MUTCD Adoption

[MichiganDriver]

Today the FHWA published a list on progress adopting of the new mutcd. So far it's been done by AR, DC, FL, GA, MS, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SD and VT .

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/natl_adopt_2009.htm

[Quillz]

Is the 2009 edition so drastically different from the last version (2004?) that every state must adopt it?

[MichiganDriver]

Is the 2009 edition so drastically different from the last version (2004?) that every state must adopt it?

They always have to adopt the new version

[Quillz]

But why? How much has changed between each edition? And what happens if a state is so slow to adopt the current (2009) standard that by the time it begins the adoption, the next version is already out?

[myosh_tino]

If I'm not mistaken, states have up to 2 years to adopt the new MUTCD with or without state supplement and/or state MUTCD that is in substantial compliance with the federal MUTCD.

In California's case, the Caltrans website states that they and the CTCDC (California Traffic Control Devices Committee) have until January 15, 2012 to incorporate the 2009 MUTCD into the California MUTCD.  Until that occurs, the current state MUTCD, based on the 2003 federal MUTCD, is still in effect.

[Scott5114]

Basically they have a policy or law in place that says "We use the 2003 MUTCD". If they fail to amend that to specify the new MUTCD, I think nothing happens, really. They just keep using the old version until they get their act together. Of course, this doesn't count federal mandates with deadlines, like those coming up for the reflectivity standards, which presumably would still affect the states whether or not they adopted the pertinent MUTCD or not.

Some states have a policy in place that does not specify a particular MUTCD version, just whatever the latest one is. Those states effectively adopted the 2009 MUTCD on the day it came out. (For some reason KS comes to mind as one of these states, but don't quote me on it)

[Quillz]

But I'm still curious: What has changed between, say, 2009 and 2003? I've looked at both and they don't appear to be radically different. I'm sure there are a few changes that have been made, but it would seem the vast majority of things are as they've been for some time.

[myosh_tino]

Here's a laundry list of items that Caltrans has a problem with regarding the new 2009 MUTCD...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/201011582_Encl_IssuesImplementingMUTCD2009.pdf

Or just get it straight from the FHWA...
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009.htm -- Look for the section marked "Changes from the 2003 Edition"

[MichiganDriver]

But I'm still curious: What has changed between, say, 2009 and 2003? I've looked at both and they don't appear to be radically different. I'm sure there are a few changes that have been made, but it would seem the vast majority of things are as they've been for some time.

The easiest way to understand the changes might be through these power point presentations

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-Training.htm

[J N Winkler]

Some states have a policy in place that does not specify a particular MUTCD version, just whatever the latest one is. Those states effectively adopted the 2009 MUTCD on the day it came out. (For some reason KS comes to mind as one of these states, but don't quote me on it)

I'm not sure Kansas has automatic adoption now.  The changes between 2003 and 2009 are sufficiently extensive (especially as regards freeway guide signs) that I can see KDOT deciding to adopt with a supplement--something it has never had in all the time I've been tracking traffic signing policy in Kansas.

[myosh_tino]

I'm not sure Kansas has automatic adoption now.  The changes between 2003 and 2009 are sufficiently extensive (especially as regards freeway guide signs) that I can see KDOT deciding to adopt with a supplement--something it has never had in all the time I've been tracking traffic signing policy in Kansas.

I seem to recall that someone here on these boards (I think it was Corco but I could be wrong it was Roadfro... sorry!) say that in the past, Nevada does not utilize a state supplement to the MUTCD.  Looking through the compliance list, it shows Nevada planning to adopt the 2009 MUTCD with a state supplement by January 2011.

FWIW, the compliance list shows Kansas planning to adopt the 2009 MUTCD by January 2012.  There is no mention of a state supplement.

[RJ145]

Can't California ever do anything without being dragged kicking and screaming?

[Quillz]

Can't California ever do anything without being dragged kicking and screaming?

Personally, I hope not, because then they'd have to give up their '71 cutout designs and use the ugly federal standards.

[RJ145]

Does anyone know why they did away with the 2-way,3-way and 4-way stop sign plaques?

[agentsteel53]

I think it may have to do with "2-way" being mistaken for "4-way" by someone not paying careful attention.  But I always did like the "4-way" plaque; it saved me from having to physically *count* the stop signs before knowing if I could proceed or not.

[Quillz]

Most of the "4-way" stop signs around here have been replaced with "All Way."

[NE2]

I think it may have to do with "2-way" being mistaken for "4-way" by someone not paying careful attention.  But I always did like the "4-way" plaque; it saved me from having to physically *count* the stop signs before knowing if I could proceed or not.

Maybe it's because people who count stop signs would fail a 4-way stop at a 5-way intersection

[WolfGuy100]

I notice Kentucky (the state I live in) hadn't adopted 2009 MUTCD yet. Although, one STUPID thing Kentucky does is to install 12-inches lenses signal on a road with speed of 40mph or less. And also, I personally like 2009 one  but I think it's stupid that it is being restrictive on signals with 8inches lenses.

