MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[ran4sh]

The proposed "fudging" is only allowed to the point that numbers can be 1 mile off. "Exit 4" would only be a maximum of 2 miles away from "Exit 5". I would say that that minor degree of fudging is really not that noticeable. In fact it's already done in some places.

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

[mass_citizen]

The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

[vdeane]

The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

I wasn't aware that odometers can give you both past and future mileage.  I must be missing that.  Mine seems to be stuck in "past" mode.

[ran4sh]

The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

While driving, yes. But exit numbers are also used while not driving, such as while planning a trip.

[PurdueBill]

I could see fudging past what is technically "allowed" just to make it so that the letters are the same for a certain exit both ways to follow the guidance to not skip letters.  As noted above, people will be looking for their exit and the sign for that one, not necessarily counting all the exits in between.

[MCRoads]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

[SkyPesos]

States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

[J N Winkler]

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

You can go ahead and comment.  They accept late comments, "which are considered to the extent practicable."  Quite a few of the comments back in 2008 (for what became the 2009 MUTCD) were days late.

[stevashe]

The proposed "fudging" is only allowed to the point that numbers can be 1 mile off. "Exit 4" would only be a maximum of 2 miles away from "Exit 5". I would say that that minor degree of fudging is really not that noticeable. In fact it's already done in some places.

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

But "1 mile off" could mean that EXIT 4 is as low as milepost 3.01. Then Exit 5 can be anywhere between milepost 5.00 and 5.99. There may only be a difference of 2 between the first digit of 3.01 and 5.99, but the total difference is effectively 3.

Also, I think we should give a little more credit to the average driver with respect to noticing distance anomalies between exit numbers. For example, Exit 80 and Exit 84 on I-90 in Washington are only about 2.5 miles apart since Exit 84 is actually two half exits 1.6 miles apart that were both given the same number, presumably just so both directions have the same number because they serve the same destinations. My sister, who is not really interested in roads at all, did notice that Exit 84 came up significantly before she was expecting after Exit 80and commented to me about it and asked why that was, expressing a bit of annoyance that it caught her a bit off guard. I gave her the same reasoning about the half exits but conceded that it was probably not the best idea to fudge the numbers like that.

States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

That doesn't mean they should explicitly endorse the practice though!

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

You can go ahead and comment.  They accept late comments, "which are considered to the extent practicable."  Quite a few of the comments back in 2008 (for what became the 2009 MUTCD) were days late.

They did actually add a sign saying "use both lanes to merge point", but it was in Part 6 for "Temporary Traffic Control Zones" (e.g. construction zones).

[J N Winkler]

Be sure to post a copy here when you're finished.

I posted within the last 15 minutes of the comment period, writing FHWA a letter and uploading it to the docket site as a PDF (generated using LaTeX).  It isn't yet publicly available, and may not be until Monday or later if they're relying on manual review and the personnel responsible don't work on weekends.  Shorn of opening and closing cruft, here is what I wrote:

I have keyed the following comments to the numbered paragraphs in the notice.

34, 156, 190--My concern with these pertains not to the changes themselves (horizontal alignment of legend, minimum letter heights for overhead conventional-road guide signs, and tabulation of letter heights for freeway guide signs), but rather to other language in the sections concerned that deals with the ratio of capital letter height and lowercase loop height.  The language in § 2D.05 quotes lowercase letter heights that are uniformly three-quarters of the corresponding capital letter heights but does not note this is an unvarying relationship or that the lowercase measurements are for loop height.  § 2A.08 and § 2E.12 are explicit about the three-quarters relationship and the fact that it is based on nominal lowercase loop height.  The language in these three sections, much of which has been carried over from past editions of the MUTCD, is clearly intended to describe a property that is inherent in the FHWA Series typefaces and in all computer fonts based on them that preserve their forms and proportions.  For example, if I am working in a sign drawing program with an E Modified font and I fix the capital letter height at 16 inches, I do not need to change the size to get lowercase letters at the correct 12-inch loop height.  However, it has become evident both in signing plans and in field installations that many practitioners think it is allowable, even required, to reduce the size of the lowercase letters so that loop height plus ascender height (essentially, capital letter height at the new size) is three-quarters the height of the actual capital letters.  This phenomenon, which in road enthusiast circles is described as the "three-quarters error," results in unsightly signs that ill serve the motoring public.  I urge FHWA to devise a way of describing the three-quarters ratio that doesn't unintentionally encourage ill-formed mixed-case destination legend.

