AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Alps on October 05, 2018, 01:10:30 PM

Title: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Alps on October 05, 2018, 01:10:30 PM
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1823.cfm

I'm told "spring 2019". I don't really see that as feasible given the review period. But this is apparently coming sooner than anyone thought.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 02:08:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2018, 01:10:30 PM
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1823.cfm

I'm told "spring 2019". I don't really see that as feasible given the review period. But this is apparently coming sooner than anyone thought.

19th of June, perhaps?

Looking forward to further attempts at uniformity. Hopefully, besides inclusion of a wide number of interim approvals, attempts to improve roads for self-driving cars is another way of saying "less optional tick boxes" (lots of optional stuff in the MUTCD, last I checked).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
Hopefully everyone's favorite typeface stays as far away from the new MUTCD as it did the last one...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: US 89 on October 06, 2018, 12:41:04 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
Hopefully everyone's favorite typeface stays as far away from the new MUTCD as it did the last one...

Doesn't matter if it's in the MUTCD though, because whatever Congress says goes.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on October 06, 2018, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2018, 01:10:30 PMI'm told "spring 2019". I don't really see that as feasible given the review period. But this is apparently coming sooner than anyone thought.

FHWA can publish a NPRM in tomorrow's Federal Register with no draft text or figures and a very minimal comment period (one week?) if the key decision-makers within the agency do not care about wrecking the MUTCD.  It will all depend on how important it is deemed to accommodate stakeholders and put out a high-quality final product.

Having watched all or part of three MUTCD revision processes and participated in two, I have been impressed with FHWA's efforts to implement process refinements from one revision to the next, but I have also seen that these have had mixed results.  In terms of MUTCD figures:

*  The millennium edition of the MUTCD did not have pattern-accurate figures.  Professionals and interested nonspecialists (such as myself) complained.

*  The 2003 edition of the MUTCD was released with pattern-accurate figures, but these were not available at the NPRM stage, so practitioners and citizens had to guess at what the signs would look like on the basis of FHWA's verbal descriptions.  There were concerns expressed about this.  The 2003 figures eventually published were also kind of rough-edged, in a way that later caused problems.  For example, the freeway advance guide sign figures showed the entirety of distance expressions all on one baseline, with fraction numerators and denominators on that baseline rather than in properly constructed fraction rectangles, even though there was no change to the rules for constructing distance expressions.  Advance guide signs began appearing in the field with distance expressions looking like the MUTCD figures.  (A properly constructed distance expression has the "small caps" legend on one baseline, with the distance value and any fraction rectangle vertically centered on that legend.)

*  For the rulemaking that led to the 2009 MUTCD, FHWA responded to the concerns about lack of preview by releasing full text and full figures (in two PDF files, which IIRC had about 700 pages each) on the MUTCD website on the same day the NPRM was published.  The draft figures in particular were very clean (freeway advance guide signs had properly constructed distance expressions).  However, the comment period was considered too short, to the extent that the NCUTCD (in what I felt at the time was an ill-advised move) encouraged practitioners to protest by not commenting at all.

We will have to see how things develop.  Regardless of the scheduling actually implemented, I do not see how FHWA can have a high-quality product ready for commenters before the autumn of 2019.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Pink Jazz on October 12, 2018, 06:39:33 PM
Also, expected to be included are standardization of minimum retroreflectivity levels for blue and brown signs. Recommended values are already available, and I expect them to be standardized in the next MUTCD.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on October 12, 2018, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
Hopefully everyone's favorite typeface stays as far away from the new MUTCD as it did the last one...

How many state DOTs are still actively installing new signs with "everyone's favorite typeface"?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 12, 2018, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
Hopefully everyone's favorite typeface stays as far away from the new MUTCD as it did the last one...

How many state DOTs are still actively installing new signs with "everyone's favorite typeface"?

Just one. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11155.msg278303#msg278303)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2018, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 12, 2018, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
Hopefully everyone's favorite typeface stays as far away from the new MUTCD as it did the last one...

How many state DOTs are still actively installing new signs with "everyone's favorite typeface"?

Just one. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11155.msg278303#msg278303)

Hmm
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: SSOWorld on October 13, 2018, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 12, 2018, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 12, 2018, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
Hopefully everyone's favorite typeface stays as far away from the new MUTCD as it did the last one...

How many state DOTs are still actively installing new signs with "everyone's favorite typeface"?

Just one. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11155.msg278303#msg278303)

Hmm
I believe he said state DOTs :awesomeface: :awesomeface:
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on October 13, 2018, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 12, 2018, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2018, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 12, 2018, 07:22:11 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 05, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
Hopefully everyone's favorite typeface stays as far away from the new MUTCD as it did the last one...
How many state DOTs are still actively installing new signs with "everyone's favorite typeface"?
Just one. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11155.msg278303#msg278303)
Hmm
I believe he said state DOTs :awesomeface: :awesomeface:

Jake is a state.  A state of mind.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Revive 755 on October 17, 2018, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 02:08:04 PM
Looking forward to further attempts at uniformity. Hopefully, besides inclusion of a wide number of interim approvals, attempts to improve roads for self-driving cars is another way of saying "less optional tick boxes" (lots of optional stuff in the MUTCD, last I checked).

The mention of flexibility in the press release makes me think there's going to be more options, or possibly more standard statements downgraded to guidance.  Given the number of times I've seen guidance treated as 'we don't have to follow it so we don't care,' this may be a step in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:08:01 PM
Jake is a state.  A state of mind.

I am the captain now.

Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2018, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2018, 02:08:04 PM
Looking forward to further attempts at uniformity. Hopefully, besides inclusion of a wide number of interim approvals, attempts to improve roads for self-driving cars is another way of saying "less optional tick boxes" (lots of optional stuff in the MUTCD, last I checked).

The mention of flexibility in the press release makes me think there's going to be more options, or possibly more standard statements downgraded to guidance.  Given the number of times I've seen guidance treated as 'we don't have to follow it so we don't care,' this may be a step in the wrong direction.

Hmm. I wish you hadn't pointed that out. Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: paulthemapguy on October 18, 2018, 11:08:13 AM
If pavement markings become the programming by which a self-driving car will operate, there will be much more liability involved in assuring pavement markings are absolutely 100% up to code.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2018, 10:12:23 PMThe mention of flexibility in the press release makes me think there's going to be more options, or possibly more standard statements downgraded to guidance.  Given the number of times I've seen guidance treated as 'we don't have to follow it so we don't care,' this may be a step in the wrong direction.

Hmm. I wish you hadn't pointed that out. Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

The MUTCD is a very complex document and liberalization can occur in some directions while requirements become more stringent in others.  Since the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, for example, toll agencies and even some state DOTs that have long taken the position that they don't have to comply with MUTCD guide sign design rules--the Ohio Turnpike Commission and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority come to mind--have changed over to vanilla MUTCD sign design approaches.

My big concern, as someone who is interested primarily in guide signs, is that the MUTCD no longer has language establishing primary destination legend in Series E Modified as a minimum legibility floor for freeway guide signs, so any revision has the potential to bring us closer to signs with primary destination legend in mixed-case Series B.  FHWA has said that engineering judgment will prevent such a thing from happening, but it is difficult to exercise such judgment when information as to the unit legibilities of each alphabet series is not published (at least in the US), and is neither widely available to nor known by practitioners.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on October 19, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

meh.  Whether there are sixteen standards or two standards out there for something–as long as all of them are part of the car's intelligence, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 19, 2018, 06:48:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

meh.  Whether there are sixteen standards or two standards out there for something–as long as all of them are part of the car's intelligence, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

I would agree with this in theory.

For the sake of uniformity for human drivers, I dislike how many alternative options there are in the national MUTCD (usually for the sake of appeasing a few states who refuse to adopt the better national standard). But for an autonomous vehicle, recognizing variants of a sign or marking that are documented in the MUTCD shouldn't be a problem.

The real issue is locally-maintained and private road networks (e.g. shopping centers) that seem to come up with countless ridiculously non-compliant setups. A huge portion of these roads are in substantial non-compliance with the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Duke87 on October 19, 2018, 07:46:51 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 19, 2018, 06:48:24 PM
The real issue is locally-maintained and private road networks (e.g. shopping centers) that seem to come up with countless ridiculously non-compliant setups. A huge portion of these roads are in substantial non-compliance with the MUTCD.

On the other hand if there is a significant proliferation of autonomous vehicles dependent on being able to read signs and pavement markings, any extant noncompliances that are sufficiently off from spec to cause confusion will become quickly apparent as weird vehicle behavior results from it, which will force the hand of those responsible to improve their practices. After all no one is going to want to go shopping at the mall where every time they try to enter the parking lot their car throws an error and disengages autopilot because it doesn't know how to deal with pavement crisscrossed by solid yellow lines that the owner had painted there for whatever reason made sense in their head. People will complain and demand the problem be fixed.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2018, 10:12:23 PMThe mention of flexibility in the press release makes me think there's going to be more options, or possibly more standard statements downgraded to guidance.  Given the number of times I've seen guidance treated as 'we don't have to follow it so we don't care,' this may be a step in the wrong direction.

Hmm. I wish you hadn't pointed that out. Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

The MUTCD is a very complex document and liberalization can occur in some directions while requirements become more stringent in others.  Since the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, for example, toll agencies and even some state DOTs that have long taken the position that they don't have to comply with MUTCD guide sign design rules--the Ohio Turnpike Commission and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority come to mind--have changed over to vanilla MUTCD sign design approaches.

Any reason for the changes? I'm glad to see improved recognition of standard practices, but if they've always declined to comply in the past, why now?

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
My big concern, as someone who is interested primarily in guide signs, is that the MUTCD no longer has language establishing primary destination legend in Series E Modified as a minimum legibility floor for freeway guide signs, so any revision has the potential to bring us closer to signs with primary destination legend in mixed-case Series B.  FHWA has said that engineering judgment will prevent such a thing from happening, but it is difficult to exercise such judgment when information as to the unit legibilities of each alphabet series is not published (at least in the US), and is neither widely available to nor known by practitioners.

Yeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 19, 2018, 06:48:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

meh.  Whether there are sixteen standards or two standards out there for something–as long as all of them are part of the car's intelligence, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

I would agree with this in theory.

For the sake of uniformity for human drivers, I dislike how many alternative options there are in the national MUTCD (usually for the sake of appeasing a few states who refuse to adopt the better national standard). But for an autonomous vehicle, recognizing variants of a sign or marking that are documented in the MUTCD shouldn't be a problem.

This is one of my gripes. The manual is full of optional extras. Yes, they could all be programmed into the brains of the car, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce the chance of an error occurring by simplifying what's out there.

One of my main gripes with lane markings at the moment is the lack of any requirement for dotted edge markings. For example, on freeways in states, when lanes merge and diverge, there's this large area of pavement (https://goo.gl/621ic5) (at its widest, about 2.2 lanes wide, narrowing down to only one lane wide at the end of the merge/diverge). How, as I driver, can I remain confident that the car will remain centered in its lane when one of the edge lines is temporarily missing?

I would prefer the MUTCD adopted a ruling like this: any time you leave your lane (to do anything), you cross a dashed line.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Pink Jazz on October 20, 2018, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2018, 10:12:23 PMThe mention of flexibility in the press release makes me think there's going to be more options, or possibly more standard statements downgraded to guidance.  Given the number of times I've seen guidance treated as 'we don't have to follow it so we don't care,' this may be a step in the wrong direction.

Hmm. I wish you hadn't pointed that out. Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

The MUTCD is a very complex document and liberalization can occur in some directions while requirements become more stringent in others.  Since the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, for example, toll agencies and even some state DOTs that have long taken the position that they don't have to comply with MUTCD guide sign design rules--the Ohio Turnpike Commission and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority come to mind--have changed over to vanilla MUTCD sign design approaches.

Any reason for the changes? I'm glad to see improved recognition of standard practices, but if they've always declined to comply in the past, why now?

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
My big concern, as someone who is interested primarily in guide signs, is that the MUTCD no longer has language establishing primary destination legend in Series E Modified as a minimum legibility floor for freeway guide signs, so any revision has the potential to bring us closer to signs with primary destination legend in mixed-case Series B.  FHWA has said that engineering judgment will prevent such a thing from happening, but it is difficult to exercise such judgment when information as to the unit legibilities of each alphabet series is not published (at least in the US), and is neither widely available to nor known by practitioners.

Yeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 19, 2018, 06:48:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

meh.  Whether there are sixteen standards or two standards out there for something–as long as all of them are part of the car's intelligence, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

I would agree with this in theory.

For the sake of uniformity for human drivers, I dislike how many alternative options there are in the national MUTCD (usually for the sake of appeasing a few states who refuse to adopt the better national standard). But for an autonomous vehicle, recognizing variants of a sign or marking that are documented in the MUTCD shouldn't be a problem.

This is one of my gripes. The manual is full of optional extras. Yes, they could all be programmed into the brains of the car, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce the chance of an error occurring by simplifying what's out there.

One of my main gripes with lane markings at the moment is the lack of any requirement for dotted edge markings. For example, on freeways in states, when lanes merge and diverge, there's this large area of pavement (https://goo.gl/621ic5) (at its widest, about 2.2 lanes wide, narrowing down to only one lane wide at the end of the mergeerge). How, as I driver, can I remain confident that the car will remain centered in its lane when one of the edge lines is temporarily missing?

I would prefer the MUTCD adopted a ruling like this: any time you leave your lane (to do anything), you cross a dashed line.



ADOT is using Enhanced E-Modified on freeway guide signs and Series D on non-freeway signs.  For signs at freeway to freeway junctions, ADOT increases the size of the text of control cities (this started during the Clearview era and continues to this day).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on October 20, 2018, 10:51:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PMAny reason for the changes? I'm glad to see improved recognition of standard practices, but if they've always declined to comply in the past, why now?

A big factor, I understand, is the same modified approach to enforcement from FHWA that resulted in California implementing exit number signing in 2002.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PMYeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

A few small states, such as Vermont, design conventional-road guide signs with Series B as the default.  At one time Georgia was using mixed-case Series C or D at taller letter heights (e.g., 20 in UC/15 in LC instead of the usual 16 in UC/12 in LC) on freeway guide signs, but it has now retreated from this in favor of biting the bullet and using Series E Modified at the taller heights.  I frankly think Arizona's use of Series E, even at Series E Modified spacing, is ill-advised.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 20, 2018, 02:32:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 20, 2018, 10:51:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PMYeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

A few small states, such as Vermont, design conventional-road guide signs with Series B as the default.  At one time Georgia was using mixed-case Series C or D at taller letter heights (e.g., 20 in UC/15 in LC instead of the usual 16 in UC/12 in LC) on freeway guide signs, but it has now retreated from this in favor of biting the bullet and using Series E Modified at the taller heights.  I frankly think Arizona's use of Series E, even at Series E Modified spacing, is ill-advised.

I don't have any qualms with "EE(M)", but until we know better, E(M) is certainly the better bet.

I'm quite used to seeing E(M) here in WA, as I think we've been using it for quite some time. But every now and again, something else pops up. Like this Series C guide sign (https://goo.gl/SRzqyy) for an event center (of sorts), or this combo Series C/E(M) guide sign (https://goo.gl/sPBU9B). 99% of signs use E(M), but it's not unlike WSDOT to occasionally throw up something narrower.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on October 20, 2018, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PM
Yeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

The MUTCD outright states that legend size is supposed to be determined first, and then the dimensions of the sign determined based on that. Any designer that reduces the legend size or typeface to fit in a predetermined sign blank is violating the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 20, 2018, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2018, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PM
Yeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

The MUTCD outright states that legend size is supposed to be determined first, and then the dimensions of the sign determined based on that. Any designer that reduces the legend size or typeface to fit in a predetermined sign blank is violating the MUTCD.

Is it possible that apparent violations are due to existing sign mounts not being able to fit a wider sign (leaving the engineer's hands tied)?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: hbelkins on October 21, 2018, 03:23:59 PM
At some point, cost has to come into play. Those big signs aren't cheap.  If a smaller sign, and thus a smaller font, can save tax dollars, then I'm all for it.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 21, 2018, 04:00:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2018, 03:23:59 PM
At some point, cost has to come into play. Those big signs aren't cheap.  If a smaller sign, and thus a smaller font, can save tax dollars, then I'm all for it.

I don't think cost comes into play. These things are usually budgeted.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: billpa on October 22, 2018, 05:56:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2018, 03:23:59 PM
At some point, cost has to come into play. Those big signs aren't cheap.  If a smaller sign, and thus a smaller font, can save tax dollars, then I'm all for it.
Smaller signs, I would think, will ALWAYS save money. The question is how cheap do we want to be.
I think too many states already go out of their way to be cheap with signs, striping and other road related installations.

Pixel 2

Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on October 22, 2018, 11:00:49 AM
In terms of cost per installation for a given nominal reading distance, the US is already quite efficient compared to most other countries.  We use a set of typefaces that are not conspicuously inefficient in terms of legibility per unit of sign area covered, and we employ sign design rules that typically leave relatively little blank area on the sign panel.  On freeways we could probably achieve modest additional efficiencies in sign panel area by allowing it to be more common to range shields next to destination legend (Caltrans-style) versus sticking to shields always above primary destination legend (often leaves a lot of blank space on either side of a single shield).  But even with shields always above destination legend, a typical American freeway advance guide or exit direction sign leaves less space blank than a "fork" sign in Britain or Germany.  In terms of structure cost, we are in the position of being able to spend more modestly than other countries to achieve the same benefits in terms of reduced obscuration by large trucks, because we allow the same sign to be ground-mounted on posts (very cheap, usually under $5,000) or on a cantilever structure (usually around $30,000) instead of making it a big deal to jump from a very large ground-mounted sign in the "fork" format to a set of differently formatted signs designed for mounting to a full-width overhead signbridge (in Britain, the cost disparity is £5,000 for ground-mounted fork sign versus over £100,000 for overhead signbridge, since cantilever mounting of fixed permanent directional signs is not allowed on motorways).

This efficiency makes it fairly difficult to shave costs further without also reducing reading distance.  This is why I am opposed to expanding agencies' ability to maintain technical compliance with the MUTCD while reducing reading distance, which is effectively what Vermont is doing by using Series B rather than the standard Series D at the specified letter heights on its conventional-road guide signs.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2018, 10:12:23 PMThe mention of flexibility in the press release makes me think there's going to be more options, or possibly more standard statements downgraded to guidance.  Given the number of times I've seen guidance treated as 'we don't have to follow it so we don't care,' this may be a step in the wrong direction.

Hmm. I wish you hadn't pointed that out. Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

The MUTCD is a very complex document and liberalization can occur in some directions while requirements become more stringent in others.  Since the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, for example, toll agencies and even some state DOTs that have long taken the position that they don't have to comply with MUTCD guide sign design rules--the Ohio Turnpike Commission and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority come to mind--have changed over to vanilla MUTCD sign design approaches.

Any reason for the changes? I'm glad to see improved recognition of standard practices, but if they've always declined to comply in the past, why now?

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
My big concern, as someone who is interested primarily in guide signs, is that the MUTCD no longer has language establishing primary destination legend in Series E Modified as a minimum legibility floor for freeway guide signs, so any revision has the potential to bring us closer to signs with primary destination legend in mixed-case Series B.  FHWA has said that engineering judgment will prevent such a thing from happening, but it is difficult to exercise such judgment when information as to the unit legibilities of each alphabet series is not published (at least in the US), and is neither widely available to nor known by practitioners.

Yeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 19, 2018, 06:48:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2018, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2018, 11:39:29 PM
Self driving cars need consistency. I would imagine that having all road markings across the US standardized would help in the implementation of such technology.

meh.  Whether there are sixteen standards or two standards out there for something–as long as all of them are part of the car's intelligence, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

I would agree with this in theory.

For the sake of uniformity for human drivers, I dislike how many alternative options there are in the national MUTCD (usually for the sake of appeasing a few states who refuse to adopt the better national standard). But for an autonomous vehicle, recognizing variants of a sign or marking that are documented in the MUTCD shouldn't be a problem.

This is one of my gripes. The manual is full of optional extras. Yes, they could all be programmed into the brains of the car, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce the chance of an error occurring by simplifying what's out there.

One of my main gripes with lane markings at the moment is the lack of any requirement for dotted edge markings. For example, on freeways in states, when lanes merge and diverge, there's this large area of pavement (https://goo.gl/621ic5) (at its widest, about 2.2 lanes wide, narrowing down to only one lane wide at the end of the merge/diverge). How, as I driver, can I remain confident that the car will remain centered in its lane when one of the edge lines is temporarily missing?

I would prefer the MUTCD adopted a ruling like this: any time you leave your lane (to do anything), you cross a dashed line.
Orlando/CFX recently adapted small dashed lines all the way on merging lanes, and it drives me and others batshit crazy when visibility is limited, its frequently hard to tell where the lane ends, and there is no differentiation between the lane ending small dashed line and the small dashed line indicating the lane is exit only. I think those markings should be banned for lane merges, and I don't really like them on splits either, just mandatory indicating exit-only lanes.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:43:44 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Orlando/CFX recently adapted small dashed lines all the way on merging lanes, and it drives me and others batshit crazy when visibility is limited, its frequently hard to tell where the lane ends, and there is no differentiation between the lane ending small dashed line and the small dashed line indicating the lane is exit only. I think those markings should be banned for lane merges, and I don't really like them on splits either, just mandatory indicating exit-only lanes.

Sounds like they're poorly designed. Most states use a narrower dashed line for edge extension markings (the technical term), with a wider variation reserved for exit-only situations.

I've seen wider dashes in FL personally, but they were used in conjunction with long splitter arrows. Are those still used?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on October 23, 2018, 05:01:29 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Orlando/CFX recently adapted small dashed lines all the way on merging lanes, and it drives me and others batshit crazy when visibility is limited, its frequently hard to tell where the lane ends

I totally agree.  You sometimes have no idea how long your lane will continue until it's time to MOVE OVER NOW.  Could be ¾ miles, could be just a few hundred feet.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 05:25:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 04:43:44 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Orlando/CFX recently adapted small dashed lines all the way on merging lanes, and it drives me and others batshit crazy when visibility is limited, its frequently hard to tell where the lane ends, and there is no differentiation between the lane ending small dashed line and the small dashed line indicating the lane is exit only. I think those markings should be banned for lane merges, and I don't really like them on splits either, just mandatory indicating exit-only lanes.

Sounds like they're poorly designed. Most states use a narrower dashed line for edge extension markings (the technical term), with a wider variation reserved for exit-only situations.

I've seen wider dashes in FL personally, but they were used in conjunction with long splitter arrows. Are those still used?
They did add those long splitter arrows as part of the same project to add those dashed lines. Here's how an exit with an exit only lane and an option lane is marked:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5469725,-81.2707755,3a,75y,103.74h,92.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjOu6ZIWZ0QouHgUEFzdF8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I've seen people just keep driving straight through it, as the dashed line just continues straight after the exit begins, and there is too many lines on the road for people to understand the meaning.

On the end of merge lanes, here's how they're marking it now:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5385093,-81.3301712,3a,68.7y,308.79h,83.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBh0BU54DxNdF0fwHDWHPAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I myself, when seeing those marks for the first time, thought I had much more distance then I did (when visibility wasn't quite as good as GSV provides) and drove a little bit off the road, and I've seen countless others do that a well. Its flat out dangerous.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: billpa on October 23, 2018, 05:29:10 PM
I've had a look at the gsv links. I have no idea what the problem is.

Pixel 2

Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
Quote from: billpa on October 23, 2018, 05:29:10 PM
I've had a look at the gsv links. I have no idea what the problem is.

Pixel 2
The problem in the first/road forking example is a driver in the far right lane could possibly get confused and continue to follow the small dashed line to their left, and inadverterently cross paths with a driver using the left option exit lane. I've seen people do this numerous times since the markings were added.

The problem in the second/road merging example is with poor visibility, its hard to know that you're at the point where the lane is really ending, and people don't realize it until the lane has already substantially narrowed that there lane is half gone because the road markings no longer indicate that. Typically, the dashed lines disappear when the merging lane begins to disappear, because at that point, they're basically merged, the lanes have become one, you no longer have 2 lanes of road here. I myself made this mistake when they first changed the markings in this manner.

And if we're talking about autonomous cars, they may see one set of lines, such as the dashed ones, attempt to follow that assuming that is "straight" and miss the solid line coming off of it, and end up inadvertently changing lanes.

I feel like this is a similar problem to the road markings of multilane roundabouts, and its generally not a good idea to have dashed lines parallel to vehicles travel paths that vehicles have to cross, it can be too confusing with a quick glance, even if it makes sense given an overall picture like the street view image.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 07:16:21 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
And if we're talking about autonomous cars, they may see one set of lines, such as the dashed ones, attempt to follow that assuming that is "straight" and miss the solid line coming off of it, and end up inadvertently changing lanes.

They aren't very well coded, then, if they can't tell the difference between a dashed and solid line.

Quote from: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
The problem in the second/road merging example is with poor visibility, its hard to know that you're at the point where the lane is really ending, and people don't realize it until the lane has already substantially narrowed that there lane is half gone because the road markings no longer indicate that. Typically, the dashed lines disappear when the merging lane begins to disappear, because at that point, they're basically merged, the lanes have become one, you no longer have 2 lanes of road here. I myself made this mistake when they first changed the markings in this manner.

