Construction sign alphabet soup
Posted on June 17th, 2008 – 6:05 AMBy Roadguy
A few weeks ago on the road to Rochester, Roadguy encountered this construction sign:
Now, Roadguy knows what a “C.S.A.H.” is because it’s his full-time job to know such things (he even knows people who pronounce it “kuh-SAH”). But I had to wonder: Is this understandable to your everyday motorist who isn’t familiar with the details of state highway funding and is driving by at 70 miles per hour?
On the one hand, I get that the state might want some credit for the county roads it helps fund. That’s what a C.S.A.H. is — a “county state aid highway,” like County Road 42 in Burnsville. But normal people mostly just call it County Road 42.
So my question for today is directed at the normal people: Did you already know what a C.S.A.H. (or M.S.A.S.) was when you first got up this morning? Should construction signs aim for the vernacular? Or should the general public make a point to inform itself about such things? Share your thoughts (and other potentially confounding abbreviations) below.
38 Responses to "Construction sign alphabet soup"
First thought? K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid. It’s bad enough we have a litter of kittens and a murder of crows. We don’t need confusion from our road signs when it can be easily avoided.
I knew what a CSAH was (but not an MSAS, what’s that?), but then I’m a roadgeek. However, I will point out that it’s not always possible for a motorist to know just which county roads are CSAHs and which are not, as not all counties differentiate between then on their signs.
Signs like that need to be understandable for everyone. I know they have to squeeze into the available space, but can’t they say “county road 86″?
The like to use T.H. = Trunk Highway also, especially on VMS = Variable Message Signs. Everyone should know DOT by now, but how about
FWHA= Federal Highway Administration
MUTCD= Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
AASHTO= American Association of Highway and Transportion Engineers
If you know these and you’re not an engineer you should be checked for Asperger’s Syndrome…
Correction AASHTO should be American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials.
My first thought was KISS too. We have enough sign clutter to distract us when we are eating and talking on the phone as we go 75 in a 55.
The only one I knew was T.H. because in Duluth there is a permanent sign on top of the hill that uses T.H. if I remember correctly (at least there used to be in the previous century).
It reminds me of when my sister was learning to drive. We were in Dakota County on Co. Rd. 90. The signs are white and look like speed limit signs.
My sister was driving very quickly and I asked her what in the world she was doing. She said, “How do people do 90 on this road–that seems too fast.” [She thought the County Road 90 sign was a Speed Limit sign. Thankfully that was ages ago and she has learned a lot since then.]
Cool that I now know that CSAH means “county state aid highway”. Now what does THAT mean? Did the state provide aid to the county which then built a highway? Did the county and state put finds together to create an “aid highway” which is meant to take a large chunk of traffic from a nearby road, thus aiding it? If local funding is kicked in will we need to make bigger signs to include all the letters CSALFAH?
At least I now know what GLBLWRMR means!
Now I remember my comment…
I also see signs in construction areas for bus stops that say “BUSES DO NOT STOP HERE.”
I wondered if they were directed toward riders or drivers, and if they were directed toward drivers, they really should say “BUSES: DO NOT STOP HERE.”
I really want to take a Sharpie and do some punctuating…
MSAS = Municipal State Aid Street
A limited number of county roads are eligable for state funding for projects so these are County State Aid Highways. You generally can’t tell in the field. In Minnesota counties are given the choice whether they want to switch their signs from the old white square Minnesota standard to the new blue pentagon national standard. Some use both, using pentagons for the more major routes, but this does not necessarily corrolate with being a CSAH. The best way to tell is the official Mn/DOT county maps. CSAHs are marked with circles and garden variety county roads are marked with diamonds.
I am in the business and here are a few of my favorites.
CTWLTL: Continuous Two-Way Left Turn Lanes
If you are a PE: Profesional Engineer your write your check to the following
AELSLAGID: Minneasota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience and Interior Design.
Also
MUTCD= Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
and each state is there own version
so the MN version is MMUTCD
Doesn’t matter to me how detailed and accurate the signage is–or who paid for the road. I know I will still get lost, anyway. 
Botski is confused because of the missing hyphen. It’s a “county state-aid highway,” that is a county highway that gets state aid.
I think we should have Dave Barry write our road sings so we could have acronyms like OJIOGBUOLSWMRTJVAIFWNTMITSIHDHGCOAC. Seems to be the logical next step.
I knew about CSAH, but only because of froggie’s website.
Seems to me the CSAH or MSAS is just another way that Minnesota tries so hard to be quirky and separate from the remainder of the country (not county, country).
