Street Blade Signs Changing (All Uppercase > Mixed Case)?

[SidS1045]

Alexander Hamilton would be rolling in his grave if he knew what the Post has become.

...not to mention Dorothy Schiff.

[SidS1045]

The bit about Clearview is clearly bogus, since Clearview still isn't even mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD. It's still supplemental material.

Supposedly that supplemental material (the current version, finalized in 2004, is here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Alphabets.pdf) is being re-issued this fall, so I'm wondering if the FHwA folks decided to mandate Clearview in anticipation of the revision.  When the current version was issued, Clearview didn't exist.

[BigMattFromTexas]

The city's been replacing streets from caps to mixed-case. So SHERWOOD WY became Sherwood Wy. I actually don't mind the change, but I think New York shouldn't have to change all of its signs.. I don't see a big difference in the signs from caps to mixed, although I do think CAPS is a little easier to see.
BigMatt

[Duke87]

SHERWOOD WY became Sherwood Wy.

Okay, that's bad. Postal codes are supposed to be in caps, so even on mixed-case the sign, it should be "Sherwood, WY" (though we can let omission of the comma slide)

[BigMattFromTexas]

SHERWOOD WY became Sherwood Wy.

Okay, that's bad. Postal codes are supposed to be in caps, so even on mixed-case the sign, it should be "Sherwood, WY" (though we can let omission of the comma slide)

I mean Sherwood Way. It's abbreviated "Wy" here...

[Scott5114]

The bit about Clearview is clearly bogus, since Clearview still isn't even mentioned in the 2009 MUTCD. It's still supplemental material.

Supposedly that supplemental material (the current version, finalized in 2004, is here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Alphabets.pdf) is being re-issued this fall, so I'm wondering if the FHwA folks decided to mandate Clearview in anticipation of the revision.  When the current version was issued, Clearview didn't exist.

FHWA can't really mandate anything that's not in the MUTCD. The only font that is mentioned or shown anywhere in the 2009 MUTCD is the standard FHWA Series font. Reissuing the supplemental material won't do anything until there is something in the MUTCD requiring use of Clearview.

[myosh_tino]

California has these six lane freeways with three lane exits.  It's a situation really not anticipated by the MUTCD, and it's a sign that California's influence has shrunk much closer to that of any other state.  I mean, look, West Virginia's school bus sign made it in, for example.  They can't possibly be expected to make 100 foot wide signs just to comply with the MUTCD, so something has to give.

I agree 100% with AlpsROADS.  To illustrate his point (and mine to some extent), I drew the current exit signage for northbound 101 at the 280/680 interchange in San Jose and what that sign would look like with the new arrow-per-lane diagrammatic that's required under the new MUTCD.

Current...

This is pretty typical in California.  The guide signs are all 110" high and there are signs for the 280/680 exit, the Story Road exit which is 1/4 mile away and the 101 pull through.

Arrow-Per-Lane...

The guide sign (singular) is now over 162" (13 ft 6 in) high and over 82 feet in length by my rough calculations and the height does not include the exit tab.  This monstrosity would probably collapse the current sign bridge which is designed to handle 120" high (10 ft) guide signs OK, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration but this sign is a monstrosity and there is a significant amount of green space that is wasted on a sign of this size.  You'll also notice that the Story Road advance guide sign is missing.  I supposed it could be inserted on the right side of the 101 pull through portion of the sign.  The sheer size of this sign is a big fail in my book.

To be honest, I was never a fan of the new arrow-per-lane signs.  According to the MUTCD, the arrows alone are supposed to be 72" high which is going to result in overly tall guide signs.

[KEK Inc.]

Considering California's reluctance to ever follow federal signage standards to the letter...how many years will it be before San Francisco stops using its classic all-caps black-on-white blades?

I'm pretty sure street signing is the city's and county's jurisidiction.  Some cities don't even use the two typefaces (FHWA/Clearview), and obviously colors vary. 

San Jose uses navy blue. 


Santa Clara County uses light blue. 


Vancouver, WA, uses green with the city logo...


Clark County (WA) uses yellow.   

I agree 100% with AlpsROADS.  To illustrate his point (and mine to some extent), I drew the current exit signage for northbound 101 at the 280/680 interchange in San Jose and what that sign would look like with the new arrow-per-lane diagrammatic that's required under the new MUTCD.

