Full Width Exit Tabs in WA are Dead

[stevashe]

UPDATE: WSDOT has confirmed this, so right side tabs are indeed here to stay. Original post below.


I think this deserves its own thread as full width exit tabs are one of the most unique aspects of Washington signage.

I just noticed today that WSDOT posted a new version of their Sign Fabrication Manual in January, and it now shows MUTCD standard external tabs on the pages where full width tabs were previously shown. This likely means that all projects starting in 2026 or later will no longer use the old full width design. 

The only consolation is that WSDOT at least isn't showing exit tabs with extra wide margins as featured in the federal SHS.

Old:
                             

New:


Link to WSDOT page with the full manual: https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/all-manuals-and-standards/manuals/sign-fabrication-manual

[Bickendan]

I'd rather they dealt with the stupid exit number tabs they use on exit signs south of Thurston County.

[stevashe]

I'd rather they dealt with the stupid exit number tabs they use on exit signs south of Thurston County.

Agreed on that one actually. Those are more of an eyesore imo. Really not sure why that region of WSDOT started using them.

[jakeroot]

The new edition is also an extra hundred-ish pages. Also noticed that the graphics and overall layout have improved dramatically, which may explain the extra length.

With regards to the exit tabs, yeah, it seems they are dead. We won't see changes in the field for a while, but the evidence seems clear. What I can't find, though, is where it previously specified for the exit tabs to be the same width as the guide sign below it. The width is/was specified "VAR" but that's always the case.

Regarding the rest of the 2026 update, I noticed the D5 and D7 series signs have lost their unique shapes. They were rare signs to begin with, to be fair, but they were quite neat to spot in the field...though I cannot actually remember the last time I did.

[stevashe]

The new edition is also an extra hundred-ish pages. Also noticed that the graphics and overall layout have improved dramatically, which may explain the extra length.

With regards to the exit tabs, yeah, it seems they are dead. We won't see changes in the field for a while, but the evidence seems clear. What I can't find, though, is where it previously specified for the exit tabs to be the same width as the guide sign below it. The width is/was specified "VAR" but that's always the case.

Yes, the formatting is definitely greatly improved. I certainly appreciate that all the signs have color now! It looks like they also added new signs from the 2023 MUTCD, which would also account for the extra length.

I don't think the width of exit panels was ever explicitly stated to be the same as the guide sign. I can't find mention even in design manuals. It may have only been implied by the graphics which show it that way.

[jakeroot]

I don't think the width of exit panels was ever explicitly stated to be the same as the guide sign. I can't find mention even in design manuals. It may have only been implied by the graphics which show it that way.

(emphasis mine)

Funny you'd mention that. I mentioned in a separate thread (I think the WA-dedicated thread) that a bunch of new guide signs near JBLM had fully-rounded corners. I thought there might have been some rule change, but the "corner radii" section of the appendices still says, as it always has, "[g]uide signs are normally above pedestrian traffic, and rounded corners are not necessary". But, if you go just off the graphics, you'd think WSDOT wants fully-rounded corners on their signs. Indeed, the JBLM signs look bang-on exactly like the pre-2026 guide sign graphics, with full-width exit tabs (also implied) and the extra green corners cut off.

[Henry]

I liked the old guide signs, because they were similar to those back home in IL. The newer versions I'm not crazy about because of the tab on the Exit 68 guide sign being the same width as the main sign itself. But hey, that's my honest opinion on it.

[Road Hog]

Well, cross them off then.

[Scott5114]

I'd rather they dealt with the stupid exit number tabs they use on exit signs south of Thurston County.

Have an example of this? I looked at a few exits along I-5 and didn't see any which looked particularly stupid.

[jakeroot]

I'd rather they dealt with the stupid exit number tabs they use on exit signs south of Thurston County.

Have an example of this? I looked at a few exits along I-5 and didn't see any which looked particularly stupid.

They are referring to the exit gore signs with tabbed numbers. They are in the WA sign manual, but are only used in SW WA:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8rzqawCQVhkC75Pn8

[Scott5114]

I'd rather they dealt with the stupid exit number tabs they use on exit signs south of Thurston County.

Have an example of this? I looked at a few exits along I-5 and didn't see any which looked particularly stupid.

They are referring to the exit gore signs with tabbed numbers. They are in the WA sign manual, but are only used in SW WA:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8rzqawCQVhkC75Pn8

Ah, gotcha, I was looking at the exit direction signs. Those are pretty silly, yeah.

