Comment Period Underway now for MUTCD Prior to Next Edition

[andy3175]

USDOT and FHWA are soliciting input on future editions of the MUTCD. This document "defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F." It is commonly addressed throughout this Forum on matters of roadway standards, signage practices, traffic control, and many other topics of interest. If you are interesting in commenting, the comment period is open until February 18, 2016.

Current edition of MUTCD link: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

Link to make comments about MUTCD: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA_FRDOC_0001-1260

The FHWA is interested in planning for future editions of the MUTCD  that will reflect the growing number and application of traffic control devices, changes in technology not only for traffic control devices, but for viewing content in the MUTCD, and developing a structure for the MUTCD that is efficient and easy to use. The FHWA initiated the public comment process by publishing an RFC at 78 FR 2347 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118) on January 11, 2013, that included two options for restructuring the MUTCD and several questions regarding content and public use of the MUTCD. The FHWA's response to the comments, issued June 17, 2013 at 78 FR 36132 (Docket ID: FHWA-2012-0118-0187), indicated that over one half of the commenters recommended postponing any action to restructure the manual pending results from the ongoing National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) strategic planning effort. That effort is now complete. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from users of the MUTCD about the direction of future editions of the MUTCD. This notice includes a set of specific questions for which FHWA requests comments. Comments and input may be offered on any part of this notification.

[mariethefoxy]

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

[cl94]

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

They're asking for specific things.

As an engineer, I do use it and know that people who aren't trained (i.e. city officials) find it challenging, especially when sign replacements are needed. While an engineer should be involved with everything of the sort, they are not in practice and I don't picture that changing. I'll send my comments in by the end of the month. I'll post a link when they are posted.

[Pink Jazz]

Here is the comment I posted today (still being reviewed):

My personal concern is the inconsistency between states with urban vs. rural signage standards, and the lack of mention of suburban areas. One thing that states don't seem to agree on is whether or not to install Specific Service Signs on urban freeways. While provisions for allowing them on urban freeways have existed since the 2000 MUTCD, some states are not adopting these provisions due to lack of clarity in the MUTCD. While it wouldn't make much sense to install Specific Service Signs near downtown areas due to densely spaced exits, they can easily be installed outside of downtown areas as well as in suburbs as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, regardless of the city's or town's population. Here in the Phoenix, Arizona area, ADOT has been installing new Specific Service signs for the past three years, and they are easily accommodated on our freeways without any issue, including several in the City of Phoenix itself outside of Downtown. Future editions of the MUTCD should provide encouragement on the use of Specific Service Signs in suburbs and as well as within the core city outside of the central business district.

[Quillz]

I would like to see roundabouts and traffic circles have a MUTCD segment, including some standardized designs. They are becoming more and more popular, but it's still largely left to each state to decide how they are designed.

[cl94]

I would like to see roundabouts and traffic circles have a MUTCD segment, including some standardized designs. They are becoming more and more popular, but it's still largely left to each state to decide how they are designed.

They do. They have standard markings. Physical design aspects belong in the Green Book or one of its supplements. Section 9 of the 2011 Green Book has some basic design standards, I think there is a dedicated roundabout supplement. Also, note that roundabouts are a huge research topic and the designs are still changing quite rapidly as engineers and researchers attempt to determine what is most efficient.

[eje657west]

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

I think The Michigan Department of Transportation(MDOT) abuses the Clearview font usage, especially the exit numbers on the guide signs at least. Here's an example:

https://goo.gl/maps/dCSE4cbV52J2

Here's an interesting DOT webpage about acceptable and unacceptable Clearview uses.  Just click below.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/

[mvak36]

Not to get too far off topic, but is there a list somewhere of which states use Clearview and which don't?

Having driven mostly in NE,KS, and MO, I know they don't use it (or at least it doesn't look like it)

I've noticed it in IA, IL,KY, and MI. I'm not sure which other states use it.

Personally, I don't really like Clearview. It just doesn't look good.

[Alex]

Not to get too far off topic, but is there a list somewhere of which states use Clearview and which don't?

Having driven mostly in NE,KS, and MO, I know they don't use it (or at least it doesn't look like it)

I've noticed it in IA, IL,KY, and MI. I'm not sure which other states use it.

Personally, I don't really like Clearview. It just doesn't look good.

