Title: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 04, 2015, 12:35:47 AM
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 04, 2015, 12:35:47 AM
I would like to know, what changes do you expect will be in the next MUTCD coming out in 2017 or later?
Here is what I think will be added:
Also, I wonder if street name signs with black backgrounds and white text will become an option. I have read some early drafts for the 2009 MUTCD, and it appears that color scheme was planned to be included as one of the approved schemes, but then it was dropped in favor the reverse color scheme (white background with black text).
What does anyone else will think be included in the next MUTCD?
Here is what I think will be added:
- Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, currently in interim approval, I think will probably be added in. The reason why they didn't make it into the 2009 MUTCD was due to the interim approval being granted too late when the 2009 MUTCD was already being written.
- Minimum retroreflectivity standards for blue and brown signs will be added in.
Also, I wonder if street name signs with black backgrounds and white text will become an option. I have read some early drafts for the 2009 MUTCD, and it appears that color scheme was planned to be included as one of the approved schemes, but then it was dropped in favor the reverse color scheme (white background with black text).
What does anyone else will think be included in the next MUTCD?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 12:40:19 AM
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 12:40:19 AM
More with APL's. I'm not sure what type (if any) was included in the 2009 MUTCD, but with APL's becoming more popular, I think they'll have to set some / more standards for that.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: riiga on April 04, 2015, 07:30:52 AM
Post by: riiga on April 04, 2015, 07:30:52 AM
More internationalization through pictograms, hopefully.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2015, 10:10:04 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2015, 10:10:04 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 12:40:19 AM
More with APL's. I'm not sure what type (if any) was included in the 2009 MUTCD, but with APL's becoming more popular, I think they'll have to set some / more standards for that.
Something to make them more space-efficient would be nice.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AM
Post by: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AM
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Revive 755 on April 04, 2015, 11:12:29 AM
Post by: Revive 755 on April 04, 2015, 11:12:29 AM
A partial idea of what the 2017 edition will hold can be gained by going through the meeting minutes for the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NUTCD), where there are a few marked up drafts: Link (http://www.ncutcd.org/meeting-201506.shtml)
From what I can recall off the top of my head:
* Restrictions on the use of circular signal indications where traffic cannot go straight
* Addition of most of the currently active interim approvals
* A new requirement where if traffic on on a two lane two way road is temporarily restricted to one lane one way at a time through a railroad crossing with gates, the gates must be removed to prevent anyone from getting blocked on the crossing
From what I can recall off the top of my head:
* Restrictions on the use of circular signal indications where traffic cannot go straight
* Addition of most of the currently active interim approvals
* A new requirement where if traffic on on a two lane two way road is temporarily restricted to one lane one way at a time through a railroad crossing with gates, the gates must be removed to prevent anyone from getting blocked on the crossing
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 11:48:34 AM
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 11:48:34 AM
Quote from: riiga on April 04, 2015, 07:30:52 AM
More internationalization through pictograms, hopefully.
These come to mind.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fqph.is.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-7f56659c3dd2dd71c415145fa075e004%3Fconvert_to_webp%3Dtrue&hash=d2a12d6e2e5217ea1c03c16a26ce3144621b8350)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Farchive%2F7%2F73%2F20121002185934%21Canada.no_stopping.svg%2F120px-Canada.no_stopping.svg.png&hash=43d487a3c08ca5bafe0d4fd05668bb23dc1a5f76)
No stopping
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
Post by: cl94 on April 04, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
I agree with an APL guide. I spent a lot of time at TRB this year talking with FHWA people and others about how little guidance is provided, causing some DOTs to do some interesting things.
If it hasn't been done by then, I expect something banning Clearview or its inclusion in the manual with specific guidelines. Application is getting worse and worse, with even NYSTA joining in on the Clearview numerals bandwagon.
3-section FYAs will probably be in there along with bicycle signal faces. Those bicycle doghouses are quite weird.
If it hasn't been done by then, I expect something banning Clearview or its inclusion in the manual with specific guidelines. Application is getting worse and worse, with even NYSTA joining in on the Clearview numerals bandwagon.
3-section FYAs will probably be in there along with bicycle signal faces. Those bicycle doghouses are quite weird.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 01:56:01 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
I agree with an APL guide. I spent a lot of time at TRB this year talking with FHWA people and others about how little guidance is provided, causing some DOTs to do some interesting things.
If it hasn't been done by then, I expect something banning Clearview or its inclusion in the manual with specific guidelines. Application is getting worse and worse, with even NYSTA joining in on the Clearview numerals bandwagon.
3-section FYAs will probably be in there along with bicycle signal faces. Those bicycle doghouses are quite weird.
That, or disallowing Clearview altogether, if they put such things in a MUTCD.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: DaBigE on April 04, 2015, 02:26:54 PM
Post by: DaBigE on April 04, 2015, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
I agree with an APL guide. I spent a lot of time at TRB this year talking with FHWA people and others about how little guidance is provided, causing some DOTs to do some interesting things.
If it hasn't been done by then, I expect something banning Clearview or its inclusion in the manual with specific guidelines. Application is getting worse and worse, with even NYSTA joining in on the Clearview numerals bandwagon.
3-section FYAs will probably be in there along with bicycle signal faces. Those bicycle doghouses are quite weird.
3-section FYAs are already in the 2009.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
I would love for them to add a section limiting the brightness of LEDs. My county put up a bunch of advisory signs, mainly curves, with LED borders that are blindingly bright, and a danger to drivers.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
Post by: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.
QR Codes on BGS and RFID codes for Speed Limit Signs.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: UCFKnights on April 04, 2015, 05:08:44 PM
Post by: UCFKnights on April 04, 2015, 05:08:44 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PMWhy not just RFID everything? Its relatively cheap and much more accurate.Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.
QR Codes on BGS and RFID codes for Speed Limit Signs.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 07:00:38 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 07:00:38 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 04, 2015, 05:08:44 PMQuote from: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PMWhy not just RFID everything? Its relatively cheap and much more accurate.Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 04, 2015, 04:12:57 PM
They might want to start thinking about including things that driverless cars might need. I have no idea what these things might be, but a focus on making markings and signs legible by both drivers and computers is going to be in the cards sooner or later.
QR Codes on BGS and RFID codes for Speed Limit Signs.
True. I was trying to be a smart ass with the QR code thought.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Scott5114 on April 04, 2015, 07:59:01 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 04, 2015, 07:59:01 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AMThey already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970. Illinois posts shields to this spec. The shields with the gigantic digits, like seen in Utah, North Carolina, etc. are states doing their own thing.
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on April 04, 2015, 08:19:50 PM
Post by: jakeroot on April 04, 2015, 08:19:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2015, 07:59:01 PMQuote from: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AM
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high-intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
They already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970. Illinois posts shields to this spec. The shields with the gigantic digits, like seen in Utah, North Carolina, etc. are states doing their own thing.
In addition, I wish they'd make 3di shields use Series D numerals...any time I see a 2di shield next to a 3di shield, the Series C numerals look out of scale (obviously an aesthetic preference, FWIW). California does this already, and while I see Series D numerals on 3di shields outside California on a somewhat regular basis, I wish it was more common.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Post by: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto. NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C. Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto. NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C. Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.
Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? :-/
I think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2015, 09:43:58 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 04, 2015, 09:43:58 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PMI'd agree, it doesn't make much sense that its not already there, even though Caltrans seems to ignore it.Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto. NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C. Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.
Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? :-/
I think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2015, 07:59:01 PMQuote from: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AMThey already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970. Illinois posts shields to this spec. The shields with the gigantic digits, like seen in Utah, North Carolina, etc. are states doing their own thing.
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
I assume when you say Illinois you mean IDOT, because ISTHA uses shields with big numbers. However like everything from IDOT, to me it just seems a bit off.
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto. NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C. Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.
More readable than when ISTHA horizontally compresses the numbers inside the shield (particularly 3DIs).
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2015, 09:57:55 PM
Post by: Eth on April 04, 2015, 09:57:55 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? :-/
Probably. That's okay, though, I know the feeling; I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that likes Series B there (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PMI think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.
Last time I checked, the official Georgia spec actually calls for Series E for 2-digit interstate shields, though I've never actually seen it in the field.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: CtrlAltDel on April 05, 2015, 01:31:57 AM
Post by: CtrlAltDel on April 05, 2015, 01:31:57 AM
Quote from: Eth on April 04, 2015, 09:57:55 PMQuote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PM
Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? :-/
Probably. That's okay, though, I know the feeling; I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that likes Series B there (or anywhere else, for that matter).
I wish they'd get rid of the wider shield for 3DI's and fit series B or whatever's necessary on the regular shield.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Scott5114 on April 05, 2015, 08:45:12 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 05, 2015, 08:45:12 PM
That was the status quo prior to the 1970 MUTCD. Believe it or not, Series D is easier to read than C and B, which is why the wide shield was invented.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: CtrlAltDel on April 06, 2015, 12:39:31 AM
Post by: CtrlAltDel on April 06, 2015, 12:39:31 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2015, 08:45:12 PM
That was the status quo prior to the 1970 MUTCD. Believe it or not, Series D is easier to read than C and B, which is why the wide shield was invented.
Oh, I can believe that. I know aesthetics is less important than readability, but the 3DI shield is just ugly.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: vtk on April 06, 2015, 02:02:18 PM
Post by: vtk on April 06, 2015, 02:02:18 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 06, 2015, 12:39:31 AMI know aesthetics is less important than readability, but the 3DI shield is just ugly.
Says you. Aesthetics is a very subjective thing; readability, less so. Engineers tend to focus more effort on problems whose success or failure can be objectively measured. It's not that aesthetics is unimportant, but trying to please everyone in that regard would be wasted effort.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2015, 05:19:20 PM
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2015, 05:19:20 PM
And me. The 3di shield IS ugly. And I find the series D ones easier to read too. I fail to see how a narrower font is better.
While there have been good things with NY adopting the MUTCD (such as the elimination of the boxed street name abominations), I weep for our endangered mile markers and 3di shields. At least the MUTCD mile markers look decent, though Albany will not feel like Albany any more when our green and white ones are gone. The series C 3di shields just look BAD.
While there have been good things with NY adopting the MUTCD (such as the elimination of the boxed street name abominations), I weep for our endangered mile markers and 3di shields. At least the MUTCD mile markers look decent, though Albany will not feel like Albany any more when our green and white ones are gone. The series C 3di shields just look BAD.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2015, 05:22:17 PM
Post by: cl94 on April 06, 2015, 05:22:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2015, 05:19:20 PM
And me. The 3di shield IS ugly. And I find the series D ones easier to read too. I fail to see how a narrower font is better.
While there have been good things with NY adopting the MUTCD (such as the elimination of the boxed street name abominations), I weep for our endangered mile markers and 3di shields. At least the MUTCD mile markers look decent, though Albany will not feel like Albany any more when our green and white ones are gone. The series C 3di shields just look BAD.
Better than the Series B ones Ohio started using when they dropped button copy
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: PHLBOS on April 07, 2015, 10:16:16 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on April 07, 2015, 10:16:16 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PMAm I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? :-/If none of the 3 digits contain a 1 in them; then Series C is perfectly fine (and IMHO should be used).
