What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?

Started by Pink Jazz, April 04, 2015, 12:35:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pink Jazz

I would like to know, what changes do you expect will be in the next MUTCD coming out in 2017 or later?

Here is what I think will be added:


  • Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, currently in interim approval, I think will probably be added in.  The reason why they didn't make it into the 2009 MUTCD was due to the interim approval being granted too late when the 2009 MUTCD was already being written.
  • Minimum retroreflectivity standards for blue and brown signs will be added in.

Also, I wonder if street name signs with black backgrounds and white text will become an option.  I have read some early drafts for the 2009 MUTCD, and it appears that color scheme was planned to be included as one of the approved schemes, but then it was dropped in favor the reverse color scheme (white background with black text).

What does anyone else will think be included in the next MUTCD?


SignGeek101

More with APL's. I'm not sure what type (if any) was included in the 2009 MUTCD, but with APL's becoming more popular, I think they'll have to set some / more standards for that.

riiga

More internationalization through pictograms, hopefully.

JoePCool14

Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 12:40:19 AM
More with APL's. I'm not sure what type (if any) was included in the 2009 MUTCD, but with APL's becoming more popular, I think they'll have to set some / more standards for that.

Something to make them more space-efficient would be nice.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

ctsignguy

A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/<br /><br />Maintaining an interest in Fine Highway Signs since 1958....

Revive 755

A partial idea of what the 2017 edition will hold can be gained by going through the meeting minutes for the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NUTCD), where there are a few marked up drafts:  Link

From what I can recall off the top of my head:

* Restrictions on the use of circular signal indications where traffic cannot go straight

* Addition of most of the currently active interim approvals

* A new requirement where if traffic on on a two lane two way road is temporarily restricted to one lane one way at a time through a railroad crossing with gates, the gates must be removed to prevent anyone from getting blocked on the crossing

SignGeek101

Quote from: riiga on April 04, 2015, 07:30:52 AM
More internationalization through pictograms, hopefully.

These come to mind.





No stopping

cl94

I agree with an APL guide. I spent a lot of time at TRB this year talking with FHWA people and others about how little guidance is provided, causing some DOTs to do some interesting things.

If it hasn't been done by then, I expect something banning Clearview or its inclusion in the manual with specific guidelines. Application is getting worse and worse, with even NYSTA joining in on the Clearview numerals bandwagon.

3-section FYAs will probably be in there along with bicycle signal faces. Those bicycle doghouses are quite weird.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

SignGeek101

Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
I agree with an APL guide. I spent a lot of time at TRB this year talking with FHWA people and others about how little guidance is provided, causing some DOTs to do some interesting things.

If it hasn't been done by then, I expect something banning Clearview or its inclusion in the manual with specific guidelines. Application is getting worse and worse, with even NYSTA joining in on the Clearview numerals bandwagon.

3-section FYAs will probably be in there along with bicycle signal faces. Those bicycle doghouses are quite weird.

That, or disallowing Clearview altogether, if they put such things in a MUTCD.

DaBigE

Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
I agree with an APL guide. I spent a lot of time at TRB this year talking with FHWA people and others about how little guidance is provided, causing some DOTs to do some interesting things.

If it hasn't been done by then, I expect something banning Clearview or its inclusion in the manual with specific guidelines. Application is getting worse and worse, with even NYSTA joining in on the Clearview numerals bandwagon.

3-section FYAs will probably be in there along with bicycle signal faces. Those bicycle doghouses are quite weird.

3-section FYAs are already in the 2009.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

TEG24601

I would love for them to add a section limiting the brightness of LEDs.  My county put up a bunch of advisory signs, mainly curves, with LED borders that are blindingly bright, and a danger to drivers.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

CtrlAltDel

They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)

TEG24601

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.


QR Codes on BGS and RFID codes for Speed Limit Signs.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

UCFKnights

Quote from: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.


QR Codes on BGS and RFID codes for Speed Limit Signs.
Why not just RFID everything? Its relatively cheap and much more accurate.

TEG24601

Quote from: UCFKnights on April 04, 2015, 05:08:44 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.


QR Codes on BGS and RFID codes for Speed Limit Signs.
Why not just RFID everything? Its relatively cheap and much more accurate.


True.  I was trying to be a smart ass with the QR code thought.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Scott5114

Quote from: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AM
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
They already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970. Illinois posts shields to this spec. The shields with the gigantic digits, like seen in Utah, North Carolina, etc. are states doing their own thing.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jakeroot

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2015, 07:59:01 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AM
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high-intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more

They already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970. Illinois posts shields to this spec. The shields with the gigantic digits, like seen in Utah, North Carolina, etc. are states doing their own thing.

In addition, I wish they'd make 3di shields use Series D numerals...any time I see a 2di shield next to a 3di shield, the Series C numerals look out of scale (obviously an aesthetic preference, FWIW). California does this already, and while I see Series D numerals on 3di shields outside California on a somewhat regular basis, I wish it was more common.

vdeane

Ditto.  NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C.  Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

SignGeek101

Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto.  NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C.  Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.

Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's?  :-/

I think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.

JoePCool14

Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto.  NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C.  Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.

Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's?  :-/

I think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.
I'd agree, it doesn't make much sense that its not already there, even though Caltrans seems to ignore it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2015, 07:59:01 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AM
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
They already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970. Illinois posts shields to this spec. The shields with the gigantic digits, like seen in Utah, North Carolina, etc. are states doing their own thing.

I assume when you say Illinois you mean IDOT, because ISTHA uses shields with big numbers. However like everything from IDOT, to me it just seems a bit off.

Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto.  NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C.  Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.

More readable than when ISTHA horizontally compresses the numbers inside the shield (particularly 3DIs).

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

Eth

Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's?  :-/

Probably. That's okay, though, I know the feeling; I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that likes Series B there (or anywhere else, for that matter).

Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PMI think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.

Last time I checked, the official Georgia spec actually calls for Series E for 2-digit interstate shields, though I've never actually seen it in the field.

CtrlAltDel

Quote from: Eth on April 04, 2015, 09:57:55 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's?  :-/

Probably. That's okay, though, I know the feeling; I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that likes Series B there (or anywhere else, for that matter).

I wish they'd get rid of the wider shield for 3DI's and fit series B or whatever's necessary on the regular shield.
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)

Scott5114

That was the status quo prior to the 1970 MUTCD. Believe it or not, Series D is easier to read than C and B, which is why the wide shield was invented.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

CtrlAltDel

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2015, 08:45:12 PM
That was the status quo prior to the 1970 MUTCD. Believe it or not, Series D is easier to read than C and B, which is why the wide shield was invented.

Oh, I can believe that. I know aesthetics is less important than readability, but the 3DI shield is just ugly.
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)

vtk

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 06, 2015, 12:39:31 AMI know aesthetics is less important than readability, but the 3DI shield is just ugly.

Says you. Aesthetics is a very subjective thing; readability, less so. Engineers tend to focus more effort on problems whose success or failure can be objectively measured. It's not that aesthetics is unimportant, but trying to please everyone in that regard would be wasted effort.
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.