[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 268-334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24863]
[[Page 267]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Parts 634 and 655
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 268]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 634 and 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977]
RIN 2125-AF22
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MUTCD (also referred to as ``the Manual'') is incorporated
by our regulations, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and
recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on
all public roads. The purpose of this notice of proposed amendments is
to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information
relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD. The
proposed changes are intended to expedite traffic, promote uniformity,
improve safety, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control
device application. These proposed changes are being designated as the
next edition of the MUTCD.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at
www.regulations.gov or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments
should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this
document. All comments received will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting
comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 19477-78) or
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915; or Raymond Cuprill, Office
of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at: www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of
the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may
also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page
at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web
page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
The text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the
MUTCD incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are
available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7,
at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text,
figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the MUTCD
incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are available
on the MUTCD Internet Web site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The proposed
text is available in two formats. The first format shows the current
MUTCD text with proposed additions in blue underlined text and proposed
deletions as red strikeout text, and also includes notes in green boxes
to provide helpful explanations where text is proposed to be relocated
or where minor edits are proposed. The second format shows a ``clean''
version of the complete text proposed for the next edition of the
MUTCD, with all the proposed changes incorporated. The complete current
2003 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 incorporated is also
available on the same Internet Web site.
This notice of proposed amendments is being issued to provide an
opportunity for public comment on the desirability of these proposed
amendments to the MUTCD. Based on the comments received and its own
experience, the FHWA may issue a Final Rule concerning the proposed
changes included in this notice.
The notice of proposed amendments is being published to address the
many advances in technology, research results, and improved traffic and
safety management strategies that have occurred since the 2002
initiation of the rulemaking process that led to the 2003 edition of
the MUTCD. The FHWA invites comments on these proposed changes to the
MUTCD. The FHWA requests that commenters cite the page number and line
numbers of the proposed MUTCD text for which each specific comment to
the docket about the proposed text is concerned, to help make the
FHWA's docket comment review process more efficient.
A summary of the significant proposed general changes and proposed
changes for each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following
discussion.
Discussion of Proposed General Amendments to the MUTCD
1. The FHWA proposes to develop a new cover page for the new
edition of the MUTCD that will maintain general consistency with covers
of previous editions but with changes to give it a distinctive
appearance, to minimize the possibility of confusion by users. Although
a new cover page has not yet been developed and is not illustrated in
the NPA, the FHWA proposes to include a new cover page design in the
edition of the MUTCD published as the Final Rule. The FHWA proposes
that the date of the new edition to be identified on the cover and
elsewhere within the document will be the year in which the Final Rule
is issued.
2. The FHWA proposes to include paragraph numbers for each section,
in the margins, for the final page images of the next edition of the
MUTCD. Although the page images shown for the NPA do not include
paragraph numbers, the FHWA proposes to include them in the edition of
the MUTCD published as the Final Rule in order to aid practitioners in
referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of future MUTCD
notices of proposed amendments. On the FHWA's MUTCD Web site at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov, along with the proposed MUTCD text, the FHWA has
posted sample pages showing four possible methods for paragraph
numbering. Interested persons should review the sample pages and
provide comments to the docket on the paragraph numbering options.
3. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA proposes minor changes in text
[[Page 269]]
and figures for grammatical or style consistency, to improve
consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, or to
correct minor errors. Where the FHWA proposes to add a new chapter
within a part of the MUTCD, a new section within a chapter of the
MUTCD, or a new item within a listing, the chapters or sections or
items that follow the proposed addition would be renumbered or
relettered accordingly. All Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists
of Tables, and page headers and footers would be revised as appropriate
to reflect the proposed changes.
4. The FHWA proposes, where appropriate, to modify figures and
tables to reflect proposed changes in the text and to add figures and
tables to illustrate new or revised text.
5. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA proposes to relocate
statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in
logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition,
the FHWA proposes to change the titles of some sections in order to
more accurately describe the content of the section.
6. The FHWA proposes to remove the phrase ``reasonably safe''
throughout the Manual, because it cannot be easily defined, and as a
result it is open to too much subjective interpretation. The FHWA
proposes that each occurrence of the term either be eliminated or
replaced with suitable language that is more appropriate.
7. The FHWA proposes to change the phrase ``bicycle trail'' to
``bikeway'' in several places in the Manual. The FHWA proposes this
change because the term ``bikeway'' is a generic term used for any
road, street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for
bicycle travel and the term ``bicycle trail'' is generally used to
designate only off-road trails or paths that are typically not
constructed to engineering standards or guidelines, and the application
of the MUTCD to such bicycle trails would generally be impractical,
inappropriate, and inadvisable in some locations.
8. The FHWA proposes to change the references to the book
previously titled ``Standard Highway Signs'' to refer to the current
``Standard Highway Signs and Markings.'' This change is proposed
throughout the MUTCD because the FHWA is changing the title of that
book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes information
regarding markings.
9. The FHWA has conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign
codes used throughout the Manual, and proposes to revise sign codes in
several places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As
part of this process, the FHWA proposes to revise the term ``sign
code'' to ``sign designation'' to avoid confusion with other uses of
the word ``code,'' and to use the ``a'' suffix in sign designations for
word message signs that are alternatives to symbol signs, use the ``P''
suffix for sign designations for plaques, and add ``(M)'' suffixes for
signs that have metric units.
10. In all Parts of the MUTCD where sign images are shown in the
figures, the FHWA proposes to add sign images that are already in the
Standard Highway Signs and Markings book, but not in the MUTCD, and to
update figures to show proposed new signs or changes to existing signs.
11. The FHWA proposes to add information in the MUTCD regarding
toll plaza applications, because toll facilities are becoming more
common and there is a need to provide more consistent use of signing,
signals, and markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to
enhance safety and convenience for road users. The FHWA proposes to add
provisions on toll plaza traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4
that reflect the results of research study on best practices for
traffic control strategies at toll plazas \1\ (referred to hereafter as
the ``Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report'') and
FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
\2\ ``Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,'' dated
September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The FHWA proposes to expand the provisions regarding
preferential lanes and add new provisions regarding managed lanes in
various Parts of the MUTCD. This proposed information is contained
primarily in Parts 2 and 3, and is intended to address specific signing
and marking issues associated with electronic toll collection, High
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls, etc. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to eliminate some information regarding preferential lanes
that is too specific for the MUTCD because it deals with highway
planning and programmatic matters rather than the traffic control
devices for preferential lanes.
13. In order to further address the needs of motorcyclists, the
FHWA proposes to add information to Parts 2, 3, and 8 regarding traffic
control device considerations for motorcyclists.
14. The FHWA proposes to change the designations of barricades to
Types 1, 2, and 3 to eliminate the use of roman numerals because these
are the only devices that are designated by roman numerals and to be
consistent with other items such as object marker types. This editorial
change would affect the text of several Parts of the MUTCD.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction
15. The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement
regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. The FHWA proposes this
change to incorporate recent changes to 23 CFR 655.603(a) \3\ that
clarify that, for the purpose of MUTCD applicability, the phrase ``open
to public travel'' includes toll roads and roads within shopping
centers, parking lots, airports, sports arenas, and other similar
business and recreation facilities that are privately owned but where
the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. The FHWA
also proposes to modify the wording of 23 CFR 655.603(a) to remove the
military base exemption from the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to apply the
provisions in the MUTCD and modify the CFR based on a request from the
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to include
military bases in order to facilitate motorist safety through
conformity and consistency with national standards. The FHWA agrees
that many military bases are public and contain public roads that can
be freely accessed, and that the use of such roads by military
personnel from all over the country makes it especially important for
traffic control devices on military bases to be in conformance with the
national standards of the MUTCD. As a part of this change, the FHWA
proposes to indicate that traffic control devices can be placed by the
authority of non-public agencies, and the MUTCD is recognized as the
national standard for traffic control devices on public facilities and
private property open to public travel, as defined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated
December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In the fourth STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add that
substantial conformance of State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or
Supplements shall be as defined in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1), to reflect the
[[Page 270]]
incorporation of the definition of that term into the CFR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated
December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In the listing of target phase-in compliance dates, FHWA
proposes to include the specific target phase-in compliance date for
those items whose dates were determined through previous rulemaking,
now that the effective dates are known. In addition, the FHWA proposes
target phase-in compliance dates for a number of significant proposed
changes in the NPA. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the listing
any items for which the target phase-in compliance dates have already
passed or will be passed by the date of the publication of the Final
Rule resulting from this NPA. It should also be noted that the target
phase-in compliance dates define the end of the ``phase-in compliance
period'' as discussed for various items in the remainder of this
document.
18. Although not specifically shown in the NPA, the FHWA is
considering incorporating the phase-in compliance periods into the body
of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and sections in the
Final Rule. The FHWA is considering this change because the list of
phase-in compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more convenient
and effective for practitioners to have phase-in compliance periods
embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the Manual.
The FHWA encourages the public to view the Minnesota State Department
of Transportation Web site at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mutcd/index.html to view how Minnesota has incorporated the
phase-in compliance periods into its State MUTCD text and to provide
comments to the docket on whether Minnesota's method is preferable to
listing all the phase-in compliance periods in the MUTCD Introduction.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1--General
19. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA
proposes to delete the STANDARD statement from this section, and place
the text in Section 2A.06, because that section more appropriately
deals with signs, including their colors and symbols. For the same
reason, text in the OPTION statement relating to signs only is also
proposed to be relocated to Section 2A.06.
20. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control
Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that signs
and other devices (as explained in a proposed new SUPPORT statement)
that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed with the
permission of the public agency or official having jurisdiction, should
be located where they will not interfere with, or detract from traffic
control devices. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that there
are some signs and devices that are placed within the right-of-way for
distinct purposes that are not traffic control devices.
21. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes,
and Interim Approvals, the FHWA proposes to revise the 2nd STANDARD
statement to indicate that electronic submittals of requests for
interpretation, permission to experiment, interim approvals, or changes
are preferred. The FHWA proposes to include the e-mail address for such
submittals. As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes an
OPTION statement that includes the postal address for such requests to
be mailed to, in the event that the submitter does not have access to
e-mail.
The FHWA also proposes to revise and supplement the language
regarding interim approvals for the use of traffic control devices in
order to provide additional information about the process and reflect
how it has evolved since the 2003 MUTCD.
22. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA
proposes to add four FHWA publications and a publication of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to the list of
publications in the SUPPORT statement. All of these documents are
referenced in other Parts of the MUTCD.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to update the list to reflect
current editions of the publications.
The FHWA also proposes to delete existing publication 19, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Recommended Practice
titled, ``School Trip Safety Program Guidelines'' from the list of
publications because ITE has rescinded publication of the reference
document and the information from this publication is included within
the MUTCD text where appropriate.
23. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the FHWA proposes to add to the
STANDARD statement the assignment of the color purple to indicate
facilities or lanes that are allowed to be used only by vehicles
equipped with electronic toll collection (ETC) transponders. The FHWA
proposes this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes using
signs and pavement markings as discussed below in the proposed changes
in Parts 2 and 3. Color specifications for signing and marking
materials are contained in title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 1 through 6. The FHWA has
reviewed color properties of the purple signing and marking materials
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to revise the
existing daytime color coordinates for purple retroreflective sign
material (Table 1), add nighttime color coordinates for purple
retroreflective sign material (Table 2), and add daytime and nighttime
color coordinates and luminance factors for purple retroreflective
marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6). The proposed values for purple
in the tables are as indicated below (no change is proposed for the
existing values for luminance factors for purple as contained in Table
1A):
Table 1.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302............. Existing 0.064 Proposed
0.064
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307............. Existing 0.200 Proposed
0.202
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374............. Existing 0.300 Proposed
0.247
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457............. Existing 0.202 Proposed
0.136
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.307...................................................... 0.150
0.480...................................................... 0.245
0.530...................................................... 0.170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.309...................................................... 0.260
0.362...................................................... 0.295
0.475...................................................... 0.144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 271]]
Table 5A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Purple Retroreflective Pavement
Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.......................................................... 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.338...................................................... 0.380
0.425...................................................... 0.365
0.470...................................................... 0.385
0.635...................................................... 0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This
Manual, the FHWA proposes to revise the definitions for: ``bicycle
lane,'' ``changeable message sign,'' ``contraflow lane,''
``crosswalk,'' ``flashing,'' ``highway traffic signal,''
``intersection,'' ``logo,'' ``occupancy requirement,'' ``public road,''
``raised pavement marker,'' ``road user,'' ``roundabout,'' ``rumble
strip,'' ``sign,'' ``sign legend,'' ``speed,'' ``speed limit,'' ``speed
zone,'' ``traffic,'' and ``traffic control device'' to better reflect
accepted practice and terminologies and for consistency in the usage of
these terms in one or more Parts of the MUTCD.
The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for the words ``alley,''
``average annual daily traffic,'' ``barrier-separated lane,''
``bikeway,'' ``buffer-separated lane,'' ``circulatory roadway,''
``contiguous lane,'' ``electronic toll collection,'' ``flagger,''
``gate,'' ``highway-light rail transit grade crossing,'' ``hybrid
signal,'' ``managed lane,'' ``multi-lane,'' ``open road electronic toll
collection,'' ``opposing traffic,'' ``pathway,'' ``pictograph,''
``preferential lane,'' ``private property open to public travel,''
``public facility,'' ``safe-positioned,'' ``school,'' ``school zone,''
``signing,'' ``splitter island,'' ``symbol,'' ``turn bay,'' ``warning
light,'' ``worker,'' and ``yield line'' to the list of definitions
because they are used in the MUTCD.
25. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 1A.13.
The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 1A.14
Meanings of Acronyms and Abbreviations in This Manual,'' and contains a
STANDARD statement with 38 acronyms and abbreviations and their
definitions. The remaining section in Chapter 1A would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes adding this new section to assist
readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the Manual.
26. In existing Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15) Abbreviations
Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the 1st
STANDARD statement a paragraph indicating that the abbreviations listed
in Table 1A-2 shall be used only on Portable Changeable Message Signs
and that when the word messages shown in Table 1A-2 need to be
abbreviated on a Portable Changeable Message sign, the abbreviations
shown in Table 1A-2 shall be used. The original research \5\ on
abbreviations was based on the need to shorten words when used on
portable changeable message signs due to the limited number of
characters available, unlike fixed-message signs. Many of the
abbreviations were developed for words that would not otherwise
normally be abbreviated on signs, and the intent was not to abbreviate
such words on fixed-message signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Report number FHWA/RD-81/039 ``Human Factors Design of
Dynamic Displays'' by C. L. Dudek and R. D. Huchingson, Final
Report, May 1982, is available from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161,
Web site http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add to the 2nd GUIDANCE statement a
sentence indicating that punctuation marks or other characters that are
not letters or numerals should not be used in abbreviations, unless
absolutely necessary to avoid confusion.
27. In Table 1A-1 Acceptable Abbreviations, the FHWA proposes to
add several additional abbreviations for various terms that are often
used on signs or markings and for which a single abbreviation for each
is needed to enhance uniformity. The FHWA also proposes to remove
several abbreviations from Table 1A-1 that are symbols rather than
abbreviations (such as ``D'' for diesel on general service signs), and
to revise several abbreviations based on accepted practice in the
specific context of the manner in which fixed messages are developed.
The FHWA also proposes to remove from Table 1A-1 some words that should
not be abbreviated on static signs or large permanent full-matrix
changeable message signs. In concert with these changes to Table 1A-1,
the FHWA proposes to revise the title of Table 1A-2 to ``Abbreviations
That Shall Only Be Used on Portable Changeable Message Signs'' and add
to Table 1A-2 some of the abbreviations that would be removed from
Table 1A-1. The FHWA also proposes to revise the content of Table 1A-2
to specifically list the abbreviations (some of which can be used only
with a prompt word) that are appropriate only for use on portable
changeable message signs (PCMS).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 2 Signs
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 2--General
28. In December 2005, the FHWA published a report on the findings
of a synthesis of non-MUTCD traffic signing.\6\ The purposes of this
synthesis (hereafter referred to as the Sign Synthesis Study) were to
collect information on special (non-MUTCD) sign legends, designs, and
symbols used by the State DOTs and by selected large cities and
counties; to identify commonalities, such as what special conditions
are the most common reasons for developing a special sign and what
design elements have been most commonly used to communicate the
message; and to determine the most likely candidate sign legends and
symbols for potential inclusion in future editions of the MUTCD and
make recommendations for standardized sign designs. The synthesis found
that a considerable number and variety of non-MUTCD signs are in
routine use by State and local highway agencies in the U.S. In many
cases, jurisdictions have used the flexibility given to them by the
MUTCD to develop and install special word message signs to communicate
unique traffic regulations or warnings of conditions that are not
specifically covered in the MUTCD. In some cases the same word message
is used by most or all States to describe a particular condition.
However, more often there is considerable variety among the States in
the specific words or phrases used to communicate the same basic
information to road users. Based on the information gathered in the
synthesis, the FHWA believes that additional uniformity is needed for
the frequently used signing not currently included in the MUTCD and is
proposing to add several new signs throughout the MUTCD to provide road
users with a uniform message for commonly encountered conditions. In
addition to describing these proposed new signs in the MUTCD text, the
FHWA proposes to add images of these proposed signs to applicable
figures throughout the MUTCD. A brief discussion of each
[[Page 272]]
proposed new sign is included in the preamble for each appropriate
chapter or section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signing,'' FHWA, December
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases the FHWA is proposing new symbol signs that mirror
existing Canadian MUTCD \7\ standard symbols that have been in
longstanding use in that neighboring country. Such symbols were
reviewed as a part of the signing synthesis. Canada has moved
considerably farther into symbolization of common regulatory, warning,
and guide/information messages (sometimes by adopting European symbols)
than has the U.S. The synthesis found several well-designed Canadian
symbols with intuitively obvious meanings for sign messages for which
some or many States are using a non-MUTCD word message sign (often with
many variations among States). The FHWA proposes adopting some of these
Canadian symbols or close likenesses, with a temporary educational
plaque as needed. The FHWA believes that this will improve the harmony
of North American signing in view of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and will enhance the convenience and safety of U.S.
and international travelers when driving, riding, or walking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada,
4th Edition, is available for purchase from the Transportation
Association of Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario
K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site http://www.tac-atc.ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. The FHWA proposes to move object markers from Part 3 to Part 2,
because there has been confusion regarding the location of object
markers in the MUTCD, and the FHWA feels that information regarding
object markers is best placed in Part 2. Object markers are typically
fabricated from retroreflective sheeting mounted on a substrate and
installed on a post and thus are more like a sign than a marking, and
most public agencies handle object markers as signs rather than
markings.