What I've seen as of late is either 3dis using either scrunched Series D, elongated Series D (clearly a CAD mod), or Series B (very inappropriate and flat-out ugly). For a while, it seemed that 3di-shields with Series C were becoming an endangered species.
3dis containing decent-looking (& properly spaced) Series D numerals are usually one size smaller than comparable 3di shields in Series C.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2015, 07:59:01 PMThe main problem with using smaller-height numerals is that; I've seen several recent installations that either have the numerals placed too high, too low, and/or needlessly scrunched together. If state-named shields were making a comeback; then using the smaller numerals would make more sense; but since that's not happening, using the larger numerals shouldn't be an issue and IMHO more readable from a distance.Quote from: ctsignguy on April 04, 2015, 10:51:36 AMThey already are reduced. Look at the shield graphics on Wikipedia: those are made to the official SHS drawings, which haven't changed since 1970.
A reduction in the size of the numbers for Interstate shields would be nice....with the high0intensity sheet and the super large numbers, legibility suffers especially when the numbers are very close to the white borders....an instance where less would be more
The smaller-numeral I-shields look even more out of place/overpowered when such is mounted next to a US or state shield (along a duo- or multiplex) containing taller numerals.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: myosh_tino on April 07, 2015, 05:32:59 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on April 07, 2015, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 07, 2015, 10:16:16 AM
The main problem with using smaller-height numerals is that; I've seen several recent installations that either have the numerals placed too high, too low, and/or needlessly scrunched together. If state-named shields were making a comeback; then using the smaller numerals would make more sense; but since that's not happening, using the larger numerals shouldn't be an issue and IMHO more readable from a distance.
I, for one, am not a fan of using 18 inch numerals on a 36 inch shield. The digits are huge and it makes for an ugly looking shield.
I think part of my disdain of 18 inch numerals probably comes from the fact that, as a native Californian, our 36" Interstate shields (used for reassurance purposes) are based on an older spec which uses 12 inch numerals.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F3di-fhwa-15d.png&hash=5e38bc46af67eadd4da8d33bf8e14c84a8c0df8a) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F3di-ca-12d.png&hash=0a0085a19f8e62374101447f49694fcc2fa57ffb)
FHWA (left) vs Caltrans (right)
FHWA (left) vs Caltrans (right)
Please note that on guide signs, 15 inch numerals are used on 36 inch shields. Also, if it looks like the California shield is narrower, you're right. The California-spec 3di shield is 42x36, 3 inches narrower than the FHWA-spec.
As for some of the other ideas for a future MUTCD, if there's going to be an expanded use of APLs, I really hope they make them more "space-efficient" for the lack of a better term. Perhaps they can look at how California is implementing APLs and reduce the arrow heights from 66 (or 72) inches down to 42-45 inches.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F180-41_ca-apl_v2.png&hash=0a7568b13287e3a9c615e871fe0ccb5cc4e58826)
FWIW, those are 120" tall sign panels.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mgk920 on May 17, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
Post by: mgk920 on May 17, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include:
-More European graphic images, such as a wind sock for 'watch for high winds', the inward-pointing arrow for 'lane ends/merge right or left', the motorway image (like my avatar) for 'FREEWAY BEGINS/ENDS' and so forth. Also allow European-style 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' signs (45 degree downward-pointing arrow signs mounted low) - I find the current signs to be way too 'busy';
-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used);
-Allow the option to remove the words from YIELD, ONE WAY (arrow image) and DO NOT ENTER signs;
-Require that all streets be identified at all intersections (a BIG thing for me, especially when on road trips);
-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals :rolleyes: .
-Allow 'red circle' speed limit signs.
Mike
-More European graphic images, such as a wind sock for 'watch for high winds', the inward-pointing arrow for 'lane ends/merge right or left', the motorway image (like my avatar) for 'FREEWAY BEGINS/ENDS' and so forth. Also allow European-style 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' signs (45 degree downward-pointing arrow signs mounted low) - I find the current signs to be way too 'busy';
-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used);
-Allow the option to remove the words from YIELD, ONE WAY (arrow image) and DO NOT ENTER signs;
-Require that all streets be identified at all intersections (a BIG thing for me, especially when on road trips);
-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals :rolleyes: .
-Allow 'red circle' speed limit signs.
Mike
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on May 17, 2015, 01:13:17 PM
Post by: cl94 on May 17, 2015, 01:13:17 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 17, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include:
-More European graphic images, such as a wind sock for 'watch for high winds', the inward-pointing arrow for 'lane ends/merge right or left', the motorway image (like my avatar) for 'FREEWAY BEGINS/ENDS' and so forth. Also allow European-style 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' signs (45 degree downward-pointing arrow signs mounted low) - I find the current signs to be way too 'busy';
-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used);
-Allow the option to remove the words from YIELD, ONE WAY (arrow image) and DO NOT ENTER signs;
-Require that all streets be identified at all intersections (a BIG thing for me, especially when on road trips);
-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals :rolleyes: .
-Allow 'red circle' speed limit signs.
Mike
I don't think we need to go European as much as standardize with Canada. Ontario has a few really good graphic signs that would replace some of our word signs.
Speed limit signs can stay as they are. The MUTCD governs the US and Canada. We could have red circle signs in addition, but I only see them causing confusion.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Big John on May 17, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Post by: Big John on May 17, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 17, 2015, 01:13:17 PMThe MUTCD had no jurisdiction in Canada, though the provinces do adopt parts of it in their standards.
The MUTCD governs the US and Canada.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 17, 2015, 01:34:30 PM
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 17, 2015, 01:34:30 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 17, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include:
-More European graphic images, such as a wind sock for 'watch for high winds', the inward-pointing arrow for 'lane ends/merge right or left', the motorway image (like my avatar) for 'FREEWAY BEGINS/ENDS' and so forth. Also allow European-style 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' signs (45 degree downward-pointing arrow signs mounted low) - I find the current signs to be way too 'busy';
-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used);
-Allow the option to remove the words from YIELD, ONE WAY (arrow image) and DO NOT ENTER signs;
-Require that all streets be identified at all intersections (a BIG thing for me, especially when on road trips);
-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals :rolleyes: .
-Allow 'red circle' speed limit signs.
Mike
To be honest, I like many of the European signage, but I doubt they would see any introduction in the US.
Canada's yield and one way signs omit the wording "yield" and "one way"; I can see it happening in the US, though it doesn't really matter either way.
Quote from: cl94 on May 17, 2015, 01:13:17 PM
Ontario has a few really good graphic signs that would replace some of our word signs.
Like this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fqph.is.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-7f56659c3dd2dd71c415145fa075e004%3Fconvert_to_webp%3Dtrue&hash=d2a12d6e2e5217ea1c03c16a26ce3144621b8350)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on May 17, 2015, 02:10:03 PM
Post by: cl94 on May 17, 2015, 02:10:03 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 17, 2015, 01:25:58 PMQuote from: cl94 on May 17, 2015, 01:13:17 PMThe MUTCD had no jurisdiction in Canada, though the provinces do adopt parts of it in their standards.
The MUTCD governs the US and Canada.
I meant that the provinces have pretty much adopted the important parts.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 17, 2015, 01:34:30 PM
Like this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fqph.is.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-7f56659c3dd2dd71c415145fa075e004%3Fconvert_to_webp%3Dtrue&hash=d2a12d6e2e5217ea1c03c16a26ce3144621b8350)
Yes, like that one. Even with having a red light shown, it's usable by colorblind people because the red light is always at the top unless you're in Syracuse.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:09:14 PM
Post by: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:09:14 PM
Quebec has the best wind sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F104.236.16.159%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F03%2FDiane%2520S.Quebec.jpg&hash=edb5eaa299bb4bfc7b4fceaf5e31eae0dfcbced2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F104.236.16.159%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F03%2FDiane%2520S.Quebec.jpg&hash=edb5eaa299bb4bfc7b4fceaf5e31eae0dfcbced2)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 18, 2015, 12:33:04 AM
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 18, 2015, 12:33:04 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on April 04, 2015, 03:19:57 PM
I would love for them to add a section limiting the brightness of LEDs. My county put up a bunch of advisory signs, mainly curves, with LED borders that are blindingly bright, and a danger to drivers.
I know in Coupeville on SR-20, there's obnoxious speed limit LEDs that pretty much wash out the content on said sign at night.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: lordsutch on May 18, 2015, 01:53:56 PM
Post by: lordsutch on May 18, 2015, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 17, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include: ...
-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used); ...
-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals :rolleyes: .
I like most of Mike's ideas from the original post. For roundabout yield signs, I wonder if the Aussie-style sign (yield with a roundabout symbol inside) might be superior and reduce sign clutter; MUTCD's roundabout signage is very busy as-is.
I'm not sure adding stop, yield, and priority signs to signals will do anything except confuse American drivers during the 99.9% of time they're working. Better to improve the battery backup and do a better job educating drivers on what flashing red and yellow mean.
That said, maybe a "WHEN 🚦 FLASHING OR NOT WORKING" plaque could be added to the standard stop sign and tested for effectiveness.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mgk920 on May 18, 2015, 08:13:21 PM
Post by: mgk920 on May 18, 2015, 08:13:21 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on May 18, 2015, 01:53:56 PMQuote from: mgk920 on May 17, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include: ...
-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used); ...
-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals :rolleyes: .
I like most of Mike's ideas from the original post. For roundabout yield signs, I wonder if the Aussie-style sign (yield with a roundabout symbol inside) might be superior and reduce sign clutter; MUTCD's roundabout signage is very busy as-is.
I'm not sure adding stop, yield, and priority signs to signals will do anything except confuse American drivers during the 99.9% of time they're working. Better to improve the battery backup and do a better job educating drivers on what flashing red and yellow mean.
That said, maybe a "WHEN 🚦 FLASHING OR NOT WORKING" plaque could be added to the standard stop sign and tested for effectiveness.
Or "WHEN SIGNALS ARE DARK", which was my thought, similar to the instruction signs on signal standards with the new 'flashing left yellow arrow' aspects.
Mike
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Alps on May 31, 2015, 12:51:50 PM
Post by: Alps on May 31, 2015, 12:51:50 PM
I would expect more purple signs for tolling, and more tolling signs in general (as well as clarifications/revisions to ones already in there). That's been an open area on which the NCUTCD has wanted to circle wagons with toll agencies for awhile.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: SSOWorld on June 08, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
Post by: SSOWorld on June 08, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
There's way too much already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Brian556 on June 12, 2015, 01:51:34 PM
Post by: Brian556 on June 12, 2015, 01:51:34 PM
The biggest area that needs improvement is turn lane signage.
They need to:
In regards to turn lanes:
1.Require the THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT (or RIGHT) when a thru lane becomes a turn lane, except when there is no thru movement.
2. Change turn/straight lane diagram signs so they they show which lanes are bays. they can be incredibly confusing and useless without this.
3. Put a stop to inconsistent signing of turn bays. Some have RLMTR, and TURN ONLY, while others have nothing. Nothing is better for short bays, in my opinion.
Also, require an overhead flashing light at STOP sign controlled intersections where there is more than one lane, but only one sign for the approach. Large vehicles can hide stop signs from drivers in the inside lane, creating a dangerous situation.
