Latest FHWA 'MUTCD' proposal: split the manual

[Milepost61]

The front page of the MUTCD site has a notice that FHWA is considering splitting up the MUTCD into two separate books, one for federal requirements and the other for guidance language/recommended practices. Comment period is now open until March 12.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm

[Billy F 1988]

Will this affect Montana since they're part of the nationwide MUTCD?

[J N Winkler]

I found the WatchThatPage.com alert in my email inbox this morning.  Apparently FHWA is considering splitting the current edition of the MUTCD into two separate documents:  a slimline MUTCD which contains only formal legal requirements and is subject to rulemaking, and an "Applications Supplement" which contains general guidance.

On January 11, 2013, the FHWA published a Request for Comments (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118) soliciting input on the option of splitting the material in the MUTCD into two separate documents in the interest of providing a simpler, streamlined MUTCD that would be easier to use, and if it is split, what are some of the potential formats for doing so. The direct link to the docket is http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FHWA-2012-0118. Once on the docket, click on the "view all" button see all seven documents (RFP plus six attachments). Note that the documents showing the examples include hotlink features that will only work if the linked pdf documents are saved to a single folder. In addition, each of the four documents with hotlinks (as noted in file name) will need to be renamed to replace the "underscores" in the saved file name with "spaces" in order for the hotlinks to work (e.g. Rename "2012-10-17_Option_A_for_2009_MUTCD_with_hotlinks.pdf" to "2012-10-17 Option A for 2009 MUTCD with hotlinks.pdf").

FHWA is presenting two options for the split.  Option A would include Standards plus Guidance and some Options in the slimline MUTCD.  Option B would be Standards only.

My initial reaction:

*  I don't think this is a very good idea.  It means practitioners would have to refer to two manuals instead of just one to find the provisions applicable to any particular segment of a design project.  This would not be mitigated by hyperlinking (see below).

*  In time the update schedules for the two manuals would diverge, with the increasing likelihood of information in one volume contradicting the other.  In Britain, which has followed a two-manual approach since the Worboys signs were introduced in 1965 (the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions contain the legal requirements, while the Traffic Signs Manual contains application guidance), this divergence in revision schedule had reached almost 20 years by the early noughties--a new edition of TSRGD was issued in 2002 at the same time most of the current volumes of the Traffic Signs Manual had last been revised in the mid-1980's (during the validity period of TSRGD 1981).

*  We have been here before, in a sense--in the early 1980's the MUTCD was accompanied by a Traffic Engineering Manual (also published by FHWA) which was never updated.  (To be fair, though, this manual contained some information which FHWA is not proposing to include in a two-volume split MUTCD, such as a description of the correct procedure for ball-bank measurements of curve advisory speed.)

As an aside, I am unimpressed with the way publication of the rulemaking documents has been handled on Regulations.gov.  It is really inconvenient to ask people to download the rulemaking files to a single folder and then hand-edit each filename to convert underscores to spaces.  I can handle this easily enough because I have a "batchrename" script, but this is going to create a lot of trouble for the (embarrassingly) large segment of the US traffic design community that can't tie its shoelaces.

[NE2]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8490.0

Threads merged. -S.

[Scott5114]

I think it's a bad idea, because I wouldn't trust ODOT to bother to look at the second document. They seem to barely manage MUTCD compliance as it is; I can't see them faring any better with another document in the mix.

Edit: Submitted a comment on Regulations.gov to this effect.

[hbelkins]

Don't the should/shall stipulations basically accomplish the same thing?

[cpzilliacus]

The front page of the MUTCD site has a notice that FHWA is considering splitting up the MUTCD into two separate books, one for federal requirements and the other for guidance language/recommended practices. Comment period is now open until March 12.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm

IMO, that is a mistake.  Should be one document. 

[Alps]

Instead of posting all of your thoughts here, click on that link and post them to the FHWA?

[mjb2002]

Bad idea. It is not so much SCDOT as it is the local Public Works in the Salkehatchie region (Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell and Hampton counties). The four counties' Public Works won't even read the second document. Over 85% of Barnwell County (a minor improvement from 99% early last year); and nearly all of Bamberg, Allendale and Hampton counties; are still non-compliant.

SCDOT is getting there, but with their resources so thin, they have managed to barely make compliancy in most of District 7.

By the way: This will be part of my comment to the FHWA.

[Milepost61]

Will this affect Montana since they're part of the nationwide MUTCD?

The actual effects on the states may be minimal if they're keeping the language the same and it's only how it's presented that's different. I tend to agree with others that this doesn't make sense, why can't it all be in one book, it's easier to use that way.

I was reading the freeway signing section of the MUTCD for something at work earlier today. That section has a ton of guidance and option language, it would have been a pain to have to go to something else just to round out what I needed to read for a particular kind of sign.

[conekicker]

*  In time the update schedules for the two manuals would diverge, with the increasing likelihood of information in one volume contradicting the other.  In Britain, which has followed a two-manual approach since the Worboys signs were introduced in 1965 (the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions contain the legal requirements, while the Traffic Signs Manual contains application guidance), this divergence in revision schedule had reached almost 20 years by the early noughties--a new edition of TSRGD was issued in 2002 at the same time most of the current volumes of the Traffic Signs Manual had last been revised in the mid-1980's (during the validity period of TSRGD 1981).

The view from this side of the pond - Jonathon is entirely correct (as usual  ).

TSRGD gets irregular amendments and it's a nightmare cross-referring between the 2002 issue and the later amendments to get the full legal picture re any particular sign. The TSM is still incomplete, with no schedule for completion either!

As for folks being able to actually use the things, the number of times I've had colleagues ask me my advice on a sign, for me to ask, "What does TSRGD and Chapter N of TSM have to say on the matter?", only to be met with a blank look. So very many people seem to think you can just throw a sign up anywhere. Standards? Consistency? Never heard of them! On the plus side, their ignorance keeps me in a job, so "every cloud" and all that... Not that it does my blood pressure any favours.

My two pen'orth/cents worth - keep it simple and keep it all in one place. Anything else will fail sooner rather than later.

[DaBigE]

It has been decided: The MUTCD will NOT be splitting in two.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-17/pdf/2013-14266.pdf

[Alps]

It has been decided: The MUTCD will NOT be splitting in two.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-17/pdf/2013-14266.pdf

The idea was actually gaining traction around my office. Personally, I'd rather find everything in one place. Sign designers not able to find the requirements because the guidance and support keep getting in the way? Stop being fucking lazy. I can figure it out with half a brain.

[kphoger]

It has been decided: The MUTCD will NOT be splitting in two.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-17/pdf/2013-14266.pdf

The idea was actually gaining traction around my office. Personally, I'd rather find everything in one place. Sign designers not able to find the requirements because the guidance and support keep getting in the way? Stop being fucking lazy. I can figure it out with half a brain.

I'm picturing an engineer with half his brain missing, poring over a copy of the MUTCD in his office.

In my mind, he looks something like this:

[Alps]

It has been decided: The MUTCD will NOT be splitting in two.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-17/pdf/2013-14266.pdf

The idea was actually gaining traction around my office. Personally, I'd rather find everything in one place. Sign designers not able to find the requirements because the guidance and support keep getting in the way? Stop being fucking lazy. I can figure it out with half a brain.

I'm picturing an engineer with half his brain missing, poring over a copy of the MUTCD in his office.

In my mind, he looks something like this:

Now you've met me.