Other examples:
Hot Dish — instead of — casserole
Duck, Duck, Grey Duck — instead of — Duck, Duck, Goose
ISH — instead of — ICK
DFLer — instead of — Democrat
Minnesota Nice — instead of — Rude, standoffish.
I agree…who cares if it is a CSAH or not?? Most people probably don’t know what that means, nor do they care while they are driving. When I first moved here (almost 10 years ago), I was confused when I saw CSAH and TH and had no clue what they meant. Can’t we just say County 42 and MN 62? I grew up in the Indiana/Chicagoland area and never dealt with TH and CSAH till Minnesota. 
I dunno if I’d call it quirky. It’s simply a way for MnDOT to categorize those county roads and city streets that are eligible for state aid.
Which, to answer botski’s question, is those roads eligible for funding from the percentage of the HUTDF (there’s another acronym for you…Highway User Tax Distribution Fund) that is Constitutionally dedicated to the counties and cities over 5,000 population.
Pennagirl
Minnesota Nice = too polite to stick their nose into a newcomer’s business.
Does anyone outside of MNDOLT really need to know what is and isn’t a CSAH? Why not, in instances involving the general public such as construction, just use laymen’s terms, i.e County Rd. X?
Typical MN SNAFU (Situation Normal: All Fudged Up). Oh well. I say FISHDO (Fudge IT, Shoot Happens, Drive On).
[Edited for blogdom]
Morg: that was a bit uncalled for.
And to answer your question, I’d be surprised if there weren’t some drivers out there who were interested in where their gas tax dollars are going……at least the more scrupulus amongst Minnesota gas tax payers would probably be intersted in which roads that gas tax money goes to.
There’s a much bigger issue here.
We can have all the mindless chatter about vanity plates, and what MnDont internally calls a highway. Who cares?
What the real crime is that in the 60’s and 70’s someone - some body of people constructed an awful highway system in the Twin Cities. A system so awful that the main bridges are deteriotated in 40 yrs, and the intersections (35W/62 and 35W/494 and 35W/94 and 35E/694 - both east and west are a mess) such as spagetti junction were ever allowed to happen.
When MnDont attempts to correct the problem - they do it half-a$$ed manner. The one thing that runs through all MnDont projects is the disclaimer: “Well can’t do this because…..” just fill in the blank. It’s a group decision at it’s worst.
The one person that comes to mind is Elwin Tinklinberg. For some reason, I think this guy was in charge when all these horrible decisions were made.
I think someone should be called on the carpet, even though they may be ‘retired’.
Wright County has a way to differentiate CSAHs and other County Roads (though I’m sure I’m one of only a few that have paid attention):
CSAHs - one or two-digit numbers
Other County Roads - three-digit numbers
The only confusing part was that one county road, formerly 115, qualified for state aid. That meant renumbering it — it is now CSAH 32.
No clue what it meant!
No one’s mentioned SHRP yet. Strategic Highway Research Program. It was an FHWA research project in the early 1990s that has several test sections in MN. Some were testing different types of asphalt, some were concrete and some were pavement markings. There is one on 35W, just north of the (missing) bridge.
AMEN, DGB!!!
As for Froggie, don’t kid yourself. Outside of you,nobody gives a rat’s a$$.
I don’t know why you continually defend MNDOLT. DGB was right on: how the roads we have were designed and approved is beyond comprehension. What brain dead imbeciles could have possibly thought cloverleafs at major interchanges, even 40 years ago, were the answer? And later some of them added ramp meters. In fact some still have them. A meter to go from EB 494 onto SB 35W? What a friggin’ joke.(again, edited for blog, if that’s ok with you) And how about their penchant for “common” areas, cramming 6 lanes of traffic into 3? All to save a few bucks. How we doin’ with that?
For an agency continually saying they have no money,MNDOLT wastes money on stupid designs and poor foresight. Every time they have a decision to make, they make the wrong choice. With hwy 101 through Elk River, Otsego, etc., we are now rebuilding what was a newly expanded road. The paint wasn’t even dry on the road and they are ripping it up to build a freeway. There’s some wise spending.
They hop around from project to project, never completely finishing one. Hwy 610? We’ll get to it eventually. 169/494 interchange? Well, we built the Ferry Bridge and the new Shakopee bypass to allow more sprawl. What more do you want? So what if it is gridlocked because of stoplights? Did it occur to anyone to fix the interchange FIRST? Not in SNAFUville.
