2009 Edition of the MUTCD

[andytom]

It appears that the MUTCD is a bit contradictory on exit numbers and mileposts. Section 2E.31 requires exit numbering begin at the south/west point of the route or state line, and that numbering should be reference location based. However, Section 2H.05, paragraph 13, only gives guidance that mileposts should have the zero point at the south/west terminus or state line.  I suppose it is theoretically possible to number exits based on mileage, but backwards from the order of increasing mileposts... 

I stand corrected (concerning the connection between the exit numbering system and the reference marker system).  I knew that was somewhere in there.  I just couldn't find it immediately.  The context of the statement indicates that it is about the sequencing of the exit numbers, not that it be connected to the existing reference marking system.  This keeps a state from having to change it's reference marking system which would be a monumental project for any DOT as all records concerning positioning of things on highways use the existing reference marking system from construction projects to route logs.

--Andy

[Brandon]

In an e-mail I received from NYSDOT regarding exit numbering, I was told that a State Supplement would not be able to use sequential exit numbers.  I posted the e-mail earlier in this thread, but here it is again for convenience (emphasis added):

As for exit numbering, last week FHWA released the 2009 edition of the National MUTCD.  It contained a standard that all exit numbering be mile base rather consecutive numbers.  Only seven states, mostly in the northeast still number exits consecutively.  It is my understanding that the compliance phase in period will be ten years.  Since it is a mandate (SHALL statement), there will be no waiver possible nor can we alter it via our State Supplement.  FHWA allows states to deviate in their Supplement if it is guidance (SHOULD) or an option (MAY), but not a standard (SHALL).  The 2009 edition becomes effective January 15, 2019 so the work would have to be completed by January 2020 if the compliance is indeed ten years.

If this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

You answered your own question.  It's CalTrans and California.  California seems to believe it is special within the Union, and therefore, exempt from whatever it chooses to be exempt from.

[mightyace]

You answered your own question.  It's CalTrans and California.  California seems to believe it is special within the Union, and therefore, exempt from whatever it chooses to be exempt from.

Yeah, California is not a separate country, yet! 

[J N Winkler]

If this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

The only way to do it legally that I am aware of is to confine the alterations and cancellations of "shall" statements to signs or signing situations which simply don't exist in California.  I haven't gone through the California MUTCD to check whether such alterations are so confined.  I think there are probably a few California MUTCD provisions which flat-out contradict "shall" statements in the federal MUTCD (things like yellow for crosswalks come to mind) but for which Caltrans has some sort of side deal (I am not sure how formal it is) with California FHWA to come into compliance on an incremental basis.  When the California MUTCD supplement came out in 2004, there were a number of PowerPoint presentations posted to the Caltrans website (where they may still be), and in one of them a representative of the California FHWA office used the phrase "low-hanging fruit" in relation to things like exit numbers.

The law is the law, but in reality enforcement is selective even for public agencies.  California has about 50 Congressmen, most of whom would consider it a matter of constituent service to make a fuss if FHWA tried to push through drastic enforcement actions like cutting off all federal highway aid to California.

[roadfro]

If this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

The only way to do it legally that I am aware of is to confine the alterations and cancellations of "shall" statements to signs or signing situations which simply don't exist in California.  I haven't gone through the California MUTCD to check whether such alterations are so confined.  I think there are probably a few California MUTCD provisions which flat-out contradict "shall" statements in the federal MUTCD (things like yellow for crosswalks come to mind) but for which Caltrans has some sort of side deal (I am not sure how formal it is) with California FHWA to come into compliance on an incremental basis.  When the California MUTCD supplement came out in 2004, there were a number of PowerPoint presentations posted to the Caltrans website (where they may still be), and in one of them a representative of the California FHWA office used the phrase "low-hanging fruit" in relation to things like exit numbers.

In looking for one of those PowerPoint presentations, I found this letter (PDF) from FHWA California Division regarding California's 2004 adoption of the national MUTCD with state supplement and the issue of "substantial compliance".

It indicates that the 2004 California MUTCD has a number of items/changes that are unacceptable in relation to the national manual (yellow crosswalks near schools is given as a specific example). Such non-conforming items have been "grandfathered" in at the state level, if in place prior to May 2004. California FHWA believes that California transitioning to the national MUTCD will provide a vast number of safety benefits, and immediate insistence on banning non-conforming devices would have significantly delayed (or even prevented) the state's adoption. Further, FHWA recognizes that California has agreed to take further steps toward compliance, including a senior engineer position to deal with MUTCD issues, specifying use of reflective sheeting on guide signs, and implementing exit numbering.

The letter also states that any changes made to the California supplement after May 2004 must conform with the national MUTCD. So it is possible that several non-standard uses, such as yellow crosswalk lines, may continue to exist forever, so long as Caltrans doesn't modify that specification in their MUTCD supplement.

[shoptb1]

Historically speaking, hasn't non-compliance with the MUTCD standards resulted in yanking of federal funds for things?  A certain color-coding of US shields in Florida seems to come to mind.  Or perhaps California is just so flush with money given their current budget surplus that they're not concerned about it.  Oh wait.

