AARoads Forum

It has dropped:

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2020-26789/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-manual-on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for-streets

Well, there goes my afternoon.

One cool thing I've seen so far (PDF pg 203, change #429) is the ability to permit additional non-English languages for the speech announcement at accessible pedestrian signals. English must always be used, but I think there are areas of this country where Spanish or Mandarin would be very useful.

Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

Great, now my hard copy of the NUTCD is out of date! Lol, actually, this is really epic. Just hope that the APLs are fixed to not waste so much space, and that they make a better sign for the HAWK, as literally no one knows how to use it lol.

The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I know of a city-maintained road near me with those! As soon as it is published, I'm going to tell them about, and maybe get some free signs! (But probably not.)

Important changes from Chapter 2E, because I know that's the only one anyone really cares about around here:

• New rules for signs in tunnels.
• New rules "regarding signing for destinations that are accessed from different exits in opposing directions of travel," whatever that means. I don't really see the need, but maybe the content of this will surprise me.
• New rules on where arrows go on exit direction signs. This will make signs much more consistent from state to state. I'm hoping they don't require the arrow go at the bottom of the sign, since I hate that placement, but it would be more consistent with the 2009 MUTCD requiring the arrow to go in the exit only plaque, so I have a feeling that's what they're going to do.
• Diagrammatic signs may be dropped from the manual entirely, depending on public comment. I'll be arguing to keep them, of course.
• There is reference to a "Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign", which I'm guessing is a Utah-style sign of the style that's often referred to here as a "sawn-off APL".

I've had a very quick skim of the suggested changes for Chapters 2A (signs general), 2D (conventional-road guide signs), and 2E (expressway/freeway guide signs).  My general impression is that many, perhaps most, of the suggested changes amount to rewordings and rearrangements of information to try to clarify principles already present in the 2009 MUTCD.  I did notice that FHWA is getting more hard-nosed about corner-cutting such as sawing off the left and right corners on diamond signs mounted on median barriers.

The 303-page doorstop is only a pre-publication version--the actual Federal Register notice appears on December 14 and will almost certainly be downloadable as a separate PDF in the standard format for that publication.  I also expect that draft text and figures will be made available, as was the case for the 2008 rulemaking that led to the current MUTCD.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:36:43 PM
Important changes from Chapter 2E, because I know that's the only one anyone really cares about around here:

• Diagrammatic signs may be dropped from the manual entirely, depending on public comment. I'll be arguing to keep them, of course.
• There is reference to a "Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign", which I'm guessing is a Utah-style sign of the style that's often referred to here as a "sawn-off APL".

I plan to advocate for stippled-arrow diagrammatics continuing to be in the manual since they are better for unusual geometries than APLs.

Florida DOT has been a big advocate of sawn-off APLs (I think there are examples around Jacksonville), and Michigan DOT has used a few.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:36:43 PM

• Diagrammatic signs may be dropped from the manual entirely, depending on public comment. I'll be arguing to keep them, of course.
• There is reference to a "Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-Lane sign", which I'm guessing is a Utah-style sign of the style that's often referred to here as a "sawn-off APL".

Agree with you on these.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

YES everyone please comment on this.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

Nah. I'm more interested in petitioning to remove stop signs.

Which section specifically is about the 3/4ths error? Obviously yes, that needs to be removed from the manual. These changes are overwhelmingly about clarity (as JN Winkler indicates) yet one of the biggest clarity issues with guide sign design is that issue with the 3/4ths misinterpretation, yet I see no indication of any changes to that section.


I'm a bit disappointed to see that, in regards to the new/modified "Section 3B.05 Pavement Markings for Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes", they are recommending that two-way left-turn lanes not be extended to intersections and that exclusive turn lanes be provided instead. Exclusive turn lanes are often not used in WA apart from really major intersections and signals so that drivers may use the lane to merge into traffic. Eliminating that option and either recommending or making a standard of exclusive turn lanes at intersections could have a detrimental effect on traffic flow at some key intersections that I can think of for no other reason than perhaps cutting down on the occasional car turning left from a through lane.

Looks like they are cracking down on safety messages on DMS.  Also, no graphics on low-resolution DMS (even if full matrix).

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I recall seeing done correctly in Missouri a few times - think one was on a ramp from I-55, and at least a couple others around St. Louis.

EDIT:  Lots of things of note:

Misc.
* A prohibition on decimals is proposed.
* New restrictions on sign sizes are proposed.

Regulatory Signs
* The symbolic lane usage signs (R3-5 and R3-6) are proposed for overhead use only.
* Removal Roundabout directional arrows (chevrons?) is proposed.
* Proposed R10-25 modification to "PUSH BUTTON FOR WARNING LIGHTS — WAIT FOR GAP IN TRAFFIC."
* Proposed "LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW ARROW (R10-12a)"

Warning Signs
* New proposed low clearance sign for arched structures.
* Proposed  [NEW?} SIGNAL OPERATION AHEAD sign (W23-2a)
* Proposed new  LANES MERGE (W9-4) and Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) signs
* Proposed new HEAVY MERGE FROM LEFT (RIGHT) sign (W4-7)."

Guide Signs (non-freeway/expressway
* New proposed prohibition on using interstate shields with the state names on BGS's.
* Proposed design modifications for interstate business shields and county route pentagons.
* There's a proposed section for using APL's on arterial roadways.

Guide Signs (freeway/expressways0
* Proposal to recommend signing to the nearest 100 feet if the distance would be less than a quarter mile.
* New proposed section for C-D roadways
* Proposed prohibition on "signing more than four supplemental traffic generator destinations from a single interchange along the main
roadway"
* Proposed restrictions on the use of pictographs
* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

General Information Signs
* Proposed deletion of the Recycling Collection Center (I-11) symbol sign
* Proposed new section for state welcome signs and future interstate signs
* Proposed section for project information signs
* Proposed requirement to have all enhanced mile markers be green

Pavement Markings
* Appears to be a new six inch minimum size for freeways and expressways
* Proposed to require dotted lane line extensions for acceleration and deceleration lanes
* Proposed new requirement for crosswalk markings at non-intersection crossing locations
* Lot more information on crosswalks

Traffic Signals
* Proposed guidance for a three foot separation between signal faces for different movements
* Proposed revisions to the section that prohibits near-right left turn arrows if the arrows would be next to the turn lane (and similar far left right turn arrows).
* Proposed to change  maximum height for signal faces reduced to guidance from the current standard
* Proposed prohibition of 8" arrows.
* Proposed new restrictions on the use of circular green and circular yellow indications

New Part 5 for Automated Vehicles
* Lots of guidance for machine vision

Temporary Traffic Control
*  Proposed new "Merge Here Take Turns (W9-2a)" sign

School Signs
* Proposed new  "STOP FOR SCHOOL BUS WHEN RED LIGHTS FLASH"  sign

Grade Crossings
* Proposed new section for when there are multiple railroad crossings on a road in close proximity
* Proposal to always require the number of tracks sign when multiple tracks are present.
* Proposal to only require reflective material on the back side of crossbucks for passive crossings
* Proposed new section regarding the use of lane marking arrows near grade crossings
* Proposed new guidance for at least one pair of flashing light signals for each lane of the roadway
* Lots of proposed revisions for pre-signals and queue cutter signals

Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 11, 2020, 10:10:33 PM
General Information Signs
* Proposed deletion of the Recycling Collection Center (I-11) symbol sign

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of that.

When it comes to APLs, note that most people here dislike the size. However, there's a more important issue that is more relevant to the MUTCD: The understanding and safety benefits of such a sign. In practice, the signs appear to be understood which used properly.  Another common issue brought up is the cost. Overall, the increased cost isn't necessarily a major issue to most transportation departments. A simple road sign with post and breakaway post can cost several hundred dollars. Guardrail/guiderail anchorages and end treatments can cost thousands, and are required every time there's a separate guardrail line installed.  To a transportation department, the overall design and construction of the road will cost millions; the signage required is pennies on the dollar.

Quote from: MCRoads on December 11, 2020, 04:10:13 PM
I know of a city-maintained road near me with those! As soon as it is published, I'm going to tell them about, and maybe get some free signs! (But probably not.)

Generally speaking, when new standards, guidance or elimination of signs is approved, the existing signage can remain in place for its usuable/serviceable life. You may need to wait a number of years before that sign comes down.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I knew, but only after re-reading that section one day.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 11, 2020, 10:10:33 PM
Guide Signs (freeway/expressways0
* Proposal to recommend signing to the nearest 100 feet if the distance would be less than a quarter mile.

We had this discussion on the "Redesign This!" thread already, and the preference here tended to be for fractions.  I changed some of my redesigns from hundreds of feet to 1/8 mile distance messages because of this.

Quote
* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

So now a bunch of turnpikes will either have to change their signs at TOTSOs or be (blissfully?) non-compliant?  Or are they just talking about things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dxg4XYhZ74FJMGts8 ?

Quote
General Information Signs
* Proposed new section for state welcome signs and future interstate signs

This is a place where I'd love to see some standardization, especially for I-69, which I don't anticipate being completed as planned within my lifetime, even if I'm lucky enough to make it to triple digits.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 06:57:10 PM
Which section specifically is about the 3/4ths error? Obviously yes, that needs to be removed from the manual. These changes are overwhelmingly about clarity (as JN Winkler indicates) yet one of the biggest clarity issues with guide sign design is that issue with the 3/4ths misinterpretation, yet I see no indication of any changes to that section.

It's currently in Section 2A.13, but the section numbering may change because FHWA is also refactoring sections of the text in order to make the manual more streamlined and less duplicative.

---

By the way, they're considering adding a Clearview appendix, also based on public comment. You guys ready to rehash that whole 80-page Clearview thread on regulations.gov? :P

QuoteFor Section 8D.10 through 8D.13 Highway Traffic Signals at or Near Grading Crossings

Typo right in the main Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1.  But it is odd that FHWA and the rest of the highway industry continues to use the common term "grade crossing" when the railroad industry was pushed to change over to using the term "railroad crossing at grade" back in the early 1980s.  But it looks like the railroad websites do use the term "railroad grade crossing".  At least within the MUTCD itself, the Chapter is written out as "Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings".

I was straight out of college when I was told point-blank to never use the term "grade crossing" in the office, but always remember to use it outdoors.  Probably a lawyer thing. 

Section 414 now recommends backup power for traffic control signals with railroad preemption circuits.  This has been on the railroad's wish list forever. 

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 12, 2020, 10:24:17 AM

QuoteFor Section 8D.10 through 8D.13 Highway Traffic Signals at or Near Grading Crossings

Typo right in the main Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1.  But it is odd that FHWA and the rest of the highway industry continues to use the common term "grade crossing" when the railroad industry was pushed to change over to using the term "railroad crossing at grade" back in the early 1980s.  But it looks like the railroad websites do use the term "railroad grade crossing".  At least within the MUTCD itself, the Chapter is written out as "Traffic Control for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings".

I was straight out of college when I was told point-blank to never use the term "grade crossing" in the office, but always remember to use it outdoors.  Probably a lawyer thing.

Not the expected answer, but Section 538 proposed a new section for "Busway Grade Crossings".  I doubt that this was envisioned back in the early 1980s.  I should be slapped silly, since I've worked on several proposed busway projects that needed special designs for traffic control signals (which I wasn't involved with).

This one is right up my alley.  Section 562 is clarifying the subtle differences between Exit Gate systems and Four-Quadrant Gate systems (ergo, high speed rail sealed corridors).  Railroads don't like either of these because tardy drivers get "stuck" on the tracks and sometimes refuse to break off the shear pins to exit to safety.  But even I have come around to agree that these setups are resulting in better crossing safety.  The art of timing for exit gates is much improved after a number accident investigations regarding "stuck" vehicles.  By regulation, the design must have the exit gate fully lowered exactly 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train.  That's not so easy when you need to include safety pads for errors in predicting train arrival (which in many cases, is still 55 feet away from the edge of the crossing pavement that may include a wide crosswalk/bikepath).  Everybody get out your calculators.

While we're at it, you know what would be nice in the new edition?  Some clarification to Section 2E.21, Paragraph 9: "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."

In regards to this:

QuoteFHWA also proposes to delete the LRT traffic signal configurations in Figure 8D-3 (existing Figure 8C-3). FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies with more flexibility in the design of LRT signal configurations.
FHWA proposes to add Guidance, Standard, and Option statements regarding the positioning of signal faces used to control LRT movements, requiring special LRT signal indications to be white, and providing the option to allow individual LRT signal sections to be displayed to form clustered signal faces, or for multiple LRT signal indications to be displayed using a single housing. FHWA proposes these changes to improve consistency in the use of LRT signal indications.

(Current Figure: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part8/fig8c_03_longdesc.htm )

It appears NJ Transit utilizes this, and has for a long time.  I believe they are fairly unique, as when others have posted rail signals, they are typically of the 3 head version shown in the link above. To me, this is sensible, and there's no confusion to the motoring public about which signals they should be looking at.

First 6 links from the South Jersey Riverline in Camden
https://goo.gl/maps/VQ9BZGuWNhC7nnxu5
https://goo.gl/maps/5iED9eENzcwz3ZxY7
https://goo.gl/maps/iH5kmqWZzw7XpGW96
https://goo.gl/maps/SF6Q67sdfTaYfQCu9
https://goo.gl/maps/K6FDzuiLccRfgZCZ7
https://goo.gl/maps/TjRWdF44Cd52PWC6A

North Jersey around Newark:
https://goo.gl/maps/jgTNxaQrvx3zUiQn8

Quote from: stridentweasel on December 12, 2020, 01:51:02 AM

Quote
* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

So now a bunch of turnpikes will either have to change their signs at TOTSOs or be (blissfully?) non-compliant?  Or are they just talking about things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dxg4XYhZ74FJMGts8 ?

I think they are talking about both the Turnpike and the 'mainline interstate goes through a ramp at a cloverleaf' situations.

Quote128. In existing Section 2C.27, renumbered and retitled, "Section 2C.25 Low Clearance Signs (W12-2, W12-2a, W12-2b),"  FHWA proposes several revisions to clarify the signing practice for locations where the clearance is less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum vehicle height.

Long overdue.  I hope to see the examples of these signs next week.

---

QuoteFHWA also proposes to delete Standard paragraph 7 prohibiting the use of the One-Direction Large Arrow sign in the central island of a roundabout and instead proposes to allow its use in a new Option. FHWA proposes to allow the use of the sign in conjunction with the proposed changes to remove existing Section 2B.43 for Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs.

Might as well.  While the travel lanes, pavement and curbing for the roundabout tends to be fairly consistent amongst different agencies, signage within a roundabout is anything but, with agencies haphazardly installing anything they deemed correct.

---

Quote
...FHWA also proposes to add that Regulatory Speed Limit signs should not be located in the vicinity of exit ramps or deceleration lanes, particularly where they would conflict with the advisory speed displayed on the Advisory Exit or Ramp Speed signs.

Because, this is stupid: https://goo.gl/maps/TA5487c1BTmBbAVRA

The Advisory sign is 40 mph.  The Speed Limit sign seen in the distance is 50 mph...for the exiting road (US 130).  The highway itself is 65 mph.   The curve on the ramp is fairly tight, and even 50 mph in a car creates a bit of force.

While that's an extreme example, there are other examples where speed limit signs are places on regular roadways in confliction with the advisory curve speed.  I would even go so far as to eliminate a speed limit sign's use just before a traffic signal or stop sign.  A 'reminder' sign (where the speed limit doesn't change) should be placed after the intersection.  A sign due to a change in speed should be placed significantly before the intersection, or speed limit changes should be done after the intersection.

---

Quote
FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location, maximum letter heights, and letter color.

That appears to have a slight confliction with...

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 12, 2020, 12:10:34 AM
Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

While the two signs referenced appear to be different, I can see DMS manufacturers taking issue why their name can't be displayed, yet "Tim's Sign Shop" can be displayed.

The publication version (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-12-14/pdf/2020-26789.pdf) (82 pages) of the notice is now available, as well as the pre-publication version (https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-26789.pdf) (303 pages).  I'm noting this since the URL given in the OP now redirects to a page that has a PDF link only for the publication version, but does contain the full notice text in HTML (generally more convenient for copying and pasting).

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 12, 2020, 12:26:52 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on December 12, 2020, 01:51:02 AM

Quote
* New proposed standard to require the main roadway to be signed as the exit where a route exits itself.

So now a bunch of turnpikes will either have to change their signs at TOTSOs or be (blissfully?) non-compliant?  Or are they just talking about things like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dxg4XYhZ74FJMGts8 ?

I think they are talking about both the Turnpike and the 'mainline interstate goes through a ramp at a cloverleaf' situations.

I'm wondering also about signs like the big one on I-81 north just north of I-86 that shows a split a mile down the road (for I-88) that doesn't match the lane configuration at that time -- there are merges between that sign and the exit it indicates, for example.  I think that sign was a poor idea.

^This one (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7SbPg9myGSQbEHgN7)?

Yeah, that's a head scratcher. "I-88 - Albany - 1 1/2 miles" would be more than sufficient at that point.

Quote from: stridentweasel on December 12, 2020, 12:07:43 PM
While we're at it, you know what would be nice in the new edition?  Some clarification to Section 2E.21, Paragraph 9: "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."

It's going the other way, apparently–a similar statement is being added to apply to diagrammatics, too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9349728,-94.7292937,3a,75y,88.71h,90.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stZuYFTyp8xnmqsijMcEpIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

How about this one? This one is a head-scratcher...

You have to admire KDOT's restraint in not just putting up a diagrammatic tall enough to interfere with the south approach to KCI.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

Kentucky has installed a bunch of these, mostly as part of federally-funded HSIP projects.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

Quote from: hbelkins on December 12, 2020, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

Correct:
Uppercase height = 16 font
Lowercase height = 16 font, but it's 3/4 the height because it's lowercase, making it 12 tall

Incorrect:
Uppercase height = 16 font
Lowercase height = 12 font, making the height effectively 9 instead of 12 like it should be

We use the same font size for uppercase and lowercase letters (including when typing here), but for some reason, a few designers misinterpret the guideline as requiring the lowercase letters to be a smaller font size.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 12, 2020, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

(https://i.imgur.com/z7e2XdI.png)

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I consider this an improvement.  I would lose my mind counting the number of times I've seen the wrong implementation of curve signs with numbers included in the diamond panel.  They were done wrong 90% of the time.  Just forget about them.  I have directed my own DOT sign department not to use them (part of my job).  The only time I really see them nearby is on freeway exit ramps.  I really liked the use of the giant yellow curve signs with advisory speed included on the panel on the way to Yosemite in California, but those were on large rectangular banners, and they were perched on cliffs to prevent a Thelma and Louise situation.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:36:43 PM

• New rules "regarding signing for destinations that are accessed from different exits in opposing directions of travel," whatever that means. I don't really see the need, but maybe the content of this will surprise me.

Here's what I think they mean:  Consider an Interstate 62 with exits 89 and 97.  A point of interest lies along an east-west surface road 3 miles east of exit 89 and 1 mile south of I-62.  So they're talking about signing the point of interest at exit 97 for westbound traffic, and at exit 89 for eastbound traffic, to prevent backtracking.  Would it be the end of the world if they signed the point of interest at exit 89 in both directions, since it's the closest exit?  No.  But signing the point of interest at the two separate exits would promote efficiency.

I'm not sure what the current rules are regarding POI's/destinations accessed from different exits depending on your direction of travel, but New York splits them up all the time:

NY Thruway/East Aurora: EB Exit 57, WB Exit 54
NY Thruway/Victor: EB Exit 45, WB Exit 44
NY Thruway/Oneida: EB Exit 34, WB Exit 33
I-390/Mount Morris: NB Exit 6, SB Exit 7
I-390/Letchworth State Park: same as above
I-390/Geneseo: NB Exit 7, SB Exit 8
I-390/Lakeville: NB Exit 8, SB Exit 9
I-490/Brockport: EB Exit 1, WB Exit 8

... and that's just from memory, without even touching I-81 or I-86. So yeah, that practice is common here and I'd hope any rule changes would only make it easier and more common.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

PennDOT would do this in some areas, especially around the Clearfield County area. There'd be a traditional curve assembly with the supplemental plate before the curve, and then a second curve with the speed on the sign itself right by the curve.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2020, 12:50:40 PM

Quote
FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location, maximum letter heights, and letter color.

That appears to have a slight confliction with...

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 12, 2020, 12:10:34 AM
Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

While the two signs referenced appear to be different, I can see DMS manufacturers taking issue why their name can't be displayed, yet "Tim's Sign Shop" can be displayed.

A number of DOTs already include information about sign fabrication on the face of the sign, in small type not readily visible to drivers. I presume this is what they are talking about, not putting huge advertising text like is seen on some DMS.

Three section FYA where the yellow indication functions as both the steady and flashing yellow arrow is also in the rule making proposal.

The FHWA says this will allow more signals to be converted at lower costs.

Lexington, KY is one of the test sites for this currently. https://goo.gl/maps/Q5gGWYqB21Ecpiwm9
The public comments I saw on articles about Lexington's implementation generally ranged from "I thought this already existed"  to "what is the difference?"  

Quote from: webny99 on December 12, 2020, 09:27:42 PM
I'm not sure what the current rules are regarding POI's/destinations accessed from different exits depending on your direction of travel, but New York splits them up all the time:

NY Thruway/East Aurora: EB Exit 57, WB Exit 54
NY Thruway/Victor: EB Exit 45, WB Exit 44
NY Thruway/Oneida: EB Exit 34, WB Exit 33
I-390/Mount Morris: NB Exit 6, SB Exit 7
I-390/Letchworth State Park: same as above
I-390/Geneseo: NB Exit 7, SB Exit 8
I-390/Lakeville: NB Exit 8, SB Exit 9
I-490/Brockport: EB Exit 1, WB Exit 8

... and that's just from memory, without even touching I-81 or I-86. So yeah, that practice is common here and I'd hope any rule changes would only make it easier and more common.

Slightly different situation, but I really love this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7716696,-74.0862593,3a,75y,280.06h,80.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbRokkg1lpranpPiH0GM8Jw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Keep in mind, these are sequential exit numbers.

^Nice! And to make matters even more complicated, Google recommends Exit 21... which isn't even on the sign. Personally I'd stick to US 20 (Exit 24) over the combination of backroads recommended by Google to save two minutes.

Exit 17 is about 10 minutes longer, but certainly within the realm of plausibility if you're someone that likes to stick to the freeway.

Quote from: CardInLex on December 13, 2020, 09:10:17 AM
Three section FYA where the yellow indication functions as both the steady and flashing yellow arrow is also in the rule making proposal.

The FHWA says this will allow more signals to be converted at lower costs.

Lexington, KY is one of the test sites for this currently. https://goo.gl/maps/Q5gGWYqB21Ecpiwm9
The public comments I saw on articles about Lexington's implementation generally ranged from "I thought this already existed"  to "what is the difference?"

I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing sections, it shatters this.

If the intent really is for cost savings to facilitate conversions, at least restrict this usage to retrofits of existing signals and require that new/redone installations be done with a 4-section head.

Quote from: Bitmapped on December 13, 2020, 12:45:13 PM

Quote from: CardInLex on December 13, 2020, 09:10:17 AM
Three section FYA where the yellow indication functions as both the steady and flashing yellow arrow is also in the rule making proposal.

The FHWA says this will allow more signals to be converted at lower costs.

Lexington, KY is one of the test sites for this currently. https://goo.gl/maps/Q5gGWYqB21Ecpiwm9
The public comments I saw on articles about Lexington’s implementation generally ranged from “I thought this already existed” to “what is the difference?”

I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing section, it shatters this.

If the intent really is for cost savings to facilitate conversions, at least restrict this usage to retrofits of existing signals and require that new/redone installations be done with a 4-section head.

Fully agreed. Plus some parts of the country already have 3-section FYAs where the flashing yellow is in the bottom position either on its own or as a bimodal. I’m not liking the potential inconsistency here.

^ A number of changes in the signal section seem to be going backwards, particularly items on the placement of signal heads being downgraded to guidance from the current standards.  Not like some of these downgrades could be abused by agencies to try and make their red light cameras more profitable . . .

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2020, 12:50:40 PM

Quote
FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location, maximum letter heights, and letter color.

That appears to have a slight confliction with...

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 12, 2020, 12:10:34 AM
Also, it looks like the FHWA plans to introduce a prohibition on the display of manufacturer logos on the exterior of DMS. No more Daktronics or Skyline logos on the bottom.

While the two signs referenced appear to be different, I can see DMS manufacturers taking issue why their name can't be displayed, yet "Tim's Sign Shop" can be displayed.

i would expect the intent is a label with a table listing the relevant information, intended for use by DOT employees/contractors (and generally not legible from a car unless you're stopped next to it). i've seen such labels before on signs, usually on a lower corner (either front or back of the sign). at highway speed, you might not even see the label at all.

Quote from: MCRoads on December 11, 2020, 04:10:13 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

I know of a city-maintained road near me with those! As soon as it is published, I'm going to tell them about, and maybe get some free signs! (But probably not.)

Virginia loves them. Some roads near me may need some changing

Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 12, 2020, 08:33:36 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:36:43 PM

• New rules "regarding signing for destinations that are accessed from different exits in opposing directions of travel," whatever that means. I don't really see the need, but maybe the content of this will surprise me.

Here's what I think they mean:  Consider an Interstate 62 with exits 89 and 97.  A point of interest lies along an east-west surface road 3 miles east of exit 89 and 1 mile south of I-62.  So they're talking about signing the point of interest at exit 97 for westbound traffic, and at exit 89 for eastbound traffic, to prevent backtracking.  Would it be the end of the world if they signed the point of interest at exit 89 in both directions, since it's the closest exit?  No.  But signing the point of interest at the two separate exits would promote efficiency.

That's how I interpreted it.  Michigan currently follows that practice (signing the control city at exit 97 westbound and exit 89 eastbound, to follow your example) and I hope it remains.

I wonder if the current MUTCD addresses (or the proposed changes address) a situation like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/2exv30o.jpg)

In this case, East Mudpuddle should be signed from both exits 89 and 95 eastbound but only from exit 95 westbound.

See, I had thought that the engineering judgement for that sort of situation was obvious and situational enough that there's really no point in having an MUTCD ruling on it. (Just like there are no rules on how to select control cities or destinations for any other interchange.)

QuoteFHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED—YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10 23a) sign as an alternative to the R10–23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study 27 evaluated the comprehension and legibility of various alternatives for signing at midblock hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between the alternatives; however, they did highlight the need for a sign, at least initially, while drivers are learning what actions to take based on the flashing beacon. As a result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for jurisdictions that determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid beacons.

I like the looks of this. Signage at these varies so dramatically across jurisdictions and often doesn't fully convey what you're supposed to do - for example, the typical accompanying sign in Georgia simply reads STOP ON RED (https://goo.gl/maps/rR9RRNfQbofr6Cjt8) - and as a result, nobody realizes you can go on flashing red if nobody is crossing.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2020, 10:37:23 PM
See, I had thought that the engineering judgement for that sort of situation was obvious and situational enough that there's really no point in having an MUTCD ruling on it. (Just like there are no rules on how to select control cities or destinations for any other interchange.)

I wonder if the MUTCD Gods are trying to get the Kansas Turnpike Authority to use a "Wichita NEXT 4 [or 5] EXITS" sign instead of putting Wichita on every single one of the BGSs for those interchanges.  :P  There are probably lots of examples like this, actually.

Is button copy coming back based on the "coming soon!" cover on the website?
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/images/mutcd_11.png)

Sect 566 proposes new guidelines for use of blank-out signs during railroad preemption.  I am curious about this one, since NCDOT appears to be moving away from the use of blank-out signs adjacent to grade crossings.  From what I can tell, the blank-out signs here in North Carolina were already in compliance with this change.  Perhaps it is a cost issue.  I wonder if the standard three-phase traffic controller allows for railroad preemption inputs but doesn't have the additional outputs to control the blank-out signs.

I haven't seen the document, but can we have something that says that HAWK signals must have an explanation sign to go along with them for a length of time after being installed?

Even better, HAWK signals must flash yellow or be solid green when not active – this will prevent people from interpreting dark signal = power outage and temporary stop.

Here are some proposals that I don't think will get implemented because it would require too many changes, but they would help:

• Flashing green for signals not at an intersection (usually pedestrian signals or fire stations) when they're not active. MA has a few remaining, but they're declining.
• No more NTOR signs (or explicit LTOR allowed signs anywhere, or RTOR allowed signs in Staten Island). RTOR is allowed if and only if there's a flashing red arrow (which will be most intersections). 10-year transition period. Advantages: much more obvious if RTOR is allowed or not; no more difference by state about turning on a red arrow or LTOR; time-of-day NTOR can be much more easily implemented; "is this a right turn or not" is no longer an issue; straight on red at 3-way intersections can be installed if appropriate
• Backplates are yellow if power outage mode makes it a flashing yellow and black if power outage mode makes it a flashing red. This would allow cars on the major road to continue without stopping if the power outage is severe enough that the lights turn off completely.

Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2020, 08:54:41 AM

• No more NTOR signs (or explicit LTOR allowed signs anywhere, or RTOR allowed signs in Staten Island). RTOR is allowed if and only if there's a flashing red arrow (which will be most intersections). 10-year transition period. Advantages: much more obvious if RTOR is allowed or not; no more difference by state about turning on a red arrow or LTOR; time-of-day NTOR can be much more easily implemented; "is this a right turn or not" is no longer an issue; straight on red at 3-way intersections can be installed if appropriate

What are you smoking??

States would just say, fine, no RTOR than rather than spend the twns or even hundreds of millions to upgrade every intersection. Cities and towns responsible for maintenance that they lag behind anyway would certainly see all their intersections go to permanent NTOR.

A 10 year transition period is much too short.  This would be a huge budget item, and no state would have money allocated for it at this time. States project their funding many years into the future. There would be a big argument who should find this, especially if the States believe that the feds should be responsible since they're demanding the change.

Also, remember...this is a manual, not a law. A change like this would need every state to revise their laws to remove the statute permitting RTOR.

Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2020, 08:54:41 AM

• Backplates are yellow if power outage mode makes it a flashing yellow and black if power outage mode makes it a flashing red. This would allow cars on the major road to continue without stopping if the power outage is severe enough that the lights turn off completely.

What are you smoking??, part 2.

(1)  Huge budget impact, as many fixtures have incorrectly-colored backplates per your scheme or no backplates at all.

(2)  If cars on the major road may continue without stopping when the traffic signal is completely out, why is the signal there in the first place?  Traffic engineers had a reason for it.

(3)  Motorists are supposed to take their eyes off the road to study components of signal construction?  (And what about a northern state when the backplates are snow-covered?)  How about this great idea instead:  Count the number of signal heads facing each direction, and whichever road has the most gets the right of way.  Equally distracting, plus the advantage of no budget impacts.

Quote from: 1 on December 14, 2020, 08:54:41 AM
I haven't seen the document, but can we have something that says that HAWK signals must have an explanation sign to go along with them for a length of time after being installed?