When a frontage road or other road ends by entering a freeway, a sign should be required warning of the situation. At night, it is not always obvious.
Require RIGHT TURN ONLY or ONE WAY signage when a street intersects a divided roadway without a median break. Florida is very good about this, but Texas is not. You cannot expect drivers to psychically know that you have to turn right, especially at night.
They need to:
In regards to turn lanes:
1.Require the THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT (or RIGHT) when a thru lane becomes a turn lane, except when there is no thru movement.
2. Change turn/straight lane diagram signs so they they show which lanes are bays. they can be incredibly confusing and useless without this.
3. Put a stop to inconsistent signing of turn bays. Some have RLMTR, and TURN ONLY, while others have nothing. Nothing is better for short bays, in my opinion.
Also, require an overhead flashing light at STOP sign controlled intersections where there is more than one lane, but only one sign for the approach. Large vehicles can hide stop signs from drivers in the inside lane, creating a dangerous situation.
When a frontage road or other road ends by entering a freeway, a sign should be required warning of the situation. At night, it is not always obvious.
Require RIGHT TURN ONLY or ONE WAY signage when a street intersects a divided roadway without a median break. Florida is very good about this, but Texas is not. You cannot expect drivers to psychically know that you have to turn right, especially at night.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mrsman on June 12, 2015, 02:23:55 PM
Post by: mrsman on June 12, 2015, 02:23:55 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on June 12, 2015, 01:51:34 PM
The biggest area that needs improvement is turn lane signage.
They need to:
In regards to turn lanes:
1.Require the THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT (or RIGHT) when a thru lane becomes a turn lane, except when there is no thru movement.
This is an excellent point. The Los Angeles area does this very well, and very clearly delineates with advanced warning that your lane forces a turn.
In contrast, I've never seen this sign anywhere in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC. There are many places where this would be useful.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: myosh_tino on June 12, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on June 12, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on June 12, 2015, 01:51:34 PM
When a frontage road or other road ends by entering a freeway, a sign should be required warning of the situation. At night, it is not always obvious.
Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images015/i-015_fwy_entr_at_ca-274.jpg)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Revive 755 on June 12, 2015, 09:45:44 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on June 12, 2015, 09:45:44 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on June 12, 2015, 01:51:34 PM
The biggest area that needs improvement is turn lane signage.
They need to:
In regards to turn lanes:
1.Require the THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT (or RIGHT) when a thru lane becomes a turn lane, except when there is no thru movement.
Maybe. I don't mind having a RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT with a supplemental distance plaque, as Lake County, Illinois does it. See Page 2 of this detail. (http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Transportation/Business/Documents/LC7800.pdf)
Quote from: author=Brian556 link=topic=15204.msg2070857#msg2070857 date=14341314942. Change turn/straight lane diagram signs so they they show which lanes are bays. they can be incredibly confusing and useless without this.
Especially on the stems of T-intersections with multiple turn lanes when one is intended to make another turn shortly afterwards and wants to get into the correct turn lane.
Quote from: author=Brian556 link=topic=15204.msg2070857#msg2070857 date=14341314943. Put a stop to inconsistent signing of turn bays. Some have RLMTR, and TURN ONLY, while others have nothing. Nothing is better for short bays, in my opinion.
I would postpone this until the next MUTCD version or update after the 2017 one, as it seems there could use to be more study on the best way to sign turn lanes. I've had a few experiences where the R3-5 signs have not worked and have to wonder if ground mounting them should be disallowed without a supplemental lane designation plaque such as the R3-5dP. I would also like to see the effectiveness of the BEGIN RIGHT/LEFT TURN LANE signs (R3-20) looked into, possibly having them used more often where a queue waiting for a green light is blocking any other lane designation signs after the start of the turn lane.
Quote from: author=Brian556 link=topic=15204.msg2070857#msg2070857 date=1434131494Require RIGHT TURN ONLY or ONE WAY signage when a street intersects a divided roadway without a median break. Florida is very good about this, but Texas is not. You cannot expect drivers to psychically know that you have to turn right, especially at night.
Technically the one-way signs are already required for this by the 2009 MUTCD. The lower left detail in Figure 2B-14 would apply, but with the one-way roadway going the other direction.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 12, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?
Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign would also work.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Brian556 on June 13, 2015, 01:53:10 AM
Post by: Brian556 on June 13, 2015, 01:53:10 AM
Here is an excellent case study of why turn lane signage rules need to be changed:
Use Streetview to "drive" north to the intersection to see what I am talking about.
NB FM 2499 at FM 407 in Flower Mound TX.
]https://www.google.com/maps/@33.068423,-97.081949,3a,31.2y,328.33h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKRDPbivmxcjv8I4ucBHYKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656] (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.068423,-97.081949,3a,31.2y,328.33h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKRDPbivmxcjv8I4ucBHYKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
In this situation, the diagram signs indicate that only two of the three lanes continue straight. However, because there is a curve and slight hill before the intersection, you cannot tell which lane becomes a turn lane.
The diagram signs would need to show which turn lane is a bay in order to be useful. Also, they are misleading in another way. The left lane actually splits into two left turn lanes, but the diagrams only indicate a single turn.
A THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT sign is also defiantly needed here.
Use Streetview to "drive" north to the intersection to see what I am talking about.
NB FM 2499 at FM 407 in Flower Mound TX.
]https://www.google.com/maps/@33.068423,-97.081949,3a,31.2y,328.33h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKRDPbivmxcjv8I4ucBHYKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656] (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.068423,-97.081949,3a,31.2y,328.33h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKRDPbivmxcjv8I4ucBHYKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
In this situation, the diagram signs indicate that only two of the three lanes continue straight. However, because there is a curve and slight hill before the intersection, you cannot tell which lane becomes a turn lane.
The diagram signs would need to show which turn lane is a bay in order to be useful. Also, they are misleading in another way. The left lane actually splits into two left turn lanes, but the diagrams only indicate a single turn.
A THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT sign is also defiantly needed here.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Quillz on June 13, 2015, 02:08:24 AM
Post by: Quillz on June 13, 2015, 02:08:24 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 04, 2015, 09:41:07 PMNot at all, I much prefer the aesthetics of Series C to D.Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
Ditto. NY used to use series D on 3di shields as a standard, but newer installs use series C. Series D looks MUCH better and is more readable.
Am I the only one that likes series C on 3di's? :-/
I think something about 1 digit interstates having series E or EM should be addressed if it hasn't been already.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mgk920 on June 14, 2015, 11:55:34 PM
Post by: mgk920 on June 14, 2015, 11:55:34 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 12, 2015, 09:45:44 PMQuote from: myosh_tino on June 12, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images015/i-015_fwy_entr_at_ca-274.jpg)
Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.567334,-87.953157,3a,21.6y,198.7h,87.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_3bevIfDO49ESvBAFKT2qw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_3bevIfDO49ESvBAFKT2qw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D127.44039%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) would also work.
That's the first that I've seen that sign anywhere in Wisconsin. I'd use the graphic image that was my previous avatar (German 'autobahn driving rules begin' sign).
Mike
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: DaBigE on June 15, 2015, 09:29:09 AM
Post by: DaBigE on June 15, 2015, 09:29:09 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 14, 2015, 11:55:34 PMQuote from: Revive 755 on June 12, 2015, 09:45:44 PMQuote from: myosh_tino on June 12, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images015/i-015_fwy_entr_at_ca-274.jpg)
Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.567334,-87.953157,3a,21.6y,198.7h,87.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_3bevIfDO49ESvBAFKT2qw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_3bevIfDO49ESvBAFKT2qw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D127.44039%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) would also work.
That's the first that I've seen that sign anywhere in Wisconsin.
Same here. I've seen the sign with just "Freeway Entrance" sprinkled about the Milwaukee Metro area, but nothing with "Ramp Only" included as well.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings? Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks. I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 30, 2015, 09:22:04 PM
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 30, 2015, 09:22:04 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on June 15, 2015, 09:29:09 AMQuote from: mgk920 on June 14, 2015, 11:55:34 PMQuote from: Revive 755 on June 12, 2015, 09:45:44 PMQuote from: myosh_tino on June 12, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
Would California-style Freeway Entrance assemblies (FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign, route shield, cardinal direction and arrow... see photo below) work for this situation or are you looking for some type of advance warning sign?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images015/i-015_fwy_entr_at_ca-274.jpg)
Wisconsin's Freeway Entrance Ramp Only sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.567334,-87.953157,3a,21.6y,198.7h,87.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_3bevIfDO49ESvBAFKT2qw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_3bevIfDO49ESvBAFKT2qw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D127.44039%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) would also work.
That's the first that I've seen that sign anywhere in Wisconsin.
Same here. I've seen the sign with just "Freeway Entrance" sprinkled about the Milwaukee Metro area, but nothing with "Ramp Only" included as well.
Washington uses the Freeway Entrance sign without the shield and down arrow mostly. Recently, they've started using a newer, larger version sometimes that includes an arrow on the green sign, but I don't think they're using it in all new installations yet.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PM
Post by: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings? Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks. I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.
Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...
I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 11:13:23 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 11:13:23 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings? Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks. I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.
Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...
I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.
Here is one of the more common models, a Polara Navigator:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polara.com%2Fimages%2Fnavfeat5.jpg&hash=849f6ce8b06219b77b7dccf81cba9e510e90573e)
Features include a locator tone, vibrotactile walk indication, and recordable voice messages such as "Wait" and optionally street names. During the walk phase, the button vibrates and you will either hear a rapid tick sound or a speech message saying "Walk Sign is On".
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 04:09:17 AM
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 04:09:17 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 30, 2015, 09:22:04 PM
Washington uses the Freeway Entrance sign without the shield and down arrow mostly. Recently, they've started using a newer, larger version sometimes that includes an arrow on the green sign, but I don't think they're using it in all new installations yet.
I think it's a Northwest Region thing. I haven't seen any south or west of King County.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on July 02, 2015, 03:55:23 AM
Post by: roadfro on July 02, 2015, 03:55:23 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 11:13:23 PMQuote from: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings? Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks. I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.
Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...
I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.
Here is one of the more common models, a Polara Navigator:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polara.com%2Fimages%2Fnavfeat5.jpg&hash=849f6ce8b06219b77b7dccf81cba9e510e90573e)
Features include a locator tone, vibrotactile walk indication, and recordable voice messages such as "Wait" and optionally street names. During the walk phase, the button vibrates and you will either hear a rapid tick sound or a speech message saying "Walk Sign is On".
That's kind of what I thought you were referring to. The MUTCD doesn't mandate any installation of those now, and they aren't particularly widespread. I don't see this coming in the next edition.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2015, 06:24:49 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2015, 06:24:49 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 11:13:23 PMQuote from: roadfro on June 30, 2015, 10:35:34 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings? Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks. I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.
Do you have an example of what you mean--i.e. are you talking about audible crossing indications in addition to the visual signals? Blind folks can't see pedestrian signals either, but I feel they could hear passing light rail train...
I think it will really depend on the application and location of a light rail track. There are situations where a railroad crossing gate and lights/bells would be more applicable than pedestrian crossing signals.
