USDOT and FHWA are soliciting input on future editions of the MUTCD. This document "defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F." It is commonly addressed throughout this Forum on matters of roadway standards, signage practices, traffic control, and many other topics of interest. If you are interesting in commenting, the comment period is open until February 18, 2016.
Current edition of MUTCD link: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
Link to make comments about MUTCD: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA_FRDOC_0001-1260
QuoteThe FHWA is interested in planning for future editions of the MUTCD that will reflect the growing number and application of traffic control devices, changes in technology not only for traffic control devices, but for viewing content in the MUTCD, and developing a structure for the MUTCD that is efficient and easy to use. The FHWA initiated the public comment process by publishing an RFC at 78 FR 2347 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118) on January 11, 2013, that included two options for restructuring the MUTCD and several questions regarding content and public use of the MUTCD. The FHWA's response to the comments, issued June 17, 2013 at 78 FR 36132 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118-0187), indicated that over one half of the commenters recommended postponing any action to restructure the manual pending results from the ongoing National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) strategic planning effort. That effort is now complete. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from users of the MUTCD about the direction of future editions of the MUTCD. This notice includes a set of specific questions for which FHWA requests comments. Comments and input may be offered on any part of this notification.
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
Quote from: mariethefoxy on January 19, 2016, 02:57:38 AM
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
They're asking for specific things.
As an engineer, I do use it and know that people who aren't trained (i.e. city officials) find it challenging, especially when sign replacements are needed. While an engineer should be involved with everything of the sort, they are not in practice and I don't picture that changing. I'll send my comments in by the end of the month. I'll post a link when they are posted.
Here is the comment I posted today (still being reviewed):
QuoteMy personal concern is the inconsistency between states with urban vs. rural signage standards, and the lack of mention of suburban areas. One thing that states don't seem to agree on is whether or not to install Specific Service Signs on urban freeways. While provisions for allowing them on urban freeways have existed since the 2000 MUTCD, some states are not adopting these provisions due to lack of clarity in the MUTCD. While it wouldn't make much sense to install Specific Service Signs near downtown areas due to densely spaced exits, they can easily be installed outside of downtown areas as well as in suburbs as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, regardless of the city's or town's population. Here in the Phoenix, Arizona area, ADOT has been installing new Specific Service signs for the past three years, and they are easily accommodated on our freeways without any issue, including several in the City of Phoenix itself outside of Downtown. Future editions of the MUTCD should provide encouragement on the use of Specific Service Signs in suburbs and as well as within the core city outside of the central business district.
I would like to see roundabouts and traffic circles have a MUTCD segment, including some standardized designs. They are becoming more and more popular, but it's still largely left to each state to decide how they are designed.
Quote from: Quillz on January 19, 2016, 11:17:32 PM
I would like to see roundabouts and traffic circles have a MUTCD segment, including some standardized designs. They are becoming more and more popular, but it's still largely left to each state to decide how they are designed.
They do. They have standard markings. Physical design aspects belong in the Green Book or one of its supplements. Section 9 of the 2011 Green Book has some basic design standards, I think there is a dedicated roundabout supplement. Also, note that roundabouts are a huge research topic and the designs are still changing quite rapidly as engineers and researchers attempt to determine what is most efficient.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on January 19, 2016, 02:57:38 AM
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
I think The Michigan Department of Transportation(MDOT) abuses the Clearview font usage, especially the exit numbers on the guide signs at least. Here's an example:
https://goo.gl/maps/dCSE4cbV52J2 (https://goo.gl/maps/dCSE4cbV52J2)
Here's an interesting DOT webpage about acceptable and unacceptable Clearview uses. Just click below.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/ (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/)
Not to get too far off topic, but is there a list somewhere of which states use Clearview and which don't?
Having driven mostly in NE,KS, and MO, I know they don't use it (or at least it doesn't look like it)
I've noticed it in IA, IL,KY, and MI. I'm not sure which other states use it.
Personally, I don't really like Clearview. It just doesn't look good.
Quote from: mvak36 on January 20, 2016, 09:20:32 AM
Not to get too far off topic, but is there a list somewhere of which states use Clearview and which don't?
Having driven mostly in NE,KS, and MO, I know they don't use it (or at least it doesn't look like it)
I've noticed it in IA, IL,KY, and MI. I'm not sure which other states use it.
Personally, I don't really like Clearview. It just doesn't look good.
