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

[jakeroot]

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?

Well, I think you'll have a hard time finding a business that won't let somebody borrow their phone. Such requests have become so uncommon lately, it's hard to say "no" when it does happen.

That said, I think that's an unnecessary requirement these days (didn't even know it was a requirement, to be honest). I suppose it could be dropped.

[roadman]

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?

MassDOT's current LOGO sign policy considers either a public pay phone or a landline telephone - such as at a hotel front desk or a restaurant's cashier station - that the public can access in an emergency as meeting the public telephone requirement.  I'd like to see this definition applied nationally.

[jakeroot]

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?

MassDOT's current LOGO sign policy considers either a public pay phone or a landline telephone - such as at a hotel front desk or a restaurant's cashier station - that the public can access in an emergency as meeting the public telephone requirement.  I'd like to see this definition applied nationally.

That would be a step in the right direction. According to Pew Research, 77% of Americans own smartphones. 95% own any type of mobile phone. At this point, the few people that need a public phone (those with dead cell phones) should just be able to use any available landline (given how rare the request is nowadays).

[Pink Jazz]

Based on the FHWA's recent report with Clearview, I think it is probably unlikely it will be included with the next MUTCD and I expect the interim approval to get rescinded again.  Since Sam Johnson is retiring and the upcoming changes in Congress, I don't think there will be any other big push to force Clearview onto the FHWA unless there is litigation by Meeker and Associates.  However, I wonder if Meeker will be held liable for potentially defrauding the government by falsifying legibility studies.

[Pink Jazz]

Here is a roundup from what I expect in the next MUTCD as of now:

   
• Blue and Brown retroreflectivity standards.
• Inclusion of RRFBs.
• Inclusion of green bike path pavement and bike boxes.
• Inclusion of bicycle signal heads.
• Smaller APL arrows.

As for Clearview I don't see it happening since the report by the FHWA last year failed to find any legibility advantage and the Congress that pushed the reinstatement of the interim approval is no longer in office and so far there has been no real movement by the current Congress to push Clearview.