2026 Caltrans MUTCD

[Max Rockatansky]

I've talked to enough people that I'm confident the US Route shield change is real.  I put something out regarding G26 series being deleted on Gribblenation last night.  I don't know if I'll do something separate for the other changes yet.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2026/03/did-caltrans-just-kill-g26-cutout-us.html?m=1

Coincidentally this also was the 3,000th article to publish on the current version of Gribblenation.

[kendancy66]

In the first graphic (A.png), it looks like there was a missing paragraph, the would describe routes of US 101 and US 99. It would be just after the last paragraph on the left side, and continue to the upper rightmost paragraph that continues "... through Salt Lake City" which might be continuing the north south descriptions of US 91 as California's easternmost north south US route.

[Tendies]

Out of curiousity, Are there any pre-existing black background US route shields in California outside of national parks? Wouldn't surprise me if there was one that got knocked down and was hastily replaced with one sourced from out of state.

[Scott5114]

Caltrans has had its own weird standards for so long that they have a robust enough network of suppliers that I would think the need to get one from out of state would be minimal. If anything, California spec seems to make it across the lines to the surrounding states more often than the reverse (Nevada uses California-spec gantries, Arizona uses California-style traffic light masts, etc.)

If there are any black-background shields in California, I would imagine they would have been ordered by municipal governments which weren't aware of the California-specific designs.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not aware of any M1-4 US Route shields in California yet outside of Yosemite. 

[fwydriver405]

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.

Not sure if this was pointed out before, but I noticed that references to the G26 (U.S. Route Shield/Marker) and the G27 (Interstate Route Shield/Marker) series signs were taken out of the Caltrans Sign Specification Drawings website recently sometime after 22 February 2026. Despite them being unlisted from the most recent version online, the PDF versions of such drawings are still on Caltrans website (if you have the URL):

California Sign Specification Drawings - Sign Specification Related Topics

Wayback Machine - 22 February 2026
Present version (as of 14 April 2026 10:55:50 EDT)

Relevant specifications that have been removed on the most recent version of the Caltrans website:

CA Code	Sign Description	Date
G26-1(CA) (PDF)	U.S. Route Shield (English units)	6/3/02
G26-1(CA) (.PDF)	U.S. Route Shield (Metric units)	6/3/02
G26-2(CA) (PDF)	U.S. Route Marker	6/3/02
G27-1(CA) (PDF)	Interstate Route Shield	8/27/93
G27-2(CA) (PDF)	Interstate Route Marker	8/27/93

I was also browsing this thread (California 2012 MUTCD) and saw this part that was of interest:

Just noticed California has adopted the 2012 California MUTCD which incorporates the 2009 national MUTCD.  I briefly skimmed through the new MUTCD to see what California changed.  Here are my brief observations...

Section 1A:
* California MUTCD shall not supersede current Standard Plans or Specifications and if there's a discrepancy, then the Standard Plans/Specifications will prevail.  If the Standard Plans/Specs are changed, then all MUTCD requirements must be met.  I find this particularly fascinating.  This must be one of California's "outs" for implementing some of the new requirements from the 2009 MUTCD.

This is the relevant line in the above post that I found in the prior MUTCD (CA MUTCD 2014 REV 9 Part 1 - Page 55):

PART 1
GENERAL
CHAPTER 1A. GENERAL
Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices

Standard:
01 The responsibility for the design, placement, operation, maintenance, and uniformity of traffic control devices shall rest with the public agency or the official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of private roads open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13), with the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. 23 CFR 655.603 adopts the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, bikeway, or private road open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13). When a State or other Federal agency manual or supplement is required, that manual or supplement shall be in substantial conformance with the National MUTCD.

01a On State highways, the California MUTCD shall not supersede Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications but all Standard statements of the California MUTCD shall be met. On State highways, whenever there is a discrepancy between the specifications and requirements contained in the California MUTCD, and those contained in Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications, Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications shall govern.

01b Nothing contained in the California MUTCD shall prevent Caltrans from modifying, changing or adopting new specifications as necessary. Any revisions to Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions shall conform to the Standard statements of the California MUTCD.

However, in the 2026 CA MUTCD (Chapter 1D Provisions Applicable to Traffic Control Devices in General - Page 110), this line seems to have been removed and I can't seem to find any relevant variants of what was listed in the 2012 and 2014 CA MUTCDs...

CHAPTER 1D. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES IN GENERAL

Section 1D.02 Responsibility and Authority for Traffic Control Devices
Standard:
01 The responsibility for the design, placement, operation, maintenance, and uniformity of traffic control devices in compliance with the provisions of this Manual shall rest with the public agency or the official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of site roadways open to public travel, with the private owner or private official having jurisdiction.

...which from my initial observation seems to further suggest this:

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.

[Scott5114]

Other deleted signs in this MUTCD include the humpback historical sign(s) and the double bear warning diamond (which is still in the NDOT sign book so far as I know).

[TheStranger]

I'm not aware of any M1-4 US Route shields in California yet outside of Yosemite. 