Typically, dashed lines are reserved for the last X-hundred feet of a lane that's merging or diverging. When you see the dashed lines, you know something is coming up. With no lines, it's not entirely clear, for example, who is merging into who, which lane is the one leaving and the one heading straight on, etc. And then you have the other issue of multiple lanes occupying one giant open area between lines, such as in my linked example above. If the ramp is backed up, it's nice to know where you can wait without getting clipped, since the dashed line indicates the edge of the lane.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 23, 2018, 07:30:25 PM
CT was doing the dashed lines as a slow vehicle lane is ending until the lane narrows out and meets the white solid line.  Lately with newer repavement jobs they haven't.

and for exit only lanes CT unusually does the last half mile as a dotted/dashed line.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on October 23, 2018, 07:41:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 07:16:21 PM
Typically, dashed lines are reserved for the last X-hundred feet of a lane that's merging or diverging.

Except when, if a road was striped according to the 2003 MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part3/fig3b-08-1_longdesc.htm) guidelines, a dotted line is reserved for the beginning of a lane that's diverging.  Far from a universal standard.

Also, the only guidance I see in the 2009 MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/fig3b_09_1_longdesc.htm) as to how long a dotted line should extend for an acceleration lane is "at least half the length of the full-width acceleration lane plus taper."  Beyond that point, it is "optional."  So a driver doesn't really know which to expect:  the dotted line to end at some point before the taper, or else the dotted line to extend all the way to the end of the taper.  Even if the former becomes apparent, "at least half the length" is pretty vague guidance.

On my morning commute, there is a stretch of I-135 (https://goo.gl/maps/Pi4SWHLZyQL2) with a 0.4-mile dotted line for an exit-only lane.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 07:16:21 PM
If the ramp is backed up, it's nice to know where you can wait without getting clipped, since the dashed line indicates the edge of the lane.

You might be overestimating how much your likelihood of being rear-ended is affected by the existence of paint on asphalt.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 07:52:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 07:16:21 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
And if we're talking about autonomous cars, they may see one set of lines, such as the dashed ones, attempt to follow that assuming that is "straight" and miss the solid line coming off of it, and end up inadvertently changing lanes.

They aren't very well coded, then, if they can't tell the difference between a dashed and solid line.
The problem more is that there is literally a wrong set of lines on the road. If it misses the solid line (which looking at my image, the long straight arrow looks fairly similar to the lane edge line as well, so it may assume a different marking), it very well could follow the dashed line its been seeing up until this point, that is continuing straight. Plus, humans are already making this mistake, a mistake I generally never saw before they added those markings
Quote
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 23, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
The problem in the second/road merging example is with poor visibility, its hard to know that you're at the point where the lane is really ending, and people don't realize it until the lane has already substantially narrowed that there lane is half gone because the road markings no longer indicate that. Typically, the dashed lines disappear when the merging lane begins to disappear, because at that point, they're basically merged, the lanes have become one, you no longer have 2 lanes of road here. I myself made this mistake when they first changed the markings in this manner.

Typically, dashed lines are reserved for the last X-hundred feet of a lane that's merging or diverging. When you see the dashed lines, you know something is coming up. With no lines, it's not entirely clear, for example, who is merging into who, which lane is the one leaving and the one heading straight on, etc. And then you have the other issue of multiple lanes occupying one giant open area between lines, such as in my linked example above. If the ramp is backed up, it's nice to know where you can wait without getting clipped, since the dashed line indicates the edge of the lane.
I love the dashed lines indicating the diverging lane, I think that should be MUTCD mandated, it gets the message across really well. I don't really mind it on merging ones, but it needs to end when the lane begins to narrow, its an extra alert that the lane is really over. But its completely ridiculous and inconsistent with any other dashed road marking when they have the dashed line across the exit. Where you are diverging should be clear you're welcome, its not indicating you're moving into someone else's traffic and need to yield, its not like stop bars that we pass, or turning over dashed lines which indicates a bike lane or some other hazard, its just confusing and unnecessary. Every other line we drive over indicates some sort of hazard, this one is not.

The arrows on the ending lane indicates who needs to merge, and if its heavy traffic, they should be zipper merging, and the dashes make the merge point more confusing. Slightly unrelated but the Orlando airport for the longest time had merge arrows pointing to each other on the ramps when the 2 lanes were converting to 1 (I think when they repaved the road they randomly decided to switch who merges into who, and didn't remove the old paint very well, one was more fresh then the other). I believe they repaved it a few years ago and its no longer like that.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: billpa on October 24, 2018, 04:49:32 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2018, 07:41:53 PMBeyond that point, it is "optional." 

There's that word 'optional'...It's ridiculous to 'not' have a standard when it comes to these things.  I realize there are 50 states but many states don't always stripe roads the same from one district to another.  Sometimes the same highway has different striping standards from one exit to the next.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on October 24, 2018, 11:55:59 AM
Quote from: billpa on October 24, 2018, 04:49:32 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 23, 2018, 07:41:53 PMBeyond that point, it is "optional." 

There's that word 'optional'...It's ridiculous to 'not' have a standard when it comes to these things.  I realize there are 50 states but many states don't always stripe roads the same from one district to another.  Sometimes the same highway has different striping standards from one exit to the next.

And it's not just that it's optional, either.  Any length between 50% and 100% of the total lane and taper length is allowed.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on October 24, 2018, 11:06:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2018, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 20, 2018, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 07:48:15 PM
Yeah, that doesn't seem too wise. If an engineer is unable to fit a particular legend onto a freeway guide sign using Series E(M), they need to consider changing the legend, changing the position of the sign, or changing the size of the sign. Simply using a narrower typeface just screams "lazy". Of course, I'm not a sign engineer, so I'm not going to pretend like a know everything. But mixed-case Series E(M) has been shown time and time again to be the best typeface for guide signs, so why that isn't the only option unless absolutely necessary, I'm not sure.

The MUTCD outright states that legend size is supposed to be determined first, and then the dimensions of the sign determined based on that. Any designer that reduces the legend size or typeface to fit in a predetermined sign blank is violating the MUTCD.

Is it possible that apparent violations are due to existing sign mounts not being able to fit a wider sign (leaving the engineer's hands tied)?

The MUTCD would say that the sign mounts would therefore be out of compliance and need to be replaced.

Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2018, 03:23:59 PM
At some point, cost has to come into play. Those big signs aren't cheap.  If a smaller sign, and thus a smaller font, can save tax dollars, then I'm all for it.

Why not just use milepost blanks for everything, then?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: conekicker on February 17, 2019, 06:46:47 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 22, 2018, 11:00:49 AM
snip
...since cantilever mounting of fixed permanent directional signs is not allowed on motorways...
'tis now :-)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4710662,-1.4551261,3a,46.1y,151.15h,98.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLC4Q10Ee5rrPDuyLEe_DFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on January 16, 2020, 10:10:14 AM
I wonder if Clearview will be mentioned in this edition, since only a handful of states began using it by the 2009 revision, and many more have joined in after that?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
If there's one thing I want in this MUTCD, I want the guidance on lowercase letter heights to be specified very clearly as 75% of the capital letter size. There are way too many signs out there where this was apparently misinterpreted as 75% of the original lowercase height.

Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 16, 2020, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.

Isn't Utah full of arrow-per-lane signs, which were the effective replacement for down-arrow option lane signage? There's definitely a way to advance-sign an option-lane exit. They're also one of the few states using the sawn-off arrow-per-lane sign, which saves on cost while still being decently informative (from what I've seen/heard).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: paulthemapguy on January 16, 2020, 01:08:34 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.

Big same. 

A new edition of the MUTCD can't come soon enough.  It's been way too long since the last edition.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2020, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
If there's one thing I want in this MUTCD, I want the guidance on lowercase letter heights to be specified very clearly as 75% of the capital letter size. There are way too many signs out there where this was apparently misinterpreted as 75% of the original lowercase height.

I think the problem comes in that somehow, it's interpreted that the tallest lowercase letters be 75% of their Uppercase counterparts, such as b, d, h, l, and t.  Then the other letters (a, c, e, etc) be 75% of that.

Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.

Uh?  That's the whole purpose of the APL (Arrow Per Lane) signage, fully detailed within the MUTCD.

The Option Lane should only be signed 'Exit Only' after the split.  Otherwise, only the lanes that are fully exiting should be signed Exit Only.

If there's an example of what you originally stated, then it's a case of someone designing the sign against MUTCD specs.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 01:15:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 16, 2020, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.

Isn't Utah full of arrow-per-lane signs, which were the effective replacement for down-arrow option lane signage? There's definitely a way to advance-sign an option-lane exit. They're also one of the few states using the sawn-off arrow-per-lane sign, which saves on cost while still being decently informative (from what I've seen/heard).

I certainly don't mind Utah's partial APLs, but the thing is that those were added into Utah's version of the MUTCD. There should be something like that in the federal document.

As for full-size APLs: I'd love to know how this (https://goo.gl/maps/sgrRUCZtwQiL43g38) is any more effective than what was there before (https://goo.gl/maps/Rp5NXpxLE6awYXGb7). The new one is a waste of sign and still isn't easy to read.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on January 16, 2020, 03:09:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2020, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AMIf there's one thing I want in this MUTCD, I want the guidance on lowercase letter heights to be specified very clearly as 75% of the capital letter size. There are way too many signs out there where this was apparently misinterpreted as 75% of the original lowercase height.

I think the problem comes in that somehow, it's interpreted that the tallest lowercase letters be 75% of their Uppercase counterparts, such as b, d, h, l, and t.  Then the other letters (a, c, e, etc) be 75% of that.

Part of the issue, I have come to realize, is that the "big uppercase letter" syndrome technically complies with the MUTCD, because the relevant Standard statement under § 2A.13 is incorrectly drafted.

It reads as follows:

Quote from: MUTCDWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.

What it should read is as follows (inserted word in bold):

QuoteWhen a mixed-case legend is used, the loop height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter.

The traditional sizing rule for lowercase letters in mixed-case legend has been lowercase loop height equal to 75% of capital letter height.  Lowercase loop height is explicitly used as a proxy for x-height, as noted in the Support statement immediately above the Standard conveying the 75% requirement.  But the Standard itself does not specify explicitly that it is to be used.  This opens the door to using lowercase letters with ascenders (i.e., the same height as capital letters) as the sizing control, rather than letters without ascenders or descenders (e.g., x).

If you want to save money, or you have no pride in your work . . .

Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.

I've long called this the "hide the option lane" approach and it was a purposeful choice, reflecting a decision that the potential problems associated with it (such as overcrowding the dropped lane with exiting traffic that would otherwise use the option lane) correspond to better outcomes overall than the potential problems associated with various approaches for signing option lanes (such as encouraging through traffic to make unnecessary lane changes to get out of a lane that looks like it may drop).

APLs (and, for that matter, stippled-arrow diagrammatics) are designed to provide an explicit indication of option lanes, but they have their own issues and are in any case not mandated for all exits that have option lanes.

The last time I looked up GMITC materials on the NCUTCD website, they wanted sawn-off APLs as used in Utah, Florida, and other states to be added to the MUTCD.  We'll see if they are shown when proposed text is finally available.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 16, 2020, 03:22:14 PM
For APL's why can't each lane have it's own separate sign with route/control city and arrow over each lane?  Actually it'll be less materials used.  Instead of having one huge sign over all lanes, you'd have individual smaller ones over each lane.

An example for a three-lane road with the middle lane being the option lane:

                       North
                       US-27

West               West              North 
I-4                  I-4               US-27

                     Tampa   
Tampa         Jacksonville    Jacksonville

  V                     V                   V
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 16, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 01:15:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 16, 2020, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 16, 2020, 11:55:45 AM
Also, the current MUTCD handles exits with option lanes really poorly in my opinion, since it doesn't have a way to indicate an option lane on the big overhead signs in advance of the exit. Nobody reads the little R3-8 lane signs at freeway speeds. I'm also not a fan of how the option lane is signed "exit only" at the ramp itself.

Isn't Utah full of arrow-per-lane signs, which were the effective replacement for down-arrow option lane signage? There's definitely a way to advance-sign an option-lane exit. They're also one of the few states using the sawn-off arrow-per-lane sign, which saves on cost while still being decently informative (from what I've seen/heard).

I certainly don't mind Utah's partial APLs, but the thing is that those were added into Utah's version of the MUTCD. There should be something like that in the federal document.

As for full-size APLs: I'd love to know how this (https://goo.gl/maps/sgrRUCZtwQiL43g38) is any more effective than what was there before (https://goo.gl/maps/Rp5NXpxLE6awYXGb7). The new one is a waste of sign and still isn't easy to read.

Agreed on the sawn-off APL addition. Would be wise!

But your problem doesn't seem to be the lack of a way to sign option lanes, but rather your disapproval of full-width APLs. Being someone who is very publicly in favour of APL signage, even I recognize that some can become gigantic. But that's not because of the up arrows themselves, but how poorly the MUTCD has designated information be laid out on the signs. It's basically a free-for-all with down arrow signage (in terms of where stuff can be placed), but God forbid anyone put a route shield between two up arrows on an APL to save space.

Thing is, at least in my opinion, while they are large, they do seem very effective in minimizing unnecessary lane changes (particularly in areas where auxiliary lanes are common and where lane changes (to exit) are not always necessary). While I would love to see one or two committees study various types of APLs, and not just those introduced in the 2009 MUTCD (which, I agree, can become almost comically large), the usefulness of the current signage is still there, and, realistically, in most cases, the signs are not ridiculously large (https://i.imgur.com/Jton8zb.jpg) -- your link is certainly an outlier.

California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_eb_exit_006a_03.jpg)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: akotchi on January 16, 2020, 03:46:21 PM
^^^  To J N's discussion, I think there are standards in Chapter 2D and 2E (for guide signs) that do specify the loop height.  Must not have gotten back to 2A.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: marleythedog on January 17, 2020, 11:28:35 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 16, 2020, 03:22:14 PM
For APL's why can't each lane have it's own separate sign with route/control city and arrow over each lane?  Actually it'll be less materials used.  Instead of having one huge sign over all lanes, you'd have individual smaller ones over each lane.

An example for a three-lane road with the middle lane being the option lane:

                       North
                       US-27

West               West              North 
I-4                  I-4               US-27

                     Tampa   
Tampa         Jacksonville    Jacksonville

  V                     V                   V

Here's an example from the Ohio thread. It's not great.

Quote from: 6a on October 21, 2019, 09:40:45 AM
The opening of the reconfigured exit ramps at I-670 & I-270 has brought about some exit numbering changes:

10A: I-270 N
10B: SR 161/Easton Way
10C: US 62 E
10D: I-270 S

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191021/b2096f2bbe20adac0dc2843f6121ba86.jpg)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: US 89 on January 17, 2020, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 16, 2020, 03:22:14 PM
For APL's why can't each lane have it's own separate sign with route/control city and arrow over each lane?  Actually it'll be less materials used.  Instead of having one huge sign over all lanes, you'd have individual smaller ones over each lane.

An example for a three-lane road with the middle lane being the option lane:

                       North
                       US-27

West               West              North 
I-4                  I-4               US-27

                     Tampa   
Tampa         Jacksonville    Jacksonville

  V                     V                   V

To me, that would suggest the middle lane goes to an I-24/US 27 concurrency.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: MNHighwayMan on January 17, 2020, 12:32:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 16, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_eb_exit_006a_03.jpg)

That might be the first California BGS that I have ever really liked.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 17, 2020, 04:20:44 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 17, 2020, 12:32:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 16, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_eb_exit_006a_03.jpg)

That might be the first California BGS that I have ever really liked.

Yeah, it's nice ain't it!? It works because it's clear (IMO) and thrifty with space. If all APLs were laid out like this (or similar to this) to begin with, I doubt anywhere near as many of us would find them a waste.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 18, 2020, 05:24:51 AM
Another approach to shrinking APL panel size that I believe I posted in one of the illustration thread:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ofkg3jw.png)

I wonder how this would fare during testing.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 18, 2020, 10:09:12 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2020, 10:10:14 AM
I wonder if Clearview will be mentioned in this edition, since only a handful of states began using it by the 2009 revision, and many more have joined in after that?


Highly doubt it.  The FHWA's evaluation of Clearview post-reinstatement has shown that it is no more legible than the FHWA Standard Alphabets, and that any increase in legibility can be achieved by increasing the size of the lettering.  Considering that the Congress that pushed for Clearview's reinstatement has been gone for about a year now and there has been no real push by the current Congress to adopt the font, I don't see the interim approval lasting much longer.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: DaBigE on January 18, 2020, 10:45:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2020, 05:24:51 AM
Another approach to shrinking APL panel size that I believe I posted in one of the illustration thread:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ofkg3jw.png)

I wonder how this would fare during testing.

I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 19, 2020, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 18, 2020, 10:45:30 PM
I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.

Totally agree. The "holes" in the sign look really odd to me. Plus, it still requires lane-width signs to correspond with the arrows. A regular APL, with a bit more creativity, would be quite a bit easier to mount, and would require a lot less "cutting" (if that's a term for sign construction):

(https://i.imgur.com/xqUqo9i.png)

(font is Overpass (https://overpassfont.org/)) (signs are about 110" tall).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 21, 2020, 05:52:02 AM
I feel like this
Quote from: DaBigE on January 18, 2020, 10:45:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 18, 2020, 05:24:51 AM
Another approach to shrinking APL panel size that I believe I posted in one of the illustration thread:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ofkg3jw.png)

I wonder how this would fare during testing.

I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.

It's based on what Ontario does with down arrows on their signage.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 19, 2020, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on January 18, 2020, 10:45:30 PM
I'm torn on this. It makes the sign panels much more "efficient" (less wasted fields of green), but adds a decent amount of mounting complexity, and looks kinda tacky/cheap/ugly, IMO.

Totally agree. The "holes" in the sign look really odd to me. Plus, it still requires lane-width signs to correspond with the arrows. A regular APL, with a bit more creativity, would be quite a bit easier to mount, and would require a lot less "cutting" (if that's a term for sign construction):

(https://i.imgur.com/xqUqo9i.png)

(font is Overpass (https://overpassfont.org/)) (signs are about 110" tall).

The problem with this is that it would cause unneeded lane changes (people will invariably think they need the #2 or #3 lanes for I-20, and that the #3 and #4 lanes are for I-59 only). Of course, you could duplicate both shields on both lanes, but that's going to look pretty crowded (and green space is important for readability), and won't work if there are 3+ shields involved.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 21, 2020, 04:21:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 21, 2020, 05:52:02 AM
The problem with this is that it would cause unneeded lane changes (people will invariably think they need the #2 or #3 lanes for I-20, and that the #3 and #4 lanes are for I-59 only). Of course, you could duplicate both shields on both lanes, but that's going to look pretty crowded (and green space is important for readability), and won't work if there are 3+ shields involved.

I've created signs that duplicate the shields as well. My exact design here may not work with three shields, but (A) that doesn't mean I can't figure something out, and (B) that's not exactly a common occurrence.; there's many routes in the US with triplexes, but at least from my experience, only the absolute most important routes (one or two) are shown.

(https://i.imgur.com/Gd5o8Fe.png)

I've probably done 100+ redesigns over the years, and only once can I recall deleting an extra shield (not sure which route below):

(https://i.imgur.com/LennuzV.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 22, 2020, 03:49:27 PM
I decided to check and see how Norway handles this (since their approach to things tends to be clean, practical, and totally divorced from the US MUTCD), and their approach is to leave out the middle lane, so they can put the text there.

(https://i.imgur.com/YLodgTE.png)

At first I was wondering what they were smoking, but the more I look at it, the more I'm warming up to it. Something about having the text bracketed between the two up arrows just solidifies the message to me.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on January 22, 2020, 03:57:40 PM
A German approach (not sure if it is in RWBA and thus nationwide) is to show the middle lane, but using an upward-pointing arrow with a shorter shaft to leave room for the legend block.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 22, 2020, 03:59:54 PM
That was my first thought upon seeing the Norwegian sign, was that they just took that standard, discovered (possibly through testing) that the tiny middle-lane arrow was unnecessary and could simply be implied, and chose to omit the arrow.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 22, 2020, 05:31:14 PM
I actually like the shrunken center arrow style too. I just prefer having a single up arrow height for consistency's sake. I also try to use "one arrow per lane" if at all possible, and I've seldom (read: never) come across situations where I wasn't able to create some form of APL that where I had to eliminate an arrow. For me, what makes the APL a good option is that it truly represents the approaching situation no matter what angle you're looking from; you count the arrows, and that's the lanes. If there was a missing arrow, I feel that the sign wouldn't be as comprehensive, and therefore starts to miss the point.

I modified the above sign slightly to allow for two shields between both up arrows. I also slightly widened the through arrows to more comfortably fit two shields, changed the interpunct to an ampersand (no idea if I like this or not), and made the sign a more normal 120".

(https://i.imgur.com/21pvLM5.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 23, 2020, 12:36:17 AM
MUTCD standard for multiple destinations on one line is a dash. I prefer the British standard of using a comma (which OTA somehow stumbled into using at the "Afton, Vinita/S. Grand Lake" exit on the Will Rogers Turnpike).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 23, 2020, 04:01:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 23, 2020, 12:36:17 AM
MUTCD standard for multiple destinations on one line is a dash. I prefer the British standard of using a comma (which OTA somehow stumbled into using at the "Afton, Vinita/S. Grand Lake" exit on the Will Rogers Turnpike).

I've preferred, for the longest time, to use interpuncts as used in British Columbia, which are damn-near the same as dashes/hyphens for this purpose. Commas look good to me too. I tried that right before the ampersand.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: webny99 on January 23, 2020, 10:39:39 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 17, 2020, 12:32:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 16, 2020, 03:44:39 PM
California has some newer APL signs which fit within their 10-foot maximum height, but they have some older ones that I think are really well designed; why designs like these were not considered to be the starting point for the original '09-spec APL, I do not know:
(//www.aaroads.com/california/images080/bl-080_eb_exit_006a_03.jpg)
That might be the first California BGS that I have ever really liked.

I agree wholeheartedly!
Obviously, this style depends on the control city having few enough characters (preferably 6 or less) to fit between the arrows. That's far from guaranteed: Irondequoit (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1090856,-77.6092698,3a,36.7y,59.06h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s12fxLBmsVmRREpwTyLH_gA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) comes to mind as a local example that probably wouldn't work.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 23, 2020, 02:52:44 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 23, 2020, 10:39:39 AM
Obviously, this style depends on the control city having few enough characters (preferably 6 or less) to fit between the arrows. That's far from guaranteed: Irondequoit (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1090856,-77.6092698,3a,36.7y,59.06h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s12fxLBmsVmRREpwTyLH_gA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) comes to mind as a local example that probably wouldn't work.

Rare APL without any "EXIT ONLY" stickers. Looks really good.

If you put the city name between the arrows (not my preferred option because of obvious width restrictions), usually you just fudge the arrows left and right a little. Below, the far right arrow is scooted to the right to more comfortably fit "San Francisco":

(https://i.imgur.com/68v3Ewe.png)

(the Clearview sign I posted above also does this).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: roadman on January 24, 2020, 11:55:33 AM
I've mentioned this in other threads, but one of the things I would really like to see in the new MUTCD is minimum attendance and other standards for different categories of Attractions, and not just "regional significance."
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2020, 12:11:21 PM
Now there's an interesting catch 22 - you want to get people to your new attraction by getting on the sign, but you'd need people at your new attraction to get on the sign...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: roadman on January 24, 2020, 02:04:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2020, 12:11:21 PM
Now there's an interesting catch 22 - you want to get people to your new attraction by getting on the sign, but you'd need people at your new attraction to get on the sign...

Attendance standards exist for posting colleges on signs, why not for attractions?  The problem with the current standard is that "regional significance" is too vague and opens agencies up to Warrant #12 claims@@ when requests are denied.  Given that there's only a finite amount of space for putting up signs, there needs to be a better way of determining which attractions are truly eligible for posting on signs.

@@ Warrant 12 = political demand
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 24, 2020, 08:09:54 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 24, 2020, 02:04:05 PM
Attendance standards exist for posting colleges on signs, why not for attractions?  The problem with the current standard is that "regional significance" is too vague and opens agencies up to Warrant #12 claims@@ when requests are denied.  Given that there's only a finite amount of space for putting up signs, there needs to be a better way of determining which attractions are truly eligible for posting on signs.

I can see where you're going with this. My issue is that the standards would have to vary significantly from junction to junction, because areas with lots of attractions with lots of attendance would all qualify for the blue signs, and there wouldn't be enough room for everyone. On the other hand, in quiet areas, a small regional park with 100 visitors/day might be busy enough to advertise on the edge of a freeway in that particular region, but would be too quiet to advertise in busier areas.

All told, it's a bit unfair to places that are quieter. The busiest shops in Tacoma are basically all dispensaries (mostly for out of town visitors -- locals have other sources); if those places dragged the "attendance bar" up, the logo signs are just going to be full of cannabis shops. Now, you might say that cannabis shops don't qualify for "attraction" signs, and that's probably true (I don't know the rules). But what exactly qualifies as an attraction is just as vague as the qualifying determination itself; in my mind, it's better just to have a first-come first-serve situation with the attraction signs, as establishing rules would be wicked hard.

