MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[Mr. Matté]

Is button copy coming back based on the "coming soon!" cover on the website?

[Dirt Roads]

Sect 566 proposes new guidelines for use of blank-out signs during railroad preemption.  I am curious about this one, since NCDOT appears to be moving away from the use of blank-out signs adjacent to grade crossings.  From what I can tell, the blank-out signs here in North Carolina were already in compliance with this change.  Perhaps it is a cost issue.  I wonder if the standard three-phase traffic controller allows for railroad preemption inputs but doesn't have the additional outputs to control the blank-out signs.

[hotdogPi]

I haven't seen the document, but can we have something that says that HAWK signals must have an explanation sign to go along with them for a length of time after being installed?

Even better, HAWK signals must flash yellow or be solid green when not active – this will prevent people from interpreting dark signal = power outage and temporary stop.

Here are some proposals that I don't think will get implemented because it would require too many changes, but they would help:

• Flashing green for signals not at an intersection (usually pedestrian signals or fire stations) when they're not active. MA has a few remaining, but they're declining.
• No more NTOR signs (or explicit LTOR allowed signs anywhere, or RTOR allowed signs in Staten Island). RTOR is allowed if and only if there's a flashing red arrow (which will be most intersections). 10-year transition period. Advantages: much more obvious if RTOR is allowed or not; no more difference by state about turning on a red arrow or LTOR; time-of-day NTOR can be much more easily implemented; "is this a right turn or not" is no longer an issue; straight on red at 3-way intersections can be installed if appropriate
• Backplates are yellow if power outage mode makes it a flashing yellow and black if power outage mode makes it a flashing red. This would allow cars on the major road to continue without stopping if the power outage is severe enough that the lights turn off completely.

[jeffandnicole]

• No more NTOR signs (or explicit LTOR allowed signs anywhere, or RTOR allowed signs in Staten Island). RTOR is allowed if and only if there's a flashing red arrow (which will be most intersections). 10-year transition period. Advantages: much more obvious if RTOR is allowed or not; no more difference by state about turning on a red arrow or LTOR; time-of-day NTOR can be much more easily implemented; "is this a right turn or not" is no longer an issue; straight on red at 3-way intersections can be installed if appropriate

What are you smoking??

States would just say, fine, no RTOR than rather than spend the twns or even hundreds of millions to upgrade every intersection. Cities and towns responsible for maintenance that they lag behind anyway would certainly see all their intersections go to permanent NTOR.

A 10 year transition period is much too short.  This would be a huge budget item, and no state would have money allocated for it at this time. States project their funding many years into the future. There would be a big argument who should find this, especially if the States believe that the feds should be responsible since they're demanding the change.

Also, remember...this is a manual, not a law. A change like this would need every state to revise their laws to remove the statute permitting RTOR.

[wanderer2575]

• Backplates are yellow if power outage mode makes it a flashing yellow and black if power outage mode makes it a flashing red. This would allow cars on the major road to continue without stopping if the power outage is severe enough that the lights turn off completely.

What are you smoking??, part 2.

(1)  Huge budget impact, as many fixtures have incorrectly-colored backplates per your scheme or no backplates at all.

(2)  If cars on the major road may continue without stopping when the traffic signal is completely out, why is the signal there in the first place?  Traffic engineers had a reason for it.

(3)  Motorists are supposed to take their eyes off the road to study components of signal construction?  (And what about a northern state when the backplates are snow-covered?)  How about this great idea instead:  Count the number of signal heads facing each direction, and whichever road has the most gets the right of way.  Equally distracting, plus the advantage of no budget impacts.

[US 89]

I haven't seen the document, but can we have something that says that HAWK signals must have an explanation sign to go along with them for a length of time after being installed?

FHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED—YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10 23a) sign as an alternative to the R10–23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study 27 evaluated the comprehension and legibility of various alternatives for signing at midblock hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between the alternatives; however, they did highlight the need for a sign, at least initially, while drivers are learning what actions to take based on the flashing beacon. As a result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for jurisdictions that determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid beacons.

