Roadgeeks who changed the world?

[J N Winkler]

He probably wouldn't admit to "changing the world", but our own J.N. Winkler managed to influence the 2009 MUTCD in a significant way. FHWA wanted to remove the section allowing diagrammatic signs (the large splitting-arrow signs that often precede large interchanges). They felt that the diagrammatics were obsoleted by a new signing method that was introduced in the new manual. Mr. Winkler was able to convince FHWA (through the public comment process) that there was still some situations that the old method could handle that the new couldn't, so the option to use diagrammatic signs was left in the manual.

So did I.  Just because Mr. Winkler toots his own horn all the time doesn't mean he's the only one contributing.  I personally made the comment that saved 8" signals in community settings, for example.

In fairness, and with thanks to Scott for putting my name forward, I don't think I can claim sole responsibility for saving the stippled-arrow diagrammatic.  My recollection is that there were a number of other commenters, including several from state DOTs, who were opposed to its removal.  FHWA simply chose to synthesize its response to the comments (which also related to the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics) along lines similar to those I had suggested; it is quite possible (indeed probable) FHWA arrived at that outcome independently of my comments.

There is one example of a MUTCD rulemaking outcome where (toot, toot) I can claim sole responsibility, but that relates to the 2002 MUTCD.  I suggested that blue be retained as a background color option for enhanced location reference signs associated with motorist assistance services.  My reasoning was:  blue was already being used in several metropolitan areas (e.g. ARTIMIS in Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky); the main motivation for enhanced location reference signing is to facilitate motorist assistance; motorist assistance is a type of service; why should agencies have to change existing signs?  FHWA accepted this reasoning, quoting it almost verbatim in the final rule notice, and so green was accepted as the usual background color with blue as an option.

In retrospect, did this comment do any good?  I am not sure.  None of the existing signface designs for motorist assistance markers conformed to the designs FHWA released for enhanced location reference signs with SHS in 2004.  Without this conformity, there would still have been at minimum a requirement for agencies to come into compliance (as regards signface design if not background color) as the sheeting on existing signs became life-expired.  If agencies were going to have to move toward conformity in signface design anyway, it seems a bit mischievous to have a blue color option which inhibits full nationwide uniformity.

The lesson here is that being the lone commenter on a particular aspect of the MUTCD and getting FHWA to agree with you does not necessarily translate to a public policy success.  Indeed, on the changes I am surer of (such as making sure "km" rather than "KM" got into the 2002 MUTCD), I was joined by detail people in various state DOTs.  The jury is still out on 8" signal heads in community settings, so we will have to see.

BTW, neither Steve Alpert nor I are the only road enthusiasts to have commented in various MUTCD rulemaking processes.  I can think of several others who have commented over the years (not all of whom are involved with roads in a professional capacity).

[bugo]

Years ago, when I was working for my hometown newspaper, I photographed a sign pointing to Natural Bridge State Resort Park in Kentucky, only the first word was spelled "Natuarl." I captioned the photo "Un-'Natuarl' Spelling" and we published it in the paper. Wasn't too long before the sign was fixed. I just wish I could find that photo or the negative now, 25 or so years later.

And I have noticed that some of the goofs I have photographed and posted in the past have gotten fixed shortly thereafter, such as the sign pointing travelers to "Paintsvillle" on KY 114 in Magoffin County.

I don't have a problem with getting goofs fixed if they are serious - misspellings, wrong info, etc. but I don't see the point in contacting the DOT if it's a state route marker in place of a US route marker or vice versa.  That sort of sign goof is interesting and as long as the number is right, doesn't cause any problems.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Unless the sign goof is in front of "Headquarters."  (ODOT..... )

[Scott5114]

I don't have a problem with getting goofs fixed if they are serious - misspellings, wrong info, etc. but I don't see the point in contacting the DOT if it's a state route marker in place of a US route marker or vice versa.  That sort of sign goof is interesting and as long as the number is right, doesn't cause any problems.

What if it's on OK 270 though?

[bugo]

I don't have a problem with getting goofs fixed if they are serious - misspellings, wrong info, etc. but I don't see the point in contacting the DOT if it's a state route marker in place of a US route marker or vice versa.  That sort of sign goof is interesting and as long as the number is right, doesn't cause any problems.

What if it's on OK 270 though?

There used to be OK 270 markers on US 270 in LeFlore County but they've been replaced.

[hm insulators]

I fashioned the entire interstate highway system out of two thumbtacks and a roll of electrical tape.

Sounds like something Red Green would've done, except he would've used duct tape.

[Rover_0]

I fashioned the entire interstate highway system out of two thumbtacks and a roll of electrical tape.

Sounds like something Red Green would've done, except he would've used duct tape.

But he's Canadian.  Then again, maybe he did fashion the Canadian highway system together.