Our page on it: https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.php
Forum topic on it: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=377.0
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 19, 2016, 01:18:55 PM
Here is the comment I posted today (still being reviewed):
QuoteMy personal concern is the inconsistency between states with urban vs. rural signage standards, and the lack of mention of suburban areas. One thing that states don't seem to agree on is whether or not to install Specific Service Signs on urban freeways. While provisions for allowing them on urban freeways have existed since the 2000 MUTCD, some states are not adopting these provisions due to lack of clarity in the MUTCD. While it wouldn't make much sense to install Specific Service Signs near downtown areas due to densely spaced exits, they can easily be installed outside of downtown areas as well as in suburbs as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, regardless of the city's or town's population. Here in the Phoenix, Arizona area, ADOT has been installing new Specific Service signs for the past three years, and they are easily accommodated on our freeways without any issue, including several in the City of Phoenix itself outside of Downtown. Future editions of the MUTCD should provide encouragement on the use of Specific Service Signs in suburbs and as well as within the core city outside of the central business district.
What's the lack of clarity?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 20, 2016, 09:39:13 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 19, 2016, 01:18:55 PM
Here is the comment I posted today (still being reviewed):
QuoteMy personal concern is the inconsistency between states with urban vs. rural signage standards, and the lack of mention of suburban areas. One thing that states don't seem to agree on is whether or not to install Specific Service Signs on urban freeways. While provisions for allowing them on urban freeways have existed since the 2000 MUTCD, some states are not adopting these provisions due to lack of clarity in the MUTCD. While it wouldn't make much sense to install Specific Service Signs near downtown areas due to densely spaced exits, they can easily be installed outside of downtown areas as well as in suburbs as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, regardless of the city's or town's population. Here in the Phoenix, Arizona area, ADOT has been installing new Specific Service signs for the past three years, and they are easily accommodated on our freeways without any issue, including several in the City of Phoenix itself outside of Downtown. Future editions of the MUTCD should provide encouragement on the use of Specific Service Signs in suburbs and as well as within the core city outside of the central business district.
What's the lack of clarity?
Apparently, this sentence isn't clear:
QuoteThe use of Specific Service signs should be limited to areas primarily rural in character or to areas where adequate sign spacing can be maintained.
Some states don't seem to clearly understand the statement I bolded and underlined. As long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, logo signs can be installed in urban areas. Plus there is this statement below:
QuoteWhere an engineering study determines a need, Specific Service signs may be used on any class of highways.
Some states don't seem to clearly understand this statement either.
Here is how I would rephrase these statements:
QuoteThe use of Specific Service signs should be limited to areas primarily rural in character or to urban and/or suburban areas where adequate sign spacing can be maintained.
Where an engineering study determines a need, Specific Service signs may should be used on any class of highway.
I guess what I'm not getting as well is...is this a known issue that the states don't understand the clarity, or do the states simply not wish to use Specific Service in suburban and urban areas? Also, do businesses want to spend the money to advertise to those on the highway, when they may be located in a suburban or urban area and their primary customer is someone from the local area?
It almost appears as if you are wanting to force the states and businesses near a highway to participant in a voluntary program.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 20, 2016, 02:07:48 PM
I guess what I'm not getting as well is...is this a known issue that the states don't understand the clarity, or do the states simply not wish to use Specific Service in suburban and urban areas? Also, do businesses want to spend the money to advertise to those on the highway, when they may be located in a suburban or urban area and their primary customer is someone from the local area?
It almost appears as if you are wanting to force the states and businesses near a highway to participant in a voluntary program.
Remember that in most states, logo signs are a revenue generator for the state DOT, and by not allowing them in urban areas, the state DOT is missing out on a lot of additional revenue. Even in most states where the logo sign program is provided by an outside company, the state DOT receives at least a portion of the revenue (which can be as low as 10% as in Indiana or as high as 80% as in Florida).
In-keeping with my interest in signage, current APL standards need some work. I'm not sure if my comment is in-line with the specificity required (hell, I'm not sure if it's accurate), but I'm leaving the comment anyways...
Quote
There are two changes that I believe should be made to current "Overhead Arrow-Per-Lane" signage standards:
First, permitting arrow-per-lane signage, when there is no optional exit, should be considered. The FHWA has released studies in the past, which show the overhead arrow-per-lane signage to be as-good-as down arrow signage, when there is no optional exit. Rather than having up arrows at some interchanges (such as at optional-lane junctions, where the up arrows have been proven to be superior), and down arrows at others (such as at junctions without optional exits), the FHWA should allow states to use all up arrows at all interchanges, if they so choose, for consistency in design standards, as well as to help reduce driver confusion.