195--In cases where an exit direction sign does not perform lane assignment, this proposed change (in new § 2E.18) would require the arrow to be positioned to the side when the sign is mounted overhead, and on the bottom when it is placed to the side of the road.  While I have great sympathy for the apparent motivation of preventing overhead exit direction signs being misinterpreted as showing lane drops when the arrow is at bottom, I am not aware of research showing that motorists err in this way with any frequency.  I also see the potential for this change to cause more problems than it solves.  In almost 20 years of examining sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets, I have yet to see an agency that already observes this distinction in its guide signing practice.  Unless FHWA were to mandate early replacement of signs (at significant cost), it would therefore take at least a full sign replacement cycle for there to be enough consistency in arrow deployment (compliant to the proposed standard) for motorists to pick up on a pattern.  It would also generate added cost by taking away the flexibility to position the arrow so that sign panel area is at a minimum while maintaining appropriate space padding.  In marginal cases, it could even force replacement of overhead signbridges and cantilever structures.  I would respectfully suggest that FHWA not proceed with this change unless and until it is clear the benefits outweigh the costs.

199--I agree in general with the proposal to elevate from Guidance to Standard the ban on redundant word "Exit" on the main sign panel when an exit tab is present.  However, this could have the unintended effect of preventing agencies from adding exit numbering to freeways that currently lack it (something they are encouraged to do) simply by retrofitting exit tabs to signs in the field.  Iowa DOT did this for its non-Interstate freeways in the early 2000's, as did Caltrans in its District 2 (far northern California) when it first rolled out exit numbering in 2002.  I believe Georgia DOT in the 1970's was unusual, possibly unique, among state transportation agencies in removing the word "Exit" and re-centering the distance legend when retrofitting exit tabs.

200--I support the proposed change requiring interchange sequence signs to show distances just to the next two or three exits.  However, I can foresee this change attracting opposition from agencies that use a hybrid sign in the transition to rural areas that shows the distance to the next exit or two followed by the distance to the next town.  (Colorado DOT has at least one example on I-25 north of Denver.)

201--I agree with the suggested change calling for exit tabs for right exits to be right-mounted.  The time is ripe for this provision, since signs with center-mounted tabs are becoming rarer and rarer in the field.

214--As reconstruction does not preclude the persistence of geometric features for which traditional (stippled-arrow) diagrammatic guide signs are useful, these should also be allowed at locations deemed reconstructed.  I also have reservations about FHWA's proposal to include new figures showing divergences with long narrow gores.  The principle of uniformity in signing would suggest that the same signs should be used regardless of gore shape.  In these proposed figures, FHWA is mixing APLs with pull-throughs and exit direction signs that perform lane assignment (other figures show just an APL without distance expression where an exit direction sign would otherwise be used).  Moreover, multiple APLs without distance expression are used in succession:  how does the motorist know which of these is actually at the exit?  (At lane drops without option lane, an advance guide sign within a quarter-mile of the exit--which is allowed not to have a distance expression--is still distinguishable from the exit direction sign since the lane arrow points down rather than up and to the side.)  I also find it troubling that in one of the figures, the gore sign has an arrow pointing downward and to the side.  It violates positive guidance by clashing with the upward-pointing lane arrows on the exit direction sign.  Moreover, could motorists misinterpret this as indicating a sharper-than-usual curve on exit?  (Some agencies use gore signs with horizontal arrows for exit ramps that curve sharply.)

215--To limit message loading, I support the proposal to require agencies not to use diagrammatics or overhead arrow-per-lane signs to perform lane assignment downstream of the split.  However, I am aware of many installed examples (especially of APLs) that do this, and suspect agencies will continue to erect such signs in defiance of a MUTCD prohibition.  However, I do not support the proposed alternative change except insofar as it allows "sawn-off" APLs.  Stippled-arrow diagrammatics retain value as a mechanism for advising drivers of unusual road geometry, and should be left in the toolbox.

216--I support the proposal to add sawn-off APLs to the MUTCD.  However, I disagree with the design approach shown in the proposed figures.  The legend block (shield and destination) appears to be horizontally centered on the "Exit" and "Only" patches, and for a narrow block such as is shown in the figures (one shield plus a short destination), this leaves a large amount of empty green space on the left side of the sign.  While this might have value in setting off the route and destination as being reached by exiting, it gives the sign an unbalanced appearance, and it is unclear what happens with wide legend blocks, such as might result from multiple shields and a long destination.  Agencies that have actually tried sawn-off APLs in the field have invariably centered the legend block on the total width of the sign.  This approach yields a much cleaner appearance and is more forgiving of long placenames.  I doubt a sign comprehension study would show any benefit to additional green space on one side of the sign.  (As an aside, I would like to highlight the wisdom of stress-testing innovative sign designs--such as APLs, sawn-off or not--against real-world placenames, the more unwieldy the better, rather than short ones like "Medford," "Dover," "Concord," and "Pomona."  Design rules for diagrammatics have stood the test of time for 50 years partly because the first signs were tried in areas with long placenames like "Washington," "Frederick," "Baltimore," and "Democracy Blvd.")

