MUTCD gripes

[vtk]

The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

[Alps]

The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

I prefer to stay confused. Those of us who have lives outside this forum realize that a petition makes no sense in this context.

[mjb2002]

The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

Local agencies are ignoring it. "City Limit" is part of the place name.

[myosh_tino]

The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

Local agencies are ignoring it. "City Limit" is part of the place name.

Sorry, I don't buy that claim that the words "city limit" are part of the place name.  Can you provide a section number from the MUTCD that requires mixed case for "City Limit"?  In California, "CITY LIMIT" has always been all-caps and making it mixed case doesn't make any sense to me.  Of course a lot of other things in the 2009 MUTCD don't make sense to me either... arrow-per-lane signs, banning all-caps street blades, restricting/eliminating the use of the white-on-green down arrow, etc.

[NE2]

The MUTCD has an example of a state line sign with all caps. Busted.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2h_01_longdesc.htm

[roadfro]

The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

Local agencies are ignoring it. "City Limit" is part of the place name.

Sorry, I don't buy that claim that the words "city limit" are part of the place name.  Can you provide a section number from the MUTCD that requires mixed case for "City Limit"?  In California, "CITY LIMIT" has always been all-caps and making it mixed case doesn't make any sense to me.  Of course a lot of other things in the 2009 MUTCD don't make sense to me either... arrow-per-lane signs, banning all-caps street blades, restricting/eliminating the use of the white-on-green down arrow, etc.

mjb2002, you're wrong on this one. The only part of guide signs that is required to be mixed-case is place names or street/highway names.

From: 2009 MUTCD Revision 1 & 2, Section 2A.13

Section 2A.13 Word Messages
<...>
Standard:
10 All sign lettering shall be in upper-case letters as provided in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book (see Section 1A.11), unless otherwise provided in this Manual for a particular sign or type of message.

11 The sign lettering for names of places, streets, and highways shall be composed of a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.

"City limit" is not the name of a place or a street, thus that would remain all-caps.

[roadfro]

Also, the fact that Advanced Street Name warning plaques must be yellow instead of fluorescent yellow-green.

Advanced Street Name plaques are an alignment issue, which goes with intersection warning signs and would be yellow. Fluorescent yellow green is reserved specifically for schools and optionally for items that are non-vehicular in nature (pedestrian & bike crossings, etc.), so the FYG color would not be appropriate.

I take issue with the fact that the advance street name plaque is not a white-on-green guide sign. This has been Nevada DOT standard practice for years (albeit with all-caps legend, which is slowly changing with new signs) and I have always thought it looked better.

The fact that the updated version of the manual does not have 6 inch lettering on Street Name signs as the new standard - that deadline passed on January 10, more than 4 months before revisions were made.

It is MUTCD guidance that street name signs use minimum 6-inch lettering for initial capitals and 4.5-inch lettering for lower case lettering on new street name signs. The option to decrease to 4"/3" is only mentioned for two-lane roads with speeds of 25mph or less. Note there is no standard statement on the size of lettering, but many treat guidance as "standard unless there's a good reason not to".

[DaBigE]

mjb2002, you're wrong on this one. The only part of guide signs that is required to be mixed-case is place names or street/highway names.

+1

Unless it's a proper name, it's supposed to remain all caps.

[blawp]

Actually, I tend to think we should focus on striping more.  Signage can be imperfect as long as striping is accurate.  I am a big fan of the way Texas treated the I-35 South / I-410 South split on the north side of San Antonio.

Advance signage:  http://g.co/maps/m7yq8
Pavement arrows & shields:  http://g.co/maps/vrnvz
Further pavement markings:  http://g.co/maps/7h49z
Diagram (take 'em or leave 'em, I'm neutral):  http://g.co/maps/h29h6
And here's what is, to me, the most important part:  a solid white line between exit-only lane and option lane.  The final BGS uses a black-on-gold exit only arrow next to a white-on-green option arrow–as I would prefer.  But, with all the pavement marking leading up to the exit, and the combination of solid line and dual arrows, I think motorists would understand the configuration even if that last BGS weren't there.
http://g.co/maps/j99e9

What you've shown here is a pretty decent application of the 2009 MUTCD pavement marking practice as it relates to intermediate exits with a dropped lane and an option lane. I didn't look too hard for the post-mounted regulatory signs, but the pavement marking arrows were there in plentiful order (possibly more so than recommended). The exit direction sign uses one exit only arrow and one standard arrow (instead of two exit only arrows), which departs from the MUTCD guideline but intuitively makes more sense to me.

Although I would note that this can be considered a system interchange. The diagrammatic arrow sign, as well as the final exit direction sign, would be an "arrow per lane" sign per current guidelines--for an intermediate interchange, the diagrammatic arrow sign could've had the single exit only down arrow and been in compliance.

I think left/right-turn-only pavement markings are misleading when on a freeway. They imply the turn is way sharper than it usually is. It should say:

EXITS

LANE

THIS

or something to that effect.

[roadfro]

I think left/right-turn-only pavement markings are misleading when on a freeway. They imply the turn is way sharper than it usually is. It should say:

EXITS

LANE

THIS

or something to that effect.