Second, the FHWA should consider permitting variable up-arrow heights, to permit shorter overhead arrow-per-lane signage. The current up-arrow height is 66 inches, which is acceptable, but results in signs with exceptional height, due to the prohibition of legends between the arrows (effectively creating 66 inches of green space). If the standard arrow heights were to remain the same, the FHWA should, at the very least, permit the display of certain legends, such as route shields, in-between the arrows. This would allow for shorter (and cheaper) signs with up arrows, which have been proven to be either as-good-as, or superior to, down arrows. All things considered, however, variable heights should be strongly considered. The current California (Caltrans) up-arrow heights are a good model for shorter arrow-per-lane signage.
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2016, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.
That's not a supplement. California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 21, 2016, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2016, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.
That's not a supplement. California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.
I guess they just love paying consultants rather than just adopting the federal MUTCD, then.
I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
The most recent supplement isn't too bad. All it really does is standardize stuff even more by reducing the number of acceptable signage options when the MUTCD gives several.
Quote from: Buffaboy on January 21, 2016, 02:14:09 PM
I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.
A lot of it has to do with sight distances. The Green Book provides necessary sight triangles. In a yield situation, a vehicle must be able to see oncoming traffic from far enough back that they can stop if not clear but proceed through at the speed one would use if the movement had priority if it is clear (i.e. no unnecessary slowdown). This is mainly limited to areas with a lot of farmland. I've found that NYSDOT often does a good job posting yield signs where sight distances are adequate. Problem is finding somewhere out east that is adequate.
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 03:50:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
The most recent supplement isn't too bad. All it really does is standardize stuff even more by reducing the number of acceptable signage options when the MUTCD gives several.
Quote from: Buffaboy on January 21, 2016, 02:14:09 PM
I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.
A lot of it has to do with sight distances. The Green Book provides necessary sight triangles. In a yield situation, a vehicle must be able to see oncoming traffic from far enough back that they can stop if not clear but proceed through at the speed one would use if the movement had priority if it is clear (i.e. no unnecessary slowdown). This is mainly limited to areas with a lot of farmland. I've found that NYSDOT often does a good job posting yield signs where sight distances are adequate. Problem is finding somewhere out east that is adequate.
Farmland, yes, but sadly it can also be used in urban areas like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.410475,-83.0154424,3a,75y,333.16h,81.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s621frthEKAjmknjCWIKnbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Buffaboy on January 21, 2016, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 03:50:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
The most recent supplement isn't too bad. All it really does is standardize stuff even more by reducing the number of acceptable signage options when the MUTCD gives several.
Quote from: Buffaboy on January 21, 2016, 02:14:09 PM
I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.
A lot of it has to do with sight distances. The Green Book provides necessary sight triangles. In a yield situation, a vehicle must be able to see oncoming traffic from far enough back that they can stop if not clear but proceed through at the speed one would use if the movement had priority if it is clear (i.e. no unnecessary slowdown). This is mainly limited to areas with a lot of farmland. I've found that NYSDOT often does a good job posting yield signs where sight distances are adequate. Problem is finding somewhere out east that is adequate.
Farmland, yes, but sadly it can also be used in urban areas like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.410475,-83.0154424,3a,75y,333.16h,81.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s621frthEKAjmknjCWIKnbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It can, but it shouldn't be. Trees block the sight triangle. Should be a stop sign.
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 09:06:33 PM
It can, but it shouldn't be. Trees block the sight triangle. Should be a stop sign.
Trees block the view from the camera, not necessarily the view from the driver's window. I see a cut on the bushes on the left that may assist with left-side visibility.
Yield signs should not be used
only where visibility dictates that stopping may not always be necessary. A stop sign is simply a yield sign with an extra "stop" requirement. If you don't need to stop, you shouldn't, but if you need to (because of poor visibility), you should. Driver's should be intelligent enough to understand when they need to stop and when they needn't. "Stop" signs are, for all intents and purposes, nanny signs (don't tell me when I need and needn't stop).
Quote from: jakeroot on January 21, 2016, 09:25:36 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 09:06:33 PM
It can, but it shouldn't be. Trees block the sight triangle. Should be a stop sign.
Trees block the view from the camera, not necessarily the view from the driver's window. I see a cut on the bushes on the left that may assist with left-side visibility.
Yield signs should not be used only where visibility dictates that stopping may not always be necessary. A stop sign is simply a yield sign with an extra "stop" requirement. If you don't need to stop, you shouldn't, but if you need to (because of poor visibility), you should. Driver's should be intelligent enough to understand when they need to stop and when they needn't. "Stop" signs are, for all intents and purposes, nanny signs (don't tell me when I need and needn't stop).
The camera is at the same height as a school bus. Green Book requires clear from car driver eye level up to well above eye level of the tallest common vehicle, which is a school bus in this case.
