MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[jeffandnicole]

128. In existing Section 2C.27, renumbered and retitled, "Section 2C.25 Low Clearance Signs (W12-2, W12-2a, W12-2b),"  FHWA proposes several revisions to clarify the signing practice for locations where the clearance is less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height.

Long overdue.  I hope to see the examples of these signs next week.

FHWA also proposes to delete Standard paragraph 7 prohibiting the use of the One-Direction Large Arrow sign in the central island of a roundabout and instead proposes to allow its use in a new Option. FHWA proposes to allow the use of the sign in conjunction with the proposed changes to remove existing Section 2B.43 for Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs.

Might as well.  While the travel lanes, pavement and curbing for the roundabout tends to be fairly consistent amongst different agencies, signage within a roundabout is anything but, with agencies haphazardly installing anything they deemed correct.

...FHWA also proposes to add that Regulatory Speed Limit signs should not be located in the vicinity of exit ramps or deceleration lanes, particularly where they would conflict with the advisory speed displayed on the Advisory Exit or Ramp Speed signs.

Because, this is stupid: https://goo.gl/maps/TA5487c1BTmBbAVRA

The Advisory sign is 40 mph.  The Speed Limit sign seen in the distance is 50 mph...for the exiting road (US 130).  The highway itself is 65 mph.   The curve on the ramp is fairly tight, and even 50 mph in a car creates a bit of force.

While that's an extreme example, there are other examples where speed limit signs are places on regular roadways in confliction with the advisory curve speed.  I would even go so far as to eliminate a speed limit sign's use just before a traffic signal or stop sign.  A 'reminder' sign (where the speed limit doesn't change) should be placed after the intersection.  A sign due to a change in speed should be placed significantly before the intersection, or speed limit changes should be done after the intersection.

FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location, maximum letter heights, and letter color.

That appears to have a slight confliction with...

Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

While the two signs referenced appear to be different, I can see DMS manufacturers taking issue why their name can't be displayed, yet "Tim's Sign Shop" can be displayed.

[J N Winkler]

The publication version (82 pages) of the notice is now available, as well as the pre-publication version (303 pages).  I'm noting this since the URL given in the OP now redirects to a page that has a PDF link only for the publication version, but does contain the full notice text in HTML (generally more convenient for copying and pasting).

[Rothman]

* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

So now a bunch of turnpikes will either have to change their signs at TOTSOs or be (blissfully?) non-compliant?  Or are they just talking about things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dxg4XYhZ74FJMGts8 ?

I think they are talking about both the Turnpike and the 'mainline interstate goes through a ramp at a cloverleaf' situations.

I'm wondering also about signs like the big one on I-81 north just north of I-86 that shows a split a mile down the road (for I-88) that doesn't match the lane configuration at that time -- there are merges between that sign and the exit it indicates, for example.  I think that sign was a poor idea.

[webny99]

^This one?

Yeah, that's a head scratcher. "I-88 - Albany - 1 1/2 miles" would be more than sufficient at that point.

[Scott5114]

While we're at it, you know what would be nice in the new edition?  Some clarification to Section 2E.21, Paragraph 9: "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."

It's going the other way, apparently–a similar statement is being added to apply to diagrammatics, too.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9349728,-94.7292937,3a,75y,88.71h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stZuYFTyp8xnmqsijMcEpIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

How about this one? This one is a head-scratcher...

[Scott5114]

You have to admire KDOT's restraint in not just putting up a diagrammatic tall enough to interfere with the south approach to KCI.

[hbelkins]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

Kentucky has installed a bunch of these, mostly as part of federally-funded HSIP projects.

Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

[hotdogPi]

Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

Correct:
Uppercase height = 16 font
Lowercase height = 16 font, but it's 3/4 the height because it's lowercase, making it 12 tall

Incorrect:
Uppercase height = 16 font
Lowercase height = 12 font, making the height effectively 9 instead of 12 like it should be

We use the same font size for uppercase and lowercase letters (including when typing here), but for some reason, a few designers misinterpret the guideline as requiring the lowercase letters to be a smaller font size.

[Scott5114]

Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

[paulthemapguy]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I consider this an improvement.  I would lose my mind counting the number of times I've seen the wrong implementation of curve signs with numbers included in the diamond panel.  They were done wrong 90% of the time.  Just forget about them.  I have directed my own DOT sign department not to use them (part of my job).  The only time I really see them nearby is on freeway exit ramps.  I really liked the use of the giant yellow curve signs with advisory speed included on the panel on the way to Yosemite in California, but those were on large rectangular banners, and they were perched on cliffs to prevent a Thelma and Louise situation.

