MUTCD gripes

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

With all the over-reach in the MUTCD as late, I have one gripe:

Why isn't it mandating one BGS font nationally, with a must-comply-by date?  If there's anything I hate, it's inconsistency in things like this.  Clearview on this sign, FHWA on this sign right next to it, Clearview on the next two signs, then FHWA on the one after that. GAAAAHHHHH!!!!

The states need to be told to either replace all signs with Clearview signs or go back to FHWA entirely, by a certain date.  And given that it seems the FHWA has not been terribly impressed with Clearview, I'm thinking if such a thing did happen, they'd probably say go back to FHWA.

[Central Avenue]

Meh. I could understand the logic to mandating one typeface or the other moving forward, but requiring that all existing signs be changed solely so the typeface matches those around it would be a MASSIVE waste of money.

[SignBridge]

I agree that mandated a single font (definitely NOT Clearview) would be for the better.

Another area where the 2009 Manual is over-engineered is re: signing of left-hand exits. I agree that left exits did need better signing at a greater distance than was usually done in years past. And the idea of the word LEFT in the yellow box on the exit number tab is very clear and eye-catching.

But, I don't think that word LEFT needed to be shown on every sign in the sequence.  It should be on the advance signs showing mileage to the exit. But on the exit direction sign it's redundant. You already have an arrow on the left side of the sign pointing to the left. So why do we need the word LEFT?   I guess the idea was to maintain a standard message thru the sign sequence, which normally I would agree with. But in this case it results in unnecessary clutter in our already increasingly complex sign displays.

[DaBigE]

Meh. I could understand the logic to mandating one typeface or the other moving forward, but requiring that all existing signs be changed solely so the typeface matches those around it would be a MASSIVE waste of money.

Just like it would be a massive waste of money requiring the use of a font that has time and time again been pointed out to have minimal sight improvements in arguably questionable/skewed studies over the current FHWA specs.

[Central Avenue]

Meh. I could understand the logic to mandating one typeface or the other moving forward, but requiring that all existing signs be changed solely so the typeface matches those around it would be a MASSIVE waste of money.

Just like it would be a massive waste of money requiring the use of a font that has time and time again been pointed out to have minimal sight improvements in arguably questionable/skewed studies over the current FHWA specs.

That's not what I'm saying, though. As it is, nobody is mandating that perfectly good signage be replaced solely to change typefaces.

I wouldn't object if the FHWA were to pull the plug on Clearview and mandate the use of FHWA Series on all new signage. But I certainly would object if the FHWA were to mandate that all existing Clearview signage be replaced with FHWA typeface, as the majority of Clearview signs are perfectly functional and have many years of service life left.

[hbelkins]

The states need to be told to either replace all signs with Clearview signs or go back to FHWA entirely, by a certain date.

Why?

(Of course, I think that states should be able to use whatever font they want on their signs, so having Clearview and FHWA in succession doesn't bother me. Neither would a state using Helvetica or Franklin Gothic on its guide signs.)

[NE2]

"Oops, I printed a sign in Wingdings."
"Install it - HB says it's OK."

[Central Avenue]

You just know many smaller communities would jump at the chance to post speed limits in Wingdings.

On a serious note, removing standardization from typefaces would quickly turn into a disaster, IMO, because you'd immediately get people favoring form over function. Any community that wanted to look "upscale" would immediately start posting signs in some intricate serif typeface that's illegible at highway speeds...

[myosh_tino]

While I agree that guide, warning and regulatory signs should all be in a standardized typeface, I think there should be some flexibility when it comes to street blades.  In and around where I live, there is a broad mix of typefaces for street blade signs.  While some cities use FHWA Series (San Jose, Mountain View, Sunnyvale) or Clearview (Santa Clara) either in all-caps or mixed case, others have chosen to use a different font.  The city of Cupertino uses Bookman on it's blades while Saratoga and Los Altos use a "non-standard" font that I have not been able to identify.

[vtk]

Street blades are guide signs too, aren't they? Personally, I think they should be subject to the same font set as other guide signs.  Also, MUTCD should contain more guidance on placement: not too far from the actual street, not obscured by trees, and not just below the light fixture on a lamp post.