Quote from: cl94 on January 20, 2016, 01:03:28 AM
Quote from: Quillz on January 19, 2016, 11:17:32 PM
I would like to see roundabouts and traffic circles have a MUTCD segment, including some standardized designs. They are becoming more and more popular, but it's still largely left to each state to decide how they are designed.
They do. They have standard markings. Physical design aspects belong in the Green Book or one of its supplements. Section 9 of the 2011 Green Book has some basic design standards, I think there is a dedicated roundabout supplement. Also, note that roundabouts are a huge research topic and the designs are still changing quite rapidly as engineers and researchers attempt to determine what is most efficient.
Absolutely, that's what I'm writing my master's on. I've noticed Caltrans has largely standardized their designs, though it's still not clear which intersections are "worthy" to be converted into roundabouts. I've also seen some interesting European proposals that lose the outermost lane at each quarter-turn, so that no lane changes are required within the roundabout to reach the desired destination.
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 21, 2016, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2016, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.
That's not a supplement. California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.
I guess they just love paying consultants rather than just adopting the federal MUTCD, then.
You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption. :rolleyes:
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 22, 2016, 02:16:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 21, 2016, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2016, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.
That's not a supplement. California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.
I guess they just love paying consultants rather than just adopting the federal MUTCD, then.
You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption. :rolleyes:
So much for substantial conformance. :D
Quote from: Rothman on January 22, 2016, 08:47:49 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 22, 2016, 02:16:05 AM
You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption.
So much for substantial conformance.
Well, if complete conformance were required, the term "substantial" wouldn't be used. California's manual is still in substantial conformance with the federal manual.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 22, 2016, 02:16:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 21, 2016, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2016, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 21, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...
Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.
That's not a supplement. California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.
I guess they just love paying consultants rather than just adopting the federal MUTCD, then.
You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption. :rolleyes:
Isn't that what a state supplement is for?
Quote from: mariethefoxy on January 19, 2016, 02:57:38 AM
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!
Quote from: wolfiefrick on January 23, 2016, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on January 19, 2016, 02:57:38 AM
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!
Probably a combination of the lack of legibility compared to FHWA, and a general distaste by some users of the font in general (whether that is because of nostalgia of some sort or because of how the font looks I don't really know).
Also, some sign programs have more difficulty making Clearview signs than FHWA signs. Why I'm not sure, but that's what I've heard.
I don't mind Clearview, but I myself do prefer FHWA numerals, just by looks, nothing more. I also
prefer negative contrast text in FHWA.
Example:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5776/19938373443_fb6b60f426.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wnTnMn)
Circle Drive approaching Lorne Ave (SK 219 Southbound) (https://flic.kr/p/wnTnMn) by Sign Geek (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135438121@N07/), on Flickr
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 23, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Probably a combination of the lack of legibility compared to FHWA
More recent studies have proven Clearview to be comparable in legibility to the Highway Gothic typeface, not necessarily inferior.
Quote from: wolfiefrick on January 23, 2016, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on January 19, 2016, 02:57:38 AM
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!
I also don't understand the hate for Clearview. I used to use a lot in my redesigns, but I have recently started using Series EE(M) instead of E(M) (which I don't like -- characters are too fat). A lot of people are/were opposed to Clearview because of the cost (Highway Gothic is free, Clearview requires a licence), the more "humanist" appearance of the typeface (some might say "child-like"), and, evidently, the lack of improved legibility (though that only became evident within the last few years).
Places like British Columbia (where I spend a lot of time) used their own font for much of their history, and had only recently switched to the Highway Gothic fonts, before switching to Clearview in 2006 (as of 2016, I'd say BC has been using Clearview for longer than they used Highway Gothic). For them, the switch to Clearview was easy, because a lot of "standards" still hadn't been fully developed for Highway Gothic, and the lack of oversight by the TAC (Canada's governing transport agency) didn't have any opposition to Clearview (compared to, say, the FHWA).
JN Winkler understands this situation better than I do, however.
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 03:50:05 PM
A lot of it has to do with sight distances. The Green Book provides necessary sight triangles. In a yield situation, a vehicle must be able to see oncoming traffic from far enough back that they can stop if not clear but proceed through at the speed one would use if the movement had priority if it is clear (i.e. no unnecessary slowdown).
So basically FHWA thinks if you can't decide whether to yield at full speed you should be legally obligated to come to a complete stop. Because, y'know, it's not like there are gazillions of intersections out there where you need to slow down to determine there is no conflicting traffic but coming to a complete stop is overkill.
This bureaucratic bullshit is why American drivers are conditioned to treat stop signs like yield signs and treat yield signs like "WTF does this weird triangle mean?"
