MUTCD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2020) now available

[US 89]

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.

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) and nobody seems to mind them.

[Scott5114]

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 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?

[kalvado]

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. 

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...

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[RobbieL2415]

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?

[PurdueBill]

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 between Russell becoming two-way and the streetscaping/reconfiguration of Stadium occurring.  West Lafayette went bonkers with the fancy poles.  )

[TXtoNJ]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[GaryV]

... 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.

[TXtoNJ]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[CardInLex]

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

[jakeroot]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

[Pink Jazz]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

[riiga]

... 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).

[kalvado]

... 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?

[hotdogPi]

... 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.

[stevashe]

... 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.

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. 

[Duke87]

So I actually submitted a public comment on something

I 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!

[Dirt Roads]

So I actually submitted a public comment on something

I 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.

[RobbieL2415]

So I actually submitted a public comment on something

I 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.

[jakeroot]

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).