New MUTCD announced

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[ran4sh]

The key phrase was "its proponents want to apply it to all merge types".

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.

[Henry]

Hey, is anyone else getting Hartford vibes when they look at this diagram on page 376?



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!

[ran4sh]

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.

[dgolub]

Hey, is anyone else getting Hartford vibes when they look at this diagram on page 376?



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."

[jay8g]

Similarly, the airport example drawing is very clearly based on Newark (prior to the new terminal A being built).

[RobbieL2415]

Hey, is anyone else getting Hartford vibes when they look at this diagram on page 376?



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.

[Henry]

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


IRL

[Quillz]

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).

[Scott5114]

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.

[Quillz]

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.

[vdeane]

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).

[Quillz]

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.

[vdeane]

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

[JoePCool14]

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 (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, 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).


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.

[CtrlAltDel]

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.

[Quillz]

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[CtrlAltDel]

Some people are upset about the following bit of text:

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.

[freebrickproductions]

Some people are upset about the following bit of text:

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.

[ran4sh]

How long ago was the ban? I always thought they were never actually allowed, and FHWA was merely clarifying that a few years ago.

[Henry]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

prior to the ban

How long ago was the ban? I always thought they were never actually allowed

What ban?  Was this ever anything stronger than "should" language?

[jamess]

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?