220--I have reservations about the proposal to ban pictographs (other than ones related to transit systems) on supplemental guide signs.  It is footnoted to a study that references sports team logos, yet it seems it would have the effect of banning the train station symbol, the Amtrak logo, and various transit agency logos, all of which have been used on freeway guide signs.

227--The accompanying figure shows exit numbers used for intersections at grade.  While I understand the desire to maintain continuity in distance-based numbering on expressway sections of a route that is otherwise freeway, I think exit tabs either should not be used at all, or some word other than "Exit" (which implies grade separation) should be used on number tabs for these intersections.

647--As part of this change, FHWA proposes a Standard statement that would govern how the Clearview typefaces are used on traffic signs in the United States.  Only Clearview 5-W would be allowed, and only for destination legend (not cardinal direction words, distance expressions, or other generic elements such as word "Exit" in tabs) on freeway and expressway guide signs.  The required interline spacing would be based on the actual lowercase loop height of Clearview (84% of capital letter height), rather than that of the FHWA series (75%).  I interpret this as an attempt to close the book on Clearview, recognizing that revocation of the interim approval in 2016 failed to stick because Congressional representatives from Clearview-using states such as Texas had enough leverage to force its reinstatement.  However, I believe FHWA's suggested language needs some refinement.  First, I disagree with the proposed name "Series E (modified)-Alternate" for Clearview 5-W (a humanist typeface), as I consider this likely to mislead people into thinking it is typographically similar to the other FHWA alphabet series (all gothic typefaces and part of the same family, at varying levels of condensation).  I suggest that it simply be called by its actual name--"Clearview 5-W"--and be described as an alternate to Series E Modified in freeway/expressway guide signing applications.  I also do not think it is necessary to restrict Clearview 5-W just to destination legend as long as it is used only in positive contrast and not within any type of route marker (such as the Interstate shield) where digits appear in positive contrast.  Few agencies have observed the nicety of confining Clearview to destination legend; Texas and Michigan have not, for example.  Also, in 18 years of collecting tens of thousands of sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets for signs that use Clearview, I have seen hardly any where the interline spacing used is 84% capital letter height, rather than the 75% that is usual for the FHWA series.  Clearview was designed to work with 75% interline spacing to keep sign height the same when it is swapped in for Series E Modified.  (If Clearview 5-W-R is used, width also stays the same.)  In the absence of compelling evidence of motorist benefit from 84% spacing, I fully expect agencies to continue designing signs for 75%.

[mass_citizen]

The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

I wasn't aware that odometers can give you both past and future mileage.  I must be missing that.  Mine seems to be stuck in "past" mode.

I didn't know exit signs were time travelers 

If you need future mileage to your next exit, GPS is the common way to go about that if you're unfamiliar with the area. Even gives you the minutes to your exit!

[mass_citizen]

The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

While driving, yes. But exit numbers are also used while not driving, such as while planning a trip.

How do you plan a trip using exit numbers? Would you get these exit numbers off a paper map? Regardless paper maps usually have scales. If planning electronically rather than a map, then your turn-by-turn directions would include mileage between entrance and exit of the highway.

Not being sarcastic just wondering about the practicality of planning a trip like this, other than for a hobbyist like ourselves.

[mass_citizen]

220--I have reservations about the proposal to ban pictographs (other than ones related to transit systems) on supplemental guide signs.  It is footnoted to a study that references sports team logos, yet it seems it would have the effect of banning the train station symbol, the Amtrak logo, and various transit agency logos, all of which have been used on freeway guide signs.

I made a similar comment. The sports logo study is obscure and I can't seem to find it despite extensive google searching.

[ran4sh]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

[MCRoads]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I am not saying it would need to be placed at every lane merge in the country, but just as a supplemental sign in places where drivers need a reminder to use all of the lane. A highway going from 2 lanes to 1 lane over a long distance, where traffic almost never stops, won't need it.

But an interstate that drops a lane in a busy part of town, where traffic can come to a complete stop, and where drivers might not want to risk having to be stuck at the end of the lane, might need it, as a reminder to use the full length of the lane, because it's there.

Another sign that might go well with this might be a "TAKE TURNS MERGING"  sign.

[mass_citizen]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

Agreed on both counts. The comments are filled with city minded bike advocates.

[Scott5114]

The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

While driving, yes. But exit numbers are also used while not driving, such as while planning a trip.

How do you plan a trip using exit numbers? Would you get these exit numbers off a paper map? Regardless paper maps usually have scales. If planning electronically rather than a map, then your turn-by-turn directions would include mileage between entrance and exit of the highway.

Not being sarcastic just wondering about the practicality of planning a trip like this, other than for a hobbyist like ourselves.

