New MUTCD announced

[corco]

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

[freebrickproductions]

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.

[Big John]

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
<----         ---->

[Big John]

On Page 350, cities of Brookfield and Green Bay changed to fictional cities of Somerset and Bay City.

[KCRoadFan]

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!)

[CtrlAltDel]

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.

[kphoger]

I don't think it will be made available in print.

[CtrlAltDel]

I don't think it will be made available in print.

[mgk920]

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

[kphoger]

Pages 325-326 are interesting.  No mention on the overhead signage that both lanes are exit only lanes.  Is that new?

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.

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.

[PurdueBill]

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. 

[Pink Jazz]

As expected, minimum retroreflectivity values are now available for blue and brown signs, which were previously exempt in the 2009 MUTCD.

[JoePCool14]

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!

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?

[JoePCool14]

Some things of note while scrolling through:

   
• There's an entire section dedicated to Emergency Route signing.
• There's another entire section dedicated to airport road signing. Maybe this will help keep these ridiculous airport signs in check a bit. Some of them are just too wacky...
• There is a section prohibiting the use of Interstate shields on future interstate corridors. Examples show you must use text only.
• There is a section clearly defining what is allowed on "improvement signage" that DOTs like to put up to promote their work.
• Standardization of signage for alternative fuel corridors, including a sign for "NEXT EV CHARGING".
• EV CHARGING is now a recognized category for service signs.

[J N Winkler]

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 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:

My 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:

One 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.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Is there anything that states "mile-based exits shall be used"? 

[kphoger]

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.

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  ↓

[Scott5114]

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.

[RobbieL2415]

Is the "Heavy Merge From Right" (W4-7) sign new?

[Big John]

Is the "Heavy Merge From Right" (W4-7) sign new?

I think it is; I have never seen that before.

[Henry]

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)

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[LilianaUwU]

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.

[JoePCool14]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.