2009 Edition of the MUTCD

[Alps]

http://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ opens in new window

I had the opportunity to look over the proposed changes today.  A couple of notes that jumped out:

MUTCD now specifically prohibits black-background shields on signs.  This affects NJ especially, given that NJ traditionally adopts the MUTCD with no supplement.  Other states also use the practice to small but not insignificant degrees.

MUTCD now requires mile-based exit numbering.  NYSDOT has indicated that they would not convert until forced to, but would then convert as soon as adopted.  So let's see how quickly they comply.  My guess is that some toll agencies, which receive no Federal funding, still won't convert because the FHWA can't hold anything over their head.

I saw a few of my comments addressed (I was one of the citizens) and at least it looks like they paid good attention to people's input.  One thing that did not come through in the written preamble (filed this morning to the Federal Register) is my comments on HOV signage.  And I know other people and agencies had similar comments regarding using green-background guide signs in managed lanes instead of the current white-background - it's hard to see the HOV diamond and they may be confused with general-purpose guide signs.  I did not crack open the pages with figures on them to check, but I would have thought that such a comment would have been discussed in the appropriate section of the preamble, and I did not find it.

[rickmastfan67]

Thanks for the heads up.  This should be an interesting read!

[burgess87]

Downloading & reading right now.  This is gonna be fun . . . .

[J N Winkler]

Thanks from me for the heads-up too.

I had a quick look at the Final Rule Notice to see how FHWA had addressed diagrammatic signs, which was the main burden of my own submission.  They did pretty much as I had suggested in my letter, though they did not go into detail on the reasons.  Stippled-arrow diagrammatics are still in the MUTCD, while arrow-per-lane diagrammatics are now an accepted design option.  (The relevant paragraphs in the Final Rule Notice are 200-201, or pp. 47-48 of the GPO PDF.)

As a general rule, private citizens and consultants are not identified by name, while state DOTs and some nonprofit trade organizations (like the ATSSA) are on occasion.  One way for a private citizen to gauge the influence he or she has on the process is to look at the extent to which FHWA recapitulates the reasoning given in the comment.

[Scott5114]

The diagrammatic is saved! Thanks for your hard work, Jonathan! Same goes to you, Steve. It's inspiring that the MUTCD committee at least takes comments from roadgeeks seriously. I think I'll try and get involved in the process for the next MUTCD, whenever that happens. Any tips?

[mightyace]

I've downloaded it.  I'm not sure how much of it, I'll read though I'll probably just skim it and use it for reference.

But, it is interesting to see what the "rules" are.

[WillWeaverRVA]

This is fascinating. It's a shame that I probably can't use this to persuade Richmond DPW that it needs to sign the ends of VA 5, US 33, and US 250 (and improve signage for all the other routes)...

[roadfro]

For those that are more visual or otherwise don't want to sift through all the commentary, there are PowerPoint files on the MUTCD's training webpage that highlight the major changes with explanatory notes.

MUTCD now specifically prohibits black-background shields on signs.  This affects NJ especially, given that NJ traditionally adopts the MUTCD with no supplement.  Other states also use the practice to small but not insignificant degrees.

I'm assuming you are referring to the black background of a route shield (such as a U.S. Route) having the black border when mounted on a green guide sign.  If so, Section 2D.11 (Design of Route Signs), paragraph 12 mentions this in a guidance statement, but it is not a specific prohibition--this statement encourages use of the black background if needed for contrast on other types of signs (i.e. regulatory or warning).

One thing that did not come through in the written preamble ... is my comments on HOV signage.  And I know other people and agencies had similar comments regarding using green-background guide signs in managed lanes instead of the current white-background - it's hard to see the HOV diamond and they may be confused with general-purpose guide signs.  I did not crack open the pages with figures on them to check, but I would have thought that such a comment would have been discussed in the appropriate section of the preamble, and I did not find it.

The reason this wasn't addressed probably has to do with the fact that the 2003 MUTCD already used the white-on-green scheme for HOV guide signs. Figures 2G-15 and 2G-16 show HOV guide signage that more clearly indicates such signs are applicable to the HOV lanes. In addition to the diamond symbol in the upper left corner, a black-on-white banner (equal in height to the diamond symbol) extends across the top with the legend "HOV EXIT" or "HOV LANE".  I find this to be superior to providing a guide sign that is designed completely black-on white, as it is clearly a guide message but adequately conveys that its message is not for general purpose lanes.