[stevashe]

I don't think the width of exit panels was ever explicitly stated to be the same as the guide sign. I can't find mention even in design manuals. It may have only been implied by the graphics which show it that way.

(emphasis mine)

Funny you'd mention that. I mentioned in a separate thread (I think the WA-dedicated thread) that a bunch of new guide signs near JBLM had fully-rounded corners. I thought there might have been some rule change, but the "corner radii" section of the appendices still says, as it always has, "[g]uide signs are normally above pedestrian traffic, and rounded corners are not necessary". But, if you go just off the graphics, you'd think WSDOT wants fully-rounded corners on their signs. Indeed, the JBLM signs look bang-on exactly like the pre-2026 guide sign graphics, with full-width exit tabs (also implied) and the extra green corners cut off.

That's a very interesting point. Makes me wonder why rounded corners didn't randomly happen more often...

I liked the old guide signs, because they were similar to those back home in IL. The newer versions I'm not crazy about because of the tab on the Exit 68 guide sign being the same width as the main sign itself. But hey, that's my honest opinion on it.

That's just a quirk because of the sign underneath being relatively narrow. The vast majority of signs in the field are wide enough that this won't happen.

[Henry]

I don't think the width of exit panels was ever explicitly stated to be the same as the guide sign. I can't find mention even in design manuals. It may have only been implied by the graphics which show it that way.

(emphasis mine)

Funny you'd mention that. I mentioned in a separate thread (I think the WA-dedicated thread) that a bunch of new guide signs near JBLM had fully-rounded corners. I thought there might have been some rule change, but the "corner radii" section of the appendices still says, as it always has, "[g]uide signs are normally above pedestrian traffic, and rounded corners are not necessary". But, if you go just off the graphics, you'd think WSDOT wants fully-rounded corners on their signs. Indeed, the JBLM signs look bang-on exactly like the pre-2026 guide sign graphics, with full-width exit tabs (also implied) and the extra green corners cut off.

That's a very interesting point. Makes me wonder why rounded corners didn't randomly happen more often...

I liked the old guide signs, because they were similar to those back home in IL. The newer versions I'm not crazy about because of the tab on the Exit 68 guide sign being the same width as the main sign itself. But hey, that's my honest opinion on it.

That's just a quirk because of the sign underneath being relatively narrow. The vast majority of signs in the field are wide enough that this won't happen.

Well, I gladly take it back. But I still believe that's why the old signs worked so well for locations like Exit 68.

[jakeroot]

I don't think the width of exit panels was ever explicitly stated to be the same as the guide sign. I can't find mention even in design manuals. It may have only been implied by the graphics which show it that way.

(emphasis mine)

Funny you'd mention that. I mentioned in a separate thread (I think the WA-dedicated thread) that a bunch of new guide signs near JBLM had fully-rounded corners. I thought there might have been some rule change, but the "corner radii" section of the appendices still says, as it always has, "[g]uide signs are normally above pedestrian traffic, and rounded corners are not necessary". But, if you go just off the graphics, you'd think WSDOT wants fully-rounded corners on their signs. Indeed, the JBLM signs look bang-on exactly like the pre-2026 guide sign graphics, with full-width exit tabs (also implied) and the extra green corners cut off.

That's a very interesting point. Makes me wonder why rounded corners didn't randomly happen more often...

The funny thing is that this is their first appearance since the 1980s, from what I can tell. The oldest fully-rounded sign is this guide sign in Ellensburg, which I think pointed to WA-131 (replaced by US-97 in 1975); the second oldest were a series of fully-rounded guide signs on I-5 in Vancouver, installed in the early 1980s when the WA-14 interchange was rebuilt; most of these are gone now.

Reading the "corner radii" section of the appendix again, it's interesting to note that WSDOT requires "control signs" to be rounded because they are in areas accessible to pedestrians, but since guide signs are "normally above pedestrian traffic", rounding the corners are "not necessary". I'm not sure I agree with their assessment, I would in fact reckon that most guide signs are actually in pedestrian-accessible areas. Yes, many guide signs are overhead in urban areas, but they are almost exclusively ground-mounted everywhere else. And even then, tons of ground-mounted guide signs are used in urban areas, too.