[roadfro]

Well, it's may not necessarily be that non-compliance results in yanking of federal funds. However, FHWA certainly won't be paying for anything that's non-conforming, as anything funded with federal aid must conform.

As I stated, California is making great strides to implement a lot more conformance with the MUTCD.  FHWA realizes this and is willing to grant California some latitude on full compliance right now.

[MichiganDriver]

If this is the case, how can agencies like CalTrans just remove the "shall" statements?

From the FAQ section this how CA probably gets around changing shall statements


Q: What does substantial conformance mean in regard to State Supplements and State MUTCDs?


A: In 2006 a specific definition of substantial conformance was added to the Code of Federal Regulations. 23 CFR 655.603(b) states that "substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements included in the National MUTCD" and that "the guidance statements contained in the National MUTCD shall also be in the State Manual or supplement unless the reason for not including it is satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment, specific conflicting State law, or a documented engineering study." This section of the CFR also allows FHWA to grant exceptions in cases where a State MUTCD or supplement cannot conform to standard statements in the National MUTCD because of the requirements of a specific State law that was in effect prior to the January 16, 2007 effective date of this provision, if FHWA determines the non-conformance does not create a safety concern. Also, legal precedents have determined that State Supplements and State MUTCDs can be more prescriptive than the national MUTCD. This means that a State can make a national MUTCD "should" condition a "shall" condition in that State, can allow in that State only one of several national MUTCD optional designs for a particular device, or can prohibit the use in that State of a particular optional device. However, State Supplements and State MUTCDs cannot omit or change a national MUTCD "shall" to a "should" or change a "should" to a "may". The FHWA reviews each State Supplement and State MUTCD and makes determinations as to substantial conformance.

[Alps]

Well, it's may not necessarily be that non-compliance results in yanking of federal funds. However, FHWA certainly won't be paying for anything that's non-conforming, as anything funded with federal aid must conform.

As I stated, California is making great strides to implement a lot more conformance with the MUTCD.  FHWA realizes this and is willing to grant California some latitude on full compliance right now.

I think it's more history than anything.  California (and New York, for that matter) was one of the first states to develop standards.  Over the course of the years, California kept innovating - for example, they developed among the first 3-digit shields that I know of - so there's been a history of California pushing the FHWA, instead of vice versa as it is for most other states.  Why California gets a pass - a) they've been doing this a long time and b) there are a lot of people / political influence there to keep the power.  New York, meanwhile, after developing its own standards for a number of years, is now a laggart when it comes to the MUTCD...

[agentsteel53]

California kept innovating - for example, they developed among the first 3-digit shields that I know of

it was, of all places, Massachusetts.  They had two distinct sizes of state route by 1930.



MA had a 17x16 US-202 shield to go with their 16x16 shields in other sizes as early as 1934, when US-202 was signed.  



it took Michael Summa and me three days to figure out just why the Hell we couldn't straighten out that 202 shield in that photo.  The proportions were just not coming out - either the shield edge would line up, or the numbers, but not both.  Then we added an extra inch of width to the shield and it worked out perfectly.  It ends up looking like this.



New York had those oversized three-digit US routes starting in 1931.  



before that, they used the federal standard shield shape, before changing over to the slightly wider two-digit shields, and the much larger three-digit ones (albeit, with the double border).



I've never seen a photo of a three-digit 1920s New York shield, but their state signing manual from 1927 mentions "16 1/2 by 16 inch" for US route marker with no exception.

California had three-digit-wide interstates on overhead guide signs starting in 1958.  In fact, they had five separate widths of US, state, and interstate shields, between 1956 and 1961, when they went with the standard federal two widths.  That way, they could more accurately conform to the various widths of one to three digit routes, including digit "1" which is about half a digit wide.

I do not know who invented the surface-level three-digit interstate shield; as far as I can recall, its earliest mention is in the 1961 federal MUTCD, but I may have a California specification that says 1958 or 1959, as opposed to 1962, which is when California adopted the federal 1961 standards.

[Troubleshooter]

Don't get me wrong, the idea of some measure of uniformity in signage as you travel from state to state is not a bad thing. The feds mandating minute details of things such as fonts and letter spacing and all just seems a little ... well ... unconstitutional to me.

Those fonts, sizes, and spacings are there for a reason. Politicians skimped on the signs before the MUTCD, and made the lettering too small to be read at speed.
Post Merge: August 03, 2010, 10:48:56 PM

Street signs are still traffic control devices.

but they're such low criticality that to put in a mandate into the 2009 MUTCD that is, in effect, a complete overhaul of the street blade system seems to be a waste of taxpayer money. 

Wanna bet? I had a cop stop me because I was slowing down at intersections to read unreflectorized white on maroon street signs at night. He thought I was driving drunk. I was looking for an address.

[Troubleshooter]

Have you noticed the changes in traffic signals?

- Yellow trap is abolished (as it was in the 2003 MUTCD, with compliance by 2008). But I am still seeing signals that do it everywhere.

- The 4 and 3 section flashing yellow arrows faces are now part of the MUTCD.

- The 3 section flashing red arrows face is now part of the MUTCD.

- Dallas phasing is no longer allowed.

