New MUTCD announced

[JoePCool14]

Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.

[kalvado]

Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.

That seems like a great way of doing things ..

[ilpt4u]

Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.

That seems like a great way of doing things ..

IDOT is making changes. The FYA is slowly appearing across the state, for example. That said, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa as controls are not going anywhere

ISTHA seems more in touch with the MUTCD, again beyond the 3 state controls. The only thing I might even nit-pick at for ISTHA is the 80/294 Southern Tri-State duplex really should follow I-80's mileage and exit numbers, not I-294's, but oh well. ISTHA has done a good job adopting the yellow TOLL banner and also the APL signage, for example. And those are more recent than the previous steps of conforming to the MUTCD with consistent and directionally appropriate mile markers and exit numbers

The biggest blunder by both IDOT but moreso ISTHA is the (directional) Suburbs controls that are in use, mostly for I-355 but appear on I-290, I-88, and IL 53 also. That isn't changing, either

[JoePCool14]

Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.

That seems like a great way of doing things ..

IDOT is making changes. The FYA is slowly appearing across the state, for example. That said, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa as controls are not going anywhere

IDOT D1 does not know what a FYA is. There is a single example of an IDOT road with an FYA that I can think of, and it technically wasn't their installation, it was the county's.

[mgk920]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

Yes, whatever convention is used in Geneva, Illinois.

No, Lake Geneva, WI



Mike

[ran4sh]

Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.

That seems like a great way of doing things ..

The biggest blunder by both IDOT but moreso ISTHA is the (directional) Suburbs controls that are in use, mostly for I-355 but appear on I-290, I-88, and IL 53 also. That isn't changing, either

But it needs to, because signage on freeways/expressways is supposed to be for motorists unfamiliar with the area. "Suburbs" is only useful for dead-end routes. Routes that connect to other routes should use destinations along the connecting routes, before resorting to generic "suburbs".

[LilianaUwU]

Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.

The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" method, I assume.

[kalvado]

Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.

The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" method, I assume.

Well, I hope changes to RYG color scheme are not really on the table anyway. Whatever is listed as proposed update to MUTCD seems pretty incremental in nature. Updated definition of "median" hopefully wouldn't affect medians too much!

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

Yes, whatever convention is used in Geneva, Illinois.

No, Lake Geneva, WI



Mike

We do our Geneva Conventions on the Lake, here in Ohio.
(With covered bridges on the side)

[CardInLex]

The MUTCD home page has been updated to state:

"On September 29, 2023, the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review of the pending rulemaking for the next edition of the MUTCD. This review was the last major step of the regulatory process allowing FHWA to proceed to preparation of a Notice of Final Rule. The documents and supporting materials for a Final Rule will take just a bit more time to finalize, but we expect to publish this year."

So, it looks like the new MUTCD will be updated this year.

[-- US 175 --]

Is 14 years the longest the MUTCD has gone without a new manual/update?

[J N Winkler]

Is 14 years the longest the MUTCD has gone without a new manual/update?

Yes, but not by a wide margin.  The MUTCD has had national editions dated 1935, 1942 (War Emergency, seven years), 1948 (six years), 1961 (13 years), 1971 (10 years), 1978 (8 seven years), 1988 (10 years), 2000 (12 years), 2003 (three years), and 2009 (six years).

There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

[kphoger]

There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

It does hardly seem worth the hassle, considering how few momentous changes happen during a revision these days.

[freebrickproductions]

Is 14 years the longest the MUTCD has gone without a new manual/update?

Yes, but not by a wide margin.  The MUTCD has had national editions dated 1935, 1942 (War Emergency, seven years), 1948 (six years), 1961 (13 years), 1971 (10 years), 1978 (8 years), 1988 (10 years), 2000 (12 years), 2003 (three years), and 2009 (six years).

There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

Wasn't the 2003 revision done primarily to correct some issues present in the 2000 revision? Certainly the shortest time between two revisions.

There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

It does hardly seem worth the hassle, considering how few momentous changes happen during a revision these days.

Not to mention it ain't impossible to include revisions into an existing MUTCD, given how the 2009 MUTCD also has Revisions 1, 2, and 3.

[Henry]

So the gaps from largest to smallest would be:

1. 1948-61 (13 years)
2. 1988-2000 (12 years)
T3. 1961-71 (10 years)
T3. 1978-88 (10 years)
T5. 1935-42 (7 years)
T5. 1971-78 (7 years)
T7. 1942-48 (6 years)
T7. 2003-09 (6 years)
9. 2000-03 (3 years)

This current gap will push everything down one rank, whenever it will end. Various state supplements more than make up for it, as they put their own unique spin on the MUTCD.

(And to J N Winkler: 1971 to 1978 is 7 years, not 8!)

[J N Winkler]

There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

It does hardly seem worth the hassle, considering how few momentous changes happen during a revision these days.

Some of the reasons cited have included more rapid dissemination of new technology (read:  less opportunity for vendors and agencies to go their own way, to the detriment of national uniformity) and streamlining rulemaking.

Wasn't the 2003 revision done primarily to correct some issues present in the 2000 revision? Certainly the shortest time between two revisions.

There were certainly plenty of fixes.  The formatting was tightened up, the circular intersection sign was changed (from the circle with four stubs to the present three arrows in a circle), various instances of uppercase "M" used as the abbreviation for meters were corrected, etc.  The story I have heard is that the 2000 edition was originally supposed to look like the 2003 in terms of presentation (pattern-accurate sign illustrations, etc.), but that intention fell by the wayside in the rush to get it out at the turn of the millennium.

However, the 2003 MUTCD did have its own freestanding rulemaking process, just like the 2009 and (upcoming) 2023 editions.

(And to J N Winkler: 1971 to 1978 is 7 years, not 8!)

Ooops!  Fixed.

[LilianaUwU]

Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.

[CardInLex]

The Federal Register has posted a notice! The new MUTCD will be released tomorrow (12/19/2023):

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-27178/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for

[formulanone]

Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.

The Federal Register has posted a notice! The new MUTCD will be released tomorrow (12/19/2023):

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-27178/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for

In your face, La Sagrada Familia!

[Quillz]

Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.

Not even close to the record. GNU Herd has been in development since the 1960s and still hasn't been released.

[Henry]

I'll sure to check in tomorrow, because I can't wait to see the new stuff that they may be adding!

(BTW, I still have the 2009 PDF from which I'm making my signs)

[Scott5114]

Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.

Not even close to the record. GNU Herd has been in development since the 1960s and still hasn't been released.

To be far more charitable to the GNU project than they may deserve, part of that is no doubt due to the fact that the creation of Linux more or less supplied the "missing piece" in the GNU ecosystem that HURD was supposed to fill.

On the other hand, Linux came out in 1991, so GNU has had 30+ years since then to shit or get off the pot.

[freebrickproductions]

The new MUTCD has finally been released!
https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/fhwa-releases-new-traffic-control-device-manual-updates-improve-safety-pedestrians
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_11th_Edition.htm

[CtrlAltDel]

The new MUTCD has finally been released!

The full text is available here.

[kphoger]

The new MUTCD has finally been released!

Holy crap.  There goes everyone's holiday plans!