Quote from: US 89 on December 14, 2020, 12:28:47 AM

QuoteFHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED—YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10 23a) sign as an alternative to the R10–23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study 27 evaluated the comprehension and legibility of various alternatives for signing at midblock hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between the alternatives; however, they did highlight the need for a sign, at least initially, while drivers are learning what actions to take based on the flashing beacon. As a result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for jurisdictions that determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid beacons.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 12, 2020, 07:50:32 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 12, 2020, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

(https://i.imgur.com/z7e2XdI.png)

I was just pointing out and explaining the error to my wife on Saturday at this intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/a2p8ErYakFrJmW8v5) while we were out on a date and doing some shopping.  Then, a little later that day, she mentioned that the street blades at this intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/HLQg7HQUDajywSBM9) weren't messed up in the same way.

What are the chances I'll make a roadgeek our of her?   :biggrin:

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 12, 2020, 07:50:32 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on December 12, 2020, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
Public comment starts on Monday. Let's all go after that section that causes the 3/4ths error, shall we?

3/4ths error?

(https://i.imgur.com/z7e2XdI.png)

These signs as well? (this is on I-195, recent install after exit renumbering in Rhode Island)
Exit 8 at the exit, EB (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.811457,-71.3547844,3a,21.7y,140.72h,91.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCekffL-Yey5AgiR35DGN0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
This sign WB before Exit 7 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8128744,-71.3616066,3a,15y,139.02h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqWHqGsCxIHTQX7sse9WcPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Exit 6, 1 mile, WB (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.810218,-71.348437,3a,15y,306.94h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spAH3s2Ym8UMmsTdTfs9MKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Exit 6, ½ mile, WB (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.812117,-71.3576043,3a,16.5y,303.66h,97.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seT319Y_IU1z1hCOVl1zSsg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

The full text, tables, and figures are now available.
https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/FHWA-2020-0001/document (https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/FHWA-2020-0001/document)

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 11, 2020, 10:10:33 PM
* Proposed new restrictions on the use of circular green and circular yellow indications

I wonder if this document and said new proposed restrictions above on the circular green and circular yellow indications would address this question for PPLT operation I've had for a while (FYI... have barely read the document yet so haven't been able to decipher much yet): 

Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 27, 2020, 09:08:53 PM
The question I've had for a while now, is except for split-phasing, should doghouses (or other 3/4/5-section yield on green signals) be banned (added: in new installs or retrofits) in the next MUTCD for PPLT operation when there is a dedicated left turn lane?

EDIT: Some states and DOT's may have issues with a "no yield on green signals with dedicated LT lane" policy (for new installs and retrofits) after reading the below part... I know some states like Connecticut doesn't even use FYA yet and I'm not sure how relevant the below quote is to my suggestion:

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2020, 09:13:09 AM
Also, remember...this is a manual, not a law. A change like this would need every state to revise their laws...

It's not exactly a user-friendly document to search and quote from. I'm trying to find the language that would eliminate the cutesy highway safety messages.

Here's the partial-width APL, if anyone was curious.

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

Quote from: MCRoads on December 11, 2020, 04:02:03 PM
Great, now my hard copy of the NUTCD is out of date! Lol, actually, this is really epic. Just hope that the APLs are fixed to not waste so much space, and that they make a better sign for the HAWK, as literally no one knows how to use it lol.

Or better yet let's make the hawk flashing red instead of alternating red


iPhone

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 12, 2020, 10:58:00 AM
This one is right up my alley.  Section 562 is clarifying the subtle differences between Exit Gate systems and Four-Quadrant Gate systems (ergo, high speed rail sealed corridors).  Railroads don't like either of these because tardy drivers get "stuck" on the tracks and sometimes refuse to break off the shear pins to exit to safety.  But even I have come around to agree that these setups are resulting in better crossing safety.  The art of timing for exit gates is much improved after a number accident investigations regarding "stuck" vehicles.  By regulation, the design must have the exit gate fully lowered exactly 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train.  That's not so easy when you need to include safety pads for errors in predicting train arrival (which in many cases, is still 55 feet away from the edge of the crossing pavement that may include a wide crosswalk/bikepath).  Everybody get out your calculators.

Or you could just use sensors like Amtrak does on the NEC that detect cars in the middle of the tracks so the exit gates don't lower until it's clear. That's the better way.


iPhone

Okay, so the new standard is that overhead exit direction signs have the diagonal arrow to the right (or the left) of the legend, while post-mounted signs have it centered below the legend.

Can anyone explain to me why this is a standard or what the rationale may be?

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 05:58:06 PMOkay, so the new standard is that overhead exit direction signs have the diagonal arrow to the right (or the left) of the legend, while post-mounted signs have it centered below the legend.

Can anyone explain to me why this is a standard or what the rationale may be?

This is suggested change no. 195.  I am not aware of research support for it (though I am a bit out of touch with the literature at this point), and am inclined to disagree with it on grounds of taking away flexibility in sign design.  The arrow should point in the same general direction as the exiting movement, and should not be positioned at the top center of the sign or in such a way that the legend is between it and the border on the exit side of the sign panel.

Edit:  Thinking about it some more, I think something like this may have been proposed in past revisions of the MUTCD and FHWA may even be poised to respond to commenters who object to the suggested language by saying something along the lines of "This was already supposed to be in the MUTCD" (as they did a lot back in 2009).  In this case, the rationale would be to prevent an upward-pointing arrow at the bottom of an overhead sign being misread at distance as a lane assignment arrow.  An arrow of this type and alignment would be safe on a ground-mounted sign since drivers will not assume it to have a lane assignment function.  The aspect I'm not sure about is disallowing right-aligned arrows on ground-mounted signs.

Quote from: US 89 on December 14, 2020, 12:28:47 AM

QuoteFHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED–YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10 23a) sign as an alternative to the R10—23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study 27 evaluated the comprehension and legibility of various alternatives for signing at midblock hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that no significant differences were found between the alternatives; however, they did highlight the need for a sign, at least initially, while drivers are learning what actions to take based on the flashing beacon. As a result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for jurisdictions that determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid beacons.

I like the looks of this. Signage at these varies so dramatically across jurisdictions and often doesn't fully convey what you're supposed to do - for example, the typical accompanying sign in Georgia simply reads STOP ON RED (https://goo.gl/maps/rR9RRNfQbofr6Cjt8) - and as a result, nobody realizes you can go on flashing red if nobody is crossing.

Good! MassDOT has a similar version to that. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201214/4e2ee4586fe70b7b65fd38ec1d5b3204.jpg)


iPhone

One thing on my wish list is for shared lane left turn signals flashing yellow arrow doghouses could be allowed. That would be really nice to see!


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 14, 2020, 06:24:12 PM
One thing on my wish list is for shared lane left turn signals flashing yellow arrow doghouses could be allowed. That would be really nice to see!


iPhone

I agree with that too, I would think that the next MUTCD would incorporate more FYA usage and gradually phase out some of the "yield on circular green" scenarios that could be achieved by an FYA... maybe I'm mistaken.

There is a section somewhere in the document that states that separate left-turn signals should not be used in shared lane scenarios like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.76741,-69.7204206,3a,19.8y,167.55h,90.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0BP03QbYyhLGhi_1XLd_eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)... but I am going to have to hunt down where I found that in section 4D.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 05:07:36 PM
Here's the partial-width APL, if anyone was curious.

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

Any particular reason it's not centered? Aside from that, this is exactly what Utah did for its version of the 2009 MUTCD.

^ I actually like the route/destination being centered over just the exit only lane. It's a better visual representation of the option lane: use this lane to exit if you wish, but please, you don't have to move left to continue straight. Also leaves a little space for a theoretical pull-through shield, a subtle but welcome reinforcement of the visual cue.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 12, 2020, 10:58:00 AM
This one is right up my alley.  Section 562 is clarifying the subtle differences between Exit Gate systems and Four-Quadrant Gate systems (ergo, high speed rail sealed corridors).  Railroads don't like either of these because tardy drivers get "stuck" on the tracks and sometimes refuse to break off the shear pins to exit to safety.  But even I have come around to agree that these setups are resulting in better crossing safety.  The art of timing for exit gates is much improved after a number accident investigations regarding "stuck" vehicles.  By regulation, the design must have the exit gate fully lowered exactly 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train.  That's not so easy when you need to include safety pads for errors in predicting train arrival (which in many cases, is still 55 feet away from the edge of the crossing pavement that may include a wide crosswalk/bikepath).  Everybody get out your calculators.

Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 14, 2020, 05:45:28 PM
Or you could just use sensors like Amtrak does on the NEC that detect cars in the middle of the tracks so the exit gates don't lower until it's clear. That's the better way.
iPhone

I'm not a big fan of the vehicle detection loops connected to the crossing detectors, but I understand why they were installed on the NEC.  On the other hand, using the vehdee loops to drop the PTC "signal" to stop a behemoth freight train is not possible given the timings and braking distances involved.  regardless, it is still unlawful for any of the gates to not be in the fully lowered position come 20 seconds before the arrival of the train.  (That's a regulation for which the Federal Railroad Administration could/should grant an exemption).

Quote from: US 89 on December 14, 2020, 07:39:50 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 05:07:36 PM
Here's the partial-width APL, if anyone was curious.

Any particular reason it's not centered? Aside from that, this is exactly what Utah did for its version of the 2009 MUTCD.

As long as the arrows are centered over the lanes to which they refer, I wouldn't get too picky.  https://goo.gl/maps/vX9stqmNp6BEtLu38

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 12, 2020, 10:58:00 AM
This one is right up my alley.  Section 562 is clarifying the subtle differences between Exit Gate systems and Four-Quadrant Gate systems (ergo, high speed rail sealed corridors).  Railroads don't like either of these because tardy drivers get "stuck" on the tracks and sometimes refuse to break off the shear pins to exit to safety.  But even I have come around to agree that these setups are resulting in better crossing safety.  The art of timing for exit gates is much improved after a number accident investigations regarding "stuck" vehicles.  By regulation, the design must have the exit gate fully lowered exactly 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train.  That's not so easy when you need to include safety pads for errors in predicting train arrival (which in many cases, is still 55 feet away from the edge of the crossing pavement that may include a wide crosswalk/bikepath).  Everybody get out your calculators.

Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 14, 2020, 05:45:28 PM
Or you could just use sensors like Amtrak does on the NEC that detect cars in the middle of the tracks so the exit gates don't lower until it's clear. That's the better way.
iPhone

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 14, 2020, 07:49:51 PMI'm not a big fan of the vehicle detection loops connected to the crossing detectors, but I understand why they were installed on the NEC.  On the other hand, using the vehdee loops to drop the PTC "signal" to stop a behemoth freight train is not possible given the timings and braking distances involved.  regardless, it is still unlawful for any of the gates to not be in the fully lowered position come 20 seconds before the arrival of the train.  (That's a regulation for which the Federal Railroad Administration could/should grant an exemption).

Been chewing on this one for a few days.  The MUTCD Proposed Ruling also proposes eliminating Section 8C.05 paragraph 17 that describes how to provide a safe zone pocket between the track and the exit gate where possible.  I suspect that the primary issue is placement of the exit gate mechanism and related underground cabling beyond the railroad right-of-way.  (It may also be that the exit gate timing could not meet the 20-second downtime rule when too far from the tracks with certain roadway skews).  However, it seems as if this were a common sense design goal that should have required a formal exemption rather than eliminating the rule.

Quote from: US 89 on December 13, 2020, 12:53:23 PM

Quote from: Bitmapped on December 13, 2020, 12:45:13 PM
I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing section, it shatters this.

If the intent really is for cost savings to facilitate conversions, at least restrict this usage to retrofits of existing signals and require that new/redone installations be done with a 4-section head.

Fully agreed. Plus some parts of the country already have 3-section FYAs where the flashing yellow is in the bottom position either on its own or as a bimodal. I'm not liking the potential inconsistency here.

I can understand both points, but I think the way the MUTCD has approached it makes sense. Retrofits are easier when you can simply replace the computers that would then allow the signal head to flash. If I understand correctly, no signal head replacements should be necessary. If this is the idea, then eliminating the option to allow a bi-modal flashing yellow/green arrow should be the obvious next step to begin normalizing the position of the flashing yellow arrow within 3-section FYA signals. Given that there are arguments in favor of both 3-section setups: all things being equal, we should just work towards normalizing the position.

That said, here's something that is leaving me very confused about permissive-only flashing yellow arrow signals: are we going to start seeing 2-section FYA signals, where the top is a red arrow and the bottom is a shared flashing yellow arrow/solid yellow arrow? Because the MUTCD doesn't make it very clear. If the goal is to begin normalizing the position of a flashing yellow arrow within 3-section FYA signals, having permissive-only FYA signals continue to display the flashing yellow arrow in the bottom section ruins the whole point. It would be really odd to have two-section signals, but it seems to be the better option for permissive-only FYA signals.

Here's part of the new MUTCD section (blue is new text):

Quote from: 2020 MUTCD Section 4F.04 Signal Indications for Permissive Only Mode Left-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face
E. During steady mode (stop-and-go) operation, the signal section that displays the steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication during change intervals shall not be used to display the flashing left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication for permissive left turns unless a signal section capable of alternating between the display of a steady YELLOW ARROW and a flashing YELLOW ARROW signal indication is used. Added to reflect Official Change Request 4(09)-42

WHAT?! This seems to plainly indicate that 2-section FYA signals are now permitted. You could have 3-section signals for these setups, but the bottom lens would go unused.

EDIT: I cannot find that change request. Anyone know where it is? Did they misidentify it?

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 05:58:06 PM
Okay, so the new standard is that overhead exit direction signs have the diagonal arrow to the right (or the left) of the legend, while post-mounted signs have it centered below the legend.

Can anyone explain to me why this is a standard or what the rationale may be?

I don't understand the requirement here for post-mounted BGS. Results in a larger sign panel for no legibility benefit that I can see.

Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 14, 2020, 06:24:12 PM
One thing on my wish list is for shared lane left turn signals flashing yellow arrow doghouses could be allowed. That would be really nice to see!

It seems that they are sort of going to allow it as a result of "Interpretation Letter 4(09)-15 (I) (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_15.htm)", but only for approaches without through movements (see new section 4F.16 and figure 4F.15), approaches with a shared through and right turn lane (see new section 4F.09), and double left turns where there is a shared left and straight lane (see new section 4F.02). I can't find anything about permitting them in general for shared left turn lane approaches.

I find this a bit strange, as that interpretation above seems to have originated as a request to allow approaches without dedicated left turn lanes to operate with protected/permissive phasing using a 5-section signal and bi-modal green arrow/flashing yellow arrow signal face. It would seem this is the only thing the new MUTCD doesn't clearly mark out as being permitted when it comes to shared signal faces with flashing yellow arrows.

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 15, 2020, 03:26:56 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 05:58:06 PM
Okay, so the new standard is that overhead exit direction signs have the diagonal arrow to the right (or the left) of the legend, while post-mounted signs have it centered below the legend.

Can anyone explain to me why this is a standard or what the rationale may be?

I don't understand the requirement here for post-mounted BGS. Results in a larger sign panel for no legibility benefit that I can see.

maybe to reduce the need for brush clearing via narrower signage?

If you have brush that close to the signage then your clear zone probably isn't wide enough.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 03:03:24 PM
EDIT: I cannot find that change request. Anyone know where it is? Did they misidentify it?

This one? (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=983)

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 15, 2020, 10:27:06 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 03:03:24 PM
EDIT: I cannot find that change request. Anyone know where it is? Did they misidentify it?

This one? (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=983)

That's it, thank you. Any idea what "receipt acknowledged" might mean? I'm trying to find information about this change request but I'm coming up empty-handed.

I imagine that FHWA merely acknowledges that it received the request, with no particular implication as to whether it was accepted or rejected.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 16, 2020, 03:44:32 AM
I imagine that FHWA merely acknowledges that it received the request, with no particular implication as to whether it was accepted or rejected.

But as I highlighted in my post on the last page, it was definitely accepted. It is referenced three times in the 2020 MUTCD...this is one of the sections where it is referenced:

Quote from: 2020 MUTCD Section 4F.04 Signal Indications for Permissive Only Mode Left-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face
E. During steady mode (stop-and-go) operation, the signal section that displays the steady left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication during change intervals shall not be used to display the flashing left-turn YELLOW ARROW signal indication for permissive left turns unless a signal section capable of alternating between the display of a steady YELLOW ARROW and a flashing YELLOW ARROW signal indication is used. Added to reflect Official Change Request 4(09)-42

Quote from: Bitmapped on December 13, 2020, 12:45:13 PM
I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing section, it shatters this.

If the intent really is for cost savings to facilitate conversions, at least restrict this usage to retrofits of existing signals and require that new/redone installations be done with a 4-section head.

Quote from: US 89 on December 13, 2020, 12:53:23 PM
Fully agreed. Plus some parts of the country already have 3-section FYAs where the flashing yellow is in the bottom position either on its own or as a bimodal. I'm not liking the potential inconsistency here.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 03:03:24 PM
I can understand both points, but I think the way the MUTCD has approached it makes sense. Retrofits are easier when you can simply replace the computers that would then allow the signal head to flash. If I understand correctly, no signal head replacements should be necessary. If this is the idea, then eliminating the option to allow a bi-modal flashing yellow/green arrow should be the obvious next step to begin normalizing the position of the flashing yellow arrow within 3-section FYA signals. Given that there are arguments in favor of both 3-section setups: all things being equal, we should just work towards normalizing the position.

<snipped>

I'm with Bitmapped on this one.  On the railroad, FRA regulations require that any failure mode in the signal head that could cause [confusion] needs to be detected and the signal aspect must be adjusted accordingly.  That doesn't perfectly fit with this issue, but it gives you a sense of where I'm coming from.  The issues with color-blind folks are obvious, but there's also some concern that a failed yellow flasher showing solid in the wrong position can really cause some confusion (particularly in parts of the country where yellow means "hurry up before it turns red").

It looks like the FHWA made a pretty big typo in chapter 9A, accidentally deleting the phrase "shall not" in the introductory language:

QuoteThe absence of a marked bicycle lane or any of the other traffic control devices discussed in this Chapter on a particular roadway [shall not] mean that bicyclists are not permitted to travel on that roadway.

Oops! People caught on assuming that the change was deliberate and left some pretty severe comments on the docket! FHWA left a note on their news feed that the change was accidental and fixed the issue.

It states that the Light Blue Chromacity Coordinates are yet to be determined.

Is this something still being researched or yet to be researched?

Quote from: Dustin DeWinn on December 19, 2020, 10:51:48 PM
It states that the Light Blue Chromacity Coordinates are yet to be determined.

Is this something still being researched or yet to be researched?

You know, this question got me thinking... And looks like this is pretty involved.
Few organizations, including FHWA, FAA and SAE have their definition for standard colors. COlors unually defined are black and white; red, green, blue; usually orange and yellow. FHWA also has Flourescent Yellow-Green, Flourescent Pink, and  Brown and Purple. I don't see definitions for light blue, purple, or cyan (which may be another important one)
However, it looks like combining those colors with text may be an issue preventing simply defining colors. 

Human vision is RGB, with R and G strongly evolving for the sake of survival - that is, to see the color of fruit to determine if it is ripe or not. Blue is a later evolutionary addition; there are few blues with survival implications.

This RGB pattern is strikingly obvious in signage. Black and white, or 0 primary colors vs 3, is the highest contrast.
Next step is 1 vs 3 - and those would be white vs red, green, or blue. And those are most common colored sign combinations.
Another one is 0 vs 2 channels - black on orange and yellow.
Looks like those would be the best color schemes available.

Two others are brown/white and purple/white.
Brown is a low intensity yellow or orange, and can be confused with those in uneven illumination. A common trick to prove that is to look at a brown object through a tube, such as a rolled magazine. Yet, a half intensity yellow/orange vs black provides 1 vs 3 contrast for less important signs.
Highly saturated (e.g. low reflection intensity) red+blue = purple vs white is the other example of same logic.

That brings me to question what is "light blue". If it is cyan, e.g. combination of green and blue, it may be used with blackk, but it looks low contrast to me. Whitish blue with black is another possible combo, again less than great.

Overall, here are some of the examples - random find on the internet - and I don't see any great examples besides pure dark blue. Probably the research is about just proving this...

(https://i2.wp.com/icolorpalette.com/download/palette/410030_color_palette.jpg)

Quote from: Bitmapped on December 13, 2020, 12:45:13 PM
I have a strong dislike of multiple uses for the same section like solid/flashing and green/yellow bimodal. The transition between different sections helps draw attention that something has changed, and the shape of the signal also conveys information about what type of indications I can expect out of the signal. When you start reusing sections, it shatters this.

New Jersey, for example, has long used 4 section heads with a bimodal G/Y arrow at the bottom (they can be found in horizontal lights as well).  I would estimate they have been in use for roughly 30 years, starting as fiber optics to change from green to yellow, then LEDs. 

I don't think there's been a single, official, declaration saying that there is any issue among the traveling public regarding these lights in that timespan.  And at least within the state, not that I claim to talk to everyone, but I've never heard anyone have a complaint about this.  We hear complains all the time about the jughandles and how you have to make a right turn turn left or make a u-turn, but the bi-modal arrow appears to garner no complains and is easy to understand.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 03:03:24 PM
... then eliminating the option to allow a bi-modal flashing yellow/green arrow should be the obvious next step to begin normalizing the position of the flashing yellow arrow within 3-section FYA signals. Given that there are arguments in favor of both 3-section setups: all things being equal, we should just work towards normalizing the position.

The issue I have with this is something like the bi-modal arrow has been around for decades, the flashing yellow has been around for a decade. A 4 section light with 2 Reds at the top has been around even longer.  Because various intersections can have unique features, there is a degree of variability that should be considered.  Since the MUTCD already accounts for these options within the placement of the lights in a tower, there shouldn't be any need to further restrict to to a non-optional standard that doesn't necessary work with all types of approved signal options.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:45:59 PM
The issues with color-blind folks are obvious...

I have long maintained that the only people having a problem with color-blindness when it comes to bi-modal arrows are those who are not color-blind.  There has never been anything to suggest that color-blind drivers have an issue with these signals.

It's the equivalent of an able-bodied person telling someone in a wheelchair "I know how you feel".  No, you don't.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:45:59 PM
The issues with color-blind folks are obvious...

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 20, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
I have long maintained that the only people having a problem with color-blindness when it comes to bi-modal arrows are those who are not color-blind.  There has never been anything to suggest that color-blind drivers have an issue with these signals.

It's the equivalent of an able-bodied person telling someone in a wheelchair "I know how you feel".  No, you don't.

I presume that the green arrow is never extended in a flash mode.  Therefore, my main concern is that a truly color-blind person cannot tell the difference between a solid green arrow and a yellow arrow that is failing to flash.  I've tested enough traffic signal equipment to have witnessed several types of failures that caused flashing signals not to flash (as well as causing non-flashing signals to flash, but at a rate associated with the power frequency).  Fortunately, none of these signals ever had bi-modal lenses.

Although I am able to tell the difference between green and yellow, I am sufficiently color-blind that I must recuse myself from visual certification of signal aspects on railroads that do not utilize color-position.  My home road (the Chesapeake and Ohio) used a quirky system where the red lens in the lower signal heads were placed at different locations to create the maximum separation between the red lenses on each head.  In later years, I would have needed to quit that job once the standard green-over-yellow-over-red became intermixed with the juggled ones.

All that being said, I have a friend who is fully color-blind and I can't fathom what that is like.  I can still dress myself with a stylish tie, shirt and jacket combination in a number of earth tones even when I can't tell what color they are.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 20, 2020, 04:25:37 PM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:45:59 PM
The issues with color-blind folks are obvious...

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 20, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
I have long maintained that the only people having a problem with color-blindness when it comes to bi-modal arrows are those who are not color-blind.  There has never been anything to suggest that color-blind drivers have an issue with these signals.

It's the equivalent of an able-bodied person telling someone in a wheelchair "I know how you feel".  No, you don't.

I presume that the green arrow is never extended in a flash mode.  Therefore, my main concern is that a truly color-blind person cannot tell the difference between a solid green arrow and a yellow arrow that is failing to flash.  I've tested enough traffic signal equipment to have witnessed several types of failures that caused flashing signals not to flash (as well as causing non-flashing signals to flash, but at a rate associated with the power frequency).  Fortunately, none of these signals ever had bi-modal lenses.

Although I am able to tell the difference between green and yellow, I am sufficiently color-blind that I must recuse myself from visual certification of signal aspects on railroads that do not utilize color-position.  My home road (the Chesapeake and Ohio) used a quirky system where the red lens in the lower signal heads were placed at different locations to create the maximum separation between the red lenses on each head.  In later years, I would have needed to quit that job once the standard green-over-yellow-over-red became intermixed with the juggled ones.

All that being said, I have a friend who is fully color-blind and I can't fathom what that is like.  I can still dress myself with a stylish tie, shirt and jacket combination in a number of earth tones even when I can't tell what color they are.

I do know that in the past the red and yellow signals had orange in their hue and the green signal had blue in its hue to aid colorblind users, however, I am not sure if that is still the case with LED signals, since LEDs are nearly (though not perfectly) monochromatic.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 20, 2020, 06:29:26 PM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 20, 2020, 04:25:37 PM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:45:59 PM
The issues with color-blind folks are obvious...

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 20, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
I have long maintained that the only people having a problem with color-blindness when it comes to bi-modal arrows are those who are not color-blind.  There has never been anything to suggest that color-blind drivers have an issue with these signals.

It's the equivalent of an able-bodied person telling someone in a wheelchair "I know how you feel".  No, you don't.

I presume that the green arrow is never extended in a flash mode.  Therefore, my main concern is that a truly color-blind person cannot tell the difference between a solid green arrow and a yellow arrow that is failing to flash.  I've tested enough traffic signal equipment to have witnessed several types of failures that caused flashing signals not to flash (as well as causing non-flashing signals to flash, but at a rate associated with the power frequency).  Fortunately, none of these signals ever had bi-modal lenses.

Although I am able to tell the difference between green and yellow, I am sufficiently color-blind that I must recuse myself from visual certification of signal aspects on railroads that do not utilize color-position.  My home road (the Chesapeake and Ohio) used a quirky system where the red lens in the lower signal heads were placed at different locations to create the maximum separation between the red lenses on each head.  In later years, I would have needed to quit that job once the standard green-over-yellow-over-red became intermixed with the juggled ones.

All that being said, I have a friend who is fully color-blind and I can't fathom what that is like.  I can still dress myself with a stylish tie, shirt and jacket combination in a number of earth tones even when I can't tell what color they are.

I do know that in the past the red and yellow signals had orange in their hue and the green signal had blue in its hue to aid colorblind users, however, I am not sure if that is still the case with LED signals, since LEDs are nearly (though not perfectly) monochromatic.

My impression was that green definition became much deeper green to blue with the introduction of LEDs. Development wise, cyan-ish LEDs were developed first, purer green came much later.
ANd a random picture with "old" and "new" definition of green (no date, I suspect late 90's - early 00's)
As a matter of fact, the early definition was even more yellowish to allow for mostly yellow incandescent lights. There was a location over here with LED and incandescent lights located nearby; old style green was almost the same as LED yellow..
(https://dleppik.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/ite_traffic_light_color.png)

Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

:banghead:

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

Absolutely ridiculous

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 20, 2020, 11:13:34 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 03:03:24 PM
... then eliminating the option to allow a bi-modal flashing yellow/green arrow should be the obvious next step to begin normalizing the position of the flashing yellow arrow within 3-section FYA signals. Given that there are arguments in favor of both 3-section setups: all things being equal, we should just work towards normalizing the position.

The issue I have with this is something like the bi-modal arrow has been around for decades, the flashing yellow has been around for a decade. A 4 section light with 2 Reds at the top has been around even longer.  Because various intersections can have unique features, there is a degree of variability that should be considered.  Since the MUTCD already accounts for these options within the placement of the lights in a tower, there shouldn't be any need to further restrict to to a non-optional standard that doesn't necessary work with all types of approved signal options.\

I would like to think the plan is to say "if you have a three-section signal that will include a flashing yellow arrow, the flashing yellow arrow should occupy the same lens as the solid yellow arrow, apart from these circumstances". I don't think the plan is to totally forbid bi-modal green/flashing yellow arrows.

In an ideal world, I don't think the flashing yellow arrow should occupy the solid yellow arrow lens. This may be contrary to what I've said earlier, but I think I prefer it to always occupy the third lens. This means that whether you're looking at a fully permissive FYA, a three section protected/permissive FYA, or a four section protected/permissive FYA, the flashing yellow arrow would always be third from the top. Not to mention that, yes, bi-modal signals are quite common already and there doesn't seem to be any issues with them. Although I think you'll find that they are not considered 'ideal' by most agencies.

Here in Pierce County, WA, along with several other local jurisdictions, the solid yellow and flashing yellow arrows occupy the same position. I don't know why this was done. To be fair to both, none have any four section FYA signals (although Pierce County replaced a few four section FYA signals with three section FYA signals...not sure why, although I guess things are more consistent now).

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 20, 2020, 11:13:34 AM
It's the equivalent of an able-bodied person telling someone in a wheelchair "I know how you feel".  No, you don't.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but couldn't the entire ADA be summed up with "I know how you feel"?

Taking reasonable steps to improve accessibility for all road users is, well, pretty reasonable. I, for one, think horizontal signals should only be used as necessary. I believe horizontal signals are considered to be a menace for those with yellow-green colorblindness and who are not used to seeing them. My cousin struggled big time when he moved from California to Texas.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 21, 2020, 05:01:01 PM
Not saying I agree or disagree, but couldn't the entire ADA be summed up with "I know how you feel"?

I don't think so. ADA mandates accessibility requirements that have changed things for disabled people in meaningful ways. Like not allowing the only entrance to a business to be up a flight of stairs, or through a doorway that isn't wide enough to fit a standard wheelchair. It's kind of hard for people our age to imagine, since we've lived most of our lives in a post-ADA world, and thus don't have to interact with much pre-ADA architecture, but the US of the 1980s was a much more difficult place for a disabled person to navigate, just on a physical level.

ADA helps in other ways, too. My wife is disabled in a few different ways, and the ADA has been an invaluable shield against managers who have no clue how to handle a disabled employee and thus make unreasonable demands of her.

QuoteTaking reasonable steps to improve accessibility for all road users is, well, pretty reasonable. I, for one, think horizontal signals should only be used as necessary. I believe horizontal signals are considered to be a menace for those with yellow-green colorblindness and who are not used to seeing them. My cousin struggled big time when he moved from California to Texas.

This is a thing I've harped on and on about regarding Oklahoma City's Project 180 streetscaping initiative. In an ill-advised attempt at placemaking, all of the street hardware in the CBD has been replaced with some in a style that is distinct from that of the rest of the city (including the adjoining Bricktown tourism and recreation district). The Project 180-style traffic signal is horizontal, while the signals used in the rest of the city are vertical. So if you're going down a particular street that crosses into the P180 area (say, Reno Avenue), you'll see a bunch of vertical signals, then get a dozen or so intersections with horizontal signals, then suddenly everything goes back to vertical.

Try to bring up why this is a bad idea and you'll get drowned out by New Urbanists spouting an endless loop of "cool placemaking!"

Nah, I like OKC's downtown horizontal signals. They give it character.

On the other hand, surely they could have come up with something better for the street blades (https://goo.gl/maps/qwxPAQ1rWUuhoQxY6)...