30. The FHWA proposes to delete the recommendation that signs
should only be used where justified by engineering studies or judgment
from several places in Part 2. The FHWA proposes this change because it
is not the intent of the Manual to make all sign device installations
subject to engineering oversight. The FHWA understands that most signs
are installed by sign crews authorized to make field decisions that are
not necessarily reviewed by engineers or covered by policies prepared
by engineers. These proposed revisions recognize the current practice
of installing signs throughout the country and do not detract from the
requirements that engineering studies must be done under engineering
supervision for very specific traffic control decisions. However, at
the same time it is not required that an engineer be involved in the
decisions for each device at every location.
31. The FHWA proposes to update the existing sign size Tables 2B-1
and 2I-1 (new Table 2K-1) to reflect proposed new signs, deleted signs,
and changes to sign sizes. The FHWA proposes to modify Table 2C-2 from
its general treatment of warning sign sizes to instead specifically
address each sign similarly to the way it is done in Table 2B-1.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add sign size Tables 2D-1, 2E-1, 2F-
1, and 2I-1 to specify the sizes for guide and motorist information
signs that have a standardized legend.
In Chapters 2B and 2C, the FHWA proposes to add to the appropriate
OPTION statements that the minimum overall sign size may be decreased
for signs in alleys with restrictive physical condition and vehicle
usage that limits installation of the minimum size sign. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect the results of the FHWA MUTCD
Urbanization Needs Survey,\8\ which included comments from a number of
city traffic engineers that the MUTCD does not adequately address sign
sizes and application for alley installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Urbanizing the MUTCD,'' by W. Scott Wainwright, 2003,
paper no. CB03C184, Compendium of Papers for the 2003 Institute of
Transportation Engineers Technical Conference, is available from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (Web site: http://www.ite.org). A presentation based on the paper can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/Documents/FHWA/MUTCD_Urbanization.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. The FHWA proposes to eliminate the option of all uppercase
letters for names of places, streets, and highways, and require that
these names be composed of lowercase letters with an initial uppercase
letter. The FHWA proposes this change, which affects provisions and
figures in various chapters throughout Part 2, based on Older Driver
research documented in FHWA reports \9\ (referred to hereafter as the
``Older Driver handbook'') that shows significant legibility and
recognition distance benefits versus all uppercase letters for
destinations. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm. Also see Recommendation II.A(2) in
``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, which can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. In Chapters 2A and 2E, the FHWA also proposes to discourage the
use of punctuation, apostrophes, questions marks or other characters on
signs that are not letters or numerals unless absolutely necessary to
avoid confusion. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with a
similar proposed change in Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2A
34. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, the FHWA
proposes to clarify the definition of ``special purpose road'' in item
D of the STANDARD statement by deleting the phrase ``or that provides
local access,'' because the existing definition is overly broad. FHWA
intends to clarify that neighborhood residential streets are not
special-purpose roads and signing for such streets should be the same
as that for other conventional roads.
35. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, the FHWA proposes to relocate
a STANDARD paragraph regarding symbols on signs, and its associated
OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03 to this section. The FHWA proposes
this change because Section 2A.06 is the most likely place for a reader
to look for information regarding sign design.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use
of e-mail addresses to the last STANDARD and OPTION statements. The use
of e-mail addresses on signs is to be the same as Internet Web site
addresses. E-mail addresses are just as difficult to read and remember
as Internet Web site addresses and constitute the same issues for a
driver traveling at highway speeds. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
36. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information in existing
Section 2A.07 to proposed new Chapter 2M in order to consolidate all
information on changeable message signs into one chapter. The FHWA
would renumber the remaining sections accordingly.
37. In existing Section 2A.08 (new Section 2A.07) Retroreflectivity
and Illumination, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to
clarify that overhead sign installations on freeways and expressways
should be illuminated unless an engineering study shows that
retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination, and that
overhead sign installations on conventional or special purpose roads
[[Page 273]]
should be illuminated unless engineering judgment indicates that
retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination. The FHWA
proposes this change because the current language implies that written
documentation (engineering study) is mandatory for the practitioner to
decide that illumination is not needed for signs on conventional roads.
The FHWA believes that such documentation is not necessary and
therefore the FHWA proposes to recommend that engineering judgment be
used rather than require an engineering study. Overhead sign
installations such as street name signs, lane use signs, and other
smaller sign installations on conventional roads generally would not
warrant overhead lighting and may be impractical for structural
reasons. Many overhead sign installations on conventional roads are on
monotube structures that are not designed to support overhead lighting.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last STANDARD
statement to prohibit the use of individual LED pixels and groups of
LEDs within the background area of a sign, except for the STOP/SLOW
paddles used by flaggers and the STOP paddles used by adult crossing
guards. The FHWA's intent is to clarify that LEDs are to be used only
in the border or in the legend/symbol and not in the background of
signs.
38. In existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.10) Sign Colors, the
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement that allows the use of
fluorescent colors when the corresponding color is required. The FHWA
proposes this change in order to give jurisdictions the flexibility to
use fluorescent colors when they determine that they are needed in
order to attract additional attention to the signs. As part of this
proposal, FHWA proposes to revise the color specifications in title 23
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F,
Tables 3, 3A, and 4 to add the fluorescent version of the color red.
The color specifications for fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange and
fluorescent pink are already included in 23 CFR 655. The FHWA has
reviewed color properties of the fluorescent red signing and materials
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to add daytime
color coordinates and luminance factors for fluorescent red
retroreflective sign material (Tables 3 and 3A), and add nighttime
color coordinates for fluorescent red retroreflective sign material
(Table 4). The proposed values for fluorescent red in the tables are as
indicated below:
Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.666...................................................... 0.334
0.613...................................................... 0.333
0.671...................................................... 0.275
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Fluorescent Red Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum YF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................................ 30 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.680...................................................... 0.320
0.645...................................................... 0.320
0.712...................................................... 0.253
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA has also reviewed the existing daytime color coordinates for
fluorescent pink retroreflective sign materials and believes that these
coordinates are overly restrictive for current technology. The FHWA
proposes to revise the color coordinates in Table 3 for fluorescent
pink, to include a fifth pair of x and y coordinates, to better define
the color of fluorescent pink sign sheeting material. The proposed
values for fluorescent pink in Table 3 are as follows:
Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Pink
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exist. 0.450 Prop. 0.600.................. Exist. 0.270 Prop. 0.340
Exist. 0.590 Prop. 0.450.................. Exist. 0.350 Prop. 0.332
Exist. 0.644 Prop. 0.430.................. Exist. 0.290 Prop. 0.275
Exist. 0.563 Prop. 0.536.................. Exist. 0.230 Prop. 0.230
Exist.--Prop. 0.644....................... Exist.;-- Prop. 0.290
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2A-4 Common
Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to proposed changes in the text.
Specifically, the FHWA proposes to add the color purple for Electronic
Toll Collection signs and to remove the use of the color yellow from
school signs. The FHWA also proposes to add additional types of
Changeable Message Signs and expand the table to include various legend
and background colors for those signs, consistent with the proposed
text of proposed new Chapter 2M as discussed below. In addition, the
FHWA proposes to note that fluorescent versions of orange, red, and
yellow background colors may be used.
40. In existing Section 2A.12 (new Section 2A.11) Dimensions, the
FHWA proposes to add new provisions to the STANDARD and GUIDANCE
statements regarding the appropriate use of the various columns in the
Tables throughout the MUTCD that describe sizes for signs on various
classes of roads. The FHWA proposes this new language to clarify how
the columns in the sign size tables are intended to be used. The FHWA
also proposes adding language in each of the sections throughout the
MUTCD that refer to a sign size table, to refer back to this generally
applicable text in existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.12), and to
delete repetitive text on use of the various columns in the size tables
that appears in other sections throughout the MUTCD.
41. In existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.12) Symbols, the FHWA
proposes to add a STANDARD statement and a corresponding OPTION
statement at the end of the section prohibiting the use of symbols from
one type of sign on a different type of sign, except in limited
circumstances or as specifically authorized in the MUTCD. The FHWA
proposes this change because the colors and shapes of symbols are
designed to have a specific impact depending on the intended use of
that type of sign. Intermixing symbols from one type of sign to a
different type of sign may not have the same impact and may be
potentially confusing, and therefore should be specifically prohibited.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
42. In existing Section 2A.14 (new Section 2A.13) Word Messages,
the FHWA proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that the minimum specific ratio for letter height should be 22 mm (1
in) of letter height per 9 m (30 ft) of legibility distance. In
conjunction with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to delete the
SUPPORT statement that follows this first GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA
proposes these changes in order to be consistent with
[[Page 274]]
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook \10\ that sign
legibility be based on 20/40 vision. Most States allow drivers with 20/
40 corrected vision to obtain driver's licenses, and with the
increasing numbers of older drivers the FHWA believes that 20/40 vision
should be the basis of letter heights used on signs. This proposed
change will generally not impact the design of guide signs because
existing MUTCD provisions for guide sign letter heights provide
sufficient legibility distances for 20/40 vision in most cases. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The sizes of some regulatory and warning signs used
in some situations will need to be increased to provide for larger
letter sizes. Specific changes to sign sizes resulting from the
proposed change in Section 2A.14 are discussed below in the items
pertaining to the sign size tables in other Chapters in Part 2 and in
certain other Parts of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm. Also see recommendation number
II.A(1) in ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, which can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. In existing Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, the
FHWA proposes to clarify the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the
corner and border radii on signs should be concentric with one another.
The FHWA proposes this clarification to better facilitate the use of
sign fabrication software with inset borders.
44. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders. The proposed new
section is numbered and titled ``Section 2A.15 Enhanced Conspicuity for
Standard Signs'' and contains an OPTION statement regarding the methods
that may be used to enhance the conspicuity of standard regulatory,
warning, or guide signs and a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of
strobe lights as a sign conspicuity enhancement method. The various
conspicuity enhancement methods proposed reflect widespread and
successful practices by State and local agencies. The FHWA proposes
this new section to provide improved uniformity of such treatments to
benefit road users. The remaining sections in Chapter 2A would be
renumbered accordingly.
45. In existing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA
proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE an additional recommended
criterion for locating signs where they do not obscure the sight
distance to approaching vehicles on a major street for drivers who are
stopped on minor-street approaches. The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect good engineering practice and improve safety.
The FHWA also proposes to add to the 3rd GUIDANCE statement that
the placement of wayfinding and acknowledgment guide signs should have
a lower priority than other guide signs. The FHWA proposes this change
to clarify the priority of sign type placement, reflecting the proposed
addition to the manual of new types of guide signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last GUIDANCE
statement to provide recommendations on the placement of STOP and YIELD
signs at intersections, to clarify that the dimension shown in Figure
2A-3 for the maximum distance of STOP or YIELD signs from the edge of
pavement of the intersected roadway is GUIDANCE.
46. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA proposes to change
the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD to require that the
provisions of this section apply to all signs and object markers,
unless specifically stated otherwise elsewhere in the Manual. The FHWA
proposes this change to emphasize that the mounting heights in this
section are mandatory, particularly as they relate to pedestrian
considerations.
The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement that refers the
reader to Chapter 2L for mounting heights for object markers and
clarifies that the minimum heights given in combination with
crashworthy supports may not necessarily constitute a crashworthy sign
assembly. The FHWA proposes this new text to provide readers with the
appropriate references to materials with additional information on
mounting heights and crashworthiness.
In addition to reorganizing the text within the STANDARD statements
in this section, the FHWA proposes to clarify that mounting heights
should be measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the level
of the near edge of the pavement. The FHWA also proposes to add text to
clarify that a minimum height of 2.1 m (7 ft) is to be used for signs
installed at the side of the road in business, commercial, or
residential areas where parking or pedestrian movements are likely to
occur, or where the view of the sign might be obstructed, or where
signs are installed above sidewalks. In concert with these changes, the
FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending that a sign not
project more than 100 mm (4 in) into a pedestrian facility if the
bottom of a secondary sign that is mounted below another sign, is
mounted lower than 2.1 m (7 ft). The FHWA proposes these changes in
order to make the mounting height language consistent throughout the
Manual, and to add language that requires consideration of pedestrian
activity in the vicinity of signs, per ADAAG provisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to the new third STANDARD
statement that where large signs are installed on multiple breakaway
posts, the clearance from the ground to the bottom of the sign shall be
at least 2.1 m (7 ft), in order to provide consistency with other parts
of the Manual.
47. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement that overhead sign supports and post-mounted sign
and object marker supports should not intrude into the usable width of
a sidewalk or other pedestrian facility. The FHWA proposes this new
text to comply with ADAAG provisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2B
48. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes
changing the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement to clarify
that regulatory signs are rectangular unless specifically designated
otherwise. As part of this change, the FHWA also proposes adding a
reference to the Standard Highway Signs and Markings \13\ book for sign
design elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The current edition of ``Standard Highway Signs and
Markings,'' FHWA, 2004 Edition, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes relocating the first two paragraphs of
existing Section 2B.54 to a new OPTION statement in Section 2B.02,
because the paragraphs contain information about regulatory word
messages and symbols which is more relevant in this section.
49. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes to
add a new STANDARD statement at the end of the section that requires
that
[[Page 275]]
minimum sizes for certain regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane
conventional roads shall be as shown on Table 2B-2, and requiring a
specific minimum size for STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches.
The FHWA proposes this new text and table to provide signs on multi-
lane approaches that are more visible and legible to drivers with
visual acuity of 20/40. On multi-lane roads, increased legibility
distances are also needed due to the potential blockage of signs by
other vehicles. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
50. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2B-1
Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. These proposed changes include adding
more sizes in the ``Minimum'' column for use in low speed environments.
The FHWA also proposes to add several more signs and supplemental
plaques to the table to correspond with other proposed changes within
Part 2.
51. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 2B.03
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections.''
This proposed new section contains information currently contained in
Section 2B.05. In addition, the FHWA proposes additional
recommendations on the factors that should be considered in
establishing intersection control and the use of STOP and YIELD signs.
The proposed additional guidance is intended to provide a more logical
progression from least restrictive to more restrictive controls.
The FHWA also proposes to include a STANDARD statement that
prohibits the use of STOP and YIELD signs in conjunction with other
traffic control signal operation, except for the cases specified in the
STANDARD. While much of this information is in existing Section 2B.05,
the FHWA proposes to add a specific case regarding channelized turn
lanes to the list of cases where STOP or YIELD signs can be used,
reflecting common practice.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to include requirements for the use of
folding STOP signs for traffic signal power outages by adding language
to the MUTCD that corresponds to Official Interpretation 2-
545.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-545, April 9,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/2_545.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. The FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section
2B.04 to ``Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and Supplemental Plaques.'' As part
of this change, the FHWA proposes to require the use of the ALL-WAY
supplemental plaque if all intersection approaches are controlled by
STOP signs, to limit the use of the ALL-WAY plaque to only those
locations where all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP
signs, and to prohibit the use of supplemental plaques with the legend
2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, etc. below STOP signs. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide uniformity in the use of supplemental plaques with
STOP signs, especially at locations where all approaches are controlled
by STOP signs.
The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending the use
of plaques with appropriate alternate messages, such as TRAFFIC FROM
RIGHT DOES NOT STOP, where STOP signs control all but one approach to
the intersection. The FHWA proposes this change to encourage the use of
these plaques at intersections that need increased driver awareness
regarding an unexpected right-of-way control.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing the use of a
proposed new EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1-10P) plaque mounted below a STOP
sign when an engineering study determines that a special combination of
geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it possible for
right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the
intersection without stopping. The FHWA proposes this change to give
agencies flexibility in establishing right-of-way controls for such
special conditions. The Sign Synthesis Study \15\ found that at least
12 States have developed 7 different sign messages for this purpose.
The FHWA proposes the uniform use of the simplest, most accurate
legend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 18, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. The FHWA proposes to relocate much of the information in
existing Section 2B.05 (new Section 2B.06) STOP Sign Applications to
the proposed new Section 2B.04. The FHWA also proposes to add
additional language to the remaining GUIDANCE statement that lists
conditions under which the use of a STOP sign should be considered.
This change would provide agencies with specific and quantitative
guidance regarding the use of STOP signs.
54. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.06 STOP Sign
Placement from the MUTCD, because most of the text in this section is
proposed to be incorporated into Section 2B.10.
55. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, the FHWA proposes to
clarify the STANDARD statement by adding that YIELD signs at
roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall
not be used to control the circular roadway. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reflect
the prevailing practices of modern roundabout design.
56. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.10 to ``STOP Sign or
YIELD Sign Placement'' to reflect the relocation of language regarding
STOP sign placement from existing Section 2B.06 to this section.
The FHWA proposes to delete the requirement from the first STANDARD
statement that YIELD signs be placed on both the left and right sides
of approaches to roundabouts with more than one lane and instead make
this a recommendation in a GUIDANCE statement near the end of the
Section. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION allowing similar placement of a YIELD sign on the left-hand side
of a single lane roundabout approach if a raised splitter island is
available. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect current practice
on signing roundabout approaches and to allow agencies additional
flexibility.
The FHWA also proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement that
no items other than retroreflective strips on the supports, official
traffic control signs, sign installation dates, or several other
inventory-type items shall be mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or
YIELD signs or on their supports. In conjunction with this proposed
change, the FHWA proposes to clarify the first GUIDANCE statement to
indicate that a sign that is mounted back-to-back with a STOP or YIELD
sign should stay within the edges of the STOP or YIELD sign, and that
if needed, the size of the STOP or YIELD sign should be increased to
accomplish this recommendation. The FHWA proposes these changes to
clarify the language that resulted in confusion amongst some
practitioners regarding the placement of messages on the back of STOP
and YIELD signs and to assure that the shape of these critical
intersection right-of-way signs can be discerned from the opposite
direction of approach. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies. This proposed new phase-in
compliance period would supersede the existing phase-in compliance
period (for existing
[[Page 276]]
Sections 2B.06 and 2B.10) of 10 years from the effective date of the
Final Rule for the 2003 edition, or December 20, 2013.
