News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

2011 Virginia Supplement to the MUTCD

Started by mtantillo, August 02, 2011, 05:46:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mtantillo

Drumroll...........!!

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/virginia_mutcd_supplement.asp

I played a pretty big role in the writing/production of this document (and though I did not have ultimate decision on any content, I did provide input). 

Enjoy!!

Oh, and for those who are not a fan of "unishields", check out Part 2, Page 99, Paragraph 5.   :biggrin:


Alex

Item 03 on page 2-87 (pdf 97) 
QuoteInterstate Route signs shall not contain the state name
:thumbdown:

pdf 99:
QuoteRoute signs and their auxiliary signs should not be combined on a single sign with a black background
Nice Mike! :thumbsup:

hbelkins



Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

mtantillo

They're ugly.  Just make the background green and make a guide sign out of it if it must be on one piece of metal. 

Ian

Quote from: Alex on August 02, 2011, 06:56:24 PM
Item 03 on page 2-87 (pdf 97) 
QuoteInterstate Route signs shall not contain the state name
:thumbdown:

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

WillWeaverRVA

Newer unisigns are pretty damn ugly, see Richmond's for a good example of this.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

topay

I don't post too often on here, but I am glad to see a thread on the Virginia Supplement (I, too, played a significant role in developing this from the VDOT end).  Believe me, there were definitely some twists and turns in developing this baby!

As for the unisigns, I agree that some are just downright ugly!  For that reason, and to strengthen the MUTCD's "single guide sign....should be green" language, we added the extra sentence discouraging the use of black-background unisigns.

If it makes anyone feel any better, the "Interstate Route signs shall not contain the state name" standard was not a unanimous vote (I personally would rather this have been a "should" statement).  It'll be interesting to see if any localities adopt this and then use state-name shields anyway!

1995hoo

It will be a while before I finish looking at it and so I only have a couple of comments for now.

I like sign R10-30 ("Right Turn on Red Must Yield to U-Turn") and I can think of a lot of intersections where that sign should be used.

The part about prohibiting the "Stop Here for Pedestrians" was interesting because of all the publicity about stopping for pedestrians. Sure enough, the statute does indeed say you must yield, not that you must stop, although yielding obviously might include stopping. Interesting point of which I had not been aware. I mentioned it to the car-haters on Greater Greater Washington and it'll be funny to see how much complaining and nastiness it sparks there.

I've always thought that the category termed "Headlight Use Signs" (especially R16-5) ought to have a black-on-yellow "State Law" banner at the top, similar to Maryland's warning signs about mobile phone usage. It calls more attention to a sign that, quite frankly, has always seemed like just another of the jumble of annoying signs you see after you cross the state line.

Virginia has been using the W3-5 "Reduced Speed Limit Ahead" graphical sign for several years and I've always liked it better than the "Reduced Speed Ahead" sign for two reasons–(1) it tells you what the new speed limit is and (2) "Reduced Speed Ahead" is grammatically incorrect because it is the speed LIMIT that is reduced (North Carolina's version that says "Reduce Speed Ahead" is grammatically correct because the sign is telling drivers they will have to reduce their speed to comply with a reduced speed limit).

Interesting to see M1-6 ("County Route Sign") in there because insofar as I'm aware, Virginia does not use that sign anywhere, at least not that I've ever seen.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

froggie

QuoteThey're ugly.  Just make the background green and make a guide sign out of it if it must be on one piece of metal.

Which is what MnDOT does.


QuoteIt'll be interesting to see if any localities adopt this and then use state-name shields anyway!

Considering that VDOT maintains the Interstates regardless of locality status (i.e. independent city), the only places one would see these is on the side street/road approaches in independent cities or Arlington/Henrico Counties.

QuoteI like sign R10-30 ("Right Turn on Red Must Yield to U-Turn") and I can think of a lot of intersections where that sign should be used.

Down on my corner at Route 1 and Huntington for starters.  Though if VDOT is going to go that route, they should also remove the doghouse right signal.