I have seen exactly one in recent years along the southbound ramp from US 101 to San Antonio Road in Mountain View.  Not sure if it's still there

[Max Rockatansky]

Someone actually created a change.org petition over the G26 shield being eliminated:

https://www.change.org/p/bring-back-california-s-g26-cutout-us-highway-shield?recruiter=1400748697&recruited_by_id=a8b9af40-fb42-11f0-adbc-a1800de92f29&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylink&share_id=RFh4MPrDvQ

[TheStranger]

Didn't get a photo of it, but drove by the rectangular-sign US 101 shield along San Antonio Road in Mountain View a few nights ago (and apparently has been around for 8 years now)

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4237599,-122.1015041,3a,75y,212.31h,92.83t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sCIHM0ogKEICAgIC6kqrDwQE!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fgpms-cs-s%2FABJJf53MeW0My8PjuZSHE7j5FYXFv1-T470C0B04TIxOauTWvpV4LkYMfozHagN5-z-OqROHRszCDzNJltrS_GnU1Yru9biuqcelzVyDbKp1-X8yRS5xQIgbP_ksSnHkWpLJNFEB14qU3w%3Dw900-h600-k-no-pi-2.8268064488285205-ya351.69765527482093-ro0-fo100!7i7680!8i3840?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Not far away is this old Caltrans spec sign with "Bayshore Freeway" on it, at Rengstorff and Middlefield:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4116411,-122.0941715,3a,21.6y,65.29h,89.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siOUXyyjLeax6Ns-UwMZHAg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.504194323702194%26panoid%3DiOUXyyjLeax6Ns-UwMZHAg%26yaw%3D65.29344402278358!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[ClassicHasClass]

That's pretty close to the green-out BYPASS, also at Rengstorff.

[Tendies]

Didn't get a photo of it, but drove by the rectangular-sign US 101 shield along San Antonio Road in Mountain View a few nights ago (and apparently has been around for 8 years now)

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4237599,-122.1015041,3a,75y,212.31h,92.83t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sCIHM0ogKEICAgIC6kqrDwQE!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fgpms-cs-s%2FABJJf53MeW0My8PjuZSHE7j5FYXFv1-T470C0B04TIxOauTWvpV4LkYMfozHagN5-z-OqROHRszCDzNJltrS_GnU1Yru9biuqcelzVyDbKp1-X8yRS5xQIgbP_ksSnHkWpLJNFEB14qU3w%3Dw900-h600-k-no-pi-2.8268064488285205-ya351.69765527482093-ro0-fo100!7i7680!8i3840?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Not far away is this old Caltrans spec sign with "Bayshore Freeway" on it, at Rengstorff and Middlefield:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4116411,-122.0941715,3a,21.6y,65.29h,89.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siOUXyyjLeax6Ns-UwMZHAg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.504194323702194%26panoid%3DiOUXyyjLeax6Ns-UwMZHAg%26yaw%3D65.29344402278358!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

In 2013, it was briefly an I-101 error shield. On a two digit shield, with a black/white direction so technically a triple error.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dhh4AoZ2zSwE73A49.

[andy3175]

I'm not aware of any M1-4 US Route shields in California yet outside of Yosemite. 

Yes, definitely there remain a few US 395 non-cutout shields in Yosemite.

There are at least two non-cutout US 95 shields in Needles that I think date back to when Arizona Route 95 was realigned to cross into California via the K Street bridge. Not sure if these were posted by city of Needles or someone else (maybe Arizona Dept of Transportation?). Here are links to GSV showing those two shields:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zw4J9kKhwwzy8stX9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/V6eND44pgiTAN8X18

There used to be white US 101 rectangular signs on city streets that had the cutout shield imprinted on them in Santa Rosa, but those signs were largely removed in the 2000s.

But it will be a big change to see US routes in California on black rectangular signs, but it may take me awhile even to see one... I have to drive 100+ miles to get to my nearest US highway in downtown Los Angeles.

[Max Rockatansky]

I want to say those US 95 shields in Needles are ADOT supplied.  They went up during that whole weird saga of AZ 95 Detour.  There is even a AZ 95 shield with a south placard slapped onto it in Needles:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/10/arizona-state-route-95-detour-in.html?m=1

[ClassicHasClass]

Definitely ADOT issue, most likely the entire sign package (other than the degenerating I-40, of course).

[jg4567]

I didn't see it mentioned here, but I just saw my first rectangular sign on southbound US 395 approaching US 6 in Bishop last weekend, replacing this sign:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GJX91aFE4c4dedcSA

With several work zones on US 395 throughout Inyo County, I'd expect more of those shields appearing in the coming months.

[pderocco]

That dissertation can easily be shortened to

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GJX91aFE4c4dedcSA

by using "Share or embed image" in the three-dot menu.

[RoadWarrior56]

I would love to see somebody try to manually type all of that URL information from Post #65 and see it work.  Seriously, that has to be the longest web address that I have ever seen!