The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of the
section prohibiting the placement of two STOP signs or two YIELD signs
on the same support facing the same direction. The FHWA proposes this
change to prohibit this practice, because it is potentially confusing
and not an acceptable method of adding emphasis.
57. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.11 to ``Yield Here to
Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs'' to reflect
additional language that FHWA also proposes to add to this section
regarding the use of Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs. The proposed new
language would be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7
regarding the placement of these signs, as well as stop and yield
lines. The FHWA proposes adding the Stop Here for Pedestrians sign
because some State laws require motorists to come to a full stop for,
rather than yield to, pedestrians in a crosswalk.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD and OPTION
statements at the end of the section regarding the combination use of
Pedestrian Crossing warning (W11-2) signs with the Yield Here to (Stop
Here for) Pedestrian (R1-5 series) sign. The FHWA proposes these
additions to allow Pedestrian Crossing signs to be mounted overhead but
not post-mounted where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) signs have been
installed. The FHWA also proposes to allow the use of advance
Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) signs on the approach with AHEAD or
distance plaques and In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs at the
crosswalk where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian signs have
been installed. The FHWA proposes this new language to be consistent
with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's
Official Interpretation 2-566.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-566, July 27,
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_566.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. In Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements regarding the use of a proposed new Overhead Pedestrian
Crossing (R1-9 or R1-9a) sign that may be used to remind road users of
laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk.
The FHWA proposes to add this sign based on the Sign Synthesis
Study,\17\ which revealed that some agencies use an overhead sign,
because it is needed in some applications. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA
proposes to add this sign to Table 2B-1, Figure 2B-2 and to the
appropriate text and figures in Part 7, for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 19, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to insert new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
between the first OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding conditions
and criteria to be used in determining when In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing signs should be used at unsignalized intersections. The FHWA
proposes these additional statements to provide for more uniform
application of these signs and discourage over-use.
The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement restricting the
placement of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign to the roadway at
the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a
median island. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement permitting the W11-2 sign with downward sloping arrow
to be post-mounted on the right-hand side of the street if the
Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) warning sign is used in combination with
the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. The FHWA proposes this new text
to be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is
based on FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-64(1).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-64(1), July 23,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/7_64.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to revise the existing first STANDARD
statement by specifying that the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
shall have a black legend and border on a white background, surrounded
by an outer fluorescent yellow-green background area, or by an outer
fluorescent yellow background area. FHWA proposes this change to
clarify how the sign is to be designed and to allow the alternate color
of fluorescent yellow.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of this STANDARD
statement to indicate that unless an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
is placed on a physical island, it is to be designed to bend over and
then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a
vehicle. The FHWA proposes this change because while all signs must be
crashworthy, these in-street signs need to have special supports to
minimize damage to vehicles and injuries to pedestrians if the signs
are struck by a passing vehicle. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
Finally, the FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement prior
to the last OPTION statement that provides requirements on the mounting
heights for In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. The FHWA proposes this
new STANDARD statement to preclude incorrect mounting of this sign when
it is on an island.
59. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to
the STANDARD statement that speed zones (other than statutory speed
limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study
that includes an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-
flowing vehicles. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that
consideration is to be given to the free-flow speed when determining
altered speed zones, and to clarify that statutorily established speed
limits, such as those typically established by State laws setting
statewide maximum limits for various classes of roads, do not require
an engineering study. The FHWA also proposes adding a new SUPPORT
statement to provide additional information about the difference
between a statutory speed limit and an altered speed zone.
In addition, the FHWA proposes relocating and incorporating the
material from existing Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Signs, to
this section. The FHWA proposes this change in order to place material
regarding the Speed Limit sign in one section for better clarity and
flow.
The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION statement that permits
the use of several new plaques (R2-5P series) to be mounted with the
Speed Limit Sign when a jurisdiction has a policy of installing speed
limit signs only on the streets that enter from a jurisdictional
boundary or from a higher speed street to indicate that the speed limit
is applicable to the entire city, neighborhood, or residential area
unless otherwise posted. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect
common practice in some urban areas, as documented by the Sign
Synthesis Study,\19\ and because
[[Page 277]]
it is often unnecessary and overly costly to install a speed limit sign
on every minor residential street.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 19-20, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes adding a new paragraph to the first GUIDANCE
statement to recommend that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used
where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10 mph,
or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice.
The FHWA proposes this change in order to provide consistency with the
recommendations contained in Chapter 2C.
60. The FHWA proposes relocating all of the text from existing
Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Sign to Section 2B.13 Speed Limit
Sign. (See item 59 above.)
61. In existing Section 2B.19 (new Section 2B.18) the FHWA proposes
to change the title to ``Movement Prohibition Signs'' to incorporate
the inclusion of the proposed new No Straight Through (R3-27) sign in
the GUIDANCE statement in this section. The symbolic No Straight
Through sign is most commonly used for traffic restrictions associated
with traffic calming programs. The sign is useful at intersections
having four approaches, where the through movement to be prohibited is
onto a street or road that does not have a ``Do Not Enter'' condition,
such as when 90-degree turns into the roadway are allowed, but the
straight ahead movement into the roadway is prohibited. This proposed
new sign uses the standard Canadian MUTCD RB-10 sign as the basis of
the design. The FHWA proposes to add an illustration of this new sign
to Figure 2B-3.
The FHWA also proposes changing the first paragraph of the 2nd
OPTION statement regarding the use of Turn Prohibition Signs adjacent
to signal heads to a GUIDANCE statement. For conspicuity reasons, these
signs should be mounted near the appropriate signal face, and this
reflects typical practice. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to change this
to a recommended practice rather than an option.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes adding new STANDARD and SUPPORT
statements at the end of this section to prohibit the use of No Left
Turn, No U-Turn, and combination No U-Turn/No Left Turn signs at
roundabouts in order to prohibit drivers from turning left onto the
circular roadway of a roundabout. The proposed language also indicates
that ONE WAY and/or Roundabout Directional Arrow signs are the
appropriate signs to indicate the travel direction for this condition.
The FHWA proposes these changes to provide uniformity in signing at
roundabouts and to reduce the possibility of confusion for drivers who
intend to turn left by circumnavigating the roundabout.
62. In existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19) Intersection Lane
Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that
overhead lane control signs should be installed over the appropriate
lanes on signalized approaches where lane drops, multiple-lane turns
with shared through-and-turn lanes, or other lane-use controls that
would be unexpected by unfamiliar road users are present. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Part 4
and to enhance safety and efficiency by providing for more effective
signing for these potentially confusing situations. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph at the end of the OPTION
statement regarding the types of arrows that may be used on
Intersection Lane Control signs at roundabouts. The FHWA also proposes
to add a new figure numbered and titled ``Figure 2B-5 Intersection Lane
Control Sign Arrow Options for Roundabouts'' illustrating the signs.
The FHWA proposes to add this information to reflect current practice
for roundabout signing and to correspond with similar options proposed
for pavement marking arrows on roundabout approaches in Part 3.
63. In existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) Mandatory
Movement Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the first
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify that Mandatory Movement
Lane Use Control signs shall indicate only the single vehicle movement
that is required from each lane, and to clarify the placement of the
signs. The FHWA also proposes to add that where three or more lanes are
available to through traffic and Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol
signs are used, these shall be mounted overhead. The FHWA proposes
these changes for consistency with existing Section 2B.22 (new Section
2B.21).
The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of
this section describing the optional use of the proposed new BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE (R3-20R) and BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs at the
upstream ends of mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA proposes this change to
give agencies flexibility to use these proposed new signs to designate
the beginning of mandatory turn lanes where needed for enforcement
purposes.
64. In existing Section 2B.22 (new Section 2B.21) Optional Movement
Lane Control Sign, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement
to clarify that, if used, Optional Movement Lane Control signs shall be
located in advance of and/or at the intersection where the lane
controls apply. This proposed change also provides consistency with
existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) regarding placement of
Movement Lane Control Signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of
the section prohibiting the use of the word message only when more than
one movement is permitted from a lane. The FHWA proposes this change to
be consistent with other requirements in the MUTCD regarding the use of
the term ONLY for lane use.
65. In existing Section 2B.23 (new Section 2B.22) Advance
Intersection Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD at
the end of the section prohibiting the overhead placement of Advance
Intersection Lane Control (R3-8) signs where the number of lanes
available to through traffic on an approach is three or more. In such
cases, overhead R3-5 signs are used. The FHWA proposes this change to
be consistent with existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19).
66. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following new Section
2B.22 (existing Section 2B.23). The new section is numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.23 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign.'' This proposed new
section contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this sign
for a lane of a freeway or expressway that is approaching a grade-
separated interchange where traffic in the lane is required to depart
the roadway onto the exit ramp at the next interchange. As documented
in the Sign Synthesis Study,\20\ at least 12 States currently use this
type of regulatory sign for freeway lane drop situations to establish
the ``must exit'' regulation and make it enforceable where warning
signs and markings alone have proven ineffective. (The overhead ``Exit
Only'' plaque on
[[Page 278]]
guide signs is yellow and is a warning message.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 22, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. The FHWA proposes editorial and organizational changes to
existing Sections 2B.26 through 2B.28 to improve the consistency and
flow of information and improve its usability by readers. These
proposed changes involve relocating paragraphs within and between these
sections and reorganizing the text into five sections. The sections are
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.26 Regulatory Signs for Preferential
Lanes--General,'' ``Section 2B.27 Preferential Lanes Vehicle Occupancy
Definition Signs,'' ``Section 2B.28 Preferential Lane Periods of
Operation Signs,'' ``Section 2B.29 Preferential Lane Ahead Signs,'' and
``Section 2B.30 Preferential Lane Ends Signs.'' As a part of this
change, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and
SUPPORT statements regarding regulatory signing for lanes that are
restricted to Electronic Toll Collection only, as a form of
preferential lane, to provide consistency in regulatory signing for
this increasingly used management strategy, and regarding mounting of
preferential lane regulatory signs where lateral clearance is limited,
to reflect existing practices. The FHWA also proposes removing text
from existing Section 2B.27 regarding the establishment and revision of
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane operations that is not directly
related to traffic control devices but is programmatic in nature, and
instead refer to an FHWA program guidance document that contains this
information.
68. The FHWA proposes to add several new sign images and to revise
several existing sign images in existing Figure 2B-7 (new Figure 2B-8)
Examples of Preferential Lane Regulatory Signs that illustrate the
various regulatory signs used to designate HOV and bus preferential
lanes, to reflect state of the practice for improved conspicuity and
legibility of Preferential Lane regulatory signs for HOV Lanes, and to
reflect recent FHWA policy guidance on traffic control devices for
preferential lane facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This August 3, 2007 FHWA policy memorandum can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. The FHWA proposes to add two sections that further describe
regulatory signing at toll plazas and for managed lanes. The proposed
sections are numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.31 Regulatory Signs for
Toll Plazas'' and ``Section 2B.32 Regulatory Signs for Managed Lanes
and ETC Only Lanes.'' The FHWA proposes these new sections in order to
provide consistency and uniformity in signing practices for these types
of facilities, which are becoming increasingly common and for which
uniform signing provisions are not currently contained in the MUTCD.
The proposed provisions generally reflect available guidance such as
the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations report \22\ and
various FHWA publications on managed lanes.\23\ As a part of these
changes, new symbols that denote exact change and attended lanes are
proposed for use in toll plaza signing in order to help road users more
quickly identify the proper lane(s) to choose for the type of toll
payment they will use. A new symbol that denotes that a toll facility's
ETC payment system is nationally interoperable with all other ETC
payment systems is also proposed for future use as this
interoperability is anticipated to become available in the next few
years. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
\23\ ``Managed Lanes--A Primer,'' FHWA publication number FHWA-
HOP-05-031, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf and ``Managed Lanes--A Cross-Cutting Study,'' FHWA
report number FHWA-HOP-05-037, November, 2004, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. The FHWA proposes to add a new section titled, ``Section 2B.33
Jughandle Signs.'' The new section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and
OPTION statements regarding the use of regulatory signs for jughandles.
Regulatory signing for jughandles is critical because the geometry
typically requires left turns and U-turns to be made via a right turn,
either in advance of or beyond the intersection, and this is contrary
to normal driver expectations. The Sign Synthesis Study \24\ found that
jughandles are currently in common use in at least six States and the
FHWA believes that jughandles are likely to see increasing use in the
future in more States in order to improve intersection safety and
operations. Therefore, in order to provide agencies with uniform
signing practices for several of the most common geometric layouts of
jughandles, the FHWA proposes this new section along with several new
signs and a figure to illustrate their use. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. In existing Section 2B.29 (new section 2B.34) Do Not Pass Sign,
the FHWA proposes to introduce a new symbol sign that has been in use
and well understood in Europe and Canada (the Canadian MUTCD RB-31
sign) for many decades.\25\ The FHWA proposes to add this symbol sign
due to the need to reduce the number of word message signs, increase
symbolization, and promote better harmony due to globalization and
increasing international travel. Because this symbol is new, the FHWA
proposes to allow the use of a DO NOT PASS educational plaque with this
sign. The FWHA also proposes to allow the optional continued use of the
existing word message sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections following existing
Section 2B.29 (new Section 2B.34). The first new section, numbered and
titled, ``Section 2B.35 DO NOT PASS WHEN SOLID LINE IS ON YOUR SIDE
Sign,'' contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this word
sign. As found by the Sign Synthesis Study,\26\ at least five States
use signs to remind road users of the meaning of a solid yellow line
for no-passing zones, however, there is considerable variety in the
wording that is used. The term ``Do No Pass'' is preferable because
that same terminology has been used in the R4-1 sign. ``Solid Line'' is
preferable because it is fewer words and all center lines are yellow,
so it is not necessary to state the color of the line. ``On Your Side''
is simpler and easier to understand than ``right of center line'' or
``in your lane.'' Therefore, the FHWA proposes that the new sign have a
standard message of ``Do Not Pass When Solid Line Is On Your Side'' in
order to provide consistency and uniformity. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
[[Page 279]]
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. The second new proposed section is numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.36 DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER Sign and DO NOT PASS ON
SHOULDER Sign'' and contains an OPTION statement regarding the use of
these two proposed new signs to inform road users that use of the
shoulder as a travel lane or to pass other vehicles is prohibited. The
FHWA proposes these two new signs because the Sign Synthesis Study \27\
found that at least 19 States are using some version of regulatory sign
to prohibit driving, turning, and/or passing on shoulders and the FHWA
feels that consistent and uniform messages for these purposes should be
provided to road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.31 (new
Section 2B.38) ``SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT Sign and KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT
TO PASS Sign'' and expand the existing OPTION and GUIDANCE statements
in this section to add the proposed new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign.
The Sign Synthesis Study \28\ found that at least 19 States use a
``Keep Right Except to Pass'' sign to legally require vehicles to stay
in the right-hand lane of a multi-lane highway except when passing a
slower vehicle, and the FHWA feels that a consistent message should be
provided to road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.32 (new
Section 2B.39) to ``TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE Sign'' and revise the section
to discontinue the use of the TRUCK LANE XXX FEET (R4-6) as a
regulatory sign because the message is one of guidance information
(distance to the start of the truck lane) rather than regulatory in
nature. This is consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2D that
adds a new guide sign with this message. Also, the FHWA proposes to add
an OPTION that describes the appropriate optional use of the TRUCKS USE
RIGHT LANE sign on multi-lane roadways to reduce unnecessary lane
changing.
76. In existing Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40) Keep Right and
Keep Left Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new narrow Keep Right (R4-
7c) sign that may be installed on narrow median noses where there is
insufficient lateral clearance for a standard width sign. The FHWA
proposes this new sign, which is only 12 inches wide rather than the
standard 24 inch wide R4-7 sign, to reflect current practice in some
States and to provide other agencies with the flexibility to use this
sign where applicable.
77. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing
Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40). The first proposed new section is
numbered and titled ``Section 2B.41 STAY IN LANE Sign'' and contains
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements on the use of STAY IN LANE (R4-9) signs
and the pavement markings that should be used with them. The second
proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 2B.42 RUNAWAY
VEHICLES ONLY Sign'' and contains a GUIDANCE statement regarding the
use of the RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY Sign near truck escape ramp entrances.
Both the STAY IN LANE and RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY signs are existing
signs illustrated in existing Figure 2B-8 (new Figure 2B-13), but not
described in the existing text of the MUTCD. The third proposed new
section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.43 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out
Signs'' and contains SUPPORT, OPTION, and STANDARD statements regarding
three proposed new signs that may be used on two-lane highways where
physical turn-out areas are provided for the purpose of giving a group
of faster vehicles an opportunity to pass a slow-moving vehicle. As
documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,\29\ at least eight States,
mostly in the west, use regulatory signs to legally require slow moving
vehicles to use the turnout if a certain number of following vehicles
are being impeded. Most of the eight States use similar wording on
their signs, but there are some variations. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for the use of Slow Vehicle Turn-Out
signs to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The
FHWA proposes adding these new signs to provide for uniformity of the
message. The remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. In existing Sections 2B.34 and 2B.35 (new Sections 2B.44 and
2B.45), the FHWA proposes to allow lower mounting heights for Do Not
Enter and Wrong Way signs as a specific exception when an engineering
study indicates that it would address wrong-way movements at freeway/
expressway entrance ramps. The FHWA proposes this exception based on
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook \30\ and positive
experience in several States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.D(4d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. In existing Section 2B.36 (new Section 2B.46) Selective
Exclusion Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the legend of several
existing selective exclusion signs to use the word NO rather than
PROHIBITED or EXCLUDED, to simplify the messages and make them easier
to read from a distance. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add regulatory AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY
and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY signs to the last OPTION statement to reflect
current practice.
80. In existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29) Pedestrian Signs
and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to modify the designs of the R10-3, R10-
3a through R10-3e, R10-4, R10-4a, and R10-4b to include the Canadian
MUTCD standard symbol for pushbuttons (in addition to the words), to
begin the symbolization of the ``pushbutton'' message. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide better harmony in North American
signing design, which is needed as a result of the increased travel
between the US, Canada, and Mexico resulting from NAFTA. The FHWA
proposes to use this new pushbutton symbol on several signs throughout
the MUTCD.