Here is one of the more common models, a Polara Navigator:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polara.com%2Fimages%2Fnavfeat5.jpg&hash=849f6ce8b06219b77b7dccf81cba9e510e90573e)
Features include a locator tone, vibrotactile walk indication, and recordable voice messages such as "Wait" and optionally street names. During the walk phase, the button vibrates and you will either hear a rapid tick sound or a speech message saying "Walk Sign is On".
At many light rail crossings here in NJ, they have a separate pedestrian crossing gate activated when a train is coming.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mgk920 on July 03, 2015, 11:09:08 AM
Post by: mgk920 on July 03, 2015, 11:09:08 AM
Speaking of that, I'm wondering if there might be a move to adopt those graphic 'time of day/day of week chart' parking restriction signs that the City of Los Angeles is starting to use.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
Post by: roadfro on July 04, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
^ I would say probably not, unless there's extensive study conducted on them. While the concept is neat, it's still too much to parse while driving.
The solution there is to not have so many parking regulations...
The solution there is to not have so many parking regulations...
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: riiga on July 04, 2015, 03:40:14 PM
Post by: riiga on July 04, 2015, 03:40:14 PM
^ And also to standardize parking signs further than what is currently in the MUTCD by adopting a more modular approach.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mrsman on July 05, 2015, 03:57:28 PM
Post by: mrsman on July 05, 2015, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 04, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
^ I would say probably not, unless there's extensive study conducted on them. While the concept is neat, it's still too much to parse while driving.
The solution there is to not have so many parking regulations...
I agree. It's important to simplify the parking regulations. But IMO parking signs were not meant to be read at highway speed, so you don't have to actually parse while driving.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Revive 755 on July 05, 2015, 09:40:59 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on July 05, 2015, 09:40:59 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on June 30, 2015, 08:18:06 PM
I actually wonder, will the next MUTCD mandate the use of accessible pedestrian signals at light rail crossings? Here in the Phoenix area they are installed at most (if not all) crossings with light rail tracks. I think they are important to have in this situation, since the blind cannot see a passing light rail train.
Much more likely that more widespread use of APS for both light rail and traffic signals will be mandated by an update of PROWAG, and the MUTCD will then follow with the same requirement.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on July 09, 2015, 09:15:22 PM
Post by: roadfro on July 09, 2015, 09:15:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 05, 2015, 03:57:28 PMQuote from: roadfro on July 04, 2015, 02:23:21 PM
^ I would say probably not, unless there's extensive study conducted on them. While the concept is neat, it's still too much to parse while driving.
The solution there is to not have so many parking regulations...
I agree. It's important to simplify the parking regulations. But IMO parking signs were not meant to be read at highway speed, so you don't have to actually parse while driving.
You don't have to read them at highway speed. But unless you are familiar with the area, you do read parking signs while driving (even if slowly) so you know where to park.
In contrast, the LA signs are currently designed and installed to be read from the pedestrian point of view (from what I recall).
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Brian556 on July 10, 2015, 12:08:46 AM
Post by: Brian556 on July 10, 2015, 12:08:46 AM
Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polara.com%2Fimages%2Fnavfeat5.jpg&hash=849f6ce8b06219b77b7dccf81cba9e510e90573e)
What's next? Are they going to post signs explaining what red, yellow, and green indications mean?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Quillz on July 10, 2015, 12:18:43 AM
Post by: Quillz on July 10, 2015, 12:18:43 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on July 10, 2015, 12:08:46 AMGiven how many bad drivers around here apparently have no clue that a green light means go (as opposed to "stay in place while you keep chatting on your phone"), maybe that should happen.Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polara.com%2Fimages%2Fnavfeat5.jpg&hash=849f6ce8b06219b77b7dccf81cba9e510e90573e)
What's next? Are they going to post signs explaining what red, yellow, and green indications mean?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: lordsutch on July 10, 2015, 12:37:49 AM
Post by: lordsutch on July 10, 2015, 12:37:49 AM
I know there's a technical report out there commissioned by AASHTO that proposes some pretty substantial revisions to the warrants for stop and yield signs and traffic signals. So that's a good bet for inclusion in the next revision.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 31, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 31, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
Another thing that has come to my mind that the FHWA may research into in the future is the legibility of dynamic message signs. While this probably won't be in the next MUTCD, I wonder if in the future will the FHWA require all new dynamic message signs to be of the full matrix variety with a minimum specified resolution or DPI. I have seen some photos of DMS used in Europe and many of them seem to be higher resolution than most used in the United States.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: UCFKnights on August 01, 2015, 10:55:05 AM
Post by: UCFKnights on August 01, 2015, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 31, 2015, 03:30:39 PMAll the newer ones seem to be much higher DPI. With the way the technology has developed, this problem seems to be well on its way to solving itself (as old units are replaced at least)
Another thing that has come to my mind that the FHWA may research into in the future is the legibility of dynamic message signs. While this probably won't be in the next MUTCD, I wonder if in the future will the FHWA require all new dynamic message signs to be of the full matrix variety with a minimum specified resolution or DPI. I have seen some photos of DMS used in Europe and many of them seem to be higher resolution than most used in the United States.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 01, 2015, 12:13:55 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 01, 2015, 12:13:55 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on August 01, 2015, 10:55:05 AM
All the newer ones seem to be much higher DPI. With the way the technology has developed, this problem seems to be well on its way to solving itself (as old units are replaced at least)
Fixed character matrix DMS are still the majority here in Arizona, and they aren't high DPI at all. Only recently is ADOT now specifying full matrix DMS (by Skyline Products) for on-freeway signs; fixed character matrix signs have been installed as recently as last year (the newest in the state being two at I-10 and Prince Road in Tucson) up until ADOT's prior contract with Daktronics expired.
In addition, ADOT has refurbished many of its first generation DMS (SYLVIA fiber-optic models) with internal LED lighting, and these will also remain in service for years to come.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:01:32 AM
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:01:32 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 05, 2015, 08:45:12 PM
That was the status quo prior to the 1970 MUTCD. Believe it or not, Series D is easier to read than C and B, which is why the wide shield was invented.
Not always. The Maryland part of I-495 (Capital Beltway) had wide (3di) shields from the time that the road was completed in 1964, almost identical to the Caltrans-spec I-405 shield upthread.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic? And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?
Current text (from here (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2b.htm)):
Current text (from here (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2b.htm)):
QuoteYIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on August 04, 2015, 03:40:30 AM
Post by: jakeroot on August 04, 2015, 03:40:30 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic? And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?
For stop signs that were clearly installed for speed control, do the jurisdictions publicly announce their purpose as being for speed control? I would think the majority of jurisdictions install stop signs with the expressed purpose of controlling traffic flow between two junctions, but actually (behind-the-scenes) install them because of speed control.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 06:15:57 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 06:15:57 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 04, 2015, 03:40:30 AMQuote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic? And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?
For stop signs that were clearly installed for speed control, do the jurisdictions publicly announce their purpose as being for speed control? I would think the majority of jurisdictions install stop signs with the expressed purpose of controlling traffic flow between two junctions, but actually (behind-the-scenes) install them because of speed control.
At least in NJ in any newspaper report I've seen, township officials will specifically state that they are put in for "pedestrian safety". Never mind the fact that the intersection doesn't have any marked crosswalks, curb cuts for ramps, etc. I've never been at a committee meeting where they have approved the stop signs, nor seen the minutes to the meetings though, but I'm sure they are careful not to mention anything regarding speed control.
Most residents, of course, want them for speed control, and have no clue that they can't be installed for such a reason.
I recall reading a newspaper story after a 4 way stop was installed, which quoted a resident saying how much easier it is to walk across the street now. Knowing the street she was talking about, I was left scratching my head, as when I drive down that street I rarely encounter another car. I really wonder how these reporters find these people.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: PHLBOS on August 04, 2015, 10:17:48 AM
Post by: PHLBOS on August 04, 2015, 10:17:48 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 04, 2015, 03:40:30 AMIn (at least) southeastern PA/Greater Philadelphia area; cities, townships & boroughs have made no qualms about erecting STOP signs along non-PennDOT roads for traffic calming/speed control reasons.Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2015, 12:10:20 AM
How about stronger language expressly forbidding the installation of STOP signs for purposes of traffic calming and to otherwise slow the flow of vehicular traffic? And mandating that those that have been installed for that purpose must be removed?
For stop signs that were clearly installed for speed control, do the jurisdictions publicly announce their purpose as being for speed control? I would think the majority of jurisdictions install stop signs with the expressed purpose of controlling traffic flow between two junctions, but actually (behind-the-scenes) install them because of speed control.
Nearly 20 years ago, Ridley Township (Delaware County) took back control of one stretch of PennDOT road (Franklin Ave., which was part of either SR 2010 or 2017) near where I live so that the township could indeed erect several STOP signs (including one at an intersection with a dead-end road) for such a purpose. The township originally requested PennDOT to do such; they refused for MUTCD reasons, so the township took back control of the road and the rest is history.
It's worth noting that when one gets pulled over for rolling through one of these particular STOP signs; they're usually ticketed not for failing to completely stop at a STOP sign but rather for ignoring a traffic-control device. The latter only involves a fine whereas the former involves a fine plus points on one's auto insurance. The ignoring a traffic control device reason is likely one way of reducing the likelihood of one challenging the citation on MUTCD grounds because the wording on said-citation does not include the words STOP Sign.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 23, 2015, 03:45:10 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 23, 2015, 03:45:10 PM
Sorry to bump, but I am wondering if the next MUTCD will change its rules on what signs can use Fluorescent Yellow-Green sheeting. The intended use of FYG remains controversial, since DOTs have debated whether it should be specific to school zones or if it should have the broader meaning of potential non-motorized traffic. The 2009 MUTCD was originally supposed to recommend its use over the standard yellow for pedestrian/bicycle/playground/wheelchair crossing signs, however, opposition by several DOTs demoted it to a simple option. Will the next MUTCD expand its use as an option for other types of non-motorized traffic (such as equestrian crossings), or will it limit its use only to school zones?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
Post by: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
Here's what I'd like to see:
The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.
All STOP signs on side streets intersecting with multi laned highways with a speed limit of 45 or higher shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches. NO larger. NO smaller.
Similarly, all STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches. NO larger. NO smaller.
The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.
All Advanced Street Name Plaques with one line shall be a minimum of 15 inches high, and 30 inches high for two lines.
The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.
All STOP signs on side streets intersecting with multi laned highways with a speed limit of 45 or higher shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches. NO larger. NO smaller.
Similarly, all STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches. NO larger. NO smaller.
The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.
All Advanced Street Name Plaques with one line shall be a minimum of 15 inches high, and 30 inches high for two lines.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 12:32:14 AM
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.
At least in terms of guide signs, I don't think the MUTCD would ever re-introduce all-caps street names and whatnot. From a distance, the halation from all-caps makes each word look like a green and white block, whereas mixed-case is more distinct, and easier to make out.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: odditude on February 18, 2016, 09:27:23 AM
Post by: odditude on February 18, 2016, 09:27:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 12:32:14 AMhe specifically said regulatory and warning signs, which are black on white or black on yellow and currently have all other text in all caps.Quote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.