• New rules "regarding signing for destinations that are accessed from different exits in opposing directions of travel," whatever that means. I don't really see the need, but maybe the content of this will surprise me.

Here's what I think they mean:  Consider an Interstate 62 with exits 89 and 97.  A point of interest lies along an east-west surface road 3 miles east of exit 89 and 1 mile south of I-62.  So they're talking about signing the point of interest at exit 97 for westbound traffic, and at exit 89 for eastbound traffic, to prevent backtracking.  Would it be the end of the world if they signed the point of interest at exit 89 in both directions, since it's the closest exit?  No.  But signing the point of interest at the two separate exits would promote efficiency.

[webny99]

I'm not sure what the current rules are regarding POI's/destinations accessed from different exits depending on your direction of travel, but New York splits them up all the time:

NY Thruway/East Aurora: EB Exit 57, WB Exit 54
NY Thruway/Victor: EB Exit 45, WB Exit 44
NY Thruway/Oneida: EB Exit 34, WB Exit 33
I-390/Mount Morris: NB Exit 6, SB Exit 7
I-390/Letchworth State Park: same as above
I-390/Geneseo: NB Exit 7, SB Exit 8
I-390/Lakeville: NB Exit 8, SB Exit 9
I-490/Brockport: EB Exit 1, WB Exit 8

... and that's just from memory, without even touching I-81 or I-86. So yeah, that practice is common here and I'd hope any rule changes would only make it easier and more common.

[Bitmapped]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

PennDOT would do this in some areas, especially around the Clearfield County area. There'd be a traditional curve assembly with the supplemental plate before the curve, and then a second curve with the speed on the sign itself right by the curve.

FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location, maximum letter heights, and letter color.

That appears to have a slight confliction with...

Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

While the two signs referenced appear to be different, I can see DMS manufacturers taking issue why their name can't be displayed, yet "Tim's Sign Shop" can be displayed.

A number of DOTs already include information about sign fabrication on the face of the sign, in small type not readily visible to drivers. I presume this is what they are talking about, not putting huge advertising text like is seen on some DMS.

[CardInLex]

Three section FYA where the yellow indication functions as both the steady and flashing yellow arrow is also in the rule making proposal.

The FHWA says this will allow more signals to be converted at lower costs.

Lexington, KY is one of the test sites for this currently. https://goo.gl/maps/Q5gGWYqB21Ecpiwm9
The public comments I saw on articles about Lexington's implementation generally ranged from "I thought this already existed"  to "what is the difference?"  

[kalvado]

I'm not sure what the current rules are regarding POI's/destinations accessed from different exits depending on your direction of travel, but New York splits them up all the time:

NY Thruway/East Aurora: EB Exit 57, WB Exit 54
NY Thruway/Victor: EB Exit 45, WB Exit 44
NY Thruway/Oneida: EB Exit 34, WB Exit 33
I-390/Mount Morris: NB Exit 6, SB Exit 7
I-390/Letchworth State Park: same as above
I-390/Geneseo: NB Exit 7, SB Exit 8
I-390/Lakeville: NB Exit 8, SB Exit 9
I-490/Brockport: EB Exit 1, WB Exit 8

... and that's just from memory, without even touching I-81 or I-86. So yeah, that practice is common here and I'd hope any rule changes would only make it easier and more common.

Slightly different situation, but I really love this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7716696,-74.0862593,3a,75y,280.06h,80.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbRokkg1lpranpPiH0GM8Jw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Keep in mind, these are sequential exit numbers.

[webny99]

^Nice! And to make matters even more complicated, Google recommends Exit 21... which isn't even on the sign. Personally I'd stick to US 20 (Exit 24) over the combination of backroads recommended by Google to save two minutes.

Exit 17 is about 10 minutes longer, but certainly within the realm of plausibility if you're someone that likes to stick to the freeway.

[Bitmapped]

Three section FYA where the yellow indication functions as both the steady and flashing yellow arrow is also in the rule making proposal.

The FHWA says this will allow more signals to be converted at lower costs.