81. In existing Section 2B.37 (new Section 2B.47) ONE WAY Signs,
the FHWA proposes to change the existing GUIDANCE statement to a
STANDARD to require, rather than recommend, that ONE WAY signs be
placed on the near right, far left, and far right corners of each
intersection with the directional roadways of divided highways. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes to revise Figures 2B-18 through 2B-20 accordingly. In
concert with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to revise the
second paragraph of the OPTION statement to clarify that agencies may
omit the use of certain ONE WAY signs at intersections with
[[Page 280]]
medians less than 9 m (30 ft). The FHWA proposes to require the
installation of ONE WAY signs to reflect recommendations from the Older
Driver handbook.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.E(4),
I.K(2), and I.K(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add two new paragraphs to the 2nd
STANDARD statement to require two ONE WAY signs for each approach for
T-intersections and cross intersections, one near side and one far
side. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.K(4) and
I.K(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add new OPTION, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT
statements at the end of the Section regarding the use of ONE WAY signs
on central islands of roundabouts. The FHWA proposes to add this text
to promote consistency in signing for roundabouts.
82. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2E.50 to a new section numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.48
Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps.'' The FHWA proposes
this change because these types of signs are regulatory in nature,
rather than guide signs. The remaining sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
83. In existing Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49) Divided Highway
Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement
to a STANDARD and revise the text to require the use of Divided Highway
Crossing Signs for all approaches to divided highways in order to
encompass recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\33\ As part
of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION
statement to allow the sign to be omitted if the divided road has
average annual daily traffic less than 400 vehicles per day and a speed
limit of 40 km/h (25 mph) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.K(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes changing the existing 2nd OPTION statement
to a STANDARD in order to require that the Divided Highway Crossing
sign be located on the near right corner of the intersection. As part
of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION
statement to permit the installation of an additional Divided Highway
Crossing sign on the left-hand side of the approach to supplement the
sign on the near right corner of the intersection. As in the previous
item, these proposed changes are to implement recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for the revised provisions on the use of Divided Highway
Crossing signs at existing locations to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
84. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing
Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49). The first proposed new section is
numbered and titled ``Section 2B.50 Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs
(R6-4, R6-4a, and R6-4b)'' and contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements on the use of Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs. The second
proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 2B.51 Roundabout
Circulation Sign (R6-5P)'' and contains GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
regarding the use of the Roundabout Circulation Sign at roundabouts and
other circular intersections. The third proposed new section is
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.52 Examples of Roundabout Signing''
and it contains a SUPPORT statement referencing new Figures 2B-24
through 2B-26 that illustrate examples of regulatory and warning signs
for roundabouts of various configurations. The proposed new SUPPORT
statement also references other areas in the Manual that contain
information on guide signing and pavement markings at roundabouts. The
remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered accordingly. The
FHWA proposes these new sections in order to add valuable information
regarding regulatory and warning signs at roundabouts to the MUTCD. The
use of roundabouts has increased over the past 10 years, and it is
important that more detailed information on effective signing of
roundabouts be included in the Manual in order to have consistency for
road users throughout the country. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing regulatory signs for
roundabouts in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
85. In existing Section 2B.40 (new Section 2B.54) Design of
Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs, the FHWA proposes several
changes to the colors of the borders of parking signs. The FHWA
proposes to revise the 2nd paragraph of the first STANDARD statement to
reflect that the Parking Prohibition signs R7-201a, R8-4, and R8-7
shall have a black legend and border on a white background, and the R8-
3a sign shall have a black legend and border and a red circle on a
white background. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the
existing designs of these specific signs.
The FHWA also proposes changing the last paragraph of the existing
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that a VAN ACCESSIBLE
plaque be installed below the R7-8 sign where parking spaces that are
reserved for persons with disabilities are designated to accommodate
wheelchair vans. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect Section 502.6
of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement
following the (new) 2nd GUIDANCE statement that specifies the required
colors of the R7-8, R7-8a, and R7-8b signs, to reflect the existing
sign color schemes for these signs as illustrated in existing Figure
2B-16 (new Figure 2B-27).
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE and STANDARD statements
prior to the last OPTION statement regarding the use of proposed new
Pay for Parking and Parking Pay Station signs where a fee is charged
for parking and a midblock pay station is used instead of individual
parking meters. The FHWA proposes to add these signs to reflect current
practice in many areas where cities and towns are replacing individual
parking space meters with a ``pay and display'' system. The FHWA
proposes a design for the fee station sign that is very similar to a
standard European symbol, because the results of the Sign Synthesis
Study \34\ showed that several U.S. cities are using a sign very
similar to the European design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 27, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
86. In existing Section 2B.44 (new Section 2B.58) Pedestrian
Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that No Pedestrian Crossing Signs be supplemented with
detectable guidance, such as grass strips, landscaping, planters,
fencing, rails, or barriers in order to provide pedestrians who have
[[Page 281]]
visual disabilities with additional guidance as to where not to cross.
87. In existing Section 2B.45 (new Section 2B.59) Traffic Signal
Signs, the FHWA proposes to delete the first existing GUIDANCE
statement regarding the placement of Traffic Signal signs because
locations of signs near signal faces are proposed to be specifically
recommended for individual signs where this is appropriate.
To correspond with proposed changes in Chapter 4E requiring that
signs for pedestrian pushbuttons clearly indicate which crosswalk
signal is actuated by each pedestrian detector, the FHWA proposes to
revise the first SUPPORT and OPTION statements in this section and the
sign images in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29). The proposed
revisions eliminate the use of the existing R10-1, R10-3 and R10-4 sign
designs because these do not identify a specific crosswalk, and
therefore do not meet the proposed requirement in Chapter 4E. The FHWA
proposes to redesign those signs and revise the text in this section to
clarify how to use the R10 series of pushbutton signs appropriately.
The FHWA also proposes to add paragraphs to the 2nd OPTION statement
regarding the use of a new R10-25 sign, where a pushbutton detector has
been installed for pedestrians to activate In-Roadway Warning Lights or
flashing beacons, and a new R10-24 sign, where a pushbutton detector
has been installed exclusively for bicyclists, to enable bicyclists to
actuate a separate bike signal phase or a parallel vehicular green
phase at a signalized crossing. Bikes need less time to cross than
pedestrians, so the push buttons actuate timing specifically
appropriate for bikes, which is an operationally efficient strategy.
The FHWA proposes to add both of these new signs to reflect current
practice as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study,\35\ and to provide
consistent and uniform messages for these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add a proposed new FOR MORE CROSSING
TIME--HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 2 SECONDS sign to this section and to
illustrate the sign image in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29).
The FHWA proposes to add this sign to correspond with comparable
proposed provisions in Chapter 4E.
The FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements in
this section regarding the location of LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY, LEFT
TURN YIELD ON GREEN, and LEFT TURN SIGNAL YIELD ON GREEN signs,
independently and with an AT SIGNAL supplemental plaque. The FHWA
proposes these new statements based on recommendations from the Older
Driver handbook.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.H(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the existing 2nd GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA proposes to add
locations where the skew angle of the intersection roadways creates
difficulty for older drivers to see traffic approaching from their
left, to the list of conditions where consideration should be given to
the use of No Turn on Red signs. The FHWA proposes this change based on
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations I.A(3) and
I.I(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add to the (new) 4th OPTION statement
information regarding the use of a blank-out sign instead of a NO TURN
ON RED sign during certain times of the day or during portions of a
signal cycle where a leading pedestrian interval is provided. The FHWA
proposes this new text to correspond to other proposed changes in Part
4 regarding the use of these signs. The FHWA also proposes to add
information to this OPTION statement regarding the use of a post-
mounted NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT FROM RIGHT LANE sign and a NO TURN ON RED
FROM THIS LANE (with down arrow) overhead sign that may be used on
signalized approaches with more than one right-turn lane.
Finally, to correspond with proposed changes in Part 4 that would
add a new Pedestrian Hybrid Signal, the FHWA proposes to add to the
last STANDARD statement a paragraph that describes the use of a
CROSSWALK STOP ON RED sign that is proposed to be required with
pedestrian hybrid signals.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for the
use of proposed new signs and proposed new sign designs at existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
88. In existing Figure 2B-19 (new Figure 2B-30) Traffic Signal
Signs and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to change the design of the
TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15) sign to be a
symbolic sign. The FHWA proposes this change to reduce the number of
words, give a more precise symbolized message, and make the sign more
conspicuous to road users. The proposed sign design has been in
extensive use by the New York City Department of Transportation. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
89. In existing Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60) Photo Enforced
Signs and Figure 2B-1, the FHWA proposes to replace the existing word
message PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) plaque with a new symbol plaque for
Photo Enforced. The FHWA proposes to retain the existing word message
plaque as an alternate. In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the
design of the TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-18) sign to add the
symbolic camera. The FHWA proposes these changes based on preliminary
results of the ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs'' study.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60). This new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2B.61 Ramp Metering Signs'' and contains a GUIDANCE
statement describing the recommended use of proposed new regulatory
signs that should accompany ramp control signals. The FHWA proposes to
add these new signs because ramp metering signals are used in several
States, but there are not standard signs for them in the MUTCD, so
States have developed a variety of signs, as documented by the Sign
Synthesis Study.\39\ In this new Section, the FHWA proposes two new
signs, X VEHICLES PER GREEN and X VEHICLES PER GREEN EACH LANE. The
FHWA proposes these new signs to provide uniformity in ramp meter
signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 28-29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. In existing Section 2B.50 (new Section 2B.65) Weigh Station
Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the text of the R13-1 sign to
``TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION--NEXT RIGHT'' to reflect
that the message is regulatory, rather than guidance. The FHWA proposes
a
[[Page 282]]
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
In addition, in Figure 2B-33, the FHWA proposes to illustrate the
customary regulatory sign color of a black legend on a white
background, rather than the allowable option of the reverse color
pattern, for the TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION--NEXT
RIGHT sign.
92. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2B.53 (new Section 2B.68). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2B.69 Headlight Use Signs'' and contains GUIDANCE,
SUPPORT, and OPTION statements that describe the use of several
proposed new signs that may be used by States that require road users
to turn on their vehicle headlights under certain weather conditions.
The Sign Synthesis Study \40\ found that there is a wide variation in
the legends currently being used by States for this purpose. FHWA
proposes these new signs to provide increased uniformity of the
messages for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. The FHWA proposes changing the number and title of existing
``Section 2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs'' to ``Section 2B.70
Miscellaneous Regulatory Signs.'' As discussed in item 48 above, the
FHWA proposes to relocate the existing OPTION statements from this
section to Section 2B.02. The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION
statement regarding the use of a proposed new FENDER BENDER MOVE
VEHICLES FROM TRAVEL LANES sign that agencies may use to inform road
users of State laws that require them to move their vehicles to the
shoulder if they have been involved in a minor non-injury crash. As an
integral part of active incident management programs in many urban
areas, an increasing number of States and cities are using signs
requiring drivers who have been involved in relatively minor ``fender
bender'' or non-injury crashes to move their vehicles to the shoulder.
A variety of sign messages are in use for this purpose, as documented
by the Sign Synthesis Study.\41\ The FHWA proposes adding this sign
because, with the increasing popularity of these laws and incident
management programs, a standardized sign legend is needed. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C--General
94. The FHWA proposes to remove the following word signs from the
MUTCD, because related symbol signs have been in use for 35 years,
thereby making these word signs obsolete: HILL Sign (W7-1b) in existing
Section 2C.12, DIVIDED HIGHWAY (W6-1a) and DIVIDED ROAD (W6-1b) in
existing Section 2C.18, DIVIDED HIGHWAY ENDS (W6-2a) and DIVIDED ROAD
ENDS (W6-2b) in Section existing 2C.19, STOP AHEAD (W3-1a) and YIELD
AHEAD (W3-2a) and SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3a) in existing Section 2C.29.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C--Specific
95. In Section 2C.03 Design of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to
change the last paragraph of the OPTION to a GUIDANCE statement to
recommend, rather than merely allow, a fluorescent yellow-green
background for warning signs regarding conditions associated with
pedestrians, bicyclists, and playgrounds. Also proposed is a new
STANDARD statement that would require that warning conditions
associated with school buses and schools have a fluorescent yellow-
green background. The FHWA is also proposing to revise similar wording
in other sections in Chapter 2C and in Part 7. In the intervening years
since the fluorescent yellow-green background color was introduced as
an option, most highway agencies have adopted policies to use this
color for school warning signs and many have also decided to use it for
all warnings associated with pedestrians and bicycles. This predominant
usage is due to the enhanced conspicuity provided by fluorescent
yellow-green, particularly during dawn and twilight periods. The FHWA
proposes these changes in Section 2C.03 to provide more uniformity and
consistency in school, pedestrian, and bicycle warning signing. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In place of the existing paragraph in the OPTION statement, the
FHWA proposes to add two new paragraphs that describe allowable changes
in warning sign sizes and designs. The FHWA proposes these changes to
provide agencies with flexibility in designing signs to meet field
conditions, such as allowing modifications to be made to the symbols
shown on intersection warning signs in order to approximate the
geometric configuration of the roadway.
The FHWA also proposes to add a 2nd STANDARD statement that
establishes a minimum size for all diamond-shaped warning signs facing
traffic on multi-lane conventional roads of 900 mm x 900 mm (36 in x 36
in). This proposal is consistent with other proposed changes as
discussed above regarding existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.14)
that base sign size dimensions on letter sizes needed for a visual
acuity of 20/40, which results in larger sign sizes. On multi-lane
roads, increased legibility distances are needed due to the potential
blockage of signs by other vehicles.
96. The FHWA proposes to revise Table 2C-2 Warning Sign and Plaque
Sizes to incorporate additional sign series and to specify that for
several diamond-shaped signs, the minimum size required for signs
facing traffic on multi-lane conventional roads is 900 mm x 900 mm (36
in. x 36 in). The FHWA proposes these changes to provide signs on
multi-lane approaches that are more visible to drivers with visual
acuity of 20/40 and to be consistent with and incorporate other
proposed changes in Chapter 2C. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
97. In Section 2C.05 Placement of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes
to revise the SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements to refer to the use of
Perception-Response Time (PRT), rather than Perception, Identification,
Emotion, and Volition (PIEV) Time, in determining the placement of
warning signs. The older terminology of PIEV Time has been replaced
with the current term Perception-Response Time, which has come into
common use and is the terminology used in the current American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Policies. The Traffic Control Devices Handbook \42\ addresses both
terms but
[[Page 283]]
correctly identifies PRT as the terminology now in common use.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to update the MUTCD using the common
terminology PRT. In addition to proposed changes in Section 2C.05, the
FHWA proposes to change the notes for Table 2C-4 by replacing ``PIEV
time'' with ``PRT,'' as well as other changes in the notes and values
in Table 2C-4 in order to provide adequate legibility of warning signs
for 20/40 visual acuity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for revised placement of existing signs in good condition
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2001, is available
for purchase from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.ite.org. PIEV and PRT are
discussed on pages 34-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
98. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section
2C.05. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.06
Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs'' and contains SUPPORT, STANDARD,
and OPTION statements regarding the use of the proposed new Table 2C-5
Horizontal Alignment Sign Selection, in which the FHWA proposes a
hierarchal approach to use of these signs and plaques and proposes to
define required, recommended, and optional warning signs. The FHWA
proposes a standard to make the requirements applicable to freeways,
expressways, and functionally classified arterials and collectors over
1,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) and an option statement
allowing their use on other roadways. These road classifications
represent higher volume roadways, a larger percentage of unfamiliar
drivers, and have the potential to yield the largest safety benefits in
reducing crashes due to road users' lack of awareness of a change in
horizontal alignment, as documented in a recent National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7, ``A Guide for Reducing
Collisions on Horizontal Curves,'' can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. In concert with the changes in the previous item, the FHWA
proposes several changes to existing Section 2C.06 (new Section 2C.07)
Horizontal Alignment Signs to incorporate the proposed material in new
Table 2C-5 and to provide agencies with additional information on the
appropriate use of horizontal alignment signs. The FHWA also proposes
to add a new Figure 2C-2 to illustrate an example of the use of warning
signs for a turn, and to modify existing Figure 2C-7 (new Figure 2C-3)
to illustrate horizontal alignment signs for a sharp curve on an exit
ramp.
100. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.46 Advisory
Speed Plaque so that it appears earlier in the Chapter as Section 2C.08
because of its predominant application with horizontal alignment
warning signs. In addition, the FHWA proposes several revisions to the
section to incorporate the proposed new Table 2C-5, and to require that
Advisory Speed plaques be used where it is determined to be necessary
on the basis of an engineering study that follows established traffic
engineering practices.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at
the end of the section describing the use of Advisory Speed plaques at
toll plazas. The FHWA proposes this additional information to
incorporate toll plaza signing into the MUTCD.
101. In existing Section 2C.10 (new Section 2C.09) Chevron
Alignment Sign, the FHWA proposes to change the first sentence of the
first OPTION statement to a STANDARD to require the use of the Chevron
Alignment sign in accordance with the hierarchy of use as listed in
proposed new Table 2C-5, as discussed earlier regarding new Section
2C.06. The FHWA also proposes to add information to the 2nd STANDARD
statement regarding the minimum installation height of these signs. The
proposed minimum mounting height of 4 feet would be an exception to the
normal minimum mounting height for signs, based on established
practices. The FHWA also proposes to add a reference in the GUIDANCE
statement to proposed new Table 2C-6 Approximate Spacing for Chevron
Alignment Signs on Horizontal Curves. The proposed spacing criteria are
based on research.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ FHWA/TX-04/0-4052-1, ``Simplifying Delineator and Chevron
Applications for Horizontal Curves,'' dated March 2004, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4052-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add a new STANDARD statement at the end
of the section clarifying conditions in which the Chevron Alignment
sign should not be used. The FHWA proposes this new text to preclude
possible misinterpretations of the appropriate use of this sign.
102. In existing Section 2C.07 (new Section 2C.10) Combination
Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed Signs, the FHWA proposes to amplify
the existing STANDARD statement in order to clarify how these signs are
to be used.
103. In existing Section 2C.09 (new Section 2C.12) One-Direction
Large Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement a
prohibition on the use of a One-Direction Large Arrow sign in the
central island of a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change in
conjunction with other proposed changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to
provide consistency in signing at roundabouts.
