MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[kphoger]

States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

That doesn't mean they should explicitly endorse the practice though!

Isn't that the perfect reason to endorse something?

–  Agencies already do that, nobody notices, and it causes zero problems.
–  Let's prohibit it!

[myosh_tino]

I went ahead and made the following comment this evening (mostly pedantic, detailed items in keeping with my earlier post):

3. State named Interstate shields and route markers should be the preferred standard of signage for standalone route markers as well as shields on guide signs. Modern signing practices help to improve legibility of the shield numerals, as evidenced by recent overhead signs installed in Utah: https://www.aaroads.com/ut/015/i-015-n-exit-305-04.jpg. The state name in these shields on the guide sign are not noticeable to most drivers, and for those who do note the state name is embedded in the sign, it gives a chance to again note the state they are in.

I agree with you on the standalone route markers but disagree on the guide sign shields because, at least in California, there would be a reduction in the size of the route numerals.  Remember, California uses an older spec standalone Interstate shield which has 12-inch numerals on a 36" x 36" shield.  The current 36" Interstate shield used on guide signs has 15" numerals.  And, I am definitely against California dumping the 1957-spec shield for the current FHWA-spec shield.

[fwydriver405]

I went ahead and made the following comment this evening (mostly pedantic, detailed items in keeping with my earlier post):

3. State named Interstate shields and route markers should be the preferred standard of signage for standalone route markers as well as shields on guide signs. Modern signing practices help to improve legibility of the shield numerals, as evidenced by recent overhead signs installed in Utah: https://www.aaroads.com/ut/015/i-015-n-exit-305-04.jpg. The state name in these shields on the guide sign are not noticeable to most drivers, and for those who do note the state name is embedded in the sign, it gives a chance to again note the state they are in.

I believe state-named Interstate shields are the standard for most BGS's (guide signs) and standalone Interstate shields for several years now in my home state of Maine. (Exit 52, 44/45, I-95 Shield Assembly)

[Scott5114]

I don't think that including the state name in the route shield is ever going to be more than an Option statement. The only reason the state name was added to the US route shield (and carried over to the Interstate shield) was because it was needed to get the states-rights crowd to accept the concept of a national route system. Now that the idea of nationally-numbered routes is nearly 100 years old, there's not much actual purpose to keep it there other than nostalgia's sake and because it looks neat.

[kphoger]

I don't think that including the state name in the route shield is ever going to be more than an Option statement. The only reason the state name was added to the US route shield (and carried over to the Interstate shield) was because it was needed to get the states-rights crowd to accept the concept of a national route system. Now that the idea of nationally-numbered routes is nearly 100 years old, there's not much actual purpose to keep it there other than nostalgia's sake and because it looks neat.

And also because of the hundreds of motorists who end up in the wrong state because of missing state names...

[Scott5114]

I don't think that including the state name in the route shield is ever going to be more than an Option statement. The only reason the state name was added to the US route shield (and carried over to the Interstate shield) was because it was needed to get the states-rights crowd to accept the concept of a national route system. Now that the idea of nationally-numbered routes is nearly 100 years old, there's not much actual purpose to keep it there other than nostalgia's sake and because it looks neat.

And also because of the hundreds of motorists who end up in the wrong state because of missing state names...

We should keep the state names and delete those pesky numbers to prevent this.

[stevashe]

States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

That doesn't mean they should explicitly endorse the practice though!

Isn't that the perfect reason to endorse something?

–  Agencies already do that, nobody notices, and it causes zero problems.
–  Let's prohibit it!

I didn't say it in that post, but the proposed MUTCD makes exit number fudging standard. I see no more reason to prohibit exact exit numbering than to prohibit fudging (which is not what I was arguing for either, I think it should just be an option, not specifically recommended or required).

[mass_citizen]

Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

[J N Winkler]

Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I haven't heard anything, but I certainly wouldn't be expecting the new manual to come out anytime soon, simply because it typically takes a long while to process the comments, finalize the text, and develop a Final Rule Notice.  In the last revision cycle, comments closed in mid-2008 and the finished manual was not available until the very end of 2009, almost a full year and a half later.

I don't think the "chuck the manual out" crowd is going to gain any traction, but if it were, I suspect it would take the form of a public announcement to the effect that the current rewrite was being abandoned and the 2009 edition would remain in effect while a rulemaking process was put in train to settle the form and content of a new regulatory regime for traffic control devices.