Nevada DOT tends to use the following to convey the lane drop on a freeway:


  ↑

ONLY

EXIT


It seems to get the message across, in addition to the standard overhead signage.


Had I been involved with the MUTCD, I would have modified the lane control arrows for pavement and signage to look more diagonal as is more common with arrows on freeways and expressways.

[Scott5114]

I don't really think the "right turn only" arrow needs to be modified for freeway use... you're collecting the information as it flits by at 70 MPH, and if exaggerating the sharpness of the turn makes you more likely to pick up the message, then that's a legitimate tradeoff, in my mind.

Oklahoma DOT (and other DOTs) does use diagonal arrows to denote lanes that are ending, with the text "MERGE".

[blawp]

Lets agree that the right turn/left turn only arrow should be modified to California's version at least, which is far easier to read at pavement level.

[hbelkins]

I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

Like that will accomplish anything. What a waste of time, energy and effort.

The fact that the federal government would deign to dictate to states and localities what size or case the lettering on their signs should be in continues to be one of my big gripes with the MUTCD.

[Special K]

I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

Like that will accomplish anything. What a waste of time, energy and effort.

The fact that the federal government would deign to dictate to states and localities what size or case the lettering on their signs should be in continues to be one of my big gripes with the MUTCD.

Not a fan of consistency in signage?

[hbelkins]

Not a fan of an onerous federal government.

[Special K]

Not a fan of an onerous federal government.

So noted. 

So, how do we achieve consistent signing standards nationally without a federal agency to oversee such an endeavor?

[Scott5114]

You might want to read this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2686.msg58977

H.B., maybe we should make you put that link in your sig for all the newbies curious about your unorthodox view of the MUTCD

[hbelkins]

How about letting the states handle it, and worry about consistency on a statewide basis instead of a nationwide basis?

There are subtle differences between the states' signage practices, anyway, MUTCD or no MUTCD.

Is it really going to cause that much of a problem if I am driving east on US 33 and see a sign in West Virginia that says "Harrisonburg 35" and then see a sign in Virginia that says "HARRISONBURG 22?" I think not.

[blawp]

I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

[Scott5114]

I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

While CA has some neat things I wouldn't mind seeing out here (cutout shields), there are also a lot of things in that document that really need to stay confined to California.

If we were to look to any one state to set the standard, Kansas and Tennessee would be at the top of my list.

[DaBigE]

I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

While CA has some neat things I wouldn't mind seeing out here (cutout shields), there are also a lot of things in that document that really need to stay confined to California.

If we were to look to any one state to set the standard, Kansas and Tennessee would be at the top of my list.

Agreed.  I would also add elements from Wisconsin (surprised? ), Texas, and Minnesota.  California probably wins for the greatest coverage of scenarios (snow, heat, rain, quakes, etc.), but that's about it.  I have yet to see a DOT guide that would be the end-all-be-all of manuals.

I personally feel the MUTCD has a place, but as a guide to limitations rather than dictating every minute little detail.  Anytime you try to achieve a one-size-fits-all approach, you end up with more problems than you started with.

[rawmustard]

The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

But "city/town limit" are not destination names and thus should be all caps. (And whether someone uses Clearview or the FHWA series doesn't affect the case rules. Mixed case has always been only for destination messaging.

Also, the fact that Advanced Street Name warning plaques must be yellow instead of fluorescent yellow-green.

FYG is only supposed to be used to warn of other human users that might cross in a non-motorized manner, such as pedestrians and bicycles. There should be no reason an advanced street name sign supplements one of the warning signs allowed to be FYG.

ETA: Yeah, leave it to me to not realize there was another page until after I posted.

[D-Dey65]

I see that there are various threads on the same subject, but this is the one I spotted first. So unless they're all merged into one, I'm going to respond to this one.

1)The refusal to allow state and regional variations of signs such as Florida's multi-colored U.S. shields, and New York's brown & yellow destination signs in the Adirondacks and Catskills.

2)The trashing of symbol signs such as college and ferry destination signs.

3)I forgot what else bugged me about them.


While we're at it, I suspect the MTA wouldn't be allowed to add the unique kinds of Bus Stop Signs they have in New York City if USDOT had their way.

[myosh_tino]

I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

blawp, please stop with the "California's signage is the bestest most wonderful style in the U.S. and all states should be like California" comments.  I get a little embarrassed when I read comments like the one I quoted and I'm a native Californian.

[Revive 755]

I'm dusting off this thread because I have developed a few new gripes over the past couple of months.

* Section 2E.37, Paragraph 07 should be removed.  I see nothing wrong with allowing states to choose where the number is on exit gore signs.

* Lately I have been wondering if there could be problems with having both the left exit tab and the toll plaque the same color.  Seems there is the chance the toll plaque could get confused with a left tab and vice versa if the banner or plaque is not located correctly on the sign.

* Dislike the language and interpretation that seems to imply only the turn (W1-1, W1-3) types signs can be used where the speed limit is 30 mph or less.  This does not allow for using the W1-4 for minor lane shifts where the turn type sign (W1-3) is overkill.