Honestly, if politics did get so heavily involved, we'd be better off removing the signs. It's not like lots of people use them anyway (at least from my experience).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 25, 2020, 02:19:09 AM
This is why I've always though the "Attractions" signs were unusual to begin with. Kansas and Oklahoma don't use them at all. If an attraction is important enough to be signed, it just gets put on a brown sign, and if not, it isn't.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on January 25, 2020, 11:36:18 AM
There is an AASHTO manual on traffic generator signing that is significantly more restrictive than the MUTCD, and it is what KDOT cites when it says it does not provide signing for, e.g., public libraries.  I haven't actually seen a copy of this document (I'm too cheap to kick coin over to AASHTO), but I wonder if it is something agencies can use if they are looking to get out of the business of providing signs for certain categories of traffic generator.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: stevashe on January 27, 2020, 12:41:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2020, 08:09:54 PM

All told, it's a bit unfair to places that are quieter. The busiest shops in Tacoma are basically all dispensaries (mostly for out of town visitors -- locals have other sources); if those places dragged the "attendance bar" up, the logo signs are just going to be full of cannabis shops. Now, you might say that cannabis shops don't qualify for "attraction" signs, and that's probably true (I don't know the rules). But what exactly qualifies as an attraction is just as vague as the qualifying determination itself; in my mind, it's better just to have a first-come first-serve situation with the attraction signs, as establishing rules would be wicked hard.


Here are the rules for eligibility on logo signs in Washington. (https://wsdot.wa.gov/business/signs-programs/business-requirements) They have a lot more to do with the specific services provided and distance from the highway as opposed to popularity, and I think they make a lot of sense. And no, I don't think cannabis falls under any of the categories allowed.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 27, 2020, 02:38:52 PM
Quote from: stevashe on January 27, 2020, 12:41:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2020, 08:09:54 PM

All told, it's a bit unfair to places that are quieter. The busiest shops in Tacoma are basically all dispensaries (mostly for out of town visitors -- locals have other sources); if those places dragged the "attendance bar" up, the logo signs are just going to be full of cannabis shops. Now, you might say that cannabis shops don't qualify for "attraction" signs, and that's probably true (I don't know the rules). But what exactly qualifies as an attraction is just as vague as the qualifying determination itself; in my mind, it's better just to have a first-come first-serve situation with the attraction signs, as establishing rules would be wicked hard.


Here are the rules for eligibility on logo signs in Washington. (https://wsdot.wa.gov/business/signs-programs/business-requirements) They have a lot more to do with the specific services provided and distance from the highway as opposed to popularity, and I think they make a lot of sense. And no, I don't think cannabis falls under any of the categories allowed.

Thanks. It would appear that the primary qualifying factor is "popular with those not in the immediate facility" (for everything except historic/important sites). I'm sure most businesses in Tacoma get most of their operating revenue from locals, but I bet the share of local/visitor is quite equal for recreational cannabis stores. Sounds like they actually qualify! :-D
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: roadman on January 27, 2020, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 25, 2020, 11:36:18 AM
There is an AASHTO manual on traffic generator signing that is significantly more restrictive than the MUTCD, and it is what KDOT cites when it says it does not provide signing for, e.g., public libraries.  I haven't actually seen a copy of this document (I'm too cheap to kick coin over to AASHTO), but I wonder if it is something agencies can use if they are looking to get out of the business of providing signs for certain categories of traffic generator.
The AASHTO Guidelines for the Selection of Supplemental Guide Signs document is incorporated into the MUTCD by reference.  While it has good information about what facilities signs should not be provided for, and also provides minimum attendance requirements for college signs, it is totally silent on other attractions that are not on the "should not provide signing for" list.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: stevashe on January 27, 2020, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 27, 2020, 02:38:52 PM
Thanks. It would appear that the primary qualifying factor is "popular with those not in the immediate facility" (for everything except historic/important sites). I'm sure most businesses in Tacoma get most of their operating revenue from locals, but I bet the share of local/visitor is quite equal for recreational cannabis stores. Sounds like they actually qualify! :-D

Well I doubt it'd qualify under number 1 for "Tourist Oriented Businesses" since a dispensary is selling something that can be used recreationally, not providing a recreational activity. However, it would be pretty funny if some city set up a business district centered around the sale of cannabis just so it could be signed from the freeway! :D
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on January 27, 2020, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: stevashe on January 27, 2020, 03:29:08 PM
Well I doubt it'd qualify under number 1 for "Tourist Oriented Businesses" since a dispensary is selling something that can be used recreationally, not providing a recreational activity. However, it would be pretty funny if some city set up a business district centered around the sale of cannabis just so it could be signed from the freeway! :D

Yeah, basketballs can be used recreationally, yet I doubt DICK'S Sporting Goods would qualify.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ca_enright on February 06, 2020, 11:50:18 AM
Quote from: roadman on January 27, 2020, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 25, 2020, 11:36:18 AM
There is an AASHTO manual on traffic generator signing that is significantly more restrictive than the MUTCD, and it is what KDOT cites when it says it does not provide signing for, e.g., public libraries.  I haven't actually seen a copy of this document (I'm too cheap to kick coin over to AASHTO), but I wonder if it is something agencies can use if they are looking to get out of the business of providing signs for certain categories of traffic generator.
The AASHTO Guidelines for the Selection of Supplemental Guide Signs document is incorporated into the MUTCD by reference.  While it has good information about what facilities signs should not be provided for, and also provides minimum attendance requirements for college signs, it is totally silent on other attractions that are not on the "should not provide signing for" list.

To supplement this AASHTO guideline, Colorado DOT has a separate policy document on guide signing specifically to address this.  It's pretty specific for what's included or not as an eligible destination to include, and it varies by category.  I don't think we have any dispensaries on the TODs.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 10:41:04 AM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The MUTCD is dead. Road signs are now a free for all. Anything goes.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ilpt4u on May 15, 2023, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?
https://youtu.be/-sED4fzIV0k
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ilpt4u on May 15, 2023, 12:52:34 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike
At least Metric and meters/kilometers for highway distances and km/h for speed limits and advisories
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: formulanone on May 15, 2023, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

Yes, whatever convention is used in Geneva, Illinois.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on May 15, 2023, 01:38:05 PM
On a more serious note:  the blurb on the MUTCD website dates from March 2022.  Do we know for a fact that Congress didn't extend the May 15 deadline in a rider to a subsequent bill?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on May 15, 2023, 02:53:36 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?
Nothing. Nothing will happen. I doubt anyone in Congress even remembers or cares today is supposed to be the deadline.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CovalenceSTU on May 15, 2023, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

Quote
May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 04:00:22 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 15, 2023, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it’s crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

Quote
May 15, 2023 – Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

They also took off the mention of today’s date and made it say “within 18 months of its enactment.” I guess that gives a timetable that is more open to interpretation.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 04:02:35 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 15, 2023, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

Quote
May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

Who wants to bet they only remembered because someone at the FHWA checked this thread?  ;-)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 15, 2023, 04:26:53 PM
Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

I am curious to see where they go with the new update. I understand that there was a lot more public comments and scrutiny than they've ever received before, and they want to please people. The #1 thing they need to do is just update the damn thing more frequently. The fact that we're still substantially on the 2009 edition is outrageous. And if they didn't wait so long and implemented things more incrementally then they probably wouldn't be getting pulled so hard in every direction on this new edition.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 15, 2023, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 15, 2023, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

Quote
May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

If this is your TOP PRIORITY and you dropped the ball this hard, you should be stripped of your job.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2023, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on May 15, 2023, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

Guess they haven't forgotten yet, this was just posted on the homepage:

Quote
May 15, 2023 — Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

The USDOT has been working diligently on a final rule for the next edition of the MUTCD. With the vast input submitted through the public docket, and the commitment to implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we want the new edition of the MUTCD to be as responsive as possible. We share in your enthusiasm for a new MUTCD and it remains a top priority for the USDOT. The next edition will be available soon.

A top priority. Not The top priority.  Also top priorities:  Everything else on the list, including properly connecting Breezewood, authenticating studies on Clearview, and what new candy belongs in slot D4 in the vending machine.

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 15, 2023, 04:26:53 PM
Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

Yeah, I mean, what would a consequence be - Not fund transportation?  Most mandates don't have much teeth to them.  It's not like there's much wrong with the 2009 MUTCD that demanded a new one had to be put in place today; it would've just updated some various rules people are anal about updating based on their desires, whether it be signage, bicycles, or whatever.   If the rule book wasn't updated to remove the curve sign with the advisory number on the same diamond today, it's not going to bother anyone. 

Congress has much more pressing issues ahead of them, such as the debt limit (again).  The MUTCD isn't even a passing thought to most people in DC.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on May 15, 2023, 04:47:02 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 15, 2023, 04:26:53 PM
Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

I am curious to see where they go with the new update. I understand that there was a lot more public comments and scrutiny than they've ever received before, and they want to please people. The #1 thing they need to do is just update the damn thing more frequently. The fact that we're still substantially on the 2009 edition is outrageous. And if they didn't wait so long and implemented things more incrementally then they probably wouldn't be getting pulled so hard in every direction on this new edition.

I'm not sure I agree that the MUTCD needs to be updated more frequently, when actual traffic control devices don't get updated nearly as much (i.e. there's still plenty of devices in the field that were in compliance with older editions that have not been upgraded to comply with the current edition)

A lot of things people think are issues with the MUTCD, are actually not
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 04:58:44 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2023, 04:47:02 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 15, 2023, 04:26:53 PM
Not surprised that they didn't meet the deadline. I bet the law that "mandated" the update didn't actually specify a consequence for not following it...

I am curious to see where they go with the new update. I understand that there was a lot more public comments and scrutiny than they've ever received before, and they want to please people. The #1 thing they need to do is just update the damn thing more frequently. The fact that we're still substantially on the 2009 edition is outrageous. And if they didn't wait so long and implemented things more incrementally then they probably wouldn't be getting pulled so hard in every direction on this new edition.

I'm not sure I agree that the MUTCD needs to be updated more frequently, when actual traffic control devices don't get updated nearly as much (i.e. there's still plenty of devices in the field that were in compliance with older editions that have not been upgraded to comply with the current edition)

A lot of things people think are issues with the MUTCD, are actually not
Cannot they just do what Microsoft is doing with Windows and have some weekly updates? /S
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CovalenceSTU on May 15, 2023, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 04:02:35 PM
Who wants to bet they only remembered because someone at the FHWA checked this thread?  ;-)
The lack of hard details makes me think there was an "oh sh*t, we have a deadline" moment, so you're very close at the least :-D
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on May 15, 2023, 07:02:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2023, 04:34:29 PM
A top priority. Not The top priority.  Also top priorities:  Everything else on the list, including properly connecting Breezewood, authenticating studies on Clearview, and what new candy belongs in slot D4 in the vending machine.

Exactly. I mean, can we really expect them to finish a new MUTCD in 14 years when it's been over 20 since the last vending machine update?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.
That seems like a great way of doing things ..
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ilpt4u on May 15, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.
That seems like a great way of doing things ..
IDOT is making changes. The FYA is slowly appearing across the state, for example. That said, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa as controls are not going anywhere

ISTHA seems more in touch with the MUTCD, again beyond the 3 state controls. The only thing I might even nit-pick at for ISTHA is the 80/294 Southern Tri-State duplex really should follow I-80's mileage and exit numbers, not I-294's, but oh well. ISTHA has done a good job adopting the yellow TOLL banner and also the APL signage, for example. And those are more recent than the previous steps of conforming to the MUTCD with consistent and directionally appropriate mile markers and exit numbers

The biggest blunder by both IDOT but moreso ISTHA is the (directional) Suburbs controls that are in use, mostly for I-355 but appear on I-290, I-88, and IL 53 also. That isn't changing, either
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 09:27:13 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 15, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.
That seems like a great way of doing things ..
IDOT is making changes. The FYA is slowly appearing across the state, for example. That said, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa as controls are not going anywhere

IDOT D1 does not know what a FYA is. There is a single example of an IDOT road with an FYA that I can think of, and it technically wasn't their installation, it was the county's.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: formulanone on May 15, 2023, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

Yes, whatever convention is used in Geneva, Illinois.

No, Lake Geneva, WI

:nod:

Mike
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on May 16, 2023, 10:06:05 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on May 15, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 08:23:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.
That seems like a great way of doing things ..

The biggest blunder by both IDOT but moreso ISTHA is the (directional) Suburbs controls that are in use, mostly for I-355 but appear on I-290, I-88, and IL 53 also. That isn't changing, either

But it needs to, because signage on freeways/expressways is supposed to be for motorists unfamiliar with the area. "Suburbs" is only useful for dead-end routes. Routes that connect to other routes should use destinations along the connecting routes, before resorting to generic "suburbs".
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: LilianaUwU on May 16, 2023, 12:41:39 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.
The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" method, I assume.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on May 16, 2023, 02:41:10 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 16, 2023, 12:41:39 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 07:33:39 PM
Here in Illinois, it doesn't really matter if they update the MUTCD. IDOT won't try or do anything new unless they're forced on the sword. No innovation, no substantial improvements, no experimentation.
The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" method, I assume.
Well, I hope changes to RYG color scheme are not really on the table anyway. Whatever is listed as proposed update to MUTCD seems pretty incremental in nature. Updated definition of "median" hopefully wouldn't affect medians too much!
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on May 16, 2023, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 11:50:16 PM
Quote from: formulanone on May 15, 2023, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 15, 2023, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on May 15, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
According to the FHWA on the MUTCD website they have to adopt a new MUTCD by today (May 15, 2023) in order to comply with a provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So far, it's crickets from FHWA. Do you all think today will be the day? What will happen if they fail to adopt a new version by the congressionally mandated date?

The USA will convert to the Geneva Convention?

Mike

Yes, whatever convention is used in Geneva, Illinois.

No, Lake Geneva, WI

:nod:

Mike

We do our Geneva Conventions on the Lake, here in Ohio.
(With covered bridges on the side)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CardInLex on October 18, 2023, 04:23:33 PM
The MUTCD home page has been updated to state:

"On September 29, 2023, the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review of the pending rulemaking for the next edition of the MUTCD. This review was the last major step of the regulatory process allowing FHWA to proceed to preparation of a Notice of Final Rule. The documents and supporting materials for a Final Rule will take just a bit more time to finalize, but we expect to publish this year."

So, it looks like the new MUTCD will be updated this year.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: -- US 175 -- on October 18, 2023, 04:46:23 PM
Is 14 years the longest the MUTCD has gone without a new manual/update?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on October 18, 2023, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on October 18, 2023, 04:46:23 PMIs 14 years the longest the MUTCD has gone without a new manual/update?

Yes, but not by a wide margin.  The MUTCD has had national editions dated 1935, 1942 (War Emergency, seven years), 1948 (six years), 1961 (13 years), 1971 (10 years), 1978 (8 seven years), 1988 (10 years), 2000 (12 years), 2003 (three years), and 2009 (six years).

There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on October 18, 2023, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2023, 04:54:23 PM
There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

It does hardly seem worth the hassle, considering how few momentous changes happen during a revision these days.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: freebrickproductions on October 18, 2023, 05:21:52 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2023, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on October 18, 2023, 04:46:23 PMIs 14 years the longest the MUTCD has gone without a new manual/update?

Yes, but not by a wide margin.  The MUTCD has had national editions dated 1935, 1942 (War Emergency, seven years), 1948 (six years), 1961 (13 years), 1971 (10 years), 1978 (8 years), 1988 (10 years), 2000 (12 years), 2003 (three years), and 2009 (six years).

There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.
Wasn't the 2003 revision done primarily to correct some issues present in the 2000 revision? Certainly the shortest time between two revisions.

Quote from: kphoger on October 18, 2023, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2023, 04:54:23 PM
There have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

It does hardly seem worth the hassle, considering how few momentous changes happen during a revision these days.
Not to mention it ain't impossible to include revisions into an existing MUTCD, given how the 2009 MUTCD also has Revisions 1, 2, and 3.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on October 19, 2023, 10:41:20 PM
So the gaps from largest to smallest would be:

1. 1948-61 (13 years)
2. 1988-2000 (12 years)
T3. 1961-71 (10 years)
T3. 1978-88 (10 years)
T5. 1935-42 (7 years)
T5. 1971-78 (7 years)
T7. 1942-48 (6 years)
T7. 2003-09 (6 years)
9. 2000-03 (3 years)

This current gap will push everything down one rank, whenever it will end. Various state supplements more than make up for it, as they put their own unique spin on the MUTCD.

(And to J N Winkler: 1971 to 1978 is 7 years, not 8!)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on October 23, 2023, 11:54:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 18, 2023, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 18, 2023, 04:54:23 PMThere have been various attempts to shift the MUTCD to more frequent revisions, but none of them has quite gotten off the ground.

It does hardly seem worth the hassle, considering how few momentous changes happen during a revision these days.

Some of the reasons cited have included more rapid dissemination of new technology (read:  less opportunity for vendors and agencies to go their own way, to the detriment of national uniformity) and streamlining rulemaking.

Quote from: freebrickproductions on October 18, 2023, 05:21:52 PMWasn't the 2003 revision done primarily to correct some issues present in the 2000 revision? Certainly the shortest time between two revisions.

There were certainly plenty of fixes.  The formatting was tightened up, the circular intersection sign was changed (from the circle with four stubs to the present three arrows in a circle), various instances of uppercase "M" used as the abbreviation for meters were corrected, etc.  The story I have heard is that the 2000 edition was originally supposed to look like the 2003 in terms of presentation (pattern-accurate sign illustrations, etc.), but that intention fell by the wayside in the rush to get it out at the turn of the millennium.

However, the 2003 MUTCD did have its own freestanding rulemaking process, just like the 2009 and (upcoming) 2023 editions.

Quote from: Henry on October 19, 2023, 10:41:20 PM(And to J N Winkler: 1971 to 1978 is 7 years, not 8!)

Ooops!  Fixed.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: LilianaUwU on October 23, 2023, 11:57:25 PM
Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CardInLex on December 18, 2023, 12:25:43 PM
The Federal Register has posted a notice! The new MUTCD will be released tomorrow (12/19/2023):

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-27178/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: formulanone on December 18, 2023, 01:45:52 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 23, 2023, 11:57:25 PM
Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.
Quote from: CardInLex on December 18, 2023, 12:25:43 PM
The Federal Register has posted a notice! The new MUTCD will be released tomorrow (12/19/2023):

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-27178/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for

In your face, La Sagrada Familia!
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on December 18, 2023, 05:15:37 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 23, 2023, 11:57:25 PM
Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.
Not even close to the record. GNU Herd has been in development since the 1960s and still hasn't been released.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on December 18, 2023, 06:21:37 PM
I'll sure to check in tomorrow, because I can't wait to see the new stuff that they may be adding!

(BTW, I still have the 2009 PDF from which I'm making my signs)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on December 18, 2023, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 18, 2023, 05:15:37 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 23, 2023, 11:57:25 PM
Reminder that Duke Nukem Forever took 14 years to come out. The new MUTCD is on track to beat that.
Not even close to the record. GNU Herd has been in development since the 1960s and still hasn't been released.

To be far more charitable to the GNU project than they may deserve, part of that is no doubt due to the fact that the creation of Linux more or less supplied the "missing piece" in the GNU ecosystem that HURD was supposed to fill.

On the other hand, Linux came out in 1991, so GNU has had 30+ years since then to shit or get off the pot.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 10:51:15 AM
The new MUTCD has finally been released!
https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/fhwa-releases-new-traffic-control-device-manual-updates-improve-safety-pedestrians
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_11th_Edition.htm
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on December 19, 2023, 11:05:33 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 10:51:15 AM
The new MUTCD has finally been released!

The full text is available here (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_11th_Edition.htm).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 10:51:15 AM
The new MUTCD has finally been released!

Holy crap.  There goes everyone's holiday plans!
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: corco on December 19, 2023, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 10:51:15 AM
The new MUTCD has finally been released!

Holy crap.  There goes everyone's holiday plans!
Nope, I was planning to give my whole family MUTCDs for Christmas
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
It appears that the traditional diagrammatic signs, with the large arrows with lane markings on them, are now fully depreciated and removed from the MUTCD.

Partial-width APLs are also now the standard for option lane signing at more minor freeway interchanges.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:32:24 AM
Advisory speed now allowed under large yellow road turns sign.
No arrow for a signal ahead sign remains
Zipper merge (lane ends from both sides) sign added
Lane indications added for a 3-lane 2-way highway. (smaller arrows for oncoming traffic)

Use of a sign with a green background with a route marker in the middle and a direction with a turn arrow under it in both directions added.:

WEST  50  EAST
<----         ---->
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:37:13 AM
On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: KCRoadFan on December 19, 2023, 11:59:11 AM
Quote from: corco on December 19, 2023, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 10:51:15 AM
The new MUTCD has finally been released!

Holy crap.  There goes everyone's holiday plans!
Nope, I was planning to give my whole family MUTCDs for Christmas

That would be a good Christmas gift for road fans. (If anyone on the forum actually ends up getting the new MUTCD as a gift, please let us know!)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on December 19, 2023, 12:24:45 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on December 19, 2023, 11:59:11 AM
Quote from: corco on December 19, 2023, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 10:51:15 AM
The new MUTCD has finally been released!

Holy crap.  There goes everyone's holiday plans!
Nope, I was planning to give my whole family MUTCDs for Christmas

That would be a good Christmas gift for road fans. (If anyone on the forum actually ends up getting the new MUTCD as a gift, please let us know!)

I don't think it will be made available in print.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 12:57:57 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 19, 2023, 12:24:45 PM
I don't think it will be made available in print.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Feather-core-printer.svg/240px-Feather-core-printer.svg.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on December 19, 2023, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 12:57:57 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 19, 2023, 12:24:45 PM
I don't think it will be made available in print.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Feather-core-printer.svg/240px-Feather-core-printer.svg.png)

:-D
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: mgk920 on December 19, 2023, 01:21:46 PM
Without spending the days needed to go through it, is there something in thatere regarding excessive and/or improper  use of 'speed humps'?  Some suburbs in my area have been putting them in on major streets and they are a total pain.

Mike
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 02:01:58 PM
Pages 325-326 are interesting.  No mention on the overhead signage that both lanes are exit only lanes.  Is that new?




Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
It appears that the traditional diagrammatic signs, with the large arrows with lane markings on them, are now fully depreciated and removed from the MUTCD.

For those interested, the pertinent verbiage is as follows:

Support:
Unlike Diagrammatic signs that were included in previous editions of this Manual, the Diagrammatic Advance guide sign does not depict which or the number of specific lanes that serve a particular destination or depict lanes added or reduced.

Standard:
The graphic shall not depict deceleration or auxiliary lanes.
Arrow shafts shall not contain lane lines.

Guidance:
Arrow shaft widths should not vary for different movements.


Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
Partial-width APLs are also now the standard for option lane signing at more minor freeway interchanges.

I'd like to know people's opinion about this.  Pages 356-358.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: PurdueBill on December 19, 2023, 02:45:38 PM
One of the more boneheaded things that they proposed and went ahead with as a "shall" standard is that the exits to the same street on different sides of a freeway can be required to carry different letters based on how many lettered exits there are for that number.  This serves to do nothing but increase confusion really.  Supposedly people were confused by exit 21C followed by 21A without a 21B (which only serves the opposite direction), but now the remedy is to require that an exit to the same street within the same interchange(!) must be numbered differently each way.  (Figure 2E-3, Part D.)  The figure they show literally has the exit to one street as Exit 25B one direction, 25C the other, at the same interchange, because the westbound direction doesn't have an exit at eastbound's Exit 25B.  They can't sincerely think that this actually makes things easier for anyone.  Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?  It's literally making thinsgs sequential for no good purpose. 
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 19, 2023, 03:55:22 PM
As expected, minimum retroreflectivity values are now available for blue and brown signs, which were previously exempt in the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 19, 2023, 04:31:25 PM
Dang, never thought I'd actually see the day. I was eight years old when the last MUTCD was released. I already knew what road signs were, but you know what I mean. Definitely gonna spend some time flipping through this thing!

Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 02:01:58 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
Partial-width APLs are also now the standard for option lane signing at more minor freeway interchanges.

I'd like to know people's opinion about this.  Pages 356-358.

I support. APLs are clear signage that leave little room for ambiguity. Their main downfall is their monstrous size. Was that addressed in this new version?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 19, 2023, 05:06:12 PM
Some things of note while scrolling through:

Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on December 19, 2023, 05:08:20 PM
Unlike the case in past MUTCD rulemakings, the final rule notice itself does not include a detailed breakdown of comments received according to each numbered proposed change.  FHWA has made that information available here (https://www.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2020-0001-17272) as part of the rulemaking package on the Regulations.gov docket website.