At least in terms of guide signs, I don't think the MUTCD would ever re-introduce all-caps street names and whatnot. From a distance, the halation from all-caps makes each word look like a green and white block, whereas mixed-case is more distinct, and easier to make out.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on February 18, 2016, 10:52:40 AM
Post by: roadfro on February 18, 2016, 10:52:40 AM
Quote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.
I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone. A better option is to make posting the speed limit required with an End School Zone sign–2009 MUTCD Section 7B-15 & Figure 7B-5 indicate that a speed limit sign is optional on the same post as the End School Zone sign.
I've never liked the idea of general "Speed Zone" signage, and would agree that just posting speed limit signs would be better.
Quote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
All STOP signs on side streets intersecting with multi laned highways with a speed limit of 45 or higher shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches. NO larger. NO smaller.
Similarly, all STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches. NO larger. NO smaller.
I think we could do away with the 30×30" stop sign minimum on conventional roads except for constrained or extremely low traffic locations, like alleys. But I don't see what you have against the oversized (48×48") stop sign on a multi-lane approach...
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 12:32:14 AMQuote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.
At least in terms of guide signs, I don't think the MUTCD would ever re-introduce all-caps street names and whatnot. From a distance, the halation from all-caps makes each word look like a green and white block, whereas mixed-case is more distinct, and easier to make out.
Yeah, MUTCD isn't going back on this one. Instead, what I'd like to see for these plaques is using white on green instead of the black on yellow.
Nevada DOT used to use white on green for these, but has recently switched to black on yellow (coupled with the switch to mixed case). I now find the newer signs tougher to read at distance.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2016, 12:33:15 PM
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2016, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 18, 2016, 10:52:40 AMQuote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.
I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone.
At least here in NY, a standard speed limit sign marks the end of the school zone. You have the special school speed limit sign and then you pass the standard one at the end of the zone. The demarcation is already evident.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 12:37:11 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 12:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2016, 12:33:15 PMQuote from: roadfro on February 18, 2016, 10:52:40 AMQuote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.
I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone.
At least here in NY, a standard speed limit sign marks the end of the school zone. You have the special school speed limit sign and then you pass the standard one at the end of the zone. The demarcation is already evident.
Depends on jurisdiction. Many localities use "end school speed limit" almost exclusively. Very common in parts of Region 5.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2016, 12:41:45 PM
Post by: Rothman on February 18, 2016, 12:41:45 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 12:37:11 PMQuote from: Rothman on February 18, 2016, 12:33:15 PMQuote from: roadfro on February 18, 2016, 10:52:40 AMQuote from: mjb2002 on February 18, 2016, 12:13:11 AM
The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.
I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone.
At least here in NY, a standard speed limit sign marks the end of the school zone. You have the special school speed limit sign and then you pass the standard one at the end of the zone. The demarcation is already evident.
Depends on jurisdiction. Many localities use "end school speed limit" almost exclusively. Very common in parts of Region 5.
Heh. I knew I was going to get caught.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 07, 2015, 05:32:59 PMAs for some of the other ideas for a future MUTCD, if there's going to be an expanded use of APLs, I really hope they make them more "space-efficient" for the lack of a better term. Perhaps they can look at how California is implementing APLs and reduce the arrow heights from 66 (or 72) inches down to 42-45 inches.I, for one, would welcome that type of change (the arrow sizes) for APLs; especially for ones using vertical arrows (for straight-ahead movements). Such makes for ungainly large sign panels.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F180-41_ca-apl_v2.png&hash=0a7568b13287e3a9c615e871fe0ccb5cc4e58826)
FWIW, those are 120" tall sign panels.
Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.
(MassDOT example shown below):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fmassachusetts%2Fimages%2Fma128bgs450812a.jpg&hash=9255a57f4be2f7406634f717f3d6954f3bb07d0d)
IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.
For comparison purposes, the current MUTCD LEFT EXIT tab design example in CT:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wUdFj9Es3xo%2FVgK8o4exiUI%2FAAAAAAABK6E%2F0nkeXxa4CQs%2Fs1600%2FSAM_1569.JPG&hash=ede69eff6c4b861d5a6f337b67b8b3a397a86fd3)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:18:22 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:18:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.
(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg
IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.
Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSFswpjI.png&hash=8ee0d9485cd7a57eeba1b6758d6d3b100d03ed37)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 18, 2016, 06:37:38 PM
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 18, 2016, 06:37:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:18:22 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.
(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg
IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.
Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSFswpjI.png&hash=8ee0d9485cd7a57eeba1b6758d6d3b100d03ed37)
Washington is a poor example, since we use full-width tabs anyway. But anywhere else, by putting it all in one line so that it takes the whole width of the sign, you lose the visual cue that you'd otherwise have with a left-side tab. Having the yellow highlight on the left side helps mitigate that somewhat, but could also make it worse, since it puts the green part of the exit tab on the right side. So I can see how states not named Washington (and Georgia?) would prefer a double-height half-width tab for consistency.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:47:04 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:47:04 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 18, 2016, 06:37:38 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:18:22 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.
(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg
IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.
Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:
http://i.imgur.com/SFswpjI.png
Washington is a poor example, since we use full-width tabs anyway. But anywhere else, by putting it all in one line so that it takes the whole width of the sign, you lose the visual cue that you'd otherwise have with a left-side tab. Having the yellow highlight on the left side helps mitigate that somewhat, but could also make it worse, since it puts the green part of the exit tab on the right side. So I can see how states not named Washington (and Georgia?) would prefer a double-height half-width tab for consistency.
The placement of the sign over the left edge of the carriageway, the word "LEFT" next to the exit number, plus exit-only markings on the ground, should be enough to clue people in to the situation, to the point where the yellow sticker is hardly necessary at all, certainly not worthy of its own horizontal row.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 08:05:25 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 08:05:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:47:04 PMQuote from: Kacie Jane on February 18, 2016, 06:37:38 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:18:22 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.
(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg
IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.
Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:
http://i.imgur.com/SFswpjI.png
Washington is a poor example, since we use full-width tabs anyway. But anywhere else, by putting it all in one line so that it takes the whole width of the sign, you lose the visual cue that you'd otherwise have with a left-side tab. Having the yellow highlight on the left side helps mitigate that somewhat, but could also make it worse, since it puts the green part of the exit tab on the right side. So I can see how states not named Washington (and Georgia?) would prefer a double-height half-width tab for consistency.
The placement of the sign over the left edge of the carriageway, the word "LEFT" next to the exit number, plus exit-only markings on the ground, should be enough to clue people in to the situation, to the point where the yellow sticker is hardly necessary at all, certainly not worthy of its own horizontal row.
Fact is that it isn't, especially because left exit signage is not always mounted overhead. In some cases, it is ground-mounted on the right (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7271675,-73.8913587,3a,41.3y,142.98h,90.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5prCy03PUfpbLRwqbYIZ6g!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656). The left tab highlights that it is a left exit.
Still, the double-height is a better visual indicator than having it on the same row. Left exits should be as obvious as possible.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 08:49:52 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 08:05:25 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:47:04 PM
The placement of the sign over the left edge of the carriageway, the word "LEFT" next to the exit number, plus exit-only markings on the ground, should be enough to clue people in to the situation, to the point where the yellow sticker is hardly necessary at all, certainly not worthy of its own horizontal row.
Fact is that it isn't, especially because left exit signage is not always mounted overhead. In some cases, it is ground-mounted on the right (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7271675,-73.8913587,3a,41.3y,142.98h,90.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5prCy03PUfpbLRwqbYIZ6g!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656). The left tab highlights that it is a left exit.
Still, the double-height is a better visual indicator than having it on the same row. Left exits should be as obvious as possible.
Is there really any evidence to suggest that the double-height tab provides any benefit? My argument here is that the benefit is negligible at best, thus the placement of the "LEFT" plaque is a matter of aesthetic preference. FWIW, I'm not arguing against the use of the yellow -- which I think is a great idea -- but rather the placement of the yellow box. IMO, the plaque color is by far and away the most important part of signing a left exit, not the location of said plaque.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 19, 2016, 12:00:39 AM
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 19, 2016, 12:00:39 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 08:49:52 PM
IMO, the plaque color is by far and away the most important part of signing a left exit, not the location of said plaque.
Because you're used to Washington signage. And if we're comparing it to other full-width tabs, then sure, it works fine.
But when you compare it to other states' signage, not so much. If you squint at your photo (imagine you're driving, and it's the first time you see it up in the distance) and maybe ignore the exit only plaque (pretend it's a one mile advance instead), then it looks like it's for a right-side exit, since the EXIT 167 with the green background is in the right just like it would be for a right-side exit.
So it's plausible to me at least that it might even be worse than the old style: a left-side exit tab with no yellow plaque.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Scott5114 on February 19, 2016, 01:27:24 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on February 19, 2016, 01:27:24 AM
A few tabs in Lawton came out with the stacked "LEFT/EXIT ##" but for whatever reason the entire tab is yellow. It doesn't look as hideous as you think it would. Don't get me wrong, it looks hideous, but that's more to do with the badly-aligned negative-contrast Clearview.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: mgk920 on February 20, 2016, 11:30:10 AM
Post by: mgk920 on February 20, 2016, 11:30:10 AM
Another that I want to see:
- Unless impossible due to physical limitations at the signal site, make black backplates with retroreflective yellow outlines mandatory on traffic signals (they are now optional).
Mike
- Unless impossible due to physical limitations at the signal site, make black backplates with retroreflective yellow outlines mandatory on traffic signals (they are now optional).
Mike
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on February 20, 2016, 01:06:42 PM
Post by: roadfro on February 20, 2016, 01:06:42 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2016, 11:30:10 AM
Unless impossible due to physical limitations at the signal site, make black backplates with retroreflective yellow outlines mandatory on traffic signals (they are now optional).
First, you'd have to make backplates mandatory. There are still many jurisdictions that don't have them...especially on span-wire installations.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Scott5114 on February 20, 2016, 01:53:17 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on February 20, 2016, 01:53:17 PM
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Enhanced E-Modified were added as at least an option.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on February 20, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 20, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 20, 2016, 01:06:42 PMQuote from: mgk920 on February 20, 2016, 11:30:10 AM
Unless impossible due to physical limitations at the signal site, make black backplates with retroreflective yellow outlines mandatory on traffic signals (they are now optional).
First, you'd have to make backplates mandatory. There are still many jurisdictions that don't have them...especially on span-wire installations.
A surprising amount of places are switching over. Quite a few state DOTs went from almost no backplates to retroreflective within the past few years. New York and Ohio are two of the most striking examples. It wouldn't be that much of an issue to make them mandatory on new installations (wire/pole gets replaced).
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 20, 2016, 07:34:13 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 20, 2016, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2016, 01:53:17 PM
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Enhanced E-Modified were added as at least an option.
I'd expect it would go through the Interim Approval process for review before it gets added into the MUTCD. It probably won't make it into the next MUTCD.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Scott5114 on February 21, 2016, 11:46:26 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on February 21, 2016, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 20, 2016, 07:34:13 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2016, 01:53:17 PM
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Enhanced E-Modified were added as at least an option.
