MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[J N Winkler]

It has dropped:

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2020-26789/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for-streets

[jakeroot]

Well, there goes my afternoon.

One cool thing I've seen so far (PDF pg 203, change #429) is the ability to permit additional non-English languages for the speech announcement at accessible pedestrian signals. English must always be used, but I think there are areas of this country where Spanish or Mandarin would be very useful.

[Scott5114]

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

[MCRoads]

Great, now my hard copy of the NUTCD is out of date!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.

[Scott5114]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

[MCRoads]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I know of a city-maintained road near me with those! As soon as it is published, I'm going to tell them about, and maybe get some free signs! (But probably not.)

[Scott5114]

Important changes from Chapter 2E, because I know that's the only one anyone really cares about around here:

• New rules for signs in tunnels.
• New rules "regarding signing for destinations that are accessed from different exits in opposing directions of travel," whatever that means. I don't really see the need, but maybe the content of this will surprise me.
• New rules on where arrows go on exit direction signs. This will make signs much more consistent from state to state. I'm hoping they don't require the arrow go at the bottom of the sign, since I hate that placement, but it would be more consistent with the 2009 MUTCD requiring the arrow to go in the exit only plaque, so I have a feeling that's what they're going to do.
• Diagrammatic signs may be dropped from the manual entirely, depending on public comment. I'll be arguing to keep them, of course.
• There is reference to a "Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign", which I'm guessing is a Utah-style sign of the style that's often referred to here as a "sawn-off APL".

[J N Winkler]

I've had a very quick skim of the suggested changes for Chapters 2A (signs general), 2D (conventional-road guide signs), and 2E (expressway/freeway guide signs).  My general impression is that many, perhaps most, of the suggested changes amount to rewordings and rearrangements of information to try to clarify principles already present in the 2009 MUTCD.  I did notice that FHWA is getting more hard-nosed about corner-cutting such as sawing off the left and right corners on diamond signs mounted on median barriers.

The 303-page doorstop is only a pre-publication version--the actual Federal Register notice appears on December 14 and will almost certainly be downloadable as a separate PDF in the standard format for that publication.  I also expect that draft text and figures will be made available, as was the case for the 2008 rulemaking that led to the current MUTCD.

Important changes from Chapter 2E, because I know that's the only one anyone really cares about around here:

• Diagrammatic signs may be dropped from the manual entirely, depending on public comment. I'll be arguing to keep them, of course.
• There is reference to a "Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign", which I'm guessing is a Utah-style sign of the style that's often referred to here as a "sawn-off APL".

I plan to advocate for stippled-arrow diagrammatics continuing to be in the manual since they are better for unusual geometries than APLs.

Florida DOT has been a big advocate of sawn-off APLs (I think there are examples around Jacksonville), and Michigan DOT has used a few.

[Alps]

• Diagrammatic signs may be dropped from the manual entirely, depending on public comment. I'll be arguing to keep them, of course.
• There is reference to a "Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign", which I'm guessing is a Utah-style sign of the style that's often referred to here as a "sawn-off APL".

Agree with you on these.

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

YES everyone please comment on this.

[JoePCool14]

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

Nah. I'm more interested in petitioning to remove stop signs.

[jakeroot]

Which section specifically is about the 3/4ths error? Obviously yes, that needs to be removed from the manual. These changes are overwhelmingly about clarity (as JN Winkler indicates) yet one of the biggest clarity issues with guide sign design is that issue with the 3/4ths misinterpretation, yet I see no indication of any changes to that section.


I'm a bit disappointed to see that, in regards to the new/modified "Section 3B.05 Pavement Markings for Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes", they are recommending that two-way left-turn lanes not be extended to intersections and that exclusive turn lanes be provided instead. Exclusive turn lanes are often not used in WA apart from really major intersections and signals so that drivers may use the lane to merge into traffic. Eliminating that option and either recommending or making a standard of exclusive turn lanes at intersections could have a detrimental effect on traffic flow at some key intersections that I can think of for no other reason than perhaps cutting down on the occasional car turning left from a through lane.

[Pink Jazz]

Looks like they are cracking down on safety messages on DMS.  Also, no graphics on low-resolution DMS (even if full matrix).

[Revive 755]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I recall seeing done correctly in Missouri a few times - think one was on a ramp from I-55, and at least a couple others around St. Louis.

EDIT:  Lots of things of note:

Misc.
* A prohibition on decimals is proposed.
* New restrictions on sign sizes are proposed.