Earlier in this thread (IIRC), we discussed the three-quarters error.  I ended up sending the following comment to FHWA, tagged as pertaining to proposed changes 34, 156, and 190:

QuoteMy concern with these pertains not to the changes themselves (horizontal alignment of legend, minimum letter heights for overhead conventional-road guide signs, and tabulation of letter heights for freeway guide signs), but rather to other language in the sections concerned that deals with the ratio of capital letter height and lowercase loop height. The language in § 2D.05 quotes lowercase letter heights that are uniformly three-quarters of the corresponding capital letter heights but does not note this is an unvarying relationship or that the lowercase measurements are for loop height. § 2A.08 and § 2E.12 are explicit about the three-quarters relationship and the fact that it is based on nominal lowercase loop height. The language in these three sections, much of which has been carried over from past editions of the MUTCD, is clearly intended to describe a property that is inherent in the FHWA Series typefaces and in all computer fonts based on them that preserve their forms and proportions. For example, if I am working in a sign drawing program with an E Modified font and I fix the capital letter height at 16 inches, I do not need to change the size to get lowercase letters at the correct 12-inch loop height. However, it has become evident both in signing plans and in field installations that many practitioners think it is allowable, even required, to reduce the size of the lowercase letters so that loop height plus ascender height (essentially, capital letter height at the new size) is three-quarters the height of the actual capital letters. This phenomenon, which in road enthusiast circles is described as the "three-quarters error," results in unsightly signs that ill serve the motoring public. I urge FHWA to devise a way of describing the three-quarters ratio that doesn't unintentionally encourage ill-formed mixed-case destination legend.

This appears to have been referenced directly in the following response:

QuoteOne commenter suggested that there needs to be more clarity and consistency throughout the Manual concerning the ratio of capital letter height and lowercase loop height and associated problems that occur using guide sign software. The problem is not specific to MUTCD language that correctly describes the provisions, rather it appears to be a problem with software application, which is outside the purview of the rulemaking.

Elsewhere in the comment breakdown, FHWA notes that it is exploring the option of addressing the three-quarters error in an updated edition of Standard Highway Signs or other application guidance.  So, I would say we have been heard on this issue.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 19, 2023, 05:24:29 PM
Is there anything that states "mile-based exits shall be used"?  :-D
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 06:58:05 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 19, 2023, 02:45:38 PM
One of the more boneheaded things that they proposed and went ahead with as a "shall" standard is that the exits to the same street on different sides of a freeway can be required to carry different letters based on how many lettered exits there are for that number.  This serves to do nothing but increase confusion really.  Supposedly people were confused by exit 21C followed by 21A without a 21B (which only serves the opposite direction), but now the remedy is to require that an exit to the same street within the same interchange(!) must be numbered differently each way.  (Figure 2E-3, Part D.)  The figure they show literally has the exit to one street as Exit 25B one direction, 25C the other, at the same interchange, because the westbound direction doesn't have an exit at eastbound's Exit 25B.  They can't sincerely think that this actually makes things easier for anyone.  Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?  It's literally making thinsgs sequential for no good purpose. 

Ugh!  Yeah, that's bad.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 19, 2023, 04:31:25 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 02:01:58 PM

Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
Partial-width APLs are also now the standard for option lane signing at more minor freeway interchanges.

I'd like to know people's opinion about this.  Pages 356-358.

I support. APLs are clear signage that leave little room for ambiguity. Their main downfall is their monstrous size. Was that addressed in this new version?

↓  Added lane vs lane drop shown below  ↓

(https://i.imgur.com/P57OZ8F.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on December 19, 2023, 07:14:45 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 19, 2023, 11:25:42 AM
It appears that the traditional diagrammatic signs, with the large arrows with lane markings on them, are now fully depreciated and removed from the MUTCD.

I kind of like their replacement, shown on page 354, which are basically the traditional diagrammatics without the lane lines. It basically allows diagrammatics to only be used for what they are best at—showing the layout of a complicated interchange in a graphical form. The verbiage also explicitly endorses their use at conventional-road junctions too—which is basically a tip of the hat to Nebraska's junction signage.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 19, 2023, 07:29:56 PM
Is the "Heavy Merge From Right" (W4-7) sign new?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Big John on December 19, 2023, 08:37:57 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 19, 2023, 07:29:56 PM
Is the "Heavy Merge From Right" (W4-7) sign new?
I think it is; I have never seen that before.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on December 19, 2023, 10:09:34 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 19, 2023, 10:41:20 PM
So the gaps from largest to smallest would be:

1. 1948-61 (13 years)
2. 1988-2000 (12 years)
T3. 1961-71 (10 years)
T3. 1978-88 (10 years)
T5. 1935-42 (7 years)
T5. 1971-78 (7 years)
T7. 1942-48 (6 years)
T7. 2003-09 (6 years)
9. 2000-03 (3 years)

This current gap will push everything down one rank, whenever it will end. Various state supplements more than make up for it, as they put their own unique spin on the MUTCD.
Now we have a new leader on the board:

1. 2009-23 (14 years)
2. 1948-61 (13 years)
3. 1988-2000 (12 years)
T4. 1961-71 (10 years)
T4. 1978-88 (10 years)
T6. 1935-42 (7 years)
T6. 1971-78 (7 years)
T8. 1942-48 (6 years)
T8. 2003-09 (6 years)
10. 2000-03 (3 years)

I can't wait to see what new tricks they have up their sleeve this time! (that is, in addition to all the changes already mentioned here)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 19, 2023, 10:12:27 PM
The ROAD CLOSED 10 MILES AHEAD or variation signs, are white background.

The same with BEGIN REVERSE LANE signage.

Shouldn't they be yellow? It's warning you they are closed ahead kinda like a DEAD END sign.

Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 19, 2023, 10:36:45 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 19, 2023, 10:12:27 PM
The ROAD CLOSED 10 MILES AHEAD or variation signs, are white background.

The same with BEGIN REVERSE LANE signage.

Shouldn't they be yellow? It's warning you they are closed ahead kinda like a DEAD END sign.
If it were just me, the road closed signs would be orange, as they're in most cases temporary.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 19, 2023, 10:37:25 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 19, 2023, 10:12:27 PM
The ROAD CLOSED 10 MILES AHEAD or variation signs, are white background.

The same with BEGIN REVERSE LANE signage.

Shouldn't they be yellow? It's warning you they are closed ahead kinda like a DEAD END sign.

If you mean the ROAD CLOSED LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY sign, that was always considered regulatory, which makes sense. BEGIN REVERSE LANE could be considered a warning or regulation. I'd say regulatory makes more sense.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2023, 11:21:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 02:01:58 PM
Partial-width APLs are also now the standard for option lane signing at more minor freeway interchanges.

I'd like to know people's opinion about this.  Pages 356-358.

While I like full-width APLs most, I support the partial APLs as well. Dumb-as-rock motorists appear to understand their meaning.  If there's a partial width signage, I still prefer the older style signage with 'Exit (arrow) Only' over the one lane and the white on green (arrow) over the option lane.

Quote from: PurdueBill on December 19, 2023, 02:45:38 PM
One of the more boneheaded things that they proposed and went ahead with as a "shall" standard is that the exits to the same street on different sides of a freeway can be required to carry different letters based on how many lettered exits there are for that number.  This serves to do nothing but increase confusion really.  Supposedly people were confused by exit 21C followed by 21A without a 21B (which only serves the opposite direction), but now the remedy is to require that an exit to the same street within the same interchange(!) must be numbered differently each way.  (Figure 2E-3, Part D.)  The figure they show literally has the exit to one street as Exit 25B one direction, 25C the other, at the same interchange, because the westbound direction doesn't have an exit at eastbound's Exit 25B.  They can't sincerely think that this actually makes things easier for anyone.  Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?  It's literally making thinsgs sequential for no good purpose. 

I'm kinda neutral on this.  I want to say this is stupid.  Exits should be the same number on both sides.

For motorists that rely on exit numbering and could be coming from either direction, it'll be a pain for them to understanding that the exit numbering for one direction could be different than the exit numbering for another direction.

Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..." and "Going South, Take Exit 23B, then turn Left onto Route 5 East..." and if they're obeying the correct directions, they'll still take the correct exit and make the proper turn.

We're also at the point where there really aren't many more highways being built. Unless a state decides to do a massive renumbering of their highway exits, this issue isn't going to occur all that often.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 20, 2023, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 19, 2023, 05:24:29 PM
Is there anything that states "mile-based exits shall be used"?  :-D

The 2009 MUTCD already contained a prohibition on the sequential exit system. But if you're asking about mile-based exit numbers versus no numbers at all, I'm not sure if freeways with un-numbered exits are compliant
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 20, 2023, 02:12:42 AM
My opinion regarding the street name sign changes:

They clarified that the text size is based on the assumption that only users of street "A" will need to view the street name "B" sign, and vice versa (only street "B" users will need to view street name "A" signs). I'm not sure this is necessarily true. There are certainly some situations where you might want to, or need to, see the street name sign of a street you're already on. My opinion is that the text size should be suitable for whatever the highest-classification street is (i.e. if it's multi-lane and >45 mph, then all signs get that size of text)

They added a statement saying that if arrows are used to indicate that a certain street name only applies to one side (e.g. the same street is named "A" to your left and "B" to your right), the arrow must be omitted if it is illegal to make the turn onto that street (either because it is one-way or because of a No Left/Right Turn sign). They didn't actually clarify what is supposed to be done in that case. I'm used to the idea that sign placement even without arrows can indicate different street names to the left and right, but not all places do that.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on December 20, 2023, 03:18:28 AM
A fun feature of this MUTCD is that the section on traffic lights starts on Page 666.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 09:40:04 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2023, 11:21:14 PM
Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..."

And after they get to their destination, and go to the mall or the zoo or wherever the next day, then on their way back, they might very well remember "take Exit 23A" as the important bit of info—except now they're coming from the other direction and "Exit 23A" isn't the right place to exit.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: roadfro on December 20, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Too bad I'm traveling today, or I'd spend this day off skimming through...

Disappointed that they're only releasing the new MUTCD in PDF format, and not making a compatible web version.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 12:19:16 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 20, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Disappointed that they're only releasing the new MUTCD in PDF format, and not making a compatible web version.

Yeah, I'm with you on that.  No more right-clicking to copy-and-paste an image into this forum.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 12:35:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2023, 11:21:14 PM

We're also at the point where there really aren't many more highways being built. Unless a state decides to do a massive renumbering of their highway exits, this issue isn't going to occur all that often.

I'd fear if someone in charge wanted to play hardball and force states to change exit numbers to the bonkers new way if signs are replaced.  FHWA forces Mass to not show 128 on new BGSs under threat of taking away $$; they could do it for any other reason also. 

If the exit number is to identify the exit, then it shouldn't be different on opposite sides of the road because of other exits.  They are ostensibly concerned about confusion caused by skipping a letter; I think there will be more confusion than that caused by a single exit being required to have different numbers.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 12:47:16 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 12:35:32 PM
If the exit number is to identify the exit, then it shouldn't be different on opposite sides of the road because of other exits.

Well, that's the question, isn't it?  In reality, the exit number identifies the exit.  Theoretically, though, that isn't necessarily the exit number's function:  I suppose it could be to help the driver know where in the sequence of exits his exit it.  With that in mind, it makes sense.

For what it's worth, Part C also shows an exit with differential numbers:  11A eastbound, 11 westbound.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 01:10:39 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 12:47:16 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 12:35:32 PM
If the exit number is to identify the exit, then it shouldn't be different on opposite sides of the road because of other exits.

Well, that's the question, isn't it?  In reality, the exit number identifies the exit.  Theoretically, though, that isn't necessarily the exit number's function:  I suppose it could be to help the driver know where in the sequence of exits his exit it.  With that in mind, it makes sense.

For what it's worth, Part C also shows an exit with differential numbers:  11A eastbound, 11 westbound.

The letters having to be consecutive in order to indicate sequence isn't consistent with numerical exit numbers not necessarily being consecutive due to mile-based exits.  You don't know necessarily that Exit 34 is right after Exit 33; the previous exit number might be 29 and then 5 miles without an exit until 34.  Same has always been true of the letters; 23C comes after 23A eastbound, but it may not be very next, depending on if 23B is used that direction.  If it's not, it's because 23B is westbound-only.
The 11 vs. 11A thing is a common occurrence whereever an interchange has its exit ramps split one way but not the other.  The difference between that and the newly introduced boobery is that Exit 11(A-B) is still one interchange with no other logical way to do it, while now FHWA wants the same number used on different interchanges and a single interchange to have two entirely different numbers, neither of which is logical while the old way was logical.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 01:33:00 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 01:10:39 PM
The letters having to be consecutive in order to indicate sequence isn't consistent with numerical exit numbers not necessarily being consecutive due to mile-based exits.  You don't know necessarily that Exit 34 is right after Exit 33; the previous exit number might be 29 and then 5 miles without an exit until 34.

I'd say that, with mile-based exit numbering, it's common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit numbers.  But, because the vast majority of letter-suffixed exit numbers have only sequential letters, I'd say it is not common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit suffix letters.

For example, try this quiz out with some random non-roadgeek friends:

Question #1 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 52?

Most likely answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Correct answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Question #2 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 203A?

Most likely answer — 203B, of course.

Correct answer — Well, it depends.  Is there a partial interchange somewhere between MP 203 and MP 204?


I'm betting that zero people you quiz will come up with the right answer to Question #2.

Quote from: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 01:10:39 PM
The 11 vs. 11A thing is a common occurrence whereever an interchange has its exit ramps split one way but not the other.  The difference between that and the newly introduced boobery is that Exit 11(A-B) is still one interchange with no other logical way to do it, while now FHWA wants the same number used on different interchanges and a single interchange to have two entirely different numbers, neither of which is logical while the old way was logical.

But my point is that it's a single interchange that carries two different numbers, depending on which direction you're traveling.  "Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?"

In other words ...

(https://i.imgur.com/rUMl4cs.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: GaryV on December 20, 2023, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 20, 2023, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 19, 2023, 05:24:29 PM
Is there anything that states "mile-based exits shall be used"?  :-D

The 2009 MUTCD already contained a prohibition on the sequential exit system. But if you're asking about mile-based exit numbers versus no numbers at all, I'm not sure if freeways with un-numbered exits are compliant

It was a dig of the Metrication thread.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 04:14:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 01:33:00 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 01:10:39 PM
The letters having to be consecutive in order to indicate sequence isn't consistent with numerical exit numbers not necessarily being consecutive due to mile-based exits.  You don't know necessarily that Exit 34 is right after Exit 33; the previous exit number might be 29 and then 5 miles without an exit until 34.

I'd say that, with mile-based exit numbering, it's common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit numbers.  But, because the vast majority of letter-suffixed exit numbers have only sequential letters, I'd say it is not common knowledge that there can be gaps between exit suffix letters.

For example, try this quiz out with some random non-roadgeek friends:

Question #1 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 52?

Most likely answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Correct answer — Well, it depends how far it is to the next exit.

Question #2 — On a hypothetical Interstate, when traveling in the direction of increasing exit numbers, what is the next exit number after 203A?

Most likely answer — 203B, of course.

Correct answer — Well, it depends.  Is there a partial interchange somewhere between MP 203 and MP 204?


I'm betting that zero people you quiz will come up with the right answer to Question #2.

Quote from: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 01:10:39 PM
The 11 vs. 11A thing is a common occurrence whereever an interchange has its exit ramps split one way but not the other.  The difference between that and the newly introduced boobery is that Exit 11(A-B) is still one interchange with no other logical way to do it, while now FHWA wants the same number used on different interchanges and a single interchange to have two entirely different numbers, neither of which is logical while the old way was logical.

But my point is that it's a single interchange that carries two different numbers, depending on which direction you're traveling.  "Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?"

In other words ...

(https://i.imgur.com/rUMl4cs.png)

I agree on those Exit 11s.  I used the number 11 instead of 15 referring to Part B of the figure, which shows 15A-B one way and 15 the other for the same interchange.  (It is a very busy figure...I was looking at Part B of it but the 11 number drifted around on me.)
I think we agree that separate interchanges should have separate labels--I think we also agree that 11 westbound should be 11A if it's a whole different interchange than the 11B one eastbound.

Fwiw, Ohio has exampleso of both types near each other on I-76 and 77, with only a B exit northbound (123B) on I-77 while there are A-B southbound, and 21A only westbound and 21B only eastbound on I-76, with 21C both ways.  No one ever batted an eye.

The numbering in Part D of the cartoon is possibly a touch worse, as it uses the number 25B for two totally different interchanges, while in C at least the same number doesn't get used for different exits.  Instead, C has the same exit with different numbers (at least not repeated the other direction for different exits) depending on the direction, kinda the opposite problem.

All I know right now is that if it is this hard to even describe the obvious problems with their new rule, it's more evidence that it was a mistake to make the rule. 
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 20, 2023, 04:14:03 PM
I think we also agree that 11 westbound should be 11A if it's a whole different interchange than the 11B one eastbound.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with that.  I tend to agree, but I can also see why it wouldn't be good.  For example:

If I'm heading westbound on the Part C highway, and I'm looking for Exit #10B, and I come to Exit #11A, then I will assume there's still at least one more exit before mine.  But there isn't, and therefore I might miss my exit.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: lordsutch on December 20, 2023, 06:26:15 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 19, 2023, 05:06:12 PM
Some things of note while scrolling through:


       
  • EV CHARGING is now a recognized category for service signs.

GDOT jumped the gun a little bit; at exit 101 of I-75 they had already installed a yellow "EV Charging" tab a few weeks ago on the logo for the Pilot travel center that has EVgo/Ultium chargers at the interchange, as seen in Figure 2J-4.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Shedingtonian on December 20, 2023, 06:55:02 PM
I have a question about Figures 2E-39 and 2E-40. Shouldn't, in both signs, the rightmost lane have the "EXIT ONLY" banners? This is promptly indicated in the advance exit APL's, but not in the gore sign.

Edit: Also, in Figure 2E-44, BOTH lanes (option and exit only) are indicated as "EXIT ONLY"! I'm not reading right now, because it's 1AM and I just heard about this new edition's release. So, if anyone explains, I'll be very grateful.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 07:42:05 PM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on December 20, 2023, 06:55:02 PM
I have a question about Figures 2E-39 and 2E-40. Shouldn't, in both signs, the rightmost lane have the "EXIT ONLY" banners? This is promptly indicated in the advance exit APL's, but not in the gore sign.

I'm on the fence about that.  Honestly, in 2E-39, all the EXIT ONLY could be removed entirely with little to no ill effect.  But I do agree that, in order to be consistent with 2E-44, it should get an EXIT ONLY.

Quote from: Shedingtonian on December 20, 2023, 06:55:02 PM
Also, in Figure 2E-44, BOTH lanes (option and exit only) are indicated as "EXIT ONLY"!

That has been the standard for some time now, and a lot of us on here aren't too happy with the decision either.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on December 20, 2023, 07:50:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2023, 11:21:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2023, 02:01:58 PM
Partial-width APLs are also now the standard for option lane signing at more minor freeway interchanges.

I'd like to know people's opinion about this.  Pages 356-358.

While I like full-width APLs most, I support the partial APLs as well. Dumb-as-rock motorists appear to understand their meaning.  If there's a partial width signage, I still prefer the older style signage with 'Exit (arrow) Only' over the one lane and the white on green (arrow) over the option lane.

Quote from: PurdueBill on December 19, 2023, 02:45:38 PM
One of the more boneheaded things that they proposed and went ahead with as a "shall" standard is that the exits to the same street on different sides of a freeway can be required to carry different letters based on how many lettered exits there are for that number.  This serves to do nothing but increase confusion really.  Supposedly people were confused by exit 21C followed by 21A without a 21B (which only serves the opposite direction), but now the remedy is to require that an exit to the same street within the same interchange(!) must be numbered differently each way.  (Figure 2E-3, Part D.)  The figure they show literally has the exit to one street as Exit 25B one direction, 25C the other, at the same interchange, because the westbound direction doesn't have an exit at eastbound's Exit 25B.  They can't sincerely think that this actually makes things easier for anyone.  Directions to that street now require separate exit numbers based on the direction?  Why have exit numbers if they don't identify the exit?  It's literally making thinsgs sequential for no good purpose. 

I'm kinda neutral on this.  I want to say this is stupid.  Exits should be the same number on both sides.

For motorists that rely on exit numbering and could be coming from either direction, it'll be a pain for them to understanding that the exit numbering for one direction could be different than the exit numbering for another direction.

Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..." and "Going South, Take Exit 23B, then turn Left onto Route 5 East..." and if they're obeying the correct directions, they'll still take the correct exit and make the proper turn.

We're also at the point where there really aren't many more highways being built. Unless a state decides to do a massive renumbering of their highway exits, this issue isn't going to occur all that often.
It's going to come up with business advertising.  If the exit has a different number in each direction, the business can't just say "just off I-81 exit 32B" on their radio/TV/internet ads.

Given that their are states/roads that still haven't converted from sequential, this situation will come up in those places.  I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes yet another impediment to conversion.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: rschen7754 on December 20, 2023, 08:06:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 20, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Too bad I'm traveling today, or I'd spend this day off skimming through...

Disappointed that they're only releasing the new MUTCD in PDF format, and not making a compatible web version.

There is actually one being worked on at Wikisource: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Manual_on_Uniform_Traffic_Control_Devices_for_Streets_and_Highways,_11th_Edition_(December_2023).pdf
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on December 20, 2023, 09:44:56 PM
Downloaded it the other day, and I'm ready to redesign some signs, as well as add any new ones that may appear in the latest edition (that is, if I'm able to recreate them).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: PColumbus73 on December 20, 2023, 10:03:01 PM
Quote
Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..." and "Going South, Take Exit 23B, then turn Left onto Route 5 East..." and if they're obeying the correct directions, they'll still take the correct exit and make the proper turn.

I feel like mileage-based exit numbering is more intuitive than sequential. I see we've been using standard diamond and half-diamond interchanges as examples for/against mileage based numbers, but how about parclos, with two ramps from one direction and one from the other, or other complicated interchanges? Using the logic that every exit should have the same number, then if I-90 East has one exit at Exit 25A, and I-90 West has two exits at Exit 25A, then how does that work? Are both westbound exits 25A?

I think it's overthinking it a little that because one direction is Exit 25A, then the other direction has to be Exit 25A as well. Using A, B, C... is just a suffix. I can understand that if I'm approaching Exit 25A, that means there are more than one exit within MM 25. With sequential exits, Exit 25 might be two miles from Exit 25A and then another 15 miles from Exit 26.

I also think mileage based numbers is more adaptable with added or removed ramps.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Revive 755 on December 20, 2023, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 01:33:00 PM
In other words ...

(https://i.imgur.com/rUMl4cs.png)

On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 01:51:09 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 20, 2023, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 01:33:00 PM
In other words ...

(https://i.imgur.com/rUMl4cs.png)

On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

If it were to scale, sure. But in any case, that has always been the preferred MUTCD method of rounding. If you or your state prefers rounding to nearest milepost (e.g. rounding 25.8 to 26), then instead of line "D" from the diagram, consider a situation where "25 A" is at 24.6, "25 B" NB is at 24.8, and "25 C" NB is at 25.4 . You would have a similar issue there.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 20, 2023, 11:26:25 PM
On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

If you want to be a purist, yes, however in practice more often than not exit numbers are assigned by always rounding down - so any exit from MM 25.00 to 25.99 gets numbered 25.

As far as the specific policy on assigning numbers, I can see where neither option in this situation is necessarily perfectly desirable. Having 25A and 25C with no 25B might trip people up, and so might having 25B go different places westbound vs. eastbound.

I do wonder though if this isn't one of those things where while we as roadgeeks will likely be more bothered by the latter, someone normal may actually be more bothered by the former, especially if they're unfamiliar with the area (which is who signs are primarily designed for). A normal person in 2023 isn't going to look at a map and say "this interchange has this number" and get bent out of shape if the same interchange has a different number in each direction. Indeed, they're not going to look at a map period, they're going to do whatever their gee pee ess tells them and will only care what the signs that they see as they're driving to their particular destination at the moment say. And if they want exit 25C to get where they're going, they will expect exit 25B to precede it and may be caught off guard if there is no 25B. Meanwhile they won't notice or care if exit 25B in the opposite direction goes to a different place because they're not driving in the opposite direction so that isn't relevant to them.

It's stupid and I hate it, but I see the reasoning. Normal people are stupid and I hate them, I guess. 🤷
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 01:56:11 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 20, 2023, 06:26:15 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 19, 2023, 05:06:12 PM
Some things of note while scrolling through:


       
  • EV CHARGING is now a recognized category for service signs.

GDOT jumped the gun a little bit; at exit 101 of I-75 they had already installed a yellow "EV Charging" tab a few weeks ago on the logo for the Pilot travel center that has EVgo/Ultium chargers at the interchange, as seen in Figure 2J-4.

The EV charging category is for businesses that are not gas stations. Because the MUTCD/FHWA have decided that a business that offers EV charging without gasoline, does not qualify for the "gas" sign. Gas stations that have EV charging can still be shown on the "gas" sign and be in compliance with the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Shedingtonian on December 21, 2023, 06:07:07 AM

Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 07:42:05 PM
I'm on the fence about that.  Honestly, in 2E-39, all the EXIT ONLY could be removed entirely with little to no ill effect.  But I do agree that, in order to be consistent with 2E-44, it should get an EXIT ONLY.

That has been the standard for some time now, and a lot of us on here aren't too happy with the decision either.

I totally agree. It should be for consistency and also to depict the lane movement options accurately.




Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 01:56:11 AM
The EV charging category is for businesses that are not gas stations. Because the MUTCD/FHWA have decided that a business that offers EV charging without gasoline, does not qualify for the "gas" sign. Gas stations that have EV charging can still be shown on the "gas" sign and be in compliance with the MUTCD.

