Comment Period Underway now for MUTCD Prior to Next Edition

[myosh_tino]

Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...

Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.

That's not a supplement.  California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.

I guess they just love paying consultants rather than just adopting the federal MUTCD, then.

You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption.

[Rothman]

Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...

Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.

That's not a supplement.  California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.

I guess they just love paying consultants rather than just adopting the federal MUTCD, then.

You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption.

So much for substantial conformance.

[jakeroot]

You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption.

So much for substantial conformance.

Well, if complete conformance were required, the term "substantial" wouldn't be used. California's manual is still in substantial conformance with the federal manual.

[vdeane]

Can't wait to see NY's 2,000 page supplement to this new edition of the MUTCD...

Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.

That's not a supplement.  California publishes it's own MUTCD which is in substantial conformance.

I guess they just love paying consultants rather than just adopting the federal MUTCD, then.

You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption.

Isn't that what a state supplement is for?

[wolfiefrick]

heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?

Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!

[SignGeek101]

heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?

Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!

Probably a combination of the lack of legibility compared to FHWA, and a general distaste by some users of the font in general (whether that is because of nostalgia of some sort or because of how the font looks I don't really know).

Also, some sign programs have more difficulty making Clearview signs than FHWA signs. Why I'm not sure, but that's what I've heard.

I don't mind Clearview, but I myself do prefer FHWA numerals, just by looks, nothing more. I also prefer negative contrast text in FHWA.

Example:


Circle Drive approaching Lorne Ave (SK 219 Southbound) by Sign Geek, on Flickr

[jakeroot]

Probably a combination of the lack of legibility compared to FHWA

More recent studies have proven Clearview to be comparable in legibility to the Highway Gothic typeface, not necessarily inferior.

heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?

Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!

I also don't understand the hate for Clearview. I used to use a lot in my redesigns, but I have recently started using Series EE(M) instead of E(M) (which I don't like -- characters are too fat). A lot of people are/were opposed to Clearview because of the cost (Highway Gothic is free, Clearview requires a licence), the more "humanist" appearance of the typeface (some might say "child-like"), and, evidently, the lack of improved legibility (though that only became evident within the last few years).

Places like British Columbia (where I spend a lot of time) used their own font for much of their history, and had only recently switched to the Highway Gothic fonts, before switching to Clearview in 2006 (as of 2016, I'd say BC has been using Clearview for longer than they used Highway Gothic). For them, the switch to Clearview was easy, because a lot of "standards" still hadn't been fully developed for Highway Gothic, and the lack of oversight by the TAC (Canada's governing transport agency) didn't have any opposition to Clearview (compared to, say, the FHWA).

JN Winkler understands this situation better than I do, however.

[Duke87]

A lot of it has to do with sight distances. The Green Book provides necessary sight triangles. In a yield situation, a vehicle must be able to see oncoming traffic from far enough back that they can stop if not clear but proceed through at the speed one would use if the movement had priority if it is clear (i.e. no unnecessary slowdown).

So basically FHWA thinks if you can't decide whether to yield at full speed you should be legally obligated to come to a complete stop. Because, y'know, it's not like there are gazillions of intersections out there where you need to slow down to determine there is no conflicting traffic but coming to a complete stop is overkill.

This bureaucratic bullshit is why American drivers are conditioned to treat stop signs like yield signs and treat yield signs like "WTF does this weird triangle mean?"

[cl94]

A lot of it has to do with sight distances. The Green Book provides necessary sight triangles. In a yield situation, a vehicle must be able to see oncoming traffic from far enough back that they can stop if not clear but proceed through at the speed one would use if the movement had priority if it is clear (i.e. no unnecessary slowdown).

So basically FHWA thinks if you can't decide whether to yield at full speed you should be legally obligated to come to a complete stop. Because, y'know, it's not like there are gazillions of intersections out there where you need to slow down to determine there is no conflicting traffic but coming to a complete stop is overkill.