[burgess87]

For those of you curious, a new Standard Highway Signs Designs Book is due out Fall 2010.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm

Wow . . . that's a pretty big gap in time to wait.  Oh, well.

[Alps]

For those of you curious, a new Standard Highway Signs Designs Book is due out Fall 2010.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm

Wow . . . that's a pretty big gap in time to wait.  Oh, well.

My guess is that over a year ago, they indicated they'd have this out in 2009.  Since it's now mid-December, they decided to go ahead and publish the text and worry about the signs later.  There are few changes to existing signs, by and large - just dropping a couple and adding several (plus a new color or two).

[Scott5114]

Well, the 2003 Edition of the MUTCD was accompanied by the 2004 SHS, so this isn't the first time this has happened.

Plus, they've indicated this won't be the SHS, but rather the SHSM (Standard Highway Signs & Markings). Presumably this added section will take some extra time to work on.

[WNYroadgeek]

Interesting. I too wonder how long it will take NYSDOT to convert to distance based exit numbers.

[mightyace]

Interesting. I too wonder how long it will take NYSDOT to convert to distance based exit numbers.

Given the state's history, I wouldn't be surprised if NYSDOT tries to fight it.

Question: Can withholding federal highway money be used as a stick to enforce compliance?

[deathtopumpkins]

Question: Can withholding federal highway money be used as a stick to enforce compliance?

It has been for other things before (Montana's speed limits, Florida's colored shields), so it wouldn't surprise me.

[Jim]

Interesting. I too wonder how long it will take NYSDOT to convert to distance based exit numbers.

As much as I'd like to see it happen, it doesn't make sense to do unless the Thruway goes along with it to allow continuous mileage-based numbering for the entire lengths of I-87 and I-90.

[agentsteel53]

As much as I'd like to see it happen, it doesn't make sense to do unless the Thruway goes along with it to allow continuous mileage-based numbering for the entire lengths of I-87 and I-90.

how would they do that, given that right now the Thruway has its own exit number scheme that is independent of I-87 and I-90's mileage (and, at one point, I-90 is parallel to the Thruway but separate from it)?

[mightyace]

how would they do that, given that right now the Thruway has its own exit number scheme that is independent of I-87 and I-90's mileage (and, at one point, I-90 is parallel to the Thruway but separate from it)?

I agree.  Also, just like the Ohio and Pennsylvania mainline turnpikes, the Thruway needs to have a consistent set of exit numbers for it's ticket system.  And, given the shape of the Thruway, just like I-376 in PA, one part of it will have numbers going the wrong way.  i.e. If the numbering is like the current sequential numbering, then the I-90 portion will be numbered backwards and if it is numbered from the PA border, I-87 will be numbered backwards.

[Revive 755]

My thoughts/questions so far:

* Instead of requiring a yield or stop sign for passive railroad crossings, how about "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"?

* Figure 2F-5, Part A (http://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2f_05_longdesc.htm) Roadgeek in charge of illustrations?

* It appears the requirement of using red arrows for protected only left turns on a separate signal head made it through unchanged.  Will be interesting to see how long it takes MoDOT to adapt to this change.

* Is the animated eye option for pedestrian signals really used anywhere?

* Section 4E.06, Standard 02:  Am I reading this wrong, or is this going to lead to great inefficiencies with pedestrian signals that display a walk when no peds are present?  Seems that a lot of left and right turn signals will have to be redone to have the flashing red.

* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

[jjakucyk]

They're really getting tough on 8" traffic signals.  Cincinnati and a handful of other cities on this side of the Mississippi River still install 8" signals where they can.  It's going to be quite a bit harder now, even though existing ones are grandfathered in.

Previously, 8" signals could be used if the signals are less than 120' from the stop line (or between 120' and 150' from the stop line, if using a supplementary near-side signal), and the speed limit is 40 mph or less.  Now, they're only allowed if the signal is less than 120' from the stop line, with no exceptions, and the speed limit is 30 mph or less.  There's a LOT of 35 mph main roads that will now need to use 12" signals.

