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

[vdeane]

And me.  The 3di shield IS ugly.  And I find the series D ones easier to read too.  I fail to see how a narrower font is better.

While there have been good things with NY adopting the MUTCD (such as the elimination of the boxed street name abominations), I weep for our endangered mile markers and 3di shields.  At least the MUTCD mile markers look decent, though Albany will not feel like Albany any more when our green and white ones are gone.  The series C 3di shields just look BAD.

[cl94]

And me.  The 3di shield IS ugly.  And I find the series D ones easier to read too.  I fail to see how a narrower font is better.

While there have been good things with NY adopting the MUTCD (such as the elimination of the boxed street name abominations), I weep for our endangered mile markers and 3di shields.  At least the MUTCD mile markers look decent, though Albany will not feel like Albany any more when our green and white ones are gone.  The series C 3di shields just look BAD.

Better than the Series B ones Ohio started using when they dropped button copy

[PHLBOS]

Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? 

If none of the 3 digits contain a 1 in them; then Series C is perfectly fine (and IMHO should be used). 

What I've seen as of late is either 3dis using either scrunched Series D, elongated Series D (clearly a CAD mod), or Series B (very inappropriate and flat-out ugly).  For a while, it seemed that 3di-shields with Series C were becoming an endangered species.

3dis containing decent-looking (& properly spaced) Series D numerals are usually one size smaller than comparable 3di shields in Series C.

A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more

They already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970.

The main problem with using smaller-height numerals is that; I've seen several recent installations that either have the numerals placed too high, too low, and/or needlessly scrunched together.  If state-named shields were making a comeback; then using the smaller numerals would make more sense; but since that's not happening, using the larger numerals shouldn't be an issue and IMHO more readable from a distance.

The smaller-numeral I-shields look even more out of place/overpowered when such is mounted next to a US or state shield (along a duo- or multiplex) containing taller numerals.

[myosh_tino]

The main problem with using smaller-height numerals is that; I've seen several recent installations that either have the numerals placed too high, too low, and/or needlessly scrunched together.  If state-named shields were making a comeback; then using the smaller numerals would make more sense; but since that's not happening, using the larger numerals shouldn't be an issue and IMHO more readable from a distance.

I, for one, am not a fan of using 18 inch numerals on a 36 inch shield.  The digits are huge and it makes for an ugly looking shield.

I think part of my disdain of 18 inch numerals probably comes from the fact that, as a native Californian, our 36" Interstate shields (used for reassurance purposes) are based on an older spec which uses 12 inch numerals.

FHWA (left) vs Caltrans (right)

Please note that on guide signs, 15 inch numerals are used on 36 inch shields.  Also, if it looks like the California shield is narrower, you're right.  The California-spec 3di shield is 42x36, 3 inches narrower than the FHWA-spec.

As for some of the other ideas for a future MUTCD, if there's going to be an expanded use of APLs, I really hope they make them more "space-efficient" for the lack of a better term.  Perhaps they can look at how California is implementing APLs and reduce the arrow heights from 66 (or 72) inches down to 42-45 inches.

FWIW, those are 120" tall sign panels.

[mgk920]

I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include:

-More European graphic images, such as a wind sock for 'watch for high winds', the inward-pointing arrow for 'lane ends/merge right or left', the motorway image (like my avatar) for 'FREEWAY BEGINS/ENDS' and so forth.  Also allow European-style 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' signs (45 degree downward-pointing arrow signs mounted low) - I find the current signs to be way too 'busy';

-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used);

-Allow the option to remove the words from YIELD, ONE WAY (arrow image) and DO NOT ENTER signs;

-Require that all streets be identified at all intersections (a BIG thing for me, especially when on road trips);

-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals  .

-Allow 'red circle' speed limit signs.

Mike

[cl94]

I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include:

-More European graphic images, such as a wind sock for 'watch for high winds', the inward-pointing arrow for 'lane ends/merge right or left', the motorway image (like my avatar) for 'FREEWAY BEGINS/ENDS' and so forth.  Also allow European-style 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' signs (45 degree downward-pointing arrow signs mounted low) - I find the current signs to be way too 'busy';

-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used);

-Allow the option to remove the words from YIELD, ONE WAY (arrow image) and DO NOT ENTER signs;

-Require that all streets be identified at all intersections (a BIG thing for me, especially when on road trips);

-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals  .

-Allow 'red circle' speed limit signs.