[agentsteel53]

did they abolish the "all way" designator too?

[Alps]

did they abolish the "all way" designator too?

No, that's still in effect. I've seen "3 way" plaques used at 4-way stops. Well, which approach isn't stopping? That's why they were removed from the MUTCD - if you insist on having strange stop sign configurations, you need to do a better job like saying "TRAFFIC FROM RIGHT DOES NOT STOP".

I notice Kentucky (the state I live in) hadn't adopted 2009 MUTCD yet. Although, one STUPID thing Kentucky does is to install 12-inches lenses signal on a road with speed of 40mph or less. And also, I personally like 2009 one  but I think it's stupid that it is being restrictive on signals with 8inches lenses.

At least there are 8" lenses at all. I may have been the only commenter to pick up on that, they were going to do away with them entirely. Don't expect it to last all that much longer though. 12" is the future.

[agentsteel53]

did they abolish the "all way" designator too?

No, that's still in effect. I've seen "3 way" plaques used at 4-way stops. Well, which approach isn't stopping? That's why they were removed from the MUTCD - if you insist on having strange stop sign configurations, you need to do a better job like saying "TRAFFIC FROM RIGHT DOES NOT STOP".

in that case, I approve of getting rid of the N-way designator, because indeed that just forces you to count, as badly as having no indicator at all forces you to count. 

"all way" makes sense.  as does the large yellow "TRAFFIC FROM X DOES NOT STOP" in the case of a three-out-of-four or something equally unintuitive.

I definitely approve of this set of changes.  When I first read it, I thought they had gotten rid of all auxiliaries and I'd be back to having to count by hand.

[cjk374]

I was wondering why Ruston, LA had, all of a sudden, changed all of the "4-way" signs to "all way".  I'm shocked that someone there know what the MUTCD is!    

[jjakucyk]

Cincinnati tends to blatantly disregard the MUTCD in a handful of ways, especially when it comes to signal placement.  Even brand new installs in the city hang the left-most signal over the oncoming lanes, even if its a doghouse.  Still, one thing I rather liked is that Cincinnati still installed a lot of new 8" signals.  It seems like they're starting to do away with that policy though, and it may or may not be a coincidence that the 2009 MUTCD is much more restrictive about where 8" signals are allowed.  It's rather unfortunate, because LEDs are crazy bright and an 8" LED can be even more visible than an older 12" incandescent signal.  The glare from green 12" LED signals in a tight urban neighborhood is almost blinding. 

[roadfro]

I seem to recall that someone here on these boards (I think it was Corco but I could be wrong) say that in the past, Nevada does not utilize a state supplement to the MUTCD.  Looking through the compliance list, it shows Nevada planning to adopt the 2009 MUTCD with a state supplement by January 2011.

Might've been me. Nevada has, in the past and by state statute, used automatic adoption of the most current MUTCD. For several years, Nevada DOT has maintained a separate "Nevada Sign Supplement"--this included specifications for many Nevada-standard signs that are not part of national MUTCD, but no policies on their implementation or use. I'm wondering if the sign supplement is what that page is referring to...

BTW: Many of the signs that were in the most recent version of the Nevada Sign Supplement are now in the national MUTCD, virtually unaltered. Some of these signs include the "daytime headlight" series, the "slow vehicle turnout" series, and a few of the new animal warning signs, among others.

Does anyone know why they did away with the 2-way,3-way and 4-way stop sign plaques?

The X-way stop placards were done away with in favor of the W4-4 series of warning placards ("Cross traffic/Traffic from right/Traffic from Left/Oncoming Traffic" Does not stop") as these signs give a better warning of the situation and cuts out speculation/uncertainty for the driver. "All-way" stop placards are still required if all approaches to an intersection are stop controlled.

[J N Winkler]

BTW: Many of the signs that were in the most recent version of the Nevada Sign Supplement are now in the national MUTCD, virtually unaltered. Some of these signs include the "daytime headlight" series, the "slow vehicle turnout" series, and a few of the new animal warning signs, among others.

Signs to similar if not identical designs have been used in other Western states, notably Arizona (elk, daytime headlight use), California (turnouts), and Washington (turnouts and, I think, daytime headlight use).  These were added to the 2009 MUTCD as the result of a drive to capture existing warning signs and signing approaches which had not previously been included in the MUTCD, often because they were thought to be regionally specific.  One other result of this drive was publication (by FHWA) of a synthesis report into non-MUTCD warning signs, which was richly illustrated with sign photos harvested off roadgeek websites (without consent being solicited or photo credit being given, so far as I know--I know I certainly wasn't asked about my pictures, but I did not complain because I figured they were being used for a good purpose).

BTW, is the Nevada Sign Supplement now pattern-accurate?  The old print distribution wasn't.  I have heard rumors that Nevada DOT has overhauled it, using SignCAD to produce the sign drawings, . . . .  Ah, I see the new edition is up (and has been for five years, if the 2006 date is to be believed).  Yup, pattern-accurate, typical SignCAD output.