Favorite State or Province MUTCD?

[jakeroot]

I'd like to think the MUTCD makes things more standard, and to an extent, it does. But about half of the country uses either their own MUTCD or a modified version of the national MUTCD. This results in a number of different standards depending on your state or province (although Canada is pretty much standard).

For example, some states are huge users of continuity lines (those dotted lines indicating where a lane begins and/or ends), whereas other states don't use them at all. Another example is the Yield line. Some states require shark teeth, others just require a dotted line. And, for a third example, some states/provinces two-lane exits have solid lines indicating where the exit-only lane turns off and the option lane can begin to exit (hard to describe but I think if you read it a few times, you'll understand). Some states require this solid line to continue for a number of feet down the ramp (Oregon), whereas some states only have them go until the gore-point has formed (California).

Anyways, considering these differences, which State or Province has your favorite MUTCD? As in, which state, if you were at DOT employee, would you most be proud to work for? You could consider those two separate questions, but I think you get the point. 

Mine is British Columbia, easy. I like their continuity lines, I like the single-yellow line dividing opposite directions, I like the Clearview font, I like their finger-posts on the roundabouts, I like the yellow airport codes on BGS, I like their roundabout diagrams, and frankly, the list goes on.

EDIT (13 May 2014): It's worth noting that the way BC signs their airports has changed. See here.

[JoePCool14]

IDOT would suck. WisDOT or MDOT would be Okay.

[DaBigE]

I can't say I have one specific favorite. I prefer state MUTCDs that take the time to produce quality graphics (color, sign images being scaled down spec-grade signs and not something a non-engineering artist put together. MnDOT comes to mind, although, going strictly off of memory at the moment, I cannot remember if what I am thinking of is their MUTCD or part of their general highway manual(s). I seem to remember TxDOT's being fairly nice as well, albeit black/white (IIRC). IR Michigan to be fairly nice, as well as Iowa.

I find WisDOT's [MUTCD supplement] to be bland, with mostly text and a few tables. Good or bad, they tend to be a bit more conservative in their table values. Including all of WisDOT's other sign/marking related manuals (FDM, TGM, Sign Plate manual, FDM Standard Detail Drawings, "Hot Topics" list, ...), from a graphic designer's perspective, I would be embarrassed (fix the damned slashes on your sign cells for the EM Series 'd'   ). There are some spec-accurate sign graphics, but many are overly-simplistic CADD sketches...and in some cases, just plain sloppy. I'm probably overly critical of WisDOT's work as I use it the most. I do like how they make the spec's available for each and every standard sign (requires a login, which just about anyone can register for). I just wish they would provide the CADD file and not just a PDF. And, they've finally converted their custom sign codes to be in-sync with the national MUTCD.   That said, all manuals included, they do leave very little to question when trying to put together a set of plans (most situations are spelled out somewhere).

I do like how Caltrans edits the national MUTCD with their changes...less having to look at half a dozen different manuals for your answer (again, looking at you, WisDOT )

[hbelkins]

Kentucky's is online at http://transportation.ky.gov/Organizational-Resources/Policy%20Manuals%20Library/Traffic%20Operations.pdf if anyone wants to read it.

[jakeroot]

Kentucky's is online at http://transportation.ky.gov/Organizational-Resources/Policy%20Manuals%20Library/Traffic%20Operations.pdf if anyone wants to read it.

Reading MUTCDs are one of my new-found life pleasures. Thanks for the link.

[Zeffy]

California gets my vote. I love their MUTCD. Caltrans signs are some of my favorite to look at, especially the old porcelain ones with button copy.

New Jersey would be mine since a lot of NJDOT signs don't look fugly, but they use the national MUTCD.

[Brandon]

Some states just use the Federal one, some use a supplement, some use their own.  Wiki has a pretty good map of which uses what.

[jakeroot]

Some states just use the Federal one, some use a supplement, some use their own.  Wiki has a pretty good map of which uses what.

Thank you Brandon. I've tacked that photo to the OP. That map is actually what spurred me to ask this question.

[DaBigE]

Here's the federal version (covers the 2009 MUTCD), and also includes links to the state documents: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/state_info/index.htm

[J N Winkler]

I can't say I have one specific favorite. I prefer state MUTCDs that take the time to produce quality graphics (color, sign images being scaled down spec-grade signs and not something a non-engineering artist put together. MnDOT comes to mind, although, going strictly off of memory at the moment, I cannot remember if what I am thinking of is their MUTCD or part of their general highway manual(s). I seem to remember TxDOT's being fairly nice as well, albeit black/white (IIRC). IR Michigan to be fairly nice, as well as Iowa.

