New MUTCD announced

[J N Winkler]

There is an AASHTO manual on traffic generator signing that is significantly more restrictive than the MUTCD, and it is what KDOT cites when it says it does not provide signing for, e.g., public libraries.  I haven't actually seen a copy of this document (I'm too cheap to kick coin over to AASHTO), but I wonder if it is something agencies can use if they are looking to get out of the business of providing signs for certain categories of traffic generator.

[stevashe]

All told, it's a bit unfair to places that are quieter. The busiest shops in Tacoma are basically all dispensaries (mostly for out of town visitors -- locals have other sources); if those places dragged the "attendance bar" up, the logo signs are just going to be full of cannabis shops. Now, you might say that cannabis shops don't qualify for "attraction" signs, and that's probably true (I don't know the rules). But what exactly qualifies as an attraction is just as vague as the qualifying determination itself; in my mind, it's better just to have a first-come first-serve situation with the attraction signs, as establishing rules would be wicked hard.

Here are the rules for eligibility on logo signs in Washington. They have a lot more to do with the specific services provided and distance from the highway as opposed to popularity, and I think they make a lot of sense. And no, I don't think cannabis falls under any of the categories allowed.

[jakeroot]

All told, it's a bit unfair to places that are quieter. The busiest shops in Tacoma are basically all dispensaries (mostly for out of town visitors -- locals have other sources); if those places dragged the "attendance bar" up, the logo signs are just going to be full of cannabis shops. Now, you might say that cannabis shops don't qualify for "attraction" signs, and that's probably true (I don't know the rules). But what exactly qualifies as an attraction is just as vague as the qualifying determination itself; in my mind, it's better just to have a first-come first-serve situation with the attraction signs, as establishing rules would be wicked hard.

Here are the rules for eligibility on logo signs in Washington. They have a lot more to do with the specific services provided and distance from the highway as opposed to popularity, and I think they make a lot of sense. And no, I don't think cannabis falls under any of the categories allowed.

Thanks. It would appear that the primary qualifying factor is "popular with those not in the immediate facility" (for everything except historic/important sites). I'm sure most businesses in Tacoma get most of their operating revenue from locals, but I bet the share of local/visitor is quite equal for recreational cannabis stores. Sounds like they actually qualify!

[roadman]

There is an AASHTO manual on traffic generator signing that is significantly more restrictive than the MUTCD, and it is what KDOT cites when it says it does not provide signing for, e.g., public libraries.  I haven't actually seen a copy of this document (I'm too cheap to kick coin over to AASHTO), but I wonder if it is something agencies can use if they are looking to get out of the business of providing signs for certain categories of traffic generator.

The AASHTO Guidelines for the Selection of Supplemental Guide Signs document is incorporated into the MUTCD by reference.  While it has good information about what facilities signs should not be provided for, and also provides minimum attendance requirements for college signs, it is totally silent on other attractions that are not on the "should not provide signing for" list.

[stevashe]

Thanks. It would appear that the primary qualifying factor is "popular with those not in the immediate facility" (for everything except historic/important sites). I'm sure most businesses in Tacoma get most of their operating revenue from locals, but I bet the share of local/visitor is quite equal for recreational cannabis stores. Sounds like they actually qualify!

Well I doubt it'd qualify under number 1 for "Tourist Oriented Businesses" since a dispensary is selling something that can be used recreationally, not providing a recreational activity. However, it would be pretty funny if some city set up a business district centered around the sale of cannabis just so it could be signed from the freeway!

[kphoger]

Well I doubt it'd qualify under number 1 for "Tourist Oriented Businesses" since a dispensary is selling something that can be used recreationally, not providing a recreational activity. However, it would be pretty funny if some city set up a business district centered around the sale of cannabis just so it could be signed from the freeway!

Yeah, basketballs can be used recreationally, yet I doubt DICK'S Sporting Goods would qualify.

[ca_enright]

There is an AASHTO manual on traffic generator signing that is significantly more restrictive than the MUTCD, and it is what KDOT cites when it says it does not provide signing for, e.g., public libraries.  I haven't actually seen a copy of this document (I'm too cheap to kick coin over to AASHTO), but I wonder if it is something agencies can use if they are looking to get out of the business of providing signs for certain categories of traffic generator.

The AASHTO Guidelines for the Selection of Supplemental Guide Signs document is incorporated into the MUTCD by reference.  While it has good information about what facilities signs should not be provided for, and also provides minimum attendance requirements for college signs, it is totally silent on other attractions that are not on the "should not provide signing for" list.