Perhaps their intent is to say that guide signs are not normally posted in areas regularly accessed by pedestrians; this is largely true, but plenty of guide signs are also installed along roads which do have sidewalks (example), or even along freeways that permit cycling (I'm sure cyclists are considered pedestrians for the purpose of applying this appendix). And even along freeways, anyone can access a guide sign after pulling off onto the shoulder and simply walking to it...or worse, crashing into it.

And I'm not even taking into account the vast number of signs that are not "guide signs" but are nevertheless present along state highways, like service and recreational signs. These are almost exclusively ground-mounted and "accessible" to pedestrians, but are not rounded.

Obviously, this is a legendary level of nitpicking, but by WSDOT's own admission, it seems that guide signs really ought to be rounded, at least when ground-mounted, since they are largely accessible to pedestrians in some fashion, and could be dangerous if hit.

[Scott5114]

I think whoever wrote that WSDOT guideline misunderstood whose safety rounded corners were for. As far as I know rounded corners are intended to avoid cutting up the hands and arms of the DOT crews manufacturing, storing, and installing them. This is why smaller signs tend to get the rounded corners but big ones are squared off—freeway signs are large enough they are moved and installed using a crane.

[jakeroot]

I think whoever wrote that WSDOT guideline misunderstood whose safety rounded corners were for. As far as I know rounded corners are intended to avoid cutting up the hands and arms of the DOT crews manufacturing, storing, and installing them. This is why smaller signs tend to get the rounded corners but big ones are squared off—freeway signs are large enough they are moved and installed using a crane.

I think both things can be true, no? Right-angled metal/aluminum signs within a pedestrian's reach are also potentially hazardous if they are to fall, walk, or crash into it the sign corner.

Off-hand, I don't know what other states say on the matter of rounding signs. I'm aware of only a handful that even do it (NY, NC, FL, VA (formerly?)); I'm sure the reason they have cited is for installer safety. But that doesn't mean there can't be other reasons. Many countries also fully-round their highway signs, probably more than don't, and I'm sure they have their own reasons for doing so.

Tangentially-related: I'm aware the practice (in the US) is generally relegated to places that use increment panel signs. WA is one of those states.

[Scott5114]

I think both things can be true, no? Right-angled metal/aluminum signs within a pedestrian's reach are also potentially hazardous if they are to fall, walk, or crash into it the sign corner.

I guess, but MUTCD 11e says that in general freeway-style signs are supposed to be mounted with their bottom edge at least 8 feet off the ground.* So the main demographic at risk here would seem to be professional basketball players on stilts. Signs generally shouldn't be falling off their posts on a regular basis, so it doesn't make much sense to spend any amount of engineering or policy time contemplating what could happen if someone just happens to be walking under one when it happens.  (If that is a recurring problem, it probably makes more sense to just engineer a way to keep the signs from falling down in the first place.)

*If an installation contains a secondary sign—the example the MUTCD gives is a "Next Exit 6 Miles" sign mounted below another sign—the lower sign can be as low as 5 feet off the ground. I agree it makes some amount of sense to take a special effort to round the corners of one of these signs in the rare case that such an installation is accessible to pedestrians, although I can't say I've seen one.

[stevashe]

I think both things can be true, no? Right-angled metal/aluminum signs within a pedestrian's reach are also potentially hazardous if they are to fall, walk, or crash into it the sign corner.

I guess, but MUTCD 11e says that in general freeway-style signs are supposed to be mounted with their bottom edge at least 8 feet off the ground.* So the main demographic at risk here would seem to be professional basketball players on stilts. Signs generally shouldn't be falling off their posts on a regular basis, so it doesn't make much sense to spend any amount of engineering or policy time contemplating what could happen if someone just happens to be walking under one when it happens.  (If that is a recurring problem, it probably makes more sense to just engineer a way to keep the signs from falling down in the first place.)

*If an installation contains a secondary sign—the example the MUTCD gives is a "Next Exit 6 Miles" sign mounted below another sign—the lower sign can be as low as 5 feet off the ground. I agree it makes some amount of sense to take a special effort to round the corners of one of these signs in the rare case that such an installation is accessible to pedestrians, although I can't say I've seen one.

I think this is what WSDOT is getting at when the appendix says guide signs are "normally above pedestrian traffic". As in, the signs are high enough that pedestrians can't reach them. For example, the sign Jake posted above is near a sidewalk, but it's definitely high enough that I would not come close to hitting my head on it (and I'm 6'5").

(And regarding your asterisk statement, plaques below guide signs are pretty rare, and most signs that would even get mounted as a plaque at 5' height are the smaller single sheet type that always have rounded corners anyway.)