Quote from: US 89 on December 21, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I like OKC's downtown horizontal signals. They give it character.

I think you mean

Quote from: US 89 on December 21, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
"cool placemaking!"

This is the exact problem I am describing–"giving it character" should not take precedence over "hey, it might make it difficult for some drivers to have the traffic signals jumping between vertical and horizontal as they traverse different parts of the same city".

At least if you move to a state or city that uses horizontal signals exclusively, you can become accustomed to them. If you're a colorblind driver that lives on, say, Northwest Expressway (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.536848,-97.5902604,3a,15.6y,274.45h,91.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjfZSTvO9yDj4Z7AuM3sLJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), and works on Memorial (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6098194,-97.567073,3a,25.4y,356.78h,94.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0YBHBOV7X5TEgPEmICVRvg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0YBHBOV7X5TEgPEmICVRvg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D40.480675%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), and then have to go downtown for an errand like jury duty, and are suddenly confronted with signals that are put up at right angles to every other signal you've ever seen in this city, while being behind the wheel and dealing with all of the stresses of driving in a dense urban environment...

But hey, cool placemaking!

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2020, 11:58:22 PM

This is the exact problem I am describing–"giving it character" should not take precedence over "hey, it might make it difficult for some drivers to have the traffic signals jumping between vertical and horizontal as they traverse different parts of the same city".

I assume this has been the case for a while - is there any evidence that this is actually a problem and has led to crashes, or is this a perceived problem that doesn't actually need to be solved?

It's fairly recent–I've found documents on the city website that suggest construction began November 2010, but I also know that it's been delayed several times and the project has been rather drawn out compared to the schedule. Over the period 2010—2020, there have been a number of major changes to the area that are wholly unrelated to Project 180, such as the realignment of I-40 and its replacement with an at-grade boulevard, construction of a major park and convention center, and a dizzying array of oil industry machinations that have led to spikes and troughs in office space occupancy, so I feel like any analysis of crash data would be inconclusive at best due to the changes in traffic patterns.

That being said, since this is presumably meant to be an artistic project–a reasonable assumption given that it is described in the design document as a "contemporary | minimalist | elegant | stainless steel | rectangular pole"–why must an artistic vision be pursued for Project 180 that affects safety-sensitive equipment? Since it is art, and art is subjective, selecting any individual aesthetic choice is essentially arbitrary–why not come up with a contemporary | minimalist | elegant | stainless steel | rectangular pole with vertical signal heads?

For comparison, Norman also did some placemaking in its downtown area around the same time, but that consisted of installing fancier mastarms with ornamental bases at ground level. The signal heads are identical to those used in the rest of the city.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 12:39:00 AM
It's fairly recent–I've found documents on the city website that suggest construction began November 2010, but I also know that it's been delayed several times and the project has been rather drawn out compared to the schedule. Over the period 2010—2020, there have been a number of major changes to the area that are wholly unrelated to Project 180, such as the realignment of I-40 and its replacement with an at-grade boulevard, construction of a major park and convention center, and a dizzying array of oil industry machinations that have led to spikes and troughs in office space occupancy, so I feel like any analysis of crash data would be inconclusive at best due to the changes in traffic patterns.

There were for sure a bunch of horizontal signals in place when I went to OKC in fall 2013.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 12:39:00 AM
That being said, since this is presumably meant to be an artistic project–a reasonable assumption given that it is described in the design document as a "contemporary | minimalist | elegant | stainless steel | rectangular pole"–why must an artistic vision be pursued for Project 180 that affects safety-sensitive equipment? Since it is art, and art is subjective, selecting any individual aesthetic choice is essentially arbitrary–why not come up with a contemporary | minimalist | elegant | stainless steel | rectangular pole with vertical signal heads?

Why do they have to be vertical though? Unless there is a compelling argument for safety, backed by actual data and not just "I think color blind people might be affected", the orientation of the signals seems like a non-issue to me. Personally, I like the look.

At any rate, every single horizontal signal in the United States has red on the left and green on the right. I would imagine most color-blind people learn this the first time they encounter one and then remember it from then on. From what I remember from past visits and poking around on streetview, the horizontal signals are now fairly widespread in the downtown OKC core area which serves as an effective reinforcing mechanism (as you mentioned above). Plus, even in jurisdictions that do not regularly use horizontal signals, they do occasionally appear at intersections with visibility restrictions (such as this one in Atlanta (https://goo.gl/maps/7k5vRnmfANQ8eWtm7)) and nobody seems to mind them.

Because damn near every other signal in central Oklahoma is vertical? Mustang has a bunch of horizontal signals, but other than that you have to go to Lawton to find them. It should be noted that downtown OKC is not a place most people visit on a daily basis; it is a seat of government, and there are many office buildings there, but there's major employers scattered all over the metro: Hobby Lobby is on SW 44th, Dell is on SW 15th, Paycom is up on Memorial, Love's is up at Penn and Hefner, the air force base isn't even in OKC limits, and so on. Turning signals horizontal near bridges is not something I've ever known (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3913545,-97.5478804,3a,83.2y,354.24h,82.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW_X_uGt4iqwTmR3_9SNbWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) ODOT or City of OKC to ever do.

One can live nearly all of their day-to-day life in the Oklahoma City metro without ever setting foot in the P180 area...but then be forced to go there because you have to do something at city hall or at the local or federal courthouse. Then you may never have to go back there for several years. Sure, MUTCD has rules for red on the left and green on the right, but if you're not the sort of person who gets excited when you see things like "MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available", and you don't get or need that reinforcement for several years, why would you remember?

Quote from: corco on December 22, 2020, 12:17:32 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2020, 11:58:22 PM

This is the exact problem I am describing–"giving it character" should not take precedence over "hey, it might make it difficult for some drivers to have the traffic signals jumping between vertical and horizontal as they traverse different parts of the same city".

I assume this has been the case for a while - is there any evidence that this is actually a problem and has led to crashes, or is this a perceived problem that doesn't actually need to be solved?

I did dig around a while ago - and the basic conclusion was that most (90+%), although not all, colorblind people are not THAT colorblind not to be able to tell the difference. 

Quote from: kalvado on April 20, 2018, 03:56:42 PM
I looked around - and, interestingly enough, the main concern for color blind people seems to be seeing taillights of cars in the dark.
Blue cone is intact in most cases - and standard for green light is such that there is some blue in there, so green is not confused with anything else in most color blind people. And that is the most dangerous confusion, apparently...

Quote from: corco on December 22, 2020, 12:17:32 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2020, 11:58:22 PM

This is the exact problem I am describing–"giving it character" should not take precedence over "hey, it might make it difficult for some drivers to have the traffic signals jumping between vertical and horizontal as they traverse different parts of the same city".

I assume this has been the case for a while - is there any evidence that this is actually a problem and has led to crashes, or is this a perceived problem that doesn't actually need to be solved?

This right here.  People are willing to pull up studies and justification for many minor things most people pay no attention to (font on signs, for example), but many other things just come down to "I don't like it".

There is a character issue though that shouldn't be overlooked.  I'll give one example I came across the other day: This intersection in NJ has, for the most part, custom-made posts and masts.  https://goo.gl/maps/wBSheitbbEQuXFu67 .  Apparently, the assembly by the Harrison House sign must've been hit and knocked down, and was replaced is a very standard NJ post and monopole mast.  If the entire intersection used those, no big deal.  But when only 1 of the 4 is using it, it looks absolutely hideous.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2020, 02:15:26 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

Absolutely ridiculous

Are you being facetious?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2020, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: corco on December 22, 2020, 12:17:32 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2020, 11:58:22 PM

This is the exact problem I am describing—"giving it character" should not take precedence over "hey, it might make it difficult for some drivers to have the traffic signals jumping between vertical and horizontal as they traverse different parts of the same city".

I assume this has been the case for a while - is there any evidence that this is actually a problem and has led to crashes, or is this a perceived problem that doesn't actually need to be solved?

This right here.  People are willing to pull up studies and justification for many minor things most people pay no attention to (font on signs, for example), but many other things just come down to "I don't like it".

There is a character issue though that shouldn't be overlooked.  I'll give one example I came across the other day: This intersection in NJ has, for the most part, custom-made posts and masts.  https://goo.gl/maps/wBSheitbbEQuXFu67 .  Apparently, the assembly by the Harrison House sign must've been hit and knocked down, and was replaced is a very standard NJ post and monopole mast.  If the entire intersection used those, no big deal.  But when only 1 of the 4 is using it, it looks absolutely hideous.

The reverse (one fancy pole, three regular ones) isn't much better-looking really.  (This configuration was only for a couple years (https://goo.gl/maps/6Quo6ZNPpB68wSHE9) between Russell becoming two-way and the streetscaping/reconfiguration of Stadium occurring.  West Lafayette went bonkers with the fancy poles.  )

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2020, 02:15:26 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

Absolutely ridiculous

Are you being facetious?

Nope. We're 50 years overdue on metrication. We're continuing to dig in our heels for frankly stupid reasons.

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2020, 04:05:59 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2020, 02:15:26 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

Absolutely ridiculous

Are you being facetious?

Nope. We're 50 years overdue on metrication. We're continuing to dig in our heels for frankly stupid reasons.

Is that something the MUTCD can really solve, though? They had full specs for how to use metric in the 2003 edition and as far as I can tell no agency ever used them. Which is because, for whatever reason, the American people don't use them. Besides, putting km on road signs seems kind of half-hearted when you get off the road and the gas pump measures in gallons, and you go into work and deal with paperwork that's printed on 8½ by 11" paper. (Never understood those dimensions; why would you make it so that cutting a piece of paper in half both ways requires fractions?)

Personally, I do all of my day to day measurement in centimeters if I can help it, because they're way easier to deal with. (Any measuring system that might require me to deal with sixteenths of something is gross.) But the imperial measurements are pushed by so much of modern American industry that it's kind of hard to get away from them even if you want to.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 05:03:36 PM
... and you go into work and deal with paperwork that's printed on 8½ by 11" paper. (Never understood those dimensions; why would you make it so that cutting a piece of paper in half both ways requires fractions?)

A4 paper at 210x297 mm is better?

If you thought ounces/pounds and cups/quarts/gallons is confusing, don't even try to understand paper sizes/weights.

8-1/2x11 is a quarter of a 17x22 sheet, which is the standard size for printing papers ("bond").  20 pound paper means a ream (500 sheets) of 17x22 would weigh 20 pounds.

Card stock is 90, 110 or 130 pound paper - but that's measured for a ream of larger size sheets, 25x38 if I remember.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 05:03:36 PM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2020, 04:05:59 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2020, 02:15:26 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

Absolutely ridiculous

Are you being facetious?

Nope. We're 50 years overdue on metrication. We're continuing to dig in our heels for frankly stupid reasons.

Is that something the MUTCD can really solve, though? They had full specs for how to use metric in the 2003 edition and as far as I can tell no agency ever used them. Which is because, for whatever reason, the American people don't use them. Besides, putting km on road signs seems kind of half-hearted when you get off the road and the gas pump measures in gallons, and you go into work and deal with paperwork that's printed on 8½ by 11" paper. (Never understood those dimensions; why would you make it so that cutting a piece of paper in half both ways requires fractions?)

Personally, I do all of my day to day measurement in centimeters if I can help it, because they're way easier to deal with. (Any measuring system that might require me to deal with sixteenths of something is gross.) But the imperial measurements are pushed by so much of modern American industry that it's kind of hard to get away from them even if you want to.

It can't solve it, but it certainly shouldn't get in the way of it.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 05:03:36 PM
They had full specs for how to use metric in the 2003 edition and as far as I can tell no agency ever used them.

They were used a few places in NY near the border with Canada.
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/ny812/100_6498-s.JPG)

Exits near the Ford Truck Plant along the Gene Snyder Freeway in Louisville, KY are in metric (with miles in parentheses). Although a current project will likely replace them with standard mile based signs. https://goo.gl/maps/zu4qWzzR8RiEfU8u8

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2020, 10:01:00 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on December 21, 2020, 05:01:01 PM
Not saying I agree or disagree, but couldn't the entire ADA be summed up with "I know how you feel"?

I don't think so. ADA mandates accessibility requirements that have changed things for disabled people in meaningful ways. Like not allowing the only entrance to a business to be up a flight of stairs, or through a doorway that isn't wide enough to fit a standard wheelchair. It's kind of hard for people our age to imagine, since we've lived most of our lives in a post-ADA world, and thus don't have to interact with much pre-ADA architecture, but the US of the 1980s was a much more difficult place for a disabled person to navigate, just on a physical level.

ADA helps in other ways, too. My wife is disabled in a few different ways, and the ADA has been an invaluable shield against managers who have no clue how to handle a disabled employee and thus make unreasonable demands of her.

I understand the purpose of the ADA, and I'm quite familiar with many of its standards (the "landings" requirements for stairs and ramps was one I had to learn particularly quick in my school program). But when I say "I know how you feel", I mean that although the source of the legislation generally comes from those with disabilities who need the ADA to assist them, the actual legislation is probably written up and approved by those without those disabilities. Thus, the entire ADA program is basically one big "we know how you feel" mandate because, by and large, those who write up the legislation and then those who implement it are not those with the disabilities.

On horizontal signals: I think countries like Japan have proven that you can mix horizontal and vertical signals and likely be fine. And I think most drivers can get on just fine with horizontal signals in the US, even if they can't see color at all. But the point is that most places use vertical signals, so why not require what is already most common? My cousin was never in an accident when he lived in Texas, but he was quite often confused and relied on other drivers to figure out whether the light was green or red. He figured it out eventually, but there was this confusion that didn't need to exist. After all, like me, he was never taught about horizontal signals.

Quote from: US 89 on December 21, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I like OKC's downtown horizontal signals. They give it character.

Public space design rarely goes as far as the design of traffic lights (I'm one of the few who actually considers it), but the general rule is: (1) no signals, (2) pole-mounted signals only, (3) span wire signals (less bulky than mast arms), and (4) mast arms. Signal orientation is entirely up to engineers, and they are very seldom trained in the art of whatever the hell "character" would mean in that sense. It's usually better if traffic lights are designed to be as non-intrusive as possible.

Downtowns with really good signalization, in my opinion, are (1) Spokane, WA, (2) Portland, OR (around Pioneer Courthouse Square), and (3) Vancouver, BC; all three are primarily reliant on pole mounted signals and overhead signals are used lightly and rarely in obtrusive ways.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2020, 01:52:04 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2020, 10:01:00 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on December 21, 2020, 05:01:01 PM
Not saying I agree or disagree, but couldn't the entire ADA be summed up with "I know how you feel"?

I don't think so. ADA mandates accessibility requirements that have changed things for disabled people in meaningful ways. Like not allowing the only entrance to a business to be up a flight of stairs, or through a doorway that isn't wide enough to fit a standard wheelchair. It's kind of hard for people our age to imagine, since we've lived most of our lives in a post-ADA world, and thus don't have to interact with much pre-ADA architecture, but the US of the 1980s was a much more difficult place for a disabled person to navigate, just on a physical level.

ADA helps in other ways, too. My wife is disabled in a few different ways, and the ADA has been an invaluable shield against managers who have no clue how to handle a disabled employee and thus make unreasonable demands of her.

I understand the purpose of the ADA, and I'm quite familiar with many of its standards (the "landings" requirements for stairs and ramps was one I had to learn particularly quick in my school program). But when I say "I know how you feel", I mean that although the source of the legislation generally comes from those with disabilities who need the ADA to assist them, the actual legislation is probably written up and approved by those without those disabilities. Thus, the entire ADA program is basically one big "we know how you feel" mandate because, by and large, those who write up the legislation and then those who implement it are not those with the disabilities.

Plus, colorblindness isn't recognized as a disability under ADA law.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2020, 01:52:04 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 21, 2020, 10:01:00 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on December 21, 2020, 05:01:01 PM
Not saying I agree or disagree, but couldn't the entire ADA be summed up with "I know how you feel"?

I don't think so. ADA mandates accessibility requirements that have changed things for disabled people in meaningful ways. Like not allowing the only entrance to a business to be up a flight of stairs, or through a doorway that isn't wide enough to fit a standard wheelchair. It's kind of hard for people our age to imagine, since we've lived most of our lives in a post-ADA world, and thus don't have to interact with much pre-ADA architecture, but the US of the 1980s was a much more difficult place for a disabled person to navigate, just on a physical level.

ADA helps in other ways, too. My wife is disabled in a few different ways, and the ADA has been an invaluable shield against managers who have no clue how to handle a disabled employee and thus make unreasonable demands of her.

I understand the purpose of the ADA, and I'm quite familiar with many of its standards (the "landings" requirements for stairs and ramps was one I had to learn particularly quick in my school program). But when I say "I know how you feel", I mean that although the source of the legislation generally comes from those with disabilities who need the ADA to assist them, the actual legislation is probably written up and approved by those without those disabilities. Thus, the entire ADA program is basically one big "we know how you feel" mandate because, by and large, those who write up the legislation and then those who implement it are not those with the disabilities.

Hopefully when thr laws are written, they do a lot of consulting with those with disabilities.

Besides, when it comes to politicians, they are the kings and queens of "I know how you feel"...to get your vote.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2020, 05:05:16 PM
Besides, when it comes to politicians, they are the kings and queens of "I know how you feel"...to get your vote.

And that's exactly my point. Pretty much all aspects of the built environment are designed and built one group of people for another group of people. Designers of anything have to take into account how people will use their product. In my opinion, things like bimodal signal faces or horizontal signal orientations are both examples of where designers have failed to take into account all users of their product. It's not that either have caused crashes (really no way to know...crash data is rarely that deep), but they both create issues that generally do not exist with alternative and/or otherwise perfectly valid installations. Why intentionally use something with additional caveats?

To those who say "both are still common enough that it should be understood", I would argue simply that most drivers likely are used to what they see everyday, and even minute differences can throw drivers when they are somewhere unfamiliar.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 23, 2020, 04:30:30 PM
Plus, colorblindness isn't recognized as a disability under ADA law.

I suppose if it were, you'd see tighter regulations in some parts of the MUTCD's section 4.

Quote from: GaryV on December 22, 2020, 06:30:10 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 05:03:36 PM
... and you go into work and deal with paperwork that's printed on 8½ by 11" paper. (Never understood those dimensions; why would you make it so that cutting a piece of paper in half both ways requires fractions?)

A4 paper at 210x297 mm is better?

Much better. It might seem like strange dimensions, but it's a 1/16th of the area of a 1 m² A0 paper keeping to the ratio 1:sqrt(2).

Quote from: riiga on December 24, 2020, 04:40:09 AM

Quote from: GaryV on December 22, 2020, 06:30:10 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 05:03:36 PM
... and you go into work and deal with paperwork that's printed on 8½ by 11" paper. (Never understood those dimensions; why would you make it so that cutting a piece of paper in half both ways requires fractions?)

A4 paper at 210x297 mm is better?

Much better. It might seem like strange dimensions, but it's a 1/16th of the area of a 1 m² A0 paper keeping to the ratio 1:sqrt(2).

I believe the biggest difference between A4 and letter is that you need to fold paper planes differently, folding scheme for one doesn't fly with the other.
To return to original topic, though.. is it possible to print MUTCD on A4 pages?

Quote from: kalvado on December 24, 2020, 07:37:23 AM

Quote from: riiga on December 24, 2020, 04:40:09 AM

Quote from: GaryV on December 22, 2020, 06:30:10 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 05:03:36 PM
... and you go into work and deal with paperwork that's printed on 8½ by 11" paper. (Never understood those dimensions; why would you make it so that cutting a piece of paper in half both ways requires fractions?)

A4 paper at 210x297 mm is better?

Much better. It might seem like strange dimensions, but it's a 1/16th of the area of a 1 m² A0 paper keeping to the ratio 1:sqrt(2).

I believe the biggest difference between A4 and letter is that you need to fold paper planes differently, folding scheme for one doesn't fly with the other.

If you have a method for folding A4 planes (Airbus 004?), the same method works on all A sizes from A0 to A10, the entire B series, and the entire C series. On the other hand, every US paper size is different. 3×5, 8½×11, 11×17, and everything else all require different methods.

Quote from: 1 on December 24, 2020, 07:41:41 AM

Quote from: kalvado on December 24, 2020, 07:37:23 AM

Quote from: riiga on December 24, 2020, 04:40:09 AM

Quote from: GaryV on December 22, 2020, 06:30:10 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2020, 05:03:36 PM
... and you go into work and deal with paperwork that's printed on 8½ by 11" paper. (Never understood those dimensions; why would you make it so that cutting a piece of paper in half both ways requires fractions?)

A4 paper at 210x297 mm is better?

Much better. It might seem like strange dimensions, but it's a 1/16th of the area of a 1 m² A0 paper keeping to the ratio 1:sqrt(2).

I believe the biggest difference between A4 and letter is that you need to fold paper planes differently, folding scheme for one doesn't fly with the other.

If you have a method for folding A4 planes (Airbus 004?), the same method works on all A sizes from A0 to A10, the entire B series, and the entire C series. On the other hand, every US paper size is different. 3×5, 8½×11, 11×17, and everything else all require different methods.

Not quite, the ANSI paper sizes are all based on 8.5x11, so at least every other one has the same proportions. This is really important for engineering plans, which are ANSI D (22x34) full size and ANSI B (11x17) half size so the scaling works properly.

---

Quote from: kalvado on December 24, 2020, 07:37:23 AM
To return to original topic, though.. is it possible to print MUTCD on A4 pages?

Of course it's possible, you'd just have some weird margins.  :-P

So I actually submitted a public comment on something

QuoteI am concerned about Section 8A.13 creating provision for busway crossings to be treated with gates and flashing red lights in a manner similar to LRT or railroad crossings.

Railroad crossings are signalized the way they are because of the unique hazard to road users that they present - trains are unable to quickly stop, and it is absolutely crucial for any road users to not enter a railroad crossing when a train is approaching in order to avoid a crash that is likely to result in serious injury or death. Buses do not have this same limitation, and will have the same ability to stop in order to avoid a crash should the crossing be obstructed as they would if they were operating on a regular road and encountering an obstruction in a regular signalized intersection.

Signalizing busway crossings the way railroad crossings are signalized thus seems inadvisable for the same reason that overuse of warning signs is admonished against - the use of gates and flashing red lights overstates the hazard present, and risks desensitizing road users to them. It also makes it such that there will no longer be a form of highly distinct traffic control that uniquely alerts to the presence of a train. Road users may then fail to treat railroad crossings with the appropriate level of caution as a result.

For the sake of providing buses on a busway with priority over crossing traffic that allows them to maintain speed, I would instead suggest the appropriate way of doing this is with an ordinary traffic signal that rests in green for the cross street until an approaching bus pre-empts it. I would retain the option to supplement with an R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION sign, as well the guidance that STOP or YIELD signs may be used in lieu of a signal if an engineering study deems this treatment adequate.

Woo!

Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2020, 01:39:41 AM
So I actually submitted a public comment on something

QuoteI am concerned about Section 8A.13 creating provision for busway crossings to be treated with gates and flashing red lights in a manner similar to LRT or railroad crossings.

Railroad crossings are signalized the way they are because of the unique hazard to road users that they present - trains are unable to quickly stop, and it is absolutely crucial for any road users to not enter a railroad crossing when a train is approaching in order to avoid a crash that is likely to result in serious injury or death. Buses do not have this same limitation, and will have the same ability to stop in order to avoid a crash should the crossing be obstructed as they would if they were operating on a regular road and encountering an obstruction in a regular signalized intersection.

Signalizing busway crossings the way railroad crossings are signalized thus seems inadvisable for the same reason that overuse of warning signs is admonished against - the use of gates and flashing red lights overstates the hazard present, and risks desensitizing road users to them. It also makes it such that there will no longer be a form of highly distinct traffic control that uniquely alerts to the presence of a train. Road users may then fail to treat railroad crossings with the appropriate level of caution as a result.

For the sake of providing buses on a busway with priority over crossing traffic that allows them to maintain speed, I would instead suggest the appropriate way of doing this is with an ordinary traffic signal that rests in green for the cross street until an approaching bus pre-empts it. I would retain the option to supplement with an R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION sign, as well the guidance that STOP or YIELD signs may be used in lieu of a signal if an engineering study deems this treatment adequate.

Well worded.  Having worked on a number of proposed BRT systems, I suspect that the proposed ruling is intended for corridors where the BRT is a [temporary] measure where an upgrade to some form of rail transit is envisioned.  However, I have a concern that the detection of transit buses is not sufficiently redundant to provide the level of safety that is conveyed by railroad crossing flashing light signals and gates (FLS&G).  Virtually all of the railroad crossing equipment used in the United States is not redundant but is fail-safe.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2020, 01:39:41 AM
So I actually submitted a public comment on something

QuoteI am concerned about Section 8A.13 creating provision for busway crossings to be treated with gates and flashing red lights in a manner similar to LRT or railroad crossings.

Railroad crossings are signalized the way they are because of the unique hazard to road users that they present - trains are unable to quickly stop, and it is absolutely crucial for any road users to not enter a railroad crossing when a train is approaching in order to avoid a crash that is likely to result in serious injury or death. Buses do not have this same limitation, and will have the same ability to stop in order to avoid a crash should the crossing be obstructed as they would if they were operating on a regular road and encountering an obstruction in a regular signalized intersection.

Signalizing busway crossings the way railroad crossings are signalized thus seems inadvisable for the same reason that overuse of warning signs is admonished against - the use of gates and flashing red lights overstates the hazard present, and risks desensitizing road users to them. It also makes it such that there will no longer be a form of highly distinct traffic control that uniquely alerts to the presence of a train. Road users may then fail to treat railroad crossings with the appropriate level of caution as a result.

For the sake of providing buses on a busway with priority over crossing traffic that allows them to maintain speed, I would instead suggest the appropriate way of doing this is with an ordinary traffic signal that rests in green for the cross street until an approaching bus pre-empts it. I would retain the option to supplement with an R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION sign, as well the guidance that STOP or YIELD signs may be used in lieu of a signal if an engineering study deems this treatment adequate.

Woo!

I thought the operation of grade crossing signals was regulated by the FRA.

As it relates to using railroad crossing arms for BRT routes, I actually proposed as much to Pierce Transit (Tacoma, WA). As part of a new BRT system, I proposed a two-way side-alignment (rather than along each side, or in the center), but the plan was scrapped primarily because Pierce Transit wanted to run the BRT in the median. The addition of crossing arms never really came up as an issue.

I created these rather complex renderings to explain how it might work/look (click to enlarge...I made them small because it's fairly off-topic):

(I also recognize some technical issues with this, not the least being a post-mounted signal being mounted in the way of the crossing arm...just focus on the overall picture please).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50779653373_e12ba37c00_o.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50780529367_3723a4c2d6_o.jpg)

Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 03:40:33 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 14, 2020, 06:24:12 PM
One thing on my wish list is for shared lane left turn signals flashing yellow arrow doghouses could be allowed. That would be really nice to see!

It seems that they are sort of going to allow it as a result of "Interpretation Letter 4(09)-15 (I) (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_15.htm)", but only for approaches without through movements (see new section 4F.16 and figure 4F.15), approaches with a shared through and right turn lane (see new section 4F.09), and double left turns where there is a shared left and straight lane (see new section 4F.02). I can't find anything about permitting them in general for shared left turn lane approaches.

I find this a bit strange, as that interpretation above seems to have originated as a request to allow approaches without dedicated left turn lanes to operate with protected/permissive phasing using a 5-section signal and bi-modal green arrow/flashing yellow arrow signal face. It would seem this is the only thing the new MUTCD doesn't clearly mark out as being permitted when it comes to shared signal faces with flashing yellow arrows.

My interpretation of this:

Quote
FHWA also proposes to allow the option of displaying both the FYA and the steady yellow arrow in the same section for five-section shared left-turn/right-turn signal faces operating in protected/permissive mode in Section 4F.02 (existing Section 4D.17) Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements—General, 4F.09 (existing Section 4E.21) Signal Indications for Right-Turn Movements—General, and Section 4F.16 (existing Section 4D.25) retitled, “Signal Indications for Approaches with Shared Left-Turn/Right-Turn Lanes and No Through Movement.

Is that allowing them for situations with only left and right turns in 4F.16 is an addition to allowing them for other scenarios in 4F.02

The signal in question for the original request was to allow a signal in Eden Prairie, MN with a dedicated left, shared left, and right to operate in split phase during peak times and permissive at other times, but MnDOT expanded it's use to any protected / permissive situation with one or more shared lanes, even undivided highway with no dedicated turn lanes. Normal practice seems to put FYA doghouses on roads with two or more lanes statewide, roads with one lane most of the state still uses three section Yield on Green, but some rural districts are putting up doghouses, getting statewide consistency on that is one of the agenda items MnDOT is looking at. 3 section permissive only signals with a FYA on the bottom are banned statewide so using those at these smaller intersections isn't an option.

Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2020, 01:39:41 AM
So I actually submitted a public comment on something

QuoteI am concerned about Section 8A.13 creating provision for busway crossings to be treated with gates and flashing red lights in a manner similar to LRT or railroad crossings.

Railroad crossings are signalized the way they are because of the unique hazard to road users that they present - trains are unable to quickly stop, and it is absolutely crucial for any road users to not enter a railroad crossing when a train is approaching in order to avoid a crash that is likely to result in serious injury or death. Buses do not have this same limitation, and will have the same ability to stop in order to avoid a crash should the crossing be obstructed as they would if they were operating on a regular road and encountering an obstruction in a regular signalized intersection.

Signalizing busway crossings the way railroad crossings are signalized thus seems inadvisable for the same reason that overuse of warning signs is admonished against - the use of gates and flashing red lights overstates the hazard present, and risks desensitizing road users to them. It also makes it such that there will no longer be a form of highly distinct traffic control that uniquely alerts to the presence of a train. Road users may then fail to treat railroad crossings with the appropriate level of caution as a result.

For the sake of providing buses on a busway with priority over crossing traffic that allows them to maintain speed, I would instead suggest the appropriate way of doing this is with an ordinary traffic signal that rests in green for the cross street until an approaching bus pre-empts it. I would retain the option to supplement with an R10-7 DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION sign, as well the guidance that STOP or YIELD signs may be used in lieu of a signal if an engineering study deems this treatment adequate.

Woo!

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 30, 2020, 01:55:09 PM
I thought the operation of grade crossing signals was regulated by the FRA.

You are correct.  But the operation of BRT flashing light signals and gates would not be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

Quote from: jakeroot on December 30, 2020, 02:52:30 PM
As it relates to using railroad crossing arms for BRT routes, I actually proposed as much to Pierce Transit (Tacoma, WA). As part of a new BRT system, I proposed a two-way side-alignment (rather than along each side, or in the center), but the plan was scrapped primarily because Pierce Transit wanted to run the BRT in the median. The addition of crossing arms never really came up as an issue.

I created these rather complex renderings to explain how it might work/look (click to enlarge...I made them small because it's fairly off-topic):

(I also recognize some technical issues with this, not the least being a post-mounted signal being mounted in the way of the crossing arm...just focus on the overall picture please).

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50779653373_e12ba37c00_o.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50780529367_3723a4c2d6_o.jpg)

Although you didn't use gates, I can see where the use of gates (in particular, pedestrian gates or crossing gates covering the sidewalk areas) would be of interest for BRT operations.  Control of pedestrians and passengers at station platforms is a particular problem, as many latecomers are prone to running in front of trains and buses.  All that being said, my concerns about the differences in system safety protocols used in the traffic signals versus railway signals gets even stronger.