Quote from: Duke87 on January 23, 2016, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 21, 2016, 03:50:05 PM
A lot of it has to do with sight distances. The Green Book provides necessary sight triangles. In a yield situation, a vehicle must be able to see oncoming traffic from far enough back that they can stop if not clear but proceed through at the speed one would use if the movement had priority if it is clear (i.e. no unnecessary slowdown).
So basically FHWA thinks if you can't decide whether to yield at full speed you should be legally obligated to come to a complete stop. Because, y'know, it's not like there are gazillions of intersections out there where you need to slow down to determine there is no conflicting traffic but coming to a complete stop is overkill.
This bureaucratic bullshit is why American drivers are conditioned to treat stop signs like yield signs and treat yield signs like "WTF does this weird triangle mean?"
I didn't mean to imply that one shouldn't slow down. The requirement is that one should have adequate stopping sight distance plus a factor of safety when making a decision.
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 22, 2016, 02:16:05 AM
You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption. :rolleyes:
Perhaps California should not be allowed to use federal funding for striping until that state law is changed.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 23, 2016, 07:31:55 PM
So basically FHWA thinks if you can't decide whether to yield at full speed you should be legally obligated to come to a complete stop. Because, y'know, it's not like there are gazillions of intersections out there where you need to slow down to determine there is no conflicting traffic but coming to a complete stop is overkill.
I have wondered if there should be a version of the yield sign with an advisory/speed restriction plaque. It would eliminate the need for a full stop where there is less than the ideal amount of visibility for the posted speed limit, but possibly provide a liability or enforcement option if someone completely ignores the sign.
Quote from: wolfiefrick on January 23, 2016, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on January 19, 2016, 02:57:38 AM
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!
For a lot of people, it's just aesthetics. A lot of people (myself included) don't like the look of the characters, especially the numerals.
However, the real issue is that pretty much all of Clearview's stated goals have been proven false. It doesn't increase legibility, and was never even approved for anything beyond negative contrast (light legend on dark background). As a result, its interim designation has been largely canceled, and will probably fade into history as a bad experiment.
Quote from: Quillz on January 23, 2016, 09:33:24 PM
Quote from: wolfiefrick on January 23, 2016, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on January 19, 2016, 02:57:38 AM
heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?
Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!
For a lot of people, it's just aesthetics. A lot of people (myself included) don't like the look of the characters, especially the numerals.
However, the real issue is that pretty much all of Clearview's stated goals have been proven false. It doesn't increase legibility, and was never even approved for anything beyond negative contrast (light legend on dark background). As a result, its interim designation has been largely canceled, and will probably fade into history as a bad experiment.
The only groups that still push it are those who did the initial research. It's actually
worse for negative contrast signage.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 23, 2016, 07:52:52 PM
I have wondered if there should be a version of the yield sign with an advisory/speed restriction plaque. It would eliminate the need for a full stop where there is less than the ideal amount of visibility for the posted speed limit, but possibly provide a liability or enforcement option if someone completely ignores the sign.
Meh. Drivers should have sufficient common sense to figure out how much they need to slow down without a sign giving them a number. If they are not capable of this, they shouldn't have a license.
I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do. If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign. It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).
Quote from: vdeane on January 23, 2016, 10:45:46 PM
I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do. If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign. It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).
The other issue I've found with Clearview is it just doesn't have as good scaling. With the FHWA series fonts, you can clearly see a difference between Series B and Series C. But with Clearview, all that really changes between something like 2W and 3W is the spacing, not the actual letter forms. It's more aesthetic for me, but also makes it hard to have the numbers fit nicely into a shield, I've found.
Quote from: vdeane on January 23, 2016, 10:45:46 PM
I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do. If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign. It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).
Though I understand your point, I don't think that should be a knock against Clearview, but rather a knock against the designer. If your choice of typeface boils down to the competency of the signing engineer, you're doing something wrong.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
I also don't understand the hate for Clearview. I used to use a lot in my redesigns, but I have recently started using Series EE(M) instead of E(M) (which I don't like -- characters are too fat). A lot of people are/were opposed to Clearview because of the cost (Highway Gothic is free, Clearview requires a licence), the more "humanist" appearance of the typeface (some might say "child-like"), and, evidently, the lack of improved legibility (though that only became evident within the last few years).
I wouldn't say Clearview is child-like, but I would actually consider it to have a more feminine appearance than Highway Gothic, since it is curvier than Highway Gothic which is typically a trait of female handwriting.
Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?
Also, do you think more regulatory and warning signs will be given pictograms vs the existing words?
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?
Also, do you think more regulatory and warning signs will be given pictograms vs the existing words?