Current...
http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/101-280-680.png
This is pretty typical in California.  The guide signs are all 110" high and there are signs for the 280/680 exit, the Story Road exit which is 1/4 mile away and the 101 pull through.

Arrow-Per-Lane...
http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/101-280-680_apl.png
The guide sign (singular) is now over 162" (13 ft 6 in) high and over 82 feet in length by my rough calculations and the height does not include the exit tab.  This monstrosity would probably collapse the current sign bridge which is designed to handle 120" high (10 ft) guide signs OK, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration but this sign is a monstrosity and there is a significant amount of green space that is wasted on a sign of this size.  You'll also notice that the Story Road advance guide sign is missing.  I supposed it could be inserted on the right side of the 101 pull through portion of the sign.  The sheer size of this sign is a big fail in my book.

To be honest, I was never a fan of the new arrow-per-lane signs.  According to the MUTCD, the arrows alone are supposed to be 72" high which is going to result in overly tall guide signs.

California could always use the Washington/European or tubular sign gantry more often.  California actually uses tubulars quite a bit, but they still obsess over sign height.  I like seeing more variety, but I think tubulars look more sleek and modern. 

[NJRoadfan]

I'd just be happy if California learned how to put exit tabs on their signs. They like using all kinds of excuses for why they put the tab in the BGS (like above post shows), but that hasn't stopped other states from just tacking the tab on top of an old existing sign (example, exit tabs are new, sign originally had no tabs, overhead lights had to be removed: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_24/e9.jpg ). One common excuse by Caltrans is that there would be problems with the sign and wind due to gantry design..... then why do BRAND NEW gantry installations still have signs with the exit tab inside the upper right corner of the BGS (instead of a proper tab mounted on top)? Also why does Caltrans continue to limit themselves to that 110" BGS standard on NEWLY BUILT gantries?

I'll be honest, I don't like the new arrow per lane standard... its more confusing then the graphic arrow installs I have seen (which seem mostly unused in Cali because of that silly 110" height restriction). Also, most states have the yellow 'exit only" legend surround the arrows for those lanes to make it a bit clearer.

[KEK Inc.]

Caltrans' wind excuse is bullocks... 

Nevada and Arizona use the same exact type of gantries with external tabs.




And of course, the external beta exit tabs used in the 70s in LA didn't have any issues.  Caltrans probably did it for cost and aesthetics (it's arguable...  lol).

[J N Winkler]

On a related note, I was poking around the Caltrans website and ran across an interesting letter that was sent to the FHWA regarding the new 2009 MUTCD.  It's basically a complaint letter saying the wording of paragraph 1.A in section 1A.13 in the new MUTCD prohibits state agencies from modifying "Standard" statements (something Caltrans does heavily) regardless of engineering studies or judgement.  Caltrans claims it will cost the state $500 million to $1 billion (which we don't have) to comply with the 2009 MUTCD if it is not given the flexibility to modify or replace "Standard" statements as it's done in the past.  A few things drawing the ire of Caltrans is the requirement that down or directional arrows need to be centered over the lane and the use of arrow-per-lane or diagrammatic signage.  Diagrammatic signs are hardly ever used in California and the arrow-per-lane signs don't fit on the largest California-standard guide sign (120" or 10 ft).

Link to Letter...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/201011582_LtrFHWA_2009MUTCD_Final-08-05-10.pdf

Link to Supporting Document...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/201011582_Encl_IssuesImplementingMUTCD2009.pdf

Question:  did Caltrans mention any of these considerations in its MUTCD rulemaking submission?  If they didn't, then I don't see that they have a leg to stand on.

[myosh_tino]

Question:  did Caltrans mention any of these considerations in its MUTCD rulemaking submission?  If they didn't, then I don't see that they have a leg to stand on.

Not sure what you mean by "rulemaking submission" but Caltrans is working on a new MUTCD that incorporates the 2009 federal version but it's still incomplete.

Also, most states have the yellow 'exit only" legend surround the arrows for those lanes to make it a bit clearer.

That will probably become more common in the future here in California as Caltrans has included new 26" Exit Only panels which can accommodate a slanted up-and-right arrow within the yellow field.

[The Premier]

Caltrans' wind excuse is bullocks... 

That's probably because their sign bridges are just too old.