The change in positioning for shared signal faces at left turn lanes is interesting.  If a doghouse is used, for instance, it's not supposed to be directly in front of the left turn lane, but along its right edge, adjacent to the nearest through lane.  I suppose I can see the logic, but it seems a bit fussy. 

I like some of the roundabout signage, especially the right-pointing chevrons.  

[jjakucyk]

* Instead of requiring a yield or stop sign for passive railroad crossings, how about "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"?

Probably because most people don't consider a railroad to be "cross traffic."  If I were to come upon a railroad crossing with a sign like that, I'd be looking for the street it applies to beyond the crossing, not at the track itself. 

* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

This one makes sense to me for the ones mounted on the roof to indicate which lanes are open.  For one thing, it doesn't really make sense.  What would the yellow ball be used for anyway?  Also, it kind of looks like "oh, that lane is green, so I can blow through it."  I know, it takes a pretty good idiot to make that judgment, but there's no shortage of idiots in the world.  As for the payment signals at the toll booth itself, I'm not sure why they don't like those.  After all, it should be red to anyone who's approaching, though perhaps the very short (or completely missing) yellow phase is something they don't like. 

[Alps]

how would they do that, given that right now the Thruway has its own exit number scheme that is independent of I-87 and I-90's mileage (and, at one point, I-90 is parallel to the Thruway but separate from it)?

See Pennsylvania.  They just have to make sure that the exit numbers aren't the same on the ticketed portion - they can fudge up or down by 1 mile to make it happen.  The tickets just have to make clear I-90 exits, I-87 exits, and Berkshire Extension exits.

[Alps]

My thoughts/questions so far:

* Instead of requiring a yield or stop sign for passive railroad crossings, how about "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"?

STOP and YIELD are the most commonly recognized signs and require certain actions to be taken.  You don't get that from your suggestion.

* Figure 2F-5, Part A (http://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2f_05_longdesc.htm) Roadgeek in charge of illustrations?

I can tell you this much - I know for a fact that a roadgeek worked on the MUTCD (FHWA employee).

* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

It's because the red, yellow, and green have different meanings at a toll plaza.  Red X means "don't go in this lane", while red ball only means "stop".  Green downward arrow means "use this lane" but a green ball or other green arrow implies that you are free to go, whereas at a toll plaza you have to stop.  Yellow signal means slow down and stop, flashing yellow at a toll plaza means slow down for tolling.

[Alps]

They're really getting tough on 8" traffic signals.  Cincinnati and a handful of other cities on this side of the Mississippi River still install 8" signals where they can.  It's going to be quite a bit harder now, even though existing ones are grandfathered in.

Previously, 8" signals could be used if the signals are less than 120' from the stop line (or between 120' and 150' from the stop line, if using a supplementary near-side signal), and the speed limit is 40 mph or less.  Now, they're only allowed if the signal is less than 120' from the stop line, with no exceptions, and the speed limit is 30 mph or less.  There's a LOT of 35 mph main roads that will now need to use 12" signals.

I was the citizen mentioned as supporting 8" signals, and they even adopted some of my reasoning in the preamble (community context).  So at least they thought enough about it to permit it at all.

[Brandon]

* Chapter 4K:  What was wrong with using traffic signal like indications at toll plazas for payment indications?  Along with the requirement of a green arrow or red x for open toll plaza lanes, I don't see a real issue that needs to be changed.

This one makes sense to me for the ones mounted on the roof to indicate which lanes are open.  For one thing, it doesn't really make sense.  What would the yellow ball be used for anyway?  Also, it kind of looks like "oh, that lane is green, so I can blow through it."  I know, it takes a pretty good idiot to make that judgment, but there's no shortage of idiots in the world.  As for the payment signals at the toll booth itself, I'm not sure why they don't like those.  After all, it should be red to anyone who's approaching, though perhaps the very short (or completely missing) yellow phase is something they don't like.  

Why would toll plazas even need a yellow phase for letting a vehicle go after toll collection?  The red and green are more than sufficient as the yellow phase is usually interpreted to mean "slow down" at other places such as intersections.

[jjakucyk]

I think that's just the problem.  Yellow has no use in a toll plaza, but the MUTCD doesn't allow signal phasing without a yellow.  Since the normal green-yellow-red-green phasing doesn't work in a toll plaza, then they shouldn't use a traffic signal to do the job there.