Regulatory Signs
* The symbolic lane usage signs (R3-5 and R3-6) are proposed for overhead use only.
* Removal Roundabout directional arrows (chevrons?) is proposed.
* Proposed R10-25 modification to "PUSH BUTTON FOR WARNING LIGHTS — WAIT FOR GAP IN TRAFFIC."
* Proposed "LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW ARROW (R10-12a)"

Warning Signs
* New proposed low clearance sign for arched structures.
* Proposed  [NEW?} SIGNAL OPERATION AHEAD sign (W23-2a)
* Proposed new  LANES MERGE (W9-4) and Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) signs
* Proposed new HEAVY MERGE FROM LEFT (RIGHT) sign (W4-7)."

Guide Signs (non-freeway/expressway
* New proposed prohibition on using interstate shields with the state names on BGS's.
* Proposed design modifications for interstate business shields and county route pentagons.
* There's a proposed section for using APL's on arterial roadways.

Guide Signs (freeway/expressways0
* Proposal to recommend signing to the nearest 100 feet if the distance would be less than a quarter mile.
* New proposed section for C-D roadways
* Proposed prohibition on "signing more than four supplemental traffic generator destinations from a single interchange along the main
roadway"
* Proposed restrictions on the use of pictographs
* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

General Information Signs
* Proposed deletion of the Recycling Collection Center (I-11) symbol sign
* Proposed new section for state welcome signs and future interstate signs
* Proposed section for project information signs
* Proposed requirement to have all enhanced mile markers be green

Pavement Markings
* Appears to be a new six inch minimum size for freeways and expressways
* Proposed to require dotted lane line extensions for acceleration and deceleration lanes
* Proposed new requirement for crosswalk markings at non-intersection crossing locations
* Lot more information on crosswalks

Traffic Signals
* Proposed guidance for a three foot separation between signal faces for different movements
* Proposed revisions to the section that prohibits near-right left turn arrows if the arrows would be next to the turn lane (and similar far left right turn arrows).
* Proposed to change  maximum height for signal faces reduced to guidance from the current standard
* Proposed prohibition of 8" arrows.
* Proposed new restrictions on the use of circular green and circular yellow indications

New Part 5 for Automated Vehicles
* Lots of guidance for machine vision

Temporary Traffic Control
*  Proposed new "Merge Here Take Turns (W9-2a)" sign

School Signs
* Proposed new  "STOP FOR SCHOOL BUS WHEN RED LIGHTS FLASH"  sign

Grade Crossings
* Proposed new section for when there are multiple railroad crossings on a road in close proximity
* Proposal to always require the number of tracks sign when multiple tracks are present.
* Proposal to only require reflective material on the back side of crossbucks for passive crossings
* Proposed new section regarding the use of lane marking arrows near grade crossings
* Proposed new guidance for at least one pair of flashing light signals for each lane of the roadway
* Lots of proposed revisions for pre-signals and queue cutter signals

[Pink Jazz]

Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

[D-Dey65]

General Information Signs
* Proposed deletion of the Recycling Collection Center (I-11) symbol sign

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of that.

[jeffandnicole]

When it comes to APLs, note that most people here dislike the size. However, there's a more important issue that is more relevant to the MUTCD: The understanding and safety benefits of such a sign. In practice, the signs appear to be understood which used properly.  Another common issue brought up is the cost. Overall, the increased cost isn't necessarily a major issue to most transportation departments. A simple road sign with post and breakaway post can cost several hundred dollars. Guardrail/guiderail anchorages and end treatments can cost thousands, and are required every time there's a separate guardrail line installed.  To a transportation department, the overall design and construction of the road will cost millions; the signage required is pennies on the dollar.

I know of a city-maintained road near me with those! As soon as it is published, I'm going to tell them about, and maybe get some free signs! (But probably not.)

Generally speaking, when new standards, guidance or elimination of signs is approved, the existing signage can remain in place for its usuable/serviceable life. You may need to wait a number of years before that sign comes down.

[Ned Weasel]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I knew, but only after re-reading that section one day.

Guide Signs (freeway/expressways0
* Proposal to recommend signing to the nearest 100 feet if the distance would be less than a quarter mile.

We had this discussion on the "Redesign This!" thread already, and the preference here tended to be for fractions.  I changed some of my redesigns from hundreds of feet to 1/8 mile distance messages because of this.

* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

So now a bunch of turnpikes will either have to change their signs at TOTSOs or be (blissfully?) non-compliant?  Or are they just talking about things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dxg4XYhZ74FJMGts8 ?

