MUTCD gripes

[vtk]

Similar to signage pet peeves, but what parts of the MUTCD do you disagree with?

I haven't really studied the relevant new stuff closely, but I really don't like what I've read and heard about signing optional exit lanes at multilane exits.

[hbelkins]

The fact that the federal government dictates so much detail to the states.

[corco]

The fact that the federal government dictates so much detail to the states.

Really? I get that argument in a lot of other arenas (and I can think of many other places within transportation where the feds are way too involved), but isn't it definitely in the best interests of the country to have uniform road signage? The interstate commerce clause is probably abused in a lot of cases (I assume the legality of the MUTCD is based on interstate commerce), but I'm curious as to why you think that in this instance.

[J N Winkler]

Please, pretty please, can we not rehash the MUTCD states'-rights debate?  The last thread we had on it was quite long.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2686.0

[corco]

Oh, cool. I didn't realize we'd already had it, and that answers my questions for HB- never mind then.

[J N Winkler]

It may also be helpful to link back to the discussion thread that was opened when the 2009 MUTCD was released:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2117.0

Much of the handwringing caused in this forum by the new changes was first done in this thread.

Speaking for myself personally, I think the process leading up to the 2009 MUTCD was a mess.  When FHWA came up with the 2003 MUTCD, there was a promise at the time that the manual would be updated more frequently and in smaller chunks.  It took five years for a new rulemaking to start and it actually came in two volumes--one volume of changed text and another volume of changed figures.  (I would point you at the MUTCD website but those drafts have since been removed.)  The traffic engineering community rebelled and at the NCUTCD's instigation, a lot of state DOTs sent in a carbon-copy letter objecting to the format of the rulemaking instead of commenting specifically on the proposed changes to the MUTCD.  I think a lot of the heartbreak that has since ensued could have been avoided if the various practitioners had sat down and looked at the various proposals for change, and said "Yes," "No," "Maybe," "With qualification," etc. as appropriate (supplying the necessary justifications) instead of trying to stage a protest which was bound to fail.

The arguments for and against the treatment of lane drops and option lanes set out in the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD have been rehashed in considerable detail in the MUTCD introduction thread and also in the Road-Related Illustrations thread.  My concern is that the effectiveness of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics as specified in the MUTCD is unsupported by field research (it is supported by tachistoscope studies only).  As written, the diagrammatic requirement does a reasonable job of exempting service interchanges, but may be too inflexible to permit different approaches which might conserve sign panel area, such as arrow-block diagrammatics.  In the Road-Related Illustrations thread, Myosh_tino correctly pointed out that the arrows required for use on the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics seem excessively tall, and I am aware of no research that justifies the arrow height specifically.

I also have some limited access to construction plans sets at the review stage and I am seeing that a few practitioners are having problems composing effective signing with the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  One potentially disastrous error I have seen is to attempt to use a conventional lane-drop advance guide sign for the dropped lane next to an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic for the through lane and the option lane only.

Edit:  Found the "lying signs" thread (more properly known as "Multilane exit signage")--much useful info there:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2131.0

Edit II:  Had to correct my characterization of the diagrammatic requirement (I had thought it applied at all exits with option lanes, but the MUTCD says it applies only at "multilane" exits, the term "multilane" itself not being defined in the MUTCD).

[vtk]

Thanks for the links to other threads, JN.

While it seems there's a lot to gripe about in the '09 edition, older elements of the MUTCD are fair game for this thread too.

[Quillz]

That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

[vtk]

That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

Oh yeah, it seems like that should be an option.  Except I'm not sure I like the idea of borderless cutouts.  Cutout shields should have borders, and if the borders are dark on light backgrounds, they should be inset slightly from the edge.  How long ago was that the standard, anyway?

[Quillz]

That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

Cutout shields should have borders

Agreed.

[hbelkins]

Oh, cool. I didn't realize we'd already had it, and that answers my questions for HB- never mind then.

That thread holds some pretty intense debates.

Here's one of my gripes about the MUTCD: why should it address such minutiae such as requiring states to mount their route markers on guide signs in non-New Jersey fashions? Why does it matter to the feds where the shield is a cutout on the green sign, or a black-and-white sign? Everyone is going to recognize it as a US route marker whether it's on a guide sign in New Jersey or in Pennsylvania.