[kphoger]

Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

I was just pointing out and explaining the error to my wife on Saturday at this intersection while we were out on a date and doing some shopping.  Then, a little later that day, she mentioned that the street blades at this intersection weren't messed up in the same way.

What are the chances I'll make a roadgeek our of her?   

[fwydriver405]

Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

These signs as well? (this is on I-195, recent install after exit renumbering in Rhode Island)
Exit 8 at the exit, EB
This sign WB before Exit 7
Exit 6, 1 mile, WB
Exit 6, ½ mile, WB

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

The full text, tables, and figures are now available.
https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/FHWA-2020-0001/document

[fwydriver405]

* Proposed new restrictions on the use of circular green and circular yellow indications

I wonder if this document and said new proposed restrictions above on the circular green and circular yellow indications would address this question for PPLT operation I've had for a while (FYI... have barely read the document yet so haven't been able to decipher much yet): 

The question I've had for a while now, is except for split-phasing, should doghouses (or other 3/4/5-section yield on green signals) be banned (added: in new installs or retrofits) in the next MUTCD for PPLT operation when there is a dedicated left turn lane?

EDIT: Some states and DOT's may have issues with a "no yield on green signals with dedicated LT lane" policy (for new installs and retrofits) after reading the below part... I know some states like Connecticut doesn't even use FYA yet and I'm not sure how relevant the below quote is to my suggestion:

Also, remember...this is a manual, not a law. A change like this would need every state to revise their laws...

[hbelkins]

It's not exactly a user-friendly document to search and quote from. I'm trying to find the language that would eliminate the cutesy highway safety messages.

[Scott5114]

Here's the partial-width APL, if anyone was curious.

[Amtrakprod]

Great, now my hard copy of the NUTCD is out of date! Lol, actually, this is really epic. Just hope that the APLs are fixed to not waste so much space, and that they make a better sign for the HAWK, as literally no one knows how to use it lol.

Or better yet let's make the hawk flashing red instead of alternating red


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

This one is right up my alley.  Section 562 is clarifying the subtle differences between Exit Gate systems and Four-Quadrant Gate systems (ergo, high speed rail sealed corridors).  Railroads don't like either of these because tardy drivers get "stuck" on the tracks and sometimes refuse to break off the shear pins to exit to safety.  But even I have come around to agree that these setups are resulting in better crossing safety.  The art of timing for exit gates is much improved after a number accident investigations regarding "stuck" vehicles.  By regulation, the design must have the exit gate fully lowered exactly 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train.  That's not so easy when you need to include safety pads for errors in predicting train arrival (which in many cases, is still 55 feet away from the edge of the crossing pavement that may include a wide crosswalk/bikepath).  Everybody get out your calculators.

Or you could just use sensors like Amtrak does on the NEC that detect cars in the middle of the tracks so the exit gates don't lower until it's clear. That's the better way.


iPhone

[Scott5114]

Okay, so the new standard is that overhead exit direction signs have the diagonal arrow to the right (or the left) of the legend, while post-mounted signs have it centered below the legend.

Can anyone explain to me why this is a standard or what the rationale may be?

[J N Winkler]

Okay, so the new standard is that overhead exit direction signs have the diagonal arrow to the right (or the left) of the legend, while post-mounted signs have it centered below the legend.

Can anyone explain to me why this is a standard or what the rationale may be?

This is suggested change no. 195.  I am not aware of research support for it (though I am a bit out of touch with the literature at this point), and am inclined to disagree with it on grounds of taking away flexibility in sign design.  The arrow should point in the same general direction as the exiting movement, and should not be positioned at the top center of the sign or in such a way that the legend is between it and the border on the exit side of the sign panel.

