MUTCD gripes

[SignBridge]

Hbelkins and Strident, "what were they thinkin"? Kansas City shouldn't appear  on the I-335 sign, just Topeka. And why isn't the direction north shown for I-35 on the overhead sign? Inconsistent messages again...........

However there are some places where it is reasonable to show the same destinations for 2 parallel routes, even though the Manual discourages it in most cases. We have a situation on Long Island where I-495, (the L.I. Expwy), and Northern State Pkwy. run parallel a short distance apart and both are signed for New York as they are equally good routes.

[NE2]

You might as well disallow putting the same control city on local and express lanes. If two routes are roughly equal, they should have the same control city.

[hotdogPi]

And one of the signs says "Kans City" instead.

[SignBridge]

Well, for the record the MUTCD section on designation of destinations (Sec. 2E-13) reads: Successive freeway guide signs shall provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information.

And: At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.

So these are mandatory standards and I assume that the split for local and express lanes meets the definition of a decision point. And that the signing at some splits for those parallel Long Island routes to New York is not in compliance. Oh well.........

[Brandon]

Well, for the record the MUTCD section on designation of destinations (Sec. 2E-13) reads: Successive freeway guide signs shall provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information.

And: At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.

So these are mandatory standards and I assume that the split for local and express lanes meets the definition of a decision point. And that the signing at some splits for those parallel Long Island routes to New York is not in compliance. Oh well.........

Sort of like this in Indiana fro Chicago: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.599351,-87.198372&spn=0.006138,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.599351,-87.198372&panoid=Q56qf2uQsuCqWw9NkwrvOA&cbp=12,254.18,,0,2.2 ?

[SignBridge]

Yes, very similar.

[Brandon]

I see no problem with providing and option as in the I-94 example I linked to or the I-35/I-335 example above.  Both lead to the destination, and both routes are about equal in length.  Even more so, in the I-94 example, there is no intervening control city between the sign and Chicago as there is in the I-35/I-335 example, that being Topeka and Emporia.

[SignBridge]

Assuming that we accept the idea of signing both routes to Kansas City (non-compliance with MUTCD) then K.C. should have also been shown on the diagrammatic sign, instead of them throwing it into the mix at the gore point which could confuse a driver into making a dangerous move.

Remember too that the Manual requires consistent destination legend thru each exit sign sequence to avoid that problem. Interestingly, we just had a big discussion about this on the New Jersey Turnpike/Garden State Pkwy. thread in the Northeast Section of the forum.

[Ned Weasel]

I see no problem with providing and option as in the I-94 example I linked to or the I-35/I-335 example above.  Both lead to the destination, and both routes are about equal in length.  Even more so, in the I-94 example, there is no intervening control city between the sign and Chicago as there is in the I-35/I-335 example, that being Topeka and Emporia.

I don't have a problem with signing the same destination for two routes at a decision point.  It makes perfect sense, in both examples, and I don't think the concept that two roads go to a single large city should be too confusing for motorists to comprehend.  Honestly, I think this is another area where the MUTCD is overly restrictive.  In fact, it creates situations where it's impossible to apply control cities in a consistent fashion, which I think is something the MUTCD encourages.

[Scott5114]

Hbelkins and Strident, "what were they thinkin"? Kansas City shouldn't appear  on the I-335 sign, just Topeka. And why isn't the direction north shown for I-35 on the overhead sign? Inconsistent messages again...........

And one of the signs says "Kans City" instead.

This is because the sign at the actual split is much newer than the 90s-vintage diagrammatic. It was replaced when the exit was reconfigured in the late 2000s. Prior to that, we had this:


Kansas City makes sense being on both panels because I-35 and the Turnpike are both equally valid methods of reaching Kansas City. One does not really incur much of a delay through Topeka. In fact, if you are headed for certain parts of the Kansas City metro, like the Legends/racetrack area, the Turnpike seems a lot faster because you don't have to go through Johnson County, and there is much less suburban development along I-70 outside of I-435.

[mrsman]

Sorry for bumping the thread, but a similar situation exists in Sun Valley, CA:

CA-170 splits off from I-5.  I-5 is signed for Los Angeles and CA-170 is signed for Hollywood.  (The control city for southbound 170 at every local street Roscoe, Victory, etc. is Los Angeles, we only see Hollywood at the freeway junction.)  I-5 to 110 and 170 to 101 are almost equally good routes to reach Downtown LA.  I-5 tends to be slightly less crowded, but 170 is more direct to the Four Level Interchange, especially considering that trucks are not allowed on the 110.

If I had the authority, I would change the signs to read:

I-5 Los Angeles via Burbank
170 Los Angeles via Hollywood

[NE2]

That's actually the original state from 1962:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9308

I guess the Hollywood Freeway was seen as the through-Hollywood route, while the Golden State was a bit of a bypass.

[agentsteel53]

I guess the Hollywood Freeway was seen as the through-Hollywood route, while the Golden State was a bit of a bypass.

well, it is.  the Hollywood Freeway cuts through much more of urban LA, especially 1962 urban LA. 

