangular and should be approximately the same size as the U.S. Route sign.  State Route signs should also be similar to the U.S. Route sign by containing approximately the same size black numerals on a white area surrounded by a rectangular black background without a border, and should be devoid of complex graphics.  The shape of the white area should be circular in the absence of any determination to the contrary by the individual State concerned.

"Devoid of complex graphcs". How many states adhere to that? A dozen, maybe? I think only four use the MUTCD standard. I find a lot of the idiosyncratic shields states put up ugly (state outlines) or stupid (beehives?), but after entering a state and seeing three of them, you're used to them.

[kphoger]

"Devoid of complex graphcs". How many states adhere to that?

Most of them?

A state outline is not a complex graphic, after all.  I guess the Conestoga wagon on Nebraska's shield could be considered 'complex'.  Maybe Utah's beehive is too much?  Honestly, I don't think very many states' route shields are anywhere near having 'complex graphics'.

[Voyager]

Not to mention how few US highways are left in CA, the most noticable for this will be 101 since it's by far the longest with them and 50 after that.