Edit:  Thinking about it some more, I think something like this may have been proposed in past revisions of the MUTCD and FHWA may even be poised to respond to commenters who object to the suggested language by saying something along the lines of "This was already supposed to be in the MUTCD" (as they did a lot back in 2009).  In this case, the rationale would be to prevent an upward-pointing arrow at the bottom of an overhead sign being misread at distance as a lane assignment arrow.  An arrow of this type and alignment would be safe on a ground-mounted sign since drivers will not assume it to have a lane assignment function.  The aspect I'm not sure about is disallowing right-aligned arrows on ground-mounted signs.

[Amtrakprod]

FHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED–YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10 23a) sign as an alternative to the R10—23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study 27 evaluated the comprehension and legibility of various alternatives for signing at midblock hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between the alternatives; however, they did highlight the need for a sign, at least initially, while drivers are learning what actions to take based on the flashing beacon. As a result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for jurisdictions that determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid beacons.

I like the looks of this. Signage at these varies so dramatically across jurisdictions and often doesn't fully convey what you're supposed to do - for example, the typical accompanying sign in Georgia simply reads STOP ON RED - and as a result, nobody realizes you can go on flashing red if nobody is crossing.

Good! MassDOT has a similar version to that.


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

One thing on my wish list is for shared lane left turn signals flashing yellow arrow doghouses could be allowed. That would be really nice to see!


iPhone

[fwydriver405]

One thing on my wish list is for shared lane left turn signals flashing yellow arrow doghouses could be allowed. That would be really nice to see!


iPhone

I agree with that too, I would think that the next MUTCD would incorporate more FYA usage and gradually phase out some of the "yield on circular green" scenarios that could be achieved by an FYA... maybe I'm mistaken.

There is a section somewhere in the document that states that separate left-turn signals should not be used in shared lane scenarios like this... but I am going to have to hunt down where I found that in section 4D.

[US 89]

Here's the partial-width APL, if anyone was curious.

Any particular reason it's not centered? Aside from that, this is exactly what Utah did for its version of the 2009 MUTCD.

[webny99]

^ I actually like the route/destination being centered over just the exit only lane. It's a better visual representation of the option lane: use this lane to exit if you wish, but please, you don't have to move left to continue straight. Also leaves a little space for a theoretical pull-through shield, a subtle but welcome reinforcement of the visual cue.

[Dirt Roads]

This one is right up my alley.  Section 562 is clarifying the subtle differences between Exit Gate systems and Four-Quadrant Gate systems (ergo, high speed rail sealed corridors).  Railroads don't like either of these because tardy drivers get "stuck" on the tracks and sometimes refuse to break off the shear pins to exit to safety.  But even I have come around to agree that these setups are resulting in better crossing safety.  The art of timing for exit gates is much improved after a number accident investigations regarding "stuck" vehicles.  By regulation, the design must have the exit gate fully lowered exactly 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train.  That's not so easy when you need to include safety pads for errors in predicting train arrival (which in many cases, is still 55 feet away from the edge of the crossing pavement that may include a wide crosswalk/bikepath).  Everybody get out your calculators.

Or you could just use sensors like Amtrak does on the NEC that detect cars in the middle of the tracks so the exit gates don't lower until it's clear. That's the better way.
iPhone

I'm not a big fan of the vehicle detection loops connected to the crossing detectors, but I understand why they were installed on the NEC.  On the other hand, using the vehdee loops to drop the PTC "signal" to stop a behemoth freight train is not possible given the timings and braking distances involved.  regardless, it is still unlawful for any of the gates to not be in the fully lowered position come 20 seconds before the arrival of the train.  (That's a regulation for which the Federal Railroad Administration could/should grant an exemption).

[Ned Weasel]

Here's the partial-width APL, if anyone was curious.

Any particular reason it's not centered? Aside from that, this is exactly what Utah did for its version of the 2009 MUTCD.

