2009 Edition of the MUTCD

[Alps]

It's my belief that Federal highway funding should only be tied to highway related initiatives.  Minimum drinking age 21 is not highway related.  They try to tie it together, but it's a very flawed argument.  On the other hand, sign uniformity is certainly highway related.

[hbelkins]

I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other. But yet we allow states to design their own state route markers, which could cause some confusion. Kentucky uses the bland circle for its state route sign. But two of our neighboring states use that same symbol for two distinctly different classes of roads. In West Virginia that is a county route and in Virginia it's a secondary route. Seems to me a better case could be made for requiring uniform markers for state and county routes than for dictating letter case and font in street signs.

Why should the federal government be involved in deciding what letter case and font local governments use in marking local routes? Why shouldn't that be a local decision?

[Quillz]

I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other. But yet we allow states to design their own state route markers, which could cause some confusion. Kentucky uses the bland circle for its state route sign. But two of our neighboring states use that same symbol for two distinctly different classes of roads. In West Virginia that is a county route and in Virginia it's a secondary route. Seems to me a better case could be made for requiring uniform markers for state and county routes than for dictating letter case and font in street signs.

Why should the federal government be involved in deciding what letter case and font local governments use in marking local routes? Why shouldn't that be a local decision?

As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

But don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

[rickmastfan67]

I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other.

I think Maryland's version of the "Lane Ends" sign would work the best.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.680212,-79.219317&spn=0.003039,0.006968&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.680214,-79.219464&panoid=Mdf8I525Gf2rSl_UHVg5Sw&cbp=12,306.96,,1,3.55

As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

Oh heck no.  I like that states can have their own route markers.  The only thing is that I would force no state to use a "circle" or "square" for state routes UNLESS they mention the state name in them.

[Scott5114]

Why should the federal government be involved in deciding what letter case and font local governments use in marking local routes? Why shouldn't that be a local decision?

As has been posted in response to this question here several times before, it is because FHWA Series fonts have a known set of properties that produce a constant value of legibility that can be used to calculate appropriate letter heights.

I do think, however, that since we have had a thread on this topic before, we should resurrect that instead of allowing this subject to clutter up this general 2009 MUTCD thread.

[Quillz]

I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other.

I think Maryland's version of the "Lane Ends" sign would work the best.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.680212,-79.219317&spn=0.003039,0.006968&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.680214,-79.219464&panoid=Mdf8I525Gf2rSl_UHVg5Sw&cbp=12,306.96,,1,3.55

As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

Oh heck no.  I like that states can have their own route markers.  The only thing is that I would force no state to use a "circle" or "square" for state routes UNLESS they mention the state name in them.

That's a good compromise, too, and I should be clear that in no way to I actually want every state to be forced into a certain state route shield, but that doesn't change the fact it might help alleviate possible motorist confusion.

[Ian]

I do plan on making a comment to FHWA.

I understand the need for uniformity of certain signs between states. A "merge" sign or a "lane ends" sign should look the same from one state to the other.

I think Maryland's version of the "Lane Ends" sign would work the best.

I've already seen examples of those in Delaware and Virginia.

As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

Oh heck no.  I like that states can have their own route markers.  The only thing is that I would force no state to use a "circle" or "square" for state routes UNLESS they mention the state name in them.

I agree with rickmastfan.

[NE2]

As much as I like how (most) states use unique state route markers, I do think it might be a good idea to actually enforce every state uses the same state route marker. I think this is how Australia does things... Every state has to have the same black and white shield, while the National Highway markers are the same shield but recolored green and gold.

At least one state uses British-style alphanumeric combinations in rectangles.

But don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

[stormwatch7721]

Does the new MUTCD say anything about the shields can be painted on highways?

[Scott5114]

Does the new MUTCD say anything about the shields can be painted on highways?

Yes. There are detailed drawings of proper dimensions and layouts, even.

[stormwatch7721]

Oh ok. I remember seeing the photo captions on Steve Alpert's website about them.

[froggie]

But don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

Minnesota's a better example, since unlike Wisconsin, Minnesota county roads are bona-fide county roads.

[MichiganDriver]

Does the new MUTCD say anything about the shields can be painted on highways?