This bureaucratic bullshit is why American drivers are conditioned to treat stop signs like yield signs and treat yield signs like "WTF does this weird triangle mean?"

I didn't mean to imply that one shouldn't slow down. The requirement is that one should have adequate stopping sight distance plus a factor of safety when making a decision.

[Revive 755]

You see, there are these things called "state laws" that contradict parts of the federal MUTCD (i.e. yellow crosswalks for school crossings, Logo Signs only in rural areas, etc) that prevent California from just doing a blanket adoption.

Perhaps California should not be allowed to use federal funding for striping until that state law is changed.

So basically FHWA thinks if you can't decide whether to yield at full speed you should be legally obligated to come to a complete stop. Because, y'know, it's not like there are gazillions of intersections out there where you need to slow down to determine there is no conflicting traffic but coming to a complete stop is overkill.

I have wondered if there should be a version of the yield sign with an advisory/speed restriction plaque.  It would eliminate the need for a full stop where there is less than the ideal amount of visibility for the posted speed limit, but possibly provide a liability or enforcement option if someone completely ignores the sign.

[Quillz]

heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?

Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!

For a lot of people, it's just aesthetics. A lot of people (myself included) don't like the look of the characters, especially the numerals.

However, the real issue is that pretty much all of Clearview's stated goals have been proven false. It doesn't increase legibility, and was never even approved for anything beyond negative contrast (light legend on dark background). As a result, its interim designation has been largely canceled, and will probably fade into history as a bad experiment.

[cl94]

heres my comment: can we ditch the clearview font already?

Okay, what is so terrible about Clearview? I really don't understand!

For a lot of people, it's just aesthetics. A lot of people (myself included) don't like the look of the characters, especially the numerals.

However, the real issue is that pretty much all of Clearview's stated goals have been proven false. It doesn't increase legibility, and was never even approved for anything beyond negative contrast (light legend on dark background). As a result, its interim designation has been largely canceled, and will probably fade into history as a bad experiment.

The only groups that still push it are those who did the initial research. It's actually worse for negative contrast signage.

[Duke87]

I have wondered if there should be a version of the yield sign with an advisory/speed restriction plaque.  It would eliminate the need for a full stop where there is less than the ideal amount of visibility for the posted speed limit, but possibly provide a liability or enforcement option if someone completely ignores the sign.

Meh. Drivers should have sufficient common sense to figure out how much they need to slow down without a sign giving them a number. If they are not capable of this, they shouldn't have a license.

[vdeane]

I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do.  If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign.  It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).

[Quillz]

I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do.  If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign.  It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).

The other issue I've found with Clearview is it just doesn't have as good scaling. With the FHWA series fonts, you can clearly see a difference between Series B and Series C. But with Clearview, all that really changes between something like 2W and 3W is the spacing, not the actual letter forms. It's more aesthetic for me, but also makes it hard to have the numbers fit nicely into a shield, I've found.

[jakeroot]

I think a lot of the clearview hate comes from the fact that the font doesn't "fail" as gracefully as the FHWA fonts do.  If a sign has sizing issues, the FHWA fonts will still look OK, whereas clearview tends to look hideous if sized out of proportion to the rest of the sign.  It looks fine when done right, but clearview has a tendency to draw attention to pretty much any kind of flaw a sign can have, no matter how minor (like a fat person wearing a catsuit).

Though I understand your point, I don't think that should be a knock against Clearview, but rather a knock against the designer. If your choice of typeface boils down to the competency of the signing engineer, you're doing something wrong.

[Pink Jazz]

I also don't understand the hate for Clearview. I used to use a lot in my redesigns, but I have recently started using Series EE(M) instead of E(M) (which I don't like -- characters are too fat). A lot of people are/were opposed to Clearview because of the cost (Highway Gothic is free, Clearview requires a licence), the more "humanist" appearance of the typeface (some might say "child-like"), and, evidently, the lack of improved legibility (though that only became evident within the last few years).

