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

Started by Pink Jazz, April 04, 2015, 12:35:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

roadfro

Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings?  Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks.  I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.

Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...

I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.


Pink Jazz

Quote from: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings?  Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks.  I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.

Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...

I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.

Here is one of the more common models, a Polara Navigator:


Features include a locator tone, vibrotactile walk indication, and recordable voice messages such as "Wait" and optionally street names.  During the walk phase, the button vibrates and you will either hear a rapid tick sound or a speech message saying "Walk Sign is On".

jakeroot

Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 30, 2015, 09:22:04 PM
Washington uses the Freeway Entrance sign without the shield and down arrow mostly. Recently, they've started using a newer, larger version sometimes that includes an arrow on the green sign, but I don't think they're using it in all new installations yet.

I think it's a Northwest Region thing. I haven't seen any south or west of King County.

roadfro

Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 11:13:23 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings?  Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks.  I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.

Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...

I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.

Here is one of the more common models, a Polara Navigator:


Features include a locator tone, vibrotactile walk indication, and recordable voice messages such as "Wait" and optionally street names.  During the walk phase, the button vibrates and you will either hear a rapid tick sound or a speech message saying "Walk Sign is On".

That's kind of what I thought you were referring to. The MUTCD doesn't mandate any installation of those now, and they aren't particularly widespread. I don't see this coming in the next edition.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 11:13:23 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings?  Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks.  I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.

Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...

I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.

Here is one of the more common models, a Polara Navigator:


Features include a locator tone, vibrotactile walk indication, and recordable voice messages such as "Wait" and optionally street names.  During the walk phase, the button vibrates and you will either hear a rapid tick sound or a speech message saying "Walk Sign is On".

At many light rail crossings here in NJ, they have a separate pedestrian crossing gate activated when a train is coming.

mgk920

Speaking of that, I'm wondering if there might be a move to adopt those graphic 'time of day/day of week chart' parking restriction signs that the City of Los Angeles is starting to use.

Mike

roadfro

^ I would say probably not, unless there's extensive study conducted on them. While the concept is neat, it's still too much to parse while driving.

The solution there is to not have so many parking regulations...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

riiga

^ And also to standardize parking signs further than what is currently in the MUTCD by adopting a more modular approach.


mrsman

Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
^ I would say probably not, unless there's extensive study conducted on them. While the concept is neat, it's still too much to parse while driving.

The solution there is to not have so many parking regulations...

I agree.  It's important to simplify the parking regulations.  But IMO parking signs were not meant to be read at highway speed, so you don't have to actually parse while driving.

Revive 755

Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings?  Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks.  I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.

Much more likely that more widespread use of APS for both light rail and traffic signals will be mandated by an update of PROWAG, and the MUTCD will then follow with the same requirement.

roadfro

Quote from: mrsman on July 05, 2015, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
^ I would say probably not, unless there's extensive study conducted on them. While the concept is neat, it's still too much to parse while driving.

The solution there is to not have so many parking regulations...

I agree.  It's important to simplify the parking regulations.  But IMO parking signs were not meant to be read at highway speed, so you don't have to actually parse while driving.

You don't have to read them at highway speed. But unless you are familiar with the area, you do read parking signs while driving (even if slowly) so you know where to park.

In contrast, the LA signs are currently designed and installed to be read from the pedestrian point of view (from what I recall).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Brian556

Quote

What's next? Are they going to post signs explaining what red, yellow, and green indications mean?

Quillz

Quote from: Brian556 on July 10, 2015, 12:08:46 AM
Quote

What's next? Are they going to post signs explaining what red, yellow, and green indications mean?
Given how many bad drivers around here apparently have no clue that a green light means go (as opposed to "stay in place while you keep chatting on your phone"), maybe that should happen.

lordsutch

I know there's a technical report out there commissioned by AASHTO that proposes some pretty substantial revisions to the warrants for stop and yield signs and traffic signals. So that's a good bet for inclusion in the next revision.

Pink Jazz

Another thing that has come to my mind that the FHWA may research into in the future is the legibility of dynamic message signs.  While this probably won't be in the next MUTCD, I wonder if in the future will the FHWA require all new dynamic message signs to be of the full matrix variety with a minimum specified resolution or DPI.  I have seen some photos of DMS used in Europe and many of them seem to be higher resolution than most used in the United States.

UCFKnights

Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 31, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
Another thing that has come to my mind that the FHWA may research into in the future is the legibility of dynamic message signs.  While this probably won't be in the next MUTCD, I wonder if in the future will the FHWA require all new dynamic message signs to be of the full matrix variety with a minimum specified resolution or DPI.  I have seen some photos of DMS used in Europe and many of them seem to be higher resolution than most used in the United States.
All the newer ones seem to be much higher DPI. With the way the technology has developed, this problem seems to be well on its way to solving itself (as old units are replaced at least)

Pink Jazz

#66
Quote from: UCFKnights on August 01, 2015, 10:55:05 AM
All the newer ones seem to be much higher DPI. With the way the technology has developed, this problem seems to be well on its way to solving itself (as old units are replaced at least)

Fixed character matrix DMS are still the majority here in Arizona, and they aren't high DPI at all.  Only recently is ADOT now specifying full matrix DMS (by Skyline Products) for on-freeway signs; fixed character matrix signs have been installed as recently as last year (the newest in the state being two at I-10 and Prince Road in Tucson) up until ADOT's prior contract with Daktronics expired.