Our page on it: https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.php

Forum topic on it: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=377.0

[jeffandnicole]

Here is the comment I posted today (still being reviewed):

My personal concern is the inconsistency between states with urban vs. rural signage standards, and the lack of mention of suburban areas. One thing that states don't seem to agree on is whether or not to install Specific Service Signs on urban freeways. While provisions for allowing them on urban freeways have existed since the 2000 MUTCD, some states are not adopting these provisions due to lack of clarity in the MUTCD. While it wouldn't make much sense to install Specific Service Signs near downtown areas due to densely spaced exits, they can easily be installed outside of downtown areas as well as in suburbs as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, regardless of the city's or town's population. Here in the Phoenix, Arizona area, ADOT has been installing new Specific Service signs for the past three years, and they are easily accommodated on our freeways without any issue, including several in the City of Phoenix itself outside of Downtown. Future editions of the MUTCD should provide encouragement on the use of Specific Service Signs in suburbs and as well as within the core city outside of the central business district.

What's the lack of clarity?

[Pink Jazz]

Here is the comment I posted today (still being reviewed):

My personal concern is the inconsistency between states with urban vs. rural signage standards, and the lack of mention of suburban areas. One thing that states don't seem to agree on is whether or not to install Specific Service Signs on urban freeways. While provisions for allowing them on urban freeways have existed since the 2000 MUTCD, some states are not adopting these provisions due to lack of clarity in the MUTCD. While it wouldn't make much sense to install Specific Service Signs near downtown areas due to densely spaced exits, they can easily be installed outside of downtown areas as well as in suburbs as long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, regardless of the city's or town's population. Here in the Phoenix, Arizona area, ADOT has been installing new Specific Service signs for the past three years, and they are easily accommodated on our freeways without any issue, including several in the City of Phoenix itself outside of Downtown. Future editions of the MUTCD should provide encouragement on the use of Specific Service Signs in suburbs and as well as within the core city outside of the central business district.

What's the lack of clarity?

Apparently, this sentence isn't clear:

The use of Specific Service signs should be limited to areas primarily rural in character or to areas where adequate sign spacing can be maintained.

Some states don't seem to clearly understand the statement I bolded and underlined.  As long as adequate sign spacing can be maintained, logo signs can be installed in urban areas.  Plus there is this statement below:

Where an engineering study determines a need, Specific Service signs may be used on any class of highways.

Some states don't seem to clearly understand this statement either.

Here is how I would rephrase these statements:

The use of Specific Service signs should be limited to areas primarily rural in character or to urban and/or suburban areas where adequate sign spacing can be maintained.

Where an engineering study determines a need, Specific Service signs may should be used on any class of highway.

[jeffandnicole]

I guess what I'm not getting as well is...is this a known issue that the states don't understand the clarity, or do the states simply not wish to use Specific Service in suburban and urban areas?  Also, do businesses want to spend the money to advertise to those on the highway, when they may be located in a suburban or urban area and their primary customer is someone from the local area?

It almost appears as if you are wanting to force the states and businesses near a highway to participant in a voluntary program.

[Pink Jazz]

I guess what I'm not getting as well is...is this a known issue that the states don't understand the clarity, or do the states simply not wish to use Specific Service in suburban and urban areas?  Also, do businesses want to spend the money to advertise to those on the highway, when they may be located in a suburban or urban area and their primary customer is someone from the local area?

It almost appears as if you are wanting to force the states and businesses near a highway to participant in a voluntary program.

Remember that in most states, logo signs are a revenue generator for the state DOT, and by not allowing them in urban areas, the state DOT is missing out on a lot of additional revenue.  Even in most states where the logo sign program is provided by an outside company, the state DOT receives at least a portion of the revenue (which can be as low as 10% as in Indiana or as high as 80% as in Florida).

[jakeroot]

In-keeping with my interest in signage, current APL standards need some work. I'm not sure if my comment is in-line with the specificity required (hell, I'm not sure if it's accurate), but I'm leaving the comment anyways...

There are two changes that I believe should be made to current "Overhead Arrow-Per-Lane" signage standards:

First, permitting arrow-per-lane signage, when there is no optional exit, should be considered. The FHWA has released studies in the past, which show the overhead arrow-per-lane signage to be as-good-as down arrow signage, when there is no optional exit. Rather than having up arrows at some interchanges (such as at optional-lane junctions, where the up arrows have been proven to be superior), and down arrows at others (such as at junctions without optional exits), the FHWA should allow states to use all up arrows at all interchanges, if they so choose, for consistency in design standards, as well as to help reduce driver confusion.