So if I'm getting this right, an exclusively EV charging site will bear the D9-11b sign, but a gas station with EV charging will bear both D9-7 and D9-11b? Perhaps D9-7 and D9-11bP? Or would it be only D9-7? (Figure 2I-I)
Here's how each case would be signed in my state for reference:
(https://i.imgur.com/dcrJmGS.png)




Also, what are your thoughts on Figure 2D-10? Using APL's on local streets? I get it's just an example, but I still feel it's over the top. And why not merge the Broad St South sign into the APL if we're going the extra mile to have it at all?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 21, 2023, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
A normal person in 2023 isn't going to look at a map and say "this interchange has this number" and get bent out of shape if the same interchange has a different number in each direction. Indeed, they're not going to look at a map period, they're going to do whatever their gee pee ess tells them and will only care what the signs that they see as they're driving to their particular destination at the moment say.

Normal people still use the Rand McNally road atlas.  (Some of my best friends are normal.)

Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
And if they want exit 25C to get where they're going, they will expect exit 25B to precede it and may be caught off guard if there is no 25B.

Heck, I'm a non-normal roadgeek, and that would catch me off-guard.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
Meanwhile they won't notice or care if exit 25B in the opposite direction goes to a different place because they're not driving in the opposite direction so that isn't relevant to them.

They also won't notice or care if the opposite direction doesn't have an Exit #25B at all, I suppose.

Quote from: vdeane on December 20, 2023, 07:50:59 PM
It's going to come up with business advertising.  If the exit has a different number in each direction, the business can't just say "just off I-81 exit 32B" on their radio/TV/internet ads.

Maybe it's just a feature of the place I live, but I don't really hear things like "just off I-81 exit 32B" on the radio or TV or whatever.  About the only place I see that is on billboards, which can be tailor-cut for each direction (and hopefully the two don't get mixed up before installation, ha!).

But at any rate, as |PColumbus73| pointed out, the situation already exists at ParClo interchanges.  Take, for example, I-57 @ Vollmer Road in southern Cook County, IL.  If the nearby Shell station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/xaWwmeeMJtEwXuZd7) wanted to advertise its location by exit number—well, it's either #342 or #342A, depending on which direction you're traveling.  There are already interchanges with differential exit numbers, and apparently we've been OK with it all along.

Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 20, 2023, 10:03:01 PM
I feel like mileage-based exit numbering is more intuitive than sequential ... I also think mileage based numbers is more adaptable with added or removed ramps.

This isn't really a discussion about mileage-based vs sequential exit numbering.  The real issue is that the current system is a combination of the two.  The numeric part of our exit numbers are mileage-based, but the alpha part of exit numbers are sequential.  Thus, US drivers operate with different expectations of how each part functions:  they fully expect there to be gaps between the numbers, but they likely don't expect there to be gaps between the letters.




Quote from: Shedingtonian on December 21, 2023, 06:07:07 AM

Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 07:42:05 PM
I'm on the fence about that.  Honestly, in 2E-39, all the EXIT ONLY could be removed entirely with little to no ill effect.  But I do agree that, in order to be consistent with 2E-44, it should get an EXIT ONLY.

I totally agree. It should be for consistency and also to depict the lane movement options accurately.

Glad to know you're on the fence too!   :biggrin:




Quote from: Revive 755 on December 20, 2023, 11:26:25 PM
On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

Is that how your state does it?  It's my understanding that SOP is to round down if the crossroad passes over/under the highway before the next milepost.

Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 01:51:09 AM

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 20, 2023, 11:26:25 PM
On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

If it were to scale, sure. But in any case, that has always been the preferred MUTCD method of rounding. If you or your state prefers rounding to nearest milepost (e.g. rounding 25.8 to 26), then instead of line "D" from the diagram, consider a situation where "25 A" is at 24.6, "25 B" NB is at 24.8, and "25 C" NB is at 25.4 . You would have a similar issue there.

Here's a visual comparison of truncation vs rounding:

(https://i.imgur.com/EJchGdO.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 12:19:56 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 20, 2023, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 20, 2023, 02:06:18 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 19, 2023, 05:24:29 PM
Is there anything that states "mile-based exits shall be used"?  :-D

The 2009 MUTCD already contained a prohibition on the sequential exit system. But if you're asking about mile-based exit numbers versus no numbers at all, I'm not sure if freeways with un-numbered exits are compliant

It was a dig of the Metrication thread.


In that case, it's also the 2009 MUTCD that removed references to metric units - at some point FHWA or a higher level of the federal government decided that federal funding would no longer be used to change to metric or to incentivize states/agencies to do so
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2023, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 20, 2023, 07:50:59 PM
It's going to come up with business advertising.  If the exit has a different number in each direction, the business can't just say "just off I-81 exit 32B" on their radio/TV/internet ads.

This situation comes up currently, especially at partial cloverleafs, where an interchange with 2 exits in one direction will have different exit numbers (ie: 32A/B) than the other direction if that only has 1 exit (32). 
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Big John on December 21, 2023, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2023, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 20, 2023, 07:50:59 PM
It's going to come up with business advertising.  If the exit has a different number in each direction, the business can't just say "just off I-81 exit 32B" on their radio/TV/internet ads.

This situation comes up currently, especially at partial cloverleafs, where an interchange with 2 exits in one direction will have different exit numbers (ie: 32A/B) than the other direction if that only has 1 exit (32). 

Wisconsin would sign the 1 exit 32 A-B.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2023, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Big John on December 21, 2023, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2023, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 20, 2023, 07:50:59 PM
It's going to come up with business advertising.  If the exit has a different number in each direction, the business can't just say "just off I-81 exit 32B" on their radio/TV/internet ads.

This situation comes up currently, especially at partial cloverleafs, where an interchange with 2 exits in one direction will have different exit numbers (ie: 32A/B) than the other direction if that only has 1 exit (32). 

Wisconsin would sign the 1 exit 32 A-B.

NJDOT has at least one like this:  Exit 2B/C on I-295 NB. But that's an abnormally compared to most of the rest of the state. 
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on December 21, 2023, 12:56:24 PM
One interesting thing I just thought of is how some sequential states went even further, using numbers to make sure that not only did each interchange have a unique exit number, but that each exit number also had a unique interchange.  So if you had a pair of half-interchanges, one for each direction, they would each get separate numbers.  This is actually how the discrepancy in exit numbers between the Hutchinson River Parkway and the Merritt Parkway at the NY/CT line first occurred.  NY's original sequential numbers used one exit number per general interchange, even if the ramps went to different roads.  At some point, NY decided it didn't like that, so it renumbers to give such ramps separate numbers.  CT didn't.  Of course, now those ramps have the same number again, since minimizing alphabet soup took priority over giving them separate numbers when NY renumbered the road to mile-based.

Quote from: PColumbus73 on December 20, 2023, 10:03:01 PM
Quote
Then I start thinking, what if I was writing up directions for someone not familiar with the area.  They're not going to care. I could write up "Going North, Take Exit 23A, then turn Right onto Route 5 East..." and "Going South, Take Exit 23B, then turn Left onto Route 5 East..." and if they're obeying the correct directions, they'll still take the correct exit and make the proper turn.

I feel like mileage-based exit numbering is more intuitive than sequential. I see we've been using standard diamond and half-diamond interchanges as examples for/against mileage based numbers, but how about parclos, with two ramps from one direction and one from the other, or other complicated interchanges? Using the logic that every exit should have the same number, then if I-90 East has one exit at Exit 25A, and I-90 West has two exits at Exit 25A, then how does that work? Are both westbound exits 25A?

I think it's overthinking it a little that because one direction is Exit 25A, then the other direction has to be Exit 25A as well. Using A, B, C... is just a suffix. I can understand that if I'm approaching Exit 25A, that means there are more than one exit within MM 25. With sequential exits, Exit 25 might be two miles from Exit 25A and then another 15 miles from Exit 26.

I also think mileage based numbers is more adaptable with added or removed ramps.
I don't think anyone was arguing against mile-based exit numbering itself, just this hare-brained idea that an interchange could get different exit numbers in each direction in the case of multiple interchanges in a mile with half-interchanges thrown in.  Sure, for a parclo, it's "just a suffix" because it's one interchange, but what about completely separate ones that just happen to be within the same two mileposts?

Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 20, 2023, 11:26:25 PM
On "Line D", the further right interchange (25C) really should be 26 anyway.  Having the interchange numbered for a more distant milepost does not seem to be helpful for a driver to determine distances or accurately reporting their location.

If you want to be a purist, yes, however in practice more often than not exit numbers are assigned by always rounding down - so any exit from MM 25.00 to 25.99 gets numbered 25.

As far as the specific policy on assigning numbers, I can see where neither option in this situation is necessarily perfectly desirable. Having 25A and 25C with no 25B might trip people up, and so might having 25B go different places westbound vs. eastbound.

I do wonder though if this isn't one of those things where while we as roadgeeks will likely be more bothered by the latter, someone normal may actually be more bothered by the former, especially if they're unfamiliar with the area (which is who signs are primarily designed for). A normal person in 2023 isn't going to look at a map and say "this interchange has this number" and get bent out of shape if the same interchange has a different number in each direction. Indeed, they're not going to look at a map period, they're going to do whatever their gee pee ess tells them and will only care what the signs that they see as they're driving to their particular destination at the moment say. And if they want exit 25C to get where they're going, they will expect exit 25B to precede it and may be caught off guard if there is no 25B. Meanwhile they won't notice or care if exit 25B in the opposite direction goes to a different place because they're not driving in the opposite direction so that isn't relevant to them.

It's stupid and I hate it, but I see the reasoning. Normal people are stupid and I hate them, I guess. 🤷
I didn't even think about the mapping side.  How on Earth is Rand McNally supposed to handle this?

Incidentally, I really hate people who don't bother to look into where they're going and just rely on GPS.  What if the GPS is wrong or malfunctions?  Or the directions come too fast for you to react if you have no clue where you're going?

A couple months back, me and a few people from Main Office were heading to a meeting down in Kingston, and on the Thruway the driver asked "has anyone put this into GPS yet so we know where we're going?".  I was horrified, but everyone else seemed to think this was normal.  When we got into Kingston, we got to this roundabout (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9342185,-74.0116844,3a,40.1y,174.43h,89.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZTWxbwG2iNLTfv4mQIPOIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), we ended up taking the wrong leg, because there's nothing a GPS can do to prepare you for a roundabout where your "turn" is actually straight.  Only looking at a map (and preferably street view too) will tell you that.  I knew about it... but nobody else did, and only my immediate co-workers aren't thrown by how much I know, so me knowing about it did jack shit in the moment.  The person who was driving then spent the whole day ranting about the roundabout.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2023, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 20, 2023, 07:50:59 PM
It's going to come up with business advertising.  If the exit has a different number in each direction, the business can't just say "just off I-81 exit 32B" on their radio/TV/internet ads.

This situation comes up currently, especially at partial cloverleafs, where an interchange with 2 exits in one direction will have different exit numbers (ie: 32A/B) than the other direction if that only has 1 exit (32). 

In this case, it's one interchange, though.    Such would often get shortened to "exit 32" where I live even if heading the direction that has the A/B ramps.  Not so on what the MUTCD is recommending now...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: lordsutch on December 21, 2023, 05:29:22 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 01:56:11 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 20, 2023, 06:26:15 PM
GDOT jumped the gun a little bit; at exit 101 of I-75 they had already installed a yellow "EV Charging" tab a few weeks ago on the logo for the Pilot travel center that has EVgo/Ultium chargers at the interchange, as seen in Figure 2J-4.

The EV charging category is for businesses that are not gas stations. Because the MUTCD/FHWA have decided that a business that offers EV charging without gasoline, does not qualify for the "gas" sign. Gas stations that have EV charging can still be shown on the "gas" sign and be in compliance with the MUTCD.

Right; my point is that the EV CHARGING tab on gas signs wasn't legally permitted until the 11th Edition was finalized, but GDOT had already posted a sign using the tab.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 21, 2023, 11:20:19 AM
Maybe it's just a feature of the place I live, but I don't really hear things like "just off I-81 exit 32B" on the radio or TV or whatever.  About the only place I see that is on billboards, which can be tailor-cut for each direction (and hopefully the two don't get mixed up before installation, ha!).

It is a feature of where you live, yes. People in most of the northeast navigate by exit number and it's very common even in casual conversation to talk about things like "the McDonald's by exit 9". This is also part of why the northeast has the last holdouts for converting to mile-based numbering: since people are used to using exit numbers as landmarks, changing them for any reason causes a lot of confusion.

Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2023, 12:56:24 PM
One interesting thing I just thought of is how some sequential states went even further, using numbers to make sure that not only did each interchange have a unique exit number, but that each exit number also had a unique interchange.  So if you had a pair of half-interchanges, one for each direction, they would each get separate numbers.  This is actually how the discrepancy in exit numbers between the Hutchinson River Parkway and the Merritt Parkway at the NY/CT line first occurred.  NY's original sequential numbers used one exit number per general interchange, even if the ramps went to different roads.  At some point, NY decided it didn't like that, so it renumbers to give such ramps separate numbers.  CT didn't.  Of course, now those ramps have the same number again, since minimizing alphabet soup took priority over giving them separate numbers when NY renumbered the road to mile-based.

Well, New York also did exactly what the 2023 MUTCD now stipulates with this, even though the project predates it. Rhode Island's mile-based conversion was done this way too (look at I-195).

The key thing is that this idea of "letter suffixes must only appear in unbroken sequence" didn't suddenly magic itself into existence for the 2023 MUTCD. It was already the prevailing opinion of transportation officials that skipping letters or having A with no B was bad, and it was already driving decisionmaking before it was officially codified. What I am curious to know is if there is any research supporting this or if it's just groupthink running on vibes.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 21, 2023, 05:56:33 PM
In discussing exit number oddities, Exit 334 on I-65 in Alabama is entirely south of Milepost 334 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5431509,-86.9062759,3a,22.5y,181.1h,87.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syGwBjMSwr0BMb0faxR0tug!2e0!5s20221101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). In fact, it's actually right about Milepost 333, at least going northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.528467,-86.9050256,3a,22.9y,11.87h,86.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAa_uHOUiFqGBvJUxjNqSfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). I have no idea why 334 was chosen as the number, unless it dates back to when I-65 wasn't complete to Mobile, and ALDOT thought it'd be one mile longer than it wound-up being.

Similarly, I-565's Exit 2 is located entirely west of Milepost 2, with Mooresville Road crossing I-565 itself at about Milepost 1.3, per the signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.631115,-86.8801433,3a,15y,125.34h,109.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTutaV4fT3OAKIiI-MwLd-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), with the ramp from I-565 Eastbound splitting off at Milepost 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6314377,-86.8849808,3a,23.8y,99.6h,87.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLnx5GB-WpCLgyGHCwmKs9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). The interchange with I-65 is also similarly signed as Exit 1, despite being the official start of I-565.
My only guess for this is that, when I-565 was built, ALDOT didn't sign Exit 0s with tabs. However, as I-565 Eastbound has two different ramps to I-65, they needed some way to delineate between the two, so the interchange for I-65 became I-565's Exit 1, so I-565 eastbound could have A and B ramps, while Mooresville Road was given Exit 2 to make it clearer that it wasn't part of the interchange with I-65. Given that ALDOT now signs Exit 0s, maybe they should bump them down by one.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 06:13:36 PM
Alabama has used exit 0 for a long time though. I remember going from North GA to the MS Gulf Coast and seeing both the south end of I-85 and the south end of I-65 posted as exit 0. This would have been in the early 90s
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 21, 2023, 05:29:22 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 01:56:11 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 20, 2023, 06:26:15 PM
GDOT jumped the gun a little bit; at exit 101 of I-75 they had already installed a yellow "EV Charging" tab a few weeks ago on the logo for the Pilot travel center that has EVgo/Ultium chargers at the interchange, as seen in Figure 2J-4.

The EV charging category is for businesses that are not gas stations. Because the MUTCD/FHWA have decided that a business that offers EV charging without gasoline, does not qualify for the "gas" sign. Gas stations that have EV charging can still be shown on the "gas" sign and be in compliance with the MUTCD.

Right; my point is that the EV CHARGING tab on gas signs wasn't legally permitted until the 11th Edition was finalized, but GDOT had already posted a sign using the tab.

Yes it was? It's not a symbol being used.

2009 edition - Section 2J.03, paragraph 5

"A portion of a logo sign panel may be used to display a supplemental message horizontally along the bottom of the logo sign panel, provided that the message displays essential motorist information"

"EV charging" displayed as such supplemental message, is compliant.

Paragraph 10 "Typical supplemental messages might include DIESEL, 24 HOURS, CLOSED and the day of the week when the facility is closed, ALTERNATIVE FUELS (see Section 2I.03), and RV ACCESS"

EV uses an alternative fuel
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 21, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 06:13:36 PM
Alabama has used exit 0 for a long time though. I remember going from North GA to the MS Gulf Coast and seeing both the south end of I-85 and the south end of I-65 posted as exit 0. This would have been in the early 90s

When I was younger (2000s/early to mid-2010s), the south end of I-85 wasn't posted as Exit 0, and did not have a signed Exit number at all. Checking Street View, the signage did not have Exit 0 posted until sometime after 2017:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3678168,-86.3121473,3a,76y,265.36h,92.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7V9v9H1QtaPmZAHWRsVE4A!2e0!5s20170401T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3676392,-86.3186067,3a,43y,260.34h,94.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBz5NKkuA-FyGISeaT6V5sg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

It appears Mobile has always had the south end of I-65 posted as Exit 0 on the overheads, but the two overheads before the I-10 interchange still lack any exit tabs. However, I rarely ever went to/through Mobile when I was younger (my family preferred going to Florida to visit the Gulf and taking US 231 out of Montgomery to get there), so I have straight-up no memories of the south end of I-65. In fact, prior to visiting last spring, I think my only other visit to that area was when I passed through on a trip to Dauphin Island when I was in elementary school.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on December 21, 2023, 08:48:34 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 21, 2023, 11:20:19 AM
Maybe it's just a feature of the place I live, but I don't really hear things like "just off I-81 exit 32B" on the radio or TV or whatever.  About the only place I see that is on billboards, which can be tailor-cut for each direction (and hopefully the two don't get mixed up before installation, ha!).

It is a feature of where you live, yes. People in most of the northeast navigate by exit number and it's very common even in casual conversation to talk about things like "the McDonald's by exit 9". This is also part of why the northeast has the last holdouts for converting to mile-based numbering: since people are used to using exit numbers as landmarks, changing them for any reason causes a lot of confusion.

Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2023, 12:56:24 PM
One interesting thing I just thought of is how some sequential states went even further, using numbers to make sure that not only did each interchange have a unique exit number, but that each exit number also had a unique interchange.  So if you had a pair of half-interchanges, one for each direction, they would each get separate numbers.  This is actually how the discrepancy in exit numbers between the Hutchinson River Parkway and the Merritt Parkway at the NY/CT line first occurred.  NY's original sequential numbers used one exit number per general interchange, even if the ramps went to different roads.  At some point, NY decided it didn't like that, so it renumbers to give such ramps separate numbers.  CT didn't.  Of course, now those ramps have the same number again, since minimizing alphabet soup took priority over giving them separate numbers when NY renumbered the road to mile-based.

Well, New York also did exactly what the 2023 MUTCD now stipulates with this, even though the project predates it. Rhode Island's mile-based conversion was done this way too (look at I-195).

The key thing is that this idea of "letter suffixes must only appear in unbroken sequence" didn't suddenly magic itself into existence for the 2023 MUTCD. It was already the prevailing opinion of transportation officials that skipping letters or having A with no B was bad, and it was already driving decisionmaking before it was officially codified. What I am curious to know is if there is any research supporting this or if it's just groupthink running on vibes.
The Hutch doesn't really have any examples of a single exit having two different numbers, though (aside from some not-updated signs at the CT border).  The closest is the NY 120 exit, 16B NB, 16 SB, but that situation isn't really unusual in a part of the country where one side of an exit being split by direction and the other side not is routine (even though that isn't the reason for it here).  Someone going SB looking for 16B would probably clue in to having to take 16 (especially if the rest of the state finally converts, and stuff like the 21/21B/21A/22 sequence on the Thruway goes away).

I suppose EB 1A/WB 1D on I-195 could count.  I didn't really think of them as such, but they are indeed signed similarly other than the number.  I wonder if the rule exists in part to reduce the number of letters used.  RIDOT certainly uses it for that.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 21, 2023, 09:20:09 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 21, 2023, 05:29:22 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 21, 2023, 01:56:11 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 20, 2023, 06:26:15 PM
GDOT jumped the gun a little bit; at exit 101 of I-75 they had already installed a yellow "EV Charging" tab a few weeks ago on the logo for the Pilot travel center that has EVgo/Ultium chargers at the interchange, as seen in Figure 2J-4.

The EV charging category is for businesses that are not gas stations. Because the MUTCD/FHWA have decided that a business that offers EV charging without gasoline, does not qualify for the "gas" sign. Gas stations that have EV charging can still be shown on the "gas" sign and be in compliance with the MUTCD.

Right; my point is that the EV CHARGING tab on gas signs wasn't legally permitted until the 11th Edition was finalized, but GDOT had already posted a sign using the tab.

Yes it was? It's not a symbol being used.

2009 edition - Section 2J.03, paragraph 5

"A portion of a logo sign panel may be used to display a supplemental message horizontally along the bottom of the logo sign panel, provided that the message displays essential motorist information"

"EV charging" displayed as such supplemental message, is compliant.

Paragraph 10 "Typical supplemental messages might include DIESEL, 24 HOURS, CLOSED and the day of the week when the facility is closed, ALTERNATIVE FUELS (see Section 2I.03), and RV ACCESS"

EV uses an alternative fuel

Yes. That was previously an option, and still is. What I meant is that we have a new major category of permissible service signs, that being EV CHARGING. That brings the approved list to ATTRACTION, GAS, FOOD, LODGING, and EV CHARGING.

Basically, Tesla could apply to have supercharger locations on their own service sign category.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2023, 11:30:10 PM
I'm still amazed at how many posts are about exit numbers.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Brandon on December 22, 2023, 06:36:20 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 21, 2023, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
A normal person in 2023 isn't going to look at a map and say "this interchange has this number" and get bent out of shape if the same interchange has a different number in each direction. Indeed, they're not going to look at a map period, they're going to do whatever their gee pee ess tells them and will only care what the signs that they see as they're driving to their particular destination at the moment say.

Normal people still use the Rand McNally road atlas.  (Some of my best friends are normal.)

Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
And if they want exit 25C to get where they're going, they will expect exit 25B to precede it and may be caught off guard if there is no 25B.

Heck, I'm a non-normal roadgeek, and that would catch me off-guard.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:54:18 AM
Meanwhile they won't notice or care if exit 25B in the opposite direction goes to a different place because they're not driving in the opposite direction so that isn't relevant to them.

They also won't notice or care if the opposite direction doesn't have an Exit #25B at all, I suppose.

I find they don't worry about it.  Here are real-life examples on I-355 for Ogden Avenue and I-88, and on I-88 for I-355.  As the Ogden Avenue interchange occurs within the I-88 interchange, and the I-88 interchange is spread out over about two to three miles, there are a multitude of exit numbers depending on direction.  Overview of interchange: https://maps.app.goo.gl/D3S8bxCGW9Ny6Seo9

* Exit 20A nb for I-88 on I-355, about mm19: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MfNDR4NWSAdqvKfY8
* Exit 20B nb, also about mm19 for Ogden Avenue: https://maps.app.goo.gl/3NPQnCv9R3wVz1bY7
I-88 gets Exit 20 as ISTHA typically uses the truncation method; however, this would put Exit 20 for I-88 before Exit 19 for Ogden Avenue, so you now have Exits 20A and 20B.
* Exits 20 and 22 for I-88 and Butterfield Road are on a c/d setup for southbound: https://maps.app.goo.gl/pp6aXHJ7gKxmmyX59
* Followed by Exit 19 for Ogden Avenue: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HfEzPNABboYjjZci9

Then we get to I-88.

* Exit 131 eb is for I-355 south (and Ogden Avenue): https://maps.app.goo.gl/paoyUm9gWncxoDZ2A
* Then Exit 132 eb is for I-355 north: https://maps.app.goo.gl/USstX7NaRZCsNVzs7
* But, on wb I-88, it's Exit 131A and 131B for I-355 south and north, respectively: https://maps.app.goo.gl/PBMQ5GvK217gdB9A8
Never mind that this is at mm133 as I-355 crosses I-88 at mm131.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jzn110 on December 22, 2023, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:37:13 AM
On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.

Bay City, MI, would like a word.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Big John on December 22, 2023, 08:34:07 AM
Quote from: jzn110 on December 22, 2023, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:37:13 AM
On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.

Bay City, MI, would like a word.
It was listed as a control city for I-43.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 22, 2023, 11:41:58 AM
The location of the cross road, not the ramp, is what the exit number is supposed to be based on
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: on_wisconsin on December 22, 2023, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: jzn110 on December 22, 2023, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:37:13 AM
On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.

Bay City, MI, would like a word.

As would Somerset, WI...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2023, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2023, 11:30:10 PM
I'm still amazed at how many posts are about exit numbers.

Because, no matter what, they should exist at nearly every exit on interstate highways. 