104. In existing Section 2C.11 (new Section 2C.13) Truck Rollover
Warning Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the
beginning of the section to require the use of the Truck Rollover
Warning sign on freeway and expressway ramps in accordance with the
proposed new Table 2C-5.
The FHWA also proposes to change the existing first OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend the use of the Truck
Rollover Warning sign for appropriate conditions.
105. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.36 so that
it appears earlier in the Chapter as new Section 2C.14 to consolidate
all sections relating to horizontal alignment in one area of the
chapter for ease of reference and consistency. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to revise the title of the section to ``Advisory Exit and Ramp
Speed Signs,'' as well as the text to remove the optional Curve Speed
sign. The Curve Speed sign has had only limited usage and, with the
proposed hierarchal approach to warning signs usage for horizontal
curves, this sign is no longer needed. The FHWA believes it is
desirable to broaden the consistent usage of a few signs providing
better driver communications rather than adding potential driver
confusion with a mixed application of several signing options.
The FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD to require that the use of
the Advisory Exit Speed and Advisory Ramp Speed signs on freeway and
expressway ramps be in accordance with the proposed new Table 2C-5.
In addition, the FHWA proposes several other clarifications
throughout the section to aid readers on the placement of advisory
speed signs and plaques.
For all of the proposed changes in applications of warning signs
and plaques for horizontal curves in new Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14
and in the new Table 2C-5, the FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing horizontal alignment signs in good
condition, to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
106. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.15 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp
Speed Signs.'' The FHWA proposes this new sign for optional use where
ramp or exit curvature is not apparent to drivers in the deceleration
or exit lane
[[Page 284]]
or where the curvature needs to be specifically identified as being on
the ramp rather than on the mainline. The FHWA proposes the design and
the use of this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study,\45\ which found
that at least four States have developed signs for this purpose, but
with varying designs. The FHWA proposes a uniform design for this type
of sign, to provide consistency for road users. The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 43, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
107. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.13 Truck
Escape Ramp Signs to Chapter 2F, to reflect the proposed new
classification and design of these signs as general service signs.
These signs provide guidance and information messages similar in
function to the signs used for weigh stations, chain-up areas, and
similar highway features, so it is appropriate for these signs for
truck escape ramps to be designed as general service signs.
108. In existing Section 2C.18 (new Section 2C.21) Divided Highway
Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD that the Divided Highway (W6-
1) sign shall not be used instead of a Keep Right (R4-7 series) sign on
the nose of a median island. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect
accepted signing practices and prevent misuse of the W6-1 sign.
109. In existing Section 2C.19 (new Section 2C.22) Divided Highway
Ends Sign (W6-2), the FHWA proposes to revise the existing OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE statement, recommending that the Two-Way
Traffic (W6-3) sign should also be used. The FHWA proposes this change
in order to be consistent with the existing GUIDANCE in existing
Section 2C.34 (new Section 2C.45) that the W6-3 sign should be used for
this condition.
110. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2C.19 (new Section 2C.22). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2C.23 Freeway or Expressway Ends Signs'' and contains
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of these proposed new
signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs because there are many
locations where a freeway or expressway ends by changing to an
uncontrolled access highway, and it is important to warn drivers of the
end of the freeway or expressway conditions. In other cases, the need
for this type of warning may be generated by other conditions not
readily apparent to the road user, such as the need for all traffic to
exit the freeway or expressway on exit ramps. The Sign Synthesis Study
\46\ found that at least 21 States have developed their own standard
warning signs for this purpose but with varying legends and designs.
The FHWA proposes uniform designs for these signs, to provide
consistency for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 43-44, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section
2C.26 (new Section 2C.30) to ``Shoulder and Uneven Lanes Signs'' to
incorporate a proposed new symbolic Shoulder Drop Off sign and two
plaques to warn road users of either a low shoulder or uneven lanes.
The FHWA proposes this new sign as a result of the Sign Synthesis
Study,\47\ which found that symbol signs and/or different word messages
are being used in at least 13 States to convey these or similar
messages, with a wide variety of legends and symbol designs. The States
are not consistent in how these symbol signs are used, with some being
used for uneven lanes and some for low shoulder or shoulder drop-off
conditions. The Canadian MUTCD prescribes a single standard symbol
warning sign (TC-49) for use to warn of either a low shoulder or uneven
lanes. The FHWA proposes to adopt the standard Canadian sign to provide
a single uniform symbol for these conditions, which are similar in
terms of issues for vehicular control, with supplemental educational
word message plaques as needed. Adoption of the Canadian symbol will
also aid in promoting North American harmony of traffic signing. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 37, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add a NO SHOULDER sign to the option
statement in this section to allow agencies to use a sign of uniform
legend, which would warn road users that shoulders do not exist along
the roadway. The FHWA proposes this new sign and its design based on
the ``Sign Synthesis Study,'' \48\ which found inconsistencies in the
legends of signs currently in use by the States for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 37, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
112. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section
2C.27 (new Section 2C.31) to ``Surface Condition Signs'' in order to
incorporate several additional signs and supplemental plaques into this
section. The FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use of
supplemental plaques with legends such as ICE, WHEN WET, STEEL DECK and
EXCESS OIL with the W8-5 sign to indicate the reason that the slippery
conditions might be present.
The FHWA also proposes to add information regarding the existing
LOOSE GRAVEL and ROUGH ROAD word signs. These signs and plaques have
been illustrated in new Figure 2C-6 and the Standard Highway Signs book
but have not previously been discussed in the MUTCD text.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to incorporate the information in
existing Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD sign into this section
in order to maintain cohesiveness of information.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a new symbolic Falling Rocks sign
and an educational plaque to this section to reflect common practice in
many States to warn road users of the frequent possibility of rocks
falling (or already fallen) onto the roadway. The Sign Synthesis Study
\49\ found a lack of consistency in the sign legends or symbols
currently in use by the States for this purpose. To provide consistency
in sign design, the FHWA proposes to add a symbol sign (along with an
educational plaque for use if needed) that may be used to warn road
users of falling or fallen rocks, slides, or other similar situations.
Although the most common sign currently used in the U.S. is a word
sign, Canadian, Mexican, European, and international standards use
symbols, all of which are very similar, for this message. The FHWA
proposes to adopt the standard Mexican MUTCD symbol, because its design
appears to offer the best simplicity and legibility. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 37-38, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
113. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2C.27 (new Section 2C.31). The new
[[Page 285]]
section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.32 Warning Signs and
Plaques for Motorcyclists'' and contains SUPPORT and OPTION statements
regarding the use of two new warning signs and an associated symbolic
plaque that may be specifically placed to warn motorcyclists of road
surface conditions that would primarily affect them, such as grooved or
brick pavement and metal bridge decks. The proposed new signs are based
on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,\50\ which found a variety
of different messages in use by the States for these purposes.
Subsequently, a study \51\ evaluated several different motorcycle
symbols and arrangements of such symbols both within the primary
warning sign and as a supplemental plaque. The study found that the
best legibility distance is provided by depicting a motorcycle on a
supplementary plaque and that one particular style of motorcycle
provides the best comprehension of the intended message. As a result,
the FHWA proposes to adopt word message signs with standardized legends
of GROOVED PAVEMENT and METAL BRIDGE DECK and a new supplementary
plaque featuring a side view of a motorcycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 39-40, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
\51\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site:http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
114. As discussed above, the FHWA proposes to incorporate all of
the information contained in existing Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE
ROAD Sign into new Section 2C.31. The FHWA proposes to title existing
Section 2C.28 (new Section 2C.33) ``NO CENTER STRIPE Sign,'' and
include an OPTION statement regarding the use of the NO CENTER STRIPE
Sign. The FHWA proposes this new language based on a review of the 2003
MUTCD and 2004 SHS that revealed that the MUTCD did not contain
language about this existing sign, which has been illustrated in Figure
2C-4.
115. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.34 Weather Condition Signs'' that contains OPTION and
STANDARD statements regarding the use of three proposed new signs to
warn users of potential adverse weather conditions. The proposed WATCH
FOR FOG, GUSTY WINDS AREA, ROAD MAY FLOOD, and Depth Gauge signs are
all based on results of the Sign Synthesis Study \52\ that showed that
signs for these purposes were in very common use in many parts of the
country, but with widely varying legends. The FHWA proposes to add
uniform designs for these signs to provide road users with consistent
messages. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State
and local agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 38-39, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
116. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.36 Advance Ramp Control Signal Signs'' that contains
OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding the use of two
proposed new signs. The FHWA proposes new RAMP METER AHEAD and RAMP
METERED WHEN FLASHING signs to provide uniformity of signing at ramp
metering locations, especially because the practice of ramp metering
continues to grow. The common existing use of these signs is documented
in the Sign Synthesis Study \53\ and is recommended in the FHWA's Ramp
Management and Control Handbook.\54\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 34, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
\54\ ``Ramp Management and Control Handbook,'' FHWA, January
2006, page 5-29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/manual/pdf/rm_handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
117. In existing Section 2C.30 (new Section 2C.37), the FHWA
proposes to change the title of the section to ``Reduced Speed Limit
Ahead Signs'' to reflect the proposed change of the sign name to be
consistent with the Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, and Signal Ahead warning
sign names.
The FHWA proposes revising the GUIDANCE statement to recommend that
a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where the speed limit is being
reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10 mph, or where engineering judgment
indicates the need for advance notice. The FHWA believes that
reductions in speed limit of more than 10 mph are unexpected by road
users and may require special actions to reduce speed before reaching
the start of the lower speed zone, and thus justify the use of a
warning sign. The FHWA proposes this change in order to provide
consistency for determining where speed reduction signs should be
placed. This change corresponds to proposed changes in Section 2B.13.
118. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 2C.30 (new Section 2C.37). The new section is numbered and
titled ``Section 2C.38 DRAWBRDIGE AHEAD Sign (W3-6)'' and contains a
STANDARD statement and a figure regarding the use of this sign. The
FHWA proposes this new Section because existing Section 4I.02 (new
Section 4J.02) Design and Location of Moveable Bridge Signals and Gates
requires the use of the DRAWBRIDGE AHEAD sign in advance of all
drawbridges. Because the W3 series is used for advance warning signs
and this sign is required in advance of the condition, it is
appropriate to include the text and a figure in Chapter 2C. The
remaining sections in Chapter 2C would be renumbered accordingly.
119. In existing Section 2C.31 (new Section 2C.39) Merge Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of the section to
incorporate a proposed new NO MERGE AREA supplemental plaque that may
be mounted below an Entering Roadway Merge sign, a Yield Ahead sign, or
a YIELD sign to warn road users on an entering roadway or channelized
right-turn movement that they will encounter an abrupt merging
situation at the end of the ramp or turning roadway. When there are
only a few entrance ramps or channelized right turns in an area that do
not have acceleration lanes, those few locations do not meet driver
expectations. The FHWA proposes this plaque based on the results of the
Sign Synthesis Study \55\ that indicated some States routinely use this
plaque to provide road users with important warning information for
these conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 34, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
120. In existing Section 2C.33 (new Section 2C.41) Lane Ends Signs,
the FHWA proposes to add the W4-7 THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT (LEFT) sign
to the OPTION statement to allow the use of this sign, as a supplement
to other signs, to warn road users in the right-hand (left-hand) lane
that their lane is about to become a mandatory turn or exit lane. The
FHWA proposes this
[[Page 286]]
change to be consistent with the current use of that sign in Part 6.
121. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2C.33 (new Section 2C.41). This new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2C.42 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD Sign.'' This
proposed new section contains OPTION, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT
statements regarding the use of this proposed new sign to provide
advance warning of a freeway lane drop. The FHWA proposes to add this
sign based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \56\ that showed
several States use a similar warning sign for these conditions,
particularly when overhead guide signs are not present on which to use
EXIT ONLY plaques. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 35, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
122. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.43 Toll Road Begins Signs'' and ``Section 2C.44 Stop Ahead
Pay Toll Sign.'' Both sections include GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD
statements regarding the use of these proposed new signs on toll
facilities to provide for consistency and uniformity of signing for
these messages and to implement the signing portions of FHWA's ``Toll
Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy.'' \57\ The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies. The remaining sections would
be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ ``Policy on Traffic Control Strategies for Toll Plazas,''
dated October 12, 2006 can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2C.34 (new Section 2C.45). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2C.46 Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane Roadway Sign''
and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of this
proposed new sign for warning of two-way traffic on roads having three
through lanes, with one lane in one direction and two lanes in the
other direction. The proposed sign is a variant of the existing W6-1
two-way traffic warning sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign for
optional use based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \58\ that
indicated that several States use this type of sign to warn drivers of
this condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 36, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
124. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2C.36 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs, to Section
2C.14 in order to place all horizontal alignment warning signs in the
same area of the manual.
125. In existing Section 2C.37 (new Section 2C.48) Intersection
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the existing OPTION
statement to indicate that an educational plaque with a legend such as
TRAFFIC CIRCLE or ROUNDABOUT may be mounted below a Circular
Intersection symbol sign. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the
GUIDANCE statement, the recommendation that Circular Intersection
symbol warning signs should be installed on the approach to a YIELD
sign controlled roundabout. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide
consistency for roundabout signing throughout the MUTCD.
The FHWA also proposes to add new Offset Side Roads and Double Side
Roads symbols for use on Intersection Warning Signs to the GUIDANCE
statement. The FHWA proposes these new symbols based on the results of
the Sign Synthesis Study \59\ that showed that variants of the W2-2
sign depicting offset side roads or two closely spaced side roads are
used in many States, but the relative distance between the two side
roads and the relative stroke widths of the roadways varies
significantly. As a result, the FHWA proposes uniform designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
126. In existing Section 2C.38 (new Section 2C.49) Two-Direction
Large Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement
that the Two-Direction Large Arrow sign shall not be used in the
central island of a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change in
conjunction with other proposed changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to
provide consistency in signing at roundabouts.
127. In existing Section 2C.39 (new Section 2C.50) Traffic Signal
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that the
provision of flashing yellow arrow signal faces and flashing red arrow
signal faces are additional exceptions to the requirement for use of
W25-1 or W25-2 signs, consistent with similar proposed changes in
Chapter 4D. The FHWA also proposes a clarification to the STANDARD
statement that W25-1 and W25-2 signs are to be vertical rectangles, for
consistency with existing Table 2C-2 Warning Sign Sizes, which
indicates that the W25 series signs are rectangular in shape.
128. In existing Section 2C.40 (new Section 2C.51) Vehicular
Traffic Signs and existing Section 2C.41 (new Section 2C.52)
Nonvehicular Signs, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION statements
regarding the use of Warning Beacons and supplemental WHEN FLASHING
plaques to indicate specific periods when the condition or activity is
present or is likely to be present. The FHWA proposes these changes to
clarify this allowable use, for consistency with existing provisions in
Part 4 regarding warning beacons.
129. The FHWA also proposes to add to the first OPTION statement in
existing Section 2C.40 (new Section 2C.51) information regarding the
use of the Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian sign and the TRAIL XING
supplemental plaque. With the increasing mileage of shared-use paths in
the U.S., the number of places where shared-use paths, used by both
bicyclists and pedestrians, cross a road or highway is also increasing.
To provide advance warning of these crossings and to indicate the
location of the crossing itself, it is currently necessary to use both
the W11-1 (bicycle) and W11-2 (pedestrian) crossing warning signs,
mounted together on the same post, or sequentially along the road. The
Sign Synthesis Study \60\ revealed that several States have developed
combination signs to simplify and improve the signing for shared-use
path crossings, using either a single sign with combined bicycle and
pedestrian symbols or a word message sign with a variety of different
legends. The FHWA proposes to add this sign for use to serve this
increasing need and to provide a uniform design for consistency. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 42, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
130. In existing Section 2C.41 (new Section 2C.52) Nonvehicular
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement that requires
school signs and their related supplemental plaques to have a
fluorescent yellow-green background with a black legend and border to
be
[[Page 287]]
consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2A and in Part 7. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to change the 2nd paragraph of the 3rd
OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit,
the use of fluorescent yellow-green for pedestrian, bicycle, and
playground nonvehicular warning signs and their supplemental plaques.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. These proposed changes are also reflected in existing
Section 2C.42 (new Section 2C.53) Playground Sign and in Chapter 2A and
Part 7.
131. In Figure 2C-12 Nonvehicular Traffic Signs, the FHWA proposes
to add images of new symbolic warning signs for moose, elk/antelope/
caribou, wild horses (horse without a rider), burro/donkey, sheep,
bighorn sheep, and bears. The MUTCD includes only three signs to warn
of the possible crossings of large animals--deer crossing (W11-3),
cattle crossing (W11-4), and equestrian crossing (horse with rider,
W11-7). The prevalence of other types of large animals that may cross
roads (and which may cause significant damage or injury if struck by a
vehicle) has caused at least 16 States to develop signs (usually
symbolic) for warning of one or more different animal crossings, as
documented in the Sign Synthesis Study.\61\ The FHWA proposes adding
the new signs because these animals all look significantly different
from the three existing animal symbols and the existing standard MUTCD
signs would not provide an accurate meaning and adequate warning. Also,
because there is a lack of consistency in the signs currently being
used for this purpose by the States, the FHWA proposes uniform symbol
designs for consistency. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 41-42, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
132. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2C.42 (new Section 2C.53). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2C.54 NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD Sign'' and contains
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of this sign to
provide advance warning of a change in traffic patterns, such as
revised lane usage, roadway geometry, or signal phasing. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect existing practices in many States and
numerous local jurisdictions as documented in the Sign Synthesis Study
\62\ and to provide a uniform legend for this purpose, consistent with
similar proposed changes in Part 6. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The remaining
sections would be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
133. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after proposed new
Section 2C.54. This new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.55
Warning Signs on Median Barriers for Preferential Lanes'' and contains
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of warning
signs applicable only to preferential lanes on median barriers. The
FHWA proposes this new section for consistency with similar existing
provisions for preferential lane regulatory signs in Chapter 2B and to
reflect existing practices by agencies operating preferential lane
facilities. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
134. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2C.46 Advisory Speed Plaque, to Section 2C.08 in order to place
all horizontal alignment warning signs in the same area of the manual.