Second, the FHWA should consider permitting variable up-arrow heights, to permit shorter overhead arrow-per-lane signage. The current up-arrow height is 66 inches, which is acceptable, but results in signs with exceptional height, due to the prohibition of legends between the arrows (effectively creating 66 inches of green space). If the standard arrow heights were to remain the same, the FHWA should, at the very least, permit the display of certain legends, such as route shields, in-between the arrows. This would allow for shorter (and cheaper) signs with up arrows, which have been proven to be either as-good-as, or superior to, down arrows. All things considered, however, variable heights should be strongly considered. The current California (Caltrans) up-arrow heights are a good model for shorter arrow-per-lane signage.

[Rothman]

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

[roadman]

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

Or CalTrans' 4,500 page supplement.

[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.

[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.

[Buffaboy]

I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.

[cl94]

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

The most recent supplement isn't too bad. All it really does is standardize stuff even more by reducing the number of acceptable signage options when the MUTCD gives several.

I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.

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). This is mainly limited to areas with a lot of farmland. I've found that NYSDOT often does a good job posting yield signs where sight distances are adequate. Problem is finding somewhere out east that is adequate.

[Buffaboy]

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

The most recent supplement isn't too bad. All it really does is standardize stuff even more by reducing the number of acceptable signage options when the MUTCD gives several.

I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.

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). This is mainly limited to areas with a lot of farmland. I've found that NYSDOT often does a good job posting yield signs where sight distances are adequate. Problem is finding somewhere out east that is adequate.

Farmland, yes, but sadly it can also be used in urban areas like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.410475,-83.0154424,3a,75y,333.16h,81.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s621frthEKAjmknjCWIKnbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[cl94]

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

The most recent supplement isn't too bad. All it really does is standardize stuff even more by reducing the number of acceptable signage options when the MUTCD gives several.

I would like to see guidelines for the replacement of stop signs with yield signs where appropriate (I'm sure cl94 knows more about this than I do), as well as the promotion of roundabouts.

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). This is mainly limited to areas with a lot of farmland. I've found that NYSDOT often does a good job posting yield signs where sight distances are adequate. Problem is finding somewhere out east that is adequate.

Farmland, yes, but sadly it can also be used in urban areas like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.410475,-83.0154424,3a,75y,333.16h,81.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s621frthEKAjmknjCWIKnbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It can, but it shouldn't be. Trees block the sight triangle. Should be a stop sign.

[jakeroot]

It can, but it shouldn't be. Trees block the sight triangle. Should be a stop sign.

Trees block the view from the camera, not necessarily the view from the driver's window. I see a cut on the bushes on the left that may assist with left-side visibility.

Yield signs should not be used only where visibility dictates that stopping may not always be necessary. A stop sign is simply a yield sign with an extra "stop" requirement. If you don't need to stop, you shouldn't, but if you need to (because of poor visibility), you should. Driver's should be intelligent enough to understand when they need to stop and when they needn't. "Stop" signs are, for all intents and purposes, nanny signs (don't tell me when I need and needn't stop).

[cl94]

It can, but it shouldn't be. Trees block the sight triangle. Should be a stop sign.

Trees block the view from the camera, not necessarily the view from the driver's window. I see a cut on the bushes on the left that may assist with left-side visibility.

Yield signs should not be used only where visibility dictates that stopping may not always be necessary. A stop sign is simply a yield sign with an extra "stop" requirement. If you don't need to stop, you shouldn't, but if you need to (because of poor visibility), you should. Driver's should be intelligent enough to understand when they need to stop and when they needn't. "Stop" signs are, for all intents and purposes, nanny signs (don't tell me when I need and needn't stop).

The camera is at the same height as a school bus. Green Book requires clear from car driver eye level up to well above eye level of the tallest common vehicle, which is a school bus in this case.

[Quillz]

I would like to see roundabouts and traffic circles have a MUTCD segment, including some standardized designs. They are becoming more and more popular, but it's still largely left to each state to decide how they are designed.

They do. They have standard markings. Physical design aspects belong in the Green Book or one of its supplements. Section 9 of the 2011 Green Book has some basic design standards, I think there is a dedicated roundabout supplement. Also, note that roundabouts are a huge research topic and the designs are still changing quite rapidly as engineers and researchers attempt to determine what is most efficient.

Absolutely, that's what I'm writing my master's on. I've noticed Caltrans has largely standardized their designs, though it's still not clear which intersections are "worthy" to be converted into roundabouts. I've also seen some interesting European proposals that lose the outermost lane at each quarter-turn, so that no lane changes are required within the roundabout to reach the desired destination.