[J N Winkler]

Question:  did Caltrans mention any of these considerations in its MUTCD rulemaking submission?  If they didn't, then I don't see that they have a leg to stand on.

Not sure what you mean by "rulemaking submission" but Caltrans is working on a new MUTCD that incorporates the 2009 federal version but it's still incomplete.

What I mean is that the 2009 MUTCD, to which Caltrans now objects so vehemently, is the outcome of a rulemaking process (held over much of 2008) during the course of which Caltrans, along with every other state DOT and members of the general public, had full opportunity to express its views on the proposed changes.  Caltrans argues that the provisions it objects to were introduced in the 2009 MUTCD.  So where was Caltrans during the rulemaking process?

[TheStranger]

What I mean is that the 2009 MUTCD, to which Caltrans now objects so vehemently, is the outcome of a rulemaking process (held over much of 2008) during the course of which Caltrans, along with every other state DOT and members of the general public, had full opportunity to express its views on the proposed changes.  Caltrans argues that the provisions it objects to were introduced in the 2009 MUTCD.  So where was Caltrans during the rulemaking process?

It seems though like this is far from the first time that California has reacted to the federal MUTCD in such fashion, leading me to wonder when this systemic philosophy started - back in '71 perhaps when they rejected exit numbering after the LA experiment?

[J N Winkler]

To be fair to Caltrans, it could very well be that they became accustomed to relying on the clause which specifies that the MUTCD does not override engineering judgment, and failed to notice FHWA's proposal to remove this clause.  But Caltrans Traffic Branch is paid to notice things like this.  Did they or didn't they?

[J N Winkler]

I have had a look through Caltrans' material, FHWA MUTCD 2003, and FHWA MUTCD 2009 to evaluate Caltrans' case.  The reference to § 1A.09 in the 2003 MUTCD in Director McKim's letter is a bit of a red herring--the letter makes it sound like that section was dumped from the 2009 MUTCD, when in fact it has the same section number and more or less the same wording in the 2003 and 2009 editions.

Essentially, Caltrans is objecting to the change in wording in how "Standard" statements are defined.  The relevant language was moved during the course of the MUTCD revision, to put the definitions of MUTCD statements (Standard, Guidance, Option, Support) in the general definitions section of § 1A.13.  Previously they had been in the Introduction, which is not partitioned into sections like the rest of the manual; in the 2003 MUTCD the definition of a Standard statement was itself part of the third Standard statement in the Introduction.

The 2003 language was as follows:

Standard–a statement of required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. All standards are labeled, and the text appears in bold type. The verb shall is typically used. Standards are sometimes modified by Options.

The 2009 edition changes this to:

Standard–a statement of required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice regarding a traffic control device. All Standard statements are labeled, and the text appears in bold type. The verb "shall"  is typically used. The verbs "should"  and "may"  are not used in Standard statements.  Standard statements are sometimes modified by Options. Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study.

Did FHWA describe this change in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (which was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2008)?  I find no evidence that they did so.  Where the introduction is concerned, FHWA's summary of its proposed changes jumps straight from the first Standard statement in the Introduction to the fourth Standard statement.  FHWA's description of its proposed changes for § 1A.13 likewise makes no mention of any proposed change to the definition of Standard statements.

I cannot gauge the extent of Caltrans' opportunity to make itself aware of any change to the definition of a Standard statement FHWA might have proposed, because I did not save a copy of the proposed text and figures, which are now no longer online and are not retrievable through the Web Archive.  But based on the NPRM alone, Caltrans can make a very good prima facie claim that it was blindsided by this change.

I have posted the following on the FHWA MUTCD bulletin board:

The 2009 MUTCD has been out for almost a year and some agencies are starting to report being blindsided by changes which were not mentioned in the January 2, 2008 NPRM.

For example, there is now a new (to 2009) provision, added to the definitions section (§ 1A.13), that Standard statements shall not be modified on the basis of engineering judgment or engineering study.  This is not mentioned in the NPRM.  Before the 2009 MUTCD, the definition of a Standard statement was the third Standard statement in the Introduction, and the NPRM jumps straight from the first to the fourth Standard statement in its description of changes to the Introduction.  The summary of proposed changes to § 1A.13 in the NPRM likewise does not mention the addition of material moved from the Introduction, or any change in the definition of a Standard statement.