[mjb2002]

Counties should be told that Clearview is forbidden on Street Name signs. Really...it makes the sign feel out of line.

Also, counties should be encouraged to use exact block numbering if they use such numbering on their signs.

[vtk]

Counties should be told that Clearview is forbidden on Street Name signs. Really...it makes the sign feel out of line.

Also, counties should be encouraged to use exact block numbering if they use such numbering on their signs.

Franklin County's CV signs are passable.

"Block numbering" itself should not be used except where convenient address number ranges literally and without exception align with the physical blocks formed by numbered streets.  I don't have a problem with address numbers appearing on street signs, but authorities shouldn't be able to use the phrase "the 2300 block" of a street unless it literally refers to a section between two intersections, ideally with cross streets called 23rd and 24th.  In most places, this doesn't hold up; you can't just replace the last two digits of a house number with zeroes and call it a "block number".

[Zeffy]

I'm not sure where this would go, so I'll just post it here since it relates to the MUTCD.

So, I was browsing the 2003 MUTCD just for funsies when I came to the guide sign section. Then I saw all of these monstrosities:


(US 22 WB extended to Trenton, nice, but what the hell is with the size of everything)

(Those are some huge shields and arrows, and what the holy fuck is that US 40-looking shield??)

(Once again huge shields and arrows, and the I-42 EAST legend is off-centered from the destination legend...)

So, what the hell? Is there a particular reason the signs look disproportionate and generally ugly? Because the 2009 edition doesn't have super fugly looking BGS like these.

[Billy F 1988]

Some of the artists and CAD designers who made the '03 edition were too damn lazy to follow their own specs!  Look at how ugly those examples are. I mean, take the Trenton example. Why is it showing a white-on-green LEFT panel when they should have put a black-on-yellow LEFT panel? What could have the designers gone wrong with the disproportionate APL arrows, and oversized shields? Um, yeah, so much for practicing what you preach?

[SignBridge]

I too noticed that the graphics in the 2003 Manual were poorly done and did not reflect the written standards. I even contacted the FHWA about it and they did acknowledge that there were "issues" with some of the graphics, but reminded me that the written standard is the rule, not the graphics. It looks like the problems were corrected in the 2009 Manual. To put it another way, I think they realized how badly they'd screwed up, (especially compared to the 1988 Manual which was much better) and made sure to correct it in 2009.

[J N Winkler]

It amuses me to see people heaping criticism on the illustrations in the 2003 edition when those were light-years better than the ones in the Millennium edition, which were unspeakably awful--wrong typefaces, mismatched colors, etc.

[Zeffy]

It amuses me to see people heaping criticism on the illustrations in the 2003 edition when those were light-years better than the ones in the Millennium edition, which were unspeakably awful--wrong typefaces, mismatched colors, etc.

I didn't believe you at first. But then I saw these:




What.The.Hell. Even my first road signs I've ever made look better than THAT.

[SignBridge]

Gentlemen I stand corrected. My reference should have been to the 2000 Manual, when I contacted FHWA, not the 2003 edition. Mr. Winkler's post is correct. I still have that book, but had forgotten which year it was, when I read Zeffy's comments. The 2009 edition is a definite improvement, more like the 1988 Manual.

[Billy F 1988]

I probably heaved too much criticism on the '03 edition. I just took a peak at the '00 edition and it's the lamest MUTCD manual to print, like some have already mentioned. The "acorn" style US shield was so horrible, even worse with the 3di. They had a bubble I-495 shield and they were using too bright of a federal MUTCD green Scratch that. I guess the '00 edition didn't use a brighter green. I thought for a second they were, but they're not. The '09 edition goes lightyears ahead of '00 and '03. '03 wasn't the best, but not the worst unlike '00. '09 is pretty similar to the '88 manual other than a few corrections in the two revisions the FHWA made in the '09 MUTCD manual. If it were me to choose the best and worse, worse definitely goes to '00, best goes to '88 and '09 Rev's 1 and 2.

[Stratuscaster]

When we last left my "LEFT" exit tab gripe (way back on page 1), several suggested to allow putting the "LEFT" on the same line as the "EXIT #" text, thus resulting in a "single line height tab."

Like this, which I came across in the wild today...

[mass_citizen]

When we last left my "LEFT" exit tab gripe (way back on page 1), several suggested to allow putting the "LEFT" on the same line as the "EXIT #" text, thus resulting in a "single line height tab."

Like this, which I came across in the wild today...

I actually like that look. That and the Mass variant make the most sense to me.

[SignBridge]

I agree that the Illinois approach is more sensible and aesthetically pleasing. The Manual requirement in Sec. 2E-31-08 that the word left be displayed above the word exit makes for an unreasonably tall exit number tag. I guess the FHWA's idea was to make it very eye-catching, but it looks ungainly.

For many years left exits were often NOT sufficiently indicated in advance, requiring unfamiliar drivers to do some last-minute lane-changing. It seems like now the FHWA is trying to make up for lost time by over-signing left exits.

Has anyone noted how Caltrans is approaching this particular issue?  I can't wait to see what wacko arrangement they come up with.