I wouldn't say Clearview is child-like, but I would actually consider it to have a more feminine appearance than Highway Gothic, since it is curvier than Highway Gothic which is typically a trait of female handwriting.

[on_wisconsin]

Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?

Also, do you think more regulatory and warning signs will be given pictograms vs the existing words?

[cl94]

Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?

Also, do you think more regulatory and warning signs will be given pictograms vs the existing words?

I'll mention it in a comment to FHWA. Last year at TRB, I spoke with many people at FHWA who think there should be better guidance for APLs. Some states do it properly, but others (Kansas, for example), break a lot of rules out due to interchange design.

[jeffandnicole]

Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?

While many here have critized their size along with the size of the arrows, most of the signs are easy to read, understand and decipher. The costs are really miniscule in terms of extra size, and miniscule in terms of the total costs of the project. There really isn't any issues with them.

[Kacie Jane]

Probably a combination of the lack of legibility compared to FHWA

More recent studies have proven Clearview to be comparable in legibility to the Highway Gothic typeface, not necessarily inferior.

Inferior in certain circumstances -- it's not coincidence that those are the circumstances where Clearview is supposed to be verboten -- but you're correct.  I think the issue is that the original studies claimed that it was superior, and as time has gone on, that superiority has been shown to be negligible.  So really, what was the point of a new font if it's not really that much better.

(That said, personally, I don't care much one way or the other about Clearview.)

Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?

While many here have critized their size along with the size of the arrows, most of the signs are easy to read, understand and decipher. The costs are really miniscule in terms of extra size, and miniscule in terms of the total costs of the project. There really isn't any issues with them.

When done correctly, they're always better than old diagrammatic signs, and frequently better (and never worse then) old down arrow signs.  (That's if they're done correctly.)  I'd like to see the arrow parts redesigned slightly and shrunken a bit, but otherwise I agree with above.

[Revive 755]

Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?

I think there may be at least one new option added for APL signs.  IIRC in one of the NUTCD committee meeting minutes there was a complaint that the current APL design makes it hard to sign for an interchange shortly after the exit requiring the APL sign.

[cl94]

Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?

I think there may be at least one new option added for APL signs.  IIRC in one of the NUTCD committee meeting minutes there was a complaint that the current APL design makes it hard to sign for an interchange shortly after the exit requiring the APL sign.

That's what was mentioned at TRB last year. KDOT presented their signage plan for the rebuilt I-435 corridor and they tried to account for consecutive interchanges with option lanes. It didn't end well, but it's the only allowed alternative to dancing arrows.

[Big John]

Confusing APL sign with closely-spaced exits.  US 41 (now marked I-41 the same way) does not exit off Ashland Ave.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4347854,-88.1052557,3a,75y,39.89h,101.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV20p9HP7mf1qW2S7-79XLw!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

Getting back closer to the main topic: Is there a feeling that FedDOT will substantially modify existing APL sign rules regarding size and use?

Also, do you think more regulatory and warning signs will be given pictograms vs the existing words?

I'll mention it in a comment to FHWA. Last year at TRB, I spoke with many people at FHWA who think there should be better guidance for APLs. Some states do it properly, but others (Kansas, for example), break a lot of rules out due to interchange design.

Personally, I think the goal should be to loosen up a little on the restrictions. Right now, the arrows are way too big, you can't sign upcoming junctions (technically, though I know it's been done), and there's too much green space (not required, but a consequence of the other rules). If the APL has any hope of fully replacing down arrows, they have to be easier to manufacture than right now, and at least comparable in price to down arrows. Should there be guidelines? Yes, but they should be kept to a minimum (such as, arrow width, right/left arrow radii, minimum distance between arrows, etc).

At the very least, legends should be permitted between the arrows, rather than just on top (hell, while we're at it, they should just go ahead and do away with the redundant "exit only" plaques). In many of my redesigns, I've placed route shields between the arrows. This seems like a good place to put them, seeing as they just "fit" good in that green area, and that way, you only have text above the arrows (and, likewise, much shorter signs).