[jakeroot]

I think both things can be true, no? Right-angled metal/aluminum signs within a pedestrian's reach are also potentially hazardous if they are to fall, walk, or crash into it the sign corner.

I guess, but MUTCD 11e says that in general freeway-style signs are supposed to be mounted with their bottom edge at least 8 feet off the ground.* So the main demographic at risk here would seem to be professional basketball players on stilts. Signs generally shouldn't be falling off their posts on a regular basis, so it doesn't make much sense to spend any amount of engineering or policy time contemplating what could happen if someone just happens to be walking under one when it happens.  (If that is a recurring problem, it probably makes more sense to just engineer a way to keep the signs from falling down in the first place.)

*If an installation contains a secondary sign—the example the MUTCD gives is a "Next Exit 6 Miles" sign mounted below another sign—the lower sign can be as low as 5 feet off the ground. I agree it makes some amount of sense to take a special effort to round the corners of one of these signs in the rare case that such an installation is accessible to pedestrians, although I can't say I've seen one.

I think this is what WSDOT is getting at when the appendix says guide signs are "normally above pedestrian traffic". As in, the signs are high enough that pedestrians can't reach them. For example, the sign Jake posted above is near a sidewalk, but it's definitely high enough that I would not come close to hitting my head on it (and I'm 6'5").

(And regarding your asterisk statement, plaques below guide signs are pretty rare, and most signs that would even get mounted as a plaque at 5' height are the smaller single sheet type that always have rounded corners anyway.)

Strangely enough, the other direction has a sign that is definitely at eye-level even for average height folks. I know this because I walked up to and took a picture of the old sign (the whereabouts of the photo, I'm not certain), which had the last state-maintained state-named shield in the state:

current: https://maps.app.goo.gl/poXBPmX5nE5MW2tT7
before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MWiVx9vMwnQY7wZP7

I still maintain all signs should be rounded, even if just for aesthetic purposes.

[stevashe]

I just talked with the head of traffic signing at WSDOT and he confirmed that right side exit tabs will be the standard going forward. So any new projects will be using outside tabs!

Also of note: he did confirm that he is trying to get rid of those ugly exit gore signs in southwest Washington. Hopefully the regional staff complies. He also let me know that he wants all exit numbers signed on highways that currently lack exit numbers, so that's good to hear. Apparently the reason why exit numbers have yet to be added to all freeways is, of course, lack of funding

[jakeroot]

I just talked with the head of traffic signing at WSDOT and he confirmed that right side exit tabs will be the standard going forward. So any new projects will be using outside tabs!

Also of note: he did confirm that he is trying to get rid of those ugly exit gore signs in southwest Washington. Hopefully the regional staff complies. He also let me know that he wants all exit numbers signed on highways that currently lack exit numbers, so that's good to hear. Apparently the reason why exit numbers have yet to be added to all freeways is, of course, lack of funding

I'm liking this post for your legwork. Not because I like the content. Well, not the first sentence, anyways.

Sounds like we will be seeing inside tabs for a while. Probably including projects like the 167 extension that are a couple years from opening. Assuming "new projects" simply means projects still in design but not out to bid yet. Maybe that last stretch of US-395 in Spokane might get some exit tabs.

Regarding exit numbers: I blame growing up in Puyallup, surrounded by freeways (512, 167, and 410) that lacked exit numbers, for my total lack of interest in exit numbers. And I don't know anyone that uses them on I-5 either. it's always "exit at 38th" or "use the Bridgeport exit". Even on Hwy 16, it's "get off at Pearl". The only exception might be the 705; "Exit 133" is a pretty well known exit number, and was the name of a local blog for years, too.

I still remain stunned that the rebuild of 520 has included no exit numbers. That must have been a policy decision at one time, because there's no excuse not to have included them.

[TEG24601]

I just talked with the head of traffic signing at WSDOT and he confirmed that right side exit tabs will be the standard going forward. So any new projects will be using outside tabs!

Also of note: he did confirm that he is trying to get rid of those ugly exit gore signs in southwest Washington. Hopefully the regional staff complies. He also let me know that he wants all exit numbers signed on highways that currently lack exit numbers, so that's good to hear. Apparently the reason why exit numbers have yet to be added to all freeways is, of course, lack of funding

It will be nice to see exit numbers on SR 526, 167, and US 2, rather than referring to exits by name.  Still love to see an Exit 0 at the top of I-405 and I-205, but one can dream.