As long as the arrows are centered over the lanes to which they refer, I wouldn't get too picky.  https://goo.gl/maps/vX9stqmNp6BEtLu38

[Dirt Roads]

This one is right up my alley.  Section 562 is clarifying the subtle differences between Exit Gate systems and Four-Quadrant Gate systems (ergo, high speed rail sealed corridors).  Railroads don't like either of these because tardy drivers get "stuck" on the tracks and sometimes refuse to break off the shear pins to exit to safety.  But even I have come around to agree that these setups are resulting in better crossing safety.  The art of timing for exit gates is much improved after a number accident investigations regarding "stuck" vehicles.  By regulation, the design must have the exit gate fully lowered exactly 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train.  That's not so easy when you need to include safety pads for errors in predicting train arrival (which in many cases, is still 55 feet away from the edge of the crossing pavement that may include a wide crosswalk/bikepath).  Everybody get out your calculators.

Or you could just use sensors like Amtrak does on the NEC that detect cars in the middle of the tracks so the exit gates don't lower until it's clear. That's the better way.
iPhone

I'm not a big fan of the vehicle detection loops connected to the crossing detectors, but I understand why they were installed on the NEC.  On the other hand, using the vehdee loops to drop the PTC "signal" to stop a behemoth freight train is not possible given the timings and braking distances involved.  regardless, it is still unlawful for any of the gates to not be in the fully lowered position come 20 seconds before the arrival of the train.  (That's a regulation for which the Federal Railroad Administration could/should grant an exemption).

Been chewing on this one for a few days.  The MUTCD Proposed Ruling also proposes eliminating Section 8C.05 paragraph 17 that describes how to provide a safe zone pocket between the track and the exit gate where possible.  I suspect that the primary issue is placement of the exit gate mechanism and related underground cabling beyond the railroad right-of-way.  (It may also be that the exit gate timing could not meet the 20-second downtime rule when too far from the tracks with certain roadway skews).  However, it seems as if this were a common sense design goal that should have required a formal exemption rather than eliminating the rule.

[jakeroot]

I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing section, it shatters this.

If the intent really is for cost savings to facilitate conversions, at least restrict this usage to retrofits of existing signals and require that new/redone installations be done with a 4-section head.

Fully agreed. Plus some parts of the country already have 3-section FYAs where the flashing yellow is in the bottom position either on its own or as a bimodal. I'm not liking the potential inconsistency here.

I can understand both points, but I think the way the MUTCD has approached it makes sense. Retrofits are easier when you can simply replace the computers that would then allow the signal head to flash. If I understand correctly, no signal head replacements should be necessary. If this is the idea, then eliminating the option to allow a bi-modal flashing yellow/green arrow should be the obvious next step to begin normalizing the position of the flashing yellow arrow within 3-section FYA signals. Given that there are arguments in favor of both 3-section setups: all things being equal, we should just work towards normalizing the position.

That said, here's something that is leaving me very confused about permissive-only flashing yellow arrow signals: are we going to start seeing 2-section FYA signals, where the top is a red arrow and the bottom is a shared flashing yellow arrow/solid yellow arrow? Because the MUTCD doesn't make it very clear. If the goal is to begin normalizing the position of a flashing yellow arrow within 3-section FYA signals, having permissive-only FYA signals continue to display the flashing yellow arrow in the bottom section ruins the whole point. It would be really odd to have two-section signals, but it seems to be the better option for permissive-only FYA signals.

Here's part of the new MUTCD section (blue is new text):

E. During steady mode (stop-and-go) operation, the signal section that displays the steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication during change intervals shall not be used to display the flashing left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication for permissive left turns unless a signal section capable of alternating between the display of a steady YELLOW ARROW and a flashing YELLOW ARROW signal indication is used. Added to reflect Official Change Request 4(09)-42

WHAT?! This seems to plainly indicate that 2-section FYA signals are now permitted. You could have 3-section signals for these setups, but the bottom lens would go unused.

EDIT: I cannot find that change request. Anyone know where it is? Did they misidentify it?