[Ned Weasel]

As I recently mentioned in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9486.0), I don't think exit numbering schemes on muitiplexes should be required to follow an Interstate route.  If this were enforced, the Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey Turnpikes, and the New York State Thruway, would have nonsensical exit numbering sequences when looking at each toll road as a through route, and their exit numbers would be useless when calculating tolls.  I think a toll road should be allowed to retain its own exit numbers throughout its entire length.

[SignBridge]

You make a good point. The New York Thruway is an especially good example of this problem as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. The FWHA in trying to create a generic, standardized numbering system, will cause havoc with the existing tolls roads' exit numbering.

[NE2]

At least on the New Jersey Turnpike, they could make it mile-based on both I-95 and the Turnpike by simply continuing the numbering from Pennsylvania. Nothing says they have to start at zero.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744

As for the Thruway, that kind of makes sense with separate numbering on I-87 and I-90, given the major change in direction.

[Scott5114]

In the case of Kansas, there wouldn't be much of a problem, since most people tend to follow the numbers rather than the Turnpike as a whole. I-335 is practically empty.

[Ned Weasel]

In the case of Kansas, there wouldn't be much of a problem, since most people tend to follow the numbers rather than the Turnpike as a whole. I-335 is practically empty.

I have a problem with Exit 182 becoming Exit 11.*  The Turnpike is still the most efficient route between Wichita and Lawrence, which takes you through all of the Interstate changes.

I could see switching to I-70's exit numbers as being justified, but only for I-70.  I would hope that I-335 would still continue the I-35 exit numbering.  Exit 147 should not be Exit 20, and Exit 177 should not be Exit 50.

My preference is still to use Turnpike numbering for the whole Turnpike, though.

*You could easily fix this by truncating I-470 at the Turnpike and extending I-335 to Exit 182, assuming I-335 keeps I-35's exit numbering.

[vdeane]

As I recently mentioned in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9486.0), I don't think exit numbering schemes on muitiplexes should be required to follow an Interstate route.  If this were enforced, the Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey Turnpikes, and the New York State Thruway, would have nonsensical exit numbering sequences when looking at each toll road as a through route, and their exit numbers would be useless when calculating tolls.  I think a toll road should be allowed to retain its own exit numbers throughout its entire length.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike numbering already follows the interstates.  I-276 simply picks up from I-76 instead of starting at 0.  Back when PA was sequential, PA 9's exit numbers were a continuation of the Turnpike mainline's.

It's worth noting that the Massachusetts Turnpike doesn't have this problem.

The Connecticut Turnpike is an interesting example, with I-95 skipping a bunch of numbers when it leaves the Turnpike.  The Maine Turnpike also had some... interesting stuff happen with Bypass US 1 and I-495 back when Maine was sequential.

You make a good point. The New York Thruway is an especially good example of this problem as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. The FWHA in trying to create a generic, standardized numbering system, will cause havoc with the existing tolls roads' exit numbering.

NYSDOT and NYSTA plan to re-milepost the Thruway so that it starts at the PA line near Ripley should NY go mileage based.  I-90 would have one set of numbers.  I-87 would be bizarre, starting at 0 and counting up on the Deegan, counting down on the Thruway, and then resuming its own numbering on the Northway.

At least on the New Jersey Turnpike, they could make it mile-based on both I-95 and the Turnpike by simply continuing the numbering from Pennsylvania. Nothing says they have to start at zero.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744

As for the Thruway, that kind of makes sense with separate numbering on I-87 and I-90, given the major change in direction.

NJ has a plan for this, but I don't remember what it is.  Steve?

[SignBridge]

Oh geez, Vdeane........ What a "treat" that'll be if NYSTA reverses the order of mileposting. I've spent many years getting straight with the old mileposts from NYC to Newburgh (1-76) while sometimes listening to the Thruway Authority's radio system. Reversing the order will be a disaster for me.........

[vdeane]

I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that I'll continue using the old sequential numbers until I die, which would be very weird with a re-mileposted Thruway (I have the mileposts for 33-34A and 39-48A practically memorized, though I have to start adding numbers past 42 or 43... no need to learn 35-38 since they're so close together).  Plus how would I find the silo with a smiley face (and Snoopy right next to it) without the current mileposts?

[hbelkins]

The Turnpike is still the most efficient route between Wichita and Lawrence, which takes you through all of the Interstate changes.

The completion of the US 59 freeway changes that. I had the opportunity to drive both routes last month (only reason I did the Turnpike was to clinch interstates) and I see no reason to prefer the toll road over the free route, especially if your destination is the south side of Lawrence where the development is and the university as well.