All of this would be moot if certain traffic signals were required to be designed to the same level-of-safety (LOS) as grade crossing FLS&G systems. 

I have a question regarding this part of the proposed changes:

Quote383. (trimmed) FHWA also proposes to allow the option of displaying both the FYA and the steady yellow arrow in the same section for five-section shared left turn/right-turn signal faces operating in protected/permissive mode in Section 4F.02 (existing Section 4D.17) Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements– General, 4F.09 (existing Section 4E.21) Signal Indications for Right-Turn Movements–General, and Section 4F.16 (existing Section 4D.25) retitled, "˜"˜Signal Indications for Approaches with Shared Left-Turn/Right-Turn Lanes and No Through Movement.'' FHWA proposes these changes based on Interim Approval 17,66 FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)—15(I),67 and supporting research. FHWA also proposes revisions to various paragraphs and sections throughout the part to reflect these proposed changes.

- Does this allow 4-section bimodal faces (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7999981,-71.405691,3a,57.5y,261.4h,86.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1TF8F2FR7s7EJe26KDEfRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to use the bottom section for clearance, permissive and protected indications, all at the same time? I can foresee some confusion if that was permitted...

- In this section, for a shared people/RT signal operating as FYA, can the flashing yellow arrow and circular green terminate with just a circular yellow, just like how at lagging people/RT (non-FYA) (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6616347,-70.2554855,3a,54.2y,226.11h,88.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stR_WrM0ysuBdNU2uYMgbsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) or split phase (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6193015,-70.3070983,3a,26.9y,111.95h,89.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sziTouruqiV-PQoBy2XT4Cg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DziTouruqiV-PQoBy2XT4Cg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D235.04463%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), how the green arrow and circular green terminate with just a circular yellow? Or does the steady yellow arrow have to appear along with the circular yellow, regardless if the signal is terminating from either permissive or protected indications.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 01, 2021, 03:50:19 AM
I have a question regarding this part of the proposed changes:

Quote383. (trimmed) FHWA also proposes to allow the option of displaying both the FYA and the steady yellow arrow in the same section for five-section shared left turn/right-turn signal faces operating in protected/permissive mode in Section 4F.02 (existing Section 4D.17) Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements– General, 4F.09 (existing Section 4E.21) Signal Indications for Right-Turn Movements–General, and Section 4F.16 (existing Section 4D.25) retitled, "˜"˜Signal Indications for Approaches with Shared Left-Turn/Right-Turn Lanes and No Through Movement.'' FHWA proposes these changes based on Interim Approval 17,66 FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)—15(I),67 and supporting research. FHWA also proposes revisions to various paragraphs and sections throughout the part to reflect these proposed changes.

- Does this allow 4-section bimodal faces (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7999981,-71.405691,3a,57.5y,261.4h,86.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1TF8F2FR7s7EJe26KDEfRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to use the bottom section for clearance, permissive and protected indications, all at the same time? I can foresee some confusion if that was permitted...

- In this section, for a shared people/RT signal operating as FYA, can the flashing yellow arrow and circular green terminate with just a circular yellow, just like how at lagging people/RT (non-FYA) (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6616347,-70.2554855,3a,54.2y,226.11h,88.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stR_WrM0ysuBdNU2uYMgbsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) or split phase (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6193015,-70.3070983,3a,26.9y,111.95h,89.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sziTouruqiV-PQoBy2XT4Cg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DziTouruqiV-PQoBy2XT4Cg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D235.04463%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), how the green arrow and circular green terminate with just a circular yellow? Or does the steady yellow arrow have to appear along with the circular yellow, regardless if the signal is terminating from either permissive or protected indications.

Regarding your first bullet, that's a non-compliant signal head–at least under the current 2009 MUTCD–if it's R-Y-G-GA/FYA (I admittedly have not gone through all of the proposed manual). Flashing yellow arrows are only supposed to be used where a dedicated turn lane exists, and circular indications are not supposed to be used over dedicated turn lanes. Circular green and FYA are redundant.

On your second bullet, I think it's a similar situation. If you've got a dedicated right turn lane, it would have an FYA and the circular green would not apply. A right turn FYA arrow permissive turn phase can be terminated with circular red (but the current MUTCD doesn't show a circular yellow in any of the figures, likely because the FYA is shown with dedicated right turn lanes so a solid yellow arrow would apply instead).

Quote from: roadfro on February 02, 2021, 12:34:35 PM
Regarding your first bullet, that's a non-compliant signal head–at least under the current 2009 MUTCD–if it's R-Y-G-GA/FYA (I admittedly have not gone through all of the proposed manual). Flashing yellow arrows are only supposed to be used where a dedicated turn lane exists, and circular indications are not supposed to be used over dedicated turn lanes. Circular green and FYA are redundant.

No, the signal head that is shown here (https://i.ibb.co/93MbWYb/Screenshot-2021-02-02-at-12-49-49.png) (and used a lot in ME, NH, MA, RI, CT and NJ) is originally R-Y-G-GA/YA. GA for the protected movement, YA for the clearance after the GA. The green ball acts as the permissive movement. Basically operates like a normal 5-section signal, except the green and yellow sections are combined into one, dual colour arrow section.

I was just asking if that MUTCD change applied to 5-section signals, where the green and yellow arrows have their own heads, if that also extended to 4-section signals with a bi-modal arrow, where the green and yellow arrows share the same head.

On the other hand, I just realised that people part of (people/RT) was autocorrected to "people"... oops!  :sleep:

Breaking news: As of yesterday, the comment period has been extended to May (was March). Glad they did this since there are many changes and this will give ample time for highway agencies to make comments.

I'm currently going through the proposed changes, and have found some interesting ones that I will post once I'm done. An example I can give now though is there is a proposal to allow exit numbering of intersections on expressways between interchanges, see a screenshot of the proposed figure below which gives the general idea. I'm not sure adding exit numbers for intersections is particularly useful myself, but I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be done either. What do you guys think about it?

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

On another note, I think someone may have snuck a Simpsons reference into one of the figures on this distance sign.  :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/VkkpA1M.png)

Quote from: stevashe on February 02, 2021, 06:56:03 PM
I'm currently going through the proposed changes, and have found some interesting ones that I will post once I'm done. An example I can give now though is there is a proposal to allow exit numbering of intersections on expressways between interchanges, see a screenshot of the proposed figure below which gives the general idea. I'm not sure adding exit numbers for intersections is particularly useful myself, but I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be done either. What do you guys think about it?

This signage is beautiful!  I'd love to see it on US 71 in Kansas City, MO while it's still an expressway with at-grade intersections (which it probably will remain as for years to come).

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 02, 2021, 09:05:14 PM
This signage is beautiful!  I'd love to see it on US 71 in Kansas City, MO while it's still an expressway with at-grade intersections (which it probably will remain as for years to come).

I was struggling to think of a good example where exit numbers for intersections would be useful, but you hit the nail on the head there! That would be a perfect location.

These would be perfect for roads like Bangerter Highway (SR 154) in Salt Lake - entirely controlled access, but with a mix of interchanges and at-grade intersections.

Some California examples of routes that could benefit from "numbered intersections" -

US 101 in its entirety, because of how much of it is freeway and how many random non-freeway segments there are

Route 99 north of Natomas

Santa Clara expressways

Route 17

Route 37

Route 60 (east of Moreno Valley)

Route 65 (Roseville-Marysville segment/former US 99E)

Route 126 east of Saticoy

Quote from: stevashe on February 02, 2021, 06:56:03 PM
I'm currently going through the proposed changes, and have found some interesting ones that I will post once I'm done. An example I can give now though is there is a proposal to allow exit numbering of intersections on expressways between interchanges, see a screenshot of the proposed figure below which gives the general idea. I'm not sure adding exit numbers for intersections is particularly useful myself, but I can't see a reason why it shouldn't be done either. What do you guys think about it?

I think that there are a few spots in Indiana that could use that system...

US 31 between Kokomo and Plymouth
US 30 between Valparaiso and Fort Wayne and beyond Fort Wayne to the Ohio state line
SR 49 between Valparaiso and Chesterton
Lloyd Expressway in Evansville
SR 25/US 24 between Lafayette and Fort Wayne

EDIT: Gotta add two more to the list: SR 37 between Fishers and Noblesville & the Muncie Bypass

Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2021, 12:57:36 PM

Quote from: roadfro on February 02, 2021, 12:34:35 PM
Regarding your first bullet, that's a non-compliant signal head–at least under the current 2009 MUTCD–if it's R-Y-G-GA/FYA (I admittedly have not gone through all of the proposed manual). Flashing yellow arrows are only supposed to be used where a dedicated turn lane exists, and circular indications are not supposed to be used over dedicated turn lanes. Circular green and FYA are redundant.

No, the signal head that is shown here (https://i.ibb.co/93MbWYb/Screenshot-2021-02-02-at-12-49-49.png) (and used a lot in ME, NH, MA, RI, CT and NJ) is originally R-Y-G-GA/YA. GA for the protected movement, YA for the clearance after the GA. The green ball acts as the permissive movement. Basically operates like a normal 5-section signal, except the green and yellow sections are combined into one, dual colour arrow section.

I was just asking if that MUTCD change applied to 5-section signals, where the green and yellow arrows have their own heads, if that also extended to 4-section signals with a bi-modal arrow, where the green and yellow arrows share the same head.

On the other hand, I just realised that people part of (people/RT) was autocorrected to "people"... oops!  :sleep:

Still a non-compliant head under current rules. (If it's a dedicated left turn lane and not a shared signal head, it can't have circular indications.) Something like this would be overly complicated to have GA, YA & FYA all in one signal section, and at that point it'd be better for the motoring public if a more standard signal head were installed.

ISTR US 24 "Fort to Port" having exit numbers on some non-freeway sections?

Quote from: GaryV on February 03, 2021, 12:50:19 PM
ISTR US 24 "Fort to Port" having exit numbers on some non-freeway sections?

It's certainly possible. A few expressways have/had exit numbers for intersections as discussed in this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27425.msg2524059#msg2524059

Quote from: roadfro on February 03, 2021, 12:45:50 PM

Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2021, 12:57:36 PM

Quote from: roadfro on February 02, 2021, 12:34:35 PM
Regarding your first bullet, that's a non-compliant signal head—at least under the current 2009 MUTCD—if it's R-Y-G-GA/FYA (I admittedly have not gone through all of the proposed manual). Flashing yellow arrows are only supposed to be used where a dedicated turn lane exists, and circular indications are not supposed to be used over dedicated turn lanes. Circular green and FYA are redundant.

No, the signal head that is shown here (https://i.ibb.co/93MbWYb/Screenshot-2021-02-02-at-12-49-49.png) (and used a lot in ME, NH, MA, RI, CT and NJ) is originally R-Y-G-GA/YA. GA for the protected movement, YA for the clearance after the GA. The green ball acts as the permissive movement. Basically operates like a normal 5-section signal, except the green and yellow sections are combined into one, dual colour arrow section.

I was just asking if that MUTCD change applied to 5-section signals, where the green and yellow arrows have their own heads, if that also extended to 4-section signals with a bi-modal arrow, where the green and yellow arrows share the same head.

On the other hand, I just realised that people part of (people/RT) was autocorrected to "people"... oops!  :sleep:

Still a non-compliant head under current rules. (If it's a dedicated left turn lane and not a shared signal head, it can't have circular indications.) Something like this would be overly complicated to have GA, YA & FYA all in one signal section, and at that point it'd be better for the motoring public if a more standard signal head were installed.

I should also mention that Maine* (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6201552,-70.3051278,3a,33.6y,40.1h,86.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMiq3NMkWwyu8e9dD3Ce3vA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DMiq3NMkWwyu8e9dD3Ce3vA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D55.281017%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) and especially Rhode Island** (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5937486,-71.6483458,3a,27.9y,204.87h,84.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCMffeSluKB3uefuA8tsmrw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) like to use that 4-section bimodal signal for PPLT shared left/thru approaches, so I was wondering if FYA was going to be used for a shared lane approach, if that 4-section head would still be non-compliant, and have to be changed to inline or doghouse 5-section.

On the other hand, Figure 4F-6. Typical Position and Arrangements of Shared Signal Faces
for Protected/Permissive Mode Left Turns has been updated to include a diagram to show a non-FYA shared signal head without an exclusive left turn lane.

* Maine has a policy for new signals stating "No new protected left turns from a shared lane. This is very inefficient and does little to increase capacity or safety. Existing locations may remain." (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5944.msg2533196#msg2533196)
** I have never seen a doghouse in Rhode Island as of 12/30/2020.

Edited to fix typo - wrong section intially inputted for the Maine footnote

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2020, 04:05:59 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 22, 2020, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 21, 2020, 02:15:26 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 21, 2020, 12:16:52 PM
Didn't see it mentioned here, but the first few pages make it clear that Metric units will no longer be allowed in the Manual.

Absolutely ridiculous

Are you being facetious?

Nope. We're 50 years overdue on metrication. We're continuing to dig in our heels for frankly stupid reasons.

I'm sure if somehow the country reverses (again) and goes back to Metrication, FHWA will be able to put metric specs back into the MUTCD a lot faster than it will take the states to invest in and replace their signage (again)

I seem to have derailed this thread... Oopsies!

Anyway, back on topic:

I wish they would add a better "two lanes merge into center"  sign? Right now, the current way we sign this is just as a regular lane drop. But, I believe for situations where there is no obvious lane that ends, and both lanes merge into each other (as often happens on on ramps or curved 2-1 lane merges), we should sign it differently, to make merging easier. Hell, maybe all 2-1 merges should be signed this way. That way, it is really obvious that no lane has ROW, and to merge in turns. (Is that called zipper merging?) only issue I can see is we would need new pavement markings. Maybe we just simply use lane drop lines, and no merge arrows. Thoughts?

Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 04:28:04 PM
I wish they would add a better "two lanes merge into center"  sign? Right now, the current way we sign this is just as a regular lane drop. But, I believe for situations where there is no obvious lane that ends, and both lanes merge into each other (as often happens on on ramps or curved 2-1 lane merges), we should sign it differently, to make merging easier. Hell, maybe all 2-1 merges should be signed this way. That way, it is really obvious that no lane has ROW, and to merge in turns. (Is that called zipper merging?) only issue I can see is we would need new pavement markings. Maybe we just simply use lane drop lines, and no merge arrows. Thoughts?

I think the issue with signing for a zipper is that it's not necessarily supported by law. Signs posted by the road authority can usually override existing laws (for example, "no turn on red"), but if a crash occurs where "who had the right of way" becomes a concern, you end up with this grey area where all of these options become possible: neither driver, both drivers, whoever was in front, the one with the bigger vehicle, etc. But of course, none of those things are written in stone somewhere, so to avoid any sort of concern around vagueness, the general preference is to just end one lane and maybe post some informal "take turn" signage.

One area where zipper merges are actually great, and are supported by law (usually; WA's is RCW 47.52.026), are ramp meters. WSDOT just installed a four-lane ramp meter where all four lanes merge into a single lane. There are traditional merge arrows for when the meter is inactive, but when the meter is active, those are ignored and the right-of-way is granted by the traffic lights instead. In practice, roadway geometry dictates actual right-of-way (see this example (https://goo.gl/maps/vWB4aDXc5sNCVT3f7)), but when meters are active, and the car in the "ending lane" gets their green light first, you don't speed up to block them, as they received a green light first and so they have the right-of-way.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2021, 05:32:01 PM

Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 04:28:04 PM
I wish they would add a better "two lanes merge into center"  sign? Right now, the current way we sign this is just as a regular lane drop. But, I believe for situations where there is no obvious lane that ends, and both lanes merge into each other (as often happens on on ramps or curved 2-1 lane merges), we should sign it differently, to make merging easier. Hell, maybe all 2-1 merges should be signed this way. That way, it is really obvious that no lane has ROW, and to merge in turns. (Is that called zipper merging?) only issue I can see is we would need new pavement markings. Maybe we just simply use lane drop lines, and no merge arrows. Thoughts?

I think the issue with signing for a zipper is that it's not necessarily supported by law. Signs posted by the road authority can usually override existing laws (for example, "no turn on red"), but if a crash occurs where "who had the right of way" becomes a concern, you end up with this grey area where all of these options become possible: neither driver, both drivers, whoever was in front, the one with the bigger vehicle, etc. But of course, none of those things are written in stone somewhere, so to avoid any sort of concern around vagueness, the general preference is to just end one lane and maybe post some informal "take turn" signage.

One area where zipper merges are actually great, and are supported by law (usually; WA's is RCW 47.52.026), are ramp meters. WSDOT just installed a four-lane ramp meter where all four lanes merge into a single lane. There are traditional merge arrows for when the meter is inactive, but when the meter is active, those are ignored and the right-of-way is granted by the traffic lights instead. In practice, roadway geometry dictates actual right-of-way (see this example (https://goo.gl/maps/vWB4aDXc5sNCVT3f7)), but when meters are active, and the car in the "ending lane" gets their green light first, you don't speed up to block them, as they received a green light first and so they have the right-of-way.

Actually, they are proposing to add just this! See new signs W4-8 (symbol version) and W9-4 (text version) in the figure below:

(https://i.imgur.com/VzVFxqh.png)
(This figure also shows the new signs for denoting which lanes are going in each direction on a 3 lane road, which is a great addition in my opinion.)

Text from the new proposed section for these signs:

Quote from: MUTCD 11th Ed. Draft; Proposed Section 2C.48 Lanes Merge Signs (W9-4, W4-8)
Support:

The LANES MERGE (W9-4) and Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) signs are used to warn of the reduction of two lanes to one in the same direction of travel (See Figure 2C-12).

Guidance:

The Lanes Merge (W9-4) sign should be used warn that the traffic lane is merging with the adjacent lane and a merging maneuver will be required for each lane. The W9-4 sign should be installed in accordance with Table 2C-3.

The Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) sign should be used to indicate the approximate location of the start of the lane taper.

Looks like they're allowing use of this at any location where 2 lanes merge into one, and honestly I'd agree with this. In a lot of cases it should be responsibility of drivers in both lanes to ensure the merge happens safely.

Quote from: stevashe on February 25, 2021, 06:12:13 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2021, 05:32:01 PM

Quote from: MCRoads on February 25, 2021, 04:28:04 PM
I wish they would add a better "two lanes merge into center"  sign? Right now, the current way we sign this is just as a regular lane drop. But, I believe for situations where there is no obvious lane that ends, and both lanes merge into each other (as often happens on on ramps or curved 2-1 lane merges), we should sign it differently, to make merging easier. Hell, maybe all 2-1 merges should be signed this way. That way, it is really obvious that no lane has ROW, and to merge in turns. (Is that called zipper merging?) only issue I can see is we would need new pavement markings. Maybe we just simply use lane drop lines, and no merge arrows. Thoughts?

I think the issue with signing for a zipper is that it's not necessarily supported by law. Signs posted by the road authority can usually override existing laws (for example, "no turn on red"), but if a crash occurs where "who had the right of way" becomes a concern, you end up with this grey area where all of these options become possible: neither driver, both drivers, whoever was in front, the one with the bigger vehicle, etc. But of course, none of those things are written in stone somewhere, so to avoid any sort of concern around vagueness, the general preference is to just end one lane and maybe post some informal "take turn" signage.

One area where zipper merges are actually great, and are supported by law (usually; WA's is RCW 47.52.026), are ramp meters. WSDOT just installed a four-lane ramp meter where all four lanes merge into a single lane. There are traditional merge arrows for when the meter is inactive, but when the meter is active, those are ignored and the right-of-way is granted by the traffic lights instead. In practice, roadway geometry dictates actual right-of-way (see this example (https://goo.gl/maps/vWB4aDXc5sNCVT3f7)), but when meters are active, and the car in the "ending lane" gets their green light first, you don't speed up to block them, as they received a green light first and so they have the right-of-way.

Actually, they are proposing to add just this! See new signs W4-8 (symbol version) and W9-4 (text version) in the figure below:

(https://i.imgur.com/VzVFxqh.png)
(This figure also shows the new signs for denoting which lanes are going in each direction on a 3 lane road, which is a great addition in my opinion.)

Text from the new proposed section for these signs:

Quote from: MUTCD 11th Ed. Draft; Proposed Section 2C.48 Lanes Merge Signs (W9-4, W4-8)
Support:

The LANES MERGE (W9-4) and Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) signs are used to warn of the reduction of two lanes to one in the same direction of travel (See Figure 2C-12).

Guidance:

The Lanes Merge (W9-4) sign should be used warn that the traffic lane is merging with the adjacent lane and a merging maneuver will be required for each lane. The W9-4 sign should be installed in accordance with Table 2C-3.

The Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) sign should be used to indicate the approximate location of the start of the lane taper.

Looks like they're allowing use of this at any location where 2 lanes merge into one, and honestly I'd agree with this. In a lot of cases it should be responsibility of drivers in both lanes to ensure the merge happens safely.

... well then, I guess I'm getting my wish!

Quote from: stevashe on February 25, 2021, 06:12:13 PM
Actually, they are proposing to add just this! See new signs W4-8 (symbol version) and W9-4 (text version) in the figure below:

Two interesting things I've noticed!

(1) The W4-8 sign has been used IRL before, although perhaps without the dashed line (similar to W4-2, which used to not have the dashed line).  I know I saw it on Long Island, and I think it was at this interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/QbYzd2Cja1Ntuw3h7 , on the ramp from Loop Parkway to NB Meadowbrook Parkway, but if that's the case, then they re-signed and re-striped it to show the right lane ending instead.

(2) NJDOT once again made it into the MUTCD!  NJDOT has been using W9-7 with the word "FOR" for forever, but other states tended to omit the preposition.  For a previous example of NJDOT and its preposition use making it into the MUTCD, see R3-23 ("ALL TURNS FROM RIGHT LANE").

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 26, 2021, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: stevashe on February 25, 2021, 06:12:13 PM
Actually, they are proposing to add just this! See new signs W4-8 (symbol version) and W9-4 (text version) in the figure below:

(1) The W4-8 sign has been used IRL before, although perhaps without the dashed line (similar to W4-2, which used to not have the dashed line).  I know I saw it on Long Island, and I think it was at this interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/QbYzd2Cja1Ntuw3h7 , on the ramp from Loop Parkway to NB Meadowbrook Parkway, but if that's the case, then they re-signed and re-striped it to show the right lane ending instead.

That is a NY-specific sign (without the dashed line)...it is fairly common in the Rochester area.  It looks like the MUTCD is proposing to adopt it nationwide.

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 26, 2021, 06:59:09 AM
(2) NJDOT once again made it into the MUTCD!  NJDOT has been using W9-7 with the word "FOR" for forever, but other states tended to omit the preposition.  For a previous example of NJDOT and its preposition use making it into the MUTCD, see R3-23 ("ALL TURNS FROM RIGHT LANE").

I don't really like the added "for". It makes the sign needlessly larger. I think "Right Lane Must Exit" would be better. It keeps the sign at a nice four words and is grammatically correct.

Kind of like this, without the added assembly on the right.

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

Yeah, 'for exit only' makes no sense to me.

'Must exit' seems much easier to comprehend.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2021, 01:00:28 PM
Yeah, 'for exit only' makes no sense to me.

'Must exit' seems much easier to comprehend.

It felt a bit awkward to me the first time I saw it, which might have been around 15 years ago.  But it didn't take any mental gymnastics to make sense of it.  Frankly, I can understand why they use that wording.  "Right Lane Exit Only" could be misinterpreted as meaning the exit is only from the right and not from the left, rather than the intended meaning which we all know as, the right-hand lane is being dropped from the mainline at the exit.  "Right Lane for Exit Only" removes that ambiguity without quite making it a complete sentence (the most direct complete sentence translation would be "The right lane is for exiting only" or "The right lane is for the exit only").  As for "Right Lane Must Exit," while I can't claim to read the minds of the MUTCD gods, I suspect they don't want the word "must" on anything that isn't regulatory signage, and they in fact have a separate, black-on-white regulatory sign reading "RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT" (R3-33).

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 26, 2021, 06:59:09 AM
(1) The W4-8 sign has been used IRL before, although perhaps without the dashed line (similar to W4-2, which used to not have the dashed line).  I know I saw it on Long Island, and I think it was at this interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/QbYzd2Cja1Ntuw3h7 , on the ramp from Loop Parkway to NB Meadowbrook Parkway, but if that's the case, then they re-signed and re-striped it to show the right lane ending instead.

Used here as well:

https://goo.gl/maps/FCYmKsJmDFHKdZXq8

The alternative would be to sign the right lane with W4-1 and the left lane with a mirrored image of it.

Quote from: kphoger on February 26, 2021, 06:21:54 PM
The alternative would be to sign the right lane with W4-1 and the left lane with a mirrored image of it.

That might not be a great idea, drivers get confused enough as it is even without conflicting signage.

Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 26, 2021, 09:17:23 PM
Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

Unfortunately, the MUTCD would contradict itself if that was added. The MUTCD currently prohibits up arrows.

Some states have no turn on red arrow. Fortunately, this can be fixed: make it a flashing red arrow.

Quote from: 1 on February 26, 2021, 09:18:48 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 26, 2021, 09:17:23 PM
Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

Unfortunately, the MUTCD would contradict itself if that was added. The MUTCD currently prohibits up arrows.

Some states have no turn on red arrow. Fortunately, this can be fixed: make it a flashing red arrow.

Huh? I was just looking at this in Sections 4D.05, 19, and 23:

Quote
05 If not otherwise prohibited, a steady straight-through green arrow signal indication may be used instead of a circular green signal indication in a signal face on an approach intersecting a one-way street to discourage wrong-way turns....

...02 A straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication may be used instead of the CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in Items A and B in Paragraph 1 on an approach where right turns are prohibited and a straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication is also used instead of a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in the other signal face(s) for through traffic....

...02 A straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication may be used instead of the CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in Items A and B in Paragraph 1 on an approach where left turns are prohibited and a straight-through GREEN ARROW signal indication is also used instead of a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication in the other signal face(s) for through traffic.

Am I missing something or does "straight through arrow" not mean the same thing as "up arrow"?

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 26, 2021, 09:38:46 PM
Am I missing something or does "straight through arrow" not mean the same thing as "up arrow"?

1 must have meant yellow and red up arrows.  Funny enough, downtown Kansas City, Missouri used to have red up arrows.

Quote from: 1 on February 26, 2021, 09:18:48 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 26, 2021, 09:17:23 PM
Personally I would like to see it made a standard that traffic signal heads must correlate to the movement at the intersection (except for some yellows and reds). For example, if no turns are allowed and all lanes must continue straight through, the traffic signal should be required to display only an up arrow signal indication on green. If all lanes must turn right, the signal heads should be required to display right turn arrow indications only, and vice-versa if all lanes must turn left. Of course, if there is more than one possible movement or conflicting vehicular/pedestrian movements, then this wouldn't apply. Many state DOTs opt for this in various locations, but there are discrepancies and I don't see why it shouldn't be universal.

Unfortunately, the MUTCD would contradict itself if that was added. The MUTCD currently prohibits up arrows.

Some states have no turn on red arrow. Fortunately, this can be fixed: make it a flashing red arrow.

I really wish they would mandate that fix for right arrows all the time instead of just making it an option. We're starting to see good adoption of the FYA for left turns, but I'd really like to see it pushed for right turns as well, along with a flashing red arrow all the time to indicate RTOR.

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 26, 2021, 01:50:39 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2021, 01:00:28 PM
Yeah, 'for exit only' makes no sense to me.

'Must exit' seems much easier to comprehend.

It felt a bit awkward to me the first time I saw it, which might have been around 15 years ago.  But it didn't take any mental gymnastics to make sense of it.  Frankly, I can understand why they use that wording.  "Right Lane Exit Only" could be misinterpreted as meaning the exit is only from the right and not from the left, rather than the intended meaning which we all know as, the right-hand lane is being dropped from the mainline at the exit.  "Right Lane for Exit Only" removes that ambiguity without quite making it a complete sentence (the most direct complete sentence translation would be "The right lane is for exiting only" or "The right lane is for the exit only").  As for "Right Lane Must Exit," while I can't claim to read the minds of the MUTCD gods, I suspect they don't want the word "must" on anything that isn't regulatory signage, and they in fact have a separate, black-on-white regulatory sign reading "RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT" (R3-33).

Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

Metric discussion split off and merged to the existing metric discussion in Off-Topic: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28588.0

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 27, 2021, 12:12:07 AM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 26, 2021, 09:38:46 PM
Am I missing something or does "straight through arrow" not mean the same thing as "up arrow"?

1 must have meant yellow and red up arrows.  Funny enough, downtown Kansas City, Missouri used to have red up arrows.

Now that's just a poor design thought process. What makes more sense, a circular red or a red up arrow? The former, as it's more visible and gives a clearer message. There's a reason the MUTCD only allows green up arrows.

Missouri loves its up arrows though. 🤷

Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2021, 01:43:37 PM
Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

Good question.

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2021, 06:50:31 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2021, 01:43:37 PM
Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

Good question.

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 09:06:07 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2021, 06:50:31 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2021, 01:43:37 PM
Then why shouldn't we just use the regulatory sign version? I don't understand why there should be two versions of signs in two different categories saying the exact same thing.

Good question.

Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

The general question then becomes, what determines something to be "regulatory" versus "warning"? Technically, a curve ahead sign could be regulatory and a yield or stop sign could be a warning sign.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 09:06:07 PM
Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

Quote from: GaryV on March 01, 2021, 09:02:23 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 09:06:07 PM
Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 01, 2021, 10:41:44 AM

Quote from: GaryV on March 01, 2021, 09:02:23 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 09:06:07 PM
Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

Not necessarily. I've seen plenty of examples where the lane continues past the intersection but you are required to turn right.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 01, 2021, 10:41:44 AM

Quote from: GaryV on March 01, 2021, 09:02:23 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 09:06:07 PM
Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

Think of it this way:  A warning sign states a point of information, while a regulatory sign states a specific action you must take.  "Right Lane Ends" is informational.  Yes, you're going to have to take the action of moving out of that lane, but that's not specified on the sign.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2021, 09:41:18 PM
Technically, a curve ahead sign could be regulatory and a yield or stop sign could be a warning sign.

No, "Curve Ahead" is informational so it is a warning sign.  You're going to have to turn the wheel to follow the curve, but that is not stated on the sign.  "Yield" and "Stop" signs are regulatory because they specify actions.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 01, 2021, 11:20:53 AM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 01, 2021, 10:41:44 AM

Quote from: GaryV on March 01, 2021, 09:02:23 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 09:06:07 PM
Another question in the same vein–why is "right lane ends" warning, but "right lane must turn right" regulatory? Either way, the lane you are in doesn't continue past a certain point so if you don't do something you're going to be off the traveled way.

"Right lane ends" warns you ahead of time that you will have to do something.
"Must turn" tells you what you are required to do.

But technically you're also required to get out of the right lane because it's ending.

Think of it this way:  A warning sign states a point of information, while a regulatory sign states a specific action you must take.  "Right Lane Ends" is informational.  Yes, you're going to have to take the action of moving out of that lane, but that's not specified on the sign.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2021, 09:41:18 PM
Technically, a curve ahead sign could be regulatory and a yield or stop sign could be a warning sign.