Mike

I don't think we need to go European as much as standardize with Canada. Ontario has a few really good graphic signs that would replace some of our word signs.

Speed limit signs can stay as they are. The MUTCD governs the US and Canada. We could have red circle signs in addition, but I only see them causing confusion.

[Big John]

The MUTCD governs the US and Canada.

The MUTCD had no jurisdiction in Canada, though the provinces do adopt parts of it in their standards.

[SignGeek101]

I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include:

-More European graphic images, such as a wind sock for 'watch for high winds', the inward-pointing arrow for 'lane ends/merge right or left', the motorway image (like my avatar) for 'FREEWAY BEGINS/ENDS' and so forth.  Also allow European-style 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' signs (45 degree downward-pointing arrow signs mounted low) - I find the current signs to be way too 'busy';

-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used);

-Allow the option to remove the words from YIELD, ONE WAY (arrow image) and DO NOT ENTER signs;

-Require that all streets be identified at all intersections (a BIG thing for me, especially when on road trips);

-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals  .

-Allow 'red circle' speed limit signs.

Mike

To be honest, I like many of the European signage, but I doubt they would see any introduction in the US.

Canada's yield and one way signs omit the wording "yield" and "one way"; I can see it happening in the US, though it doesn't really matter either way.

Ontario has a few really good graphic signs that would replace some of our word signs.

Like this one?

[cl94]

The MUTCD governs the US and Canada.

The MUTCD had no jurisdiction in Canada, though the provinces do adopt parts of it in their standards.

I meant that the provinces have pretty much adopted the important parts.

Like this one?

Yes, like that one. Even with having a red light shown, it's usable by colorblind people because the red light is always at the top unless you're in Syracuse.

[vdeane]

Quebec has the best wind sign:

[KEK Inc.]

I would love for them to add a section limiting the brightness of LEDs.  My county put up a bunch of advisory signs, mainly curves, with LED borders that are blindingly bright, and a danger to drivers.

I know in Coupeville on SR-20, there's obnoxious speed limit LEDs that pretty much wash out the content on said sign at night.

[lordsutch]

I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include: ...

-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used); ...

-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals  .

I like most of Mike's ideas from the original post. For roundabout yield signs, I wonder if the Aussie-style sign (yield with a roundabout symbol inside) might be superior and reduce sign clutter; MUTCD's roundabout signage is very busy as-is.

I'm not sure adding stop, yield, and priority signs to signals will do anything except confuse American drivers during the 99.9% of time they're working. Better to improve the battery backup and do a better job educating drivers on what flashing red and yellow mean.

That said, maybe a "WHEN 🚦 FLASHING OR NOT WORKING" plaque could be added to the standard stop sign and tested for effectiveness.

[mgk920]

I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include: ...

-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used); ...

-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals  .

I like most of Mike's ideas from the original post. For roundabout yield signs, I wonder if the Aussie-style sign (yield with a roundabout symbol inside) might be superior and reduce sign clutter; MUTCD's roundabout signage is very busy as-is.

I'm not sure adding stop, yield, and priority signs to signals will do anything except confuse American drivers during the 99.9% of time they're working. Better to improve the battery backup and do a better job educating drivers on what flashing red and yellow mean.

That said, maybe a "WHEN 🚦 FLASHING OR NOT WORKING" plaque could be added to the standard stop sign and tested for effectiveness.

Or "WHEN SIGNALS ARE DARK", which was my thought, similar to the instruction signs on signal standards with the new 'flashing left yellow arrow' aspects.

Mike

[Alps]

I would expect more purple signs for tolling, and more tolling signs in general (as well as clarifications/revisions to ones already in there). That's been an open area on which the NCUTCD has wanted to circle wagons with toll agencies for awhile.

[SSOWorld]

There's way too much already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Brian556]

The biggest area that needs improvement is turn lane signage.

They need to:

In regards to turn lanes:

1.Require the THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT (or RIGHT) when a thru lane becomes a turn lane, except when there is no thru movement.

2. Change turn/straight lane diagram signs so they they show which lanes are bays. they can be incredibly confusing and useless without this.

3. Put a stop to inconsistent signing of turn bays. Some have RLMTR, and TURN ONLY, while others have nothing. Nothing is better for short bays, in my opinion.

Also, require an overhead flashing light at STOP sign controlled intersections where there is more than one lane, but only one sign for the approach. Large vehicles can hide stop signs from drivers in the inside lane, creating a dangerous situation.

