MUTCD gripes

[SignBridge]

I assume you guys called in that malfunctioning signal to the appropriate agency for repair, right?

[jakeroot]

I assume you guys called in that malfunctioning signal to the appropriate agency for repair, right?

Never did think to mention it to them. Probably why it's still broken!

I have sent them an issue report via the "Tacoma 311" app.

[SignBridge]

Isn't there a direct phone number to the Traffic Signal Agency that you can call? Here on Long Island the County and New York State DOT both have advertised telephone numbers to report traffic signal problems.

[jakeroot]

Isn't there a direct phone number to the Traffic Signal Agency that you can call? Here on Long Island the County and New York State DOT both have advertised telephone numbers to report traffic signal problems.

In case my 311 request doesn't go through, I called their after-hours line and they took the information.

I generally prefer written requests, as I like to keep a record of them. In WA, audio recording requires consent from both parties, so audio recordings for record-keeping purposes are usually a waste of time.

[J N Winkler]

Doesn't France go so far as to actually stagger their shoulder markings to the appropriate following distance (rather than use signs)?

I have heard that suggested as the intended purpose of the broken shoulder stripe used on motorways and grade-separated dual carriageways in France.  And I do remember seeing upright signs on the autoroute with the message "Un trait--danger!  Deux traits--sécurité!" (Trait can mean line in French, though ligne is the more obvious choice for English speakers with little fluency in French.)  However, I have not found an official source that confirms allowing drivers to check their following distance as a design motivation.  The stripe in question is type T4, with a skip cycle of 52 m, consisting of a 39 m dash with a 13 m break.  Two dashes between vehicles is a separation of 91 m minimum, which is a bit longer than a two-second following distance at 130 km/h (72 m).

[tckma]

I would be delighted to get rid of "Left Lane Must Turn Left" and "Right Lane Must Turn Right" because they are impossible to tell apart at a distance in situations where

I would add to that the "All Traffic Must Turn Right" signs which I've mistaken for LLMTL / RLMTR signage at a distance.

Yesterday I even saw a "Delivery Trucks Turn Left Ahead" or something to that effect in the same 2 word/1 word/2 word black-on-white all caps style as all three of the above, to confusion with an LLMTL.  This is a newer sign too, as it's when passing a brand new Wal-Mart (on Monocacy Blvd in Frederick, MD).

( back after a slight pause to correct that to "Delivery Trucks Next Left," since astonishingly, GMSV has recently updated: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4502017,-77.3882979,3a,51y,318.91h,92.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syDTGUpwh9Yu1_JHT6XbjCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 )

[roadfro]

My gripes with the MUTCD, where do I even start...

Given that I started a thread some years back about how US road signs could be improved from a European (or International) perspective, my biggest gripe is the verbosity and non-usage of pictograms. Tied to this is another big issue, namely the lack of modularity when it comes to signage. Instead of fewer, but different signs that can be reused in various configurations, it seems the MUTCD tries to come up with a single sign for every possible situation. This is especially apparent regarding parking and related signs, as well as all the (in my opinion) unnecessary signs like:

• "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
• "STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS" (Use pedestrian crossing signs and regular STOP sign)
• "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)

There are also plently of pictogram signs that have their older text-only variant still remaining in the MUTCD for no good reason.

My gripes with the MUTCD, where do I even start...

Given that I started a thread some years back about how US road signs could be improved from a European (or International) perspective, my biggest gripe is the verbosity and non-usage of pictograms. Tied to this is another big issue, namely the lack of modularity when it comes to signage. Instead of fewer, but different signs that can be reused in various configurations, it seems the MUTCD tries to come up with a single sign for every possible situation. This is especially apparent regarding parking and related signs, as well as all the (in my opinion) unnecessary signs like:

• "LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT" (Use road markings and lane guidance signs)
• "STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS" (Use pedestrian crossing signs and regular STOP sign)
• "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" (Really? It's a basic rule of the road)

There are also plently of pictogram signs that have their older text-only variant still remaining in the MUTCD for no good reason.

In general, I agree with you that the US MUTCD should employee more symbolization. The 2009 version took a bigger step than had been seen in quite some time, introducing new symbols and removing some word messages (e.g. finally removing "stop ahead" and "yield ahead" text signs, despite the symbol versions having been around for a few decades). But there is more work to do...

I will disagree with your solution to "stop here for pedestrians" though. This sign is often posted in conjunction with the peed crossing sign. But adding a normal stop sign would go against driver expectancy at mid-block crossings, not to mention it would require drivers to make a full stop at any crosswalk even in the absence of pedestrians.

