What to expect in the next MUTCD (2017 or later)?

[odditude]

The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.

At least in terms of guide signs, I don't think the MUTCD would ever re-introduce all-caps street names and whatnot. From a distance, the halation from all-caps makes each word look like a green and white block, whereas mixed-case is more distinct, and easier to make out.

he specifically said regulatory and warning signs, which are black on white or black on yellow and currently have all other text in all caps.

[roadfro]

The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.

I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone. A better option is to make posting the speed limit required with an End School Zone sign–2009 MUTCD Section 7B-15 & Figure 7B-5 indicate that a speed limit sign is optional on the same post as the End School Zone sign.

I've never liked the idea of general "Speed Zone" signage, and would agree that just posting speed limit signs would be better.

All STOP signs on side streets intersecting with multi laned highways with a speed limit of 45 or higher shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches.  NO larger. NO smaller.

Similarly, all STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches shall be exactly 36 × 36 inches.  NO larger. NO smaller.

I think we could do away with the 30×30" stop sign minimum on conventional roads except for constrained or extremely low traffic locations, like alleys. But I don't see what you have against the oversized (48×48") stop sign on a multi-lane approach...

The names of streets and highways on regulatory and warning signs (e.g. Advanced Street Name Plaque) shall be in all caps, consistent with other word legends on such signs.

At least in terms of guide signs, I don't think the MUTCD would ever re-introduce all-caps street names and whatnot. From a distance, the halation from all-caps makes each word look like a green and white block, whereas mixed-case is more distinct, and easier to make out.

Yeah, MUTCD isn't going back on this one. Instead, what I'd like to see for these plaques is using white on green instead of the black on yellow.

Nevada DOT used to use white on green for these, but has recently switched to black on yellow (coupled with the switch to mixed case). I now find the newer signs tougher to read at distance.

[Rothman]

The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.

I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone.

At least here in NY, a standard speed limit sign marks the end of the school zone.  You have the special school speed limit sign and then you pass the standard one at the end of the zone.  The demarcation is already evident.

[cl94]

The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.

I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone.

At least here in NY, a standard speed limit sign marks the end of the school zone.  You have the special school speed limit sign and then you pass the standard one at the end of the zone.  The demarcation is already evident.

Depends on jurisdiction. Many localities use "end school speed limit" almost exclusively. Very common in parts of Region 5.

[Rothman]

The END SCHOOL ZONE and END SPEED ZONE signs are killed off for good and replaced with the permanent speed limit signs at each end of the school zones.

I don't think removing the End School Zone signs makes sense. Especially in those states where traffic fines/penalties are higher/doubled in a school zone, you need a sign to establish the end point of the zone.

At least here in NY, a standard speed limit sign marks the end of the school zone.  You have the special school speed limit sign and then you pass the standard one at the end of the zone.  The demarcation is already evident.

Depends on jurisdiction. Many localities use "end school speed limit" almost exclusively. Very common in parts of Region 5.

Heh.  I knew I was going to get caught.

[PHLBOS]

As for some of the other ideas for a future MUTCD, if there's going to be an expanded use of APLs, I really hope they make them more "space-efficient" for the lack of a better term.  Perhaps they can look at how California is implementing APLs and reduce the arrow heights from 66 (or 72) inches down to 42-45 inches.

FWIW, those are 120" tall sign panels.

I, for one, would welcome that type of change (the arrow sizes) for APLs; especially for ones using vertical arrows (for straight-ahead movements).  Such makes for ungainly large sign panels.

Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.

(MassDOT example shown below):


IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.

For comparison purposes, the current MUTCD LEFT EXIT tab design example in CT:

[jakeroot]

Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.

(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg

IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.

Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:

[Kacie Jane]

Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.

(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg

IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.

Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:

Washington is a poor example, since we use full-width tabs anyway. But anywhere else, by putting it all in one line so that it takes the whole width of the sign, you lose the visual cue that you'd otherwise have with a left-side tab.  Having the yellow highlight on the left side helps mitigate that somewhat, but could also make it worse, since it puts the green part of the exit tab on the right side.  So I can see how states not named Washington (and Georgia?) would prefer a double-height half-width tab for consistency.

[jakeroot]

Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.

(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg

IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.

Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:

http://i.imgur.com/SFswpjI.png

Washington is a poor example, since we use full-width tabs anyway. But anywhere else, by putting it all in one line so that it takes the whole width of the sign, you lose the visual cue that you'd otherwise have with a left-side tab.  Having the yellow highlight on the left side helps mitigate that somewhat, but could also make it worse, since it puts the green part of the exit tab on the right side.  So I can see how states not named Washington (and Georgia?) would prefer a double-height half-width tab for consistency.

The placement of the sign over the left edge of the carriageway, the word "LEFT" next to the exit number, plus exit-only markings on the ground, should be enough to clue people in to the situation, to the point where the yellow sticker is hardly necessary at all, certainly not worthy of its own horizontal row.

[cl94]

Another item I'd like to see is for MUTCD to rethink their current LEFT EXIT tab design in favor of MassDOT's LEFT EXIT tab design or at least add its design as an option.

(MassDOT example shown below):
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/massachusetts/images/ma128bgs450812a.jpg

IMHO, such makes for a neater, cleaner design.

Why stack the tabs? Just put them next to each other, like some agencies (such as WSDOT) do. Makes it even neater, and cleaner:

http://i.imgur.com/SFswpjI.png

Washington is a poor example, since we use full-width tabs anyway. But anywhere else, by putting it all in one line so that it takes the whole width of the sign, you lose the visual cue that you'd otherwise have with a left-side tab.  Having the yellow highlight on the left side helps mitigate that somewhat, but could also make it worse, since it puts the green part of the exit tab on the right side.  So I can see how states not named Washington (and Georgia?) would prefer a double-height half-width tab for consistency.

