What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?

[Pete from Boston]

I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs.  After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.

Is this wishful thinking?

Well, Fluorescent Yellow-Green was finally mandated for school zone signs after many years of use in the 2009 MUTCD, and I wonder how will the next MUTCD address the usage of FYG for Pedestrian/Bicycle/Playground signs.  Originally in the 2009 MUTCD it was supposed to be a recommendation rather than an option, however, there was some opposition by some DOTs preferring it to be used exclusively for school zones, thus it was relegated to an option.

Poll the general public and see how many know the greener variety of yellow means something different from the standard variety.

[paulthemapguy]

Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:

THANK YOU. IKR?  Then you can read it as "Left Exit" like it's one complete thought.  And not "LEFT!" "EXIT!"

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons should be banned.  I have problems with flashing lights and I'd prefer not to get a seizure.  Or else put a separate post that says "Seizure warning" 500ft in advance of every LED flashing sign. 

On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging.  Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them.  Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq

[Mr_Northside]

On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging.  Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them.  Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq

I think I like that well enough.

[JoePCool14]

On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging.  Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them.  Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq

I think I like that well enough.

Not sure, it's an interesting concept and the sign at least looks presentable for being homemade. But, I don't see any advantage to just the existing standard options.

[jakeroot]

On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging.  Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them.  Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq

I think I like that well enough.

Not sure, it's an interesting concept and the sign at least looks presentable for being homemade. But, I don't see any advantage to just the existing standard options.

The prime advantage is being able to prevent the non-merge lane from being flooded with traffic, and the dropped lane being wide open until the actual merge point.

Not long ago, during some construction along I-90 near Seattle, there was really bad traffic near the lane-drop zone because drivers refused to wait and merge (so everyone used one lane instead of two). WSDOT did a PR campaign shortly after the construction began, encouraging drivers to wait and merge at the merge point, and to use the zipper method: http://goo.gl/13dqZu

[Revive 755]

On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging.  Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them.  Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq

IMHO that sign is unclear - it might be better to modify than standard lane ends symbol sign a put a 'take turns' plaque beneath it.

[paulthemapguy]

On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging.  Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them.  Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq

IMHO that sign is unclear - it might be better to modify than standard lane ends symbol sign a put a 'take turns' plaque beneath it.

The thing is, if you're going to put up a sign specifying a zipper-merge, you also must install the right facilities and traffic control to accommodate this.  You need to have two lanes merge toward a single lane in the middle, as opposed to having a clear "ending lane" and a "continuing lane," and that's exactly what Maine has done in this case and many others.

[cl94]

Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD if both lanes have equal priority.

[jeffandnicole]

On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging.  Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them.  Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq

IMHO that sign is unclear - it might be better to modify than standard lane ends symbol sign a put a 'take turns' plaque beneath it.

The thing is, if you're going to put up a sign specifying a zipper-merge, you also must install the right facilities and traffic control to accommodate this.  You need to have two lanes merge toward a single lane in the middle, as opposed to having a clear "ending lane" and a "continuing lane," and that's exactly what Maine has done in this case and many others.

Usually it's the motorists that screw it up.  In places where zipper merging has taken place for years, nearly everyone gets along fine.  It's just the 1 or 2 guys that wants to make things difficult that screws it up.  And that guy will mess everything up, no matter what the issue is.

[jakeroot]

Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD if both lanes have equal priority.

I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.

[jeffandnicole]

Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD if both lanes have equal priority.

I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.

The old versions didn't have dotted lines.  The newer versions do.

[Pink Jazz]

Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD if both lanes have equal priority.

I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.

The old versions didn't have dotted lines.  The newer versions do.

The dashed lines I think were added in the 2003 MUTCD.

[paulthemapguy]

Usually it's the motorists that screw it up.  In places where zipper merging has taken place for years, nearly everyone gets along fine.  It's just the 1 or 2 guys that wants to make things difficult that screws it up.  And that guy will mess everything up, no matter what the issue is.

Oh don't I know it.  I'm from the Chicago area.  Every rush hour is packed with douches trying to screw up merges with their self-entitlement.  And it's pretty impractical to believe it can be enforced by law.  But if there's a way to help make zipper merging common practice, I'm all for it.  It's been proven to improve the efficiency of flow, and it makes sense!

[cl94]

Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD if both lanes have equal priority.

I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.

The old versions didn't have dotted lines.  The newer versions do.

The dashed lines I think were added in the 2003 MUTCD.

Correct. A lot of places, at least out here, didn't start using them until after the 2009 Edition.

[Pink Jazz]

Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS".  The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.

[jakeroot]

Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS".  The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.

[Pink Jazz]

Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS".  The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.

I don't think we will see symbols on logo signs anytime soon.  This would require DOTs to introduce new signing plans for logo signs, and could make logo signs much larger especially if they contain multiple service types.