Don’t get me started, because you can’t win. Anyone who defends MNDOLT’s ways has no, zero, nil, nada credibility. With me, anyway. Fancy roadgeek website or not.
BTW, I’m more interested in where my gas tax $$ AREN’T going: as in to fix the aforementioned debacles.
I don’t see where explaining the process can be called “defending MnDOT”…unless you’re referring to me calling you out on your previous post where you were getting very borderline with your choice of words.
If you don’t like how MnDOT runs things, fair enough…that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But coming just short of profanity to explain your opinion isn’t exactly a way to win people over to your cause. Neither are knee-jerk reactions…something we get enough of in the press, the Legislature, and Congress.
I think it’s a waste of time/money to call-on-the-carpet the designers from 40-50 years ago. I would have thought that there was a lotta redtape involved when you put a freeway through people’s kitchens. I am sure it was tough to please everyone.
Plus Otsego, Elk River, etc–even 25 years ago–was corn. You didn’t have the population and traffic like now.
As for the names, it doesn’t matter much. I’ll call CSAH-42 “42″ no matter what, as in “Head down to 42 and take a right.”
But the road signs are a different story. If you have to parse through a bunch of letters to get to the important part (the actual number of the highway) it’s taking to much time. If you can’t tell in a split second what the sign is trying to tell you, it’s too dangerous. Especially on a freeway.
As for MNDOT, they’re in a situation where they just can’t please everyone. I think they’re doing the best they can. If they put all their money toward fixing one stretch of highway, then people who commute on all the other stretches will complain. And of course, just about everyone will complain if they want to add some kind of tax - even after the bridge collapse, the spectre of people actually paying for the roads they use had lots of folks up in arms.
Good luck with all that, MNDOT. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.
Hey Froggie: So, in your world Fudge and Shoot are borderline profanity? WOW!! Guess I’ll have to be careful the next time I go to Dairy Queen or the firing range. Not my problem what your potty mind reads into things.
Barry: I’m not talking about traffic 25 years ago. Or even 10. Did you read the post? 101 through Otsego, etc., was JUST REDONE, like within two or three years. Now they are ripping it up. What they wasted on this could have rebuilt the 169/494 interchange.
Agreed, Jeff, for the most part, but tend to disagree with the part about doing the best they can. Even now they are not doing new projects with any foresight. The new 312 should be 6 lanes plus auxiliary lanes. The new stretch of 494 wasn’t built with aux. lanes in places. They are so crucial.
If they added an aux. lane on EB 494 from France to Penn, traffic would not come to a halt there. There is a steady stream of traffic rounding the loop from France onto EB 494, but they have no where to go but merge immediately, causing 494 to become a parking lot.
In fact, if they added aux. lanes everywhere alot of our traffic woes would disappear. And they would be a relatively cheap bandaid as well, something MNDOT should LOVE!!
They finally extended the 3rd lane of 35W in Burnsville the quarter mile it took to be an Exit Only at the Cty.(or is it CSAH)42, something that should have been done origianlly, which has made a huge difference.
It’s still a disaster though, as 35W goes back and forth between 2 and 3 lanes before dropping to 2 for good in Lakeville. 35 should be 6 lanes all the way to New Market.
Yeah, I know, it costs money. A guy can dream though.
I agree they shouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket, but building new projects like 312 that allow more sprawl should take a backseat to older, more pressing needs.
Morg: you know what I meant. The tone of your posts was perfectly clear. It’s obvious you now consider me the enemy just as much as MnDOT, even though we’ve agreed on many things in the past and my viewpoints have not changed one iota. Still, you’re entitled to your opinion…
101 wasn’t redone “just 2 or 3 years ago”…it was 4-laned back in the mid ’90s…over 10 years ago. And half it it is still the original 2 lanes from 1968. Even so, the money they’re spending on the Wright County interchanges would only cover about 1/3 the cost of a 169/494 interchange.
You say the new 312 should have been built with 6 lanes. Where will that traffic go once it hits 494? Or where Hwy 5 merges in? Improving those to accommodate a 6-lane 312 would have easily added 50% to the project cost, if not more, let alone add additional strain on 494. And it was a pain just trying to get it funded as it is.
And then you say building 312 would “allow more sprawl”…but wouldn’t a 6-lane 312 allow even more? And wouldn’t a 6-lane 35 down to New Market do the same? Not to say that a 6-lane 35 isn’t justified…it is at least down to 70. But you blast one project that would allow sprawl while supporting another project that would do the same thing.