The 2008 rulemaking materials (proposed text, proposed figures, and accompanying changelists) are no longer online and are not retrievable through the Web Archive.  Therefore, the only easily available item which shows what was proposed in 2008 is the NPRM, which clearly is incomplete with respect to the changes which actually appeared in the 2009 MUTCD.  It would be helpful to have the rulemaking materials back to gauge the extent to which changes not mentioned in the NPRM were shown in the proposed text and figures.

I don't know how closely FHWA monitors the discussion group, or if this posting will draw a constructive response.  There are a few very intelligent contributors but most of the people who post there are dumber than a box of hammers.

[myosh_tino]

Thank you J N Winkler for doing much of the legwork on this issue.  I would be very interested to see if you get any meaningful responses to your post on the FHWA MUTCD board.

It also looks like Caltrans has started to post draft revisions for the 2011 California MUTCD section by section.  Currently only Parts 1A, 5 and 9 are available for review and public comment.  Interestingly enough they did post a draft of Part 1A which includes the disputed Sec 1A.13.  The section is left pretty much intact except the last statement -- "Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study" -- has been crossed out and highlighted in red in the right margin (all other changes are highlighted in blue in the right margin).  I suspect the rest of the sections will be made available shortly but that may depend on the response Caltrans gets from the FHWA.

Link to the Draft 2011 California MUTCD webpage...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2011_draftrevisions.htm

[J N Winkler]

Myosh_tino--you're welcome.

I did get a few good replies here:

http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/opspublic.nsf/discussionDisplay?Open&id=5574370D95D0BDD4852577B300390763&Group=MUTCD%20General&tab=DISCUSSION#5574370D95D0BDD4852577B300390763

One of them included a link to Richard Moeur's site, which not only has the proposed text, but also a direct link to the MUTCD rulemaking submissions:

http://www.trafficsign.us/npa.html

The proposed text also did not show any change in the definition of a Standard statement.  It shows the Standard statement at its old location (in the Introduction) with essentially the same text as in 2003.

I also checked out Caltrans' submissions to the rulemaking notice.  There were two that I could find.  One came from Caltrans' Office of Maintenance and dealt with adopt-a-highway signs.  The other was sent by the head of Signs & Markings and called for a supplementary Notice of Proposed Amendments in order to allow the various issues to be dealt with more fully.  The letter did not descend to the level of detail, noting just that the NCUTCD's own detailed comments had amounted to 771 pages.

[burgess87]

I found this on the MUTCD website:  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

STREET NAME SIGNS AND LETTERING STYLES – COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUTCD

In response to technical inquiries regarding certain provisions of the MUTCD as they relate to both Street Name signs and the requirement to display destination and street names in mixed-case lettering, the following clarifications are provided:

    * There is no compliance date by which Street Name or other guide signs must be replaced for the sole purpose of changing a destination or street name composed of all upper-case letters to a combination of upper- and lower-case letters (2009 MUTCD Section 2A.13, Paragraph 11 and Section 2D.43, Paragraph 3).
    * The only compliance dates that apply specifically to Street Name signs were established by previous editions of the MUTCD and deal with minimum letter heights only, not letter style or case. These dates are summarized in Table I-2 of the Introduction to the 2009 MUTCD and as follows:
          o January 9, 2012 – Minimum 6-inch letter height for post-mounted Street Name signs (except on multi-lane streets with speed limits greater than 40 mph). (Established by the 2000 MUTCD, Section 2D.38.)
          o December 22, 2018 – Minimum 8-inch letter height for post-mounted Street Name signs on multi-lane streets with speed limits greater than 40 mph and 12-inch letter height for overhead-mounted Street Name signs. (Established by the 2003 MUTCD, Section 2D.38.)

Signs that were replaced prior to the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD to meet these requirements–but used all upper-case lettering–do not need to be replaced again for the purpose of meeting the 2009 MUTCD requirement for mixed-case lettering. However, new signs that are installed after the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD must meet the mixed-case display requirement. Therefore, if signs are now being replaced to meet the minimum letter height requirements established by prior editions of the MUTCD, for example, these signs must also meet the 2009 MUTCD requirement for the display of the street name using a combination of upper- and lower-case letters.

A detailed explanation of compliance is provided in Paragraphs 20-24 of the Introduction to the 2009 MUTCD.