Some exits don't have route numbers.  Some don't have destinations or control cities.  But just about every exit has an exit number. 
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on December 23, 2023, 09:11:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2023, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2023, 11:30:10 PM
I'm still amazed at how many posts are about exit numbers.

Because, no matter what, they should exist at nearly every exit on interstate highways. 

Some exits don't have route numbers.  Some don't have destinations or control cities.  But just about every exit has an exit number. 
This reminds me: after all these years, there are still no exit numbers on the freeway alignment of CA-33 between Ventura and Casitas Springs. One of the few places in the state where this is still not a thing.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: KCRoadFan on December 24, 2023, 02:41:17 AM
Way back when I looked at a past edition of the MUTCD, the thing I remember most was looking at the signs depicted in the "Freeway & Expressway Guide Signs" section (Chapter 2E), and about how the highways and town names shown on the various signs were a mixture of real and fake. Having just looked at that chapter in the latest edition, I wonder: of the sample guide signs - and sets of signs - shown in that chapter of the MUTCD, how many of them either (1) are based on real signs but with the roads and/or town names changed, or (2) have real town or road names, such that they could plausibly appear at some actual location, but some of the details have been tweaked? A couple of sample signs in the latter category come to mind: first, on page 314, there is an Interchange Sequence Sign that could have, at one point, appeared on the 110 freeway in Los Angeles just south of Exposition Boulevard; before 1983, the LA street that is now MLK Boulevard was known as Santa Barbara Avenue. Another one that I thought about is the distance sign for "I-52 East" on page 336, one which could theoretically appear on US 41 just north of I-70 in Terre Haute, Indiana, if not for the fact that (1) Veedersburg is misspelled as "Vedersburg" and (2) the distance figures are somewhat off, as it's about 55 miles to Veedersburg and 190 to Chicago heading north on US 41 from the Terre Haute exit, as opposed to 40 and 100.

Meanwhile, the sign assembly depicted on page 330, depicting Waltham and Weston, is an example of the first category, it being more-or-less a replica of the exit for US 20 on I-95/Route 128 in the Boston area, albeit with the route number and exit number changed and the directions reversed. (Coincidentally, the real Route 16 isn't far away from the actual interchange; however, Massachusetts uses squares, not circles, to mark their state highways.)

Aside from the above examples, are there any other guide signs in MUTCD Chapter 2E that are based off real signs but with one or more of the elements changed? If so, where would the originals be?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 24, 2023, 12:17:36 PM
There are several which are probably based on real conditions, for various reasons.

For example, this isn't chapter 2E, but figure 2G-16 (associated with section 2G.15 ) pretty much exists because of the results of the investigation of the 2007 bus crash on I-75 in Atlanta (the investigators concluded that the bus driver likely thought that staying on the left was the through route of the HOV lane rather than an exit). In this edition the signs have Houston-area names/routes, but in previous editions I think different examples were used.

And figure 2G-28 is just a modification of 2G-16 for express toll lanes instead of HOV lanes.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on December 24, 2023, 01:42:07 PM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on December 24, 2023, 02:41:17 AMWay back when I looked at a past edition of the MUTCD, the thing I remember most was looking at the signs depicted in the "Freeway & Expressway Guide Signs" section (Chapter 2E), and about how the highways and town names shown on the various signs were a mixture of real and fake. Having just looked at that chapter in the latest edition, I wonder: of the sample guide signs - and sets of signs - shown in that chapter of the MUTCD, how many of them either (1) are based on real signs but with the roads and/or town names changed, or (2) have real town or road names, such that they could plausibly appear at some actual location, but some of the details have been tweaked? A couple of sample signs in the latter category come to mind: first, on page 314, there is an Interchange Sequence Sign that could have, at one point, appeared on the 110 freeway in Los Angeles just south of Exposition Boulevard; before 1983, the LA street that is now MLK Boulevard was known as Santa Barbara Avenue.

Various versions of that sign sketch have been in the MUTCD for decades.  The original Caltrans sign spec from 1957 called for white letters on black background and distances in miles and underlined tenths.

(https://i.imgur.com/yIAensr.png)

For that matter, a carbon copy of the original sign (with Santa Barbara Ave. updated to its current name) still exists on the southbound Harbor Freeway:

(https://i.imgur.com/RMwpEpm.png)

When stippled-arrow diagrammatics were added to the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs in 1978 (if memory serves), the example sign for a split with I-270/Frederick on one side and I-495/Baltimore on the other was based on an actual sign installed on the Capital Beltway as part of the Mast and Kolsrud study in the late 1960's/early 1970's.  However, the real-life sign referenced I-70S since the redesignation to I-270 had not yet happened.  A number of stippled-arrow diagrammatics for service interchanges were also installed on this segment of the Beltway and were still standing as late as the mid-1990's.  However, signs to this general design were not added to the MUTCD, probably because they were not found to be effective, and the original prototypes are now long gone.  Each generally had a thick arrow (sometimes curved, sometimes not) with lane-line stippling running up the left side, with smaller arrows branching off of it to represent the exiting movements, similar to this not-quite-compliant example at the bottom end of the US 285 expressway in Santa Fe, New Mexico:

(https://i.imgur.com/2aBUexK.png)

Other examples are based on real signs but nevertheless refer to fictitious locations, because the signs in question were test installations on a closed track.  For example, a number of illustrations have traditionally referenced "Metropolis" and "Utopia":  the former was one of the destinations used in the 1958 study that fixed green as the background color for Interstate guide signs.  The test signs for that study were installed on a section of what is now the Baltimore-Washington Parkway that was driveable but not yet open to public travel.

Quote from: KCRoadFan on December 24, 2023, 02:41:17 AMAside from the above examples, are there any other guide signs in MUTCD Chapter 2E that are based off real signs but with one or more of the elements changed? If so, where would the originals be?

Generally speaking, the longer a sign illustration has been in the MUTCD, the more likely it is to be based on a real-life example, either on a closed course or a road open to public travel.  Until roughly the mid-2000's, it was difficult to make pattern-accurate illustrations for the MUTCD--as an example, Caltrans sign specs from the 1950's were typically made by composing snippets of legend by hand (either on a scale model or on an actual sign), taking a photo on dupe film, printing the result, cutting it out with scissors, and gluing it in place on a sheet of paper to make a dupe master.

All of that original art was re-mastered using vector drawing software to compose the 2003 edition of the MUTCD, but the example destinations were left in place, probably because there was nothing to be gained from change for change's sake while new destinations might fool old-timers into thinking the underlying provisions had changed when they hadn't.

When a sign illustration accompanies a section added to the MUTCD after 2003, it is less likely to be based on a real-life example or even a test sign in a study.  Recent research into guide signing (such as the study that gave us APLs) has used tachistoscopes (where the sign images are computer-generated) rather than field installations; also, since it is now so much easier to produce sign illustrations in a vector drawing program, there is no longer any advantage to recycling already-existing art.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on December 24, 2023, 05:36:41 PM
I always liked the underline tenths of miles. I wish that stuck around.

I'm also a fan of putting location names in boxes, similar to what New York does. (Although I'd suggest green-on-white instead of an actual outline).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 24, 2023, 08:28:52 PM
Another error I have found is that Figure 2B-7 contradicts section 2B.34 paragraph 8 . (Regarding signage for reversible lanes that do not use changeable signs or signals but rather list the times on the sign)

The text says the prohibition time message must be listed "first" (to the left if arranged horizontally). But the figure depicts, for one direction, signs with the prohibition time listed second/in the middle.

This error is new, as the figure from the 09 MUTCD correctly complied with the text as shown here: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2r3/part2/fig2b_07_longdesc.htm

Edit - It looks like the 09 version had its own error - one direction of signs is shown with the wrong times for prohibited and permitted lane use. But at least that error is in just the figure and does not have contradiction with the text.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Tom958 on December 25, 2023, 04:13:48 AM
Bay City and Somerset were the fictional locales in which the soap opera "Another World" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_World_(TV_series)) was set when I watched it as a teen in the seventies. The show was successful enough that "Somerset" was introduced as a spinoff, with the original series set in Bay City.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on December 22, 2023, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: jzn110 on December 22, 2023, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:37:13 AM
On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.

Bay City, MI, would like a word.

As would Somerset, WI...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: -- US 175 -- on December 26, 2023, 03:40:28 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on December 25, 2023, 04:13:48 AM
Bay City and Somerset were the fictional locales in which the soap opera "Another World" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_World_(TV_series)) was set when I watched it as a teen in the seventies. The show was successful enough that "Somerset" was introduced as a spinoff, with the original series set in Bay City.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on December 22, 2023, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: jzn110 on December 22, 2023, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:37:13 AM
On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.

Bay City, MI, would like a word.

As would Somerset, WI...

I wondered if someone would bring up the Another World angle -- and if someone in the midst of the new MUTCD's production might have been a soap fan.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Duke87 on December 26, 2023, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2023, 08:48:34 PM
The Hutch doesn't really have any examples of a single exit having two different numbers, though (aside from some not-updated signs at the CT border).  The closest is the NY 120 exit, 16B NB, 16 SB, but that situation isn't really unusual in a part of the country where one side of an exit being split by direction and the other side not is routine (even though that isn't the reason for it here).  Someone going SB looking for 16B would probably clue in to having to take 16 (especially if the rest of the state finally converts, and stuff like the 21/21B/21A/22 sequence on the Thruway goes away).

4, 5, 6, and 9 also have suffixes for multiple exits in one direction while remaining vanilla in the other.

Really more the "WTF really?" issue with the Hutch is that vanilla exit 8 exists in both directions but goes to two completely different places depending on which direction. SB it's the Cross County (former exit 15). NB it's Webster Ave (former exit 16).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on December 26, 2023, 10:51:42 PM
Anyone find it funny that an unsigned Interstate is labeled on an APL sign for an exit that is one interchange too late in the real world? (At least they got the route and exit numbers right.)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CovalenceSTU on December 29, 2023, 02:38:38 AM
I went through the new MUTCD's pictures and while I won't list everything, there's lots of neat additions such as U turn arrows, seagull intersections (sort of), "YOUR SPEED" standardized, units of sign info (similar to the Texas MUTCD), optional dotted line (instead of no line) before lanes end, no more three-lane roundabout examples (good riddance), and separated bike lanes.

US-99 makes a cameo:
(https://i.imgur.com/mMa4CtV.jpg)

New APL split arrow with no curve:
(https://i.imgur.com/mmhQDb8.jpg)

New section for instructing people to zipper merge: (edit: what have I done)
(https://i.imgur.com/4Y8Lyhj.jpg)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on December 29, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
I like that new arrow for two straight ahead options for APLs. Definitely gives another good option, especially for express-local lane setups.

Zipper merge signage needs to be more common. I'm tired of drivers merging a mile from the merge point, and semi drivers playing traffic cop to block the open lane.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Brandon on December 29, 2023, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 24, 2023, 05:36:41 PM
I'm also a fan of putting location names in boxes, similar to what New York does. (Although I'd suggest green-on-white instead of an actual outline).

The Ohio Turnpike used to to exactly that (green on white box) for one exit back in the 1990s and 2000s.  It has since been changed.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 29, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
I'm tired of drivers merging a mile from the merge point, and semi drivers playing traffic cop to block the open lane.

In Oklahoma, many drivers find it difficult to ignore the big "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW" signs that are posted a half-mile upstream of the merge point...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 29, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
I'm tired of drivers merging a mile from the merge point, and semi drivers playing traffic cop to block the open lane.

In Oklahoma, many drivers find it difficult to ignore the big "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW" signs that are posted a half-mile upstream of the merge point...
And that's probably the best approach in many cases.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 29, 2023, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 29, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
I'm tired of drivers merging a mile from the merge point, and semi drivers playing traffic cop to block the open lane.

In Oklahoma, many drivers find it difficult to ignore the big "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW" signs that are posted a half-mile upstream of the merge point...
And that's probably the best approach in many cases.

Even better would be to double solid stripe the lanes and prohibit passing within 1000ft of the taper.

The law should also be made abundantly clear that if you are in the lane that's merging, you must remain in it through the merge.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 29, 2023, 02:36:42 PM
Even better would be to double solid stripe the lanes and prohibit passing within 1000ft of the taper.

The law should also be made abundantly clear that if you are in the lane that's merging, you must remain in it through the merge.

Well, then, the new MUTCD zipper merge signage wouldn't see much use, then, would it?

Can we please not turn this thread into a debate about the zipper merge's benefits and drawbacks? especially considering nobody ever seems to come up with real data to back up their side of the argument...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:02:35 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 29, 2023, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 29, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
I'm tired of drivers merging a mile from the merge point, and semi drivers playing traffic cop to block the open lane.

In Oklahoma, many drivers find it difficult to ignore the big "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW" signs that are posted a half-mile upstream of the merge point...
And that's probably the best approach in many cases.

Even better would be to double solid stripe the lanes and prohibit passing within 1000ft of the taper.

The law should also be made abundantly clear that if you are in the lane that's merging, you must remain in it through the merge.
well, question is about placement of the merge. For free flowing traffic I would argue at least 30 seconds upstream. For congestion that 1/2 mile looks about right as well.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:02:35 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 29, 2023, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 29, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
I'm tired of drivers merging a mile from the merge point, and semi drivers playing traffic cop to block the open lane.

In Oklahoma, many drivers find it difficult to ignore the big "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW" signs that are posted a half-mile upstream of the merge point...
And that's probably the best approach in many cases.

Even better would be to double solid stripe the lanes and prohibit passing within 1000ft of the taper.

The law should also be made abundantly clear that if you are in the lane that's merging, you must remain in it through the merge.
well, question is about placement of the merge. For free flowing traffic I would argue at least 30 seconds upstream. For congestion that 1/2 mile looks about right as well.

What's the point of merging a 1/2 mile before the end of the lane?  You're still leaving 1/2 mile of open lane unused.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:02:35 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 29, 2023, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 29, 2023, 01:57:15 PM
I'm tired of drivers merging a mile from the merge point, and semi drivers playing traffic cop to block the open lane.

In Oklahoma, many drivers find it difficult to ignore the big "STATE LAW / MERGE NOW" signs that are posted a half-mile upstream of the merge point...
And that's probably the best approach in many cases.

Even better would be to double solid stripe the lanes and prohibit passing within 1000ft of the taper.

The law should also be made abundantly clear that if you are in the lane that's merging, you must remain in it through the merge.
well, question is about placement of the merge. For free flowing traffic I would argue at least 30 seconds upstream. For congestion that 1/2 mile looks about right as well.

What's the point of merging a 1/2 mile before the end of the lane?  You're still leaving 1/2 mile of open lane unused.
time and distance for the flow stabilization. What do we get by filling that 1/2 mile, though?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 03:39:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:36:09 PM
time and distance for the flow stabilization. What do we get by filling that 1/2 mile, though?

*uggggh*  OK, here we go . . .

There is a point at which that argument breaks down, though, isn't there?  Why not merge 1½ miles early? 3 miles early? 5 miles early?

Why does the flow stabilization have to happen at a specific point?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:41:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 03:39:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:36:09 PM
time and distance for the flow stabilization. What do we get by filling that 1/2 mile, though?

*uggggh*  OK, here we go . . .

There is a point at which that argument breaks down, though, isn't there?  Why not merge 1½ miles early? 3 miles early? 5 miles early?

Why does the flow stabilization have to happen at a specific point?
OK, what is the rate limiting step of the lane drop from your perspective? (and this may go to a separate thread, actually)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:41:22 PM
OK, what is the rate limiting step of the lane drop from your perspective? (and this may go to a separate thread, actually)

Single-file traffic passing through the physical merge point?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:50:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:41:22 PM
OK, what is the rate limiting step of the lane drop from your perspective? (and this may go to a separate thread, actually)

Single-file traffic passing through the physical merge point?
Point as in... ?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:50:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:41:22 PM
OK, what is the rate limiting step of the lane drop from your perspective? (and this may go to a separate thread, actually)

Single-file traffic passing through the physical merge point?
Point as in... ?

Upstream issues where the roadway is constricted impact the overall flow.  A construction worker stopping traffic; a narrowed available lane, trucks occasionally being very close to the lane, or an unusual site that people are looking at will constrict flow.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 04:04:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:50:14 PM
Point as in... ?

As in, the point at which it is no longer physically practicable for two lines of traffic to flow.  Is it quantifiably better or worse to have that be approximately where traffic merges, a half-mile past where traffic merges, or four miles past where traffic merges?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:50:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:41:22 PM
OK, what is the rate limiting step of the lane drop from your perspective? (and this may go to a separate thread, actually)

Single-file traffic passing through the physical merge point?
Point as in... ?

Upstream issues where the roadway is constricted impact the overall flow.  A construction worker stopping traffic; a narrowed available lane, trucks occasionally being very close to the lane, or an unusual site that people are looking at will constrict flow.
not what i asked.. lets try again.
let's consider more or less vanilla lane drop due to roadwork, as shown in MUTCD:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Y8Lyhj.jpg)
lets assume lane is closed for 1/2-1 mile so there is enough room to talk about traffic pattern in narrow area,  and no active work to interfere with the flow. Just simplest one.  Instead of suggesting last minute drop, lets add some room between merge and lane drop point, effectively moving all signs a bit back - same 1/2-1 mile, enough to talk about patterns.  And there is enough traffic to create some congestion.

Now, in which areas you expect free-flow, and where it would be congested stop-and-go, and what causes mode swtiches?


Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:50:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 03:41:22 PM
OK, what is the rate limiting step of the lane drop from your perspective? (and this may go to a separate thread, actually)

Single-file traffic passing through the physical merge point?
Point as in... ?

Upstream issues where the roadway is constricted impact the overall flow.  A construction worker stopping traffic; a narrowed available lane, trucks occasionally being very close to the lane, or an unusual site that people are looking at will constrict flow.
not what i asked.. lets try again.
let's consider more or less vanilla lane drop due to roadwork, as shown in MUTCD:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Y8Lyhj.jpg)
lets assume lane is closed for 1/2-1 mile so there is enough room to talk about traffic pattern in narrow area,  and no active work to interfere with the flow. Just simplest one.  Instead of suggesting last minute drop, lets add some room between merge and lane drop point, effectively moving all signs a bit back - same 1/2-1 mile, enough to talk about patterns.  And there is enough traffic to create some congestion.

Now, in which areas you expect free-flow, and where it would be congested stop-and-go, and what causes mode swtiches?

Again: Upstream issues where the roadway is constricted impact the overall flow.  A construction worker stopping traffic; a narrowed available lane, trucks occasionally being very close to the lane, or an unusual site that people are looking at will constrict flow.

In other words, there are several issues that go into when traffic moves slow, and traffic moves fast. 

Use a traffic light for instance.  If you have 10 cars approaching and going thru a green light, there's no real constriction.  If you have 10 cars at a red light, there's heavy constriction.  When that light turns green, the first car goes, then the second, then the third, etc.  They don't all move at the same time.  In the meantime, approaching traffic comes up behind the 10th car, which hasn't moved yet even though the light is green, because it's waiting for the vehicles in front to move.  The 11th and 12th cars only saw a green light though, so in their minds the vehicles stopped in front of them shouldn't be there.

A work zone, or even general congestion, operates the same way.  Traffic piles in, and ultimately there's going to be a slowdown if there's a constriction ahead.  Once that constriction is removed, traffic starts to move again, but everyone doesn't suddenly go from slow to fast at the same time.  It takes time.  And the reduction of the lane will constrict traffic, regardless if everyone merges over at the merge point, 1/2 mile away, or 3 miles away. 

So use the available lanes till they end, because the constriction point won't change because traffic vacates an open lane early.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:29:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:14:19 PM
So use the available lanes till they end, because the constriction point won't change because traffic vacates an open lane early.
Try again with a better picture:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Tnajrm.png)

Zone A: incoming free-flowing traffic slows down due to congestion ahead and merges into a single file, proceding like that into Area B
....
....
Area D: outgoing traffic is now not restricted, and accelerates to a highway  free-flow speed

Can you describe zone B and C?  assume no lane jumpers, everyone merges.

PS pardon my crazy image editing, don't shoot the piano player
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:29:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:14:19 PM
So use the available lanes till they end, because the constriction point won't change because traffic vacates an open lane early.
Try again with a better picture:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Tnajrm.png)

Zone A: incoming free-flowing traffic slows down due to congestion ahead and merges into a single file, proceding like that into Area B
....
....
Area D: outgoing traffic is now not restricted, and accelerates to a highway  free-flow speed

Can you describe zone B and C?  assume no lane jumpers, everyone merges.

PS pardon my crazy image editing, don't shoot the piano player

Area C has no actual work going on?  Just a closed lane?

Then traffic after it merges in will start going faster.  The length of the jammed traffic will remain the same length if they merge together at the lane's actual end, or at some random point 1/2 mile prior to the lane ending.  If traffic is jammed a mile, it's going to be jammed a mile regardless.  The difference will be the area of highway that is jammed will be 1/2 mile closer to the lane ending point.

Thus, there's no benefit to merging 1/2 mile ahead.

If there's work going on in that Area C work zone - flashing lights, work near the skip line, large trucks turning, etc, that will get people's attention, just like cars in a crash.  Traffic will remain slow until they pass by the attention-causing stuff, at which point it will start moving faster.  But again, it won't matter if traffic merges at the end of the lane or a random point prior to the end of the lane; it's going to remain jammed until they get by the issue.

Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2023, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:29:53 PM
Zone A: incoming free-flowing traffic slows down due to congestion ahead and merges into a single file, proceding like that into Area B
....
....
Area D: outgoing traffic is now not restricted, and accelerates to a highway  free-flow speed

Can you describe zone B and C?  assume no lane jumpers, everyone merges.

Zone B:  You said everyone merged into single file back in Zone A, so it's now single-file traffic in Zone B.  Except that, because you shifted the merge point a half-mile upstream from the orange cones, that single file might now extend farther upstream—depending on how heavy traffic is.

Zone C:  It depends.  If there's not much going on in the work zone, then traffic recovers from the slack-action of merging;  I suppose this is what you called "flow stabilization".  However, if there is a lane shift, or a piece of heavy equipment near the lane of traffic, or dust in the air, or whatever—then traffic will slow down again anyway;  this is what J&N was talking about.  So, by putting the theoretical choke point upstream of the physical choke point, either you might have helped stabilize the flow ahead of the one-lane stretch, or else you've introduced a second slow-down point that wouldn't otherwise have existed.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:55:39 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:29:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:14:19 PM
So use the available lanes till they end, because the constriction point won't change because traffic vacates an open lane early.
Try again with a better picture:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Tnajrm.png)

Zone A: incoming free-flowing traffic slows down due to congestion ahead and merges into a single file, proceding like that into Area B
....
....
Area D: outgoing traffic is now not restricted, and accelerates to a highway  free-flow speed

Can you describe zone B and C?  assume no lane jumpers, everyone merges.

PS pardon my crazy image editing, don't shoot the piano player

Area C has no actual work going on?  Just a closed lane?

Then traffic after it merges in will start going faster.  The length of the jammed traffic will remain the same length if they merge together at the lane's actual end, or at some random point 1/2 mile prior to the lane ending.  If traffic is jammed a mile, it's going to be jammed a mile regardless.  The difference will be the area of highway that is jammed will be 1/2 mile closer to the lane ending point.

Thus, there's no benefit to merging 1/2 mile ahead.

If there's work going on in that Area C work zone - flashing lights, work near the skip line, large trucks turning, etc, that will get people's attention, just like cars in a crash.  Traffic will remain slow until they pass by the attention-causing stuff, at which point it will start moving faster.  But again, it won't matter if traffic merges at the end of the lane or a random point prior to the end of the lane; it's going to remain jammed until they get by the issue.
good!
I would say, though, that even with no ongoing work traffic would accelerate after passing into the narrows, between B and C
So my description is:
Zone B: slow flow in congested mode
Zone C: varies, depending on condition, but generally faster than zone B

are you still with me?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 05:11:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:55:39 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 04:29:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 04:14:19 PM
So use the available lanes till they end, because the constriction point won't change because traffic vacates an open lane early.
Try again with a better picture:
(https://i.imgur.com/4Tnajrm.png)

Zone A: incoming free-flowing traffic slows down due to congestion ahead and merges into a single file, proceding like that into Area B
....
....
Area D: outgoing traffic is now not restricted, and accelerates to a highway  free-flow speed

Can you describe zone B and C?  assume no lane jumpers, everyone merges.

PS pardon my crazy image editing, don't shoot the piano player

Area C has no actual work going on?  Just a closed lane?

Then traffic after it merges in will start going faster.  The length of the jammed traffic will remain the same length if they merge together at the lane's actual end, or at some random point 1/2 mile prior to the lane ending.  If traffic is jammed a mile, it's going to be jammed a mile regardless.  The difference will be the area of highway that is jammed will be 1/2 mile closer to the lane ending point.

Thus, there's no benefit to merging 1/2 mile ahead.

If there's work going on in that Area C work zone - flashing lights, work near the skip line, large trucks turning, etc, that will get people's attention, just like cars in a crash.  Traffic will remain slow until they pass by the attention-causing stuff, at which point it will start moving faster.  But again, it won't matter if traffic merges at the end of the lane or a random point prior to the end of the lane; it's going to remain jammed until they get by the issue.
good!
I would say, though, that even with no ongoing work traffic would accelerate after passing into the narrows, between B and C
So my description is:
Zone B: slow flow in congested mode
Zone C: varies, depending on condition, but generally faster than zone B

are you still with me?