On the subject of auxiliary lanes, they work best when there’s less than a mile between adjacent interchanges. MnDOT added them on the 94/694 rebuild and on 494 between 212 and 100, but probably didn’t on 494 between 212 and 394 because of the greater distances between interchanges. That said, they should’ve added a 4th lane on each side between Hwy 7 and 394.
Your idea for an auxiliary lane on 494 between France and Penn has already been proposed. A few months ago, I found this study on the MnDOT website, dated early 2007, that has numerous small and medium-scale project ideas to improve traffic flow all over the metro:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/CongestionMgmt2007.pdf
The concept of an eastbound auxiliary lane is listed as project idea #46.
Gosh. There’s a mantra that says we can’t build our way out of congestion. But as some of these projects have demonstrated, we can definitely build our way out of *some* congestion.
Of course, the same folks say we can’t drill our way out of high gas prices.
Hey Froggie:
No you’re not the enemy. Don’t take things personal. You have obviously done your research and are well-versed in all things transportation. It just riles me when you have an excuse for all of MNDOT’s blunders. If most people did their jobs the way MNDOT handles things, there would be record unemployment. DGB said it perfectly: there is a disclaimer on every MNDOT project: “We can’t do this right, because (fill in the blank).
So anyway, here’s some responses to your post:
101 wasn’t done that long ago. We head up to our place near Cross Lake and have been going that way for years. They were still working on putting finishing touches on some areas when all of a sudden the earth movers were there again. Don’t know exact $ figures like I’m sure you probably do, but that original entire rebuild had to cost multi, multi millions. When you couple that cost with the cost of rebuilding, well, you are close to have a new 169/494. This all comes back to vision and foresight.
As for 312, I’ve said many times on here that this project should not have been done at all when we have existing areas that are more pressing. You proved my point: where is all this new traffic supposed to go, when there is still work that needs to be done on 494, etc. Heck, Crosstown should have been expanded to 6 lanes first. Thank you for validating what I’ve been saying all along. To be building new freeways before upgrading the current system is irresponsible. All I’m saying is if they are going to build them, they at least need to have a vision for the future. I’d rather pay 50% more to do it right the first time than 500% later to fix it.
I advocate for another lane on 35 because a. it is needed, and b. the sprawl is already there. I35 is an EXISTING road, probably THE major gateway to the Twin Cities. In addition to local traffic and commuters, this is where many visitors enter the vicinity as well. Again, it’s what I’ve been saying all along: get our EXISTING system up to par before building new.
As for aux. lanes, the ones on EB 494 between Penn and 35W and 12th Ave. and Cedar, with barely a quarter mile between them, is a prime example of short aux. lanes. I can’t fathom what those areas would be like wihout them.
Having aux. lanes that run the entire length between exits where there is a mile or more between them may be a luxury we can’t afford, but there needs to be at LEAST a 1/4 mile acceleration lane. When traffic is forced to merge immediately, the result is gridlock, as in EB 494 at France.
Have a great weekend!
Looks like they are actually bringing some of the things on the list to fruition: #19, extending the “truck climbing” lane on SB 35W in Burnsville is already completed. But once again we have the foresight issue. It was a no-brainer to do this during the original construction.
Oh, one more thing re: 312. Do you suppose the fact our then-transportation commissioner’s land escalated in value by millions because of this freeway had anything to do with it being accelerated? Nah.
Morg: I’m a scientist above all else…I try not to make excuses…insted I try to point out the facts and the processes, and let people draw their own conclusions. Yeah, I could see how it could be construed as defending MnDOT, and I’ll admit that I do such when I see they’re being accused unfairly. That said, most of MnDOT’s blunders have come from their leadership and not the rank-and-file (whom I’ve had the most contact with and who have provided me GREAT information over the years, and vice versa).
Regarding 101, I’ll admit I don’t get up that way that often, so I’m not sure about small details. But the main 4-laning was done back in the mid-90s, with the bridge replacement over the river done a few years ago. From what I’ve seen, the roadway they’re digging up now hasn’t been touched since that mid-90s widening.
Considering that Molnau is a “political hack”, that just happened to be leading MnDOT at the time the 2003 bond program was announced, it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it. Glad she’s gone…but the damage is done.
Not to say that 312 isn’t a needed project. IMO it is (I’ve done the 212 slog west to Chaska…it’s not fun). I just don’t like how it got funded, and you’re right in that we have much higher priorities elsewhere. Heck, we could be talking about the Crosstown Commons in the past sense now instead of the present.