General Information Signs
* Proposed new section for state welcome signs and future interstate signs

This is a place where I'd love to see some standardization, especially for I-69, which I don't anticipate being completed as planned within my lifetime, even if I'm lucky enough to make it to triple digits.

[Scott5114]

Which section specifically is about the 3/4ths error? Obviously yes, that needs to be removed from the manual. These changes are overwhelmingly about clarity (as JN Winkler indicates) yet one of the biggest clarity issues with guide sign design is that issue with the 3/4ths misinterpretation, yet I see no indication of any changes to that section.

It's currently in Section 2A.13, but the section numbering may change because FHWA is also refactoring sections of the text in order to make the manual more streamlined and less duplicative.



By the way, they're considering adding a Clearview appendix, also based on public comment. You guys ready to rehash that whole 80-page Clearview thread on regulations.gov?

[Dirt Roads]

For Section 8D.10 through 8D.13 Highway Traffic Signals at or Near Grading Crossings

Typo right in the main Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1.  But it is odd that FHWA and the rest of the highway industry continues to use the common term "grade crossing" when the railroad industry was pushed to change over to using the term "railroad crossing at grade" back in the early 1980s.  But it looks like the railroad websites do use the term "railroad grade crossing".  At least within the MUTCD itself, the Chapter is written out as "Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings".

I was straight out of college when I was told point-blank to never use the term "grade crossing" in the office, but always remember to use it outdoors.  Probably a lawyer thing. 

[Dirt Roads]

Section 414 now recommends backup power for traffic control signals with railroad preemption circuits.  This has been on the railroad's wish list forever. 

[Dirt Roads]

For Section 8D.10 through 8D.13 Highway Traffic Signals at or Near Grading Crossings

Typo right in the main Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1.  But it is odd that FHWA and the rest of the highway industry continues to use the common term "grade crossing" when the railroad industry was pushed to change over to using the term "railroad crossing at grade" back in the early 1980s.  But it looks like the railroad websites do use the term "railroad grade crossing".  At least within the MUTCD itself, the Chapter is written out as "Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings".

I was straight out of college when I was told point-blank to never use the term "grade crossing" in the office, but always remember to use it outdoors.  Probably a lawyer thing.

Not the expected answer, but Section 538 proposed a new section for "Busway Grade Crossings".  I doubt that this was envisioned back in the early 1980s.  I should be slapped silly, since I've worked on several proposed busway projects that needed special designs for traffic control signals (which I wasn't involved with).

[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.

[Ned Weasel]

While we're at it, you know what would be nice in the new edition?  Some clarification to Section 2E.21, Paragraph 9: "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."

[jeffandnicole]

In regards to this:

FHWA also proposes to delete the LRT traffic signal configurations in Figure 8D-3 (existing Figure 8C-3). FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies with more flexibility in the design of LRT signal configurations.
FHWA proposes to add Guidance, Standard, and Option statements regarding the positioning of signal faces used to control LRT movements, requiring special LRT signal indications to be white, and providing the option to allow individual LRT signal sections to be displayed to form clustered signal faces, or for multiple LRT signal indications to be displayed using a single housing. FHWA proposes these changes to improve consistency in the use of LRT signal indications.

(Current Figure: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part8/fig8c_03_longdesc.htm )

It appears NJ Transit utilizes this, and has for a long time.  I believe they are fairly unique, as when others have posted rail signals, they are typically of the 3 head version shown in the link above. To me, this is sensible, and there's no confusion to the motoring public about which signals they should be looking at.

First 6 links from the South Jersey Riverline in Camden
https://goo.gl/maps/VQ9BZGuWNhC7nnxu5
https://goo.gl/maps/5iED9eENzcwz3ZxY7
https://goo.gl/maps/iH5kmqWZzw7XpGW96
https://goo.gl/maps/SF6Q67sdfTaYfQCu9
https://goo.gl/maps/K6FDzuiLccRfgZCZ7
https://goo.gl/maps/TjRWdF44Cd52PWC6A

North Jersey around Newark:
https://goo.gl/maps/jgTNxaQrvx3zUiQn8

[Revive 755]

* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

So now a bunch of turnpikes will either have to change their signs at TOTSOs or be (blissfully?) non-compliant?  Or are they just talking about things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dxg4XYhZ74FJMGts8 ?

I think they are talking about both the Turnpike and the 'mainline interstate goes through a ramp at a cloverleaf' situations.