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

[cl94]

Since this thread was bumped, I created a thread for the newest interim approval, bicycle boxes, issued this month. Barring major issues, it will likely be in the next MUTCD.

Link: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19069.0

[vtk]

Sorry to bump, but while I don't think this will make it into the next MUTCD, one thing that I think the FHWA should at least consider is to mandate that all new dynamic message signs use full matrix layouts.  Full matrix DMS are capable of providing more legible messages than fixed character matrix or line matrix DMS due to their capability to display fonts in various widths and heights.  Plus, due to improving technology the cost difference between a full matrix DMS vs. the other types has been getting smaller to the point where some manufacturers no longer produce the other types.

Plus, most of the character-cell displays I've seen are 3 lines of a mere 8 characters each, which makes it very difficult to arrange messages in a useful manner according to MUTCD pagination guidance.

[hbelkins]

Plus, most of the character-cell displays I've seen are 3 lines of a mere 8 characters each, which makes it very difficult to arrange messages in a useful manner according to MUTCD pagination guidance.

Those are the portable ones. All the overhead ones I've seen have a lot more space.

[Pink Jazz]

Since it is 2017, here is an overview on what I think what will make it into the next MUTCD:


Most definitely

   
• Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.
• Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.

Probably

   
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons.

Possibly

   
• Green-colored pavement for bicycle lanes.
• Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).

About minimum retroreflectivity values, I wonder if there will ever be any studies on Purple sheeting.  Blue and Brown are currently exempt but studies have since been completed and will most definitely make it into the next MUTCD.

[cl94]

RRFBs will almost certainly be in there. Those seem to be very popular, at least in the northeast. They have overtaken other methods as the main crosswalk warning devices. RRFBs probably weren't included because they hadn't actually been trialed by publication time. Basically, I expect every pre-2015 IA to make it in.

Speaking of IAs, new one issued in February for an alternate Warrant 7: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia19/index.htm

[DaBigE]

Since it is 2017, here is an overview on what I think what will make it into the next MUTCD:


Most definitely

   
• Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.
• Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.

Probably

   
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons.

Possibly

   
• Green-colored pavement for bicycle lanes.
• Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).

About minimum retroreflectivity values, I wonder if there will ever be any studies on Purple sheeting.  Blue and Brown are currently exempt but studies have since been completed and will most definitely make it into the next MUTCD.

My revisions to the lists:
Most definitely

   
• Green-colored pavement for bicycle lanes.
• Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons.

Probably

Possibly

   
• Orange construction zone pavement markings
• Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.
• Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.

I just don't see retroreflectivity of brown and blue signs being very critical. Regarding the purple pavement markings, I'm curious to see results from public perception studies. Do "regular" (read: non-roadgeek) drivers even understand/appreciate the difference?

As far as the FYA in the middle section, that is being tested, and IMO, should have been done a long time ago. Creating a separate section for the FYA always seemed unnecessary to me, since the red section can already be steady or flashing without any confusion. Why should yellow be any different?

[cl94]

Orange pavement markings probably won't be in there because there hasn't even been an IA. Major changes like that normally go through the IA process. Of course, I could be wrong and the Milwaukee test could be enough for them.

[jakeroot]

• Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).

• Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).

(Quoting both because you both included it on your list)

Isn't the placement of the FYA in the center inferior to a green arrow / FYA bi-modal setup? I was always taught that placing the FYA in the middle was avoided, because the change from flashing to steady wasn't obvious enough.

[DaBigE]

As far as I am aware, bimodal arrow configurations were not a part of the testing, only GA, YA/FYA, RA vs. GA, FYA, YA, RA configurations. And according to initial research, the steady/FYA indications sharing the same section hasn't shown the confusion I and some of the other researchers were expecting to see happen.

[roadfro]

Most definitely

   
• Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.

Possibly

   
• Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.

Purple longitudinal lines are already allowed in the MUTCD, in supplement (an "outline" if you will) to the standard white lane line or white/yellow edge line, for lanes designated for ETC-only vehicles at toll plazas. Are you both suggesting expanding this to ETC lanes outside of toll plaza areas (as in along the full length of a tolled lane)?


Edited to remove errant list tag

[Pink Jazz]

Possibly

   
• Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.

Testing has already been completed and the minimum recommended retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown are already available, although they are not officially standard yet.  I definitely see them becoming standard in the next MUTCD.  The reason why they weren't included in the 2009 MUTCD is that testing wasn't completed on time for those sheeting colors at the time the 2009 MUTCD was published.  Considering that testing has been complete for a while now, I highly doubt the FHWA would slack on this issue.

[jakeroot]

As far as I am aware, bimodal arrow configurations were not a part of the testing, only GA, YA/FYA, RA vs. GA, FYA, YA, RA configurations. And according to initial research, the steady/FYA indications sharing the same section hasn't shown the confusion I and some of the other researchers were expecting to see happen.

That's good to hear, because a lot of FYAs in the middle lens were showing up around here. Of course, if the MUTCD mandated secondary signals for left turns, peripheral visibility (what you need to notice changes like flashing to steady) wouldn't be such a big deal (especially when you're waiting in the middle of the intersection -- signals at eye level are much easier to see from that position).