[paulthemapguy]

The MUTCD needs to require more clarity about when to use black-on-yellow "exit only" signage--and they also need to stop downright promoting the use of symbology that isn't clear.  If my assumptions are correct, the use of black-on-yellow warning sign colors is to warn drivers that they will be forced off the highway if they stay in that lane, with no option to continue straight.  Because of this, I opine that any two-lane exit must have a yellow exit tab and corresponding black arrow for the right lane; both lanes if the second lane isn't an option lane.  I think the MUTCD should change their language so that option lanes are not included in any yellow "exit only" text or symbology.  All three examples below are from the MUTCD, and all three are wrong, in my opinion.  I've seen places where the exit only tab covers only a portion of a sign's bottom edge, as is appropriate--locations in Washington State and Ohio come to mind. (Though Ohio is inconsistent.)





20181010_151638 by Paul Drives, on Flickr; 20181010_151640 by Paul Drives, on Flickr; 20181010_151640 by Paul Drives, on Flickr

Real-life good examples:


WA-I-5X011N by Paul Drives, on Flickr


OH-I-75X032S by Paul Drives, on Flickr

Real-life bad examples that follow the MUTCD's arguable guidance:


IL-I-80X145W by Paul Drives, on Flickr


WI-US51-029WS by Paul Drives, on Flickr

APL's do a good job of clearing up the ambiguity of what you can do in the second lane from the right.  Note how the "exit only" text is only on the right lane:


IL-I-355X20ANG by Paul Drives, on Flickr

So yeah.  My gripe is that option lanes are included in "exit only" content, and they shouldn't be.

Note:  Please don't quote this entire post in any responses lol

[US 89]

Note:  Please don't quote this entire post in any responses lol

Don't worry, I didn't. 

I agree completely; for me, this is the single most objectionable feature of the MUTCD. Before 2011 or so (which I guess is when the new MUTCD went into effect), Utah always installed signs like this:



Since then, Utah hasn't really been clear about what to do. There are several examples of them using the MUTCD guidance, such as this one:



But more commonly, UDOT will use partial APLs for these situations:



While the partial APLs aren't bad, I really wish we could go back to the pre-2009 versions.

[jakeroot]

No idea what the data shows on partial variations, but APLs have been shown to aid in driver recognition of option lane exits.

While I have no qualms with white arrows being used over a lane, I would prefer the arrows be designed to indicate what maneuver that lane performs.

Not sure it relates to Paul's post above, but I would also like to see exit only signs changed to black on white. I've never understood the idea of exit only signs being a warning. Technically, every regulatory sign is in itself a warning. Why exactly the exit only sign is special, I don't know.

[Max Rockatansky]

Mine is simple, the US Route shield design is ugly and bland looking.  As shitty as California is with signage standards at minimum I get to see cut-out shields with a eye catching design. 

[J N Winkler]

The condition being warned of by an "Exit Only" panel or patch is failure of the lane indicated to continue on the same roadway.  In this sense it is conceptually similar to lane-ends warning signs.  This does not preclude the simultaneous use of regulatory signs to indicate the compulsory nature of the lane drop (as shown in the current MUTCD), in a manner analogous to lane assignment signs for turn-only lanes on surface streets.

In the late 1960's and early 1970's when lane drop signing was being developed, some jurisdictions used yellow background for the "Exit Only" message while others used white.  The language itself varied--"Must Exit" and "Right Lane Must Exit" were common.  Yellow and "Exit Only" were simply the combination FHWA adopted when such signing was finally standardized in 1978.

I suspect yellow was and to an extent still remains the more natural choice than white, because up until 2009 agencies had two main sets of options for signing multilane exits involving lane drops.  The one that was diagrammed in the MUTCD up to the 2003 edition is what I call the "Lunenfeld & Alexander" approach, because it was the one recommended in a 1976 FHWA report by Harold Lunenfeld and Gerson Alexander.  It calls for a pull-through sign with lane arrows always to be provided so that there are two arrows over the option lane, and no "Exit Only" panels or patches whatsoever on either the pull-through or advance guide/exit direction sign.  The other approach, which became popular with agencies having to oversee major metropolitan freeway networks (such as Caltrans and TxDOT), is what I call "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander."  It calls for "Exit Only" panels or patches for the lanes that actually drop and a white-on-green arrow for the option lane.  Pull-through signs do not have to be provided, and at service interchanges frequently aren't.  The non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach was never diagrammed in the MUTCD but was allowable under a widely accepted interpretation of the MUTCD language.

The issue with these two approaches co-existing is that warning signs are basically a matter of engineer discretion, while regulatory signs are typically placed to effectuate a regulation.  It is less impairing to uniformity to have warnings provided in some places and not in others than it is to have the same situation subject to regulatory signs in one place and not in another.

