2009 Edition of the MUTCD

[SSOWorld]

that maybe be true - but not all jurisdictions get that (whether by own choice or not), and in my opinion, trickling down doesn't count

[agentsteel53]

Interesting how many people cry out when there's a Helvetica sign out there but as soon as something gets in the MUTCD they disagree with, they're all in favor of ignoring it

there's a world of difference between "sign in abomination font" and "arrow placement guidelines too restrictive".

[SSOWorld]

is there a law that says MUTCD or else (in legalese of course)?

[J N Winkler]

At the federal level, subordinate legislation--23 CFR whatever the hell it is--establishes the requirement that signing on federal-aid highways shall be in substantial conformance with the MUTCD.  I think the primary legislation which authorizes this chapter of CFR is a 1960's statute establishing the duties and powers of USDOT and its modal agencies, including FHWA.  At the state level, nearly every state has a provision in its primary legislation which requires adoption of the federal MUTCD, the federal MUTCD plus a state supplement, or some other type of traffic manual such as an own-state MUTCD.  Some states require additionally that adoption has to occur through a formal administrative action, such as amendment of the state's administrative code or a minute order signed by a designated official, while in others adoption is "automatic" (i.e., accomplished entirely by normal operation of the primary legislation:  on the date specified by FHWA in the 2009 MUTCD, the 2003 MUTCD becomes invalid and the 2009 MUTCD enters into force).  Depending on the type and degree of home-rule powers granted to localities within the state, some cities within the state may have a process for adopting the MUTCD via local ordinance.

FHWA's MUTCD site has FAQs addressing the generalities of applicability to federal-aid highways, while Part 1 of the MUTCD goes into more specific detail.

[Duke87]

While micromanagement of local street signs may seem a tad silly, it's a non-issue in terms of costing money to change things. No signs will be changed until they're old and their time comes. And the types can mix. My town currently has over half dozen different specs of street sign in coexistence. Naturally, this includes some ancient leftover ones. The newest ones are all already mixed case, so no worries there!

[roadfro]

There are compliance for street name signs listed in the MUTCD, but this is related to sign letter heights and not colors or mixed case.

I see no language relating to compliance dates for sign colors or mixed case legends. So unless I've missed something, there isn't a specific compliance date for these. Thus, the new standards apply solely to new or reconstructed installations. Any non-conforming signs would be brought into compliance through systematic upgrades/replacement of substandard signage pursuant to the "Highway Safety Program" of U.S.C. 23...  (Without having read the code, I'd assume that non-conforming street name signs could remain in place for the remainder of its useful life.)

[TheStranger]

My town currently has over half dozen different specs of street sign in coexistence.

In comparison, San Francisco has used the all-caps black-on-white signs for decades, with no variance whatsoever.  If new installations have to have mixed case, they're going to stick out like sore thumbs amongst a forest of the traditional SF design...

[route56]

Ironically, Lawrence has been in compliance with the 2009 MUCTD since the 1970s - I think whoever designed the Alphabet for Lawrence took part in designing the lower case letters for the rest of the FHWA series.

[Bickendan]

Regarding the mile-based exits: Will this affect I-19, and will OR I-84 be noticed?
I-84 uses sequential for exits 1-9 then switches to mileage from 10 on out, as the mileage east of I-205 is two miles higher than the distance signs to Portland (westbound). The discrepancy is from the never-built alignment that then I-80N was to take through SE Portland.

Also, does this mandate exit numbers on all freeways, not just Interstates?

[roadfro]

The 2009 MUTCD has language in section 2E.31, paragraph 2, that I would interpret as every freeway requiring exit numbering. Furthermore, paragraph 4 requires numbering based on reference location signs.

Generally speaking, many changes that come up in new MUTCD versions apply to new construction, and existing signs (or markings or signals) can generally stay in place for the remainder of their useful service life. However, should there be any sort of rehabilitation project, any non-conforming signs must be changed unless there is a very substantial reason for keeping it. However, there are some specific provisions that are given "compliance dates". This means that the DOT or responsible agency must replace the signs or implement the provision by that given date. For example, the 2009 MUTCD has a compliance date of 12/31/2014 for implementing the black on yellow "left" plaque for left-hand exits.

With all that said, I would imagine that I-19 and I-84 would remain unaffected, unless there's some sort of rehabilitation effort that takes place. In particular, I-19 isn't overly affected because it has complied with the provisions of reference location exit numbering for years--the highway uses kilometers for reference posts, and the exit numbers are based on the km posts. However, ADOT is already planning to switch to mileposts and change exit numbering, as part of a larger sign replacement project funded by the stimulus (this was bought up in another thread).

[myosh_tino]

The 2009 MUTCD has language in section 2E.31, paragraph 2, that I would interpret as every freeway requiring exit numbering. Furthermore, paragraph 4 requires numbering based on reference location signs.

Does reference location signs mean milepost or mile markers?  If so, are these markers required on freeways in the 2009 MUTCD?  Wondering what the effect is going to be in California where Caltrans use postmile markers that reset at county lines.  The only freeway with mile post or mile markers is the CA-58 Mojave Bypass.