135. In existing Section 2C.47 (new Section 2C.59) Supplemental
Arrow Plaques, the FHWA proposes to delete the references to the W16-7
downward diagonal arrow plaque, because the W16-7 plaque is not used
for the application described in this section. The diagonal downward
arrow plaque is only used with Nonvehicular Crossing warning signs and
has a different design than the W16-5p and W16-6p plaques, which are
the subject of this Section.
136. In existing Section 2C.49 (new Section 2C.61) Advance Street
Name Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement, and an
accompanying figure, that recommends the order in which street names
should be displayed on an Advance Street Name plaque. The FHWA proposes
this change to provide consistency for road users.
137. In existing Section 2C.50 (new Section 2C.62) Cross Traffic
Does Not Stop, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that plaques with appropriate alternative messages, such as
TRAFFIC FROM LEFT DOES NOT STOP, be used at intersections where STOP
signs control all but one approach to the intersection. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Chapter
2B.
138. In existing Section 2C.51 (new Section 2C.63) SHARE THE ROAD
Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD that requires that the
SHARE THE ROAD plaque be used only as a supplement to a Vehicular
Traffic or Nonvehicular sign. The FHWA proposes this change to provide
road users with more clarity on the type of vehicle or nonvehicle that
may be present, and because plaques are not intended for independent
use.
139. In existing Section 2C.53 (new Section 2C.65) Photo Enforced
Plaque, the FHWA proposes replacing the existing ``PHOTO ENFORCED''
word message plaque with a new symbol plaque designated as W16-10P. The
existing word message plaque would be retained as an alternate to the
new symbol plaque and its sign number reassigned as W16-10aP. The
proposed new symbol plaque is illustrated in Figure 2C-14. The FHWA
proposes this change based on preliminary results of the ``Evaluation
of Symbol Signs'' study.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
140. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2C.53 (new Section 2C.65). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2C.66 METRIC Plaque'' at the end of the section. This
proposed new section contains a GUIDANCE statement that recommends the
use of the METRIC plaque above a Weight Limits sign that shows the load
limits in metric units. This plaque is currently illustrated in
existing Figure 2B-8 and has a regulatory sign code, even though it has
a black legend on a yellow background and is intended to warn road
users that the values on the regulatory sign are in metrics.
Accordingly, the FHWA proposes redesignating this plaque as a warning
plaque and adding text regarding its use to Chapter 2C.
141. Following proposed Section 2C.66, the FHWA also proposes to
add a new Section numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.67 NEW Plaque''
that describes the use of this optional plaque that may be mounted
above a regulatory
[[Page 288]]
sign when a new traffic regulation takes effect or above an advance
warning sign for a new traffic regulation. The FHWA proposes that the
use of this plaque be limited to 6 months after the traffic regulation
has been in effect. The FHWA proposes this new plaque based on the Sign
Synthesis Study,\64\ which showed that some States and Canadian
provinces are using similar plaques and signs for this purpose, and to
provide a uniform plaque design for consistency. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
142. The FHWA also proposes two additional sections at the end of
the Chapter numbered and titled, ``Section 2C.68 LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL
Plaque'' and ``Section 2C.69 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Plaque'' that describe
the use of these proposed new plaques. The FHWA proposes the use of
these plaques to provide for consistency and uniformity of signing for
these messages and to implement the signing portions of FHWA's ``Toll
Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy.'' \65\ The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ ``Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,'' dated
September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2D--General
143. In existing Section 2D.28 (new Section 2D.31) Junction
Assembly, existing Section 2D.29 (new Section 2D.32) Advance Route Turn
Assembly, and existing Section 2D.35 (new Section 2D.42) Location of
Destination Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the requirements and
recommendations for the locations of these signs. In new Section 2D.31,
the FHWA proposes revising the required distances to recommended
distances, and in new Sections 2D.32 and 2D.42, the FHWA proposes
adding new recommendations regarding the distances between signs. The
FHWA proposes these changes in order to provide more flexibility for
the placement of these various signs, particularly as it relates to
rural areas, and to indicate that the dimensions shown on Figure 2D-7
are recommendations.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2D--Specific
144. In Section 2D.07 Amount of Legend, the FHWA proposes to revise
the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that guide signs should be limited to
no more than three lines of destinations, and that action information
should be provided on guide signs in addition to the destinations,
where appropriate. The FHWA proposes this change to reduce confusion
regarding the number of lines on a guide sign and to address the
results of recent NCHRP research on driver information overload.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ NCHRP Report 488, ``Additional Investigations on Driver
Information Overload'' 2006, page 65, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_488c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the OPTION statement and
add a STANDARD statement regarding the use of pictographs on guide
signs. The FHWA proposes these changes in order to incorporate
information regarding pictographs in the MUTCD, to reflect FHWA's
Official Interpretation numbers 2-540(I) \67\ and 2-565(I) \68\ and to
restrict the maximum size of such pictographs so that they do not
detract from the primary legend of the signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ This official interpretation can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_540.htm.
\68\ This official interpretation can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_565.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
145. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, the FHWA proposes to make several
revisions to this section to clarify the use and design of arrows on
guide signs. In the first STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to
require that down arrows on overhead signs shall always be vertical and
positioned directly over the approximate center of the applicable lane.
However, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement that permits
diagonal arrows pointing diagonally downward on overhead guide signs
only if each arrow is located directly over the center of the lane and
only for the purpose of emphasizing a separation of diverging roadways.
Some States have installed overhead guide signs with downward slanting
arrows that are not centered over the appropriate lanes, but pointing
toward the center of a lane, only for the purpose of reducing sign
size. The FHWA believes that overhead signs with arrows designed and
oriented in this fashion are confusing to drivers because they imply
movement out of a lane. The FHWA proposes these changes to prohibit the
use of diagonally slanted down arrows on overhead guide signs to
indicate a specific lane where roadways do not diverge, in order to
reduce this confusion and assure consistent sign design practices. In
concert with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of more than one down
and/or diagonal arrow pointing to the same lane, for the same reasons.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement to permit the use
of curved-stem arrows that represent the intended driver paths to
destinations involving left-turn movements on guide signs on approaches
to roundabouts. The FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the following
GUIDANCE statement that references readers to the appropriate sections
that describe the principles for such arrows.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise Figure 2D-2 and the text of
Section 2D.08 to describe and illustrate the various types of arrows
used on guide signs, to clarify appropriate arrow use.
146. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, the FHWA proposes to
change the second sentence of the second OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE
statement to recommend, rather than just allow, the use of a white
square or rectangle behind the Off-Interstate Business Route sign when
it is used on a green guide sign. The FHWA proposes this change to
enhance the conspicuity of the Off-Interstate Business Route sign in
this usage, since the green route sign alone blends into the green
guide sign background.
147. In Section 2D.12 Design of Route Sign Auxiliaries, the FHWA
proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement clarifying that if a route sign
and its auxiliary signs are combined in a single sign, the background
color of the sign should be green, and a STANDARD that auxiliary signs
shall not be mounted directly to a guide sign. If placed on a green
guide sign background, the legends of the auxiliary messages shall be
white legend placed directly on the green background. The FHWA proposes
these changes to provide consistency for background colors, because
background colors currently in use for this application are not
consistent across the country and green is the appropriate background
color for a directional guide sign, and to preclude mis-application of
auxiliary signs on green guide signs.
148. In Section 2D.14 Combination Junction Sign, the FHWA proposes
to delete the 2nd paragraph of the OPTION statement that permitted the
use of other
[[Page 289]]
designs to accommodate State and county route signs. The FHWA proposes
this change, because it was not the intent to allow agencies to use
their own unique designs that do not match the design of the M2-2 sign.
149. The FHWA proposes to add a section following Section 2D.22.
The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2D.23 BEGIN Auxiliary
Sign'' and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of
this proposed new sign where a numbered route begins. The FHWA proposes
this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study \69\ that revealed that
several States use an auxiliary BEGIN sign above the confirming route
marker at the start of a route to provide additional helpful
information to road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 52, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
150. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections following existing
Section 2D.23 (new Section 2D.24). The two new sections are numbered
and titled, ``Section 2D.25 TOLL Auxiliary Sign'' and ``Section 2D.26
Electronic Toll Collection Only Auxiliary Signs.'' The Signs Synthesis
Study \70\ found that some States are using the TOLL auxiliary sign to
provide road users useful information that a numbered route is a toll
facility. The proposed Electronic Toll Collection Only auxiliary sign
would complement and be consistent with signs proposed in Chapters 2B
and 2E to inform road users that a highway is restricted to use only by
ETC-equipped vehicles. The FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2D-5
to illustrate these signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs to provide
consistency and uniformity in signing applications for toll facilities.
The remaining sections and figures would be renumbered accordingly. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 52, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
151. In existing Section 2D.26 (new Section 2D.29) Directional
Arrow Auxiliary Signs, the FHWA proposes to add that a Directional
Arrow auxiliary sign that displays a double-headed arrow shall not be
mounted in advance of or at a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change
to eliminate any possible confusion that would be created by the use of
this sign in the proximity of a roundabout, where direct left turns are
not allowed.
152. In existing Section 2D.27 (new Section 2D.30) Route Sign
Assemblies, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION
statement allowing diagrammatic route sign formats to be used on
approaches to roundabouts. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate
signing for roundabouts in the MUTCD.
153. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2D.29 (new Section 2D.32). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2D.33 Lane Designation Auxiliary Signs'' and contains
an OPTION statement regarding the use of these optional signs that may
be used as a method to tell road users which lane to get into to travel
a particular numbered route and direction. The FHWA also proposes to
add an additional illustration in existing Figure 2D-6 to illustrate
the use of these auxiliary signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs
based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,\71\ which found that
at least seven States use M6 auxiliary signs stating ``Left Lane,''
``Center Lane,'' or ``Right Lane'' below route signs in route sign
assemblies. This can be an economical alternative to one or more larger
green guide signs in certain situations. The remaining sections would
be renumbered accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 53, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
154. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2D.30 (new Section 2D.34). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2D.35 Combination Lane Use/Destination Overhead Guide
Sign'' and contains OPTION and GUIDANCE statements, as well as a
figure, describing the use of these optional signs. The FHWA proposes
this new section, and the associated signs, based on the Sign Synthesis
Study.\72\ At complex intersections involving multiple turn lanes,
multiple destinations, service roads, and/or various constraints often
found in urban areas that can limit the ability to use of a series of
advance signs, many States have found it necessary to combine
regulatory lane use information with destination information onto a
single guide sign or sign assembly, especially to aid unfamiliar
drivers in determining which lane or lanes to use for a particular
destination. However, there is no consistency or uniformity in the
colors used, the sign design layouts, or other aspects of these signs.
The FHWA proposes a uniform design for this type of sign, to provide
consistency for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 45-46, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
155. In existing Section 2D.32 (new Section 2D.37) Trailblazer
Assembly, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that if shields or other similar signs are used to provide route
guidance in following a trail, they should be designed in accordance
with the sizes and other design principles for route signs, such as
those described in Sections 2D.10 through 2D.12. The FHWA proposes this
change to address situations where route signs used for named trails do
not have route numbers.
156. The FHWA proposes adding a new section that is numbered and
titled ``Section 2D.40 Destination Signs at Roundabouts'' and contains
a STANDARD, OPTION and SUPPORT statements, as well as figures,
regarding the use of Destination Signs at Roundabouts. In particular,
the proposed Section includes information regarding Exit destination
signs, and associated arrows and diagrammatic signs for roundabouts.
The remaining sections and figures in Chapter 2D would be renumbered
accordingly.
157. The FHWA also proposes to add a new section numbered and
titled, ``Section 2D.41 Destination Signs at Jughandles.'' The FHWA
proposes this new section because guide signing in advance of a
jughandle, in addition to regulatory signing, which was discussed in
Chapter 2B, is critical to advise potential left-turn or U-turn drivers
of the need to move to the right and prepare to execute a right turn
either before or beyond the intersection in order to reach their
destination. The FHWA proposes optional use of diagrammatic-style
destination signs for use at jughandles where standard directional
guide signs are insufficient. A reference to a proposed new figure in
Chapter 2B illustrating both regulatory and guide signs for jughandles
would also be added. The remaining sections in Chapter 2D would be
renumbered accordingly.
158. In existing Section 2D.38 (new Section 2D.45) Street Name
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new OPTION statement to allow the use
of a route
[[Page 290]]
shield on Street Name signs to assist road users who may not otherwise
be able to associate the name of the street with the route number. The
FHWA proposes to allow the use of these signs based on the results of
the Sign Synthesis Study,\73\ which showed that several agencies
incorporate route shields into Street Name signs on streets that are
part of a U.S., State, or county numbered route. Typically route sign
assemblies are only provided on intersecting roads that are also
numbered routes, and on some very major unnumbered streets within
cities. Including a route shield within the Street Name sign provides
additional information for traffic on the lesser streets that intersect
the numbered route. This is helpful to unfamiliar road users who may be
attempting to find their way back to a numbered route and who do not
recognize the street name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 47, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
159. The FHWA proposes to add a new table numbered and titled,
``Table 2D-2 Recommended Minimum Letter Heights on Street Name Signs''
that contains information regarding the letter sizes to be used on
Street Name signs based on the mounting type, road classification, and
speed limit. FHWA proposes to add information in existing Section 2D.38
(new Section 2D.45) related to this new table.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the GUIDANCE to recommend that a
pictograph used on a Street Name sign to identify a governmental
jurisdiction or other government-approved institution should be
positioned to the right, rather than the left, of the street name. The
FHWA proposes this change because the name of the street is the primary
message on the sign and the pictograph is secondary, and the primary
message should be read first by being on the left. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 15 years for the placement of the
pictograph to the right of the street name sign for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add new OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
statements regarding the use of alternative background colors for
Street Name Signs where a highway agency determines that this is
necessary to assist road users in determining jurisdictional authority
for roads. The FHWA proposes that the only acceptable alternatives to
green for the background color of Street Name signs shall be blue,
brown, or black. The FHWA proposes these new statements because the
MUTCD has not previously limited the alternate colors, and as a result,
there is wide variation in practice among jurisdictions. Sometimes
inappropriate colors are being used, because these are colors reserved
for other traffic control device messages, or the colors used have poor
contrast ratio between legend and background. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing street name signs
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies. The FHWA also proposes to add to the OPTION to specifically
allow the border to be omitted on Street Name signs. The current text
of this section implies, but does not specifically state, that the
border may be omitted.
160. In existing Section 2D.39 (new Section 2D.46) Advance Street
Name Signs, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE statement and a reference
to Figure 2C-14 that recommends the order in which street names should
be displayed on an Advance Street Name plaque, in order to provide for
improved consistency in this type of signing.
161. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2E.49 to Chapter 2D to become a new section numbered and
titled, ``Section 2D.47 Signing on Conventional Roads on Approaches to
Interchanges.'' The FHWA proposes this change because the information
in this section, and the associated figures, are about guide signing on
conventional road approaches to a freeway, rather than signing on a
freeway.
In this relocated section, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD
statement to require, rather than merely recommend, that on multi-lane
conventional road approaches to any freeway interchange, guide signs
shall be provided to identify which direction of turn is to be made for
ramp access and/or which specific lane to use to enter each direction
of the freeway. This information is critical for drivers on a multi-
lane approach to an interchange because it allows drivers to choose the
proper lane in advance and reduces the need to make last-second lane
changes close to the entrance ramp. The FHWA believes that the existing
GUIDANCE statements are not strong enough for this very important need
and that this signing needs to be mandatory. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
162. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2E.50 to Chapter 2D to become a new section numbered and
titled, ``Section 2D.48 Freeway Entrance Signs.'' The FHWA proposes
this change so that all signing on conventional roads at and in advance
of interchanges with freeways is located in the same area of the
Manual.
163. The FHWA proposes to add a new sign to existing Section 2D.40
(new Section 2D.49) and retitle the section, ``Parking Area or Parking
Wayfinding Sign.'' The FHWA proposes to add this new sign, which is a
vertical rectangle with a white letter P in a blue circle symbol at the
top of the sign and a blue directional arrow at the bottom of the sign.
This sign would be an alternative to the existing Parking Area
directional sign and would give agencies a consistent parking guide
sign to use in community wayfinding programs. This new sign is
consistent with the widespread use of the blue background and white P
as a parking wayfinding symbol throughout Europe and at many airports
and institutional sites in the United States.
164. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2D.42 Rest
Area Signs, 2D.43 Scenic Area Signs, and 2D.45 General Service Signs to
a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2F General Service Signs'' in order to
combine information regarding similar type signs in to one area of the
Manual.
165. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2D.46
Reference Location Signs and Intermediate Reference Location Signs,
2D.47 Traffic Signal Speed Sign, 2D.48 General Information Signs, the
first four paragraphs of 2D.49 Signing of Named Highways, and 2D.50
Trail Signs to a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2I General Information
Signs.''
166. The FHWA proposes adding a new section numbered and titled
``Section 2D.52 Community Wayfinding Signs'' that contains SUPPORT,
STANDARD, OPTION and GUIDANCE statements, as well as two new figures,
regarding the use of community wayfinding guide signs to direct
tourists and other road users to key civic, cultural, visitor, and
recreational attractions and other destinations within a city or a
local urbanized or downtown area. The remaining sections and figures in
Chapter 2D would be renumbered accordingly.
Many of the cities currently using community wayfinding signs are
using different colors, design layouts, fonts, and arrows, and many of
these signs are not well designed to properly serve road users. The
FHWA proposes to add this section to provide a uniform set of
provisions for design and locations of
[[Page 291]]
these signs based on accepted sign design principles, to achieve
consistency for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
167. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections numbered and titled,
``Section 2D.53 Truck, Passing, or Climbing Lane Signs'' and ``Section
2D.54 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Sign.'' The FHWA proposes to add Section
2D.53 to be consistent with the proposed elimination of regulatory
truck lane signs from existing Section 2B.32 (new Section 2B.39). These
types of signs convey guidance information, rather than regulation.
The FHWA proposes Section 2D.54 based on the results of the Sign
Synthesis Study,\74\ which found that these signs are being used by a
number of States. See also the discussion of this topic under Chapter
2B above. The FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2D-21 to
illustrate these signs. The remaining sections and figures in Chapter
2D would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 46, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2E
168. In section 2E.01 Scope of Freeway and Expressway Guide Sign
Standards, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to
clarify that Chapter 2E shall apply to any highway that meets the
definition of freeway or expressway facilities. The FHWA proposes this
revision to make it clear that not just the Standards, but also the
Guidance and Option statements in Chapter 2E apply to freeway and
expressway guide signs. This includes STANDARD, SUPPORT, AND OPTION
statements that refer to Section 2A.11 Dimensions which clarifies the
intended application of the standard sign designs in Table 2E-1.
169. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2E.24 Guide
Sign Classification to appear earlier in the Chapter as Section 2E.03.
The FHWA believes that guide sign classification should appear earlier
in the chapter, because this section identifies the various groups of
freeway/expressway guide signs by name. The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
170. The FHWA proposes to relocate the existing text of existing
Section 2E.08 Memorial Highway Signing to new Section 2I.07. The FHWA
also proposes to add a new Section 2E.09 titled Signing of Named
Highways with a SUPPORT statement to refer to new Sections 2D.55 and
2I.07, where appropriate information is provided about use of highway
names on signing of unnumbered highways and memorial signing of routes,
bridges, or highway components.
171. In existing Section 2E.09 (new Section 2E.10) Amount of Legend
on Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to add information to the existing
GUIDANCE and OPTION statement, as well as to add a new STANDARD
statement regarding the use of pictographs on freeway and expressway
guide signs. This information is similar to that proposed in Section
2D.07 Amount of Legend, but maintains the distinct requirements for
freeway/expressway lines of legend.
172. In existing Section 2E.18 (new Section 2E.19) Arrows for
Interchange Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to make several revisions to
this section to clarify the use and design of arrows on guide signs.
The FHWA proposes these changes to be consistent with proposed changes
in Chapter 2D as discussed above regarding Section 2D.08. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
173. The FHWA proposes significant changes to the first STANDARD
and GUIDANCE statements in existing Section 2E.19 (new Section 2E.20)
Diagrammatic Signs to specify a specific design for diagrammatic signs
for multi-lane exits that have an optional exit lane that also carries
the through road and for splits that include an optional lane. The
proposed design features an upward arrow per lane and is consistent
with the recommendations of the Older Driver handbook.\75\ The FHWA
believes that the up arrow per lane style of diagrammatic signs,
including the appropriate use of EXIT ONLY sign panels, is the clearest
and most effective method of displaying to road users the essential
information about the proper and allowable lanes to use to reach their
destinations with this ``option lane'' lane use for exits. The existing
diagrammatic sign design that attempts to illustrate optional lane use
via dotted lane lines on a single arrow shaft is too subtle to be
easily recognized and understood by many road users, especially older
drivers. A recent study \76\ confirmed that the up arrow per lane
diagrammatic design is significantly superior to the existing
diagrammatic design or enhancements thereto in terms of providing a
longer decision sight distance and higher rates of road user
comprehension. Because of the nature of the combination of lane use and
geometry, the FHWA believes that the proposed new type of diagrammatic
signing should be mandatory for this type of exit. The FHWA also
proposes to revise the 2nd STANDARD statement to require the use of
diagrammatic signs at certain types of cloverleaf interchanges, where:
(1) The outer (non-loop) exit ramp of a cloverleaf is a multi-lane exit
having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route, and
(2) a cloverleaf interchange that includes a collector-distributor
roadway that is accessed from the main roadway by a multi-lane exit
having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route. The
FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with the general proposed
change to require the proposed new style of diagrammatic signs for
multi-lane exits that have an optional exit lane that also carries the
through route and for splits that include an optional lane. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.A(3)
\76\ ``Diagrammatic Sign Study--Preliminary Results,'' conducted
by Gary Golembiewski and Bryan Katz for the Traffic Control Devices
Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresDiagrammaticSigns.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of
the section to permit the use of an EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) legend at the
bottom of a diagrammatic sign to supplement, but not to replace, the
exit or ramp advisory speed warning signs where extra emphasis of an
especially low advisory ramp speed is needed. The Sign Synthesis Study
\77\ found that at least four States have found it necessary to use
similar advisory speed panels with Exit Direction and/or diagrammatic
guide signs to provide even more advance notice and emphasis of a very
[[Page 292]]
low ramp speed, typically because of curvature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 51, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
174. In existing Section 2E.20 (new Section 2E.21) Signing for
Interchange Lane Drops, the FHWA proposes to change the first GUIDANCE
statement to a STANDARD statement to require the use of the EXIT ONLY
(down arrow) sign panel on signing of lane drops on all overhead
advance guide signs for exits that do not have an ``option lane,'' and
to provide design requirements for the bottom portion of Exit Direction
signs. The FHWA proposes these requirements to provide consistency with
other proposed changes in the Manual, especially related to the use of
arrows that are better understood by older drivers. The FHWA believes
that, for freeway splits and other interchange configurations that
include a lane drop but do not involve ``option lanes,'' the use of
down arrows and EXIT ONLY sign panels over each lane on the advance
guide signs is the clearest and most effective method of displaying to
road users the essential information about the lane drop and about the
proper lane(s) to use to reach their destinations. The FHWA also
believes that the use of upward diagonal black arrows within an EXIT
ONLY panel at the bottom of the Exit Direction signs for such
interchanges more clearly reinforces the lane drop while still
providing upward diagonal arrows in the direction of the exit. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
175. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from Section
2E.21 Changeable Message Signs to proposed new Chapter 2M, where all
information on Changeable Message Signs would be consolidated. The
remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
176. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2E.24 Guide
Sign Classification to appear earlier in the Chapter as Section 2E.03.
The FHWA believes that guide sign classification should appear earlier
in the chapter because this section identifies the various groups of
freeway/expressway guide signs by name. The remaining sections would be
renumbered accordingly.
177. In existing Section 2E.28 (new Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit
Numbering, the FHWA proposes to revise the 1st STANDARD statement to
require that if suffix letters are used for exit numbering at a multi-
exit interchange, the suffix letter shall be included on the exit
number plaque and shall be separated from the exit number by a space
having a width of at least half of the height of the suffix letter. The
FHWA proposes this change in order to provide practitioners with more
direction on the space between the exit number and the suffix than was
previously provided in the MUTCD or the Standard Highway Signs and
Markings book. This will enhance the legibility of the exit number and
help avoid confusion.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the 1st
STANDARD statement to make it clear that if suffix letters are used for
exit numbering, an exit of the same number without a suffix letter
cannot be used.
The FWHA also proposes to delete the Option statement and replace
it with a new Standard stating that interchange exit numbering shall
use the reference location exit numbering method and the consecutive
exit numbering method shall not be used. The FHWA proposes this change
because only 8 of the 50 States still use consecutive exit numbering
and the vast majority of road users now expect reference location exit
numbering. The FHWA believes that road users will be best served by
nationwide uniformity of exit numbering using the reference location
method.
The FHWA also proposes to change the 2nd paragraph of the first
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that a Left Exit Number
(E1-5bP) plaque be used at the top left edge of the sign for numbered
exits to the left to alert users that the exit is to the left, which is
often not expected. This proposed change also requires that the
``LEFT'' message be black on a yellow background.
The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency of message to
drivers and for consistency with other parts of the manual. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period for the new requirements of new
Section 2E.27 of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
178. In existing Section 2E.30 (new Section 2E.29) Advance Guide
Signs and in existing Section 2E.33 (new Section 2E.32) Exit Direction
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement to require that a
Left Exit Number (E1-5bP) plaque be used at the top left edge of the
sign for numbered exits to the left and that a LEFT (E1-5aP) plaque be
added to the top left edge of the sign for non-numbered exits to the
left. The FHWA proposes this new text to be consistent with the
proposed changes in existing Section 2E.28 (new Section 2E.27). The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to change the first sentence of the OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit, that
the word ``EXIT'' be omitted from the bottom line where interchange
exit number plaques are used. The FHWA proposes this change in order to
avoid duplication of the EXIT message on the exit number plaque and on
the guide sign.
179. In existing Section 2E.33 (new Section 2E.32) Exit Direction
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add requirements to the 2nd STANDARD
statement regarding the use of diagrammatic signs and the use of
plaques with these signs for left exits. The FHWA proposes this new
text to be consistent with other proposed changes in the manual
regarding diagrammatic signs and plaques for left exits. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the last existing
OPTION statement to permit the use of an EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) legend
at the bottom of the Exit Direction sign to supplement, but not to
replace, the exit or ramp advisory speed warning signs where extra
emphasis of an especially low advisory ramp speed is needed. This may
be done by adding an EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) sign panel to the face of
the Exit Direction sign near the bottom of the sign or by making the
EXIT XX km/h (XX MPH) message a part of the Exit Direction sign. The
Sign Synthesis Study \78\ found that at least four States have found it
necessary to use similar advisory speed panels with Exit Direction
signs to provide even more advance notice and emphasis of a very low
ramp speed, typically because of curvature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 51, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
180. In existing Section 2E.34 (new Section 2E.33) Exit Gore Signs,
the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to clarify that the
space between the exit number and the suffix letter on an Exit Gore
Sign shall be the width of at least half of the height of the suffix
letter. This proposed change correlates to a similar proposed change in
existing Section 2E.28 (new Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit Numbering.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION statement
[[Page 293]]
allowing the use of Type 1 object markers on sign supports below the
Exit Gore sign to improve the visibility of the gore for exiting
drivers. The FHWA proposes this change based on recommendations from
the Older Driver handbook.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.A(4b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION paragraph allowing the
use of a vertical rectangular shaped Exit Gore sign for certain narrow
gore areas, and an OPTION paragraph allowing the use of an Exit Number
(E5-1bP) plaque above existing Exit Gore (E5-1) signs only when non-
numbered exits are converted to numbered exits, and a STANDARD
paragraph requiring the use of the Exit Gore (E5-1a) sign when
replacement of existing assemblies of the E5-1 and E5-1bP signs becomes
necessary. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide for more uniform
design of Exit Gore signs.
181. In existing Section 2E.41 (new Section 2E.40), Freeway-to-
Freeway Interchange, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement
requiring the use the word ``LEFT'' at splits where the off-route
movement is to the left, and the use of diagrammatic signs for freeway
splits with an option lane and for multi-lane freeway-to-freeway exits
having an option lane. The FHWA proposes these changes to be consistent
with other proposed changes in the Manual. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
182. In Section 2E.45 (new Section 2E.44) Diamond Interchange, the
FHWA proposes removing the second sentence of the first STANDARD
statement regarding the prohibition of cardinal initials on exit
numbers. This sentence is not applicable for a diamond interchange,
because they have a single exit ramp. Existing Section 2E.28 (new
Section 2E.27) Interchange Exit Numbering already contains a
prohibition on the use of cardinal directions as the suffix of exit
numbers.
183. The FHWA proposes to move the information from existing
Section 2E.49 (new Section 2E.48) Signing on Conventional Road
Approaches and Connecting Roadways to Section 2D.47, and leave a
SUPPORT statement to refer readers to the appropriate section. The FHWA
proposes this change because the section and figures are about guide
signing on conventional road approaches to a freeway, and therefore,
are more appropriate for Chapter 2D.
184. The FHWA proposes to move a majority of the information from
existing Section 2E.50 (new Section 2E.49) Wrong-Way Traffic Control at
Interchange Ramps to Section 2B.48, and leave a SUPPORT statement to
refer readers to the appropriate section. The FHWA proposes this change
because the section and figure relate more to regulatory signs than
guide signs, and therefore, are more appropriate for Chapter 2B.
185. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2E.51 General
Service Signs, 2E.52 Rest and Scenic Area Signs, Section 2E.53 Tourist
Information and Welcome Center Signs, Section 2E.56 Radio Information
Signing, and 2E.57 Carpool and Rideshare Signing to a new Chapter
titled, ``Chapter 2F General Service Signs.''
186. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Sections 2E.54
Reference Location Signs and Enhanced Reference Location Signs and
2E.55 Miscellaneous Guide Signs to a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2I
General Information Signs.''
187. The FHWA proposes to split existing Section 2E.59 into four
sections and substantially edit the material. The resulting sections
would be numbered and titled, ``Section 2E.51 Preferential Lane Guide
Signs--General,'' ``Section 2E.52 Guide Signs for Initial Entry Points
to Preferential Lanes,'' ``Section 2E.53 Guide Signs for Intermediate
Entry Points to Preferential Lanes,'' and ``Section 2E.54 Guide Signs
for Exits From Preferential Lanes to General Purpose Lanes or Directly
to Another Highway.'' The FHWA proposes this reorganization of material
to improve consistency and understanding by grouping like material
together. In conjunction with these changes, the FHWA proposes a
variety of changes in the technical provisions, sign designs, and
figures for preferential lane guide signing, to reflect the state of
practice and for enhanced sign conspicuity and legibility and to
reflect recent FHWA policy guidance regarding traffic control devices
for preferential lane facilities.\80\ The FHWA also proposes new
information in these sections to incorporate new provisions regarding
managed lanes and lanes reserved only for vehicles equipped for
Electronic Toll Collection, which are forms of preferential lanes. With
the increasing use of these types of preferential lanes and the
continuing emphasis on congestion management, the FHWA believes it is
important for the state of the practice for signing of such lanes,
based on recent policy and guidance document,\81\ to be incorporated
into the MUTCD to enhance signing uniformity. The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing preferential lane signing in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The FHWA's August 3, 2007 policy memorandum can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
\81\ Available FHWA guidance and handbooks on preferential lanes
and managed lanes can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hov.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
188. The FHWA also proposes to add six new sections to Chapter 2E
that describe the design and application of signs at conventional toll
facilities and for ETC facilities. The proposed new sections are
numbered and titled, ``Section 2E.55 Toll Facility and Toll Plaza Guide
Signs--General,'' ``Section 2E.56 Advance Signs for Conventional Toll
Plazas,'' ``Section 2E.57 Advance Signs for Toll Plazas on Diverging
Alignments From Open Road ETC Only Lanes,'' ``Section 2E.58 Toll Plaza
Canopy Signs,'' ``Section 2E.59 Guide Signs for Entrances to ETC-Only
Facilities,'' and ``Section 2E.60 ETC Program Information Signs.'' The
FHWA proposes these new sections and the associated text and figures to
implement the recommendations of the Toll Plaza Best Practices and
Recommendations report \82\ and to reflect the state of the practice
for electronic toll collection signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs for toll facility and
toll plaza signing to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a part of these changes, the FHWA proposes to adopt new symbols
to denote exact change and attended lanes, for use in toll plaza
signing. The FHWA believes that symbols for these messages will help
road users to more quickly identify the proper lane(s) to choose for
the type of toll payment they will use. The proposed symbols are
similar to those already in use for these purposes on some toll
facilities in the U.S. as well as in Europe and Asia, and the FHWA also
believes that such symbols will also aid in understanding by
international travelers.
The FHWA also proposes a new symbol to be reserved for use when a
toll facility's ETC payment system is nationally interoperable with all
other ETC payment systems. Although such
[[Page 294]]
national interoperability is not yet available, toll operators are
actively working on developing interoperability so that, for example,
an EZ-Pass transponder will work on a California toll facility's
FasTrak ETC payment system. When this interoperability becomes
available in the future, it will take a number of years thereafter for
all toll operators to transition to it and, during that transition
period, there will be a need for signing to indicate to road users that
a particular toll facility's payment system is nationally
interoperable. The FHWA believes that it is in the best interest of
uniformity, safety, and road user convenience for a standard symbol to
be adopted prior to the transition period so that it is available when
needed.
189. Finally, the FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2E.61 Guide Signs for Managed Lanes'' to provide SUPPORT,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE information related to guide signing for managed
lanes with operational strategies such as tolls, vehicle occupancy
requirements, and vehicle type restrictions that are variable and put
into effect on a real-time basis to respond to changing conditions. The
FHWA proposes this new section and the associated material for
consistency with other proposed provisions regarding signing for
preferential lanes and electronic toll collection, and to reflect the
state of the practice in managed lanes as documented in FHWA
publications regarding managed lanes.\83\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for the new provisions for guide signs
for managed lanes to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ ``Managed Lanes--A Primer,'' FHWA publication number FHWA-
HOP-05-031, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf and ``Managed Lanes--A Cross-Cutting Study,'' FHWA
report number FHWA-HOP-05-037, November, 2004, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 2F Through 2M
190. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter numbered and titled,
``Chapter 2F General Service Signs.'' This proposed new chapter
contains several sections that the FHWA proposes to relocate from
Chapters 2D and 2E in order to group similar sign types in the same
area of the Manual.
191. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2F.01 Sizes of General Service Signs'' and a new Table 2F-1
to indicate the sizes of the General Service signs and plaques.
Proposed Sections 2F.02 General Service Signs for Conventional Roads
and 2F.03 General Service Signs for Freeways and Expressways contain
information in existing Sections 2D.45 and 2E.51, respectively.
192. In existing Section 2E.51 (new Section 2F.03) the FHWA
proposes to change the design of the D9-16 Truck Parking general
services sign as illustrated in Figure 2F-1. A recent study \84\ tested
several symbols for this message and found that the message can be
successfully symbolized. The FHWA proposes to adopt the symbol that was
found to be the easiest to comprehend and which provides the greatest
legibility distance. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
193. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2F.04 Interstate Oasis Signing'' that contains SUPPORT,
OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding signing for
facilities that have been designated by the State within which they are
located as having met the eligibility criteria of FHWA's Interstate
Oasis Policy.\85\ The language of this proposed new section is based on
the signing provisions of the Interstate Oasis Policy. The FHWA also
proposes the adoption of a unique symbol for use on separate Interstate
Oasis signs in conjunction with the word message. Preliminary human
factors testing indicates that the proposed symbol provides optimum
comprehension, conspicuity, and legibility. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ FHWA's Interstate Oasis Policy, dated October 18, 2006, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-17367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
194. The FHWA proposes to combine the text from existing Sections
2D.42, 2D.43 and 2E.52 to create a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2F.05 Rest Area and Other Roadside Area Signs'' so that
similar information is located all in one area.
In conjunction with this change, the FHWA proposes changes to the
text that would be relocated from Sections 2D.42 and 2D.43 to clarify
the types of signs to be used at Rest Areas and at Scenic and Other
Roadside Areas. Existing Section 2D.42 can be misinterpreted as meaning
that restrooms are required in order to use the Parking Area, Roadside
Table, Roadside Park, and Picnic Area signs, which was not FHWA's
intent. Restrooms are only required at locations designated as Rest
Areas. The FHWA also proposes to change the accompanying figures,
accordingly.