No, "Curve Ahead" is informational so it is a warning sign.  You're going to have to turn the wheel to follow the curve, but that is not stated on the sign.  "Yield" and "Stop" signs are regulatory because they specify actions.

Ah, that does makes sense, thank you.

Returning to the original question, I somewhat see the value in having both the warning and regulatory versions of the sign, though I'm not sure when you'd want to use one over the other. DOT preference is all I could suggest...

Lanes end for a variety of reasons.  You might have to merge left, you might have to turn right.

On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

The warning vs regulatory debate drives me nuts. We can't even figure it out half the time, and we're supposed to be the sign nerds. How the hell is the public supposed to make sense of things?

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

The warning vs regulatory debate drives me nuts. We can't even figure it out half the time, and we're supposed to be the sign nerds. How the hell is the public supposed to make sense of things?

Simple. The public simply doesn't.  :bigass:

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

Aren't those plaques actually warnings, though?  Warning! the lane you're in doesn't continue along the mainline.  After all, if I'm in that lane, it is perfectly legal for me to change lanes and not actually exit.

Well if we want the actual answer to this, we need only look at the proposed MUTCD text, which indicates the the warning version should be used upstream of the regulatory version.

This makes sense, when you're farther away, you are warned that the lane will eventually exit, then it becomes a requirement as you approach the actual divergence of the lane.

As for the public knowing the difference, they don't really need to know. Whether a sign is yellow or white you still need to take heed of what it says. Yellow is just a bit more eye-catching, for good reason.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

We already have a black-on white regulation sign:  "Right Lane Must Exit," or appropriate variations.

To my mind, the black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" is informational, not instructional, and therefore is correctly colored as a warning.  But don't ask me to coherently explain that opinion.

I also can't explain how the text "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT)" sign (W4-2?) is warning, not regulatory.  I accept that for the graphic version, which essentially says only "LANE ENDS" with no specific action.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
The warning vs regulatory debate drives me nuts. We can't even figure it out half the time, and we're supposed to be the sign nerds. How the hell is the public supposed to make sense of things?

It's the bureaucracy.  It's not supposed to make sense.   :spin:

Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 01, 2021, 03:15:27 PM
I also can't explain how the text "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT)" sign (W4-2?) is warning, not regulatory.

It does seem that the first two words are a warning and the last two words are a required action.

Look at it this way: The law says that all drivers must drive responsibly and have due care for the safety of others. Warning signs give the information needed to do that, where it would not be readily apparent. Regulatory signs remind you of the law. We can't put a regulatory sign for every required action, like a black-on-white sign that says to make sure it's safe before changing lanes. At a certain point, the blanket responsibility simply has to be on the driver to determine the best course of action, which, again, is what warning signs aid in doing.

So, when there's a Lane Ends sign, the driver is not explicitly legally required to change lanes. But rather, if they didn't get out of the ending lane and subsequently almost caused a crash, that would be failing to drive responsibly with due care for the safety of others, which then would be a violation of the law.

Quote from: kphoger on March 01, 2021, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 01, 2021, 03:15:27 PM
I also can't explain how the text "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT)" sign (W4-2?) is warning, not regulatory.

It does seem that the first two words are a warning and the last two words are a required action.

It's a required action, but it's not because of a law, it's because of a physical change in the road's configuration, so it still falls under a warning as I see it.

In some (most?) jurisdictions there's also laws requiring you to stay within the marked lanes, though, so if a lane ends and you don't merge, instead driving down the shoulder, you can get pulled over for that. Er. Stopped. You can't get pulled over if you're already on the shoulder, cause there's no more, well, you know, over.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

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

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 01, 2021, 10:57:29 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

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

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2021, 09:16:23 AM
See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 02, 2021, 01:09:15 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2021, 09:16:23 AM
See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

Crossing a solid white line isn't illegal.

Crossing a double solid white line is, though.

Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2021, 09:16:23 AM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 01, 2021, 10:57:29 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2021, 01:14:35 PM
On freeways: could we conceivably replace black-on-yellow "EXIT ONLY" warnings with black-on-white regulatory messages, like "MUST EXIT"?

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

See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Make it yellow at the bottom and we have Delaware!

I liked when Delaware used MUST EXIT...I get going along with everyone else, but I liked the meaning of it.

Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2021, 01:10:59 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 02, 2021, 01:09:15 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2021, 09:16:23 AM
See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

Crossing a solid white line isn't illegal.

Crossing a double solid white line is, though.

For reference:

Quote from: MUTCD 2009 Edition, Chapter 3B
Section 3B.04 White Lane Line Pavement Markings and Warrants

20   Where crossing the lane line markings is discouraged, the lane line markings shall consist of a normal or wide solid white line.

30   Where crossing the lane line markings is prohibited, the lane line markings shall consist of a solid double white line (see Figure 3B-12).

Discouraged ≠ Prohibited

Back before lane drop signing was systematized (don't remember offhand whether it was in the 1971 or the 1978 MUTCD), many agencies did use "Must Exit" or similar verbiage in black on white.

Although the existing standard of "Exit Only" in black on yellow is not perfect--for example, foreigners with no experience of driving in the US tend to interpret it as "re-entry is not possible at this interchange"--it works partly because it is uniform in application (exits not involving lane drops generally do not have "Exit Only" while ones that do generally have it).

Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2021, 01:10:59 PM

Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 02, 2021, 01:09:15 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2021, 09:16:23 AM
See now...  That makes it sound like I'm not allowed to change lanes in order to NOT exit.

Not like it would stop anyone. Most drivers already cross solid white lines to get out of turn-only lanes at intersections.

Crossing a solid white line isn't illegal.

Crossing a double solid white line is, though.

Yes I knew that, but similarly, I don't think the white MUST EXIT sign would be any more prohibitive than the pavement markings and signs at turn-only lanes. Drivers would probably still continue to change lanes as needed up until the gore point, and for a select few, even past the gore point. So, when you said in your other reply that it makes it sound like you're not allowed to change lanes, I was saying that I don't think the sign would stop anyone from changing lanes in the first place, just like how a single solid white line doesn't stop anyone from changing lanes either. In fact, if that sign did exist in widespread use, it probably would be accompanied by a single solid white line.

Gotcha.   :thumbsup:

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 02, 2021, 01:25:19 PM
Although the existing standard of "Exit Only" in black on yellow is not perfect--for example, foreigners with no experience of driving in the US tend to interpret it as "re-entry is not possible at this interchange"--it works partly because it is uniform in application (exits not involving lane drops generally do not have "Exit Only" while ones that do generally have it).

It is indeed a uniform warning of something someone should do (I would be wary suggesting that a warning is regulatory), but why is there so little interest in regulatory messages for such an application? Few exit-only lanes along Washington freeways have any black-on-white regulatory signage, with the "exit only" messages being the only indication that you have to leave the road, besides the pavement-painted "Exit Only" messages (which could be regulatory) and other laws about leaving the roadway. I'm sure overhead signage is more commonly seen than pavement or post-mounted messages, yet black-on-white overhead regulatory messages signing a freeway exit are rare as hens teeth.

Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign (https://goo.gl/maps/GkSufV8ooSCdpdrR8). Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

It would seem to me that arrow-per-lane signage would be perfect applications for black-on-white "Only" messages; it would be akin to signing an overhead R3-X sign, apart from the green background behind the arrow.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2021, 05:18:03 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 02, 2021, 01:25:19 PM
Although the existing standard of "Exit Only" in black on yellow is not perfect--for example, foreigners with no experience of driving in the US tend to interpret it as "re-entry is not possible at this interchange"--it works partly because it is uniform in application (exits not involving lane drops generally do not have "Exit Only" while ones that do generally have it).

It is indeed a uniform warning of something someone should do (I would be wary suggesting that a warning is regulatory), but why is there so little interest in regulatory messages for such an application? Few exit-only lanes along Washington freeways have any black-on-white regulatory signage, with the "exit only" messages being the only indication that you have to leave the road, besides the pavement-painted "Exit Only" messages (which could be regulatory) and other laws about leaving the roadway. I'm sure overhead signage is more commonly seen than pavement or post-mounted messages, yet black-on-white overhead regulatory messages signing a freeway exit are rare as hens teeth.

Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign (https://goo.gl/maps/GkSufV8ooSCdpdrR8). Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

It would seem to me that arrow-per-lane signage would be perfect applications for black-on-white "Only" messages; it would be akin to signing an overhead R3-X sign, apart from the green background behind the arrow.

After the discussion on here, I would agree that making that sign yellow just doesn't seem right.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2021, 05:18:03 PM
Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign (https://goo.gl/maps/GkSufV8ooSCdpdrR8). Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

That's definitely a mistake, it should be black on white. It's actually the exact sign that started this discussion, the R3-33.

Quote from: stevashe on March 02, 2021, 06:38:05 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2021, 05:18:03 PM
Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign (https://goo.gl/maps/GkSufV8ooSCdpdrR8). Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

That's definitely a mistake, it should be black on white. It's actually the exact sign that started this discussion, the R3-33.

They probably meant for that sign to stand in for overhead signs with the exit only message, but used "must exit" instead.  They probably weren't even thinking that their sign would cause a forum to dissect whether their message phrasing was more in character with regulatory or warning signage.

Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2021, 08:14:33 PM

Quote from: stevashe on March 02, 2021, 06:38:05 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2021, 05:18:03 PM
Of interest to some: one of the newest exit-only lanes in Washington State has this black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign (https://goo.gl/maps/GkSufV8ooSCdpdrR8). Seeing a black-on-yellow "MUST" message is extremely confusing to me.

That's definitely a mistake, it should be black on white. It's actually the exact sign that started this discussion, the R3-33.

They probably meant for that sign to stand in for overhead signs with the exit only message, but used "must exit" instead.  They probably weren't even thinking that their sign would cause a forum to dissect whether their message phrasing was more in character with regulatory or warning signage.

Jokes aside, that was more what I had in mind. 90% of the messaging visible to drivers at a standard "exit only" lane is black-on-yellow "warnings". So are we really surprised that they went and used yellow for that sign too?

It's further evidence, in my opinion, that current signage for dropped lanes needs work.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2021, 04:42:40 PM
Jokes aside, that was more what I had in mind. 90% of the messaging visible to drivers at a standard "exit only" lane is black-on-yellow "warnings". So are we really surprised that they went and used yellow for that sign too?

It's further evidence, in my opinion, that current signage for dropped lanes needs work.

That isn't even the first time I've seen a black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign.  My home state has used them.  In fact, here's one that's still standing as of the last Street View pass: https://goo.gl/maps/NP4sS794Ln7zQaz78

Quote from: stridentweasel on March 03, 2021, 06:44:35 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2021, 04:42:40 PM
Jokes aside, that was more what I had in mind. 90% of the messaging visible to drivers at a standard "exit only" lane is black-on-yellow "warnings". So are we really surprised that they went and used yellow for that sign too?

It's further evidence, in my opinion, that current signage for dropped lanes needs work.

That isn't even the first time I've seen a black-on-yellow "Right Lane Must Exit" sign.  My home state has used them.  In fact, here's one that's still standing as of the last Street View pass: https://goo.gl/maps/NP4sS794Ln7zQaz78

Then I'm not crazy.  I thought I'd seen such a sign plenty of times, in more than one location.  Probably not even just Kansas I've seen them in.

Just a few observations:

*  "Right Lane Exit Only" is already in the MUTCD as sign W9-7 (I think it was added in the 2009 edition).

*  For lane drops with option lanes where APLs are not used, a regulatory lane assignment sign (two-headed arrow in the left slot, curved arrow with "Only" in the right slot) is part of the signing treatment suggested by the MUTCD (I think this was added in 2009 as well), though W9-7 is not.

*  An example of an agency that has used "Right Lane Exit Only" or "Right Lane Must Exit" (in  black on yellow as a standalone sign) as part of a signing treatment for a lane drop with option lane is Arizona DOT (in metro Phoenix).  Other agencies use regulatory "Right Lane Must Exit" (now in the MUTCD as R3-33) for this application.  (R3-33 has a two-line format--"Right Lane"/"Must Exit"--but many agencies have traditionally used the three-line format of the R3-7 "Right Lane"/"Must"/"Turn Right" sign, with the bottom line changed to "Exit.")

*  For decades there has been a debate about whether it should be generally permitted to sign simple lane drops (i.e., no option lane) with ground-mounted signs only, with the advance guide and exit direction signs having "Right Lane Must Exit" or "Right Lane Exit Only" in black on a bottom yellow panel.  The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2021, 12:56:29 PM
Just a few observations:

*  "Right Lane Exit Only" is already in the MUTCD as sign W9-7 (I think it was added in the 2009 edition).

*  For lane drops with option lanes where APLs are not used, a regulatory lane assignment sign (two-headed arrow in the left slot, curved arrow with "Only" in the right slot) is part of the signing treatment suggested by the MUTCD (I think this was added in 2009 as well), though W9-7 is not.

*  An example of an agency that has used "Right Lane Exit Only" or "Right Lane Must Exit" (in  black on yellow as a standalone sign) as part of a signing treatment for a lane drop with option lane is Arizona DOT (in metro Phoenix).  Other agencies use regulatory "Right Lane Must Exit" (now in the MUTCD as R3-33) for this application.  (R3-33 has a two-line format--"Right Lane"/"Must Exit"--but many agencies have traditionally used the three-line format of the R3-7 "Right Lane"/"Must"/"Turn Right" sign, with the bottom line changed to "Exit.")

*  For decades there has been a debate about whether it should be generally permitted to sign simple lane drops (i.e., no option lane) with ground-mounted signs only, with the advance guide and exit direction signs having "Right Lane Must Exit" or "Right Lane Exit Only" in black on a bottom yellow panel.  The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

For those playing along at home...

---

MUTCD W9-7

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/MUTCD_W9-7R.svg/200px-MUTCD_W9-7R.svg.png)

Quote from: MUTCD, 2009 Edition – Chapter 2C. Warning Signs And Object Markers
Section 2C.43 – RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD Sign (W9-7)

Option:
  01 The RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD (W9-7) sign (see Figure 2C-8) may be used to provide advance warning to road users that traffic in the right-hand (left-hand) lane of a roadway that is approaching a grade-separated interchange will be required to depart the roadway on an exit ramp at the next interchange.

Standard:
  02 The W9-7 sign shall be a horizontal rectangle with a black legend and border on a yellow background.

Guidance:
  03 If used, the W9-7 sign should be installed upstream from the first overhead guide sign that contains an EXIT ONLY sign panel or upstream from the first RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT (R3-33) regulatory sign, whichever is farther upstream from the exit.

---

---

MUTCD W3-33

Quote from: MUTCD, 2009 Edition – Chapter 2B. Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates
Section 2B.23 – RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign (R3-33)

Option:
  01 A RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT (R3-33) sign (see Figure 2B-4) may be used to supplement an overhead EXIT ONLY guide sign to inform road users that traffic in the right-hand (left-hand) lane of a roadway that is approaching a grade-separated interchange is required to depart the roadway on the exit ramp at the next interchange.

---

If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

Quote from: stevashe on March 04, 2021, 02:24:08 PM
If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

Of course, that brings us back to the fact that yellow is used at the gore point itself.

For example, why is the [EXIT ONLY] plaque at the gore point shown below yellow instead of white?  The previous two signs could be considered warnings, but what about the final one?

(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_16.gif)

I'd argue that it's still a warning sign, and not regulatory in nature.  As long as a driver hasn't actually passed the gore point (that is, there's still only a single white line between his lane and the through lanes), then he's perfectly free to change out of that lane.  He's not actually required to exit.  Only after the lanes actually diverge must a driver in that lane actually exit–and that is by virtue of the lane lines, not by virtue of signage.

I'd also add that the key word in the sections quoted is "may."  I'm not sure I've ever seen an agency use both R3-33 and W9-7 (or local equivalents with the same background colors) at the same exit, and many don't use either.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2021, 12:56:29 PM
The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

Southbound US 69 at 135th Street in Overland Park.

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 02:38:41 PM

Quote from: stevashe on March 04, 2021, 02:24:08 PM
If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

Of course, that brings us back to the fact that yellow is used at the gore point itself.

For example, why is the [EXIT ONLY] plaque at the gore point shown below yellow instead of white?  The previous two signs could be considered warnings, but what about the final one?

(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_16.gif)

I'd argue that it's still a warning sign, and not regulatory in nature.  As long as a driver hasn't actually passed the gore point (that is, there's still only a single white line between his lane and the through lanes), then he's perfectly free to change out of that lane.  He's not actually required to exit.  Only after the lanes actually diverge must a driver in that lane actually exit–and that is by virtue of the lane lines, not by virtue of signage.

This post is exactly why current signage rubs me the wrong way.

The signs make sense. JN Winkler just mentioned a dozen posts ago that black-on-yellow EXIT ONLY signs are consistent and at least decently well-understood, although perhaps not perfectly so.

Still, that the primary signage for an exit has no regulatory component seems like a miss. I wouldn't mind seeing the final sign at a split change from "EXIT ONLY" to "MUST EXIT", and the colors change from black-on-yellow (warning of a regulatory condition(?)) to black-on-white (actual regulatory condition) at the gore point itself.

This change may raise two additional concerns, however: (1) if warnings are meant to apply before the sign, the actual gore-point sign is still correct using black-on-yellow, as only at the point where the driver passes beneath the sign may they no longer leave that lane; as well, (2) regulatory conditions are generally not signed with warnings.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2021, 06:32:43 PM
This post is exactly why current signage rubs me the wrong way.

The signs make sense. JN Winkler just mentioned a dozen posts ago that black-on-yellow EXIT ONLY signs are consistent and at least decently well-understood, although perhaps not perfectly so.

Still, that the primary signage for an exit has no regulatory component seems like a miss. I wouldn't mind seeing the final sign at a split change from "EXIT ONLY" to "MUST EXIT", and the colors change from black-on-yellow (warning of a regulatory condition(?)) to black-on-white (actual regulatory condition) at the gore point itself.

This change may raise two additional concerns, however: (1) if warnings are meant to apply before the sign, the actual gore-point sign is still correct using black-on-yellow, as only at the point where the driver passes beneath the sign may they no longer leave that lane; as well, (2) regulatory conditions are generally not signed with warnings.

Change the color to a yellow tint for Warnuatory, and change the wording from "EXIT ONLY" to "EXIT PLEASE."

Why would we even need to make regulatory exit signage in the first place? When a lane is Exit Only, it physically leaves the roadway. If you are in the exiting lane when you reach the gore point, you don't really have a choice. It's like putting up a regulatory sign that says "MUST TURN WHEN APPROACHING CURVE". The exit signs only need to be black-on-yellow warnings in my opinion. My guess is that existing black-on-white signs are just there to prevent drivers from making dangerous last-ditch maneuvers across the channelizing lines in order to avoid taking the exit.

Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 04, 2021, 07:06:57 PM
Why would we even need to make regulatory exit signage in the first place? When a lane is Exit Only, it physically leaves the roadway. If you are in the exiting lane when you reach the gore point, you don't really have a choice. It's like putting up a regulatory sign that says "MUST TURN WHEN APPROACHING CURVE". The exit signs only need to be black-on-yellow warnings in my opinion. My guess is that existing black-on-white signs are just there to prevent drivers from making dangerous last-ditch maneuvers across the channelizing lines in order to avoid taking the exit.

"My guess is that existing black-on-white signs are just there to prevent drivers from making dangerous last-ditch maneuvers across the channelizing lines in order to avoid taking the exit."

It seems that it's really because some states require a regulatory sign to be posted for that condition under their state law. This is what was explained in the federal notice when the 2009 MUTCD was enacted (the previous MUTCD did not have a standard regulatory sign for exit-only lanes, just the "exit only" panels for BGSs).

Quote from: stridentweasel on March 04, 2021, 04:59:56 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2021, 12:56:29 PM
The MUTCD requires overhead signs with downward-pointing arrows to provide positive guidance; nevertheless, a few states have isolated examples of lane drops with ground-mounted signing only.  (I think there is one in Kansas, but the location escapes me at present.)

Southbound US 69 at 135th Street in Overland Park.

I've also seen such on I-277 in Charlotte NC as well as I-16 in Macon GA. I hate it. I like that at least GDOT got rid of all of the ground mounted "exit only" signs in metro Atlanta.

IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:07:59 PM
IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

But that's not always the case.

If there's a gap in traffic at the beginning of the merge zone, then a driver should merge there–not wait till the end and have the gap disappear.

And if the flow of traffic in the right lane is going 5-10 mph under the speed limit, then it's frankly a bad idea to merge at the speed limit.

(Oh, and when is traffic in the right lane going under the speed limit?  Every day on my way home from work, that's when.)

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 12:37:12 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:07:59 PM
IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

But that's not always the case.

If there's a gap in traffic at the beginning of the merge zone, then a driver should merge there–not wait till the end and have the gap disappear.

And if the flow of traffic in the right lane is going 5-10 mph under the speed limit, then it's frankly a bad idea to merge at the speed limit.

(Oh, and when is traffic in the right lane going under the speed limit?  Every day on my way home from work, that's when.)

There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 12:37:12 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:07:59 PM
IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

But that's not always the case.

If there's a gap in traffic at the beginning of the merge zone, then a driver should merge there–not wait till the end and have the gap disappear.

And if the flow of traffic in the right lane is going 5-10 mph under the speed limit, then it's frankly a bad idea to merge at the speed limit.

(Oh, and when is traffic in the right lane going under the speed limit?  Every day on my way home from work, that's when.)

Keep in mind that at least some of that congestion is from people slowing down to let in the person who is bumbling onto the freeway at 40.  I know.  I've seen one ramp merge near me go from free-flow to brake lights in 30 seconds (this spot (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7303004,-73.7910872,3a,85.6y,43.97h,79.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Kf5ecR85dAVf4tqyMGj8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), specifically - and people still do it even now that there's an auxiliary lane from there to the next exit!), all from one person merging in (often across the lane lines before the ramp fully merges) well below the speed of traffic.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here (https://goo.gl/maps/UyD4FC1rEVNnBeUE9) this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/cHKtAnmcqtnWc23Z7), I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 01:17:35 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here (https://goo.gl/maps/UyD4FC1rEVNnBeUE9) this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/cHKtAnmcqtnWc23Z7), I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

The "or lower, as conditions warrant" is the part that makes allowance for when traffic is moving slower than the speed limit, but that is probably too much for a sign.

I could swear that there was somewhere (Maryland?) that had signs advising to maintain speed and "match speed and merge".  The verbiage to "match speed" seems to convey that if the road is moving at 35, then merge in at 35.  If it is moving at 65, then you need to get up to 65 to merge in, not expecting to move into traffic doing 50 and make people slam on the brakes or swerve around you.

Quote from: PurdueBill on March 05, 2021, 01:40:32 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 01:17:35 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here (https://goo.gl/maps/UyD4FC1rEVNnBeUE9) this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/cHKtAnmcqtnWc23Z7), I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

The "or lower, as conditions warrant" is the part that makes allowance for when traffic is moving slower than the speed limit, but that is probably too much for a sign.

I could swear that there was somewhere (Maryland?) that had signs advising to maintain speed and "match speed and merge".  The verbiage to "match speed" seems to convey that if the road is moving at 35, then merge in at 35.  If it is moving at 65, then you need to get up to 65 to merge in, not expecting to move into traffic doing 50 and make people slam on the brakes or swerve around you.

The word "must" should appear on such a sign. Or maybe just start ticketing drivers who merge poorly.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 01:17:35 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
There is no legitimate reason for anyone driving a passenger vehicle to merge below the speed limit or lower, as conditions warrant.
When traffic is heavy, there is no legitimate reason for any driver to not use the full merge area. You don't immediately get the right-of-way when the gore ends and get to move over and cut someone off.

So, where I merge onto Kellogg here (https://goo.gl/maps/UyD4FC1rEVNnBeUE9) this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/cHKtAnmcqtnWc23Z7), I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

If traffic is flowing freely, then (1) I can easily accelerate to the speed limit in no time, and (2) there wouldn't really be many drivers inconvenienced by my merging in at a lower speed anyway, considering that the gaps are bigger and the middle lane isn't clogged up.

If traffic is thick, then (1) I don't have to wear on my brakes as much to get down to the speed of traffic, and (2) I have less risk of getting rear-ended in the case of a precipitous slow-down.  (Accidents are common there, so sometimes traffic is only going 20.)

Right-lane traffic going the full speed limit there during my commute home is actually more rare of an occurrence than it going 5-10 under.  I certainly wouldn't want signage telling people to merge at the full speed limit.  That's a recipe for a wreck.

You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 02:07:09 PM
The word "must" should appear on such a sign. Or maybe just start ticketing drivers who merge poorly.

And, at some locations, it is all but impossible to merge at speed.  The interchange responsible for most of the slow-down at the point I mentioned earlier is a perfect example.  The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long (https://goo.gl/maps/xcEEmK6VFD4Grnu48).  Merging onto Kellogg, you're coming off an uphill loop, and then you have just 13 dashes of the white line to get up to 60 mph?  Nobody merges in at the speed limit there.  In fact, doing so can be dangerous, because other drivers are slowing down to exit at the 25 mph advisory speed in the same lane.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:07:59 PM
IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 02:08:49 PM
You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

That's my point.  The speed of traffic is lower than the speed limit more often than not in the location I posted.  So don't erect a sign telling people to merge at the speed limit.

What if we posted speed limits at the on-ramps?

It could either accompany the FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign in those states that use it, assuming it doesn't busy it up, or as a second sign later down the ramp.

Slow-merging drivers are pretty uncommon here in WA (most drivers are very good about merging quickly), but then I feel other states are very bad at signing on-ramps. Some drivers may genuinely not realize they are entering a freeway at first.

The situation Kphoger is talking about is a compromised design dating from completion of the I-135/US 54 turban interchange in the late 1970's.  This involved the upgrading of Kellogg from a surface arterial to a (relatively) modern freeway between Topeka (east fringe of downtown) and Bluff (a north-south road midway between Hillside and Oliver that was basically a collector but, at the time, functioned as a signalized access point to Kellogg).  Putting in loops instead of link ramps for Hillside on eastbound Kellogg avoided taking Sunnyside, still an elementary school at the time but now an apartment building, as well as part of Calvary Cemetery.  Even so, this decision still necessitated shifting the Kellogg centerline to the north--Kellogg Drive, which borders the cemetery, is actually in the footprint of the old road.  The loops do create a weaving section, but to put in links would have created a weave between traffic entering from I-135 and traffic exiting onto Hillside that would arguably have been worse, and until the freeway was extended to Oliver and beyond, mainline traffic tended to slow down for a signal at Bluff.  (It still slows down to a degree because this is the point at which eastbound Kellogg climbs out of the Arkansas River floodplain, with a gentle uphill grade that drivers almost uniformly fail to anticipate.)

Absent travel demand management, the logical fix would appear to be to braid ramps so that traffic exits for Hillside before the merge point for cars coming from I-135.  I don't see this entering the development pipeline except as part of a widening of Kellogg that would displace its centerline further to the north and probably also involve the closure of the restricted-access interchange with Grove.

---

As regards people merging slowly onto the freeway, I think this complaint (as well as a large share of "bad driving" complaints in general) tends to be about declining LOS exposing otherwise tolerable deficiencies in geometric design more than it is about skill per se.  We generally don't worry about drivers who seem less confident or afraid of overtaxing their automatic transmissions as long as it is easy to get around them.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 02:16:36 PM
The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long (https://goo.gl/maps/xcEEmK6VFD4Grnu48). 

Looking at this in Google Street View, now I want to write a story about a man named Oliver Edgemoor.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:47:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 02:16:36 PM
The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long (https://goo.gl/maps/xcEEmK6VFD4Grnu48). 

Looking at this in Google Street View, now I want to write a story about a man named Oliver Edgemoor.

Make sure his wife's name is Beverly Carneiro (http://www.okroads.com/062903/i70ksexit233.JPG).

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2021, 02:38:41 PM

Quote from: stevashe on March 04, 2021, 02:24:08 PM
If you read the sections kphoger quoted in the previous reply, it should become clear what the purposes of the two signs are. One is an advance warning, the other denotes that an exit movement is required from the lane. Kind of like a warning sign for a reduced speed limit ahead vs. the speed limit sign itself.

Some of our confusion seems to stem from the notion that all signs related to law/required action are displayed on white regulatory signs, but we forgot that some warning signs provide advance notice of regulation (stop ahead, speed limit ahead, etc.).

Of course, that brings us back to the fact that yellow is used at the gore point itself.

For example, why is the [EXIT ONLY] plaque at the gore point shown below yellow instead of white?  The previous two signs could be considered warnings, but what about the final one?

(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_16.gif)

I'd argue that it's still a warning sign, and not regulatory in nature.  As long as a driver hasn't actually passed the gore point (that is, there's still only a single white line between his lane and the through lanes), then he's perfectly free to change out of that lane.  He's not actually required to exit.  Only after the lanes actually diverge must a driver in that lane actually exit–and that is by virtue of the lane lines, not by virtue of signage.

You're totally correct, though I was only referring to those two post-mounted signs with my comments. For the overhead signs, I suspect the choice of yellow may have more to do with increased visibility as opposed to the technicality of whether it's a warning or regulatory message because at least in my experience, yellow tends to catch my eye a lot more than white.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 04:16:11 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:47:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 02:16:36 PM
The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long (https://goo.gl/maps/xcEEmK6VFD4Grnu48). 

Looking at this in Google Street View, now I want to write a story about a man named Oliver Edgemoor.

Make sure his wife's name is Beverly Carneiro (http://www.okroads.com/062903/i70ksexit233.JPG).

Think I'd get sued for making Where in the World Is Beverly Carneiro?

It's just a book that says "I-70 exit 233 in Kansas."

The rest of the pages are blank.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:07:59 PM
IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 01:17:35 PM
So, where I merge onto Kellogg here (https://goo.gl/maps/UyD4FC1rEVNnBeUE9) this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/cHKtAnmcqtnWc23Z7), I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 02:08:49 PM
You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 02:16:36 PM
That's my point.  The speed of traffic is lower than the speed limit more often than not in the location I posted.  So don't erect a sign telling people to merge at the speed limit.

Oh hey, look...

Speed limit = 60 mph

I merged in at around 42 mph, and I still had to step on the brakes.  Good thing there weren't any signs on the ramp encouraging me to merge at the speed limit.

(https://i.imgur.com/b4Rvyj4.jpg)

I still don't understand how you can reference the speed limit without posting it first. "Merge at speed limit" would be meaningless without the speed limit posted right before it.

It's a recipe for disaster anyway.  Rear-end someone while merging, and then tell your insurance adjuster it wasn't your fault because you had to obey the sign.

Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 05, 2021, 07:38:26 PM
arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years

You just described 44% of the threads on this forum.

Perhaps maybe a black-on-yellow plaque with the speed limit as an advisory speed, on the same signpost right below the merge warning sign? Kind of like how curve advisory speeds are posted.