[Bickendan]

It won't affect California, as they decided to number every single exit in the state, based on mile distance from the highway's origin-- counting multiplexes (which routes in California don't do, legislatively). Some discontinuous routes, like CA 65, are oddball cases anyway, as there's a 300-some unconstructed gap through the eastern Central Valley; if that highway got built, the high exit numbers (if signed in the field; knowing CalTrans, it's possible they aren't yet) on the Roseville-Marysville portion may get renumbered.

Now, I wish that this would force ODOT to renumber OR 22's exit numbers east of Salem to reflect the entire length of the route instead of the hidden highway's origin at I-5. Or to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

[roadfro]

Does reference location signs mean milepost or mile markers?  If so, are these markers required on freeways in the 2009 MUTCD?  Wondering what the effect is going to be in California where Caltrans use postmile markers that reset at county lines.  The only freeway with mile post or mile markers is the CA-58 Mojave Bypass.

"Reference Location Signs", in the context of the MUTCD, generally means the white on green mileposts depicted in the MUTCD and used by most states.  Section 2H.05, paragraph 2, of the 2009 MUTCD states as a standard that reference location signs shall be placed on all freeways as well as on expressway facilities where there is reference post continuity. "Enhanced Reference Location Signs", the ones that show the route shield and direction, can be used instead.

Note that, other than its placement within the manual, the language regarding reference location signs has not changed from the 2003 MUTCD. I haven't reviewed the California MUTCD that came after the 2003 MUTCD for this specific policy, but I'm more than 99% certain that the federal standard was changed in the California manual. Caltrans seems pretty committed to the postmile system, and probably won't change anytime soon. Thus, I would expect that Caltrans will change the language again in their modification to the 2009 MUTCD to continue using their postmile system...with maybe leaving federal milepost design available as an option.


I think this is one of those things that isn't a major sticking point as far as FHWA is concerned. California is using a roadside referencing system which aids in location finding for maintenance, emergency personnel and motorists (to a lesser extent), which is the main purpose behind mileposts. Their new exit numbers comply with the general provisions of numbering by reference location and done on a statewide basis.

Along the same lines, Nevada uses a reference system similar to California's. The difference is that NDOT puts federal mileposts on the two major Interstates in addition to the county-based postmiles. So for the freeway portions of US 95 and US 395, Nevada is technically in noncompliance with the MUTCD...but the exits are numbered according to statewide miles, so I think FHWA hasn't made a big stink about this.

[roadfro]

Now, I wish that this would force ODOT [...] to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

Having the zero milepost be at the south or west terminus of the route (or south/west state line for multi-state routes) is a guidance and not a standard, so it's not a requirement.

[Bickendan]

In this case, the zero milepost isn't on US 97. It's on US 197.

[myosh_tino]

Does reference location signs mean milepost or mile markers?  If so, are these markers required on freeways in the 2009 MUTCD?  Wondering what the effect is going to be in California where Caltrans use postmile markers that reset at county lines.  The only freeway with mile post or mile markers is the CA-58 Mojave Bypass.

"Reference Location Signs", in the context of the MUTCD, generally means the white on green mileposts depicted in the MUTCD and used by most states.  Section 2H.05, paragraph 2, of the 2009 MUTCD states as a standard that reference location signs shall be placed on all freeways as well as on expressway facilities where there is reference post continuity. "Enhanced Reference Location Signs", the ones that show the route shield and direction, can be used instead.

Note that, other than its placement within the manual, the language regarding reference location signs has not changed from the 2003 MUTCD. I haven't reviewed the California MUTCD that came after the 2003 MUTCD for this specific policy, but I'm more than 99% certain that the federal standard was changed in the California manual. Caltrans seems pretty committed to the postmile system, and probably won't change anytime soon.

Had a quick look at the current California MUTCD and the Reference Location Signs language is located in sections 2D.46 and 2E.54.  For the purpose of this post, I'll refer to these signs as "Mile Markers".

In Section 2D.46, Caltrans removed wording that says the Mile Markers are to be used for maintenance purposes and to identify where emergency incidents are.  This makes sense since the white postmiles seen on our freeways are what's used for maintenance purposes.  Also removed is the provision to install Mile Markers on exit or entrance ramps.  Caltrans added a new "Standard" section that prohibits the use of metric markers of any sort.

In Section 2E.54, Caltrans did change "shall" to "may" when it comes to the installation of Mile Markers thus making the Mile Marker signs purely optional instead of mandatory.  There is also another notation that metric markers are prohibited.

Thus, I would expect that Caltrans will change the language again in their modification to the 2009 MUTCD to continue using their postmile system...with maybe leaving federal milepost design available as an option.

Yeah, I expect there will be quite a few changes California will make to the 2009 MUTCD (this being one of them).  California has until January 2012 to fold the 2009 MUTCD changes into the current California MUTCD.

[Michael]

Now, I wish that this would force ODOT [...] to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

Having the zero milepost be at the south or west terminus of the route (or south/west state line for multi-state routes) is a guidance and not a standard, so it's not a requirement.