[vdeane]

I have not heard anything.  That said, Streetsblog had an article Monday about how USDOT is talking about radically changing roadway safety policy (likely to something resembling Vision Zero, given Buttigieg's comments), with the National Roadway Safety Strategy to be released in January 2022, so it's possible the "chuck the manual out" crowd has more influence right now than they ordinarily would.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/11/01/us-dot-promises-national-safe-systems-approach-after-historic-death-surge/

[wanderer2575]

I commented regarding their suggested exit numbering rules. While I like the idea that exit numbers can now be adjusted by 1 to avoid letter suffixes, they also are adding a rule that says that letter suffixes should not be skipped and instead should start with A and increase for NB/EB, and for SB/WB should end with A and not have any skipped letters. E.g. if there are 3 letters northbound but 2 southbound, they want the NB exit letters to be A-B-C, with the SB exit letters B-A.

I commented that it's more important for the same cross street to have the same letter, even if a letter has to be skipped in one direction. For example, if "A" is a partial NB exit, then A-B-C on NB should correspond to C-B SB with the A being skipped due to no SB exit.

THIS!!  There are so many examples of where the "no skipping" would make the same cross street have different exit numbers in different directions, or the same number serve completely different cross streets.  Exit numbers are then useless!!!

For example right off the top of my head, I-76 in Akron.
Eastbound:
21B:  Lakeshore/Bowery
21C: SR 59 Innterbelt

Westbound
21C: Dart Ave (indirect access to SR 59)
21A: East Ave

By the new guidance, I-76 WB would have to have exits 21B and 21A, for Dart and East Aves in that order.  EB 76 would have exits 21A and B for Lakeshore/Bowery and Innerbelt.  These are basically four different exits.  The existing 21Cs link to each other by Dart being the frontage road for the Innerbelt expressway eventually, but Lakeshore/Bowery  and East serve different areas and should NOT have the same exit number. 

The inverse, the same cross street getting different letter suffixes, is equally probable and shouldn't happen either.  How do they come up with ideas like this?  It's not a problem in the first place.

I'm a little late to this party, but I assume you would also be okay with suffixes or even the main numbers being out of sequence order if necessary to preserve the same exit number on both sides of a highway for the same cross street?

For example, on M-10 in Southfield, Michigan we currently have the following:

Northbound:
Exits 14A-B:  Northland / Nine Mile Road (one exit ramp with a small traffic island split at the top of the ramp)
Exit 14C:  Southfield Road

Southbound:
Exit 14B:  Nine Mile Road
Exit 14C:  Southfield Freeway
Exit 14A:  Northland

That's how the interchange design is laid out.  Three southbound exits, two northbound exits (the first of which is for destination #1 and #3) and however you juggle the numbers they will be out of order in one direction if the intent is to keep the same numbers in both directions for the same destinations.

[ran4sh]

Freeway exit numbers should be in order according to the location of the crossroad, not the ramp. This sometimes means the numbers are "out of order" if going by the ramp locations. But most people can understand that larger interchanges often have larger ramps that dwarf the ramps of a smaller interchange.

Looking at that M-10 Michigan example, the letter order should actually be A for Northland, B for Southfield Fwy/Rd, and C for Nine Mile, because that's the order the crossroads are in. Southbound the ramp order actually matches the crossroad order. Northbound you would have 14A/C followed by 14B, and the MUTCD is ambiguous as to handling that, so different states do it differently.

I don't like excessively-long exit tabs (I think they distract more than they help, plus, most states already violate the MUTCD principles about message loading), so assuming that Nine Mile is a more important road than Northland, I would post 14C for the Nine Mile/Northland ramp and 14B for the Southfield ramp. (Some states would post 14 A/C for that ramp)

[US 89]

Freeway exit numbers should be in order according to the location of the crossroad, not the ramp. This sometimes means the numbers are "out of order" if going by the ramp locations. But most people can understand that larger interchanges often have larger ramps that dwarf the ramps of a smaller interchange.

If that's official MUTCD guidance, Utah sure did not follow it when they opened the C/D ramp for I-215 and 7200 South on I-15 northbound in Salt Lake. The original numbering before the reconstruction (which is still used in the southbound direction) had exit 295 for 9000 South, 297 for 7200 South, and 298 for I-215. However, the new northbound C/D ramp for 72nd and I-215 splits from I-215 south of 9000 South, and is numbered by where it splits from the mainline rather than actual crossroad locations. So now in the northbound direction, 72nd South is exit 294A and 215 is 294B-C.

[ran4sh]

Technically the MUTCD text reads "The general plan for numbering interchange exits is shown in Figures 2E-19 through 2E-21." rather than actually describing the procedure.