[Bickendan]

I just talked with the head of traffic signing at WSDOT and he confirmed that right side exit tabs will be the standard going forward. So any new projects will be using outside tabs!

Also of note: he did confirm that he is trying to get rid of those ugly exit gore signs in southwest Washington. Hopefully the regional staff complies. He also let me know that he wants all exit numbers signed on highways that currently lack exit numbers, so that's good to hear. Apparently the reason why exit numbers have yet to be added to all freeways is, of course, lack of funding

It will be nice to see exit numbers on SR 526, 167, and US 2, rather than referring to exits by name.  Still love to see an Exit 0 at the top of I-405 and I-205, but one can dream.

Why an Exit 0 at the top of the 205? Its last exit, NE 134th St, is 36. If you're referring to the terminus in Tualatin, it would be 1 if ODOT bothered to sign it, not 0, because if going by the I-5 south to 205 north lanes, the split from the 205 to I-5 is over a mile from the ramp's start in the other way.
(Ok, that's a rather clumsy way of wording it. Basically, the 205's southbound lanes split about a mile away from where the northbound lanes originate from the 5, making it Exit 1, not 0)

[jakeroot]

I just talked with the head of traffic signing at WSDOT and he confirmed that right side exit tabs will be the standard going forward. So any new projects will be using outside tabs!

Also of note: he did confirm that he is trying to get rid of those ugly exit gore signs in southwest Washington. Hopefully the regional staff complies. He also let me know that he wants all exit numbers signed on highways that currently lack exit numbers, so that's good to hear. Apparently the reason why exit numbers have yet to be added to all freeways is, of course, lack of funding

It will be nice to see exit numbers on SR 526, 167, and US 2, rather than referring to exits by name.  Still love to see an Exit 0 at the top of I-405 and I-205, but one can dream.

Why an Exit 0 at the top of the 205? Its last exit, NE 134th St, is 36. If you're referring to the terminus in Tualatin, it would be 1 if ODOT bothered to sign it, not 0, because if going by the I-5 south to 205 north lanes, the split from the 205 to I-5 is over a mile from the ramp's start in the other way.
(Ok, that's a rather clumsy way of wording it. Basically, the 205's southbound lanes split about a mile away from where the northbound lanes originate from the 5, making it Exit 1, not 0)

I'm quite certain he meant "bottom" since the 205 and 405 are numbered south to north.

Which reminds me: the 705 has no exit numbers in Tacoma. Pretty certain it's the only interstate in WA without exit numbers.

[stevashe]

I'm liking this post for your legwork. Not because I like the content. Well, not the first sentence, anyways.

Thanks, though it was moreso just taking advantage of an opportunity than legwork. He happened to be giving a presentation about adoption of the new MUTCD at a work conference I was attending so I took the chance to ask him about the change in the sign fabrication manual after the presentation concluded.

Sounds like we will be seeing inside tabs for a while. Probably including projects like the 167 extension that are a couple years from opening. Assuming "new projects" simply means projects still in design but not out to bid yet. Maybe that last stretch of US-395 in Spokane might get some exit tabs.

Yeah, though "new projects" are my words and he did indicate that the regional offices still like to do things their own way, so it may still take some time to get all areas of the state on board with the new standards. It definitely sounded like the regions are still pushing back on adding exit numbers to freeways that lack them, so I wouldn't hold my breath on 167 or 395 getting them.

Regarding exit numbers: I blame growing up in Puyallup, surrounded by freeways (512, 167, and 410) that lacked exit numbers, for my total lack of interest in exit numbers. And I don't know anyone that uses them on I-5 either. it's always "exit at 38th" or "use the Bridgeport exit". Even on Hwy 16, it's "get off at Pearl". The only exception might be the 705; "Exit 133" is a pretty well known exit number, and was a local blog for years, too.

I don't use them in directions much either, despite growing up near 90 and 405 which do have them. It's just easier to remember a street name than a number most of the time. I think they're most useful on maps (both on paper maps to easily find your exit on the map, and on phone navigation so you know where your exit will be in the sequence).

I still remain stunned that the rebuild of 520 has included no exit numbers. That must have been a policy decision at one time, because there's no excuse not to have included them.

We actually talked about that and the WSDOT guy seemed just as annoyed about it as me. Sounded like the regional office working on it had just designed everything without exit numbers and refused to redesign everything when he asked about it because they didn't want to add cost.