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/part3b.htm#section3B20

[NE2]

But don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

Minnesota's a better example, since unlike Wisconsin, Minnesota county roads are bona-fide county roads.

Eh? Doesn't each county maintain their county trunk highways?

[Brandon]

But don't counties have to use the blue and gold pentagon? Or that's not enforced?

No. Look at Wisconsin.

Minnesota's a better example, since unlike Wisconsin, Minnesota county roads are bona-fide county roads.

Eh? Doesn't each county maintain their county trunk highways?

Yes.  Adam, I think you're confusing Wisconsin with Michigan.  In Michigan, they cross county lines (H-58 in the UP, A-2 in the LP for example).

[NE2]

No, Michigan also has "real" county roads in the sense that counties maintain them. Missouri, however, has lettered state secondary routes.

[rawmustard]

No, Michigan also has "real" county roads in the sense that counties maintain them. Missouri, however, has lettered state secondary routes.

Maybe Adam actually was confusing Wisconsin and Missouri. In any event, Michigan's county-designated highways are county-maintained except for those few routes which run concurrent with a state trunkline.

[froggie]

No confusion at all.  Wisconsin's kinda a weird one.  Yes, the county maintains the county trunk highways in that state.  But the county also maintains state highways and even Interstates.  WisDOT doesn't do maintenance...it's all at the county level regardless of the road type.

The other reason I specified Minnesota is that, unlike Wisconsin, MnDOT leaves it up to the counties as to how they sign their county routes.  Some choose the blue pentagon exclusively...others the white square exclusively.  And some do a mix.

[agentsteel53]

Some choose the blue pentagon exclusively...others the white square exclusively.  And some do a mix.

I thought there was a well-defined pattern to this: state-aid routes get the pentagon and solely county-funded ones get the white square.  Is this not correct?

[Andrew T.]

Meanwhile, the Wisconsin state MUTCD supplement contains this interesting statement within:

"The M1-6 County Route Sign illustrated in the MUTCD is intended to identify a special system of important County Highways, and shall not be used unless the Wisconsin Counties Association has established a state-wide system as prescribed by the National Association of Counties.  The standard County Route Sign (M1-5A) shall be a white square with black border and legend."

Apparently, what sets Wisconsin's county highways apart from those of other states is that they aren't important.  

[hbelkins]

No, Michigan also has "real" county roads in the sense that counties maintain them. Missouri, however, has lettered state secondary routes.

Missouri also has county routes signed with the pentagon.

[hbelkins]

No confusion at all.  Wisconsin's kinda a weird one.  Yes, the county maintains the county trunk highways in that state.  But the county also maintains state highways and even Interstates.  WisDOT doesn't do maintenance...it's all at the county level regardless of the road type.

On my jaunt up US 61 in Wisconsin during the summer, WisDOT trucks and personnel were out throwing cold mix into potholes and cracks in the pavement.

[froggie]

I thought there was a well-defined pattern to this: state-aid routes get the pentagon and solely county-funded ones get the white square.  Is this not correct?

Not correct.  It's up to each county how they choose to sign their county routes.  I believe I've mentioned this before on here.

Some (like Hennepin and Anoka) use only the blue pentagon, regardless of state aid status.  Others (Olmstead, Carver, and Washington among them) use only the white square.  Then there are those (namely Stearns, Freeborn, and Dakota) that do as you describe.

On my jaunt up US 61 in Wisconsin during the summer, WisDOT trucks and personnel were out throwing cold mix into potholes and cracks in the pavement.

Are you sure they were WisDOT trucks?  In the past, WisDOT provided the funds, but the county did maintenance.  It's definitely still that way for snow removal.

[rawmustard]

Are you sure they were WisDOT trucks?  In the past, WisDOT provided the funds, but the county did maintenance.  It's definitely still that way for snow removal.

Even in Michigan, MDOT has subcontracted some maintenance activities (snow removal being a major one) to county road commissions and municipal governments. But that technically doesn't change the fact that MDOT is responsible for state trunklines while counties and municipalities are responsible for their local roads.

[hbelkins]

Are you sure they were WisDOT trucks?  In the past, WisDOT provided the funds, but the county did maintenance.  It's definitely still that way for snow removal.

Yes. Given where I work, I tend to notice such things.