I'll mention it in a comment to FHWA. Last year at TRB, I spoke with many people at FHWA who think there should be better guidance for APLs. Some states do it properly, but others (Kansas, for example), break a lot of rules out due to interchange design.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?
While many here have critized their size along with the size of the arrows, most of the signs are easy to read, understand and decipher. The costs are really miniscule in terms of extra size, and miniscule in terms of the total costs of the project. There really isn't any issues with them.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 23, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 23, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Probably a combination of the lack of legibility compared to FHWA
More recent studies have proven Clearview to be comparable in legibility to the Highway Gothic typeface, not necessarily inferior.
Inferior in certain circumstances -- it's not coincidence that those are the circumstances where Clearview is supposed to be verboten -- but you're correct. I think the issue is that the original studies claimed that it was superior, and as time has gone on, that superiority has been shown to be negligible. So really, what was the point of a new font if it's not really that much better.
(That said, personally, I don't care much one way or the other about Clearview.)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2016, 12:03:17 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?
While many here have critized their size along with the size of the arrows, most of the signs are easy to read, understand and decipher. The costs are really miniscule in terms of extra size, and miniscule in terms of the total costs of the project. There really isn't any issues with them.
When done correctly, they're always better than old diagrammatic signs, and frequently better (and never worse then) old down arrow signs. (That's if they're done correctly.) I'd like to see the arrow parts redesigned slightly and shrunken a bit, but otherwise I agree with above.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?
I think there may be at least one new option added for APL signs. IIRC in one of the NUTCD committee meeting minutes there was a complaint that the current APL design makes it hard to sign for an interchange shortly after the exit requiring the APL sign.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 24, 2016, 12:47:34 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?
I think there may be at least one new option added for APL signs. IIRC in one of the NUTCD committee meeting minutes there was a complaint that the current APL design makes it hard to sign for an interchange shortly after the exit requiring the APL sign.
That's what was mentioned at TRB last year. KDOT presented their signage plan for the rebuilt I-435 corridor and they tried to account for consecutive interchanges with option lanes. It didn't end well, but it's the only allowed alternative to dancing arrows.
Confusing APL sign with closely-spaced exits. US 41 (now marked I-41 the same way) does not exit off Ashland Ave.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4347854,-88.1052557,3a,75y,39.89h,101.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV20p9HP7mf1qW2S7-79XLw!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2016, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 24, 2016, 11:49:25 AM
Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?
Also, do you think more regulatory and warning signs will be given pictograms vs the existing words?
I'll mention it in a comment to FHWA. Last year at TRB, I spoke with many people at FHWA who think there should be better guidance for APLs. Some states do it properly, but others (Kansas, for example), break a lot of rules out due to interchange design.
Personally, I think the goal should be to loosen up a little on the restrictions. Right now, the arrows are way too big, you can't sign upcoming junctions (technically, though I know it's been done), and there's too much green space (not required, but a consequence of the other rules). If the APL has any hope of fully replacing down arrows, they have to be easier to manufacture than right now, and at least comparable in price to down arrows. Should there be guidelines? Yes, but they should be kept to a minimum (such as, arrow width, right/left arrow radii, minimum distance between arrows, etc).
At the very least, legends should be permitted between the arrows, rather than just on top (hell, while we're at it, they should just go ahead and do away with the redundant "exit only" plaques). In many of my redesigns, I've placed route shields between the arrows. This seems like a good place to put them, seeing as they just "fit" good in that green area, and that way, you only have text above the arrows (and, likewise, much shorter signs).
Folks, with this comment period, the FHWA is looking for comments about formatting, target audience, presentation of information, ways to streamline and improve usability of the MUTCD across its user base, and frequency of updates/revisions. From the submission page (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA_FRDOC_0001-1260) (emphasis added):
QuoteThe FHWA is interested in planning for future editions of the MUTCD that will reflect the growing number and application of traffic control devices, changes in technology not only for traffic control devices, but for viewing content in the MUTCD, and developing a structure for the MUTCD that is efficient and easy to use. The FHWA initiated the public comment process by publishing an RFC at 78 FR 2347 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118) on January 11, 2013, that included two options for restructuring the MUTCD and several questions regarding content and public use of the MUTCD. The FHWA's response to the comments, issued June 17, 2013 at 78 FR 36132 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118-0187), indicated that over one half of the commenters recommended postponing any action to restructure the manual pending results from the ongoing National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) strategic planning effort. That effort is now complete.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from users of the MUTCD about the direction of future editions of the MUTCD. This notice includes a set of specific questions for which FHWA requests comments. Comments and input may be offered on any part of this notification.