[jg4567]

That dissertation can easily be shortened to

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GJX91aFE4c4dedcSA

by using "Share or embed image" in the three-dot menu.

Thanks. I fixed it.

[kphoger]

I would love to see somebody try to manually type all of that URL information from Post #65 and see it work.  Seriously, that has to be the longest web address that I have ever seen!

Just so you know, if a user (such as me) has his settings to display the newest post at the top instead of at the bottom, then the post numbers are off by one.

[pderocco]

In computer science, that's called an Obi Wan error.

[cl94]

Bishop is indeed one of the first places I expected to see these (both due to reconstruction and D9 being quick to replace signs by CA standards), so I can't say I'm too shocked. Disappointed, certainly, but not surprised.

US 50 in Sacramento is probably the next place they'll pop up en masse, if not already there, unless the plans are old enough to predate the change.

[Quillz]

I'm kind of mixed on this. I do prefer cutout shields for standalone purposes, but they never look good on BGS, they are less readable than just having a white shield with no border, so they're worse when it comes to their actual functional purpose. My main issue with the federal standard shields comes down to white space and margins: It seems better to use Series C for three-digit routes, giving the shield a bit more white space and allowing for the numbers to be resolved better. (Using Series D feels like it just creates a black blob). I think the actual shape, especially if you make it a cutout by just adding a black border, is better.

On a personal and fantastical note, the California cutout US shields are just kind of weird, for some reason they never look good digitally, only in reality. And they specifically only seem to work well with the US route numbers actually in the state, maybe due to a modified Series D being used? When I do my own custom interstate/US route shield designs in Illustrator, they never look right and I can never get the placement right, even following the posted specs. I suspect something is off a little bit mathematically. What I always end up doing is just applying black borders to the federal standards for both, creating modified cutout shields, and sometimes play with the margins* to make them thicker. I really think they look better while retaining the same benefits of having larger and wider fonts. So as iconic as these are, it's really not a huge deal to me because outside of simple aesthetics, I don't really think they were any better (they're arguably worse).

*I noticed that even with cutout shields, they tend to not look as good when the margins are thinner. If you compare the '61 cutout shields to the '70 cutout shields, you'll see what I mean. Having thicker margins makes things a bit more readable, I think. I think the issue I have with the federal '70 spec is there is almost zero black space around the edges. If a little bit more was added, it would look better. This is why the shields look fine on BGS, there is far more green space to resolve them better.

In general, I have usually come to prefer the federal standards for sign layout and design. Even smaller things like the enhanced mile markers, I find more useful than the older postmile system California uses. (Plus, seeing a green miner spade on each one would be kind of neat). When I go into Oregon or Nevada, things just seem to be laid out better. It's neat that California has a lot of quirks, but most of them also predate the current standards and are outdated for a reason. My main issue will be consistency, what will happen is you'll see a mix of old and new. You'll see state route shields alongside US route shields and they won't feel like they have the same design language. You'll see older sign layouts alongside newer ones.

Granted, these changes will take decades. And it's very likely it will never really be done in full faith. Don't be shocked at all if you see minimal effort and then some of the non-cutout shields "accidentally" replaced in the coming years. MUTCD compliance is much easier said than done.

[Quillz]

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

I think they look better aesthetically, but I have no doubt they are less readable, which ultimately is the point. I also find the borderless shields more readable on BGS instead of ones that retain the black border. So it's kind of a mixed bag for me. I do like the cutout US route shields (US-101 is of course iconic), but I've never really like how it was applied to BGS. (They also always look odd digitally to me, they look fine in real life but when I modify them in something like Illustrator, they just look weird). I actually find just taking the federal shields and having a simple black border for standalone purposes would be ideal. But then they are cutouts, so I guess that would defeat the point.

I guess to restate what I said earlier, I took at a look at the latest MUTCD and it really doesn't seem all that different. And indeed, it still shows the older cutout shields still valid, so I really wonder how much this will actually be implemented and not just be "technically adopted." And I noticed that a lot of the specs and standards that are crossed out, I would have preferred. Especially the BGS that just say "EAST," to me that's a lot cleaner. The one the state uses where it's both a direction and a control city has always felt more cluttered to me.

I can't imagine this is anything new. MUTCD adoption is one thing, actually having things implemented consistently is another. Even the cutout shields here are not always consistent, I see incorrect fonts, wrong sizing, etc. Stuff like that will never change.

[Quillz]

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.

That also feels like a huge case of judgment call. What actually defines a "complex graphic," and how is that enforced? Colorado uses the state flag on the top half of the state route shield, Wyoming uses the cowboy-and-horse logo, South Dakota has a Rushmore graphic. Are those complex? They've been around long enough that I doubt they are.

That's why these are guidelines. Official adoption makes sense. But I have a suspicion that a decade from now, you'll still see predominately cutout shields and other quirky BGS design. From what I've read, when California moved to the current miner spades in 1964, you could still find some of the older white miner spades in the Ventura area until the 90s.