In terms of production values--as opposed to usability--I tend to award high points to manuals with vector graphics that are consistently pattern-accurate and have good color control.  The "bog standard" state MUTCD generally has problems with some if not all graphics being presented as rasters rather than vectors, and also inconsistent color, especially for green sign backgrounds.  (A big no-no, which is starting to appear more often in construction plan sheets as American state DOTs shift toward producing signing plans in full color, is to use pure green in the RGB color basis--which is actually a very light lime yellow when viewed on a computer screen--as guide sign green.)

The MnMUTCD has always been a very strong performer in these respects, although the bordering around sign panels in the guide-sign chapters is (to my eye) unnecessarily thick.  The TxMUTCD has historically also been good, but quality seems to have fallen off a bit between the 2006 and 2011 editions, and color consistency (at least in the SHSD companion volume) is rather poor for guide signs.

I don't like the California MUTCD.  It has its color consistency issues since Caltrans uses its own RGB values.  Moreover, most of the graphics are raster (not vector), and I have long suspected this has been done deliberately to work around software limitations.  Most of Caltrans' recent sign specs, which are the original source for California MUTCD illustrations for California-specific situations, have passed through Macromedia FreeHand at some point and there are smoothness issues that are evident at high magnification or when drawings are scaled down hugely for use as an illustration in a manual.

I do like how they make the specs available for each and every standard sign (requires a login, which just about anyone can register for). I just wish they would provide the CADD file and not just a PDF.

I really wish they would take out the Sign Plate Manual from behind the login wall.  I suspect they put it behind the wall in the first place so that they would have email addresses for everyone downloading the manual that they could then use for update notifications.  But it would have been much better just to create a voluntary subscription mechanism for this purpose.  I don't see a real need to make it difficult for the professional community to avoid sign plate updates, since it is WisDOT's contracts office (not the designers) that actually package the sign plates in the finished plans set.

One good thing is that MnDOT has finally abandoned the PDF table of contents as the sole access mechanism for its Standard Signs Manual, which makes versioning (downloading a complete copy at regular intervals to track changes) much easier.

[DaBigE]

I suspect they put it behind the wall in the first place so that they would have email addresses for everyone downloading the manual that they could then use for update notifications.

Could being the operative word, but they don't. One would think they would require a login to view lettings, but they don't. They don't require a login for the Facilities Development Manual (FDM), but they do for the Traffic Guidelines Manual (TGM). At one point, I was told the TGM was interim policy destined for the next FDM update. Things got behind, and it snowballed from there. Now, new policy regularly goes into the TGM and stays there. Situations like this is why I'm against splitting the MUTCD into two+ books.

But it would have been much better just to create a voluntary subscription mechanism for this purpose.

Which they do have, accessible on the first screen after logging in (in the column on the right side of the screen). Ironically, the email sign-up system for CADD standards updates was one of the last to have this ability implemented. Apparently they finally got sick of having people ask when an update was coming and/or telling people that such a listserv did not exist.

[J N Winkler]

Could being the operative word, but they don't. One would think they would require a login to view lettings, but they don't. They don't require a login for the Facilities Development Manual (FDM), but they do for the Traffic Guidelines Manual (TGM). At one point, I was told the TGM was interim policy destined for the next FDM update. Things got behind, and it snowballed from there. Now, new policy regularly goes into the TGM and stays there. Situations like this is why I'm against splitting the MUTCD into two+ books.

Yup, inertia is a thing.  I suspect that if the Sign Plate Manual were being put online today for the first time, it would not go behind a login wall.  It first appeared online in 2004, at a time when WisDOT wasn't even making plans available electronically, let alone on the Web, and was rolling out CADD drafting standards (e.g., gray fills instead of patterns) so that all of its construction plans could be plotted directly to PDF at small file sizes, without the need to print and scan first.  CD distribution of letting plans started in 2005 and was not finally abandoned until 2012.

[The Premier]

I prefer Ohio DOT, especially for its remaining button copy. Tennessee's DOT is also a worthy contender.

[PHLBOS]

I like MassDOT's supplement of MUTCD; the paddle LGS' and its interpretation of the LEFT EXIT tab being the primary reasons.  Examples of each posted below.

[pctech]

I haven't driven in enough states, but close to home I prefer TX DOT to LADODT. I like some of the things that CA does, but not others. (I'm judging from videos and photos not actually driven there)

[hotdogPi]

I like MassDOT's supplement of MUTCD; the paddle LGS' and its interpretation of the LEFT EXIT tab being the primary reasons.  Examples of each posted below.

That's not a standard paddle sign. A standard paddle sign has one in each direction, not both in the same direction.