The 2009 MUTCD lays out basically two types of options for signing multilane exits involving lane drops.  One is APL, which did very well in simple tachistoscope studies but tends to fall down in complex real-world situations owing to past failures to follow the directive "Never build what you cannot sign."  The other arose (if memory serves) out of a study carried out by Jonathan Upchurch at the University of Massachusetts in 2003.  The basic idea is to "hide" the option lane so that an arrow (with accompanying "Exit Only" panel/patch) for the added lane after the diverge is visible only on an exit direction sign that is itself situated after the diverge.  Many agencies have cantilever sign structures situated upstream of the diverge to accommodate old-school non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs, and I suspect at least some of them have been fudging by simply putting the option lane arrow in black against yellow in an otherwise carbon-copied design.

[MNHighwayMan]

snip

snip

Or you can just have wild inconsistency. Four examples from Des Moines area freeways, all with an option lane and an exiting lane. Only the first example is anywhere close to good, IMO:









I really hope future MUTCD changes disallow this sort of thing/address it more clearly. But this isn't a one-sided affair, either; engineers and DOTs also have to enforce consistency to get consistency.

[jakeroot]

The condition being warned of by an "Exit Only" panel or patch is failure of the lane indicated to continue on the same roadway.  In this sense it is conceptually similar to lane-ends warning signs.  This does not preclude the simultaneous use of regulatory signs to indicate the compulsory nature of the lane drop (as shown in the current MUTCD), in a manner analogous to lane assignment signs for turn-only lanes on surface streets.

But even R3-5 signs are optional. I don't see them at every intersection involving a lane that suddenly goes from through to turn-only (equivalent to "exit only" situations). Most often in my area, these are signed only with pavement markings: https://goo.gl/9qW9Ua

If I understand correctly, guide signs that use the terminology "right only" or "left only" should be black-on-white, but those with "exit only" or "lane ends" should be yellow? Perhaps we should consider adding a third movement for regulatory purposes: "exit".

[vdeane]

Freeways and surface roads are entirely different animals.  For one thing, "exit only" lanes are generally signed a LOT earlier than turn lanes.  Plus exit only lanes do not have the force of law; they are warning that the lane leaves the road, not that all traffic in the lane must make a turn (since intersections and interchanges are themselves very different).  Legally, there is no obligation to move over at the first sign, but a regulatory message would imply such.

[paulthemapguy]

The condition being warned of by an "Exit Only" panel or patch is failure of the lane indicated to continue on the same roadway.  In this sense it is conceptually similar to lane-ends warning signs.

This is the assumption I made about why exit only tabs have been black-on-yellow.  It's like "hey, warning-this lane is ending unless you're trying to exit!"  Which reminds me of another MUTCD gripe--on surface streets, merge signs are suggestions and not requirements.  WHAT!?  Merging is one of the most dangerous hazards on a surface road!  At least get the symbolic lane ends sign in there! (W4-2)

Or you can just have wild inconsistency. Four examples from Des Moines area freeways, all with an option lane and an exiting lane. Only the first example is anywhere close to good, IMO: (buncha images)

The example I showed in Ohio is far from the rule in that state...plenty of Ohio BGS's put black and yellow over option lanes.  Some states like Illinois fail every time at this, some fail sometimes, and some are good about showing option lanes.  As more states adopt APL's, I expect an uptick in clarity on which lanes are option lanes.

[J N Winkler]

Or you can just have wild inconsistency.

In Iowa this has much to do with Iowa DOT's piecemeal approach to sign replacement.  There are typically about two pure signing contracts each year per Iowa DOT district, plus usually at least one signing contract attached to each large turnkey project as it is advertised.  The district contracts provide for isolated sign replacements (I suspect the signs to replace are chosen on the basis of some proxy for dilapidation such as age), and even the large projects tend to be fairly local in scope, so in Iowa you never see signs upgraded/replaced/brought up to standard throughout an entire corridor like you do in Kansas, Texas, Missouri, and so on.

Four examples from Des Moines area freeways, all with an option lane and an exiting lane. Only the first example is anywhere close to good, IMO:

The classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach would have saved sign panel area and, in my view, been as easy to understand.  (Iowa is far from the only state to try to get clever with non-Lunenfeld & Alexander; Kansas and Alabama have also experimented with nonstandard layouts.  Odd treatment for bottom border aside, TxDOT had perhaps the best implementation of the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach.)

This is a recent installation and is 100% by the book.

These are definitely problematic, but for different reasons.  The first looks like an attempt to re-use a 1980's sign designed for a simple lane drop with a new option lane created through restriping.  And the second looks like an attempt to save on sign structure cost by making one structure do the work both of a final advance guide sign (one downward-pointing arrow) and an exit direction sign (two downward-pointing arrows), with bad border design to boot.