Thus, discussion about specific content (such as APLs, Clearview font, specific service signs, etc.) are not relevant to this request for comments.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2016, 12:45:21 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 23, 2016, 10:45:46 PM
I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do. If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign. It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).
Though I understand your point, I don't think that should be a knock against Clearview, but rather a knock against the designer. If your choice of typeface boils down to the competency of the signing engineer, you're doing something wrong.
True, but the clearview is what is noticed, not the other issues. For example, when the Thruway adopted clearview, the coincidentally changed to nonreflective lettering at the same time. The result is the signs are now unreadable at night. This is due to the lettering not being reflective, but clearview was blamed instead. Even the Thruway was fooled with this one, with it driving their decision to abandon clearview. Clearview also exposed sizing issues that had previously been easy to not notice. The point of the post was not to debate the merits of clearview but to explain why roadgeeks hate it so much (because it makes the signs uglier than they otherwise would be). The fact that the ugliness actually derives from some other flaw that simply became more obvious because of the clearview will not sway someone who saw an atrocious-looking clearview sign and came to hate the font because of it. You only have one chance to make a first impression.
One of the major bugs in Clearview is how difficult it is to compose fractions using either SignCAD or GuidSIGN. When Clearview is used, the fraction composing functions of both software packages produce fractions that are too tall, with numerals too small to be MUTCD compliant. There are a few early Clearview signs in Arizona where you can notice this error. ADOT later developed a custom hand-made fraction design using Clearview with a different angle to the fraction slash, but such fractions looked funky and thus ADOT eventually abandoned Clearview for fractions. Later on, ADOT also abandoned Clearview for whole numbers in distances. For some unknown reason, exit numbers continued to use Clearview even though some studies have shown that Clearview numerals are less legible than their FHWA counterparts.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 24, 2016, 09:56:29 PM
One of the major bugs in Clearview is how difficult it is to compose fractions using either SignCAD or GuidSIGN. When Clearview is used, the fraction composing functions of both software packages produce fractions that are too tall, with numerals too small to be MUTCD compliant. There are a few early Clearview signs in Arizona where you can notice this error. ADOT later developed a custom hand-made fraction design using Clearview with a different angle to the fraction slash, but such fractions looked funky and thus ADOT eventually abandoned Clearview for fractions. Later on, ADOT also abandoned Clearview for whole numbers in distances. For some unknown reason, exit numbers continued to use Clearview even though some studies have shown that Clearview numerals are less legible than their FHWA counterparts.
The above is just one reason why the use of Clearview numerals
wasn't recommended for
any sign application. Unfortunately, many state DOT & toll road agencies haven't gotten that point through their skulls just yet.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2016, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 24, 2016, 09:56:29 PM
One of the major bugs in Clearview is how difficult it is to compose fractions using either SignCAD or GuidSIGN. When Clearview is used, the fraction composing functions of both software packages produce fractions that are too tall, with numerals too small to be MUTCD compliant. There are a few early Clearview signs in Arizona where you can notice this error. ADOT later developed a custom hand-made fraction design using Clearview with a different angle to the fraction slash, but such fractions looked funky and thus ADOT eventually abandoned Clearview for fractions. Later on, ADOT also abandoned Clearview for whole numbers in distances. For some unknown reason, exit numbers continued to use Clearview even though some studies have shown that Clearview numerals are less legible than their FHWA counterparts.
The above is just one reason why the use of Clearview numerals wasn't recommended for any sign application. Unfortunately, many state DOT & toll road agencies haven't gotten that point through their skulls just yet.
At least this is a non-issue now. Interim approval is officially rescinded effective February 24.
Quote from: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 10:20:25 AMAt least this is a non-issue now. Interim approval is officially rescinded effective February 24.
Source (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/25/2016-01383/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov)
I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now. While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs. Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA? The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified. ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 03:36:13 PM
I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now. While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs. Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA? The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified. ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.
I could be wrong, but I still think Clearview is permitted on street blades.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 25, 2016, 07:30:50 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 03:36:13 PM
I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now. While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs. Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA? The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified. ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.
I could be wrong, but I still think Clearview is permitted on street blades.
You are.
QuoteThe result of this termination rescinds the use of letter styles other than the FHWA Standard Alphabets on traffic control devices, except as provided otherwise in the MUTCD
The notice bans all non-FHWA fonts from
all traffic control devices unless stated otherwise. A quick look at the MUTCD does not show an exception for any type of guide signage. As far as the MUTCD is concerned, street blades are guide signage.
Quote from: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 07:51:15 PM
The notice bans all non-FHWA fonts from all traffic control devices unless stated otherwise. A quick look at the MUTCD does not show an exception for any type of guide signage. As far as the MUTCD is concerned, street blades are guide signage.