According to Section 2E.31, Paragraph 11 (page 216), it's required because of the word "shall":

Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.

Does this mean that freeway segments of a route will need to be numbered using the mileage of the entire route and not just the freeway portion's terminus?

I've also seen recent discussion on the "Road-Related Illustrations" thread about California's exit "tabs".  I'm not sure how they will handle the requirement (again, because of the word "shall") for separate exit tabs (Section 2E.11, Paragraph 1, Page 212):

The exit number shall be displayed on a separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign.

[andytom]

Now, I wish that this would force ODOT [...] to flip US 97's exit numbers to South-North from North-South (which originates in The Dalles on US 197 instead of around Biggs on US 97). Maybe the next MUTCD...?

Having the zero milepost be at the south or west terminus of the route (or south/west state line for multi-state routes) is a guidance and not a standard, so it's not a requirement.

According to Section 2E.31, Paragraph 11 (page 216), it's required because of the word "shall":

Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.

Note that this only says so about the exit numbering system.  From a quick glance, I didn't see anything that requires that the exit numbering system be based on the reference marking system.

--Andy

[TheStranger]

Does this mean that freeway segments of a route will need to be numbered using the mileage of the entire route and not just the freeway portion's terminus?

California is extremely inconsistent as far as this is concerned - the exit numbers for the San Mateo County spur I-380 factor in the unconstructed milage from I-280 west to Route 1, while Route 14's exit numbers begin at I-5 with an explicit disregard for the unbuilt Reseda extension southward.

[myosh_tino]

Does this mean that freeway segments of a route will need to be numbered using the mileage of the entire route and not just the freeway portion's terminus?

California is extremely inconsistent as far as this is concerned - the exit numbers for the San Mateo County spur I-380 factor in the unconstructed milage from I-280 west to Route 1, while Route 14's exit numbers begin at I-5 with an explicit disregard for the unbuilt Reseda extension southward.

From what I understand, if there are no plans to complete a route like in CA-14's case, exit numbering will start at the current western endpoint.  This means, there are still "plans" to complete I-380 from CA-1 to I-280.

From Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org...
Note: Caltrans is following the convention of when a route originates within a State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus shall be the beginning point for exit numbering. Sometimes, the terminus is the end of the constructed or determined portion to the S or W, if there are no plans to ever complete the legislative route. Examples of this are Route 170 and Route 14.

I'm not sure how they will handle the requirement (again, because of the word "shall") for separate exit tabs (Section 2E.11, Paragraph 1, Page 212)

Like I posted in the Road-Related Illustrations thread, the current California MUTCD, which is based on the 2003 MUTCD, contains a number of crossed-out "Standard" sections and numerous "shall" statements have been changed to "should" or "may".

[roadfro]

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... 

[roadfro]

One point that should be made clear when discussing the MUTCD:

For those states that use the federal MUTCD without supplement or state version, what's listed in the federal version is the standards that state should be following.

Many states have a state supplement or state version of the MUTCD. For those states, they have a period (usually about two years from adoption of the national manual) to implement changes into their supplement/state version. Many states, notably California, will make alterations to the federal MUTCD provisions when adopting their own manual. The FHWA requires that the state versions be in "substantial compliance" with the federal version, but do give the state leeway to adopt stricter standards or modify certain provisions. This is how Caltrans can modify the California version to not explicitly use milemarkers but postmiles, etc.

So with this explanation, it can be seen that changes to the national MUTCD do not necessarily bring automatic changes to the states. Now, what changes and provisions constitute in state versions amount to "substantial compliance" is for the FHWA to decide...

For reference, you can determine whether a state uses a state MUTCD or state supplement here

[TheStranger]

From what I understand, if there are no plans to complete a route like in CA-14's case, exit numbering will start at the current western endpoint.  This means, there are still "plans" to complete I-380 from CA-1 to I-280.

There are two things that this makes me think of:

1. I understand the point of the legislative routes, but it seems like honestly route designations should be left to Caltrans (and be independent of maintenance, as opposed to the odd way that routes now have to be defined in context with segments no longer maintained by the state)
2. Honestly, I-380 west of I-280 (which would cross the San Andreas Fault) is just as unlikely as the Reseda Freeway to exist in our lifetimes...so who determines whether these "plans" are realistic enough to adjust the exit numbering for them?

[roadfro]

2. Honestly, I-380 west of I-280 (which would cross the San Andreas Fault) is just as unlikely as the Reseda Freeway to exist in our lifetimes...so who determines whether these "plans" are realistic enough to adjust the exit numbering for them?

Caltrans 

[Michael]

I'm not sure how they will handle the requirement (again, because of the word "shall") for separate exit tabs (Section 2E.11, Paragraph 1, Page 212)

Like I posted in the Road-Related Illustrations thread, the current California MUTCD, which is based on the 2003 MUTCD, contains a number of crossed-out "Standard" sections and numerous "shall" statements have been changed to "should" or "may".

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?