NE2

Quote from: froggie on August 03, 2011, 09:25:01 AM
Considering that VDOT maintains the Interstates regardless of locality status (i.e. independent city), the only places one would see these is on the side street/road approaches in independent cities or Arlington/Henrico Counties.
Don't many towns maintain their own roads and signs?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

froggie

There might be exceptions here and there, but as a general rule, VDOT maintains all town roads.

mtantillo

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 03, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
The part about prohibiting the "Stop Here for Pedestrians" was interesting because of all the publicity about stopping for pedestrians. Sure enough, the statute does indeed say you must yield, not that you must stop, although yielding obviously might include stopping. Interesting point of which I had not been aware. I mentioned it to the car-haters on Greater Greater Washington and it'll be funny to see how much complaining and nastiness it sparks there.

Problem is, in the Federal MUTCD, there is language saying that you can only use the "stop for pedestrians" when the state law says "stop for pedestrians".  If the state law says "yield to pedestrians", you can't use "stop".  The Code of Virginia says "yield".  In Maryland and DC, the rule is stop. 

mtantillo

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 03, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
Interesting to see M1-6 ("County Route Sign") in there because insofar as I'm aware, Virginia does not use that sign anywhere, at least not that I've ever seen.

Theoretically, a county that maintains their own roads (Arlington or Henrico) could develop a numbered route system.  If so, according to the Federal MUTCD, they would be required to use the blue pentagon shields. 

NE2

Quote from: froggie on August 03, 2011, 10:22:02 AM
There might be exceptions here and there, but as a general rule, VDOT maintains all town roads.

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/hiway_markers/Localities%20Responsible%20for%20Highway%20Marker%20Installation%20and%20Maintenance.pdf lists the towns that are responsible for their own Historical Highway Markers. If you look at the VDOT traffic count PDFs, these towns lack the VDOT district number after the town name in the jurisdiction column (for primary routes; in a few of these towns VDOT maintains primary routes but not other streets) and under the route number in the shield (for secondary routes).
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

1995hoo

#14
Quote from: NE2 on August 03, 2011, 10:07:36 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 03, 2011, 09:25:01 AM
Considering that VDOT maintains the Interstates regardless of locality status (i.e. independent city), the only places one would see these is on the side street/road approaches in independent cities or Arlington/Henrico Counties.
Don't many towns maintain their own roads and signs?

In Virginia, a town is not fully independent of the surrounding county the way an independent city is. As froggie mentions, that means normally VDOT is responsible.


Quote from: mtantillo on August 03, 2011, 11:35:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 03, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
The part about prohibiting the "Stop Here for Pedestrians" was interesting because of all the publicity about stopping for pedestrians. Sure enough, the statute does indeed say you must yield, not that you must stop, although yielding obviously might include stopping. Interesting point of which I had not been aware. I mentioned it to the car-haters on Greater Greater Washington and it'll be funny to see how much complaining and nastiness it sparks there.

Problem is, in the Federal MUTCD, there is language saying that you can only use the "stop for pedestrians" when the state law says "stop for pedestrians".  If the state law says "yield to pedestrians", you can't use "stop".  The Code of Virginia says "yield".  In Maryland and DC, the rule is stop.  

Yeah, the explanation in the state supplement was completely clear, and I looked up the statute after I saw it. I was just surprised to learn that that is indeed the law in Virginia, that's all. I don't see any "problem" with it and I think that, at least in theory, a requirement to yield to a pedestrian makes more sense than an automatic requirement to stop (although I also recognize that driver behavior can make the practical effect of it problematic).



Quote from: froggie on August 03, 2011, 09:25:01 AM
....

QuoteI like sign R10-30 ("Right Turn on Red Must Yield to U-Turn") and I can think of a lot of intersections where that sign should be used.

Down on my corner at Route 1 and Huntington for starters.  Though if VDOT is going to go that route, they should also remove the doghouse right signal.


I can think of at least one corner off the top of my head (eastbound Edsall Road at South Van Dorn Street) where there is no doghouse right signal and the right-on-red maneuver conflicts with a green-arrow-controlled U-turn. Of course, that intersection is in the City of Alexandria, so it further complicates the matter of getting it signed better.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Scott5114

What was the rationale given for banning state named shields?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Michael in Philly

[tongue-in-cheek mode] Philistinism. [end tongue-in-cheek-mode]

But at least we've got West Virginia, Connecticut and New Jersey.
RIP Dad 1924-2012.

mtantillo

In general, the more standardized the sign is, the less expensive it is. 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.