Nope, not with you.  I'm providing actual examples of why traffic slows down; examples that can be viewed and witnessed.  You state an opinion by using "I will say" without any justification for it.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2023, 05:36:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2023, 05:11:37 PM
Nope, not with you.  I'm providing actual examples of why traffic slows down; examples that can be viewed and witnessed.  You state an opinion by using "I will say" without any justification for it.
Since this is a critical point of discussion, lets slow down. There is no traffic to push us from the back, we can go slowly.
Unfortunately both of us would have to go by hand-waving mostly. I tried to look for some aerials of real life traffic jams, but didn't find good ones. 

QuoteIf there's work going on in that Area C work zone - flashing lights, work near the skip line, large trucks turning, etc, that will get people's attention, just like cars in a crash.  Traffic will remain slow until they pass by the attention-causing stuff, at which point it will start moving faster.  But again, it won't matter if traffic merges at the end of the lane or a random point prior to the end of the lane; it's going to remain jammed until they get by the issue.
Absolutely true. moreover - things depend a lot on where in the narrows that happens and what happens. Thats why I  wanted to postpone this iteration. 
Let me formulate it so - if there is more than one bottleneck, one of them would be the limiting area. If it is located upstream, there will be no problems downstream.  If downstream point is worse, a second queue of congestion will grow, eventually coalescing  with upstream one.

Does that make any sense? 
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: lordsutch on December 30, 2023, 12:03:16 AM
The advanced merge concept laid out here does either one of two things: (a) it moves the zipper merge from the actual lane closure to the point where some sign says to merge, which just lengthens the single-file work zone by the length of Area B, or (b) it just allows drivers to continue to jockey lanes through the length of Area B, absent active enforcement, recreating multiple merge points and getting rid of the zipper merge in practice.

All you've done, even if everyone complies with the instruction to merge 1/2 mile ahead of the lane closure, is extend the slower single file zone by 1/2 mile, and you've reduced the storage space for traffic upstream of the closure by 1/2 a lane-mile. But as noted above compliance will not be 100%, so now you're back to an unholy mix of some drivers zipper merging and some drivers trying to jockey for position before the actual lane closure like they're at Talladega, and everyone being pissed off.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 30, 2023, 05:47:21 AM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on December 29, 2023, 02:38:38 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4Y8Lyhj.jpg)

I'm not going to add anything to the zipper merge debate except that I'm an avid zipper merger myself. But if I was an engineer I would never call for this signage. It's too risky. Especially the regulatory "stay in lane to merge point" sign. Besides the fact that I don't think any law supports that... when somebody is drowsy/drunk/distracted and plows into the work zone at 70 mph, possibly killing workers, now the engineer of record is going to be implicated in the lawsuit.

Zipper merging makes sense in heavy traffic. But it should be a judgement call by the drivers. In free flow traffic conditions, a sign telling people to stay in the lane that's ending is not safe.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on December 30, 2023, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 30, 2023, 05:47:21 AM
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on December 29, 2023, 02:38:38 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4Y8Lyhj.jpg)

I'm not going to add anything to the zipper merge debate except that I'm an avid zipper merger myself. But if I was an engineer I would never call for this signage. It's too risky. Especially the regulatory "stay in lane to merge point" sign. Besides the fact that I don't think any law supports that... when somebody is drowsy/drunk/distracted and plows into the work zone at 70 mph, possibly killing workers, now the engineer of record is going to be implicated in the lawsuit.

Zipper merging makes sense in heavy traffic. But it should be a judgement call by the drivers. In free flow traffic conditions, a sign telling people to stay in the lane that's ending is not safe.
Agreed.  Not to mention that it could cause other issues.  I prefer to zipper merge myself, however it depends on traffic.  If traffic is already gnarled, I zipper merge - no need to merge early, for all the reasons people traditionally advocate for zipper merges for.  If the lane I need to merge into is clear and will remain so, again I move over at the merge point - no reason not to.  The exception is if the lane I need to merge into is clear now, but cars are approaching and I have reason to believe it might not be later.  Then, I'll merge immediately, since it's less of a strain of traffic for me to merge into the open space rather than force someone to let me in.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.

Go to a crowded metro area.  It's a daily routine.  People in more rural areas tend to be 'nicer' and think they should get over earlier.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:33:18 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 30, 2023, 05:47:21 AM
I'm not going to add anything to the zipper merge debate except that I'm an avid zipper merger myself. But if I was an engineer I would never call for this signage. It's too risky. Especially the regulatory "stay in lane to merge point" sign. Besides the fact that I don't think any law supports that... when somebody is drowsy/drunk/distracted and plows into the work zone at 70 mph, possibly killing workers, now the engineer of record is going to be implicated in the lawsuit.

Zipper merging makes sense in heavy traffic. But it should be a judgement call by the drivers. In free flow traffic conditions, a sign telling people to stay in the lane that's ending is not safe.

So I agree with some of this:  That sign is really meant when there is congestion.  But it should be stated that way.  When traffic is free-flowing, like Ms. Deane mentioned, I'll merge early also when there's no congestion.

However, referencing the drunk:  The defense trying to claim a drunk understood the sign to stay in the closed lane is going to be immediate refuted that he should have also understood lane ending signage, cones, barrels, a large flashing arrow, safety trucks, and other implements of construction.  Courts don't really give drunks much sympathy in their actions, especially when there's a death.  And the engineer is going to have the MUTCD as his document that he followed standard accepted protocol.


Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jay8g on December 31, 2023, 01:24:06 AM
Back to the new MUTCD...

One of the strangest changes I've noticed so far is the decision to limit the standard R3-5 signs (right/left turn only) to overhead use only. It seems that this was intended to restrict the usage that has become common in Seattle (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6049548,-122.3309558,3a,34.4y,252.63h,84.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb9xPq6zsgaV7ngqD7TkojA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu) (among other places) where the R3-5 is used instead of the "RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT" sign or a R3-8-type sign showing all lanes, but they also restricted the extremely common case where the sign is used for locations where all traffic must turn (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6209457,-122.3608388,3a,35.9y,277.05h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEZrveJxBdnwK0elmSoAiDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu), and instead reintroduced the all-text "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign as the R4-21 (alongside a strange "ALL TRAFFIC" sign as the R4-20, which appears to be intended for use at areas with splitter islands).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53432426201_ba0e166638_o_d.png)

I really don't understand the point of this change, and I expect that this is something that most agencies will ignore or just not understand. I wouldn't be surprised to see this get rolled back in a future edition.

On a side note, it's interesting how old-fashioned some of the "new" signs in this MUTCD look -- particularly the R4-21, which is a blast from the past from when text-only signs were the standard, but also things like the new R3-19 "LANE FOR LEFT TURN ONLY" sign.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on December 31, 2023, 01:47:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.

Go to a crowded metro area.  It's a daily routine.  People in more rural areas tend to be 'nicer' and think they should get over earlier.

In metro areas, someone invariably decides to ride alongside my rear fender at the exact speed that I'm going so I can't get over. Because how can you ever feel like a real man if you let someone in a sedan merge in front of your pickup truck?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: mgk920 on December 31, 2023, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2023, 01:47:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.

Go to a crowded metro area.  It's a daily routine.  People in more rural areas tend to be 'nicer' and think they should get over earlier.

In metro areas, someone invariably decides to ride alongside my rear fender at the exact speed that I'm going so I can't get over. Because how can you ever feel like a real man if you let someone in a sedan merge in front of your pickup truck?

Sad to say it, but that is the time when you sloooooely atart to 'bull' your way in.

Mike
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 31, 2023, 05:28:07 PM
My "real data" against the zipper merge is that its proponents want to apply it to all merge types, when it's only really beneficial for low-speed congested merges. At high speed it is unsafe, and with no congestion the zipper merge causes unnecessary congestion of its own.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on December 31, 2023, 05:49:28 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 31, 2023, 05:28:07 PM
My "real data" against the zipper merge is that its proponents want to apply it to all merge types, when it's only really beneficial for low-speed congested merges. At high speed it is unsafe, and with no congestion the zipper merge causes unnecessary congestion of its own.

Wut.

At high speed it is unsafe?  At high speed, there would be little congestion and all you do is adjust your speed to merge in.

If there's no congestion, then there's no congestion.  There's no car to your left, so you just move in.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on December 31, 2023, 06:47:40 PM
The key phrase was "its proponents want to apply it to all merge types".
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2023, 07:04:47 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 31, 2023, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2023, 01:47:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.

Go to a crowded metro area.  It's a daily routine.  People in more rural areas tend to be 'nicer' and think they should get over earlier.

In metro areas, someone invariably decides to ride alongside my rear fender at the exact speed that I'm going so I can't get over. Because how can you ever feel like a real man if you let someone in a sedan merge in front of your pickup truck?

Sad to say it, but that is the time when you sloooooely atart to 'bull' your way in.

Mike

Maybe I don't even think about it when I merge in. Been doing it every workday on the office for 20+ years.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2024, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 30, 2023, 05:47:21 AM
But if I was an engineer I would never call for this signage. It's too risky. Especially the regulatory "stay in lane to merge point" sign. Besides the fact that I don't think any law supports that...

If I'm in the right lane, and there's a slow-moving truck in front of me, then why should I be prohibited from moving into the left lane and passing it?

If I'm in the left lane, and a faster car is approaching me from the rear, then why should I be prohibited from moving into the right lane and letting it pass me?

Yeah, that regulatory sign is bad.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 03, 2024, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2023, 01:47:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.

Go to a crowded metro area.  It's a daily routine.  People in more rural areas tend to be 'nicer' and think they should get over earlier.

In metro areas, someone invariably decides to ride alongside my rear fender at the exact speed that I'm going so I can't get over. Because how can you ever feel like a real man if you let someone in a sedan merge in front of your pickup truck?


I never merge early and am usually let in by somebody.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on January 03, 2024, 02:43:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 03, 2024, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2023, 01:47:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.

Go to a crowded metro area.  It's a daily routine.  People in more rural areas tend to be 'nicer' and think they should get over earlier.

In metro areas, someone invariably decides to ride alongside my rear fender at the exact speed that I'm going so I can't get over. Because how can you ever feel like a real man if you let someone in a sedan merge in front of your pickup truck?


I never merge early and am usually let in by somebody.
Just wonder what you do if you're in a long lane, not in the short one?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 03, 2024, 02:51:52 PM
Quote from: kalvado on January 03, 2024, 02:43:51 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 03, 2024, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2023, 01:47:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2023, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2023, 10:22:15 PM
I understand the theory behind zipper merge. But I don't trust any other driver to understand it enough to actually let me practice it. So I merge early.

Go to a crowded metro area.  It's a daily routine.  People in more rural areas tend to be 'nicer' and think they should get over earlier.

In metro areas, someone invariably decides to ride alongside my rear fender at the exact speed that I'm going so I can't get over. Because how can you ever feel like a real man if you let someone in a sedan merge in front of your pickup truck?


I never merge early and am usually let in by somebody.
Just wonder what you do if you're in a long lane, not in the short one?


You mean if I let people in?  Yeah, usually I do. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't cost me a lot of time.

Or do you mean, do I leave the long lane for the short one and drive up? Depending on the distance, sure.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jakeroot on January 04, 2024, 10:56:51 AM
I think people intuitively understand the concept of "take turns", even if we aren't good about it in-practice.

I see some other roadgeeks (not necessarily here, mostly Facebook groups) that argue failure to merge "early" is what causes backups at the merge point. I don't see how any rational person can come to that conclusion when the clear problem is just constrained capacity from reducing two lanes to one. Going from two lanes to one is fine, if the number of cars in the two lane section is below or at the capacity of the single lane of traffic. But during times of heavy traffic, when even the two lane section is maxing out its capacity, obviously shit is gonna break down when you then force everyone into one lane, no matter where you merge. So, just make it simple and merge where the lanes actually merge.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on January 04, 2024, 11:27:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2024, 10:56:51 AM
I see some other roadgeeks that argue failure to merge "early" is what causes backups at the merge point. I don't see how any rational person can come to that conclusion when the clear problem is just constrained capacity from reducing two lanes to one.

If a late-merger comes to a near-stop (no matter if it's at the orange cones or a half-mile back, but it's typically at the orange cones) and then attempts to merge at 6 mph... then yes, that will cause a problem.  But if people are actually taking turns, or if all traffic is already doing 6 mph anyway, then no problem.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on January 04, 2024, 12:35:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2024, 10:56:51 AM
I think people intuitively understand the concept of "take turns", even if we aren't good about it in-practice.

I see some other roadgeeks (not necessarily here, mostly Facebook groups) that argue failure to merge "early" is what causes backups at the merge point. I don't see how any rational person can come to that conclusion when the clear problem is just constrained capacity from reducing two lanes to one. Going from two lanes to one is fine, if the number of cars in the two lane section is below or at the capacity of the single lane of traffic. But during times of heavy traffic, when even the two lane section is maxing out its capacity, obviously shit is gonna break down when you then force everyone into one lane, no matter where you merge. So, just make it simple and merge where the lanes actually merge.
I think a lot of that comes down to "I merged in, my blood is pumping, I'm ready to go, why should I have to stay stuck in slow traffic to let the late mergers in?".
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: SEWIGuy on January 04, 2024, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2024, 12:35:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2024, 10:56:51 AM
I think people intuitively understand the concept of "take turns", even if we aren't good about it in-practice.

I see some other roadgeeks (not necessarily here, mostly Facebook groups) that argue failure to merge "early" is what causes backups at the merge point. I don't see how any rational person can come to that conclusion when the clear problem is just constrained capacity from reducing two lanes to one. Going from two lanes to one is fine, if the number of cars in the two lane section is below or at the capacity of the single lane of traffic. But during times of heavy traffic, when even the two lane section is maxing out its capacity, obviously shit is gonna break down when you then force everyone into one lane, no matter where you merge. So, just make it simple and merge where the lanes actually merge.
I think a lot of that comes down to "I merged in, my blood is pumping, I'm ready to go, why should I have to stay stuck in slow traffic to let the late mergers in?".

Because you merged too early.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kalvado on January 04, 2024, 12:38:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2024, 10:56:51 AM
I think people intuitively understand the concept of "take turns", even if we aren't good about it in-practice.

I see some other roadgeeks (not necessarily here, mostly Facebook groups) that argue failure to merge "early" is what causes backups at the merge point. I don't see how any rational person can come to that conclusion when the clear problem is just constrained capacity from reducing two lanes to one. Going from two lanes to one is fine, if the number of cars in the two lane section is below or at the capacity of the single lane of traffic. But during times of heavy traffic, when even the two lane section is maxing out its capacity, obviously shit is gonna break down when you then force everyone into one lane, no matter where you merge. So, just make it simple and merge where the lanes actually merge.
Problem is that late  merge may further constrain capacity.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on January 04, 2024, 01:29:20 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on December 31, 2023, 06:47:40 PM
The key phrase was "its proponents want to apply it to all merge types".

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2024, 10:56:51 AM
I think people intuitively understand the concept of "take turns", even if we aren't good about it in-practice.

I see some other roadgeeks (not necessarily here, mostly Facebook groups) that argue failure to merge "early" is what causes backups at the merge point. I don't see how any rational person can come to that conclusion when the clear problem is just constrained capacity from reducing two lanes to one. Going from two lanes to one is fine, if the number of cars in the two lane section is below or at the capacity of the single lane of traffic. But during times of heavy traffic, when even the two lane section is maxing out its capacity, obviously shit is gonna break down when you then force everyone into one lane, no matter where you merge. So, just make it simple and merge where the lanes actually merge.

Case in point. The above post contains the unstated assumption that all merges have backups that are caused by the capacity reduction of a lane merge.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on January 05, 2024, 11:26:19 PM
Hey, is anyone else getting Hartford vibes when they look at this diagram on page 376?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/af/72/vESapIzd_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/vESapIzd)

That's exactly what it would've looked like had I-291 and I-491 been completed as planned. And they even copied several towns in CT (Bolton, Essex, Manchester, Newington), MA (Northampton, Sturbridge) and NY (Brewster) to boot!
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on January 06, 2024, 02:01:21 AM
I'm surprised that that style of diverted route is more common than simply prohibiting trucks inside the bypass route (which I have commented about before). Atlanta seems to be the only city where all thru trucks must use the bypass, while in most other cities that restriction only applies to hazmat-carrying trucks.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: dgolub on January 06, 2024, 08:57:40 AM
Quote from: Henry on January 05, 2024, 11:26:19 PM
Hey, is anyone else getting Hartford vibes when they look at this diagram on page 376?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/af/72/vESapIzd_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/vESapIzd)

That's exactly what it would've looked like had I-291 and I-491 been completed as planned. And they even copied several towns in CT (Bolton, Essex, Manchester, Newington), MA (Northampton, Sturbridge) and NY (Brewster) to boot!

Yeah, looks like they just changed the route numbers to things that don't actually exist and changed New Haven to "Fairhaven."
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jay8g on January 07, 2024, 04:00:45 AM
Similarly, the airport example drawing is very clearly based on Newark (prior to the new terminal A being built).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 07, 2024, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 05, 2024, 11:26:19 PM
Hey, is anyone else getting Hartford vibes when they look at this diagram on page 376?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/af/72/vESapIzd_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/vESapIzd)

That's exactly what it would've looked like had I-291 and I-491 been completed as planned. And they even copied several towns in CT (Bolton, Essex, Manchester, Newington), MA (Northampton, Sturbridge) and NY (Brewster) to boot!
It's clearly inspired by our highway system.
They must be referring to Brewster, NY, not Brewster, MA, as the latter is in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on January 08, 2024, 11:36:34 PM
Quote from: jay8g on January 07, 2024, 04:00:45 AM
Similarly, the airport example drawing is very clearly based on Newark (prior to the new terminal A being built).
And there's also the I-495/I-270 split (a very real place indeed, and shown here for comparison purposes), whose exit number changed from 17 to 38 in 1977:

MUTCD
(https://images2.imgbox.com/13/22/qgT0F2cH_o.png)

IRL
(https://images2.imgbox.com/57/91/QNqJS62S_o.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on January 13, 2024, 11:50:41 PM
Interesting how between the diagram and the photos, there are three different weights being used for 3di (B, C, D). I always thought Series C was the best (and supposedly what is supposed to be used).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 13, 2024, 11:54:34 PM
Well, the last Standard Highway Signs is the 2004 edition. Supposedly a new SHS is supposed to come out, to be used with 11e. Maybe they're planning on changing the shield to use Series D.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on January 14, 2024, 12:26:21 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 13, 2024, 11:54:34 PM
Well, the last Standard Highway Signs is the 2004 edition. Supposedly a new SHS is supposed to come out, to be used with 11e. Maybe they're planning on changing the shield to use Series D.
Hope not. Based on the diagram photo, it looks harder to read. Series C fills the shield better and allows for slightly more spacing between each numeral.

Granted, it doesn't really matter much, districts will use whatever design they like.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on January 14, 2024, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 14, 2024, 12:26:21 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 13, 2024, 11:54:34 PM
Well, the last Standard Highway Signs is the 2004 edition. Supposedly a new SHS is supposed to come out, to be used with 11e. Maybe they're planning on changing the shield to use Series D.
Hope not. Based on the diagram photo, it looks harder to read. Series C fills the shield better and allows for slightly more spacing between each numeral.

Granted, it doesn't really matter much, districts will use whatever design they like.
Meanwhile, I feel the opposite.  I feel like the shields that have text blown up and stretched to "fill the shield" to be both harder to read and rather ugly.  I much prefer the stuff that looks like what is shown in the graphic (especially with series D; series C is OK, but IMO series D looks nicer).
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on January 15, 2024, 04:39:34 AM
Aesthetically, I think Series D looks awful on 3di because you can see how basically the bottom half of the shield isn't used. I assume this is why Series C was recommended for a long time. But in general I just prefer the older spec shields (1961 or earlier) so I'm biased there. Obviously from a legibility standpoint you could make the case Series D is better.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: vdeane on January 15, 2024, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 15, 2024, 04:39:34 AM
Aesthetically, I think Series D looks awful on 3di because you can see how basically the bottom half of the shield isn't used. I assume this is why Series C was recommended for a long time. But in general I just prefer the older spec shields (1961 or earlier) so I'm biased there. Obviously from a legibility standpoint you could make the case Series D is better.
Don't the 1961 spec shields fill even less of the shield?  And series D?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=297
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: JoePCool14 on January 16, 2024, 02:19:42 PM
Quote from: jay8g on December 31, 2023, 01:24:06 AM
Back to the new MUTCD...

One of the strangest changes I've noticed so far is the decision to limit the standard R3-5 signs (right/left turn only) to overhead use only. It seems that this was intended to restrict the usage that has become common in Seattle (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6049548,-122.3309558,3a,34.4y,252.63h,84.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb9xPq6zsgaV7ngqD7TkojA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu) (among other places) where the R3-5 is used instead of the "RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT" sign or a R3-8-type sign showing all lanes, but they also restricted the extremely common case where the sign is used for locations where all traffic must turn (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6209457,-122.3608388,3a,35.9y,277.05h,90.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEZrveJxBdnwK0elmSoAiDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu), and instead reintroduced the all-text "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign as the R4-21 (alongside a strange "ALL TRAFFIC" sign as the R4-20, which appears to be intended for use at areas with splitter islands).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53432426201_ba0e166638_o_d.png)

I really don't understand the point of this change, and I expect that this is something that most agencies will ignore or just not understand. I wouldn't be surprised to see this get rolled back in a future edition.

On a side note, it's interesting how old-fashioned some of the "new" signs in this MUTCD look -- particularly the R4-21, which is a blast from the past from when text-only signs were the standard, but also things like the new R3-19 "LANE FOR LEFT TURN ONLY" sign.

Why didn't they just mandate that if the sign is ground mounted, a plaque must be present that says "RIGHT LANE" or "LEFT LANE" or whatever else? I will say, at least where I live, there is a severe lack of clear signage as to what lane serves what purpose, especially detrimental at interchanges. We almost never see signs laying out all the lanes, ground-mounted or overhead-mounted. Maybe you'll get a right turn sign for a right-turn lane, or left turn sign in the median, if it hasn't been run over yet and not replaced.

The only reason I don't think it's more of a problem is that our lane configurations are pretty vanilla across the board. Either way, IDOT will continue to use the signs as they have forever. WisDOT, on the other hand, almost never (if ever) uses those signs on posts. Only overheads.

That ALL TRAFFIC sign is also not very good.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on January 16, 2024, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2024, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 15, 2024, 04:39:34 AM
Aesthetically, I think Series D looks awful on 3di because you can see how basically the bottom half of the shield isn't used. I assume this is why Series C was recommended for a long time. But in general I just prefer the older spec shields (1961 or earlier) so I'm biased there. Obviously from a legibility standpoint you could make the case Series D is better.
Don't the 1961 spec shields fill even less of the shield?  And series D?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=297


Just going by these eye-balled shields I made a while back, I think Series C is the best.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 13, 2021, 03:35:24 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/361S8Jj.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Quillz on January 16, 2024, 04:13:28 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 16, 2024, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2024, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 15, 2024, 04:39:34 AM
Aesthetically, I think Series D looks awful on 3di because you can see how basically the bottom half of the shield isn't used. I assume this is why Series C was recommended for a long time. But in general I just prefer the older spec shields (1961 or earlier) so I'm biased there. Obviously from a legibility standpoint you could make the case Series D is better.
Don't the 1961 spec shields fill even less of the shield?  And series D?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=297


Just going by these eye-balled shields I made a while back, I think Series C is the best.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 13, 2021, 03:35:24 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/361S8Jj.png)
Yeah, I agree. Fills out the shield the best, I find Series B too narrow. Series C was always recommended, at least for older specs, maybe it's changed since then. I just find Series D too wide, the fact they have be shrunk down to fit demonstrates that. Conversely, I'd be fine with Series D if the actual shield specs were widened a little bit to accommodate.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on January 16, 2024, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2024, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 15, 2024, 04:39:34 AM
Aesthetically, I think Series D looks awful on 3di because you can see how basically the bottom half of the shield isn't used. I assume this is why Series C was recommended for a long time. But in general I just prefer the older spec shields (1961 or earlier) so I'm biased there. Obviously from a legibility standpoint you could make the case Series D is better.
Don't the 1961 spec shields fill even less of the shield?  And series D?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=297

Maybe by percentage of the sign face, but the design is more balanced because the numbers are shifted down by inclusion of the state name and the taller crown.

For what it's worth, these are the 1961 guide sign shields... I had to use Series C because even 515 won't fit in the shield properly in Series D without playing with the kerning.
(https://i.imgur.com/V4z1Ubg.png)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on January 16, 2024, 07:56:51 PM
Some people are upset (https://apnews.com/article/ban-humorous-messages-electronic-highway-signs-3c7b0d11475d2b255f7edd197af771cc) about the following bit of text:

Quote from: MUTCD, Part 2, Chapter L, Section 7, Paragraph 4
A CMS should not be used to display a traffic safety campaign message if doing so could adversely affect respect for the sign. Messages with obscure or secondary meanings, such as those with popular culture references, unconventional sign legend syntax, or that are intended to be humorous, should not be used as they might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand. Similarly, slogan-type messages and the display of statistical information should not be used.

Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 16, 2024, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 16, 2024, 07:56:51 PM
Some people are upset (https://apnews.com/article/ban-humorous-messages-electronic-highway-signs-3c7b0d11475d2b255f7edd197af771cc) about the following bit of text:

Quote from: MUTCD, Part 2, Chapter L, Section 7, Paragraph 4
A CMS should not be used to display a traffic safety campaign message if doing so could adversely affect respect for the sign. Messages with obscure or secondary meanings, such as those with popular culture references, unconventional sign legend syntax, or that are intended to be humorous, should not be used as they might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand. Similarly, slogan-type messages and the display of statistical information should not be used.



Honestly, I think I'd previously seen more people upset at safety slogans and the like on VMSes prior to the ban. Can't please everyone, I guess.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on January 17, 2024, 12:02:48 AM
How long ago was the ban? I always thought they were never actually allowed, and FHWA was merely clarifying that a few years ago.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on January 17, 2024, 12:04:28 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 16, 2024, 07:54:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 15, 2024, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 15, 2024, 04:39:34 AM
Aesthetically, I think Series D looks awful on 3di because you can see how basically the bottom half of the shield isn't used. I assume this is why Series C was recommended for a long time. But in general I just prefer the older spec shields (1961 or earlier) so I'm biased there. Obviously from a legibility standpoint you could make the case Series D is better.
Don't the 1961 spec shields fill even less of the shield?  And series D?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=297

Maybe by percentage of the sign face, but the design is more balanced because the numbers are shifted down by inclusion of the state name and the taller crown.

For what it's worth, these are the 1961 guide sign shields... I had to use Series C because even 515 won't fit in the shield properly in Series D without playing with the kerning.
(https://i.imgur.com/V4z1Ubg.png)
I've always taken the general rule of thumb to be Series D for 1- and 2-digit routes, Series C for 3-digits, and Series B for 4-digits or higher. But, of course, many state DOTs don't see it that way. Caltrans would put Series E on everything they did, which made them stand out in good or bad ways, however you saw it. And I'm not exactly keen on using Series D for 3di/3dus shields either.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on January 17, 2024, 10:49:54 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on January 16, 2024, 10:05:59 PM
prior to the ban

Quote from: ran4sh on January 17, 2024, 12:02:48 AM
How long ago was the ban? I always thought they were never actually allowed

What ban?  Was this ever anything stronger than "should" language?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jamess on January 17, 2024, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on January 16, 2024, 07:56:51 PM
should not be used as they might be misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users and require greater time to process and understand.

Does anyone have a link to the studies that were conducted to reach this conclusion?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: crispy93 on January 18, 2024, 08:06:13 AM
Quote from: Tom958 on December 25, 2023, 04:13:48 AM
Bay City and Somerset were the fictional locales in which the soap opera "Another World" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_World_(TV_series)) was set when I watched it as a teen in the seventies. The show was successful enough that "Somerset" was introduced as a spinoff, with the original series set in Bay City.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on December 22, 2023, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: jzn110 on December 22, 2023, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Big John on December 19, 2023, 11:37:13 AM
On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.

Bay City, MI, would like a word.

As would Somerset, WI...

This is so funny. Figure 2E-56 is from Roseanne. Lanford and Elgin, Delaware St was the street they lived on, Third Ave is the intersection they lived at (they used many establishing shots of the street sign)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Henry on January 18, 2024, 10:28:12 PM
I also noted that Figure 2E-39 represents an alternate reality where the Somerset Freeway is built, but I-695 branches off to the south instead of the north. The reality is, while there was indeed a proposed I-695 in NJ, it would've connected with I-287 via a one-mile spur, thus contradicting the Camden control city as portrayed in the diagram.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 24, 2024, 02:11:25 AM
Just noticed that the latest MUTCD now officially allows 4 inch indications for bicycle signals.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:15:45 AM
Someone down in Plano, TX put together this comparison of the old and new MUTCDs:

https://dallas.texite.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/11th-Edition-MUTCD-presentation.pdf
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:16:39 AM
As a tangent, I wonder how most people pronounce "MUTCD."  I've assumed M-U-T-C-D, but have also heard "MUTE-sid" recently.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:15:45 AM
Someone down in Plano, TX put together this comparison of the old and new MUTCDs:

https://dallas.texite.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/11th-Edition-MUTCD-presentation.pdf

If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update, there's a stop sign near me that will become non-compliant, because it was installed explicitly for speed control.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 09:04:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:16:39 AM
As a tangent, I wonder how most people pronounce "MUTCD."  I've assumed M-U-T-C-D, but have also heard "MUTE-sid" recently.

I've called it "mutt kid" a few times joking around, but more frequently I'll just refer to it as "2009 spec", "1961 spec", etc.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Big John on February 01, 2024, 09:18:11 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM
If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update, there's a stop sign near me that will become non-compliant, because it was installed explicitly for speed control.
I checked and it does say that for item 06 in that section.
Quote06 YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used for speed control

But on the other hand, they removed the 85th percentile speed recommendation for setting speed limits.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:15:45 AM
Someone down in Plano, TX put together this comparison of the old and new MUTCDs:

https://dallas.texite.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/11th-Edition-MUTCD-presentation.pdf

If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update, there's a stop sign near me that will become non-compliant, because it was installed explicitly for speed control.

It should already be non-compliant based on FHWA standards.

For the MUTCD, if something was installed or built when compliant at the time, then it's compliant until it's modified or replaced. It doesn't become non-compliant if a standard is updated. This is similar to electrical work in a house. If you have old wiring or sockets, you don't need to replace them when a new standard is approved. Only when you're replacing it or doing a signficsnt upgrade in that area of the house does it need to be brought up to code.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Big John on February 01, 2024, 09:38:43 AM
^^ It was changed from "should" (recommendation) to "shall" (requirement) in the 2023 edition.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on February 01, 2024, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:16:39 AM
As a tangent, I wonder how most people pronounce "MUTCD."  I've assumed M-U-T-C-D, but have also heard "MUTE-sid" recently.

I say em-u-tee-cee-dee.  But sometimes I think "mucked" in my head.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 11:44:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 09:27:37 AM

For the MUTCD, if something was installed or built when compliant at the time, then it's compliant until it's modified or replaced. It doesn't become non-compliant if a standard is updated. This is similar to electrical work in a house. If you have old wiring or sockets, you don't need to replace them when a new standard is approved. Only when you're replacing it or doing a signficsnt upgrade in that area of the house does it need to be brought up to code.

That makes sense. This one probably won't be replaced or upgraded for a while, so I don't expect it to disappear anytime soon.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 12:13:37 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 11:44:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 09:27:37 AM

For the MUTCD, if something was installed or built when compliant at the time, then it's compliant until it's modified or replaced. It doesn't become non-compliant if a standard is updated. This is similar to electrical work in a house. If you have old wiring or sockets, you don't need to replace them when a new standard is approved. Only when you're replacing it or doing a signficsnt upgrade in that area of the house does it need to be brought up to code.

That makes sense. This one probably won't be replaced or upgraded for a while, so I don't expect it to disappear anytime soon.

Ram it with your car. It'll disappear.  :-D
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 12:21:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 12:13:37 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 11:44:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 09:27:37 AM

For the MUTCD, if something was installed or built when compliant at the time, then it's compliant until it's modified or replaced. It doesn't become non-compliant if a standard is updated. This is similar to electrical work in a house. If you have old wiring or sockets, you don't need to replace them when a new standard is approved. Only when you're replacing it or doing a signficsnt upgrade in that area of the house does it need to be brought up to code.

That makes sense. This one probably won't be replaced or upgraded for a while, so I don't expect it to disappear anytime soon.

Ram it with your car. It'll disappear.  :-D

That would be contrary to the approach of most drivers which is just pretend it doesn't exist and ignore it entirely (especially when there is no one coming in the other direction). We used to sometimes see cops sitting out to catch stop sign runners but haven't seen that in years.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: mgk920 on February 01, 2024, 01:15:37 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:15:45 AM
Someone down in Plano, TX put together this comparison of the old and new MUTCDs:

https://dallas.texite.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/11th-Edition-MUTCD-presentation.pdf

If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update, there's a stop sign near me that will become non-compliant, because it was installed explicitly for speed control.

Hasn't that been a rule for at least several updates now, some area suburban munis have had 4-way STOPs at minor residential intersections ruled unenforceable because of that over the past few decades.  There are a few others in the area that should go bye-bye due to that, too.

Also, without taking the time to read through it all, what it the status of that retroreflective yellow outline on black signal backplates?

BTW, I pronounce every letter in 'MUTCD', too.

Mike
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on February 01, 2024, 01:30:53 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM
If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update ...

Quote from: mgk920 on February 01, 2024, 01:15:37 PM
Hasn't that been a rule for at least several updates now ...

No.

2009 MUTCD (2012 update):  "YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. [2B.04(05)]"

2023 MUTCD:  "YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used for speed control. [2B.06(06)]"
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: mgk920 on February 01, 2024, 01:34:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2024, 01:30:53 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM
If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update ...

Quote from: mgk920 on February 01, 2024, 01:15:37 PM
Hasn't that been a rule for at least several updates now ...

No.

2009 MUTCD (2012 update):  "YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. [2B.04(05)]"

2023 MUTCD:  "YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used for speed control. [2B.06(06)]"

:hyper:

Mike
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on February 01, 2024, 01:46:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:15:45 AMSomeone down in Plano, TX put together this comparison of the old and new MUTCDs:

https://dallas.texite.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/11th-Edition-MUTCD-presentation.pdf

It definitely focuses on urban street problems.

Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:16:39 AMAs a tangent, I wonder how most people pronounce "MUTCD."  I've assumed M-U-T-C-D, but have also heard "MUTE-sid" recently.

In informal contexts, I will say it as a word.  Though I am not a practitioner, I had to refer to it once in a formal context (proposed signing to discourage library visitors from going into a parking-lot cul-de-sac that is hard to get out of and is used mostly by library staff), and I did so by reciting the full name and describing it as the adopted traffic manual under Kansas statute and Wichita city ordinance.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: hbelkins on February 01, 2024, 03:20:43 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2024, 08:15:45 AM
Someone down in Plano, TX put together this comparison of the old and new MUTCDs:

https://dallas.texite.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/11th-Edition-MUTCD-presentation.pdf

If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update, there's a stop sign near me that will become non-compliant, because it was installed explicitly for speed control.

How do you know that? Just your supposition, or did the mayor tell you so?

Not trying to be argumentative, just wondering why you say that. Is it merely speculation on your part, or do you know it to be a fact?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: kphoger on February 01, 2024, 03:26:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2024, 03:20:43 PM
How do you know that? Just your supposition, or did the mayor tell you so?

Not trying to be argumentative, just wondering why you say that. Is it merely speculation on your part, or do you know it to be a fact?

Heh.  In Branson (MO), there's a stop sign that was installed for no reason other than that the mayor thought the cars were driving too fast past his family's kids' house.  I can't remember offhand which one now.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 03:40:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2024, 03:20:43 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 08:25:20 AM

If Section 2B.06 - Yield/Stop control SHALL not be used for speed control (page 5) is a new update, there's a stop sign near me that will become non-compliant, because it was installed explicitly for speed control.

How do you know that? Just your supposition, or did the mayor tell you so?

Not trying to be argumentative, just wondering why you say that. Is it merely speculation on your part, or do you know it to be a fact?

It was long enough ago, and I was young enough when it was installed, that I don't have definitive proof.

What I do know is that it's not a warranted location for a stop sign based on traffic volumes, but the neighborhood requested that it be installed because traffic would speed down a long hill at double the speed limit or more to try and make it through the stoplight at the bottom (which was a thriller, but also rather dangerous). No one likes the stop sign, but it does get most traffic to at least slow down to a rolling stop, and has eliminated the most excessive speeding by making it unviable to make the green light from the top of the hill.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: chrisdiaz on February 01, 2024, 09:16:23 PM
Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 11:17:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

I guess I never thought about it like that. I just assumed that the DOT's at all levels of government would use it for guidance. Most badly substandard signage I've seen has been in parking lots and the like so I just chalked it up to it being manufactured/installed by a private company. But yes, add this to the list of reasons this one is not going away.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Shedingtonian on February 02, 2024, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: chrisdiaz on February 01, 2024, 09:16:23 PM
Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

Quote from: mutcd.fhwa.dot.govFHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...
Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 02, 2024, 06:59:22 AM
And to think they started as a bookstore...
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2024, 07:50:49 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 11:17:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

I guess I never thought about it like that. I just assumed that the DOT's at all levels of government would use it for guidance. Most badly substandard signage I've seen has been in parking lots and the like so I just chalked it up to it being manufactured/installed by a private company. But yes, add this to the list of reasons this one is not going away.

Guidance being the key word there. 

Can the feds hold money back for incorrect use of signage?  Yes.  Will they?  In all but very extreme circumstances, no. 

NY State is probably one of the few examples where they withheld federal monies due to their "I Love NY" signage. Even that was after numerous attempts to get NY to correct the signage, and they provided the money back after NY and the fed agreed on what "Compliance" would involve.  The amount withheld was just 1% of their federal funding.

Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 02, 2024, 08:25:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2024, 07:50:49 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2024, 11:17:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

I guess I never thought about it like that. I just assumed that the DOT's at all levels of government would use it for guidance. Most badly substandard signage I've seen has been in parking lots and the like so I just chalked it up to it being manufactured/installed by a private company. But yes, add this to the list of reasons this one is not going away.

Guidance being the key word there. 

Can the feds hold money back for incorrect use of signage?  Yes.  Will they?  In all but very extreme circumstances, no. 

NY State is probably one of the few examples where they withheld federal monies due to their "I Love NY" signage. Even that was after numerous attempts to get NY to correct the signage, and they provided the money back after NY and the fed agreed on what "Compliance" would involve.  The amount withheld was just 1% of their federal funding.
Heh.  Even less than that.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: ran4sh on February 02, 2024, 08:58:45 AM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on February 02, 2024, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: chrisdiaz on February 01, 2024, 09:16:23 PM
Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

Quote from: mutcd.fhwa.dot.govFHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

  • Parts 1 and 2. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Highways-December/dp/B0CQPMX55D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-1)
  • Part 3. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQPGW5WR/ref=sr_1_6?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-6)
  • Parts 4 to 9. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQSCFTXQ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-5)
Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

FHWA used to print them, I think. They stopped at either the 2000 or 2003 edition
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on February 02, 2024, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: chrisdiaz on February 01, 2024, 09:16:23 PM
Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

Quote from: mutcd.fhwa.dot.govFHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

  • Parts 1 and 2. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Highways-December/dp/B0CQPMX55D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-1)
  • Part 3. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQPGW5WR/ref=sr_1_6?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-6)
  • Parts 4 to 9. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQSCFTXQ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-5)
Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

Additionally, starting with this edition of the MUTCD, only the PDF will be available, no HTML version will be available from this point on forward.

Quote from: FHWA, 11th Edition of the MUTCD, December 2023: Viewing the MUTCDStarting with the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA no longer provides the MUTCD in a companion HTML format.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on February 02, 2024, 09:57:18 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on February 02, 2024, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: chrisdiaz on February 01, 2024, 09:16:23 PM
Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

Quote from: mutcd.fhwa.dot.govFHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

  • Parts 1 and 2. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Highways-December/dp/B0CQPMX55D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-1)
  • Part 3. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQPGW5WR/ref=sr_1_6?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-6)
  • Parts 4 to 9. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQSCFTXQ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-5)
Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

Additionally, starting with this edition of the MUTCD, only the PDF will be available, no HTML version will be available from this point on forward.

Quote from: FHWA, 11th Edition of the MUTCD, December 2023: Viewing the MUTCDStarting with the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA no longer provides the MUTCD in a companion HTML format.

The MUTCD appears to be printed by AASHTO.

See this website for more.
Quote
This obsolete edition of the MUTCD is provided for those studying for the PE exam. The current edition is available as a PDF from the FHWA website here. Print copies will be available for sale by AASHTO this spring.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Brandon on February 02, 2024, 10:56:05 AM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on February 02, 2024, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: chrisdiaz on February 01, 2024, 09:16:23 PM
Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

Quote from: mutcd.fhwa.dot.govFHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

  • Parts 1 and 2. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Highways-December/dp/B0CQPMX55D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-1)
  • Part 3. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQPGW5WR/ref=sr_1_6?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-6)
  • Parts 4 to 9. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQSCFTXQ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-5)
Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

My experience with them and books as well.  I'd rather get books from B&N shipped as at least they'll be well packed and make it here without rips and tears.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: mgk920 on February 02, 2024, 11:23:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

A high-ranking judge rules that tickets written for violating that sign are invalid and cannot be enforced (sign is legally 'disarmed')?

Mike
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: chrisdiaz on February 02, 2024, 02:15:50 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 02, 2024, 09:57:18 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Shedingtonian on February 02, 2024, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: chrisdiaz on February 01, 2024, 09:16:23 PM
Hey, does anyone know where I would be able to get the new MUTCD in a hard cover format, like a textbook?

Quote from: mutcd.fhwa.dot.govFHWA does not print copies of the MUTCD.

With that said...

  • Parts 1 and 2. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Highways-December/dp/B0CQPMX55D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-1)
  • Part 3. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQPGW5WR/ref=sr_1_6?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-6)
  • Parts 4 to 9. (https://www.amazon.com/National-Standards-Traffic-Control-Highways/dp/B0CQSCFTXQ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=18286OO1BLVEP&keywords=manual+on+uniform+traffic+control+devices+11th+edition&qid=1706872753&sprefix=manual+on+unifor%2Caps%2C351&sr=8-5)
Buy at your own risk. I haven't had a good experience with Amazon and books.

Additionally, starting with this edition of the MUTCD, only the PDF will be available, no HTML version will be available from this point on forward.

Quote from: FHWA, 11th Edition of the MUTCD, December 2023: Viewing the MUTCDStarting with the 11th Edition of the MUTCD, FHWA no longer provides the MUTCD in a companion HTML format.

The MUTCD appears to be printed by AASHTO.

See this website for more.
Quote
This obsolete edition of the MUTCD is provided for those studying for the PE exam. The current edition is available as a PDF from the FHWA website here. Print copies will be available for sale by AASHTO this spring.
Thank you!!
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2024, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 02, 2024, 11:23:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

A high-ranking judge rules that tickets written for violating that sign are invalid and cannot be enforced (sign is legally 'disarmed')?

Mike

In order for a high-ranking judge to rule that way, the defendant would have to be stopped for failing to yield/stop at the stop sign (statute wording varies among states), request to fight the ticket in court, research to determine if the sign was installed to specifically slow down speeders, use that argument in front of the muni judge, be found guilty, then continue to appeal it numerous times to the state court, then the state supreme court.  The cost of fighting will grow easily into the thousands, if not the tens of thousands of dollars. 

Most people just pay the fine.  If they take it to court, they'll probably get it plea-bargained.  Even if they plan to fight it all the way thru the court system, they'll just decide the reduced fine and no points is a lot easier than the time and expense it'll take to fight it to the state capital.

Locally, they've installed some 4 way stops in neighborhoods that don't really need them, but the town's council or other official will often say "for pedestrian safety", knowing how the guidance works.  Now, if it were me, I would argue that a stop sign was installed, but there still isn't a marked crosswalk, signage regarding pedestrians, and the curbing hasn't been updated for handicap access, making it more likely that 'pedestrian safety' wasn't the motivating factor in installing that stop sign, especially if social media comments or board minutes allude to nearby homeowners wanting stop signs installed to slow down traffic.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 02, 2024, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 02, 2024, 11:23:41 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 01, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
What makes anyone think that local governments care about sign warrants or the MUTCD in general?

- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.
- MUTCD says we can't use stop signs for speed control. We have to do what the MUTCD says.
- What happens if we don't?
- We lose our federal funding.
- We don't get any federal funding.
- Oh.
- Put up a stop sign here because people are going too fast.

A high-ranking judge rules that tickets written for violating that sign are invalid and cannot be enforced (sign is legally 'disarmed')?

Mike

The remedy to non-compliant signage isn't that the signage itself becomes invalid in the eyes of the law. That is a leap no legitimate, non-quack judge is going to take because it would cause chaos. This is a violation of administrative procedure more than anything. The remedy is the state or feds saying "hey, remove that sign."

But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 04, 2024, 09:59:33 PM
My experience with the municipal level, at least in NJ, is that MUTCD requirements for traffic control are pure fantasy. If a municipality really wants a stop sign somewhere, the stop sign is going to get put there. It's not a decision that's made by engineers.

Municipality says "we want a stop sign at X intersection." No matter what, an experienced traffic engineer can/will be able to justify it. If not through the official warrants, then through "engineering judgement." At the end of the day an engineer could potentially find themselves in trouble for removing a stop sign, removing a crosswalk, removing a traffic signal. An engineer can confidently NEVER face any liability for ADDING those things. It doesn't happen.

And as others have already mentioned, taking away federal funding isn't such a scary threat when you don't get any in the first place.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Revive 755 on February 04, 2024, 10:14:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 02, 2024, 02:44:42 PM
But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.

At least in Illinois, Hanover Park (with the 'This Is A Stop Sign' plaque) and Macon County (with the 'Funky Intersection Ahead' sign) have experiences that indicate otherwise with the state DOT.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 12:01:06 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 04, 2024, 09:59:33 PM
My experience with the municipal level, at least in NJ, is that MUTCD requirements for traffic control are pure fantasy. If a municipality really wants a stop sign somewhere, the stop sign is going to get put there. It's not a decision that's made by engineers.

Municipality says "we want a stop sign at X intersection." No matter what, an experienced traffic engineer can/will be able to justify it. If not through the official warrants, then through "engineering judgement." At the end of the day an engineer could potentially find themselves in trouble for removing a stop sign, removing a crosswalk, removing a traffic signal. An engineer can confidently NEVER face any liability for ADDING those things. It doesn't happen.

And as others have already mentioned, taking away federal funding isn't such a scary threat when you don't get any in the first place.
Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on February 05, 2024, 12:09:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 12:01:06 AM
Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 07:01:45 AM


Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 05, 2024, 12:09:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 12:01:06 AM
Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?

That's why I said, "Depends on where the stop sign is."
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2024, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 04, 2024, 10:14:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 02, 2024, 02:44:42 PM
But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.

At least in Illinois, Hanover Park (with the 'This Is A Stop Sign' plaque) and Macon County (with the 'Funky Intersection Ahead' sign) have experiences that indicate otherwise with the state DOT.

That's a little different, but I was perhaps casting too wide a net with my statement, but the larger point remains.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: wanderer2575 on February 05, 2024, 09:15:29 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 05, 2024, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 04, 2024, 10:14:41 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 02, 2024, 02:44:42 PM
But the USDOT, and the respective state DOT, isn't going to care much about some random sign placed by a municipality on a non-state maintained road.

At least in Illinois, Hanover Park (with the 'This Is A Stop Sign' plaque) and Macon County (with the 'Funky Intersection Ahead' sign) have experiences that indicate otherwise with the state DOT.

That's a little different, but I was perhaps casting too wide a net with my statement, but the larger point remains.

Farmington Hills, MI posted "Aggressive Begging Prohibited" signs at the top of the exit ramps from I-696 at Orchard Lake Road.  They remained for several years so MDOT apparently didn't think it was enough of an issue to raise a stink.  But for a 2017 sign replacement project, the plans called for removing those signs.  Maybe other DOTs take that approach.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: CtrlAltDel on February 06, 2024, 07:40:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 07:01:45 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 05, 2024, 12:09:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 12:01:06 AM
Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?

That's why I said, "Depends on where the stop sign is."

I'm not sure I follow, except that this question rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. In any case, does this mean that they have some leeway on their own roads? And now that I think about it, what about where one of their roads intersects a state road?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: J N Winkler on February 06, 2024, 07:46:08 PM
What about revenue sharing?  Can FHWA say to a state DOT, "We are yanking Y amount you would otherwise be entitled to because of the failure of municipality X to comply with the MUTCD," and then can the state DOT turn around and tell municipality X, "We're cutting your funding by Y?"

AIUI, part of the state gas tax in Kansas goes to local roads, but I don't know whether any of it is distributed as a block grant.
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 06, 2024, 10:36:55 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 06, 2024, 07:40:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 07:01:45 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 05, 2024, 12:09:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 05, 2024, 12:01:06 AM
Depends on where the stop sign is.  In NY, localities cannot just slap stop signs on roads they do not own within their limits.

What if they do own the road?

That's why I said, "Depends on where the stop sign is."

I'm not sure I follow, except that this question rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. In any case, does this mean that they have some leeway on their own roads? And now that I think about it, what about where one of their roads intersects a state road?
No, it didn't rub me the wrong way.  And yes, on local streets, locals have jurisdiction.

For local and state road intersections, locals are only responsible up to the state highway boundary.  State usually has jurisdiction over traffic control at such intersections, but agreements can be reached.

Just had this issue at work, as a matter of fact.  Local agreed to update pavement markings leading up to a state road as part of their paving contract...

(personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: WhyLifeIs4 on February 25, 2024, 06:56:10 PM
Will The MUTCD ever become a print?
Title: Re: New MUTCD announced
Post by: Rothman on February 25, 2024, 10:10:26 PM
Quote from: WhyLifeIs4 on February 25, 2024, 06:56:10 PM
Will The MUTCD ever become a print?
Does a chicken have lips?