If not planning a trip using something like Google Maps, I usually get the entry and exit numbers, and exit sign text, off of the Wikipedia page for that route. A state DOT map or commercial atlas is also a good source for exit numbers.

Calculating distance by map scale is usually pretty burdensome because roads normally do not run perfectly straight, making measurement with a straightedged ruler prone to error. Smaller jogs in the routing may be simplified on a large-scale map, further introducing error in the distance obtained by measuring in this way. Not to mention measuring the map with a ruler and multiplying according to the scale is kind of a pain in the ass anyway. It is much simpler to get distance accurate to within a mile by simply subtracting the entry and exit numbers from one other.

Calculating remaining time toward destination by using exit number and milepost subtraction is a good way to keep oneself mentally engaged during long solo trips.

[J N Winkler]

I've used addition and subtraction of exit numbers for distance estimation, though I accept an error bar of perhaps five miles for cross-state trips since routes don't always have true milepointing.  Paper maps also tend to indicate distances from exits along the state highways they serve, so it's possible to add up distances on either side of a short hop on a freeway.  But Google Maps allows us to be lazy (when wifi or data is available).

[Amtrakprod]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

[ran4sh]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

Have you read what the comments are saying? Certain anti-car people believe that the MUTCD can just be eliminated, and are basically advocating for that. Some of the recent comments are advocating for things like removing the 85th percentile rule for determination of appropriate speed limits (obviously they believe that speed limits should be something like 20 on city streets and 45 or 50 on highways).

If you don't think that hurts rural areas, then I don't know what to tell you.

[vdeane]

The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

I wasn't aware that odometers can give you both past and future mileage.  I must be missing that.  Mine seems to be stuck in "past" mode.

I didn't know exit signs were time travelers 

If you need future mileage to your next exit, GPS is the common way to go about that if you're unfamiliar with the area. Even gives you the minutes to your exit!

I don't use GPS.  I'd much rather navigate myself and choose the roads I use.  I plan my trips out in advance and then write the directions down onto the back of a receipt so I can reference them in the car.  The only thing I use the Google Maps driving directions for are to get travel times and to save a link to the route for further planning and when I copy it down; inevitably I have a ton of routing points set (because if I didn't, I'd have just memorized the whole thing in the first place, though I usually have most of it remembered anyways).  For roads with exit numbers, I always write down the exit number along with the road name or route number.

[stevashe]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

Have you read what the comments are saying? Certain anti-car people believe that the MUTCD can just be eliminated, and are basically advocating for that. Some of the recent comments are advocating for things like removing the 85th percentile rule for determination of appropriate speed limits (obviously they believe that speed limits should be something like 20 on city streets and 45 or 50 on highways).

If you don't think that hurts rural areas, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think you're misunderstanding this, actually. All of the things you are talking about are, or would be, options or guidance within the MUTCD, so they are non-binding and can be applied as engineers see fit. For example, the fact that the MUTCD allows carpool lane signage that obviously makes no sense in rural areas doesn't mean they're being installed across the country, does it?

And as for the 85th Percentile being used to set speed limits, it's actually proposed to be ADDED as a general option for speed limit setting guidance in any situation, which doesn't make sense. In the 2009 MUTCD, it only mentions the 85th percentile speed for setting speed zones. (and again, it's only Guidance)

[ran4sh]

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

Have you read what the comments are saying? Certain anti-car people believe that the MUTCD can just be eliminated, and are basically advocating for that. Some of the recent comments are advocating for things like removing the 85th percentile rule for determination of appropriate speed limits (obviously they believe that speed limits should be something like 20 on city streets and 45 or 50 on highways).

If you don't think that hurts rural areas, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think you're misunderstanding this, actually. All of the things you are talking about are, or would be, options or guidance within the MUTCD, so they are non-binding and can be applied as engineers see fit. For example, the fact that the MUTCD allows carpool lane signage that obviously makes no sense in rural areas doesn't mean they're being installed across the country, does it?

And as for the 85th Percentile being used to set speed limits, it's actually proposed to be ADDED as a general option for speed limit setting guidance in any situation, which doesn't make sense. In the 2009 MUTCD, it only mentions the 85th percentile speed for setting speed zones. (and again, it's only Guidance)

You're assuming that the proposed text will be approved as is. I hope that's true, at least for the parts that urban lovers object to; but the whole point of public comment is to obtain the opinions of the public, and potentially account for them.

[SkyPesos]

With the talk of exit numbers here, I added a third column called "exact exit numbers" on one of my fictional exits lists for a Missouri freeway currently without exit numbers. The second column has some rounding allowed to use as little suffixes as possible, and the third column matches each exit to the respective milepost, with no exceptions. Posting it here to see which one the community prefers more.

[jamess]

I saw it on my phone, and naturally cant find it anymore, but there was an interesting tweet thread about how many of the warrant criteria are identical to the 1930s editions.