Which state DOTs give local governments responsibility for highway signage?

[usends]

Virginia is one example: my understanding is that the municipalities are responsible for signage and maintenance on non-interstate routes within their boundaries.
I've also heard that several cities -- including NYC, Philly, and Baltimore -- are responsible for their own highway signage.  Where else is this the case?

[Max Rockatansky]

The California Transportation Commission sometimes puts that signage must be maintained locally in certain relinquishment agreements.  Granted, the system is hardly enforced and probably not enforceable at all.  Some cities are good at maintaining through signage whereas most (cough...San Jose with CA 130 on Alum Rock) are terrible or just plain neglectful.   Interesting to note that the State apparently couldn't maintain highways within cities in California until legislative action taken in 1933.  That goes a long way as to explaining why the Auto Clubs had such a large role in early Route signage in California. 

[Brandon]

State and US highways inside the City of Chicago have signage posted by the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) instead of by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT).  It leads to some interesting variations on signage.  However, that is the only case within Illinois; everything else is posted by IDOT.

[roadman]

Massachusetts state law (MGL Chapter 85, Section 2) allows cities and towns to place most highway signs and other traffic control devices on streets and roads under their jurisdiction without MassDOT approval, provided they conform to MUTCD requirements.  The principal exceptions are for speed limits and heavy commercial vehicle exclusions (HCVE), which require MassDOT review and approval.

Regarding route markers and directional signs, just because a road is a numbered state or US route does not automatically mean it falls under MassDOT jurisdiction.

[vdeane]

Virginia is one example: my understanding is that the municipalities are responsible for signage and maintenance on non-interstate routes within their boundaries.
I've also heard that several cities -- including NYC, Philly, and Baltimore -- are responsible for their own highway signage.  Where else is this the case?

In NY it's common for cities to own/maintain non-freeway/expressway touring routes within their boundaries, though it's not a hard and fast rule.  There are a few other places where counties maintain the touring route, but it's getting less common over time.  NYC is complicated... normal rules apply for the surface roads, but they also have maintenance over many freeways.  Note that "maintenance" in this case doesn't mean things like paving and bridge jobs, but rather things like snowplowing, in-kind replacements of knocked down signs, etc.  NYCDOT basically replaces the function of the maintenance residencies within their boundaries.  The parkways are also are also spread out over many jurisdictions.

[J N Winkler]

In Kansas, this follows the distinction between state highway (all Interstates and, generally, all segments of state and US routes not in city jurisdiction) and city connecting link (segments of state and US routes within cities).  Typically, guide and route marker signing over CCLs is KDOT's responsibility, while the remainder is under local jurisdiction.

[cl94]

Expanding on the NY and MA examples above, it is standard for New England town/city centers (with the notable exception of Connecticut) and NY cities to fall under local jurisdiction for all signed surface routes. The state DOT has little to do with the road. In MA, for example, i'd be willing to bet that half of surface state route mileage is under local jurisdiction.