Lexington, KY is one of the test sites for this currently. https://goo.gl/maps/Q5gGWYqB21Ecpiwm9
The public comments I saw on articles about Lexington's implementation generally ranged from "I thought this already existed"  to "what is the difference?"

I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing sections, it shatters this.

If the intent really is for cost savings to facilitate conversions, at least restrict this usage to retrofits of existing signals and require that new/redone installations be done with a 4-section head.

[US 89]

Three section FYA where the yellow indication functions as both the steady and flashing yellow arrow is also in the rule making proposal.

The FHWA says this will allow more signals to be converted at lower costs.

Lexington, KY is one of the test sites for this currently. https://goo.gl/maps/Q5gGWYqB21Ecpiwm9
The public comments I saw on articles about Lexington’s implementation generally ranged from “I thought this already existed” to “what is the difference?”

I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing section, it shatters this.

If the intent really is for cost savings to facilitate conversions, at least restrict this usage to retrofits of existing signals and require that new/redone installations be done with a 4-section head.

Fully agreed. Plus some parts of the country already have 3-section FYAs where the flashing yellow is in the bottom position either on its own or as a bimodal. I’m not liking the potential inconsistency here.

[Revive 755]

^ A number of changes in the signal section seem to be going backwards, particularly items on the placement of signal heads being downgraded to guidance from the current standards.  Not like some of these downgrades could be abused by agencies to try and make their red light cameras more profitable . . .

[odditude]

FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location, maximum letter heights, and letter color.

That appears to have a slight confliction with...

Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

While the two signs referenced appear to be different, I can see DMS manufacturers taking issue why their name can't be displayed, yet "Tim's Sign Shop" can be displayed.

i would expect the intent is a label with a table listing the relevant information, intended for use by DOT employees/contractors (and generally not legible from a car unless you're stopped next to it). i've seen such labels before on signs, usually on a lower corner (either front or back of the sign). at highway speed, you might not even see the label at all.

[Caps81943]

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I know of a city-maintained road near me with those! As soon as it is published, I'm going to tell them about, and maybe get some free signs! (But probably not.)

Virginia loves them. Some roads near me may need some changing

[wanderer2575]

• New rules "regarding signing for destinations that are accessed from different exits in opposing directions of travel," whatever that means. I don't really see the need, but maybe the content of this will surprise me.

Here's what I think they mean:  Consider an Interstate 62 with exits 89 and 97.  A point of interest lies along an east-west surface road 3 miles east of exit 89 and 1 mile south of I-62.  So they're talking about signing the point of interest at exit 97 for westbound traffic, and at exit 89 for eastbound traffic, to prevent backtracking.  Would it be the end of the world if they signed the point of interest at exit 89 in both directions, since it's the closest exit?  No.  But signing the point of interest at the two separate exits would promote efficiency.

That's how I interpreted it.  Michigan currently follows that practice (signing the control city at exit 97 westbound and exit 89 eastbound, to follow your example) and I hope it remains.

I wonder if the current MUTCD addresses (or the proposed changes address) a situation like this:



In this case, East Mudpuddle should be signed from both exits 89 and 95 eastbound but only from exit 95 westbound.

[Scott5114]

See, I had thought that the engineering judgement for that sort of situation was obvious and situational enough that there's really no point in having an MUTCD ruling on it. (Just like there are no rules on how to select control cities or destinations for any other interchange.)

[US 89]

FHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED—YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10 23a) sign as an alternative to the R10–23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study 27 evaluated the comprehension and legibility of various alternatives for signing at midblock hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between the alternatives; however, they did highlight the need for a sign, at least initially, while drivers are learning what actions to take based on the flashing beacon. As a result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for jurisdictions that determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid beacons.

I like the looks of this. Signage at these varies so dramatically across jurisdictions and often doesn't fully convey what you're supposed to do - for example, the typical accompanying sign in Georgia simply reads STOP ON RED - and as a result, nobody realizes you can go on flashing red if nobody is crossing.

[Ned Weasel]

See, I had thought that the engineering judgement for that sort of situation was obvious and situational enough that there's really no point in having an MUTCD ruling on it. (Just like there are no rules on how to select control cities or destinations for any other interchange.)

I wonder if the MUTCD Gods are trying to get the Kansas Turnpike Authority to use a "Wichita NEXT 4 [or 5] EXITS" sign instead of putting Wichita on every single one of the BGSs for those interchanges.    There are probably lots of examples like this, actually.