The placement of the sign over the left edge of the carriageway, the word "LEFT" next to the exit number, plus exit-only markings on the ground, should be enough to clue people in to the situation, to the point where the yellow sticker is hardly necessary at all, certainly not worthy of its own horizontal row.

Fact is that it isn't, especially because left exit signage is not always mounted overhead. In some cases, it is ground-mounted on the right. The left tab highlights that it is a left exit.

Still, the double-height is a better visual indicator than having it on the same row. Left exits should be as obvious as possible.

[jakeroot]

The placement of the sign over the left edge of the carriageway, the word "LEFT" next to the exit number, plus exit-only markings on the ground, should be enough to clue people in to the situation, to the point where the yellow sticker is hardly necessary at all, certainly not worthy of its own horizontal row.

Fact is that it isn't, especially because left exit signage is not always mounted overhead. In some cases, it is ground-mounted on the right. The left tab highlights that it is a left exit.

Still, the double-height is a better visual indicator than having it on the same row. Left exits should be as obvious as possible.

Is there really any evidence to suggest that the double-height tab provides any benefit? My argument here is that the benefit is negligible at best, thus the placement of the "LEFT" plaque is a matter of aesthetic preference. FWIW, I'm not arguing against the use of the yellow -- which I think is a great idea -- but rather the placement of the yellow box. IMO, the plaque color is by far and away the most important part of signing a left exit, not the location of said plaque.

[Kacie Jane]

IMO, the plaque color is by far and away the most important part of signing a left exit, not the location of said plaque.

Because you're used to Washington signage.  And if we're comparing it to other full-width tabs, then sure, it works fine.

But when you compare it to other states' signage, not so much.  If you squint at your photo (imagine you're driving, and it's the first time you see it up in the distance) and maybe ignore the exit only plaque (pretend it's a one mile advance instead), then it looks like it's for a right-side exit, since the EXIT 167 with the green background is in the right just like it would be for a right-side exit.

So it's plausible to me at least that it might even be worse than the old style: a left-side exit tab with no yellow plaque.

[Scott5114]

A few tabs in Lawton came out with the stacked "LEFT/EXIT ##" but for whatever reason the entire tab is yellow. It doesn't look as hideous as you think it would. Don't get me wrong, it looks hideous, but that's more to do with the badly-aligned negative-contrast Clearview.

[mgk920]

Another that I want to see:

- Unless impossible due to physical limitations at the signal site, make black backplates with retroreflective yellow outlines mandatory on traffic signals (they are now optional).

Mike

[roadfro]

Unless impossible due to physical limitations at the signal site, make black backplates with retroreflective yellow outlines mandatory on traffic signals (they are now optional).

First, you'd have to make backplates mandatory. There are still many jurisdictions that don't have them...especially on span-wire installations.

[Scott5114]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Enhanced E-Modified were added as at least an option.

[cl94]

Unless impossible due to physical limitations at the signal site, make black backplates with retroreflective yellow outlines mandatory on traffic signals (they are now optional).

First, you'd have to make backplates mandatory. There are still many jurisdictions that don't have them...especially on span-wire installations.

A surprising amount of places are switching over. Quite a few state DOTs went from almost no backplates to retroreflective within the past few years. New York and Ohio are two of the most striking examples. It wouldn't be that much of an issue to make them mandatory on new installations (wire/pole gets replaced).

[Pink Jazz]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Enhanced E-Modified were added as at least an option.

I'd expect it would go through the Interim Approval process for review before it gets added into the MUTCD.  It probably won't make it into the next MUTCD.

[Scott5114]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Enhanced E-Modified were added as at least an option.

I'd expect it would go through the Interim Approval process for review before it gets added into the MUTCD.  It probably won't make it into the next MUTCD.

That would probably be unnecessary. Unlike Clearview, the Series E glyphs are already in the manual and have been for thirteen years.

Not everything goes through an IA before ending up in the manual. APLs didn't, IIRC.

[thenetwork]

Canada's yield and one way signs omit the wording "yield" and "one way"; I can see it happening in the US, though it doesn't really matter either way.

Another sign that can go text free is the RAILROAD CROSSING words on the crossbucks.  The only place you see those are at railroad crossings, and the circular RxR signs ahead of the tracks are pretty much stating the same thing.  A plain, white crossbuck with red borders is sufficient.

[Pink Jazz]

I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs.  After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.

[SectorZ]

I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs.  After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.

Is this wishful thinking?

[Pink Jazz]

I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs.  After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.

Is this wishful thinking?

Well, Fluorescent Yellow-Green was finally mandated for school zone signs after many years of use in the 2009 MUTCD, and I wonder how will the next MUTCD address the usage of FYG for Pedestrian/Bicycle/Playground signs.  Originally in the 2009 MUTCD it was supposed to be a recommendation rather than an option, however, there was some opposition by some DOTs preferring it to be used exclusively for school zones, thus it was relegated to an option.

[Kacie Jane]

I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs.  After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.

Why though?  I mean, they're both meant for temporary situations.  Just because an "incident" is typically more temporary than construction, I don't really see why it needs a separate color?

[jakeroot]

I also wonder if Fluorescent Pink will become mandatory for incident management signs.  After all, the primary purpose of Fluorescent Pink is to distinguish them from the orange construction zone signs.

Why though?  I mean, they're both meant for temporary situations.  Just because an "incident" is typically more temporary than construction, I don't really see why it needs a separate color?

I agree. And on top of that, I'm not convinced that people won't go into "gawking" mode when they see pink signs, because they know shit's going down.