State signage policies that are stricter than the national MUTCD

[Pink Jazz]

I would like to know, does anyone know of examples of some state signage policies that are stricter than the national MUTCD?

An obvious example is that some states continue to restrict logo signs to rural areas only even though provisions for allowing them in urban areas were added in the 2000 MUTCD.

Another example is that New Mexico (and possibly some other states) requires street name signs on state highways to be green, even though the 2009 MUTCD also allows blue, brown, or white.  The City of Albuquerque once got in trouble with NMDOT by installing blue street name signs on NM 448 (Coors Blvd), and were forced to change them out to green.

Does anyone have other examples?

[Zeffy]

Caltrans specifies that overhead guide signs must not be greater than 120" in height. In addition, all signs on the same gantry must be the same height as well, which occasionally leads to some sign layout issues.

[Kacie Jane]

Washington, I'm assuming, used to have the same requirement for all signs on the same gantry to be the same height. Recent installs have been more flexible though, and HOV signage is almost always a standard size, rather than stretched/shrunk to match green signage.

[NE2]

All states except Alabama and Massachusetts use a different state route marker.

[roadfro]

Caltrans specifies that overhead guide signs must not be greater than 120" in height. In addition, all signs on the same gantry must be the same height as well, which occasionally leads to some sign layout issues.

While not necessarily a policy, Nevada DOT almost always has all signs on the same sign structure be the same height in new installations. The APL signs on I-80 in Reno are the only exception I'm aware of.

NDOT also tends to limit sign height, although they will go a little taller than 120"/gantry height in many cases. This usually doesn't result in sign layout issues, but there are a few cases in the Las Vegas area where this may have been a factor (HOV exit signs on US 95 at Summerlin Pkwy; some frontage road signage along I-15).

[roadman]

Massachusetts does not allow signing (LOGO or generic) for 24 hour pharmacies, nor do they allow the "12 LOGO" option for services signing, both of which are permitted by the Federal MUTCD.

[Pink Jazz]

Massachusetts does not allow signing (LOGO or generic) for 24 hour pharmacies, nor do they allow the "12 LOGO" option for services signing, both of which are permitted by the Federal MUTCD.

In Arizona, the 24-hour pharmacies category is exclusive to the urban program, however, there has yet to be even one 24-hour pharmacy that has signed onto the program, and I have doubts there will be any.  Grand Canyon State Logo Signs is currently in the buildout phase for Loop 202 (except between Loop 101 and Gilbert Road in Mesa, which is currently being widened) and SR 51, with I-10, I-17, and Loop 101 (except between Loop 202 and Cactus Road, also currently being widened) almost done.  The next buildout phase for the Phoenix area is the US 60 Superstition Freeway and the currently under construction section of Loop 202 between Loop 101 and Gilbert Road, followed by Loop 101 between Loop 202 and Cactus Road.  Loop 303 is planned for 2018 (I presume Tucson will get its share of logo signs before installation begins on Loop 303).

I'd be very surprised if there will be any 24-hour pharmacies that will sign for the program.  So far we mostly have Food, Gas, and Lodging signs, with one Attractions sign on Loop 202.  Even though Camping is one of the listed categories for the urban program, most campgrounds are located in rural areas and I'd also be surprised if there will be any Camping signs on one of the Phoenix area freeways.

[Brandon]

Caltrans specifies that overhead guide signs must not be greater than 120" in height. In addition, all signs on the same gantry must be the same height as well, which occasionally leads to some sign layout issues.

While not necessarily a policy, Nevada DOT almost always has all signs on the same sign structure be the same height in new installations. The APL signs on I-80 in Reno are the only exception I'm aware of.

NDOT also tends to limit sign height, although they will go a little taller than 120"/gantry height in many cases. This usually doesn't result in sign layout issues, but there are a few cases in the Las Vegas area where this may have been a factor (HOV exit signs on US 95 at Summerlin Pkwy; some frontage road signage along I-15).

IDOT District 1 (Schaumburg) used to dictate that all signs needed to be the same height on the gantry, especially during the brown gantry years (1980s - 1990s).  This led to some very tall but narrow or tall with a lot of greenspace signs.

Examples:









And yes, there's a lot of 1980s - 1990s button copy there.

[Brandon]

MDOT, on the other hand, bottom aligns all the signs.

[roadman]

MDOT, on the other hand, bottom aligns all the signs.

Massachusetts has never placed any minimum or maximum dimensions on overhead signs, but has always required that the sign panels (less exit tabs) be centered on the horizontal member of the support.

[TEG24601]

I really love the MDOT approach, including placing the tab on the side of the sign the exit exists (left for left exits, right for right), the IDOT District 1 is also very visually appealing.  When driving cross-country, those were two great approaches to BGSes.

[roadfro]

I really love the MDOT approach, including placing the tab on the side of the sign the exit exists (left for left exits, right for right) ...

That's not an MDOT thing, that is a National MUTCD thing (that obviously some states still disregard).