[J N Winkler]

Here's one of my gripes about the MUTCD: why should it address such minutiae such as requiring states to mount their route markers on guide signs in non-New Jersey fashions? Why does it matter to the feds where the shield is a cutout on the green sign, or a black-and-white sign? Everyone is going to recognize it as a US route marker whether it's on a guide sign in New Jersey or in Pennsylvania.

The MUTCD exists as a national manual because it is generally agreed that there is a national, thus interstate, interest in uniform traffic signing.

It is certainly true that some variations are more important than others.  Most traffic engineers would agree, for example, that having STOP signs in the shape of a half-moon (the early 1920's standard in Kansas, by the way) impairs the public interests served by uniformity far more than, say, using independent-mount shields on guide signs.

However, the MUTCD is not just a collection of technical prescriptions.  It spells out a more or less complete and self-contained system for traffic signing, some parts of which are compulsorily required while others are more or less optional.  This then puts the onus on the states to show that the variations they want to use (such as black surrounds in New Jersey, "BUSINESS" tab instead of word "BUSINESS" on guide signs in Missouri, etc.) do not impair uniformity to the point that they cannot be ruled "in substantial conformance" with the MUTCD.

I appreciate that recent changes to the MUTCD have given rise to the suspicion that the MUTCD authors are out to squelch regional variation by providing a standard design in the MUTCD for every single type of sign that is used anywhere--even including signs for things, such as turnouts, which are not used at all in many states.  There is genuine doubt in the minds of many practitioners as to whether the MUTCD revision team is seeking to roll out successful regional techniques nationally, as they claim, or are acting out of pure mania for standardization.  On the whole, however, I don't think this is an issue that has to be worried about except in the context of high-cost changes like arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  There are always going to be sui generis situations which cannot be addressed by the MUTCD or indeed any other traffic standard document.  States also have some options for pushing back on MUTCD changes outside the rulemaking process, such as pursuing "substantial conformance" determinations for local variations.

My own suspicion is that in view of the fact that new retroreflectivity requirements will force a lot of turnover in signs, the MUTCD revision team and wider FHWA may be trying to "drain the swamp" of unnecessary local variations by assuring that existing signs which do not follow the MUTCD very closely will be replaced by ones that do.

[Alps]

Dislike the "arrows up" diagrammatic signs. I liked the old ones and am glad they're still there as an option.
Dislike that HOV guide signs are mostly green. I think they should be black on white (CT standard) to be clearly differentiated from regular-lanes guide signs.
Dislike flashing yellow arrow, I think they allow too broad in application. It should be limited in use only to where you have a lagging left trap. Otherwise it does nothing beyond a standard green ball.
Dislike ever-increasing pedestrian crossing times and font sizes. I understand we're getting older, but you shouldn't be driving if you can't see clearly.
Dislike the severe restrictions on 8" signal lenses. The maximum speed limit should be increased and road types should be relaxed.

[myosh_tino]

That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

Wait... what?  Can you tell me where exactly the MUTCD says cutout US and state shields are no longer allowed?  Wouldn't this requirement be a MAJOR problem in the state of California? Nevermind. forgot that California always crosses out the portions of Section 2D-11/Design of Route Signs that pertain to the design of the US and State Route shields... and yes, this was done in the current draft of the 2011 California MUTCD.

With regards to the arrow-per-lane signs, I was in Las Vegas this past week and on the way home, I saw a couple of installations of arrow-per-lane signs on the new collector-distributor ramps on southbound I-15 between Tropicana and Blue Diamond Road.  The arrows appeared to be full-size but were "crammed" into the sign to keep the sign height to a minimum.  I was driving so I was not able to take any pictures.  Perhaps someone who lives in Las Vegas can snap some photos.

[andytom]

With regards to the arrow-per-lane signs, I was in Las Vegas this past week and on the way home, I saw a couple of installations of arrow-per-lane signs on the new collector-distributor ramps on southbound I-15 between Tropicana and Blue Diamond Road.  The arrows appeared to be full-size but were "crammed" into the sign to keep the sign height to a minimum.  I was driving so I was not able to take any pictures.  Perhaps someone who lives in Las Vegas can snap some photos.