However when you see the figures, the examples are clear that they are using the road crossing location and not the ramp location as the determination of each exit number. (And that the exit number rounds down rather than to the nearest milemarker, e.g. an exit between mile 107 and mile 108 that appears to be closer to 108 is numbered as 107.)

Unfortunately none of the examples in the figure show closely-spaced interchanges with large interchange ramps dwarfing small interchange ramps.

[jamess]

Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

[Scott5114]

Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

I have to grin at the thought of them going through the drudgery of dealing with comment after comment from angry, uninformed bike users, before unexpectedly stumbling over a cache of comments from AARoads users passionately writing about the 3/4 error and the finer details of arrow placement...

[LilianaUwU]

Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

I have to grin at the thought of them going through the drudgery of dealing with comment after comment from angry, uninformed bike users, before unexpectedly stumbling over a cache of comments from AARoads users passionately writing about the 3/4 error and the finer details of arrow placement...

"Oh my, people DO care about the manual!" -the reviewers, probably

[vdeane]

Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

I have to grin at the thought of them going through the drudgery of dealing with comment after comment from angry, uninformed bike users, before unexpectedly stumbling over a cache of comments from AARoads users passionately writing about the 3/4 error and the finer details of arrow placement...

The NACTO comments might be a good indication of how those went.  They even have a spreadsheet of all the comments they submitted regarding the MUTCD.  They also have a couple pages on their efforts regarding the MUTCD.

https://nacto.org/program/modernizing-federal-standards/
https://nacto.org/2021/05/11/a-blueprint-to-update-americas-street-manual/

[ran4sh]

NACTO wants the MUTCD to remove references to the UVC? I understand that the UVC has not been updated in more than a decade, but NACTO thinks that state and local traffic rules should influence the MUTCD, which I disagree with.

[J N Winkler]

In other countries, drives toward reforms of the kind that are happening with the MUTCD now--things like Vision Zero, reallocating roadspace from motorized to non-motorized modes, relaxing street design standards in neighborhood settings, etc.--have been accommodated by adding signs to the existing traffic manual or set of traffic regulations (e.g., "Home Zones," "Twenty's Plenty") and publishing separate design standards for urban streets and streetscapes.  To an extent, this can be done within our current framework.  I think the big fights are likely to involve issues where there is little scope for compromise, such as the 85th-percentile standard for speed limits and warrants for traffic signals.

It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

[jamess]

In other countries, drives toward reforms of the kind that are happening with the MUTCD now--things like Vision Zero, reallocating roadspace from motorized to non-motorized modes, relaxing street design standards in neighborhood settings, etc.--have been accommodated by adding signs to the existing traffic manual or set of traffic regulations (e.g., "Home Zones," "Twenty's Plenty") and publishing separate design standards for urban streets and streetscapes.  To an extent, this can be done within our current framework.  I think the big fights are likely to involve issues where there is little scope for compromise, such as the 85th-percentile standard for speed limits and warrants for traffic signals.

It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

I'm hearing the feds will be making a big push next year for the Safe Systems Approach. My area DOT is scrambling because they are completely unprepared. They have been getting questions from USDOT that they do not have answers for. As deaths continue to rise, it's clear the current way things are done isn't working.

[vdeane]

It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

Meanwhile, Washington used their statewide Vision Zero to justify never implementing the speed limit increase to 75, instead keeping everything at 70.

[jakeroot]

It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

Meanwhile, Washington used their statewide Vision Zero to justify never implementing the speed limit increase to 75, instead keeping everything at 70.

I'm convinced that study was flawed. I think their estimation was about 1.67 more deaths per year? That seems like it would have easily been within the margin for error.

[jamess]

It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

Meanwhile, Washington used their statewide Vision Zero to justify never implementing the speed limit increase to 75, instead keeping everything at 70.

I'm convinced that study was flawed. I think their estimation was about 1.67 more deaths per year? That seems like it would have easily been within the margin for error.

Well, it seems theyre doing something right, considering they have one of the lowest vehicle death rates both per capita and per mile.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state

No where near as low as MA though, which I believe is the "slowest" state.

One might argue that "speed kills"

[SkyPesos]

Sometimes, I wonder why we haven't raised the speed limit to at least 75 mph on rural freeways in most (mountainous areas are an exception) states yet. If you take any rural interstate in the Midwest and place it in most European countries, I'm very sure it'll be signed as 120 km/h (75 mph), maybe even 130.