When a frontage road or other road ends by entering a freeway, a sign should be required warning of the situation. At night, it is not always obvious.

Require RIGHT TURN ONLY or ONE WAY signage when a street intersects a divided roadway without a median break. Florida is very good about this, but Texas is not. You cannot expect drivers to psychically know that you have to turn right, especially at night.

[mrsman]

The biggest area that needs improvement is turn lane signage.

They need to:

In regards to turn lanes:

1.Require the THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT (or RIGHT) when a thru lane becomes a turn lane, except when there is no thru movement.

This is an excellent point.  The Los Angeles area does this very well, and very clearly delineates with advanced warning that your lane forces a turn.

In contrast, I've never seen this sign anywhere in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC.  There are many places where this would be useful.

[myosh_tino]

When a frontage road or other road ends by entering a freeway, a sign should be required warning of the situation. At night, it is not always obvious.

Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?

[Revive 755]

The biggest area that needs improvement is turn lane signage.

They need to:

In regards to turn lanes:

1.Require the THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT (or RIGHT) when a thru lane becomes a turn lane, except when there is no thru movement.

Maybe.  I don't mind having a RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT with a supplemental distance plaque, as Lake County, Illinois does it.  See Page 2 of this detail.

2. Change turn/straight lane diagram signs so they they show which lanes are bays. they can be incredibly confusing and useless without this.

Especially on the stems of T-intersections with multiple turn lanes when one is intended to make another turn shortly afterwards and wants to get into the correct turn lane.

3. Put a stop to inconsistent signing of turn bays. Some have RLMTR, and TURN ONLY, while others have nothing. Nothing is better for short bays, in my opinion.

I would postpone this until the next MUTCD version or update after the 2017 one, as it seems there could use to be more study on the best way to sign turn lanes.  I've had a few experiences where the R3-5 signs have not worked and have to wonder if ground mounting them should be disallowed without a supplemental lane designation plaque such as the R3-5dP.  I would also like to see the effectiveness of the BEGIN RIGHT/LEFT TURN LANE signs (R3-20) looked into, possibly having them used more often where a queue waiting for a green light is blocking any other lane designation signs after the start of the turn lane.

Require RIGHT TURN ONLY or ONE WAY signage when a street intersects a divided roadway without a median break. Florida is very good about this, but Texas is not. You cannot expect drivers to psychically know that you have to turn right, especially at night.

Technically the one-way signs are already required for this by the 2009 MUTCD.  The lower left detail in Figure 2B-14 would apply, but with the one-way roadway going the other direction.

Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?

Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign would also work.

[Brian556]

Here is an excellent case study of why turn lane signage rules need to be changed:

Use Streetview to "drive" north to the intersection to see what I am talking about.

NB FM 2499 at FM 407 in Flower Mound TX.
]https://www.google.com/maps/@33.068423,-97.081949,3a,31.2y,328.33h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKRDPbivmxcjv8I4ucBHYKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]

In this situation, the diagram signs indicate that only two of the three lanes continue straight. However, because there is a curve and slight hill before the intersection, you cannot tell which lane becomes a turn lane.

The diagram signs would need to show which turn lane is a bay in order to be useful. Also, they are misleading in another way. The left lane actually splits into two left turn lanes, but the diagrams only indicate a single turn.

A THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT sign is also defiantly needed here.

[Quillz]

Ditto.  NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C.  Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.

Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? 

I think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.

Not at all, I much prefer the aesthetics of Series C to D.

[mgk920]

Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?

Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign would also work.

That's the first that I've seen that sign anywhere in Wisconsin.  I'd use the graphic image that was my previous avatar (German 'autobahn driving rules begin' sign).

Mike

[DaBigE]

Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?

Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign would also work.

That's the first that I've seen that sign anywhere in Wisconsin.

Same here. I've seen the sign with just "Freeway Entrance" sprinkled about the Milwaukee Metro area, but nothing with "Ramp Only" included as well.

[Pink Jazz]

I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings?  Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks.  I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.

[Kacie Jane]

Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?

Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign would also work.

That's the first that I've seen that sign anywhere in Wisconsin.

Same here. I've seen the sign with just "Freeway Entrance" sprinkled about the Milwaukee Metro area, but nothing with "Ramp Only" included as well.

Washington uses the Freeway Entrance sign without the shield and down arrow mostly. Recently, they've started using a newer, larger version sometimes that includes an arrow on the green sign, but I don't think they're using it in all new installations yet.