I'd expect it would go through the Interim Approval process for review before it gets added into the MUTCD. It probably won't make it into the next MUTCD.
That would probably be unnecessary. Unlike Clearview, the Series E glyphs are already in the manual and have been for thirteen years.
Not everything goes through an IA before ending up in the manual. APLs didn't, IIRC.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: thenetwork on February 21, 2016, 12:06:24 PM
Post by: thenetwork on February 21, 2016, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 17, 2015, 01:34:30 PM
Canada's yield and one way signs omit the wording "yield" and "one way"; I can see it happening in the US, though it doesn't really matter either way.
Another sign that can go text free is the RAILROAD CROSSING words on the crossbucks. The only place you see those are at railroad crossings, and the circular RxR signs ahead of the tracks are pretty much stating the same thing. A plain, white crossbuck with red borders is sufficient.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 12:37:02 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 12:37:02 PM
I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs. After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: SectorZ on February 21, 2016, 01:38:37 PM
Post by: SectorZ on February 21, 2016, 01:38:37 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 12:37:02 PM
I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs. After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.
Is this wishful thinking?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 01:44:36 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 21, 2016, 01:38:37 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 12:37:02 PM
I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs. After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.
Is this wishful thinking?
Well, Fluorescent Yellow-Green was finally mandated for school zone signs after many years of use in the 2009 MUTCD, and I wonder how will the next MUTCD address the usage of FYG for Pedestrian/Bicycle/Playground signs. Originally in the 2009 MUTCD it was supposed to be a recommendation rather than an option, however, there was some opposition by some DOTs preferring it to be used exclusively for school zones, thus it was relegated to an option.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 21, 2016, 03:51:54 PM
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 21, 2016, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 12:37:02 PM
I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs. After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.
Why though? I mean, they're both meant for temporary situations. Just because an "incident" is typically more temporary than construction, I don't really see why it needs a separate color?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 21, 2016, 03:55:47 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 21, 2016, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 21, 2016, 03:51:54 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 12:37:02 PM
I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs. After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.
Why though? I mean, they're both meant for temporary situations. Just because an "incident" is typically more temporary than construction, I don't really see why it needs a separate color?
I agree. And on top of that, I'm not convinced that people won't go into "gawking" mode when they see pink signs, because they know shit's going down.
Title: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 22, 2016, 09:41:12 AM
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 22, 2016, 09:41:12 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 01:44:36 PMQuote from: SectorZ on February 21, 2016, 01:38:37 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on February 21, 2016, 12:37:02 PM
I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs. After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.
Is this wishful thinking?
Well, Fluorescent Yellow-Green was finally mandated for school zone signs after many years of use in the 2009 MUTCD, and I wonder how will the next MUTCD address the usage of FYG for Pedestrian/Bicycle/Playground signs. Originally in the 2009 MUTCD it was supposed to be a recommendation rather than an option, however, there was some opposition by some DOTs preferring it to be used exclusively for school zones, thus it was relegated to an option.
Poll the general public and see how many know the greener variety of yellow means something different from the standard variety.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2016, 06:18:22 PM
Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSFswpjI.png&hash=8ee0d9485cd7a57eeba1b6758d6d3b100d03ed37)
THANK YOU. IKR? Then you can read it as "Left Exit" like it's one complete thought. And not "LEFT!" "EXIT!"
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons should be banned. I have problems with flashing lights and I'd prefer not to get a seizure. Or else put a separate post that says "Seizure warning" 500ft in advance of every LED flashing sign. :ded:
On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging. Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them. Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Mr_Northside on February 24, 2016, 05:20:54 PM
Post by: Mr_Northside on February 24, 2016, 05:20:54 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging. Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them. Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq
I think I like that well enough.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 24, 2016, 06:35:43 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 24, 2016, 06:35:43 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 24, 2016, 05:20:54 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging. Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them. Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq
I think I like that well enough.
Not sure, it's an interesting concept and the sign at least looks presentable for being homemade. But, I don't see any advantage to just the existing standard options.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 24, 2016, 06:53:16 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 24, 2016, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 24, 2016, 06:35:43 PMQuote from: Mr_Northside on February 24, 2016, 05:20:54 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging. Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them. Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq
I think I like that well enough.
Not sure, it's an interesting concept and the sign at least looks presentable for being homemade. But, I don't see any advantage to just the existing standard options.
The prime advantage is being able to prevent the non-merge lane from being flooded with traffic, and the dropped lane being wide open until the actual merge point.
Not long ago, during some construction along I-90 near Seattle, there was really bad traffic near the lane-drop zone because drivers refused to wait and merge (so everyone used one lane instead of two). WSDOT did a PR campaign shortly after the construction began, encouraging drivers to wait and merge at the merge point, and to use the zipper method: http://goo.gl/13dqZu
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Revive 755 on February 24, 2016, 09:43:41 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on February 24, 2016, 09:43:41 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging. Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them. Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq
IMHO that sign is unclear - it might be better to modify than standard lane ends symbol sign a put a 'take turns' plaque beneath it.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 11:13:19 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 11:13:19 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 24, 2016, 09:43:41 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging. Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them. Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq
IMHO that sign is unclear - it might be better to modify than standard lane ends symbol sign a put a 'take turns' plaque beneath it.
The thing is, if you're going to put up a sign specifying a zipper-merge, you also must install the right facilities and traffic control to accommodate this. You need to have two lanes merge toward a single lane in the middle, as opposed to having a clear "ending lane" and a "continuing lane," and that's exactly what Maine has done in this case and many others.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6986087,-73.7388027,3a,46.8y,311.28h,82.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtS1BmHu1hXn7dj4AUeTlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) if both lanes have equal priority.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 01:42:46 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 11:13:19 PMQuote from: Revive 755 on February 24, 2016, 09:43:41 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on February 24, 2016, 04:33:03 PM
On a lighter note, since "zipper merging" seems to be the way of the future, I would like to see more of these merge signs revamped to specifically suggest zipper merging. Maine is the only state where I've seen them so far, and I was rather fascinated by them. Pretty cool! https://goo.gl/maps/1mFVyF6MoZq
IMHO that sign is unclear - it might be better to modify than standard lane ends symbol sign a put a 'take turns' plaque beneath it.
The thing is, if you're going to put up a sign specifying a zipper-merge, you also must install the right facilities and traffic control to accommodate this. You need to have two lanes merge toward a single lane in the middle, as opposed to having a clear "ending lane" and a "continuing lane," and that's exactly what Maine has done in this case and many others.
Usually it's the motorists that screw it up. In places where zipper merging has taken place for years, nearly everyone gets along fine. It's just the 1 or 2 guys that wants to make things difficult that screws it up. And that guy will mess everything up, no matter what the issue is.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 01:54:54 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6986087,-73.7388027,3a,46.8y,311.28h,82.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtS1BmHu1hXn7dj4AUeTlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) if both lanes have equal priority.
I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:23:27 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 01:54:54 PMQuote from: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6986087,-73.7388027,3a,46.8y,311.28h,82.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtS1BmHu1hXn7dj4AUeTlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) if both lanes have equal priority.
I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.
The old versions didn't have dotted lines. The newer versions do.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 03:11:01 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 03:11:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:23:27 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 01:54:54 PMQuote from: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6986087,-73.7388027,3a,46.8y,311.28h,82.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtS1BmHu1hXn7dj4AUeTlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) if both lanes have equal priority.
I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.
The old versions didn't have dotted lines. The newer versions do.
The dashed lines I think were added in the 2003 MUTCD.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 25, 2016, 03:49:47 PM
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 25, 2016, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 01:42:46 PM
Usually it's the motorists that screw it up. In places where zipper merging has taken place for years, nearly everyone gets along fine. It's just the 1 or 2 guys that wants to make things difficult that screws it up. And that guy will mess everything up, no matter what the issue is.
Oh don't I know it. I'm from the Chicago area. Every rush hour is packed with douches trying to screw up merges with their self-entitlement. And it's pretty impractical to believe it can be enforced by law. But if there's a way to help make zipper merging common practice, I'm all for it. It's been proven to improve the efficiency of flow, and it makes sense!
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 06:01:45 PM
Post by: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 06:01:45 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 03:11:01 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:23:27 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 01:54:54 PMQuote from: cl94 on February 25, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
Or be like New York and just use a sign in the MUTCD (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6986087,-73.7388027,3a,46.8y,311.28h,82.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtS1BmHu1hXn7dj4AUeTlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) if both lanes have equal priority.
I thought that was a "Road Narrows" sign. I'd change that sign a little by adding some dotted lines to indicate dual lanes.
The old versions didn't have dotted lines. The newer versions do.
The dashed lines I think were added in the 2003 MUTCD.
Correct. A lot of places, at least out here, didn't start using them until after the 2009 Edition.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 08:51:49 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 08:51:49 PM
Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS". The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 09:21:40 PM
Post by: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 08:51:49 PM
Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS". The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2F4%2F2%2F8%2F8%2F1206572314532451960johnny_automatic_NPS_map_pictographs_part_31.svg.med.png&hash=d94d7d2b4967088d8dc0dcfcd11c275f91d73091)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 10:17:14 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 10:17:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 09:21:40 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 08:51:49 PM
Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS". The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2F4%2F2%2F8%2F8%2F1206572314532451960johnny_automatic_NPS_map_pictographs_part_31.svg.med.png&hash=d94d7d2b4967088d8dc0dcfcd11c275f91d73091)
I don't think we will see symbols on logo signs anytime soon. This would require DOTs to introduce new signing plans for logo signs, and could make logo signs much larger especially if they contain multiple service types.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on February 26, 2016, 12:14:52 AM
Post by: jakeroot on February 26, 2016, 12:14:52 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 10:17:14 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 09:21:40 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 08:51:49 PM
Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS". The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2F4%2F2%2F8%2F8%2F1206572314532451960johnny_automatic_NPS_map_pictographs_part_31.svg.med.png&hash=d94d7d2b4967088d8dc0dcfcd11c275f91d73091)
I don't think we will see symbols on logo signs anytime soon. This would require DOTs to introduce new signing plans for logo signs, and could make logo signs much larger especially if they contain multiple service types.
1) I don't think creating new signing plans is something that DOTs consider taxing, especially if there's a proven benefit.
2) I see no reason to believe that logo signs would be any larger with symbols for services. See my concept here: http://imgur.com/EW9YMW7
3) Logo signs are all about logos, no? It seems ass-backwards, then, to mandate the use of text to represent the service type. If the signs are all about logos, wouldn't it be logical to also use a logo to represent the service type?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: thenetwork on February 26, 2016, 12:28:47 AM
Post by: thenetwork on February 26, 2016, 12:28:47 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 10:17:14 PMQuote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2016, 09:21:40 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2016, 08:51:49 PM
Also, for logo signs, I wonder if the "FUEL" service type will become an option as an alternative to "GAS". The latest California MUTCD now requires that "FUEL" be used instead of "GAS", and with the greater use of diesel and alternative fuels (CNG, E85, etc.), I wonder if it will become an option in the national MUTCD.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2F4%2F2%2F8%2F8%2F1206572314532451960johnny_automatic_NPS_map_pictographs_part_31.svg.med.png&hash=d94d7d2b4967088d8dc0dcfcd11c275f91d73091)
I don't think we will see symbols on logo signs anytime soon. This would require DOTs to introduce new signing plans for logo signs, and could make logo signs much larger especially if they contain multiple service types.