[Zeffy]

That's not a standard paddle sign. A standard paddle sign has one in each direction, not both in the same direction.

I believe a "paddle" sign is any sign that is held up by that whatever the hell that thing is that holds up the top-most sign.

[PHLBOS]

I like MassDOT's supplement of MUTCD; the paddle LGS' and its interpretation of the LEFT EXIT tab being the primary reasons.  Examples of each posted below.

That's not a standard paddle sign. A standard paddle sign has one in each direction, not both in the same direction.

That aside, I chose the above-example because it was the only image photo I could find that best represents the current MassDOT standards for D6/D8 Paddle LGS assemblies.  Such standards include:

1.  Route shields for both upper (D6) and lower D8 panels are the exact same size and sport the black offset outline (state route shields only).  Previous generation D6/D8 LGS' did not feature such.

2.  White outline features rounded corners (previous generations did not).

3.  Arrows are appropriately sized and shaped.

As far as the both panels showing information for the same direction is concerned; one needs to remember that not every intersection nor situation warrants a cookie-cutter approach.  Plus, per MassDOT's detail sheets, not all D6 panels are used for right-turn situations nor all D8 panels are used for left-turn situatons.

MassDOT D6 "Paddle" Sign Details

MassDOT D8 (below-Paddle) Sign Details

I believe a "paddle" sign is any sign that is held up by that whatever the hell that thing is that holds up the top-most sign.

In theory, yes; but in most instances the lower (D8) panel is often paired w/the top (D6) Paddle sign, so one could refer to the whole LGS assembly as a Paddle sign/assembly/structure.

To my knowledge, MassDOT does not even use the term Paddle in their sign specs; I first heard of it used here on this site.

[spooky]

To my knowledge, MassDOT does not even use the term Paddle in their sign specs; I first heard of it used here on this site.

I always wondered if that is something that is an outdated MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT nomenclature, or something that was invented by the roadgeek community.

[roadman]

To my knowledge, MassDOT does not even use the term Paddle in their sign specs; I first heard of it used here on this site.

I always wondered if that is something that is an outdated MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT nomenclature, or something that was invented by the roadgeek community.

The term "paddle sign" was indeed invented by the roadgeek community, and has no origins in any past or current MassDPW, MassHighway, or MassDOT nomenclature.

[wisvishr0]

I know this thread is about your favorite state/province MUTCD, but I have stronger feelings against certain practices in some states.

Specifically, I hate how some states mark entry ramps on highways. Here's my diagram that explains it:



I'm not really sure why I hate the first way so much. It just seems inconsistent and lazy (even though it's not). I guess, living in Maryland, I've been accustomed to thinking that an exit/entry ramp is a lane that starts/ends, and to me, it has to start or end cleanly and consistently, just like any other lane that starts/ends.

TN, OH, NC, IA and a few other states use the first way to mark entrances, especially in rural areas. I'm glad Maryland stuck to the second way.

[Scott5114]

OK does the first one sometimes, but like anything else Oklahoma does, it's inconsistent. They do include the slashes in the gore, though, which makes it look even sillier.

[jakeroot]

Washington State does the first one, BC does the second. I too despise the perceived laziness of the first design (even, as you said, if it isn't).

My opinion here, but the first design is a merge. The second design is more of a "change lanes" approach. The second would seem safer because less accidents (I would bet) occur when changing lanes than with merging. They more than likely contain the same signage, but I've seen the latter of the two diagrams in BC with a "lane ends" sign on numerous occasions.

[roadfro]

Probably shouldn't be a yield sign with either one of those, by strict MUTCD application--especially with the second one as it's an added lane and has no need for immediate merge.

I don't see what's lazy about the first one, other than not painting the full gore to the tip (which I agree looks a bit sloppy).

Nevada tends towards more the vanilla standard, which is a gore painted to the tip and without any lane markings beyond the gore and without arrows (so not really like either design shown here, but more like the first). However, if it's an added acceleration lane (more like the second image) of decent length, that almost always ends with arrow markings.

[jakeroot]

Probably shouldn't be a yield sign with either one of those, by strict MUTCD application--especially with the second one as it's an added lane and has no need for immediate merge.

Washington State formerly used yield signs at the end of short-ish merges; I don't believe any new ones are being installed.

A few examples:

- http://goo.gl/Jhhk3d
- http://goo.gl/6LxbdT
- http://goo.gl/xpexr3

What really grinds my gears is when the above left style is used even when the lane is not merging (i.e. joining as a new lane).

Exhibits:

- http://goo.gl/6dyYLu
- http://goo.gl/qRQaI2
- http://goo.gl/Ejs7Xu