But, I agree, this conversation is kind of stupid. ANY sign that tells drivers how fast they *must* be going, with the sole exception of minimum speed limits, is absolutely pointless. It creates a legal gray area where in certain situations drivers may not be able follow the basic speed rule (never drive faster than appropriate for conditions) and the theoretical sign at the same time. This applies even for a general sign like "merge at the speed of traffic" or "match speed", because traffic may not always be following the law. Who should determine the safe speed for a car to be traveling at, a sheet of metal with some markings on it, or a human being? This is why advisory speeds aren't regulatory.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 05, 2021, 07:38:26 PM
Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED (https://goo.gl/maps/kcsgE3xWqH1QwJEQA)" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

^^ Then there is on freeways and expressways:
(https://www.tssco.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/R4-3.jpg) or (https://www.tssco.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/R4-16.jpg)
yet there is left-lane camping.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:53:44 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 05, 2021, 07:38:26 PM
Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

"NO MALTRATE LOS SEÃ'ALES"

Quote from: jakeroot on March 05, 2021, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED (https://goo.gl/maps/kcsgE3xWqH1QwJEQA)" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

There's some legalize behind that signage. Traditionally, a green ball allows traffic to move in any direction when safe to do so. In some states, the law may actually be vague or non-existant about a red arrow. So, the regulatory sign clarifies that you can only turn left when there's a green arrow.  While it seems like common sense to most people to not turn on a red arrow, actual laws can be picked apart to find some loopholes.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 02:10:39 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 05, 2021, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED (https://goo.gl/maps/kcsgE3xWqH1QwJEQA)" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

There's some legalize behind that signage. Traditionally, a green ball allows traffic to move in any direction when safe to do so. In some states, the law may actually be vague or non-existant about a red arrow. So, the regulatory sign clarifies that you can only turn left when there's a green arrow.  While it seems like common sense to most people to not turn on a red arrow, actual laws can be picked apart to find some loopholes.

In some states with more "liberal" left turn on red laws, you sometimes see "no turn on red" when, in most states, it would be plainly illegal to turn anyways. 1st & Universit (https://goo.gl/maps/r1Xkbw8uSLdQtZmc8)y is a great example in downtown Seattle (LTOR from two-way to one-way).

I'm personally not keen on "on green arrow only" signs because it fails to account for those turning on yellow; in some states (WA for instance), yellow is legally related to green (permissive yellow) rather than red (restrictive yellow), so you can still continue turning on a solid yellow arrow.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 08:52:52 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 05, 2021, 07:38:26 PM
arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years

You just described 44% of the threads on this forum.

I will argue that point.  It's more like 47%.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 06, 2021, 02:28:33 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 02:10:39 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 05, 2021, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED (https://goo.gl/maps/kcsgE3xWqH1QwJEQA)" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

There's some legalize behind that signage. Traditionally, a green ball allows traffic to move in any direction when safe to do so. In some states, the law may actually be vague or non-existant about a red arrow. So, the regulatory sign clarifies that you can only turn left when there's a green arrow.  While it seems like common sense to most people to not turn on a red arrow, actual laws can be picked apart to find some loopholes.

In some states with more "liberal" left turn on red laws, you sometimes see "no turn on red" when, in most states, it would be plainly illegal to turn anyways. 1st & Universit (https://goo.gl/maps/r1Xkbw8uSLdQtZmc8)y is a great example in downtown Seattle (LTOR from two-way to one-way).

I'm personally not keen on "on green arrow only" signs because it fails to account for those turning on yellow; in some states (WA for instance), yellow is legally related to green (permissive yellow) rather than red (restrictive yellow), so you can still continue turning on a solid yellow arrow.

Permissive...but not required. It's perfectly legal to stop at a yellow arrow/light.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 05:47:03 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 12:07:59 PM
IMO we need better warning signs for merging. More specifically, we need warning signs that tell drivers that the need to use the full potential of the merge and that they need to merge at the speed limit.

Even text warning signs that say "Follow lane to end", "Must merge at speed limit" or some verbiage like that.

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when drivers just bumble on at 40mph and THEN speed up once they're on the freeway. The on-ramp and the merge area, assuming they're properly designed, are designed to allow you to be up to the speed limit BEFORE you enter the thru lane. And if you're going to bumble on at 40mph, then you need to use the full potential of the merge to allow traffic enough time to either slow down or change lanes.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 01:17:35 PM
So, where I merge onto Kellogg here (https://goo.gl/maps/UyD4FC1rEVNnBeUE9) this afternoon, and traffic in the right lane is going 40 mph with their brake lights on (probably due to weaving traffic at this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/cHKtAnmcqtnWc23Z7), I should still just go ahead and merge in at 60 mph?  And ram into the first car I come to?  Sorry, but I prefer to actually match the speed of traffic, NOT a number on a sign.  Which means that I usually aim for 10 mph under the speed limit.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 05, 2021, 02:08:49 PM
You would approach at the speed of traffic and merge using the entire merge area, i.e. a zipper merge.

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 02:16:36 PM
That's my point.  The speed of traffic is lower than the speed limit more often than not in the location I posted.  So don't erect a sign telling people to merge at the speed limit.

Oh hey, look...

Speed limit = 60 mph

I merged in at around 42 mph, and I still had to step on the brakes.  Good thing there weren't any signs on the ramp encouraging me to merge at the speed limit.

(https://i.imgur.com/b4Rvyj4.jpg)

Then it should hypothetically say "at speed limit or speed of traffic."

Quote from: Big John on March 06, 2021, 12:22:37 AM
^^ Then there is on freeways and expressways:
(https://www.tssco.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/R4-3.jpg) or (https://www.tssco.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/R4-16.jpg)
yet there is left-lane camping.

Why don't they use more imperative language?

"Slow traffic MUST keep right"
"Left lane ONLY for passing"
"DO NOT merge slower than traffic"
"<-MUST begin merge here"

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 06, 2021, 01:23:14 PM
Why don't they use more imperative language?
...
"Left lane ONLY for passing"

I believe Texas uses this exact phrasing.

I think it does depend on state law.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 05, 2021, 11:51:14 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

They obviously are implied by the nature of driving.

Which all seem, to me, like signs that could exist somewhere. The MUTCD tends to approach things "nanny" style, where signs will read things that are already law.

Two that come to mind are "STOP HERE ON RED (https://goo.gl/maps/kcsgE3xWqH1QwJEQA)" when there's nothing unusual going on, or a sign saying "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" when it's a two-way to two-way street and turning on red would be illegal anyways. There are far more examples, but I usually don't see them too often here in WA (thankfully).

You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

(https://i.imgur.com/v4QfO6T.png)

Quote from: jakeroot on March 06, 2021, 01:35:32 PM

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 06, 2021, 01:23:14 PM
"Left lane ONLY for passing"

I believe Texas uses this exact phrasing.

Almost. The exact phrasing is "Left Lane For Passing Only"
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1750212,-95.453025,3a,22.8y,21.17h,89.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLnODfydRSE8AVu5oUI3SYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Quote from: stevashe on March 07, 2021, 12:36:02 AM
You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

(https://i.imgur.com/v4QfO6T.png)

Which sign do I have to comply with though? And what if I don't comply with the sign that says to comply?

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2021, 09:11:37 AM

Quote from: stevashe on March 07, 2021, 12:36:02 AM
You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

(https://i.imgur.com/v4QfO6T.png)

Which sign do I have to comply with though? And what if I don't comply with the sign that says to comply?

(https://i.imgur.com/mSHi8.jpg)

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 06, 2021, 01:19:15 AM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 05, 2021, 10:53:44 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 05, 2021, 07:38:26 PM
Interstate highways have existed for 60 years. You're arguing about the most stupidest shit that hundreds of millions of travelers have encountered every day for 60 years.

/short rant

It's basically like arguing for installing signs that read:

"OBEY SPEED LIMIT"
"LOOK BEFORE CHANGING LANES"
"STOP AT STOP SIGNS"
"DRIVE PROPERLY"

"NO MALTRATE LOS SEÃ'ALES"

Funny you should mention Mexico.  The current manual states that such signs must be removed by the highway authority.  That doesn't mean the signs aren't still standing, of course, but at least the SCT officially recognizes the pointlessness of them.

Quote from: Subsecretaría de Infraestructura:  Manual de Señalización Vial y Dispositivos de Seguridad, 2014
I.  Generalidades del señalamiento

I.6.5. Señales no necesarias

Las señales que no cumplan el propósito de trasmitir claramente un mensaje relevante para el usuario de las carreteras y vialidades urbanas, o no sean necesarios para la correcta operación del flujo vehicular por ubicarse inadecuadamente, ser de un tipo no requerido o que su uso sea inapropiado, tienen que ser retiradas. En la Figura I-3. se muestran señales restrictivas y preventivas que por costumbre se han instalado en la
red carretera aun cuando son innecesarias, ya que su uso indica claramente que sólo se colocan cuando la altura libre vertical sea menor de 5.00 m.

Únicamente la autoridad responsable de la carretera o vialidad urbana puede remover las señales innecesarias, cuando así lo juzgue conveniente

My translation of the above "unnecessary recommendation informative signs":

Do not leave rocks on pavement
Respect signs
Do not pass on shoulder
Do not drive drowsy
Keep your distance
Dim headlights
Choose appropriate lane
Obey signs
Close [muffler bypass] valve
Keep right
Not a high-speed road
Do not damage signs
Do not drive drunk
Muffler required
Do not throw trash
Trucks entering and exiting __ meters
Right lane for passing only

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 01:09:21 PM
Do not damage signs

You gotta be kidding me... that sign is just begging for vandalism! Lol

"Maltrate" also translates to "mistreat" or "abuse", according to Google Translate. Which would certainly be a funnier, if not as accurate, translation.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 06:47:21 PM
"Maltrate" also translates to "mistreat" or "abuse", according to Google Translate. Which would certainly be a funnier, if not as accurate, translation.

Always make sure to feed your sign, play with it, and take it for walks!  :thumbsup:

Quote from: stevashe on March 07, 2021, 12:36:02 AM
You say that Jake, but I recently found this gem in Bothell, WA...

(https://i.imgur.com/v4QfO6T.png)

That is the most nanny thing I think I've ever seen in WA. Certainly one of the most bizarre things, too.

(https://i.imgur.com/pXBsj7y.jpg)

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 01:09:21 PM

My translation of the above "unnecessary recommendation informative signs":

Do not leave rocks on pavement
Respect signs
Do not pass on shoulder
Do not drive drowsy
Keep your distance
Dim headlights
Choose appropriate lane
Obey signs
Close [muffler bypass] valve
Keep right
Not a high-speed road
Do not damage signs
Do not drive drunk
Muffler required
Do not throw trash
Trucks entering and exiting __ meters
Right lane for passing only

Is this last one right?

I think he meant "left". "Derecho" is "right", if I'm remembering correctly.

Correct.  I'm a doofus.

I don't know if this has been discussed, but the requirement for 6 inch wide pavement markings on 45+ mph roads seems fairly major.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2021, 03:47:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 05, 2021, 02:16:36 PM
The accel/decel lane between the two loop ramps is only 471 feet long (https://goo.gl/maps/xcEEmK6VFD4Grnu48).

Looking at this in Google Street View, now I want to write a story about a man named Oliver Edgemoor.

"Oliver Edgemoor" is more plausible than "Oliver Casa Loma."  (I've been beavering through old plats on the Sedgwick County GIS website and have learned that Edgemoor is just one of many streets in Wichita that had different names when first platted.)

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 19, 2021, 08:34:10 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed, but the requirement for 6 inch wide pavement markings on 45+ mph roads seems fairly major.

Isn't that already standard in most places? What's an example of markings that wouldn't be compliant?

^^ Wisconsin uses 4", and when I worked in Georgia, it was 5".

No idea what OK uses, but it ain't 6".

Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 22, 2021, 08:35:18 PM

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on March 19, 2021, 08:34:10 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed, but the requirement for 6 inch wide pavement markings on 45+ mph roads seems fairly major.

Isn't that already standard in most places? What's an example of markings that wouldn't be compliant?

WSDOT and ODOT (Oregon) definitely use 4" for everything. Although WSDOT did just put down 8" plastic lines on Westbound I-90 down Snoqualmie Pass, which is very much appreciated as in previous years the 4" paint lines would wear off in the winter leaving an almost completely unmarked roadway in the spring most years! (The white edge line on the right was still painted though, and got completely obliterated as per usual.)

I've seen 4" pavement striping in GA as well as 5".

Kentucky is making a transition from 4" to 6" striping on non-freeways.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 05:05:30 PM
Missouri loves its up arrows though. 🤷

The dreaded red up arrows somehow crept across the border: https://goo.gl/maps/Zd9mthCaWRqsuwrL9

Do any other DDIs have these?  And does anyone if this is a KDOT installation or a city (Manhattan) installation?

Quote from: stridentweasel on April 24, 2021, 10:51:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 28, 2021, 05:05:30 PM
Missouri loves its up arrows though. 🤷

The dreaded red up arrows somehow crept across the border: https://goo.gl/maps/Zd9mthCaWRqsuwrL9

Do any other DDIs have these?  And does anyone if this is a KDOT installation or a city (Manhattan) installation?

They shouldn't since it is not allowed in the 2009 MUTCD.

We are into the last few days to comment, with May 14, 2021 as the due date to comment on the MUTCD update. I've seen quite a few comments loaded onto the MUTCD update webpage related to bicycling, walking, and urban landscapes.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2020-0001-0179

The concerns about bicycling, walking, and urban landscapes is summarized in this CityLab article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/it-s-time-to-rewrite-the-road-builders-rule-book

The article notes the following areas of concerns: bicycle lanes and their treatment, speed limit setting, walk signals, crosswalk placement, treatment of non-standard crosswalks (such as rainbow crosswalks), and bus lane treatment and design.

I am thinking of making much more pedantic comments about signage for off-interstate business routes and county routes, since I have seen variation for how these are signed state-by-state, and I think there could be more consistency. I am thinking that if a business route is signed off the freeway, the guide signs should consistently list the business route shield among the advance signs. In my experience, states such as California and Nevada offer one or two roadside signs indicating an exit connects to a business route, while states such as Wyoming and Utah sign the business route on most if not all advance signs.

This type of requirement could hasten the demise of business routes in densely populated, urban areas so as to reduce the message loading on any given sign, but in my experience, most drivers in these conditions do not use the signed business route as a navigational tool (I am thinking of Business Loop 8 along El Cajon Boulevard in San Diego - there are still signs for this route, but few people are aware of its existence ... Historic U.S. 80 is more commonly signed on El Cajon Boulevard these days).

All of the above could be said for county routes, as county route markers on guide signs is nearly nonexistent in California yet is common practice in some other states such as New Jersey. The key thing about county route markers is whether the county route is a helpful navigational tool, and while it is in many cases, it is not always the case (such as Wyoming where many county roads have route numbers, but they are usually known by their names for navigation purposes). So I am not sure if I want to comment on this or not. Maybe it could be a recommendation to show the county route marker on most advance signs if it is known that drivers use the county route marker for navigational purposes.

I think part of the reason California's county routes are not necessarily used for navigation is because they are not shown on the guide signs and are limited in most applications to one or two roadside sign installations.

County routes could definitely be signed better, but they aren't always really necessary. For example, in Illinois, county routes are essentially ignored. I know Lake County does a decent job signing them, but I don't know of anyone who uses them to get around. Everyone uses the street names, not the numbers.

Maybe if county routes were always numbers (ex. 501, 470, 820) instead of things like A51 and B67, more people would use them for navigational purposes.

Finally got around to making my comment:

Quote from: Scott Nazelrod
In Section 2A.08, the clause "...when a mixed-case legend is used, the nominal loop height of the lower-case letters shall be 3/4 of the height of the initial upper-case letter." should be clarified. Because lower-case letters are already 3/4 the height of the upper-case letters in font files designed according to the "Standard Highway Signs"  publication, some signage engineers take this section of the MUTCD as an instruction to further reduce the height of the lower-case letters, leading to mismatched font sizes between upper- and lower-case letters, negatively impacting legibility.

A possible clarification may be simply to state "...when a mixed-case legend is used, upper- and lower-case letters shall be proportionally sized according to the Standard Alphabet letter forms shown in the "Standard Highway Signs"  publication."

An example showing a misinterpretation of this clause is attached.

A second comment, cause FHWA can't stop me:

Quote from: Scott Nazelrod
FHWA should retain Section 2E.41 and the concept of Freeway and Expressway diagrammatic guide signs for option lanes. Diagrammatic guide signs can  supplement Arrow-Per-Lane sign sequences by showing a driver an at-a-glance "plan view" of an interchange, especially when there are multiple ramps on the left and right side of the roadway. The diagrammatic can then be reinforced with Arrow-Per-Lane signage further downstream. Retaining diagrammatic guide signs allows a signage engineer more flexibility in designing signage solutions for complex interchanges.

Section 2E.18 should allow directional arrows on all Exit Direction signs to be located on the side of the sign consistent with the direction of the exiting movement, including post-mounted Exit Direction signs. Doing so allows for more flexibility in sign layout and can reduce material costs on post-mounted Exit Direction signs.

Have people generally been leaving more than one comment for completely separate points, or just putting it all in one big comment?

In past rulemakings for the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, I generally wrote FHWA just one letter (printed to PDF and uploaded to the docket site) in response to each notice.  I don't think it actually matters whether you write a letter, send an email, or post a Web form, or do any or all of these multiple times.  They're all comments in writing.

In the Federal Register notice, the changes FHWA proposes to make are numbered.  When the final rule notice comes out, synopses of comments (classified according to whether they come from private citizens, practitioners, state DOTs, and engineering firms) and FHWA's responses to them will be keyed to these numbers.  My experience has been that while a commenter is free to address any aspect of the MUTCD, comments that are specifically addressed to the numbered changes elicit the most visible responses from FHWA, since they are referred to directly in the comment synopsis (albeit in anonymized form--e.g., "Several private citizen commenters noted . . .," or "A state DOT suggested . . .") and in FHWA's statement of its reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the comments received on a particular change.

One would hope that FHWA accepts comments that are broader in scope as feedback on the MUTCD or its programs more generally and modifies its policies and approach accordingly, but any response of this type is bound to be subtle enough that it can be discerned only by watching the agency closely over several years.

I believe this approach to digesting and responding to comments is basically Federal Rulemaking 101 and not specific to FHWA.  But it took me one MUTCD revision cycle to see the patterns, and another to verify that they repeat.

This is why I think the eventual Final Rule notice is bound to disappoint assorted segments of the bicycling, livable-cities, and New Urbanist communities who have been vociferous in Facebook groups about their objections to the very idea of having a MUTCD.  I think there is a degree of naïveté in play:  many of these people were not even born when the proposed changes dropped for the 2003 MUTCD, and were still in grade school (a few years shy of receiving unfiltered access to the Internet) when the 2009 edition was on the horizon.  It's possible, even likely, that we will end up with policies that favor elements of their agenda, but this is not a process that is going to begin with jettisoning the MUTCD altogether.

Bottom line:  I encourage you all to go ahead and comment.  Just be aware it will take time to see the results of the process.

I mostly broke mine up into two parts because I had a response covering multiple points half-drafted a few months ago and lost it due to a power outage, so I wanted to make sure the most important issue (the 3/4 error) was submitted, lest I get distracted and fail to finish the rest. I am mostly concerned that my comment ended up in the right spot, as it seems that the site allows you to comment on individual notices that are published as part of the MUTCD public comment process (like the one indicating that the public comment period is being extended). I hope FHWA will take it under consideration even if it was posted to the wrong document in error.

J.N. Winkler: Does FHWA tend to respond to comments made by a single private citizen if they are the only one commenting on that particular topic? Also, out of curiosity, have you submitted a public comment yourself?

I am a little confused at what the New Urbanist cadre hopes to even accomplish by opposing the principle of the MUTCD. It is, primarily, a standardization and safety tool, instructing engineers how to allow users to interact with transportation infrastructure and being mostly agnostic as to which approach is taken. It's like attacking a software project's user-interface design team because you don't like the way the program manages memory allocation. One would think that a world with no MUTCD would be more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians than one with, because there would be no tool for standardizing bicycle and pedestrian facilities from city to city.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 01:59:47 AM
I am a little confused at what the New Urbanist cadre hopes to even accomplish by opposing the principle of the MUTCD. It is, primarily, a standardization and safety tool, instructing engineers how to allow users to interact with transportation infrastructure and being mostly agnostic as to which approach is taken. It's like attacking a software project's user-interface design team because you don't like the way the program manages memory allocation. One would think that a world with no MUTCD would be more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians than one with, because there would be no tool for standardizing bicycle and pedestrian facilities from city to city.

I imagine a lot of them have sent requests for things to be changed to DOTs and other agencies and gotten the response, "no, this treatment is not warranted and/or needed per the MUTCD" and thought "if we just get rid of the MUTCD, they'll have no excuse not to give me what I want".

Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2021, 01:05:05 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 01:59:47 AM
I am a little confused at what the New Urbanist cadre hopes to even accomplish by opposing the principle of the MUTCD. It is, primarily, a standardization and safety tool, instructing engineers how to allow users to interact with transportation infrastructure and being mostly agnostic as to which approach is taken. It's like attacking a software project's user-interface design team because you don't like the way the program manages memory allocation. One would think that a world with no MUTCD would be more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians than one with, because there would be no tool for standardizing bicycle and pedestrian facilities from city to city.

I imagine a lot of them have sent requests for things to be changed to DOTs and other agencies and gotten the response, "no, this treatment is not warranted and/or needed per the MUTCD" and thought "if we just get rid of the MUTCD, they'll have no excuse not to give me what I want".

In fairness, most agencies really don't apply all the standards of the MUTCD equally. Case in point, how many pointless all-way stop signs have been installed to appease residents despite the MUTCD explicitly prohibiting stop signs for speed control? Traffic control decisions are largely political and if the MUTCD stands in the way of what a city wants to do, they will usually just ignore it.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 01:59:47 AMJ.N. Winkler: Does FHWA tend to respond to comments made by a single private citizen if they are the only one commenting on that particular topic?

Yes.  On occasion, FHWA also does what the lone private citizen commenter suggests.  (In 2003 there were one or two instances where I was the only person making a particular comment on a suggested change.)

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 01:59:47 AMAlso, out of curiosity, have you submitted a public comment yourself?

Not yet.  I need to get my act together!  I usually work outward from guide signs (Chapters 2D and 2E) and comment exclusively on Part 2 (upright signs).

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 01:59:47 AMI am a little confused at what the New Urbanist cadre hopes to even accomplish by opposing the principle of the MUTCD. It is, primarily, a standardization and safety tool, instructing engineers how to allow users to interact with transportation infrastructure and being mostly agnostic as to which approach is taken. It's like attacking a software project's user-interface design team because you don't like the way the program manages memory allocation. One would think that a world with no MUTCD would be more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians than one with, because there would be no tool for standardizing bicycle and pedestrian facilities from city to city.

The thinking appears to be that the MUTCD is inseparable from catering to the motorists' agenda (https://ggwash.org/view/80879/transportation-advocates-push-feds-for-a-new-traffic-control-manual) and that participating in FHWA's "piecemeal" public comment process is "working within the system" and, as such, inescapably buying into the primacy of motorized transportation.  What they want is a document where nonmotorized modes are treated as number one.

Don Kostelec has a blog post (http://www.kostelecplanning.com/an-advocates-guide-to-commenting-on-the-draft-mutcd-part-i/) that goes into how the MUTCD works, some of the institutional norms that come into play in using and revising the MUTCD, and some of the instances in which MUTCD provisions reflect practitioner consensus rather than research results.  It touches on some of the reasons I encourage people to comment when they care what the MUTCD says.  We may not all agree on what it should say, but if we aren't part of the conversation with FHWA, then the MUTCD by default reflects the concerns of others who are.

That blog post is full of anti-car BS .

I believe that people can advocate for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit without needing to advocate against cars.

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 10, 2021, 11:10:35 PM
Have people generally been leaving more than one comment for completely separate points, or just putting it all in one big comment?

The FHWA did provide a comment form with a nice table to organize your comments if you have a lot of them, it's probably a good idea to use it if you are submitting a large list of comments.

Link: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2020-0001-0002

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 11, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Don Kostelec has a blog post (http://www.kostelecplanning.com/an-advocates-guide-to-commenting-on-the-draft-mutcd-part-i/) that goes into how the MUTCD works, some of the institutional norms that come into play in using and revising the MUTCD, and some of the instances in which MUTCD provisions reflect practitioner consensus rather than research results.  It touches on some of the reasons I encourage people to comment when they care what the MUTCD says.  We may not all agree on what it should say, but if we aren't part of the conversation with FHWA, then the MUTCD by default reflects the concerns of others who are.

There's a number of links to good information here.  It's been quite a while since I was working closely with the MUTCD folks, and all of my railroad contacts have retired and no longer involved.  But I was shocked how many traffic engineers that I know, including two who have switched over to the rail side since I worked with them.

I went ahead and made the following comment this evening (mostly pedantic, detailed items in keeping with my earlier post):

QuoteThank you for the opportunity to comment. Here are some items for your consideration regarding consistent signage for navigational purposes:

1. Signed county routes (with the pentagon-style shield) are not consistently posted on freeway guide signs. A possible idea would be to recommend posting of the county pentagon route marker on freeway guide signs approaching an interchange with a signed county route. This can be preferred for areas where county route numbers are commonly used for navigation. The states of Florida and New Jersey include county route markers on guide signs, while other states that commonly use county route markers for navigation such as California do not.

2. Off-Interstate Business Routes are not consistently signed from freeway guide signs. In some states, the freeway guide signs approaching a business route interchange are clearly signed with the appropriate business route marker/shield. An example of this is shown on Interstate 80 west at College Drive in Cheyenne, Wyoming: https://www.aaroads.com/west/wyoming080/i-080_wb_exit_364_03.jpg. In other states, freeway guide signs omit the business route shield (route marker) except for one auxiliary sign. An example is shown on Interstate 8 east at Imperial Avenue in El Centro, California: https://www.aaroads.com/california/images008/i-008_eb_exit_114_02.jpg. I request that the MUTCD consider language to make the Off-Interstate Business Route shield appear on all approaching guide signs to help its role in serving navigation. In areas where message loading, limited navigational utility of the business route, or high density of interchanges are concerns, the business route designation could be removed.

3. State named Interstate shields and route markers should be the preferred standard of signage for standalone route markers as well as shields on guide signs. Modern signing practices help to improve legibility of the shield numerals, as evidenced by recent overhead signs installed in Utah: https://www.aaroads.com/ut/015/i-015-n-exit-305-04.jpg. The state name in these shields on the guide sign are not noticeable to most drivers, and for those who do note the state name is embedded in the sign, it gives a chance to again note the state they are in.

I am hopeful these comments, while detailed, can help improve the navigational and safety goals of the MUTCD.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 10, 2021, 11:59:02 PM


This is why I think the eventual Final Rule notice is bound to disappoint assorted segments of the bicycling, livable-cities, and New Urbanist communities who have been vociferous in Facebook groups about their objections to the very idea of having a MUTCD.  I think there is a degree of naïveté in play:  many of these people were not even born when the proposed changes dropped for the 2003 MUTCD, and were still in grade school (a few years shy of receiving unfiltered access to the Internet) when the 2009 edition was on the horizon.  It's possible, even likely, that we will end up with policies that favor elements of their agenda, but this is not a process that is going to begin with jettisoning the MUTCD altogether.

Lets hope it does disappoint them. However given the media coverage they are getting, the vast number of form letters they've submitted, and the friendliness of the new administration and transportation secretary to this particular lobby, its possible the final rule may be severely delayed, or maybe even a supplemental NPA issued. The acting FHWA administrator is from Massachusetts and I can tell you she is VERY friendly to this group of people and their demands. I wouldn't be surprised at anything at this point.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 12, 2021, 04:18:25 PM
That blog post is full of anti-car BS .

I believe that people can advocate for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit without needing to advocate against cars.

Common sense would agree with you. The MUTCD has entire sections and chapters devoted to these constituencies. It would seem to be a fair compromise and promote sharing of the road however these people still pound the table to throw out the MUTCD because they truly don't want ANY provisions made for motor vehicles. They literally want to "get people out of their cars" and eliminate all private motor vehicle travel. High gas prices, mileage taxes, higher traffic congestion and therefore increased delays, etc are positive things in their eyes because they believe these things will lead people to abandon their private vehicle in favor of biking and public transit. They are a primarily urban constituency and don't understand life outside their urban bubble. Massachusetts is filled with them, and they carry tremendous weight with politicians due to their incessant lobbying. Just look at all the identical and similarly written form letters submitted as comments.

There is no compromise with them, there is no appeasing them. Nothing will ever be good enough. Just remember that.

I finally got around to submitting a comment.

Quote
I have two comments regarding the new MUTCD:

(1) I would like to see some clarification regarding Section 2E.21, Paragraph 09 of the 2009 Edition: "Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp on a sign located on the mainline."  It is often important to show which lane bound for a ramp goes to which destination downstream from said ramp splitting from the mainline.  Is an example such as this allowed: https://goo.gl/maps/5erFsVA8MPWwfmyV7 ?  In the linked example, Renner Boulevard and I-35/Northbound I-435 comprise a downstream split of the exit ramp after it departs the Eastbound KS 10 mainline, and this seems to be very pertinent information to road users needing to know which lane to use.

(2) You have probably received several comments regarding the 85th Percentile Rule for setting speed limits.  Many critics advocate for abandoning that rule, but I have serious concerns with such an idea.  In absence of the 85th Percentile Rule, there would be need for a rational standard to ensure speed limits are related to road geometry and travel conditions, and to ensure cities cannot create speed traps.  If the 85th Percentile rule is removed, I believe it should be replaced with a rational standard for setting speed limits appropriate to road conditions.

Thank you for considering these comments.

I think today is the last day for public comments. Get them in while you can!

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 13, 2021, 02:58:54 AM
Lets hope it does disappoint them. However given the media coverage they are getting, the vast number of form letters they've submitted, and the friendliness of the new administration and transportation secretary to this particular lobby, its possible the final rule may be severely delayed, or maybe even a supplemental NPA issued. The acting FHWA administrator is from Massachusetts and I can tell you she is VERY friendly to this group of people and their demands. I wouldn't be surprised at anything at this point.

The problem that lobbying group is going to run into is that, no matter their feelings on the subject, FHWA is always going to need a standard document of some form that says "guide signs are green and red lights mean stop". So the core concept of the MUTCD isn't going to go away, no matter what they try to advocate for.

I think the most likely course of action is that FHWA will lump all comments of that type together and give a polite reply indicating that these comments aren't germane to the process, then spend the rest of their time addressing comments on actual specific sections of the document.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 13, 2021, 03:16:14 PM
I think today is the last day for public comments. Get them in while you can!

We have until 11:59 PM EST tomorrow to submit comments, but definitely don't delay! I'm typing mine up right now.

For ease of access for everyone reading this, the comment form is at this link: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FHWA-2020-0001-0001

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 13, 2021, 03:16:14 PM
The problem that lobbying group is going to run into is that, no matter their feelings on the subject, FHWA is always going to need a standard document of some form that says "guide signs are green and red lights mean stop". So the core concept of the MUTCD isn't going to go away, no matter what they try to advocate for.

I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to get concessions on some of their other issues, however, even if they don't end up getting the concept of the MUTCD tossed out (although I think some who want that would be fine with a MUTCD that was started from scratch to favor everything that isn't an automobile).