[jakeroot]

Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS".  The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.

I don't think we will see symbols on logo signs anytime soon.  This would require DOTs to introduce new signing plans for logo signs, and could make logo signs much larger especially if they contain multiple service types.

1) I don't think creating new signing plans is something that DOTs consider taxing, especially if there's a proven benefit.
2) I see no reason to believe that logo signs would be any larger with symbols for services. See my concept here: http://imgur.com/EW9YMW7
3) Logo signs are all about logos, no? It seems ass-backwards, then, to mandate the use of text to represent the service type. If the signs are all about logos, wouldn't it be logical to also use a logo to represent the service type?

[thenetwork]

Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS".  The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.

I don't think we will see symbols on logo signs anytime soon.  This would require DOTs to introduce new signing plans for logo signs, and could make logo signs much larger especially if they contain multiple service types.

For example, in Colorado, many exits have both full-blown BBS logo signs as well as smaller Gas/Food/Lodging/Telephone/Hospital/etc... assemblies on one post.  If there is diesel available at the exit they will put a "D" on the gas pump on the Fuel sign and some of the logo signs will have Diesel or 24 Hours within their individual signs. 

The only time I have seen blue alternative fuel signs was off the interstate.  IIRC, it was for a CNG facility, but I don't remember where.  I have not seen any for E-85 or electric recharge stations.

[paulthemapguy]

I thought fluorescent yellow-green (FYG) was originally referred to by the MUTCD as "chartreuse"?  Have they changed it to a more "professional" (read: longer) name?

[roadfro]

I thought fluorescent yellow-green (FYG) was originally referred to by the MUTCD as "chartreuse"?  Have they changed it to a more "professional" (read: longer) name?

Going back to the 2000 Millennium Edition, the section on sign colors calls it Fluorescent Yellow Green/FYG. I don't think "chartreuse" was ever used in the manual.

[Jet380]

I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include: ...

-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used); ...

-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals  .

I like most of Mike's ideas from the original post. For roundabout yield signs, I wonder if the Aussie-style sign (yield with a roundabout symbol inside) might be superior and reduce sign clutter; MUTCD's roundabout signage is very busy as-is.

I'm not sure adding stop, yield, and priority signs to signals will do anything except confuse American drivers during the 99.9% of time they're working. Better to improve the battery backup and do a better job educating drivers on what flashing red and yellow mean.

That said, maybe a "WHEN 🚦 FLASHING OR NOT WORKING" plaque could be added to the standard stop sign and tested for effectiveness.

Or "WHEN SIGNALS ARE DARK", which was my thought, similar to the instruction signs on signal standards with the new 'flashing left yellow arrow' aspects.

Mike

Or they could use a 'holey stop' sign like we have in Australia:

[Revive 755]

^ Looks too much like someone just tagged the sign.  Might be better to figure out a way to use folding stop signs that flip open when the signals fail.

Given that lately it seems many drivers cannot figure out that they can turn on a green arrow if there is a circular red being displayed in the same signal head, particularly with right turns, I would certainly like to see stronger consideration if not a new shall statement requiring separate signal heads for turns (where feasible) in the next edition.  The issue is particularly problematic if there is a 'no turn on red' sign at the intersection; the driver being honked at for not turning on the overlap with the green arrow will still refuse to move and just point at the 'no turn on red' sign.  Though I suppose the latter case could be solved by using a blank out sign for the right on red restriction in lieu of a separate signal head.

[jakeroot]

Given that lately it seems many drivers cannot figure out that they can turn on a green arrow if there is a circular red being displayed in the same signal head, particularly with right turns, I would certainly like to see stronger consideration if not a new shall statement requiring separate signal heads for turns (where feasible) in the next edition.  The issue is particularly problematic if there is a 'no turn on red' sign at the intersection; the driver being honked at for not turning on the overlap with the green arrow will still refuse to move and just point at the 'no turn on red' sign.  Though I suppose the latter case could be solved by using a blank out sign for the right on red restriction in lieu of a separate signal head.

My only fear with separate signals for turn lanes is that you tend to lose out on the secondary (mast-mounted) signals. To circumvent this, I propose a setup where the signals are separated into two, and placed on separate sides of the mast.

Note that the far-left and far-right turn signal heads are mounted near-side.

[Pink Jazz]

Sorry to bump, but while I don't think this will make it into the next MUTCD, one thing that I think the FHWA should at least consider is to mandate that all new dynamic message signs use full matrix layouts.  Full matrix DMS are capable of providing more legible messages than fixed character matrix or line matrix DMS due to their capability to display fonts in various widths and heights.  Plus, due to improving technology the cost difference between a full matrix DMS vs. the other types has been getting smaller to the point where some manufacturers no longer produce the other types.