To supplement this AASHTO guideline, Colorado DOT has a separate policy document on guide signing specifically to address this.  It's pretty specific for what's included or not as an eligible destination to include, and it varies by category.  I don't think we have any dispensaries on the TODs.

[CardInLex]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

[JoePCool14]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The MUTCD is dead. Road signs are now a free for all. Anything goes.

[ilpt4u]

What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

https://youtu.be/-sED4fzIV0k

[mgk920]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

[ilpt4u]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

At least Metric and meters/kilometers for highway distances and km/h for speed limits and advisories

[formulanone]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

Yes, whatever convention is used in Geneva, Illinois.

[J N Winkler]

On a more serious note:  the blurb on the MUTCD website dates from March 2022.  Do we know for a fact that Congress didn't extend the May 15 deadline in a rider to a subsequent bill?

[Quillz]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Nothing. Nothing will happen. I doubt anyone in Congress even remembers or cares today is supposed to be the deadline.

[CovalenceSTU]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

[CardInLex]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it’s crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

May 15, 2023 – Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

They also took off the mention of today’s date and made it say “within 18 months of its enactment.” I guess that gives a timetable that is more open to interpretation.

[JoePCool14]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

Who wants to bet they only remembered because someone at the FHWA checked this thread? 

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

I am curious to see where they go with the new update. I understand that there was a lot more public comments and scrutiny than they've ever received before, and they want to please people. The #1 thing they need to do is just update the damn thing more frequently. The fact that we're still substantially on the 2009 edition is outrageous. And if they didn't wait so long and implemented things more incrementally then they probably wouldn't be getting pulled so hard in every direction on this new edition.

[paulthemapguy]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

If this is your TOP PRIORITY and you dropped the ball this hard, you should be stripped of your job.

[jeffandnicole]

According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

A top priority. Not The top priority.  Also top priorities:  Everything else on the list, including properly connecting Breezewood, authenticating studies on Clearview, and what new candy belongs in slot D4 in the vending machine.

Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

Yeah, I mean, what would a consequence be - Not fund transportation?  Most mandates don't have much teeth to them.  It's not like there's much wrong with the 2009 MUTCD that demanded a new one had to be put in place today; it would've just updated some various rules people are anal about updating based on their desires, whether it be signage, bicycles, or whatever.   If the rule book wasn't updated to remove the curve sign with the advisory number on the same diamond today, it's not going to bother anyone. 

Congress has much more pressing issues ahead of them, such as the debt limit (again).  The MUTCD isn't even a passing thought to most people in DC.

[ran4sh]

Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

I am curious to see where they go with the new update. I understand that there was a lot more public comments and scrutiny than they've ever received before, and they want to please people. The #1 thing they need to do is just update the damn thing more frequently. The fact that we're still substantially on the 2009 edition is outrageous. And if they didn't wait so long and implemented things more incrementally then they probably wouldn't be getting pulled so hard in every direction on this new edition.

I'm not sure I agree that the MUTCD needs to be updated more frequently, when actual traffic control devices don't get updated nearly as much (i.e. there's still plenty of devices in the field that were in compliance with older editions that have not been upgraded to comply with the current edition)

A lot of things people think are issues with the MUTCD, are actually not

[kalvado]

Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

I am curious to see where they go with the new update. I understand that there was a lot more public comments and scrutiny than they've ever received before, and they want to please people. The #1 thing they need to do is just update the damn thing more frequently. The fact that we're still substantially on the 2009 edition is outrageous. And if they didn't wait so long and implemented things more incrementally then they probably wouldn't be getting pulled so hard in every direction on this new edition.

I'm not sure I agree that the MUTCD needs to be updated more frequently, when actual traffic control devices don't get updated nearly as much (i.e. there's still plenty of devices in the field that were in compliance with older editions that have not been upgraded to comply with the current edition)

A lot of things people think are issues with the MUTCD, are actually not

Cannot they just do what Microsoft is doing with Windows and have some weekly updates? /S

[CovalenceSTU]

Who wants to bet they only remembered because someone at the FHWA checked this thread? 

The lack of hard details makes me think there was an "oh sh*t, we have a deadline" moment, so you're very close at the least

[jakeroot]

A top priority. Not The top priority.  Also top priorities:  Everything else on the list, including properly connecting Breezewood, authenticating studies on Clearview, and what new candy belongs in slot D4 in the vending machine.

Exactly. I mean, can we really expect them to finish a new MUTCD in 14 years when it's been over 20 since the last vending machine update?