I really hope future MUTCD changes disallow this sort of thing/address it more clearly. But this isn't a one-sided affair, either; engineers and DOTs also have to enforce consistency to get consistency.

The "hide option lane" approach gets a lot of stick and I don't often see it applied in the field.  It would not surprise me if, instead of going back to the old regime with non-Lunenfeld & Alexander signs, FHWA adds sawn-off APLs to the MUTCD in the expectation that they will become the norm at service interchanges.

[jakeroot]

Freeways and surface roads are entirely different animals.  For one thing, "exit only" lanes are generally signed a LOT earlier than turn lanes.  Plus exit only lanes do not have the force of law; they are warning that the lane leaves the road, not that all traffic in the lane must make a turn (since intersections and interchanges are themselves very different).  Legally, there is no obligation to move over at the first sign, but a regulatory message would imply such.

How about we just dump down arrows and exit only messages entirely, and just move to up arrows pointing in the correct direction?

[hbelkins]

The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable. If course, I'm sure the new MUTCD will scrap the diagrammatics (which I like) in favor of those OAPL monstrosities, which I hate.

[jemacedo9]

The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.

THIS.  The problem IMO is that many DOTs don't pay attention to this fact - that sign placement is pretty specific and makes a big difference.

[riiga]

How about we just dump down arrows and exit only messages entirely, and just move to up arrows pointing in the correct direction?

Seconded.

[jeffandnicole]

The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.

THIS.  The problem IMO is that many DOTs don't pay attention to this fact - that sign placement is pretty specific and makes a big difference.

Both of these.

If the sign is prior to the lane split, the arrow over the option lane is white on green.  When it's after the split, as is shown on the referenced MUTCD pages, then both lanes are properly shown as black on yellow.

Note: Even if APLs are used prior to the lane split, the referenced locations of the signs and the style of BGS used is still accurate.

[US 89]

The "incorrect examples" posted from the MUTCD are actually very correct, and are based on placement of the sign. If you'll notice, the sign is located overhead right at the gore point, where each lane is clearly identifiable.

THIS.  The problem IMO is that many DOTs don't pay attention to this fact - that sign placement is pretty specific and makes a big difference.

Both of these.

If the sign is prior to the lane split, the arrow over the option lane is white on green.  When it's after the split, as is shown on the referenced MUTCD pages, then both lanes are properly shown as black on yellow.

Note: Even if APLs are used prior to the lane split, the referenced locations of the signs and the style of BGS used is still accurate.

The problem is that the 2009 vanilla MUTCD has no way of showing option lanes prior to the lane split on overhead signage. The overhead signage only shows the dropped lane; the only indications that an option lane exists are arrows painted on the pavement and small R3-8 signs posted on the side of the road. That to me is misleading. It's shown on page 24 of this PDF.

The Utah version of the MUTCD solves this problem by using the partial APLs posted above, and also scrapping the R3-8 signs. See pages 278 and 279 of the Utah MUTCD. (warning: large PDF file size)



Also, quick clarifying question: I assume the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach is something like this, with the dropped lane in yellow and the option lane outside the "exit only" yellow section:



And would the Lunenfeld-Alexander approach be something like this? That third (well, fourth if you count the HOT) lane is an option lane for the I-80 exit.


(apologies for the poor picture quality: it was snowing at the time)

[J N Winkler]

If the sign is prior to the lane split, the arrow over the option lane is white on green.

This is the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach and is no longer allowed.  As US 89 points out, the current MUTCD now requires practitioners to "hide" the option lane on the advance guide signs, by furnishing downward-pointing arrows and "Exit Only" messages only for the lanes that actually drop.

When it's after the split, as is shown on the referenced MUTCD pages, then both lanes are properly shown as black on yellow.

Yes.

Edit:

Also, quick clarifying question . . .

Yes--both of the photos you post show good examples respectively of the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander and the Lunenfeld & Alexander approaches.

Lunenfeld and Alexander's 1976 report Signing treatments for interchange lane drops is actually online now.  There are numerous photo illustrations of the different approaches then in use.  (Uniformity has since improved somewhat, but not by much.)

[kphoger]

Back before I knew the MUTCD had changed its guidance on all of this, I brought up what I thought was an error in the Kellogg/KTA construction plans with a friend of mine whose firm was involved in the process.  The plans called for a double-lane yellow exit only panel, and I told him that the second lane was going to be an option lane and shouldn't be like that.  He escalated it to his boss, who agreed with me and in turn escalated it further up the chain.  Someone up the chain figured out that it was in fact in keeping with current MUTCD guidance for option lanes, and that's how I first found out about the change.