[Pink Jazz]

As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD.  I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.

Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD.  However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.

[billpa]

As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD.  I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.

Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD.  However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.

I hope we see more pavement markings in this country. I find information on road surfaces tend to convey important information in a way that's clearer and absorbed faster while driving in unfamiliar areas.  I think colors can be very useful in explaining changing conditions.

HTC6525LVW

[jakeroot]

As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD.  I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.

Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD.  However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.

I hope we see more pavement markings in this country. I find information on road surfaces tend to convey important information in a way that's clearer and absorbed faster while driving in unfamiliar areas.  I think colors can be very useful in explaining changing conditions.

inb4 Brandon complaining about snow plows ripping up markings, etc.

I concur with the idea that we need more pavement markings. We don't want to over-feed drivers with information, but there are areas where improvements are needed. The best example I can think of is/are yield situations. Why do roundabouts get guidelines and sharks teeth but so few slip lanes (like those that cut off intersections) have no markings at all? Drivers should be able to recognise a yield situation purely by the markings.

[billpa]

As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD.  I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.

Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD.  However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.

I hope we see more pavement markings in this country. I find information on road surfaces tend to convey important information in a way that's clearer and absorbed faster while driving in unfamiliar areas.  I think colors can be very useful in explaining changing conditions.

inb4 Brandon complaining about snow plows ripping up markings, etc.

I concur with the idea that we need more pavement markings. We don't want to over-feed drivers with information, but there are areas where improvements are needed. The best example I can think of is/are yield situations. Why do roundabouts get guidelines and sharks teeth but so few slip lanes (like those that cut off intersections) have no markings at all? Drivers should be able to recognise a yield situation purely by the markings.

Agreed.  I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.

SM-T230NU

[Rothman]

Regarding pavement markings, although the theory sounds good, most drivers probably don't know why the left shoulders on the highway are yellow while the right shoulders are white.

[jakeroot]

Regarding pavement markings, although the theory sounds good, most drivers probably don't know why the left shoulders on the highway are yellow while the right shoulders are white.

Because no one gives a shit. There's no chance of driving into the oncoming lane on a freeway. But most pavement markings are well understood because they generally come into play at some point driving between A and B. Certainly, adding confusing pavement markings serve no purpose. Any new markings should be thoroughly tested.

I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.

Route numbers/shields on the pavement are very much a thing already. Route numbers + city names might be better at roundabouts. Here's some town names painted on the pavement near Gig Harbor, WA (approaching one of the Borgen Blvd roundabouts):

[Mr. Matté]

I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.

Route numbers/shields on the pavement are very much a thing already. Route numbers + city names might be better at roundabouts. Here's some town names painted on the pavement near Gig Harbor, WA (approaching one of the Borgen Blvd roundabouts):

Based on the left turn destination's spelling, those literally are British-like directions.

[jakeroot]

I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.

Route numbers/shields on the pavement are very much a thing already. Route numbers + city names might be better at roundabouts. Here's some town names painted on the pavement near Gig Harbor, WA (approaching one of the Borgen Blvd roundabouts):

http://i.imgur.com/t74WOwH.png

Based on the left turn destination's spelling, those literally are British-like directions.

Funny you'd mention that. Gig Harbor's Public Works director is British, so he spelled it that way on purpose. Also note the "top to bottom" orientation of the words. Another British road trait.

[Pink Jazz]

While it is almost certain that the next MUTCD will standardize the already-published minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown sheeting, I wonder if there will ever be any studies on Purple sheeting, which is also exempt. It probably won't make it into the next MUTCD since there have been no studies.

[Pink Jazz]

Note that the next MUTCD has been delayed to 2018.

One thing that I wonder why the MUTCD doesn't address are street name suffix abbreviations.  Many cities use non-standard abbreviations for street name suffixes (example: LA instead of LN for "Lane").  Why doesn't the MUTCD mandate that street name signs use USPS standard abbreviations for street name suffixes?

[myosh_tino]

One thing that I wonder why the MUTCD doesn't address are street name suffix abbreviations.  Many cities use non-standard abbreviations for street name suffixes (example: LA instead of LN for "Lane").  Why doesn't the MUTCD mandate that street name signs use USPS standard abbreviations for street name suffixes?

Because drivers aren't looking for a street name suffix but rather the street name itself.

[DaBigE]

Note that the next MUTCD has been delayed to 2018.

One thing that I wonder why the MUTCD doesn't address are street name suffix abbreviations.  Many cities use non-standard abbreviations for street name suffixes (example: LA instead of LN for "Lane").  Why doesn't the MUTCD mandate that street name signs use USPS standard abbreviations for street name suffixes?

They do address them in Table 1A-1.

[Pink Jazz]

One thing to wonder is if the public telephone requirement for logo sign eligibility is still really necessary. Very few people don't have cell phones anymore. Considering many states have removed roadside emergency call boxes except in rural areas with poor mobile coverage, do businesses really need to provide a public telephone to be eligible for a logo sign?