For example, in Colorado, many exits have both full-blown BBS logo signs as well as smaller Gas/Food/Lodging/Telephone/Hospital/etc... assemblies on one post. If there is diesel available at the exit they will put a "D" on the gas pump on the Fuel sign and some of the logo signs will have Diesel or 24 Hours within their individual signs.
The only time I have seen blue alternative fuel signs was off the interstate. IIRC, it was for a CNG facility, but I don't remember where. I have not seen any for E-85 or electric recharge stations.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 26, 2016, 11:40:07 AM
Post by: paulthemapguy on February 26, 2016, 11:40:07 AM
I thought fluorescent yellow-green (FYG) was originally referred to by the MUTCD as "chartreuse"? Have they changed it to a more "professional" (read: longer) name?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on February 27, 2016, 12:42:21 PM
Post by: roadfro on February 27, 2016, 12:42:21 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 26, 2016, 11:40:07 AM
I thought fluorescent yellow-green (FYG) was originally referred to by the MUTCD as "chartreuse"? Have they changed it to a more "professional" (read: longer) name?
Going back to the 2000 Millennium Edition, the section on sign colors calls it Fluorescent Yellow Green/FYG. I don't think "chartreuse" was ever used in the manual.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Jet380 on March 19, 2016, 09:38:48 AM
Post by: Jet380 on March 19, 2016, 09:38:48 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 18, 2015, 08:13:21 PMQuote from: lordsutch on May 18, 2015, 01:53:56 PMQuote from: mgk920 on May 17, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
I don't know if they will be adopted, but a few that I'd like to see include: ...
-Require the use of three arrow 'roundabout' symbol signs below the leftmost YIELD signs at roundabout entrances (here in Wisconsin, standard 'ONE WAY' signs are used); ...
-Begin transition to the European rule of 'signs govern when signals are dark' for stop and go lights, including introducing the European-style 'you have priority' sign - it seems like fewer and fewer USA drivers know how to handle dark signals :rolleyes: .
I like most of Mike's ideas from the original post. For roundabout yield signs, I wonder if the Aussie-style sign (yield with a roundabout symbol inside) might be superior and reduce sign clutter; MUTCD's roundabout signage is very busy as-is.
I'm not sure adding stop, yield, and priority signs to signals will do anything except confuse American drivers during the 99.9% of time they're working. Better to improve the battery backup and do a better job educating drivers on what flashing red and yellow mean.
That said, maybe a "WHEN 🚦 FLASHING OR NOT WORKING" plaque could be added to the standard stop sign and tested for effectiveness.
Or "WHEN SIGNALS ARE DARK", which was my thought, similar to the instruction signs on signal standards with the new 'flashing left yellow arrow' aspects.
Mike
Or they could use a 'holey stop' sign like we have in Australia:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austlii.edu.au%2Fau%2Flegis%2Fsa%2Fconsol_reg%2Fimages%2F2014.205.un43.jpg&hash=bfeacdb7a7023e789d65d44ff5eca837b4eb8482)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Revive 755 on March 19, 2016, 11:55:06 AM
Post by: Revive 755 on March 19, 2016, 11:55:06 AM
^ Looks too much like someone just tagged the sign. Might be better to figure out a way to use folding stop signs that flip open when the signals fail.
Given that lately it seems many drivers cannot figure out that they can turn on a green arrow if there is a circular red being displayed in the same signal head, particularly with right turns, I would certainly like to see stronger consideration if not a new shall statement requiring separate signal heads for turns (where feasible) in the next edition. The issue is particularly problematic if there is a 'no turn on red' sign at the intersection; the driver being honked at for not turning on the overlap with the green arrow will still refuse to move and just point at the 'no turn on red' sign. Though I suppose the latter case could be solved by using a blank out sign for the right on red restriction in lieu of a separate signal head.
Given that lately it seems many drivers cannot figure out that they can turn on a green arrow if there is a circular red being displayed in the same signal head, particularly with right turns, I would certainly like to see stronger consideration if not a new shall statement requiring separate signal heads for turns (where feasible) in the next edition. The issue is particularly problematic if there is a 'no turn on red' sign at the intersection; the driver being honked at for not turning on the overlap with the green arrow will still refuse to move and just point at the 'no turn on red' sign. Though I suppose the latter case could be solved by using a blank out sign for the right on red restriction in lieu of a separate signal head.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on March 19, 2016, 08:25:23 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 19, 2016, 08:25:23 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 19, 2016, 11:55:06 AM
Given that lately it seems many drivers cannot figure out that they can turn on a green arrow if there is a circular red being displayed in the same signal head, particularly with right turns, I would certainly like to see stronger consideration if not a new shall statement requiring separate signal heads for turns (where feasible) in the next edition. The issue is particularly problematic if there is a 'no turn on red' sign at the intersection; the driver being honked at for not turning on the overlap with the green arrow will still refuse to move and just point at the 'no turn on red' sign. Though I suppose the latter case could be solved by using a blank out sign for the right on red restriction in lieu of a separate signal head.
My only fear with separate signals for turn lanes is that you tend to lose out on the secondary (mast-mounted) signals. To circumvent this, I propose a setup where the signals are separated into two, and placed on separate sides of the mast.
Note that the far-left and far-right turn signal heads are mounted near-side.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLEB59jK.png&hash=4dd0c629742b4e90543ebd4e4cf4053e072db0ee)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on October 24, 2016, 03:23:21 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on October 24, 2016, 03:23:21 PM
Sorry to bump, but while I don't think this will make it into the next MUTCD, one thing that I think the FHWA should at least consider is to mandate that all new dynamic message signs use full matrix layouts. Full matrix DMS are capable of providing more legible messages than fixed character matrix or line matrix DMS due to their capability to display fonts in various widths and heights. Plus, due to improving technology the cost difference between a full matrix DMS vs. the other types has been getting smaller to the point where some manufacturers no longer produce the other types.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on October 24, 2016, 03:32:47 PM
Post by: cl94 on October 24, 2016, 03:32:47 PM
Since this thread was bumped, I created a thread for the newest interim approval, bicycle boxes, issued this month. Barring major issues, it will likely be in the next MUTCD.
Link: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19069.0
Link: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19069.0
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: vtk on October 26, 2016, 05:32:43 PM
Post by: vtk on October 26, 2016, 05:32:43 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on October 24, 2016, 03:23:21 PM
Sorry to bump, but while I don't think this will make it into the next MUTCD, one thing that I think the FHWA should at least consider is to mandate that all new dynamic message signs use full matrix layouts. Full matrix DMS are capable of providing more legible messages than fixed character matrix or line matrix DMS due to their capability to display fonts in various widths and heights. Plus, due to improving technology the cost difference between a full matrix DMS vs. the other types has been getting smaller to the point where some manufacturers no longer produce the other types.
Plus, most of the character-cell displays I've seen are 3 lines of a mere 8 characters each, which makes it very difficult to arrange messages in a useful manner according to MUTCD pagination guidance.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: hbelkins on October 26, 2016, 10:37:39 PM
Post by: hbelkins on October 26, 2016, 10:37:39 PM
Quote from: vtk on October 26, 2016, 05:32:43 PM
Plus, most of the character-cell displays I've seen are 3 lines of a mere 8 characters each, which makes it very difficult to arrange messages in a useful manner according to MUTCD pagination guidance.
Those are the portable ones. All the overhead ones I've seen have a lot more space.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 21, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 21, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
Since it is 2017, here is an overview on what I think what will make it into the next MUTCD:
Most definitely
- Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.
- Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.
- Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons.
- Green-colored pavement for bicycle lanes.
- Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2017, 11:05:46 PM
Post by: cl94 on March 21, 2017, 11:05:46 PM
RRFBs will almost certainly be in there. Those seem to be very popular, at least in the northeast. They have overtaken other methods as the main crosswalk warning devices. RRFBs probably weren't included because they hadn't actually been trialed by publication time. Basically, I expect every pre-2015 IA to make it in.
Speaking of IAs, new one issued in February for an alternate Warrant 7: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia19/index.htm
Speaking of IAs, new one issued in February for an alternate Warrant 7: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia19/index.htm
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 12:09:28 AM
Post by: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 12:09:28 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 21, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
Since it is 2017, here is an overview on what I think what will make it into the next MUTCD:
Most definitelyProbably
- Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.
- Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.
Possibly
- Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons.
About minimum retroreflectivity values, I wonder if there will ever be any studies on Purple sheeting. Blue and Brown are currently exempt but studies have since been completed and will most definitely make it into the next MUTCD.
- Green-colored pavement for bicycle lanes.
- Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).
My revisions to the lists:
Most definitely
- Green-colored pavement for bicycle lanes.
- Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).
- Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons.
- Orange construction zone pavement markings
- Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.
- Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.
As far as the FYA in the middle section, that is being tested, and IMO, should have been done a long time ago. Creating a separate section for the FYA always seemed unnecessary to me, since the red section can already be steady or flashing without any confusion. Why should yellow be any different?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2017, 12:13:44 AM
Post by: cl94 on March 22, 2017, 12:13:44 AM
Orange pavement markings probably won't be in there because there hasn't even been an IA. Major changes like that normally go through the IA process. Of course, I could be wrong and the Milwaukee test could be enough for them.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2017, 12:45:45 AM
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2017, 12:45:45 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 12:09:28 AMQuote from: Pink Jazz on March 21, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
- Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).
- Flashing Yellow Arrow in center section of 3-section signals (same position as steady yellow arrow).
(Quoting both because you both included it on your list)
Isn't the placement of the FYA in the center inferior to a green arrow / FYA bi-modal setup? I was always taught that placing the FYA in the middle was avoided, because the change from flashing to steady wasn't obvious enough.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 01:06:48 AM
Post by: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 01:06:48 AM
As far as I am aware, bimodal arrow configurations were not a part of the testing, only GA, YA/FYA, RA vs. GA, FYA, YA, RA configurations. And according to initial research, the steady/FYA indications sharing the same section hasn't shown the confusion I and some of the other researchers were expecting to see happen.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadfro on March 22, 2017, 03:41:27 AM
Post by: roadfro on March 22, 2017, 03:41:27 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 12:09:28 AMQuote from: Pink Jazz on March 21, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
Most definitely
- Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.
Possibly
- Purple pavement markings for electronic toll lanes.
Purple longitudinal lines are already allowed in the MUTCD, in supplement (an "outline" if you will) to the standard white lane line or white/yellow edge line, for lanes designated for ETC-only vehicles at toll plazas. Are you both suggesting expanding this to ETC lanes outside of toll plaza areas (as in along the full length of a tolled lane)?
Edited to remove errant list tag
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 22, 2017, 06:35:32 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 22, 2017, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 12:09:28 AM
Possibly
- Minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown signs.