    * The 2009 MUTCD continues to specify the FHWA Standard Alphabets for use on all traffic signs. There are no requirements or recommendations to use any alternative lettering style to the Standard Alphabets. Further, the use of the Clearview alternative lettering style is subject to the terms of an Interim Approval, which was issued based on a modest legibility improvement under certain nighttime viewing conditions for mixed-case destination legends composed of Series 5-W of this alternative alphabet on signs using microprismatic retroreflective sheeting in a positive-contrast color orientation only. According to the same study, there was also an improvement in the nighttime legibility of the Standard Alphabet Series E(m) when microprismatic retroreflective sheeting was used on the test signs. Agencies wishing to use the alternative lettering style must still seek approval from the FHWA.

[myosh_tino]

Yes, I saw that too today while I was composing my previous post to JN Winkler.  While it does seem to "clarify" certain issues, it doesn't address some of the points made on these boards about what to do with those cities that have iconic street blades like San Francisco's all-caps black-on-white street blades.  In San Francisco's case, the point is moot for now since California has not formally adopted the 2009 MUTCD and probably won't until 2011 or 2012.

The end result for cities like San Francisco is to replace damaged and/or aging blades with new ones using the current style before California adopts an amended version of the 2009 MUTCD.  That is assuming, of course, that California doesn't strike the mixed-case requirement from its version of the MUTCD.

[Scott5114]

San Francisco's blades are "wrong" according to the MUTCD anyway, with or without the all-caps issue. White on black has always been reserved for regulatory signage. The 2009 MUTCD is stricter on this, limiting cities to white on green, blue, or brown only to reserve the "important" colors like yellow, white, and red for their intended purposes.

[MichiganDriver]

I hope the FHWA tells CA to shove it.  First, the one arrow per lane rule is one of the biggest improvements.  Second, in far too many ways, CA needs to be dragged kicked and screaming into the 21st century.

slow down when you type

San Francisco's blades are "wrong" according to the MUTCD anyway, with or without the all-caps issue. White on black has always been reserved for regulatory signage. The 2009 MUTCD is stricter on this, limiting cities to white on green, blue, or brown only to reserve the "important" colors like yellow, white, and red for their intended purposes.

Black on white is still allowed in the 2009 MUTCD

[cu2010]

The local news the other night had a piece on Rochester's changeover...and officials don't exactly seem happy about it (not to mention people never really noticed until somebody said something about it).

Why are we wasting money on this? I agree that there need to be some standards, but street blade signage should be left alone...they can provide some character to otherwise boring streets (especially in the North Country region of NY, where many towns still have many old embossed signs still in the field)

Interesting, though, is that Rochester's new signs still have the "RD" in all caps...which looks better than "Rd". The signs are still way too large, though.

[iwishiwascanadian]

I love the street signs in NYC, the Clearview ones sucks. I'm not a big fan of Clearview unless its on BGS's and even then I'm not the biggest fan.  Perhaps the city will sell off all of the signs they have to replace, but that's a glass half full approach to all of this. 

I got a response from the city that goes along the lines of this:

Dear Mr. Carter:

Thank you for your email concerning the replacement of street signs.

The Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is recognized as the national standard for all traffic control devices. In January 2008, the MUTCD was revised to require that street name signs meet a higher standard for reflecting light, making them easier to read in low-light and nighttime conditions, which improves traffic safety.

The MUTCD also requires that when a street name sign that uses all upper case lettering is being replaced or refurbished because it is damaged, missing or no longer serviceable for any reason, the replacement sign must have lettering that is both upper and lower case. This is also considered easier to read. These changes must be implemented by 2018.

The New York City Department of Transportation normally refurbishes or replaces 7,500 street name signs a year as they become worn, damaged or missing, at an annual cost of $825,000. In the next two years we will be replacing 15,000 signs per year at an annual cost of $1.65 million. The Department receives funding from New York State for these replacements. The new signs will use the Clearview font, which meets the MUTCD standard and has been demonstrated to improve readability, especially for older motorists. The total cost for replacing all 250,000 street name signs to comply with federal MUTCD standards is anticipated to be $27.5 million ($110 per sign).

Part of the cost of upgrading the signs will be offset by selling most of the removed signs in bulk for their aluminum value. While selling individual removed signs is impractical, anyone interested in owning an authentic New York City street name sign can purchase one via our sign sales program. Details can be found at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/signs/cmsigns.shtml

Thank you for your concern in this matter.

NYC DOT
Division of Customer Service