I would more willing to understand this, if I
only saw Clearview and FHWA fonts on street blades. But, I've seen Helvetica, Times, Comic Sans, etc. Were these all approved by the FHWA as well?
To be more specific, I should have said that Clearview goes into the "tolerated" category for street blades, along with Helvetica, Times, etc.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 25, 2016, 10:51:12 PM
I would more willing to understand this, if I only saw Clearview and FHWA fonts on street blades. But, I've seen Helvetica, Times, Comic Sans, etc. Were these all approved by the FHWA as well?
No. FHWA leans on states to follow the MUTCD by withholding funding for non-compliant signage; the best-known example was them refusing to fund Florida's colored US shields. But unless there's a unique situation or project, cities do not get any federal funding for blade signs and thus there is nothing the FHWA can do to enforce the MUTCD. Hell, Washington DC uses Helvetica on its blades. FHWA employees walk under them every day. They don't do anything about it because they
can't.
Even if they could, who's going to call up FHWA and rat out the Possumbreath County road department for it?
Other than the funding situation, the only incentive to follow the MUTCD is legal liability. If you put up a non-standard sign and an accident is caused by it, the agency that put it up could be held partially liable in court for it. But good luck trying to prove in court that a non-standard font on a guide sign is a contributing factor to an accident.
Somewhat off topic, but I wonder if the next MUTCD will mandate the use of Fluorescent Pink for incident management signs, rather than keeping it only as an option. After all, the purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish incident management signs from construction signs.
Also, as far as specific retroreflectivity values go, does Fluorescent Pink use the same values as Orange and Fluorescent Orange, or is it exempt from the specific retroreflectivity requirements as Blue, Brown, and Purple currently are? The specific retroreflectivity values for Blue and Brown will probably be included in the next MUTCD, since testing has since been completed after the 2009 MUTCD went into effect.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 03:36:13 PM
I wonder what will some of the Phoenix area cities use for signal mounted street name signs, since Clearview is so widespread in the Valley now. While Phoenix itself as far as I know used FHWA, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert used a bold version of Helvetica prior to introducing Clearview for such signs. Will they go back to Helvetica, or will they use a version of FHWA? The old bold Helvetica I think would have similar halation issues to Series E Modified. ADOT will mostly be using FHWA Series C for street name signs.
I was wondering the same thing since Philly hasn't used FHWA on their street blades since at least 2007. I can see them going back to it (with lowercase lettering) or just staying with Clearview, MUTCD be damned.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 26, 2016, 10:44:13 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 25, 2016, 10:51:12 PM
I would more willing to understand this, if I only saw Clearview and FHWA fonts on street blades. But, I've seen Helvetica, Times, Comic Sans, etc. Were these all approved by the FHWA as well?
No. FHWA leans on states to follow the MUTCD by withholding funding for non-compliant signage; the best-known example was them refusing to fund Florida's colored US shields. But unless there's a unique situation or project, cities do not get any federal funding for blade signs and thus there is nothing the FHWA can do to enforce the MUTCD. Hell, Washington DC uses Helvetica on its blades. FHWA employees walk under them every day. They don't do anything about it because they can't.
So, to wrap back around to Pink Jazz's original question, should there be an expectation that cities will phase out Clearview street blades? Something tells me that, in time, they will be phased out, but it won't be as sudden as the guide sign changes.
I recently noticed in Gilbert, Arizona that there was recently an intersection (McQueen and Guadalupe I think) that recently had its Helvetica street name signs replaced with FHWA Series D. However, the new signs are all caps for some reason. Gilbert has used mixed case Clearview on signal-mounted street name signs for quite some time now, while I have seen both Clearview and FHWA Series B or C used on non-signalized intersections for new installations (with Clearview in both all-caps and mixed case, but FHWA only in all-caps).
Perhaps the town hasn't yet ordered the mixed case versions of FHWA other than Series E Modified. After all, when the FHWA rescinded its interim approval for Clearview, they stated that many DOTs misinterpreted the mixed case requirement for street name signs in the 2009 MUTCD as requiring the use of Clearview. A possible reason could be that many DOTs might be unaware of the existence of the mixed case versions of FHWA, thus they went with Clearview.
As for local authorities here in the Phoenix area, I have only seen mixed case FHWA used by the City of Phoenix for their black-on-white street name signs for non-signalized intersections, as well as on some MCDOT street blades (although newer signs use Clearview).
In the Southern Tier there were a bunch of county/town line signs that popped up in clearview... reason was, the contractor who made them didn't have mixed case FHWA, so they just used clearview instead.