Quote from: stevashe on May 13, 2021, 07:19:28 PM
We have until 11:59 PM EST tomorrow to submit comments, but definitely don't delay! I'm typing mine up right now.

So, we have until 12:59 AM EDT tonight?

I was at a restaurant on Mother's Day that said they opened at 12:30 AM on Sundays. I'm pretty sure this was a typo and not some near-midnight special.

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 12:25:29 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 13, 2021, 07:19:28 PM
We have until 11:59 PM EST tomorrow to submit comments, but definitely don't delay! I'm typing mine up right now.

So, we have until 12:59 AM EDT tonight?

Actually, 11:59 EST is 10:59 EDT :)

But yes, I did mean 11:59 EDT.

Quote from: stevashe on May 14, 2021, 12:50:26 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 12:25:29 PM
So, we have until 12:59 AM EDT tonight?

Actually, 11:59 EST is 10:59 EDT :)

11:59 PM EST is 12:59 AM EDT. Have to spring forward an hour when you change in spring.

Quote from: stevashe on May 13, 2021, 07:19:28 PM
We have until 11:59 PM EST tomorrow to submit comments, but definitely don't delay! I'm typing mine up right now.

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 12:25:29 PM
So, we have until 12:59 AM EDT tonight?

I'm resisting the urge to say "except in Indiana" (which isn't true anymore).

I commented regarding their suggested exit numbering rules. While I like the idea that exit numbers can now be adjusted by 1 to avoid letter suffixes, they also are adding a rule that says that letter suffixes should not be skipped and instead should start with A and increase for NB/EB, and for SB/WB should end with A and not have any skipped letters. E.g. if there are 3 letters northbound but 2 southbound, they want the NB exit letters to be A-B-C, with the SB exit letters B-A.

I commented that it's more important for the same cross street to have the same letter, even if a letter has to be skipped in one direction. For example, if "A" is a partial NB exit, then A-B-C on NB should correspond to C-B SB with the A being skipped due to no SB exit.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 03:01:17 PM
I commented regarding their suggested exit numbering rules. While I like the idea that exit numbers can now be adjusted by 1 to avoid letter suffixes, they also are adding a rule that says that letter suffixes should not be skipped and instead should start with A and increase for NB/EB, and for SB/WB should end with A and not have any skipped letters. E.g. if there are 3 letters northbound but 2 southbound, they want the NB exit letters to be A-B-C, with the SB exit letters B-A.

I commented that it's more important for the same cross street to have the same letter, even if a letter has to be skipped in one direction. For example, if "A" is a partial NB exit, then A-B-C on NB should correspond to C-B SB with the A being skipped due to no SB exit.

THIS!!  There are so many examples of where the "no skipping" would make the same cross street have different exit numbers in different directions, or the same number serve completely different cross streets.  Exit numbers are then useless!!!

For example right off the top of my head, I-76 in Akron.
Eastbound:
21B:  Lakeshore/Bowery
21C: SR 59 Innterbelt

Westbound
21C: Dart Ave (indirect access to SR 59)
21A: East Ave

By the new guidance, I-76 WB would have to have exits 21B and 21A, for Dart and East Aves in that order.  EB 76 would have exits 21A and B for Lakeshore/Bowery and Innerbelt.  These are basically four different exits.  The existing 21Cs link to each other by Dart being the frontage road for the Innerbelt expressway eventually, but Lakeshore/Bowery  and East serve different areas and should NOT have the same exit number. 

The inverse, the same cross street getting different letter suffixes, is equally probable and shouldn't happen either.  How do they come up with ideas like this?  It's not a problem in the first place.

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 03:22:36 PMHow do they come up with ideas like this?  It's not a problem in the first place.

I've had this reaction to a few proposed changes in Chapter 2E:

*  Exit direction sign for simple exit (no lane drop) to have arrow to side if overhead, arrow on bottom if mounted to the side (few if any agencies do this currently).

*  Special treatment for lane drops with option lane that have long narrow gores (one of the figures even has a gore sign with an arrow pointing downward and to the side!).

*  Sawn-off APLs with off-center legend (none of the installs I've seen in plan sheets has this).

My comment draft currently has close to 1200 words.  I'm looking to add a couple of comments about the 3/4 error and Clearview, and then I think it will be ready to upload.

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 03:22:36 PM
The inverse, the same cross street getting different letter suffixes, is equally probable and shouldn't happen either.  How do they come up with ideas like this?  It's not a problem in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to find a way to reduce alphabet soup complaints from the states that have yet to convert.

I'm just assuming there's actual, real-world confusion arising from exit numbers going straight from C to A or whatever.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 14, 2021, 04:19:16 PM

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 03:22:36 PMHow do they come up with ideas like this?  It's not a problem in the first place.

*  Exit direction sign for simple exit (no lane drop) to have arrow to side if overhead, arrow on bottom if mounted to the side (few if any agencies do this currently).

Ohio has replaced a bunch of ground-mounted exit sign panels over the last few years that were not that old, not really in need of replacement, but got replaced anyway, to put the arrows on the side instead of the bottom where they had been.  And now FHWA wants it back the way it was???

Was a button-copy sign until about 2006 (https://goo.gl/maps/4uMe2QcuuFewpm9N8); had plenty of life left (especially considering it's Ohio); got replaced with everything else in the corridor and redesigned...
Replaced in 2017 by this with the arrow on the side (https://goo.gl/maps/MXQWkd8ppTBWv2Dq8); would need to revert to old design!!

The changing standards and guidance are enough to drive one bonkers.

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 04:38:52 PM
I'm just assuming there's actual, real-world confusion arising from exit numbers going straight from C to A or whatever.

I'm assuming the same street having different exit numbers in different directions or Exit 21A going to completely different places is more confusing than that.  Engineering judgement has to get some allowance here to do what makes sense.

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 04:42:45 PM
I'm assuming the same street having different exit numbers in different directions or Exit 21A going to completely different places is more confusing than that.  Engineering judgement has to get some allowance here to do what makes sense.

Yes, I totally get that.  I mean, plenty of businesses' directions say "to Exit 42A" or whatever.

But I also imagine that a driver, upon seeing Exit 42C, assumes that Exit 42A will be two exits later.

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 04:44:31 PM

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 04:42:45 PM
I'm assuming the same street having different exit numbers in different directions or Exit 21A going to completely different places is more confusing than that.  Engineering judgement has to get some allowance here to do what makes sense.

Yes, I totally get that.  I mean, plenty of businesses' directions say "to Exit 42A" or whatever.

But I also imagine that a driver, upon seeing Exit 42C, assumes that Exit 42A will be two exits later.

We're going back to sequential world.  Assuming that A is always two exits after C is like assuming that Exit 3 is two exits after Exit 1.  What do the signs say about the distances?  Exit 42A is how far ahead?  Be ready for it!
If they want sequential, then go back to sequential.  If not, then don't.  They need to not mix. 
It's not just for businesses advertising; entire neighborhoods, hospitals people are getting to, etc..  There is no reason to mandate or even suggest that Exit 21A in one direction should go to a completely different street that serves a completely different part of town and doesn't easily connect just to not skip a letter.  It would make more sense in that case to start fudging numbers, which I would bet agencies would start doing if they can in cases where there are numbers available and it makes sense to do it.  Would that mean it backfires on FHWA?  Yep.  Would it serve them right?  Yep.

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 04:44:31 PM
But I also imagine that a driver, upon seeing Exit 42C, assumes that Exit 42A will be two exits later.

So as a driver who sees a regular exit 42, does that mean exit 39 is three exits later?

Quote from: US 89 on May 14, 2021, 05:03:42 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 04:44:31 PM
But I also imagine that a driver, upon seeing Exit 42C, assumes that Exit 42A will be two exits later.

So as a driver who sees a regular exit 42, does that mean exit 39 is three exits later?

Hey, now.  I've grown up with mile-based exit numbers my whole life, and I've understood for just as long that letter suffixes don't work the same as the numerical part.  It doesn't take too many instances of 42A-42B-42C, 110A-110B-110C, 5A-5B-5C to figure out how it works.  That's why I'm saying that skipping a letter can lead to confusion.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 14, 2021, 04:19:16 PM

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 03:22:36 PMHow do they come up with ideas like this?  It's not a problem in the first place.

I've had this reaction to a few proposed changes in Chapter 2E:

*  Exit direction sign for simple exit (no lane drop) to have arrow to side if overhead, arrow on bottom if mounted to the side (few if any agencies do this currently).

I specifically commented against this standard to request that arrow to side be allowed on post-mounted installs. Putting the arrow on bottom on a sign like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5319566,-95.3836074,3a,15.7y,95.45h,89.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXwdgsCeAQYfceN-WlI3Wow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would waste a whole lot of panel space without much benefit at all other than standardization in sign layout. Personally, if I were to choose one or the other to standardize on I'd standardize on arrow-to-side for that reason alone.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 14, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
*  Sawn-off APLs with off-center legend (none of the installs I've seen in plan sheets has this).

The off-center legend in the specimen diagram does center the text between the arrowheads applying to it. While off-center text appears jarring to anyone who isn't inculcated to it by Oklahoma signage, it does appear to be a deliberate decision to do it in order to emphasize that the legend block does not apply to the up arrow.

I was a little curious as to the effectiveness of sawn-off APL, so I showed the specimen to a non-roadgeek friend of mine and asked her opinion of what it meant, and she nailed it, so they perform well on that regard, at least.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 14, 2021, 04:19:16 PM
My comment draft currently has close to 1200 words.  I'm looking to add a couple of comments about the 3/4 error and Clearview, and then I think it will be ready to upload.

Be sure to post a copy here when you're finished. :nod:

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 05:16:06 PM

Quote from: US 89 on May 14, 2021, 05:03:42 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 04:44:31 PM
But I also imagine that a driver, upon seeing Exit 42C, assumes that Exit 42A will be two exits later.

So as a driver who sees a regular exit 42, does that mean exit 39 is three exits later?

Hey, now.  I've grown up with mile-based exit numbers my whole life, and I've understood for just as long that letter suffixes don't work the same as the numerical part.  It doesn't take too many instances of 42A-42B-42C, 110A-110B-110C, 5A-5B-5C to figure out how it works.  That's why I'm saying that skipping a letter can lead to confusion.

I don't know that most non-roadgeeks would even notice a missing letter. I think for most people it works the same as when you are hunting for an address–use the surrounding numbers to indicate when you're getting close and then when the exit is imminent search for the specific number you want and discard as irrelevant any information about exits that are not that number. If they didn't see a 5B between 5C and 5A I imagine most people would assume they just overlooked it if it weren't their exit number.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 14, 2021, 07:06:00 PM
I don't know that most non-roadgeeks would even notice a missing letter. I think for most people it works the same as when you are hunting for an address–use the surrounding numbers to indicate when you're getting close and then when the exit is imminent search for the specific number you want and discard as irrelevant any information about exits that are not that number. If they didn't see a 5B between 5C and 5A I imagine most people would assume they just overlooked it if it weren't their exit number.

Yeah, well my imagination could beat your imagination up!

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 07:20:36 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 14, 2021, 07:06:00 PM
I don't know that most non-roadgeeks would even notice a missing letter. I think for most people it works the same as when you are hunting for an address–use the surrounding numbers to indicate when you're getting close and then when the exit is imminent search for the specific number you want and discard as irrelevant any information about exits that are not that number. If they didn't see a 5B between 5C and 5A I imagine most people would assume they just overlooked it if it weren't their exit number.

Yeah, well my imagination could beat your imagination up!

Wanna reread the Alanland thread and say that to me again? :-D

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 04:56:19 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 04:44:31 PM

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 04:42:45 PM
I'm assuming the same street having different exit numbers in different directions or Exit 21A going to completely different places is more confusing than that.  Engineering judgement has to get some allowance here to do what makes sense.

Yes, I totally get that.  I mean, plenty of businesses' directions say "to Exit 42A" or whatever.

But I also imagine that a driver, upon seeing Exit 42C, assumes that Exit 42A will be two exits later.

We're going back to sequential world.  Assuming that A is always two exits after C is like assuming that Exit 3 is two exits after Exit 1.  What do the signs say about the distances?  Exit 42A is how far ahead?  Be ready for it!
If they want sequential, then go back to sequential.  If not, then don't.  They need to not mix. 
It's not just for businesses advertising; entire neighborhoods, hospitals people are getting to, etc..  There is no reason to mandate or even suggest that Exit 21A in one direction should go to a completely different street that serves a completely different part of town and doesn't easily connect just to not skip a letter.  It would make more sense in that case to start fudging numbers, which I would bet agencies would start doing if they can in cases where there are numbers available and it makes sense to do it.  Would that mean it backfires on FHWA?  Yep.  Would it serve them right?  Yep.

You *might* want to go back and reread that section, then submit another comment if that's how you feel. The proposed MUTCD actually includes fudging, not just in a Guidance statement, but as a full Standard as well!!!! I was sure to write a lengthy comment arguing against that one (quoted below). :-D

Quote from: Draft MUTCD Comment
Page 209, Lines 43-35; and Page 210, Lines 18-20 — Disagree with recommending that interchanges within the same mile can have separate numbers to avoid suffix letters. This Standard and Guidance, especially as written, go against providing uniformity in exit numbering as it is up to the agency maintaining the roadway to determine what distance between interchanges constitutes "so closely spaced that it is impracticable to use separate exit numbers."  This could lead to situations where, for example, EXIT 2, EXIT 3, and EXIT 4 are all within one mile of each other, with a subsequent gap of two to three miles between EXIT 4 and EXIT 5. This effectively makes the numbering more like the consecutive exit numbering method, and could be confusing to road users who would expect more uniform spacing of consecutively numbered exits under the reference location sign exit numbering method.

The proposed "fudging" is only allowed to the point that numbers can be 1 mile off. "Exit 4" would only be a maximum of 2 miles away from "Exit 5". I would say that that minor degree of fudging is really not that noticeable. In fact it's already done in some places.

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 14, 2021, 10:43:39 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

I wasn't aware that odometers can give you both past and future mileage.  I must be missing that.  Mine seems to be stuck in "past" mode.

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 14, 2021, 10:43:39 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

While driving, yes. But exit numbers are also used while not driving, such as while planning a trip.

I could see fudging past what is technically "allowed" just to make it so that the letters are the same for a certain exit both ways to follow the guidance to not skip letters.  As noted above, people will be looking for their exit and the sign for that one, not necessarily counting all the exits in between.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PMI'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

You can go ahead and comment.  They accept late comments, "which are considered to the extent practicable."  Quite a few of the comments back in 2008 (for what became the 2009 MUTCD) were days late.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The proposed "fudging" is only allowed to the point that numbers can be 1 mile off. "Exit 4" would only be a maximum of 2 miles away from "Exit 5". I would say that that minor degree of fudging is really not that noticeable. In fact it's already done in some places.

And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

But "1 mile off" could mean that EXIT 4 is as low as milepost 3.01. Then Exit 5 can be anywhere between milepost 5.00 and 5.99. There may only be a difference of 2 between the first digit of 3.01 and 5.99, but the total difference is effectively 3. :P

Also, I think we should give a little more credit to the average driver with respect to noticing distance anomalies between exit numbers. For example, Exit 80 and Exit 84 on I-90 in Washington are only about 2.5 miles apart since Exit 84 is actually two half exits 1.6 miles apart that were both given the same number, presumably just so both directions have the same number because they serve the same destinations. My sister, who is not really interested in roads at all, did notice that Exit 84 came up significantly before she was expecting after Exit 80and commented to me about it and asked why that was, expressing a bit of annoyance that it caught her a bit off guard. I gave her the same reasoning about the half exits but conceded that it was probably not the best idea to fudge the numbers like that.

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

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 15, 2021, 12:01:15 AM
States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

That doesn't mean they should explicitly endorse the practice though!

---

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2021, 12:02:42 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PMI'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

You can go ahead and comment.  They accept late comments, "which are considered to the extent practicable."  Quite a few of the comments back in 2008 (for what became the 2009 MUTCD) were days late.

They did actually add a sign saying "use both lanes to merge point", but it was in Part 6 for "Temporary Traffic Control Zones" (e.g. construction zones).

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 14, 2021, 07:06:00 PMBe sure to post a copy here when you're finished. :nod:

I posted within the last 15 minutes of the comment period, writing FHWA a letter and uploading it to the docket site as a PDF (generated using LaTeX).  It isn't yet publicly available, and may not be until Monday or later if they're relying on manual review and the personnel responsible don't work on weekends.  Shorn of opening and closing cruft, here is what I wrote:

QuoteI have keyed the following comments to the numbered paragraphs in the notice.

34, 156, 190--My concern with these pertains not to the changes themselves (horizontal alignment of legend, minimum letter heights for overhead conventional-road guide signs, and tabulation of letter heights for freeway guide signs), but rather to other language in the sections concerned that deals with the ratio of capital letter height and lowercase loop height.  The language in § 2D.05 quotes lowercase letter heights that are uniformly three-quarters of the corresponding capital letter heights but does not note this is an unvarying relationship or that the lowercase measurements are for loop height.  § 2A.08 and § 2E.12 are explicit about the three-quarters relationship and the fact that it is based on nominal lowercase loop height.  The language in these three sections, much of which has been carried over from past editions of the MUTCD, is clearly intended to describe a property that is inherent in the FHWA Series typefaces and in all computer fonts based on them that preserve their forms and proportions.  For example, if I am working in a sign drawing program with an E Modified font and I fix the capital letter height at 16 inches, I do not need to change the size to get lowercase letters at the correct 12-inch loop height.  However, it has become evident both in signing plans and in field installations that many practitioners think it is allowable, even required, to reduce the size of the lowercase letters so that loop height plus ascender height (essentially, capital letter height at the new size) is three-quarters the height of the actual capital letters.  This phenomenon, which in road enthusiast circles is described as the "three-quarters error," results in unsightly signs that ill serve the motoring public.  I urge FHWA to devise a way of describing the three-quarters ratio that doesn't unintentionally encourage ill-formed mixed-case destination legend.

195--In cases where an exit direction sign does not perform lane assignment, this proposed change (in new § 2E.18) would require the arrow to be positioned to the side when the sign is mounted overhead, and on the bottom when it is placed to the side of the road.  While I have great sympathy for the apparent motivation of preventing overhead exit direction signs being misinterpreted as showing lane drops when the arrow is at bottom, I am not aware of research showing that motorists err in this way with any frequency.  I also see the potential for this change to cause more problems than it solves.  In almost 20 years of examining sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets, I have yet to see an agency that already observes this distinction in its guide signing practice.  Unless FHWA were to mandate early replacement of signs (at significant cost), it would therefore take at least a full sign replacement cycle for there to be enough consistency in arrow deployment (compliant to the proposed standard) for motorists to pick up on a pattern.  It would also generate added cost by taking away the flexibility to position the arrow so that sign panel area is at a minimum while maintaining appropriate space padding.  In marginal cases, it could even force replacement of overhead signbridges and cantilever structures.  I would respectfully suggest that FHWA not proceed with this change unless and until it is clear the benefits outweigh the costs.

199--I agree in general with the proposal to elevate from Guidance to Standard the ban on redundant word "Exit" on the main sign panel when an exit tab is present.  However, this could have the unintended effect of preventing agencies from adding exit numbering to freeways that currently lack it (something they are encouraged to do) simply by retrofitting exit tabs to signs in the field.  Iowa DOT did this for its non-Interstate freeways in the early 2000's, as did Caltrans in its District 2 (far northern California) when it first rolled out exit numbering in 2002.  I believe Georgia DOT in the 1970's was unusual, possibly unique, among state transportation agencies in removing the word "Exit" and re-centering the distance legend when retrofitting exit tabs.

200--I support the proposed change requiring interchange sequence signs to show distances just to the next two or three exits.  However, I can foresee this change attracting opposition from agencies that use a hybrid sign in the transition to rural areas that shows the distance to the next exit or two followed by the distance to the next town.  (Colorado DOT has at least one example on I-25 north of Denver.)

201--I agree with the suggested change calling for exit tabs for right exits to be right-mounted.  The time is ripe for this provision, since signs with center-mounted tabs are becoming rarer and rarer in the field.

214--As reconstruction does not preclude the persistence of geometric features for which traditional (stippled-arrow) diagrammatic guide signs are useful, these should also be allowed at locations deemed reconstructed.  I also have reservations about FHWA's proposal to include new figures showing divergences with long narrow gores.  The principle of uniformity in signing would suggest that the same signs should be used regardless of gore shape.  In these proposed figures, FHWA is mixing APLs with pull-throughs and exit direction signs that perform lane assignment (other figures show just an APL without distance expression where an exit direction sign would otherwise be used).  Moreover, multiple APLs without distance expression are used in succession:  how does the motorist know which of these is actually at the exit?  (At lane drops without option lane, an advance guide sign within a quarter-mile of the exit--which is allowed not to have a distance expression--is still distinguishable from the exit direction sign since the lane arrow points down rather than up and to the side.)  I also find it troubling that in one of the figures, the gore sign has an arrow pointing downward and to the side.  It violates positive guidance by clashing with the upward-pointing lane arrows on the exit direction sign.  Moreover, could motorists misinterpret this as indicating a sharper-than-usual curve on exit?  (Some agencies use gore signs with horizontal arrows for exit ramps that curve sharply.)

215--To limit message loading, I support the proposal to require agencies not to use diagrammatics or overhead arrow-per-lane signs to perform lane assignment downstream of the split.  However, I am aware of many installed examples (especially of APLs) that do this, and suspect agencies will continue to erect such signs in defiance of a MUTCD prohibition.  However, I do not support the proposed alternative change except insofar as it allows "sawn-off" APLs.  Stippled-arrow diagrammatics retain value as a mechanism for advising drivers of unusual road geometry, and should be left in the toolbox.

216--I support the proposal to add sawn-off APLs to the MUTCD.  However, I disagree with the design approach shown in the proposed figures.  The legend block (shield and destination) appears to be horizontally centered on the "Exit" and "Only" patches, and for a narrow block such as is shown in the figures (one shield plus a short destination), this leaves a large amount of empty green space on the left side of the sign.  While this might have value in setting off the route and destination as being reached by exiting, it gives the sign an unbalanced appearance, and it is unclear what happens with wide legend blocks, such as might result from multiple shields and a long destination.  Agencies that have actually tried sawn-off APLs in the field have invariably centered the legend block on the total width of the sign.  This approach yields a much cleaner appearance and is more forgiving of long placenames.  I doubt a sign comprehension study would show any benefit to additional green space on one side of the sign.  (As an aside, I would like to highlight the wisdom of stress-testing innovative sign designs--such as APLs, sawn-off or not--against real-world placenames, the more unwieldy the better, rather than short ones like "Medford," "Dover," "Concord," and "Pomona."  Design rules for diagrammatics have stood the test of time for 50 years partly because the first signs were tried in areas with long placenames like "Washington," "Frederick," "Baltimore," and "Democracy Blvd.")

220--I have reservations about the proposal to ban pictographs (other than ones related to transit systems) on supplemental guide signs.  It is footnoted to a study that references sports team logos, yet it seems it would have the effect of banning the train station symbol, the Amtrak logo, and various transit agency logos, all of which have been used on freeway guide signs.

227--The accompanying figure shows exit numbers used for intersections at grade.  While I understand the desire to maintain continuity in distance-based numbering on expressway sections of a route that is otherwise freeway, I think exit tabs either should not be used at all, or some word other than "Exit" (which implies grade separation) should be used on number tabs for these intersections.

647--As part of this change, FHWA proposes a Standard statement that would govern how the Clearview typefaces are used on traffic signs in the United States.  Only Clearview 5-W would be allowed, and only for destination legend (not cardinal direction words, distance expressions, or other generic elements such as word "Exit" in tabs) on freeway and expressway guide signs.  The required interline spacing would be based on the actual lowercase loop height of Clearview (84% of capital letter height), rather than that of the FHWA series (75%).  I interpret this as an attempt to close the book on Clearview, recognizing that revocation of the interim approval in 2016 failed to stick because Congressional representatives from Clearview-using states such as Texas had enough leverage to force its reinstatement.  However, I believe FHWA's suggested language needs some refinement.  First, I disagree with the proposed name "Series E (modified)-Alternate" for Clearview 5-W (a humanist typeface), as I consider this likely to mislead people into thinking it is typographically similar to the other FHWA alphabet series (all gothic typefaces and part of the same family, at varying levels of condensation).  I suggest that it simply be called by its actual name--"Clearview 5-W"--and be described as an alternate to Series E Modified in freeway/expressway guide signing applications.  I also do not think it is necessary to restrict Clearview 5-W just to destination legend as long as it is used only in positive contrast and not within any type of route marker (such as the Interstate shield) where digits appear in positive contrast.  Few agencies have observed the nicety of confining Clearview to destination legend; Texas and Michigan have not, for example.  Also, in 18 years of collecting tens of thousands of sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets for signs that use Clearview, I have seen hardly any where the interline spacing used is 84% capital letter height, rather than the 75% that is usual for the FHWA series.  Clearview was designed to work with 75% interline spacing to keep sign height the same when it is swapped in for Series E Modified.  (If Clearview 5-W-R is used, width also stays the same.)  In the absence of compelling evidence of motorist benefit from 84% spacing, I fully expect agencies to continue designing signs for 75%.

Quote from: vdeane on May 14, 2021, 10:49:07 PM

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 14, 2021, 10:43:39 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

I wasn't aware that odometers can give you both past and future mileage.  I must be missing that.  Mine seems to be stuck in "past" mode.

I didn't know exit signs were time travelers  :-D

If you need future mileage to your next exit, GPS is the common way to go about that if you're unfamiliar with the area. Even gives you the minutes to your exit!

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 11:09:13 PM

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 14, 2021, 10:43:39 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

While driving, yes. But exit numbers are also used while not driving, such as while planning a trip.

How do you plan a trip using exit numbers? Would you get these exit numbers off a paper map? Regardless paper maps usually have scales. If planning electronically rather than a map, then your turn-by-turn directions would include mileage between entrance and exit of the highway.

Not being sarcastic just wondering about the practicality of planning a trip like this, other than for a hobbyist like ourselves.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2021, 12:34:56 AM


220--I have reservations about the proposal to ban pictographs (other than ones related to transit systems) on supplemental guide signs.  It is footnoted to a study that references sports team logos, yet it seems it would have the effect of banning the train station symbol, the Amtrak logo, and various transit agency logos, all of which have been used on freeway guide signs.

I made a similar comment. The sports logo study is obscure and I can't seem to find it despite extensive google searching.

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 01:34:39 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I am not saying it would need to be placed at every lane merge in the country, but just as a supplemental sign in places where drivers need a reminder to use all of the lane. A highway going from 2 lanes to 1 lane over a long distance, where traffic almost never stops, won't need it.

But an interstate that drops a lane in a busy part of town, where traffic can come to a complete stop, and where drivers might not want to risk having to be stuck at the end of the lane, might need it, as a reminder to use the full length of the lane, because it's there.

Another sign that might go well with this might be a "TAKE TURNS MERGING"  sign.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 01:34:39 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

Agreed on both counts. The comments are filled with city minded bike advocates.

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 15, 2021, 01:21:19 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 11:09:13 PM

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 14, 2021, 10:43:39 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

While driving, yes. But exit numbers are also used while not driving, such as while planning a trip.

How do you plan a trip using exit numbers? Would you get these exit numbers off a paper map? Regardless paper maps usually have scales. If planning electronically rather than a map, then your turn-by-turn directions would include mileage between entrance and exit of the highway.

Not being sarcastic just wondering about the practicality of planning a trip like this, other than for a hobbyist like ourselves.

If not planning a trip using something like Google Maps, I usually get the entry and exit numbers, and exit sign text, off of the Wikipedia page for that route. A state DOT map or commercial atlas is also a good source for exit numbers.

Calculating distance by map scale is usually pretty burdensome because roads normally do not run perfectly straight, making measurement with a straightedged ruler prone to error. Smaller jogs in the routing may be simplified on a large-scale map, further introducing error in the distance obtained by measuring in this way. Not to mention measuring the map with a ruler and multiplying according to the scale is kind of a pain in the ass anyway. It is much simpler to get distance accurate to within a mile by simply subtracting the entry and exit numbers from one other.

Calculating remaining time toward destination by using exit number and milepost subtraction is a good way to keep oneself mentally engaged during long solo trips.

I've used addition and subtraction of exit numbers for distance estimation, though I accept an error bar of perhaps five miles for cross-state trips since routes don't always have true milepointing.  Paper maps also tend to indicate distances from exits along the state highways they serve, so it's possible to add up distances on either side of a short hop on a freeway.  But Google Maps allows us to be lazy (when wifi or data is available).

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 01:34:39 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on May 15, 2021, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 01:34:39 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

Have you read what the comments are saying? Certain anti-car people believe that the MUTCD can just be eliminated, and are basically advocating for that. Some of the recent comments are advocating for things like removing the 85th percentile rule for determination of appropriate speed limits (obviously they believe that speed limits should be something like 20 on city streets and 45 or 50 on highways).

If you don't think that hurts rural areas, then I don't know what to tell you.

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 15, 2021, 01:16:47 AM

Quote from: vdeane on May 14, 2021, 10:49:07 PM

Quote from: mass_citizen on May 14, 2021, 10:43:39 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

Isn't that what odometers are for?

I wasn't aware that odometers can give you both past and future mileage.  I must be missing that.  Mine seems to be stuck in "past" mode.

I didn't know exit signs were time travelers  :-D

If you need future mileage to your next exit, GPS is the common way to go about that if you're unfamiliar with the area. Even gives you the minutes to your exit!

I don't use GPS.  I'd much rather navigate myself and choose the roads I use.  I plan my trips out in advance and then write the directions down onto the back of a receipt so I can reference them in the car.  The only thing I use the Google Maps driving directions for are to get travel times and to save a link to the route for further planning and when I copy it down; inevitably I have a ton of routing points set (because if I didn't, I'd have just memorized the whole thing in the first place, though I usually have most of it remembered anyways).  For roads with exit numbers, I always write down the exit number along with the road name or route number.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 02:24:38 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on May 15, 2021, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 01:34:39 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

Have you read what the comments are saying? Certain anti-car people believe that the MUTCD can just be eliminated, and are basically advocating for that. Some of the recent comments are advocating for things like removing the 85th percentile rule for determination of appropriate speed limits (obviously they believe that speed limits should be something like 20 on city streets and 45 or 50 on highways).

If you don't think that hurts rural areas, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think you're misunderstanding this, actually. All of the things you are talking about are, or would be, options or guidance within the MUTCD, so they are non-binding and can be applied as engineers see fit. For example, the fact that the MUTCD allows carpool lane signage that obviously makes no sense in rural areas doesn't mean they're being installed across the country, does it?

And as for the 85th Percentile being used to set speed limits, it's actually proposed to be ADDED as a general option for speed limit setting guidance in any situation, which doesn't make sense. In the 2009 MUTCD, it only mentions the 85th percentile speed for setting speed zones. (and again, it's only Guidance)

Quote from: stevashe on May 17, 2021, 04:34:23 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 02:24:38 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on May 15, 2021, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 15, 2021, 01:34:39 AM

Quote from: MCRoads on May 14, 2021, 11:46:27 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
And no one actually cares about the specific gaps between each individual exit. The point of mile numbering is to use the number where you enter, and the number where you exit, to get an approximate mileage traveled.