One of these has recently been installed in Portland on I-5 NB approaching the southern I-405 jct.  The jury is still out as to whether I like them or not, which means that it's probably something that I could grow into.

[J N Winkler]

With regards to the arrow-per-lane signs, I was in Las Vegas this past week and on the way home, I saw a couple of installations of arrow-per-lane signs on the new collector-distributor ramps on southbound I-15 between Tropicana and Blue Diamond Road.  The arrows appeared to be full-size but were "crammed" into the sign to keep the sign height to a minimum.

I have been seeing many arrow-per-lane diagrammatics in signing plans.  It will not be too long before they are ubiquitous.  One thing I have noticed, however, is that some agencies are finessing the arrow height requirements.  I just pulled up a MoDOT plans set with the straight-ahead arrows at 72" height, as the MUTCD prescribes, but I have another plans set lying around where the straight-ahead arrows are only 42" tall.  Quite frankly, I wish the cost-benefit tradeoffs of using smaller arrows had been more thoroughly researched because the arrows are the biggest driver of sign panel height and thus of the overall cost of the sign.

[Stratuscaster]

The new black-on-yellow "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" requirement is, IMHO, not only asinine, but wasteful.

Wife and I took a trip into downtown Chicago on I-290, where all the signage from I-88 to I-90/94 is Clearview and using the newest specs (although I can't recall if there are the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics).

For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign. Not only that, but for whatever reason, they couldn't make the IL-43 BGS tall enough, resulting in the route shield, the "Harlem Ave" text, and the "x MILE" test are all compressed vertically together. It looks bad - very bad. The Austin Ave BGS isn't as bad, but is about twice as tall as it needs to be.

I have other gripes - but they are more I think against how IDOT (or whoever is contracted) does the signs and not the MUTCD spec.

[NE2]

For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign.

Sounds like the problem is IDOT's full-width tabs.

[vtk]

For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign.

Sounds like the problem is IDOT's full-width tabs.

Perhaps, but if the MUTCD allowed "LEFT" to go to the left of "EXIT" rather than above it, then there would be less empty green space, particularly when the exit tab is full-width.

[Stratuscaster]

Agreed - the full width tabs don't help.

And I would agree - allow the LEFT to go to the left of EXIT.

Then again, the text or tabs on the left was a pretty simple way to indicate a left exit, along with the "NEXT LEFT" or "LEFT 1 MILE" at the bottom. But I digress.

[Duke87]

The solution I would favor to the left exit problem is two-pronged:

1) left-align the tab, but have it otherwise be a normal tab
2) In text at the bottom, rather than just saying "1 MILE", or whatever distance, say "EXIT LEFT 1 MILE", with the word "LEFT" in black on yellow. The word "EXIT" can selectively be omitted from here.

Makes the fact that there is a left exit just as apparent, but in a way that's less obnoxious and not unsightly.

(here's a SM edit that illustrates this)

[roadfro]

Your idea for #2 has the potential to be mistaken for exit only panels. I'd just go with the "left" to the left of "exit" in a left-aligned tab--this puts the yellow in a better position to be interpreted at a glance as a left exit instead of an exit only situation.

[codyg1985]

Dislike flashing yellow arrow, I think they allow too broad in application. It should be limited in use only to where you have a lagging left trap. Otherwise it does nothing beyond a standard green ball.

If you have a lagging left trap, then IMO permissive left-turn signals shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise someone may pull into the intersection and think that both approaches are getting a red signal when it is only their approach getting the red.

[agentsteel53]

since I am used to driving on the coasts, I tend to assume that if I am getting yellow, then opposite traffic is likely getting yellow as well... and therefore are flooring the shit out of it.  east and west coast drivers have never met a yellow light they didn't want to roar through at twice the speed limit.

[J N Winkler]

If you have a lagging left trap, then IMO permissive left-turn signals shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise someone may pull into the intersection and think that both approaches are getting a red signal when it is only their approach getting the red.

It has been suggested to FHWA that configurations which allow the lagging left trap should be banned.  I believe I may even have called for it myself at some point.  But FHWA has said that, no, it is not going to take that flexibility away from signal designers.