- New installations may not have circular green over or in front of the left turn lane.

- The language is now repaired to eliminate an ambiguity that caused some people to think a green arrow could be shown turning across a crosswalk having a walk or flashing don't walk signal.

- Exclusive left turn signals must have red arrows.

- Turns on red arrows require a sign permitting the turn, or a flashing red arrow.

- There must be two signal faces for straight ahead, as well as two signal faces for the major movement.

- If a shared turn and straight lane exists, the turn and straight greens must begin and end together. The turn signal may change between permissive and protected during the straight ahead green, but it must not be red.

- Countdown vehicle signals are prohibited, as are any early indications of change visible from the stop line.

- Countdown pedestrian signals are3 required for new installations.

- Pedestrian signals must have filled in indications, not outlines.

- Hybrid signals for fire entrances and pedestrian crossings - not at intersections!

- New U-turn indication, but not to be used where left turn indication exists.

- Backplates can have yellow reflective background. These are good if the power fails.

[US71]

Wanna bet? I had a cop stop me because I was slowing down at intersections to read unreflectorized white on maroon street signs at night. He thought I was driving drunk. I was looking for an address.

I believe those are now "non-standard" (ie violate the MUTCD)

[hbelkins]

I'll be attending a conference next week and one of the sessions is on changes in the 2009 MUTCD. I'll be sure to take copious notes.

[mjb2002]

I am glad that Barnwell County, S.C. will be FORCED to change their street signs, I DO NOT LIKE THOSE UGLY SIGNS THEY HAVE UP AT ALL!!!

I also hate like the fact that neighboring Aiken County must also change their signs as I see nothing wrong with their signage. Every county in the nation could learn from Aiken County on how to make a proper street sign.

[on_wisconsin]

I'm a little surprised that this isn't a HUGE topic here (given all the attention on the cable news channels and broadcast networks):

U.S. Department of Transportation Calls for New Round of Comments on
Compliance Dates for Key Traffic Regulations

WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood today called for additional public input on compliance dates for a number of federal traffic control regulations, ranging from road sign reflectivity to crosswalk timing.

"Given the difficult economic conditions states currently face, asking for additional input on compliance dates is the right thing to do,"  said Secretary LaHood. "We want to be sure these safety requirements are reasonable, fair and cost-effective."

The public will have 45 days from tomorrow to submit comments to the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to www.regulations.gov.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which has been administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since 1971, is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation's changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools and traffic management techniques.

In finalizing updates to the MUTCD, FHWA works with and receives input from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, composed of more than 250 key stakeholders representing state departments of transportation, city and county governments, academia, and trade groups such as the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The FHWA also seeks input from the public on changes to the MUTCD, including compliance dates. Comments are solicited from the general public, state and local highway agencies, the insurance industry, law enforcement agencies, incident management and maintenance personnel, academic institutions, planning, construction and engineering organizations, and other industry stakeholders.

"Safety is our priority, but so is good government,"  said Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez. "Listening to the public helps to ensure both."  
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/fhwa6410.html

What do you guys think of the potential reversal of the new street sign rules?

[hbelkins]

What do you guys think of the potential reversal of the new street sign rules?

Hear, hear.

The federal government has no business dictating minutiae such as letter case, font, letter height, etc. to state and local governments.

[Quillz]

Aren't most states several years behind MUTCD compliance? I mean, aren't some states just now putting up new signs that conform to, say, the 2003 or 2004 MUTCD?

[MichiganDriver]

Aren't most states several years behind MUTCD compliance? I mean, aren't some states just now putting up new signs that conform to, say, the 2003 or 2004 MUTCD?

The vast majority of rules don't have compliance dates only new devices must be compliant.

[3467]

http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-street-signs-regulations-112910,0,3448291.story

Local MUTCD Compliance story

[Mr_Northside]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_711628.html

One of the Pittsburgh papers also ran a street-sign story today.

As an aside, the few times I've driven thru Franklin Park, I've never much cared for the vertical post "signs".

[Scott5114]

Hear, hear.

The federal government has no business dictating minutiae such as letter case, font, letter height, etc. to state and local governments.

May 3" tall all-caps Comic Sans signage guide you on all your journeys.

[J N Winkler]

Hear, hear.

The federal government has no business dictating minutiae such as letter case, font, letter height, etc. to state and local governments.

This is a marvelous opportunity for you to put your money where your mouth is (not that any money has to change hands; commenting is free) and try to get FHWA to buy your states'-rights argument.  I look forward to reading your comments.

[froggie]

Indeed.  I'd like to hear your reasoning, HBE...

[mightyace]

I agree with the general principle HBE espouses.  However, IMHO, whatever "states' rights" argument you come up with becomes irrelevant once you start taking Federal $$.

Because there's a basic fact of life that I've learned.  It's sometimes called "the other Golden Rule" (not the one in the Christian Bible).  It is basically this:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Washington, DC used this to enact the now defunct National Speed Limit and things like the 21 minimum drinking age.  Congress has no direct authority to enact this legislation, those are states matters.  What the laws and others like them say is, "Do this the way we in Washington want, or you won't get money from us."