In addition, ADOT has refurbished many of its first generation DMS (SYLVIA fiber-optic models) with internal LED lighting, and these will also remain in service for years to come.

cpzilliacus

#67
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2015, 08:45:12 PM
That was the status quo prior to the 1970 MUTCD. Believe it or not, Series D is easier to read than C and B, which is why the wide shield was invented.

Not always.  The Maryland part of I-495 (Capital Beltway) had wide (3di) shields from the time that the road was completed in 1964, almost identical to the Caltrans-spec I-405 shield upthread.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic?  And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?

Current text (from here):

QuoteYIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jakeroot

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic?  And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?

For stop signs that were clearly installed for speed control, do the jurisdictions publicly announce their purpose as being for speed control? I would think the majority of jurisdictions install stop signs with the expressed purpose of controlling traffic flow between two junctions, but actually (behind-the-scenes) install them because of speed control.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: jakeroot on August 04, 2015, 03:40:30 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic?  And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?

For stop signs that were clearly installed for speed control, do the jurisdictions publicly announce their purpose as being for speed control? I would think the majority of jurisdictions install stop signs with the expressed purpose of controlling traffic flow between two junctions, but actually (behind-the-scenes) install them because of speed control.

At least in NJ in any newspaper report I've seen, township officials will specifically state that they are put in for "pedestrian safety".  Never mind the fact that the intersection doesn't have any marked crosswalks, curb cuts for ramps, etc.  I've never been at a committee meeting where they have approved the stop signs, nor seen the minutes to the meetings though, but I'm sure they are careful not to mention anything regarding speed control.

Most residents, of course, want them for speed control, and have no clue that they can't be installed for such a reason.

I recall reading a newspaper story after a 4 way stop was installed, which quoted a resident saying how much easier it is to walk across the street now.  Knowing the street she was talking about, I was left scratching my head, as when I drive down that street I rarely encounter another car.  I really wonder how these reporters find these people.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jakeroot on August 04, 2015, 03:40:30 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic?  And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?

For stop signs that were clearly installed for speed control, do the jurisdictions publicly announce their purpose as being for speed control? I would think the majority of jurisdictions install stop signs with the expressed purpose of controlling traffic flow between two junctions, but actually (behind-the-scenes) install them because of speed control.
In (at least) southeastern PA/Greater Philadelphia area; cities, townships & boroughs have made no qualms about erecting STOP signs along non-PennDOT roads for traffic calming/speed control reasons. 

Nearly 20 years ago, Ridley Township (Delaware County) took back control of one stretch of PennDOT road (Franklin Ave., which was part of either SR 2010 or 2017) near where I live so that the township could indeed erect several STOP signs (including one at an intersection with a dead-end road) for such a purpose.  The township originally requested PennDOT to do such; they refused for MUTCD reasons, so the township took back control of the road and the rest is history.

It's worth noting that when one gets pulled over for rolling through one of these particular STOP signs; they're usually ticketed not for failing to completely stop at a STOP sign but rather for ignoring a traffic-control device.  The latter only involves a fine whereas the former involves a fine plus points on one's auto insurance.  The ignoring a traffic control device reason is likely one way of reducing the likelihood of one challenging the citation on MUTCD grounds because the wording on said-citation does not include the words STOP Sign.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Pink Jazz

Sorry to bump, but I am wondering if the next MUTCD will change its rules on what signs can use Fluorescent Yellow-Green sheeting.  The intended use of FYG remains controversial, since DOTs have debated whether it should be specific to school zones or if it should have the broader meaning of potential non-motorized traffic.  The 2009 MUTCD was originally supposed to recommend its use over the standard yellow for pedestrian/bicycle/playground/wheelchair crossing signs, however, opposition by several DOTs demoted it to a simple option.  Will the next MUTCD expand its use as an option for other types of non-motorized traffic (such as equestrian crossings), or will it limit its use only to school zones?

mjb2002

Here's what I'd like to see:

The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.

All STOP signs on side streets intersecting with multi laned highways with a speed limit of 45 or higher shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches.  NO larger. NO smaller.

Similarly, all STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches.  NO larger. NO smaller.

The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.

All Advanced Street Name Plaques with one line shall be a minimum of 15 inches high, and 30 inches high for two lines.

jakeroot

Quote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.

At least in terms of guide signs, I don't think the MUTCD would ever re-introduce all-caps street names and whatnot. From a distance, the halation from all-caps makes each word look like a green and white block, whereas mixed-case is more distinct, and easier to make out.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.