[Ned Weasel]

The Pennsylvania Turnpike numbering already follows the interstates.  I-276 simply picks up from I-76 instead of starting at 0.  Back when PA was sequential, PA 9's exit numbers were a continuation of the Turnpike mainline's.

You're right; I was making the assumption that numbering had to start at 0.  Thanks to you and NE2 for pointing out that it doesn't.  I still wish the MUTCD was more permissive in this, rather than forcing toll road authorities to find a loophole in order to use their own exit numbering systems, which only works in a few specific examples.

[Ned Weasel]

The Turnpike is still the most efficient route between Wichita and Lawrence, which takes you through all of the Interstate changes.

The completion of the US 59 freeway changes that. I had the opportunity to drive both routes last month (only reason I did the Turnpike was to clinch interstates) and I see no reason to prefer the toll road over the free route, especially if your destination is the south side of Lawrence where the development is and the university as well.

Measuring from city hall to city hall, Google shows the Turnpike as having a 9-mile or 14-minute (in current traffic as of this posting) advantage.

I will admit, however, that the US 59 freeway seems to be a case where a non-tolled freeway disincentivizes the use of a toll road (just as the non-tolled I-35 freeway has done for a long time).  As troubling as this is, it's hardly a fault of the MUTCD.

There's no such thing as a "free route."

[vtk]

At the 76/80 bump in Ohio, the Turnpike uses its own numbering, while free I-76 and free I-80 use their own numbering.  However, the Turnpike's mileage and I-80's mileage are identical at this point, so the only noticeable discontinuity is if you're following I-76. 

On the other hand, I think I'd actually prefer if free I-80 were to continue free I-76's exit numbers.  But I suppose that only makes sense if the 76—80 free movement is considered much more significant than I-80 itself.  And that conclusion only makes sense if you ignore Cleveland and Chicago.

[Alps]

At least on the New Jersey Turnpike, they could make it mile-based on both I-95 and the Turnpike by simply continuing the numbering from Pennsylvania. Nothing says they have to start at zero.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744

As for the Thruway, that kind of makes sense with separate numbering on I-87 and I-90, given the major change in direction.

NJ has a plan for this, but I don't remember what it is.  Steve?

O hai. Well, I did develop a scheme for the NJTA, but I would hesitate to say "they have a plan for this." They have a few ideas of what they might do, but it won't be decided until the changeover's time comes. I would imagine, though, that I-78 would remain separately numbered, and I-95 will have continuous numbering from what's now I-276, whatever those numbers may be.

[Ned Weasel]

Part of my reasoning behind the "gripe" about exit numbers being required to follow an Interstate route in multiplexes is that, in many cases, I consider toll roads to be higher on the hierarchy than non-tolled interstates, as toll roads often have interchanges spaced more widely apart, and they sometimes have higher speed limits.  In a rational system, the highest road in the hierarchy would be the one with the toll, and the highest-level road would be the one whose exit numbers are dominant in multiplexes where the numbered routes change.  Perhaps this is a mere perception, though, and it's conceivable that toll road authorities will build more-frequent interchanges after conversion to AET (the Pennsylvania Turnpike implicitly states this; see http://www.paturnpike.com/aet_public/pdfs/AET_Feasibility_Report_printable.pdf pages 25-26).  I also speculate that the FHWA considers Interstates dominant among all forms or roads, regardless of their design.

Changing toll roads' exit numbers, however, still affects the way tickets (for ticket-based systems) and online toll calculators are designed for users of said roads.  Rather than showing a non-sequential series of exit numbers, they should either separate the different Interstate routes as "legs" of the system, the way the Pennsylvania Turnpike tickets separate the mainline from the Northeast Extension, or they should adopt a special numbering format such as "[route number]:[exit number]."

I would also like to see the MUTCD give more guidance on the signing of TOTSOs, which, of course, are common on toll roads.  The fundamental question is whether to sign the continuing Interstate route or the highway mainline as the exit, and examples of both exist in the field, although I believe the former is more prevalent.  It seems intuitive that, if exit numbers follow an Interstate route, then the mainline from which the Interstate departs should be signed as the exit, although this should also be taken into consideration when designing toll tickets and online calculators.

[vdeane]

I think the FHWA is currently trying to pretend that TOTSOs don't exist on freeways.