Testing has already been completed and the minimum recommended retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown are already available, although they are not officially standard yet. I definitely see them becoming standard in the next MUTCD. The reason why they weren't included in the 2009 MUTCD is that testing wasn't completed on time for those sheeting colors at the time the 2009 MUTCD was published. Considering that testing has been complete for a while now, I highly doubt the FHWA would slack on this issue.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2017, 06:42:53 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2017, 06:42:53 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on March 22, 2017, 01:06:48 AM
As far as I am aware, bimodal arrow configurations were not a part of the testing, only GA, YA/FYA, RA vs. GA, FYA, YA, RA configurations. And according to initial research, the steady/FYA indications sharing the same section hasn't shown the confusion I and some of the other researchers were expecting to see happen.
That's good to hear, because a lot of FYAs in the middle lens were showing up around here. Of course, if the MUTCD mandated secondary signals for left turns, peripheral visibility (what you need to notice changes like flashing to steady) wouldn't be such a big deal (especially when you're waiting in the middle of the intersection -- signals at eye level are much easier to see from that position).
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 23, 2017, 03:13:56 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 23, 2017, 03:13:56 PM
As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD. I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.
Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD. However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.
Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD. However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: billpa on March 23, 2017, 03:52:09 PM
Post by: billpa on March 23, 2017, 03:52:09 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 23, 2017, 03:13:56 PMI hope we see more pavement markings in this country. I find information on road surfaces tend to convey important information in a way that's clearer and absorbed faster while driving in unfamiliar areas. I think colors can be very useful in explaining changing conditions.
As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD. I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.
Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD. However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.
HTC6525LVW
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 04:31:25 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 04:31:25 PM
Quote from: billpa on March 23, 2017, 03:52:09 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on March 23, 2017, 03:13:56 PMI hope we see more pavement markings in this country. I find information on road surfaces tend to convey important information in a way that's clearer and absorbed faster while driving in unfamiliar areas. I think colors can be very useful in explaining changing conditions.
As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD. I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.
Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD. However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.
inb4 Brandon complaining about snow plows ripping up markings, etc.
I concur with the idea that we need more pavement markings. We don't want to over-feed drivers with information, but there are areas where improvements are needed. The best example I can think of is/are yield situations. Why do roundabouts get guidelines and sharks teeth but so few slip lanes (like those that cut off intersections) have no markings at all? Drivers should be able to recognise a yield situation purely by the markings.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: billpa on March 23, 2017, 04:42:46 PM
Post by: billpa on March 23, 2017, 04:42:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 04:31:25 PMAgreed. I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.Quote from: billpa on March 23, 2017, 03:52:09 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on March 23, 2017, 03:13:56 PMI hope we see more pavement markings in this country. I find information on road surfaces tend to convey important information in a way that's clearer and absorbed faster while driving in unfamiliar areas. I think colors can be very useful in explaining changing conditions.
As for orange pavement markings, I have doubts that will make it into the next MUTCD. I expect we might see an interim approval soon though.
Also, probably the bicycle signal faces will make it into the next MUTCD. However, I am not sure if intersection bike boxes will make it into the next MUTCD, since this IA was granted as recently as last year.
inb4 Brandon complaining about snow plows ripping up markings, etc.
I concur with the idea that we need more pavement markings. We don't want to over-feed drivers with information, but there are areas where improvements are needed. The best example I can think of is/are yield situations. Why do roundabouts get guidelines and sharks teeth but so few slip lanes (like those that cut off intersections) have no markings at all? Drivers should be able to recognise a yield situation purely by the markings.
SM-T230NU
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Rothman on March 23, 2017, 06:38:52 PM
Post by: Rothman on March 23, 2017, 06:38:52 PM
Regarding pavement markings, although the theory sounds good, most drivers probably don't know why the left shoulders on the highway are yellow while the right shoulders are white.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 07:09:57 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 07:09:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 23, 2017, 06:38:52 PM
Regarding pavement markings, although the theory sounds good, most drivers probably don't know why the left shoulders on the highway are yellow while the right shoulders are white.
Because no one gives a shit. There's no chance of driving into the oncoming lane on a freeway. But most pavement markings are well understood because they generally come into play at some point driving between A and B. Certainly, adding confusing pavement markings serve no purpose. Any new markings should be thoroughly tested.
Quote from: billpa on March 23, 2017, 04:42:46 PM
I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.
Route numbers/shields on the pavement are very much a thing already. Route numbers + city names might be better at roundabouts. Here's some town names painted on the pavement near Gig Harbor, WA (approaching one of the Borgen Blvd roundabouts):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft74WOwH.png&hash=907e8e192361f2ddc280dd969c528e70ccab2112)
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 23, 2017, 07:49:05 PM
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 23, 2017, 07:49:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 07:09:57 PMQuote from: billpa on March 23, 2017, 04:42:46 PM
I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.
Route numbers/shields on the pavement are very much a thing already. Route numbers + city names might be better at roundabouts. Here's some town names painted on the pavement near Gig Harbor, WA (approaching one of the Borgen Blvd roundabouts):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft74WOwH.png&hash=907e8e192361f2ddc280dd969c528e70ccab2112)
Based on the left turn destination's spelling, those literally are British-like directions.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 08:05:56 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 08:05:56 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 23, 2017, 07:49:05 PMQuote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2017, 07:09:57 PMQuote from: billpa on March 23, 2017, 04:42:46 PM
I would also like to see more British-like directions at intersections where there are several lanes; route numbers or town/city destinations.
Route numbers/shields on the pavement are very much a thing already. Route numbers + city names might be better at roundabouts. Here's some town names painted on the pavement near Gig Harbor, WA (approaching one of the Borgen Blvd roundabouts):
http://i.imgur.com/t74WOwH.png
Based on the left turn destination's spelling, those literally are British-like directions.
Funny you'd mention that. Gig Harbor's Public Works director is British, so he spelled it that way on purpose. Also note the "top to bottom" orientation of the words. Another British road trait.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 24, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 24, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
While it is almost certain that the next MUTCD will standardize the already-published minimum retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown sheeting, I wonder if there will ever be any studies on Purple sheeting, which is also exempt. It probably won't make it into the next MUTCD since there have been no studies.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2018 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 24, 2017, 10:46:25 AM
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 24, 2017, 10:46:25 AM
Note that the next MUTCD has been delayed to 2018.
One thing that I wonder why the MUTCD doesn't address are street name suffix abbreviations. Many cities use non-standard abbreviations for street name suffixes (example: LA instead of LN for "Lane"). Why doesn't the MUTCD mandate that street name signs use USPS standard abbreviations for street name suffixes?
One thing that I wonder why the MUTCD doesn't address are street name suffix abbreviations. Many cities use non-standard abbreviations for street name suffixes (example: LA instead of LN for "Lane"). Why doesn't the MUTCD mandate that street name signs use USPS standard abbreviations for street name suffixes?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2018 or later)?
Post by: myosh_tino on May 24, 2017, 12:00:27 PM
Post by: myosh_tino on May 24, 2017, 12:00:27 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 24, 2017, 10:46:25 AM
One thing that I wonder why the MUTCD doesn't address are street name suffix abbreviations. Many cities use non-standard abbreviations for street name suffixes (example: LA instead of LN for "Lane"). Why doesn't the MUTCD mandate that street name signs use USPS standard abbreviations for street name suffixes?
Because drivers aren't looking for a street name suffix but rather the street name itself.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2018 or later)?
Post by: DaBigE on May 24, 2017, 12:36:24 PM
Post by: DaBigE on May 24, 2017, 12:36:24 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 24, 2017, 10:46:25 AM
Note that the next MUTCD has been delayed to 2018.
One thing that I wonder why the MUTCD doesn't address are street name suffix abbreviations. Many cities use non-standard abbreviations for street name suffixes (example: LA instead of LN for "Lane"). Why doesn't the MUTCD mandate that street name signs use USPS standard abbreviations for street name suffixes?
They do address them in Table 1A-1.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 18, 2018, 12:02:06 AM
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 18, 2018, 12:02:06 AM
One thing to wonder is if the public telephone requirement for logo sign eligibility is still really necessary. Very few people don't have cell phones anymore. Considering many states have removed roadside emergency call boxes except in rural areas with poor mobile coverage, do businesses really need to provide a public telephone to be eligible for a logo sign?
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on July 18, 2018, 01:56:40 AM
Post by: jakeroot on July 18, 2018, 01:56:40 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 18, 2018, 12:02:06 AM
One thing to wonder is if the public telephone requirement for logo sign eligibility is still really necessary. Very few people don't have cell phones anymore. Considering many states have removed roadside emergency call boxes except in rural areas with poor mobile coverage, do businesses really need to provide a public telephone to be eligible for a logo sign?
Well, I think you'll have a hard time finding a business that won't let somebody borrow their phone. Such requests have become so uncommon lately, it's hard to say "no" when it does happen.
That said, I think that's an unnecessary requirement these days (didn't even know it was a requirement, to be honest). I suppose it could be dropped.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: roadman on July 30, 2018, 12:56:48 PM
Post by: roadman on July 30, 2018, 12:56:48 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on July 18, 2018, 12:02:06 AM
One thing to wonder is if the public telephone requirement for logo sign eligibility is still really necessary. Very few people don't have cell phones anymore. Considering many states have removed roadside emergency call boxes except in rural areas with poor mobile coverage, do businesses really need to provide a public telephone to be eligible for a logo sign?
MassDOT's current LOGO sign policy considers either a public pay phone or a landline telephone - such as at a hotel front desk or a restaurant's cashier station - that the public can access in an emergency as meeting the public telephone requirement. I'd like to see this definition applied nationally.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 05:19:39 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 05:19:39 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2018, 12:56:48 PMQuote from: Pink Jazz on July 18, 2018, 12:02:06 AM
One thing to wonder is if the public telephone requirement for logo sign eligibility is still really necessary. Very few people don't have cell phones anymore. Considering many states have removed roadside emergency call boxes except in rural areas with poor mobile coverage, do businesses really need to provide a public telephone to be eligible for a logo sign?
MassDOT's current LOGO sign policy considers either a public pay phone or a landline telephone - such as at a hotel front desk or a restaurant's cashier station - that the public can access in an emergency as meeting the public telephone requirement. I'd like to see this definition applied nationally.
That would be a step in the right direction. According to Pew Research, 77% of Americans own smartphones. 95% own any type of mobile phone. At this point, the few people that need a public phone (those with dead cell phones) should just be able to use any available landline (given how rare the request is nowadays).
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 05:42:05 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2018, 05:42:05 PM
Based on the FHWA's recent report with Clearview, I think it is probably unlikely it will be included with the next MUTCD and I expect the interim approval to get rescinded again. Since Sam Johnson is retiring and the upcoming changes in Congress, I don't think there will be any other big push to force Clearview onto the FHWA unless there is litigation by Meeker and Associates. However, I wonder if Meeker will be held liable for potentially defrauding the government by falsifying legibility studies.
Title: Re: What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 30, 2019, 06:16:44 PM
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 30, 2019, 06:16:44 PM
Here is a roundup from what I expect in the next MUTCD as of now:
- Blue and Brown retroreflectivity standards.
- Inclusion of RRFBs.
- Inclusion of green bike path pavement and bike boxes.
- Inclusion of bicycle signal heads.
- Smaller APL arrows.