I think the more lay-person might just use them to tell someone what exit to use when giving directions to a place. My grandmother doesn't use GPS, and whenever she comes to visit, she just remembers that we live off of exit XXX on I-25. Although, soon that will change to Exit XXXB, as they are adding a new interchange. That might actually throw her off... maybe I should text her to let her know...

OK, aside from that,

I'm wondering if I should make a comment to suggest a sign to the effect of "USE FULL MERGE LENGTH"  to avoid what usually happens (in my experience) at a lane ending: at the first sign the lane ends, everybody shoves their way in, even though you have 1000-ish more feet in that lane. Sometimes more! But, I think the comments might have closed already, seeing as how the FHWA is in DC.

I understand why people who primarily drive in urban conditions would want the full length to be used. But I disagree that it should be done that way at every merge point. If traffic is in free-flow conditions both before and after the lane reduction, there's no need to slow down at the lane reduction, and traffic should just go ahead and merge at the first safe opportunity after seeing the sign indicating the upcoming merge.

This is one of those things where I dislike how urban people are trying to make changes that affect the whole country even if it negatively affects rural people.

I don't know how the effects of adding more bicycle signage and making the manual friendlier to pedestrians would hurt rural areas. You can just include both as options.


iPhone

Have you read what the comments are saying? Certain anti-car people believe that the MUTCD can just be eliminated, and are basically advocating for that. Some of the recent comments are advocating for things like removing the 85th percentile rule for determination of appropriate speed limits (obviously they believe that speed limits should be something like 20 on city streets and 45 or 50 on highways).

If you don't think that hurts rural areas, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think you're misunderstanding this, actually. All of the things you are talking about are, or would be, options or guidance within the MUTCD, so they are non-binding and can be applied as engineers see fit. For example, the fact that the MUTCD allows carpool lane signage that obviously makes no sense in rural areas doesn't mean they're being installed across the country, does it?

And as for the 85th Percentile being used to set speed limits, it's actually proposed to be ADDED as a general option for speed limit setting guidance in any situation, which doesn't make sense. In the 2009 MUTCD, it only mentions the 85th percentile speed for setting speed zones. (and again, it's only Guidance)

You're assuming that the proposed text will be approved as is. I hope that's true, at least for the parts that urban lovers object to; but the whole point of public comment is to obtain the opinions of the public, and potentially account for them.

With the talk of exit numbers here, I added a third column called "exact exit numbers" on one of my fictional exits lists for a Missouri freeway currently without exit numbers. The second column has some rounding allowed to use as little suffixes as possible, and the third column matches each exit to the respective milepost, with no exceptions. Posting it here to see which one the community prefers more.
(https://i.imgur.com/E4JLH7f.png?1)

I saw it on my phone, and naturally cant find it anymore, but there was an interesting tweet thread about how many of the warrant criteria are identical to the 1930s editions.

Quote from: stevashe on May 15, 2021, 12:15:27 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 15, 2021, 12:01:15 AM
States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

That doesn't mean they should explicitly endorse the practice though!

Isn't that the perfect reason to endorse something?

–  Agencies already do that, nobody notices, and it causes zero problems.
–  Let's prohibit it!

Quote from: andy3175 on May 12, 2021, 11:52:04 PM
I went ahead and made the following comment this evening (mostly pedantic, detailed items in keeping with my earlier post):

Quote
3. State named Interstate shields and route markers should be the preferred standard of signage for standalone route markers as well as shields on guide signs. Modern signing practices help to improve legibility of the shield numerals, as evidenced by recent overhead signs installed in Utah: https://www.aaroads.com/ut/015/i-015-n-exit-305-04.jpg. The state name in these shields on the guide sign are not noticeable to most drivers, and for those who do note the state name is embedded in the sign, it gives a chance to again note the state they are in.

I agree with you on the standalone route markers but disagree on the guide sign shields because, at least in California, there would be a reduction in the size of the route numerals.  Remember, California uses an older spec standalone Interstate shield which has 12-inch numerals on a 36" x 36" shield.  The current 36" Interstate shield used on guide signs has 15" numerals.  And, I am definitely against California dumping the 1957-spec shield for the current FHWA-spec shield.

Quote from: andy3175 on May 12, 2021, 11:52:04 PM
I went ahead and made the following comment this evening (mostly pedantic, detailed items in keeping with my earlier post):

Quote
3. State named Interstate shields and route markers should be the preferred standard of signage for standalone route markers as well as shields on guide signs. Modern signing practices help to improve legibility of the shield numerals, as evidenced by recent overhead signs installed in Utah: https://www.aaroads.com/ut/015/i-015-n-exit-305-04.jpg. The state name in these shields on the guide sign are not noticeable to most drivers, and for those who do note the state name is embedded in the sign, it gives a chance to again note the state they are in.

I believe state-named Interstate shields are the standard for most BGS's (guide signs) and standalone Interstate shields for several years now in my home state of Maine. (Exit 52 (https://i.ibb.co/6v9K6gh/i-095-nb-exit-052-02.jpg), 44/45 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6165572,-70.3602289,3a,62.4y,39.74h,93.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOuLJP-pXi4ui9hLgpSsWqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), I-95 Shield Assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527207,-70.6742903,3a,23y,264.1h,87.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smwqJQcAcT93NoncARmLDww!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DmwqJQcAcT93NoncARmLDww%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D346.65472%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192))

(https://i.ibb.co/cLthtGM/IMG-4084.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Qdnvn2z)
(https://i.ibb.co/QvDjmw3/IMG-3803.jpg) (https://ibb.co/chYXTnS)

I don't think that including the state name in the route shield is ever going to be more than an Option statement. The only reason the state name was added to the US route shield (and carried over to the Interstate shield) was because it was needed to get the states-rights crowd to accept the concept of a national route system. Now that the idea of nationally-numbered routes is nearly 100 years old, there's not much actual purpose to keep it there other than nostalgia's sake and because it looks neat.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2021, 03:30:13 PM
I don't think that including the state name in the route shield is ever going to be more than an Option statement. The only reason the state name was added to the US route shield (and carried over to the Interstate shield) was because it was needed to get the states-rights crowd to accept the concept of a national route system. Now that the idea of nationally-numbered routes is nearly 100 years old, there's not much actual purpose to keep it there other than nostalgia's sake and because it looks neat.

And also because of the hundreds of motorists who end up in the wrong state because of missing state names...

Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2021, 03:32:08 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2021, 03:30:13 PM
I don't think that including the state name in the route shield is ever going to be more than an Option statement. The only reason the state name was added to the US route shield (and carried over to the Interstate shield) was because it was needed to get the states-rights crowd to accept the concept of a national route system. Now that the idea of nationally-numbered routes is nearly 100 years old, there's not much actual purpose to keep it there other than nostalgia's sake and because it looks neat.

And also because of the hundreds of motorists who end up in the wrong state because of missing state names...

We should keep the state names and delete those pesky numbers to prevent this.

Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2021, 04:23:48 PM

Quote from: stevashe on May 15, 2021, 12:15:27 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on May 15, 2021, 12:01:15 AM
States already round their mileage based exits differently compared to each other, and sometimes even within the state, that honestly, "fudging"  them isn't anything new.

That doesn't mean they should explicitly endorse the practice though!

Isn't that the perfect reason to endorse something?

–  Agencies already do that, nobody notices, and it causes zero problems.
–  Let's prohibit it!

I didn't say it in that post, but the proposed MUTCD makes exit number fudging standard. I see no more reason to prohibit exact exit numbering than to prohibit fudging (which is not what I was arguing for either, I think it should just be an option, not specifically recommended or required).

Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

Quote from: mass_citizen on November 03, 2021, 03:47:39 AMHas anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I haven't heard anything, but I certainly wouldn't be expecting the new manual to come out anytime soon, simply because it typically takes a long while to process the comments, finalize the text, and develop a Final Rule Notice.  In the last revision cycle, comments closed in mid-2008 and the finished manual was not available until the very end of 2009, almost a full year and a half later.

I don't think the "chuck the manual out" crowd is going to gain any traction, but if it were, I suspect it would take the form of a public announcement to the effect that the current rewrite was being abandoned and the 2009 edition would remain in effect while a rulemaking process was put in train to settle the form and content of a new regulatory regime for traffic control devices.

I have not heard anything.  That said, Streetsblog had an article Monday about how USDOT is talking about radically changing roadway safety policy (likely to something resembling Vision Zero, given Buttigieg's comments), with the National Roadway Safety Strategy to be released in January 2022, so it's possible the "chuck the manual out" crowd has more influence right now than they ordinarily would.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/11/01/us-dot-promises-national-safe-systems-approach-after-historic-death-surge/

Quote from: PurdueBill on May 14, 2021, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 03:01:17 PM
I commented regarding their suggested exit numbering rules. While I like the idea that exit numbers can now be adjusted by 1 to avoid letter suffixes, they also are adding a rule that says that letter suffixes should not be skipped and instead should start with A and increase for NB/EB, and for SB/WB should end with A and not have any skipped letters. E.g. if there are 3 letters northbound but 2 southbound, they want the NB exit letters to be A-B-C, with the SB exit letters B-A.

I commented that it's more important for the same cross street to have the same letter, even if a letter has to be skipped in one direction. For example, if "A" is a partial NB exit, then A-B-C on NB should correspond to C-B SB with the A being skipped due to no SB exit.

THIS!!  There are so many examples of where the "no skipping" would make the same cross street have different exit numbers in different directions, or the same number serve completely different cross streets.  Exit numbers are then useless!!!

For example right off the top of my head, I-76 in Akron.
Eastbound:
21B:  Lakeshore/Bowery
21C: SR 59 Innterbelt

Westbound
21C: Dart Ave (indirect access to SR 59)
21A: East Ave

By the new guidance, I-76 WB would have to have exits 21B and 21A, for Dart and East Aves in that order.  EB 76 would have exits 21A and B for Lakeshore/Bowery and Innerbelt.  These are basically four different exits.  The existing 21Cs link to each other by Dart being the frontage road for the Innerbelt expressway eventually, but Lakeshore/Bowery  and East serve different areas and should NOT have the same exit number. 

The inverse, the same cross street getting different letter suffixes, is equally probable and shouldn't happen either.  How do they come up with ideas like this?  It's not a problem in the first place.

I'm a little late to this party, but I assume you would also be okay with suffixes or even the main numbers being out of sequence order if necessary to preserve the same exit number on both sides of a highway for the same cross street?

For example, on M-10 in Southfield, Michigan we currently have the following:

Northbound:
Exits 14A-B:  Northland / Nine Mile Road (one exit ramp with a small traffic island split at the top of the ramp)
Exit 14C:  Southfield Road

Southbound:
Exit 14B:  Nine Mile Road
Exit 14C:  Southfield Freeway
Exit 14A:  Northland

That's how the interchange design is laid out.  Three southbound exits, two northbound exits (the first of which is for destination #1 and #3) and however you juggle the numbers they will be out of order in one direction if the intent is to keep the same numbers in both directions for the same destinations.

Freeway exit numbers should be in order according to the location of the crossroad, not the ramp. This sometimes means the numbers are "out of order" if going by the ramp locations. But most people can understand that larger interchanges often have larger ramps that dwarf the ramps of a smaller interchange.

Looking at that M-10 Michigan example, the letter order should actually be A for Northland, B for Southfield Fwy/Rd, and C for Nine Mile, because that's the order the crossroads are in. Southbound the ramp order actually matches the crossroad order. Northbound you would have 14A/C followed by 14B, and the MUTCD is ambiguous as to handling that, so different states do it differently.

I don't like excessively-long exit tabs (I think they distract more than they help, plus, most states already violate the MUTCD principles about message loading), so assuming that Nine Mile is a more important road than Northland, I would post 14C for the Nine Mile/Northland ramp and 14B for the Southfield ramp. (Some states would post 14 A/C for that ramp)

Quote from: ran4sh on November 03, 2021, 05:55:10 PM
Freeway exit numbers should be in order according to the location of the crossroad, not the ramp. This sometimes means the numbers are "out of order" if going by the ramp locations. But most people can understand that larger interchanges often have larger ramps that dwarf the ramps of a smaller interchange.

If that's official MUTCD guidance, Utah sure did not follow it when they opened the C/D ramp for I-215 and 7200 South on I-15 northbound in Salt Lake. The original numbering before the reconstruction (which is still used in the southbound direction) had exit 295 for 9000 South, 297 for 7200 South, and 298 for I-215. However, the new northbound C/D ramp for 72nd and I-215 splits from I-215 south of 9000 South, and is numbered by where it splits from the mainline rather than actual crossroad locations. So now in the northbound direction, 72nd South is exit 294A and 215 is 294B-C.

Technically the MUTCD text reads "The general plan for numbering interchange exits is shown in Figures 2E-19 through 2E-21." rather than actually describing the procedure.

However when you see the figures, the examples are clear that they are using the road crossing location and not the ramp location as the determination of each exit number. (And that the exit number rounds down rather than to the nearest milemarker, e.g. an exit between mile 107 and mile 108 that appears to be closer to 108 is numbered as 107.)

Unfortunately none of the examples in the figure show closely-spaced interchanges with large interchange ramps dwarfing small interchange ramps.

Quote from: mass_citizen on November 03, 2021, 03:47:39 AM
Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

Quote from: jamess on November 04, 2021, 10:29:17 AM

Quote from: mass_citizen on November 03, 2021, 03:47:39 AM
Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

I have to grin at the thought of them going through the drudgery of dealing with comment after comment from angry, uninformed bike users, before unexpectedly stumbling over a cache of comments from AARoads users passionately writing about the 3/4 error and the finer details of arrow placement...

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 04, 2021, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: jamess on November 04, 2021, 10:29:17 AM

Quote from: mass_citizen on November 03, 2021, 03:47:39 AM
Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

I have to grin at the thought of them going through the drudgery of dealing with comment after comment from angry, uninformed bike users, before unexpectedly stumbling over a cache of comments from AARoads users passionately writing about the 3/4 error and the finer details of arrow placement...

"Oh my, people DO care about the manual!" -the reviewers, probably

Quote from: Scott5114 on November 04, 2021, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: jamess on November 04, 2021, 10:29:17 AM

Quote from: mass_citizen on November 03, 2021, 03:47:39 AM
Has anyone heard of any updates on the MUTCD revisions? Do we know if the process is at least moving forward? Or has it been hijacked by all those calling for a "rewrite" of the entire manual?

I was on a webinar last week where the person working on this said they're still making their way through the 8,000 comments or whatever number it was. They didnt provide a timeline.

I have to grin at the thought of them going through the drudgery of dealing with comment after comment from angry, uninformed bike users, before unexpectedly stumbling over a cache of comments from AARoads users passionately writing about the 3/4 error and the finer details of arrow placement...

The NACTO comments might be a good indication of how those went.  They even have a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iDKFK96q2dnt-IoBbEyQwFSiSJ9sBjBPl69LzeTw1D4/edit#gid=1921131807) of all the comments they submitted regarding the MUTCD.  They also have a couple pages on their efforts regarding the MUTCD.

https://nacto.org/program/modernizing-federal-standards/
https://nacto.org/2021/05/11/a-blueprint-to-update-americas-street-manual/

NACTO wants the MUTCD to remove references to the UVC? I understand that the UVC has not been updated in more than a decade, but NACTO thinks that state and local traffic rules should influence the MUTCD, which I disagree with.

In other countries, drives toward reforms of the kind that are happening with the MUTCD now--things like Vision Zero, reallocating roadspace from motorized to non-motorized modes, relaxing street design standards in neighborhood settings, etc.--have been accommodated by adding signs to the existing traffic manual or set of traffic regulations (e.g., "Home Zones," "Twenty's Plenty") and publishing separate design standards for urban streets and streetscapes.  To an extent, this can be done within our current framework.  I think the big fights are likely to involve issues where there is little scope for compromise, such as the 85th-percentile standard for speed limits and warrants for traffic signals.

It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 04, 2021, 10:49:17 PM
In other countries, drives toward reforms of the kind that are happening with the MUTCD now--things like Vision Zero, reallocating roadspace from motorized to non-motorized modes, relaxing street design standards in neighborhood settings, etc.--have been accommodated by adding signs to the existing traffic manual or set of traffic regulations (e.g., "Home Zones," "Twenty's Plenty") and publishing separate design standards for urban streets and streetscapes.  To an extent, this can be done within our current framework.  I think the big fights are likely to involve issues where there is little scope for compromise, such as the 85th-percentile standard for speed limits and warrants for traffic signals.

It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

I'm hearing the feds will be making a big push next year for the Safe Systems Approach. My area DOT is scrambling because they are completely unprepared. They have been getting questions from USDOT that they do not have answers for. As deaths continue to rise, it's clear the current way things are done isn't working.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 04, 2021, 10:49:17 PM
It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

Meanwhile, Washington used their statewide Vision Zero to justify never implementing the speed limit increase to 75, instead keeping everything at 70.

Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2021, 12:36:54 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 04, 2021, 10:49:17 PM
It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

Meanwhile, Washington used their statewide Vision Zero to justify never implementing the speed limit increase to 75, instead keeping everything at 70.

I'm convinced that study was flawed. I think their estimation was about 1.67 more deaths per year? That seems like it would have easily been within the margin for error.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2021, 03:06:00 PM

Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2021, 12:36:54 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 04, 2021, 10:49:17 PM
It can be interesting to see what Vision Zero actually translates to in practice.  Sweden raised the motorway speed limit to 110 and 120 km/h (depending on road characteristics) after adopting it in 1997.

Meanwhile, Washington used their statewide Vision Zero to justify never implementing the speed limit increase to 75, instead keeping everything at 70.

I'm convinced that study was flawed. I think their estimation was about 1.67 more deaths per year? That seems like it would have easily been within the margin for error.

Well, it seems theyre doing something right, considering they have one of the lowest vehicle death rates both per capita and per mile.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state

No where near as low as MA though, which I believe is the "slowest" state.

One might argue that "speed kills"

Sometimes, I wonder why we haven't raised the speed limit to at least 75 mph on rural freeways in most (mountainous areas are an exception) states yet. If you take any rural interstate in the Midwest and place it in most European countries, I'm very sure it'll be signed as 120 km/h (75 mph), maybe even 130.

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 05, 2021, 07:51:17 PM
Sometimes, I wonder why we haven't raised the speed limit to at least 75 mph on rural freeways in most (mountainous areas are an exception) states yet. If you take any rural interstate in the Midwest and place it in most European countries, I'm very sure it'll be signed as 120 km/h (75 mph), maybe even 130.

I've long wondered why the long, rural stretches of ON 401 are only 100 km/h.  Is most of Canada like this?

Quote from: Ned Weasel on November 06, 2021, 06:26:13 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on November 05, 2021, 07:51:17 PM
Sometimes, I wonder why we haven't raised the speed limit to at least 75 mph on rural freeways in most (mountainous areas are an exception) states yet. If you take any rural interstate in the Midwest and place it in most European countries, I'm very sure it'll be signed as 120 km/h (75 mph), maybe even 130.

I've long wondered why the long, rural stretches of ON 401 are only 100 km/h.  Is most of Canada like this?

Define "most".  By land area?  Thankfully not, though speed limits are still lower than in most of the US by a couple mph (110 is only 68).  By population distribution?  Overwhelmingly, at least before Ontario made three pilot 110 zones.  Sadly, rather than bringing 110 everywhere else once the pilot was done, they instead decided to extend it another couple years.

The MUTCD website (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/))has been updated:

Quote from: MUTCD websiteA Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA) to issue a new edition of the MUTCD was published in the Dec. 14, 2020, Federal Register for public comment. More than 17,000 entries submitted to the public docket comprise over 35,000 individual comments, and these comments will inform this rulemaking action and the 11th Edition of the MUTCD.  In addition, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs USDOT to update the MUTCD by no later than May 15, 2023, and at least every 4 years thereafter to promote the safety, inclusion, and mobility of all road users.

(Bolding is in the original)

A new MUTCD every 4 years? Seems kind of unnecessary. Even in the heyday of Interstate construction we only got new ones every ten years or so (1948, 1961, 1971, 1978).

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2022, 03:57:35 AM
A new MUTCD every 4 years? Seems kind of unnecessary. Even in the heyday of Interstate construction we only got new ones every ten years or so (1948, 1961, 1971, 1978).

But we need more people in administration, right? They need to justify their paychecks!

Quote from: kalvado on March 04, 2022, 11:54:02 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2022, 03:57:35 AM
A new MUTCD every 4 years? Seems kind of unnecessary. Even in the heyday of Interstate construction we only got new ones every ten years or so (1948, 1961, 1971, 1978).

But we need more people in administration, right? They need to justify their paychecks!

*mulls over how FHWA changed when Interstate building slowed down...they then bought a huge supply of red tape...*

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2020, 04:07:09 PM
The curve warning signs with the speed inside of them are being deleted. Apparently, they were meant to be used at the point of the curve itself, with a traditional sign with warning plaque placed upstream at the warning location. Who knew? Nobody ever actually did this, so they're just striking it from the book altogether.

Is there an example of how they should be used?

There was a road I was recently on in West Virginia where they had one of those curve signs with embedded speed limits not far from the start of *each* curve.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2022, 03:57:35 AMA new MUTCD every 4 years? Seems kind of unnecessary. Even in the heyday of Interstate construction we only got new ones every ten years or so (1948, 1961, 1971, 1978).

When one of the recent editions (I think 2009, but possibly 2003) came out, there was an expectation that the revision cycle would shorten to two years to better accommodate technological innovation and avert the vetting problems that result from doorstop rulemakings.  That did not happen, and the gap between 2009 and the upcoming Eleventh Edition is on track to be the longest since 1948-1961 and possibly ever.

When this thread was bumped, I poked at the comments for this rulemaking on the docket site.  There were over 17,000, so I just pulled up a few from people I know that routinely send comments and try to go through each rulemaking item by item.  Richard Moeur's had one unpleasant surprise--I had missed that FHWA wants to prohibit the use of sign design elements (such as FHWA alphabet series and shield shapes) in trailblazers for scenic byways, historic routes, and so on.  I have a feeling that when the Eleventh Edition comes out, we'll be dealing with a few changes of this type that we didn't want but didn't see.  (Moeur noted that he was sending fewer comments than for past rulemakings because press of other business had limited his time for review.)

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2022, 01:33:59 PM
Richard Moeur's had one unpleasant surprise--I had missed that FHWA wants to prohibit the use of sign design elements (such as FHWA alphabet series and shield shapes) in trailblazers for scenic byways, historic routes, and so on.

Could I ask for some clarification? Would this prohibit signage such as "Historic Route US-99" and similar signs? Not sure I understand the rule.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2022, 02:19:51 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2022, 01:33:59 PM
Richard Moeur's had one unpleasant surprise--I had missed that FHWA wants to prohibit the use of sign design elements (such as FHWA alphabet series and shield shapes) in trailblazers for scenic byways, historic routes, and so on.

Could I ask for some clarification? Would this prohibit signage such as "Historic Route US-99" and similar signs? Not sure I understand the rule.

...not to mention, of course, Route 66...

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2022, 02:19:51 PMCould I ask for some clarification? Would this prohibit signage such as "Historic Route US-99" and similar signs? Not sure I understand the rule.

I haven't looked up chapter and verse in the notice of proposed rulemaking, but Moeur objected to this particular change because it would (as he interprets it) prohibit the use of the actual US route shield with legend and route number digits in FHWA series as part of a historic US route sign.  (Arizona's signs for former US 66 and US 80 both use the actual shield shape and FHWA series for legend and digits, but in brown on white.)

On the other hand, it does kind of make sense to disallow a sign that re-e-e-e-eally looks a lot like an actual route shield being posted on a highway that isn't actually designated as that route number.

That is to say, I'd totally understand wanting to make sure nobody sees a US-66 shield and goes Oh crap, I'm supposed to be on Route ___!

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2022, 03:57:35 AM
A new MUTCD every 4 years? Seems kind of unnecessary. Even in the heyday of Interstate construction we only got new ones every ten years or so (1948, 1961, 1971, 1978).

With automated cars getting closer to reality, it would make sense to need constant frequent updated.

The current MUTCD completely drops the ball on all bike-related stuff, and I dont think the proposed one even addresses e-scooters.

Additionally, the more frequent the changes, the easier they are, because less changes each time.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2022, 03:08:32 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2022, 02:19:51 PMCould I ask for some clarification? Would this prohibit signage such as "Historic Route US-99" and similar signs? Not sure I understand the rule.

I haven't looked up chapter and verse in the notice of proposed rulemaking, but Moeur objected to this particular change because it would (as he interprets it) prohibit the use of the actual US route shield with legend and route number digits in FHWA series as part of a historic US route sign.  (Arizona's signs for former US 66 and US 80 both use the actual shield shape and FHWA series for legend and digits, but in brown on white.)

The relevant sections are:

Quote from: MUTCD 11e
Guidance:
The design and size of historic trail and State scenic byway identification or system signs should comply with the general provisions and principles for Route signs (see Section 2D.10). Designs should be simple, dignified, and devoid of complex graphics. The size of the signs should not exceed the size of the Route signs used along a particular route.

Standard:
Scenic byway, historic trail and auto tours route signs shall not incorporate standard highway sign legend elements into their design.

It's a little ambiguous whether typefaces count as "standard highway sign legend elements", since the proposed text does not elaborate on what might or might not fall in that category. Strictly interpreted, though, even something like this might well be seen as thoroughly unacceptable:


ID-200 East - Pend Oreille Scenic Byway by Zach, on Flickr

---

I was quite pleased to see that Richard Moeur's comment also called out the 3/4 error and provided several examples of such in multiple states.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2022, 03:08:32 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2022, 02:19:51 PMCould I ask for some clarification? Would this prohibit signage such as "Historic Route US-99" and similar signs? Not sure I understand the rule.

I haven't looked up chapter and verse in the notice of proposed rulemaking, but Moeur objected to this particular change because it would (as he interprets it) prohibit the use of the actual US route shield with legend and route number digits in FHWA series as part of a historic US route sign.  (Arizona's signs for former US 66 and US 80 both use the actual shield shape and FHWA series for legend and digits, but in brown on white.)

I do not have a picture, but such signs are exactly the kind I see here in Washington State, although with black-on-white legend and digits: https://goo.gl/maps/3BoLg1UFMkUPNNqa8 (Historic US-99, modern-day WA-99).

I thought these signs were common enough countrywide that they were, at least to some degree, "official" historic route signs, so banning them now seems a bit odd. The signs also use brown backgrounds, which I've never interpreted as guidance signage. If there is some concern at FHWA that drivers may confuse them for actual guidance signs because of the content (eg US-99 shield), that seems to disregard the concept of color distinction that drivers should possess (brown for recreation, blue for service, green for guidance, et al). In the case of historic routes, these are, effectively, recreational routes, so they are doing exactly what they should. Is there concern that drivers will think they are on actual, say, US-99? What about those drivers who are following US-99?

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2022, 04:54:58 PM
It's a little ambiguous whether typefaces count as "standard highway sign legend elements", since the proposed text does not elaborate on what might or might not fall in that category. Strictly interpreted, though, even something like this might well be seen as thoroughly unacceptable:
[clipped]

And this seems quite odd to me, assuming we are interpreting the MUTCD change correctly. I cannot be certain as to what would constitute a reason for such a change may be. Banning shields is one thing; I don't agree with that idea for the same reasons many of you may, but banning the FHWA series alphabet is, frankly, nonsense. Are we to believe that road users actually recognize the standard road sign font?

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2022, 01:33:59 PM
I had missed that FHWA wants to prohibit the use of sign design elements (such as FHWA alphabet series and shield shapes) in trailblazers for scenic byways, historic routes, and so on.

That's the weirdest decision to make. If a historic route was signed with a shield, then the historic route sign should have that shield.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2022, 06:40:08 PM
In the case of historic routes, these are, effectively, recreational routes, so they are doing exactly what they should. Is there concern that drivers will think they are on actual, say, US-99? What about those drivers who are following US-99?

Additionally, even if they do think they are on actual US-99, so what? It would be no different than when the highway they're on multiplexes with some route they don't care about. We trust drivers to ignore irrelevant information in that circumstance; what makes this any different?

I think Moeur did the right thing by protesting this change.  I don't know what FHWA's motivations for it were, or the extent to which they are supported by research.  Nevertheless, I object to it because it essentially bans well-articulated scenic byway signing schemes such as Idaho's, moves away from authenticity in historic route signing, and tends to impair font compliance in general by encouraging the creation of officially sanctioned signs that are allowed, indeed required, not to use highway sign typefaces.

I flagged this particular proposed change as an example of one we did not catch, but which someone else did.  The ones to worry about are the ones no-one caught, and the bigger a rulemaking is (this last one had almost 700 proposed changes), the higher the chances are that any given change will slip through without comment.  For this reason I think it is worth shortening the revision cycle, though I suspect this ambition will fall by the wayside, much as happened with 100% nationwide toll transponder interoperability by 2016.

For what it's worth, I don't think Idaho has installed a new brown byway shield since 2010 or so, and the existing ones have gradually been replaced over the past several years. Not a whole lot are left.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2022, 07:22:33 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2022, 06:40:08 PM
In the case of historic routes, these are, effectively, recreational routes, so they are doing exactly what they should. Is there concern that drivers will think they are on actual, say, US-99? What about those drivers who are following US-99?

Additionally, even if they do think they are on actual US-99, so what? It would be no different than when the highway they're on multiplexes with some route they don't care about. We trust drivers to ignore irrelevant information in that circumstance; what makes this any different?

Only if the multiplex is cosigned.  I find it very irritating when the route I'm actually following stops being signed at all during a multiplex.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2022, 08:14:33 PM
[...]I object to it because it essentially bans well-articulated scenic byway signing schemes such as Idaho's, moves away from authenticity in historic route signing, and tends to impair font compliance in general by encouraging the creation of officially sanctioned signs that are allowed, indeed required, not to use highway sign typefaces.

Well...the block fonts haven't appeared in the MUTCD since 1948, meaning they're no longer considered "standard highway sign legend elements" by any technical meaning of the word. But they're still clearly out there bouncing around. So maybe some renegade signage engineer with a taste for the vintage will just change all their state's scenic byways over to use the block fonts. :D

Quote from: kphoger on March 04, 2022, 10:50:43 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 04, 2022, 07:22:33 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on March 04, 2022, 06:40:08 PM
In the case of historic routes, these are, effectively, recreational routes, so they are doing exactly what they should. Is there concern that drivers will think they are on actual, say, US-99? What about those drivers who are following US-99?

Additionally, even if they do think they are on actual US-99, so what? It would be no different than when the highway they're on multiplexes with some route they don't care about. We trust drivers to ignore irrelevant information in that circumstance; what makes this any different?

Only if the multiplex is cosigned.  I find it very irritating when the route I'm actually following stops being signed at all during a multiplex.

Agreed. I'd actually say that the lack of multiplex signage is probably often another example of the same lack of trust in the driver to discard information not relevant to them. (This is Arkansas's stated rationale for lack of multiplex signage; apparently some higher-up there went to Alabama once and was overwhelmed by the number of route shields presented at some junctions, and so Arkansas policy was changed to reduce the likelihood of that sort of assembly appearing there.)