The FHWA proposes to add two paragraphs to the OPTION statement at
the end of the section to allow the use of the telecommunications
devices for the deaf (TDD) Symbol Sign and the wireless Internet
services (Wi-Fi) Symbol Sign to supplement advance guide signs for rest
areas if such amenities are available. The FHWA proposes to add the TDD
symbol based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \86\ that
showed that several States are using a similar sign, and because this
sign design is specified by the Americans With Disabilities Act for use
to indicate facilities that are equipped with TDD. The FHWA proposes
the Wi-Fi symbol sign because many rest areas are being equipped with
wireless Internet service for road users visiting these areas and many
States are using word message or symbol signs to indicate the
availability of this service in the rest area. The FHWA believes that a
uniform symbol is needed for this rapidly expanding signing practice
and preliminary human factors testing \87\ indicates that the proposed
symbol provides optimum comprehension, conspicuity, and legibility. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 48, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
\87\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
195. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2E.53 to become new section 2F.06 Tourist Information and
Welcome Center Signs. The FHWA proposes this change, because the
material is more in keeping with the content of proposed Chapter 2F.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to revise the design of the D9-10
Tourist Information general service sign as illustrated in Figure 2F-1.
A
[[Page 295]]
recent study \88\ found that the meaning of the existing ``question
mark'' symbol for this service is poorly understood by road users. The
abbreviation ``INFO'' was fully understood by 96 percent of the
participants in the human factors testing. Further, the FHWA believes
that the term INFO is understandable in most languages. Although the
legibility distance of the tested version of ``INFO'' was less than
that of the existing symbol, the FHWA proposes a design featuring
larger and bolder letters to provide legibility that is expected to be
comparable to the existing symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
196. The proposed new Section 2F.07 Radio Information Signing
contains information from existing Section 2E.56. In the last OPTION
statement, the FHWA proposes to revise the legend of the D12-4 sign to
use the word ``CALL'' rather than ``DIAL'' to be consistent with the
D12-2 and D12-5 signs, and to reflect current terminology.
197. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2F.08 TRAVEL INFO CALL 511 Sign'' that incorporates text from
existing Section 2D.45 associated with this sign.
198. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2E.57 to become new Section 2F.09 Carpool and Ridesharing
Signing. The FHWA proposes this change, because this material is more
in keeping with the content in proposed Chapter 2F.
199. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections at the end of the
chapter numbered and titled, ``Section 2F.10 Brake Check Area Signs''
and ``Section 2F.11 Chain Up Area Signs.'' The FHWA proposes to add
these new signs based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study \89\
that revealed that some States use signs for these specific purposes.
Some States provide off-road areas (on the shoulder or in a physically
separated rest area type of roadway) for drivers to install and remove
tire chains during winter weather conditions. Some States also provide
similar areas for trucks and other vehicles to check their brakes in
advance of the start of a long downhill grade. The FHWA believes these
types of areas are similar in some ways and could be considered
motorist services and should be consistent in color and legend. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 46-47, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
200. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2C.13 to become a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2F.12 Truck Escape Ramp Signs.'' The FHWA proposes this change to
clarify that these types of signs convey information on a form of
motorist service (similar to rest areas, brake check areas, etc.),
rather than warnings. The FHWA also proposes to relocate the
illustrations of these signs from Chapter 2C to Chapter 2F and change
the color scheme of the signs to white legend on a blue background. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
201. In existing Section 2F.02 (new Section 2G.02) Application, the
FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to indicate that service
types are allowed to appear on up to two signs, rather than just one.
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect FHWA's Interim Approval (IA-9)
to Display More than Six Specific Service Logo Panels for a Type of
Service, dated September 21, 2006,\90\ which allows for up to two
specific service signs containing up to 12 logos for a given type of
service. As part of this change, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph
to the GUIDANCE statement indicating that when a service type is
displayed on two signs, the signs for that service type should follow
one another in succession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-9, dated September 21, 2006, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/pdf/ia_9_logopanels.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
202. In existing Section 2F.03 (new Section 2G.03) Logos and Logo
Sign Panels, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that
the letter heights for word message logos should have the minimum
letter heights stated in Section 2G.05. The FHWA proposes this change
to recommend letter heights that provide enhanced legibility for older
drivers.
The FHWA also proposes to add OPTION, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and
SUPPORT statements to this section regarding the use and design of
supplemental messages within the logo sign panel. The FHWA proposes
this new text to incorporate messages, such as DIESEL and 24 HOURS,
that are helpful to road users. As part of this proposed change, the
FHWA proposes to add a new symbol called the ``RV Friendly'' symbol
that may be used by businesses that are designed with facilities to
accommodate the on-site movement and parking of recreational vehicles.
The proposed language was developed based on the conditions listed in
Interim Approval IA-8, dated September 6, 2005,\91\ as well as
additional criteria deemed necessary, such as alternate RV Friendly
symbol design and placement, and the need for an engineering study to
demonstrate that a U-turn can be made by RVs, if U-turns are needed to
access the RV Friendly site desiring to be signed as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Interim Approval IA-8 can be viewed at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to include a new
OPTION for the use of the supplemental message OASIS within the logo
panel of a business that has been designated as an Interstate Oasis
facility. The FHWA includes this proposed additional supplemental
message to reflect the Interstate Oasis Program and Policy that was
published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2002.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ The Interstate Oasis Program and Policy can be viewed at:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at
the end of the section regarding the use of dual logo panels (two
smaller logos on the same panel) on Specific Service signs. The FHWA
bases this proposal on the results of experimentation and research in
Texas,\93\ which found that mixing food and gas logos in a dual logo
panel did not significantly impact the effectiveness. To minimize the
potential for information overload and to maximize the legibility of
specific service signs, the FHWA proposes that dual logos should be
used on specific service signs only when the two businesses are under
the same roof, all available logo panels are already in use, and there
is no room for additional logos. The FHWA also proposes that dual logo
panels be limited to two food businesses or one food and one gas
business. The recommended maximum number of dual logo panels used on
any one specific service sign is two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ ``Effects of Adding Dual-Logo Panels to Specific Service
Signs: A Human Factors Study,'' by H. Gene Hawkins and Elisabeth R.
Rose, 2005, published in Transportation Research Record number 1918,
is available for purchase from the Transportation Research Board at
the following internet Web site: http://www.trb.org. A brief summary
of the research results can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=772254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for the
new provisions of new Section 2G.03 for
[[Page 296]]
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
203. In existing Section 2F.04 (new Section 2G.04) Number and Size
of Signs and Logo Sign Panels, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION and
STANDARD statements to permit the use of, and provide the associated
requirements for, additional logo sign panels of the same specific
service type when more than six businesses of a specific service type
are eligible for logo sign panels at the same interchange. The FHWA
proposes to include this information, based on Interim Approval (IA-9)
to Display More than Six Specific Service Logo Panels for a Type of
Service, dated September 21, 2006.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-9, dated September 21, 2006, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/pdf/ia_9_logopanels.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
204. In existing Section 2F.05 (new Section 2G.05) Size of
Lettering, the FHWA proposes to add standards for minimum letter
heights for logo sign panels consisting only of word legends that are
displayed on the mainlines of freeways and expressways and on
conventional roads and ramps. The FHWA proposes these minimum letter
heights to provide letter heights that will enhance legibility for
older drivers. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
205. In existing Section 2F.08 (new Section 2G.08) Double-Exit
Interchanges, the FHWA proposes to add a new GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that where a service type is displayed on two Specific
Service signs at a double-exit interchange, one of the signs should
display the logo panels for the service type of the businesses that are
accessible from one of the two exits and the other sign should display
the logo panels for the service type of the businesses that are
accessible from the other exit. The FHWA proposes this change to
provide consistency in logo signing for double-exit interchanges when a
service type is displayed on two signs.
206. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section
2F.08 (new Section 2G.08). The new section is numbered and titled,
``Section 2G.09 Specific Service Trailblazer Signs'' and contains
SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements regarding these
guide signs that are required along crossroads for facilities that have
logo panels displayed along the main roadway and ramp, and that require
additional vehicle maneuvers to reach. The FHWA proposes this new
section and an associated new figure to enhance the uniformity of this
signing practice which is being used by many States.
207. In existing Section 2F.09 (new Section 2G.10) Signs at
Intersections, the FHWA proposes to relocate the first paragraph of the
existing OPTION statement to the 2nd STANDARD statement in order to
clarify that the type of service and the action message or the
directional arrow shall all be on the same line directly above the
business logo panel or below the logo sign panel.
208. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter numbered and titled,
``Chapter 2I General Information Signs.'' This proposed new chapter
contains several sections that the FHWA proposes to relocate from
Chapters 2D and 2E in order to group similar sign types in the same
area of the Manual.
209. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section 2I.01 Sizes of General
Information Signs and a new Table 2I-1 to indicate sizes of General
Information signs. Proposed new Sections 2I.02 Reference Location Signs
and Intermediate Reference Location Signs, 2I.03 Enhanced Reference
Location Signs, 2I.04 Traffic Signal Speed Sign, 2I.05 General
Information Signs, 2I.06 Miscellaneous Information Signs, 2I.07
Memorial Signing, and 2I.08 Trail Signs, contain information in
existing Sections 2D.46, 2E.54, 2D.47, 2D.48, 2E.55, 2D.49 and 2D.50,
respectively.
210. In existing Section 2D.47 (new Section 2I.04) Traffic Signal
Speed Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION
statement allowing a changeable message element for the numerals of the
Traffic Signal Speed sign to be displayed if different system
progression speeds are set for different times of the day. The FHWA
also proposes to allow a blank-out version of the Traffic Signal Speed
sign to be used to display the message only during the times when the
system is operated in coordinated mode. The FHWA proposes this change
to provide agencies with flexibility to provide for different speeds at
different times of day. The FHWA also proposes to revise the STANDARD
statement to increase the minimum size of the Traffic Signal Speed sign
from 300 x 450 mm (12 x 18 in) to 600 x 900 mm (24 x 36 in) to provide
for suitable letter sizes.
211. In existing Section 2E.55 (new Section 2I.06) the FHWA
proposes to replace the phrase ``Miscellaneous Guide Signs'' with
``Miscellaneous Information Signs'' in the title, in the text of the
section, and in the associated figure, to reflect the relocation of
this section into proposed new Chapter 2I.
212. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2I.07 Memorial Signing.'' This proposed new section is
comprised of text pertaining to memorial signs, which is relocated from
existing sections 2D.49 and 2E.08. The FHWA proposes to revise several
statements within the section in order to make the information in this
section regarding memorial signing consistent with existing Section
2D.49 Signing of Named Highways (new Section 2D.55).
213. In existing Section 2D.50 (new Section 2I.08) Trail Signs, the
FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of trail
signs on freeways or expressways. The FHWA proposes this restriction
because trail designations are not appropriate for freeways and
expressways and should be confined to conventional roads.
214. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2I.09 Acknowledgement Signs.'' This proposed new section
contains SUPPORT, GUIDANCE, STANDARD, and OPTION statements regarding
the placement and design of the signs that can be used as a way of
recognizing a company, business, or volunteer group that provides a
highway-related service. The FHWA bases the proposed information on the
policy memo ``Optional Use of Acknowledgment Signs on Highway Rights-
of-Way,'' dated August 10, 2005.\95\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for the new provisions for
acknowledgement signs for existing signs in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ FHWA's Policy Memo can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-mem_ack.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
215. In existing Section 2H.04 (new Section 2J.04) General Design
Requirements for Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Guide
Signs, the FHWA proposes to replace the entire set of recreational and
cultural area symbol signs with a new, updated, and expanded set of
signs, based on the National Park Service's updated Uniguide Standards
Manual,\96\ plus a few United States Forest Service standard symbol
signs for activities not covered in the Uniguide standards. As a
result, the FHWA proposes to revise existing Table 2H-1 (new Table 2J-
1) to reflect the new set of signs, as well as
[[Page 297]]
figures within Chapter 2I that show recreational and cultural signs.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Information about the National Park Service's Uniguide
Standards Manual can be obtained at the following Internet Web site:
http://www.nps.gov/hfc/acquisition/uniguide.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
216. In existing Section 2H.07 (new Section 2J.07) Use of
Prohibitive Slash, the FHWA proposes to clarify the STANDARD statement
to indicate recreational and cultural interest area symbol signs for
prohibited activities and items are only to be used within a
recreational or cultural interest area when a standard regulatory sign
for such a prohibition is not provided in Chapter 2B. The FHWA also
proposes that for recreational and cultural interest area prohibitory
signs only, the red diagonal slash is to be placed behind the symbol,
rather than over it in, consistent with National Park Service
standards.
217. In existing Section 2H.08 (new Section 2J.08) Placement of
Recreational and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Signs, the FHWA proposes
to add an OPTION statement allowing the symbol on the Wildlife Viewing
Area sign to be placed to the left or right of the legend, and the
arrow to be placed below the symbol. The FHWA proposes the new
binoculars symbol to denote wildlife viewing areas based on the Sign
Synthesis Study,\97\ which revealed that several States and the
National Park Service were already using this symbol in this manner to
design an effective guide sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
218. In existing Section 2H.09 (new Section 2J.09) Destination
Guide Signs, the FHWA proposes to delete the first sentence of the 2nd
STANDARD statement restricting the use of white on brown destination
guide signs on linear parkway-type highways that primarily function as
arterial connectors. This proposed change is the result of an amended
memorandum of understanding that was signed in 2006 by the National
Park Service and the FHWA.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ This Memorandum of Understanding can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
219. In existing Section 2I.03 (new Section 2K.03), Evacuation
Route Signs, the FHWA proposes to reorganize the paragraphs to provide
a more logical flow. The FHWA also proposes to include information in
the first STANDARD statement regarding the design of the proposed
Tsunami Evacuation Route sign. The FHWA bases the proposed design on a
symbol currently being used in all Pacific Coast States.
The FHWA also proposes to clarify the use of Advance Turn Arrow (M5
series) and Directional Arrow (M6 series) auxiliary signs with
Evacuation Route signs in the first STANDARD and OPTION statements.
220. In existing Section 2I.08 (new Section 2K.08) Emergency Aid
Center Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement allowing the
use of a fluorescent pink background color when Emergency Aid Center
signs are used in an incident situation, such as during the aftermath
of a nuclear or biological attack. The FHWA proposes this change,
because EM-6 Series signs may be useful for incident situations.
221. In existing Section 2I.09 (new Section 2K.09) Shelter
Directional Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement
allowing the use of a fluorescent pink background color when Shelter
Direction signs are used in an incident situation, such as during the
aftermath of a nuclear or biological attack. The FHWA proposes this
change, because EM-7 Series signs may be useful for incident
situations.
222. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter numbered and titled,
``Chapter 2L Object Markers, Barricades, and Gates.'' This proposed new
chapter contains existing Sections 3C.01 through 3C.04, which are
related to object markers and existing Section 3F.01 on barricades. The
FHWA proposes this new chapter to group these devices in the same area
of the Manual.
223. In existing Section 3C.02 (new Section 2L.02) Object Markers
for Obstructions Within the Roadway, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION
statement to clarify that Type 1 or Type 3 markers may be installed on
the nose of a median island at an intersection to provide additional
emphasis. The FHWA proposes this new statement to clarify that the
application is permitted.
224. In existing Section 3C.03 (new Section 2L.03) Object Markers
for Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway, the FHWA proposes to revise
the STANDARD statement to specify that Type 2 or Type 3 object markers
are to be used for obstructions not actually within the roadway and to
restrict the use of Type 1 and Type 4 object markers for such
applications.
225. In existing Section 3C.04 (new Section 2L.04) Object Markers
for Ends of Roadways, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD
statement that if an object marker is used to mark the end of a
roadway, a Type 4 object marker shall be used. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide clarity that the Type 4 object marker is the only
type of object marker to be used to mark the end of a roadway.
226. The FHWA proposes adding a new Section 2L.06 Gates, containing
provisions regarding the design and use of gates for a variety for
traffic control purposes beyond the most common use at highway-rail
grade crossings. The FHWA proposes this new section in order to provide
for enhanced uniformity of gates, as they are used in a wide variety of
applications.
227. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter numbered and titled,
``Chapter 2M Changeable Message Signs.'' This new chapter contains
information from existing Sections 2A.07 and 2E.21 as well as
additional new information, organized into seven sections regarding
Changeable Message Signs, specifically regarding the description,
application, legibility and visibility, design characteristics, message
length and units of information, installation, and display of travel
times on Changeable Message Signs. The FHWA proposes this change to
consolidate all information about changeable message signs into one
location in the Manual and to reflect the recommendations of extensive
research on changeable message sign legibility, messaging, and
operations conducted over a period of many years by the Texas
Transportation Institute.\99\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for the new provisions for Changeable Message Signs
for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Information on the many research projects on changeable
message signs conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
can be accessed via TTI's Internet Web site at: http://tti.tamu.edu/
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 3--Pavement Markings
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 3--General
228. The FHWA proposes to remove references to the blue raised
pavement marker from Part 3. Blue raised pavement markers have been
used to mark the locations of fire hydrants for emergency response
personnel and are not intended to communicate a traffic control message
to the general public. Consistent with the proposed changes in Section
1A.08 as described in item 20 above, blue raised pavement markers would
not be considered traffic control devices and therefore the FHWA
believes that requirements for design and application of such markers
should not be included in the MUTCD.
[[Page 298]]
229. The FHWA proposes to add information to allow the use of
appropriate route shield pavement marking symbols (including
appropriate colors) to assist in guiding road users to their
destinations. The use of the red, white, and blue Interstate shield
marking was authorized by FHWA in Official Interpretation 3-
162(I).\100\ The FHWA also proposes to add a new figure to illustrate
these route shield pavement markings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-162(I), dated
January 28, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/3-162-I-VA-S.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
230. In several sections within Part 3, the FHWA proposes to add
new language to clarify that dotted lane lines, rather than broken lane
lines, are to be used for non-continuing lanes, including acceleration
lanes, deceleration lanes, auxiliary lanes, and lane drops. The FHWA
also proposes to revise the various existing figures in Chapter 3B that
illustrate these conditions to reflect the proposed changes. The FHWA
proposes these changes to avoid confusing road users regarding the
function of these lanes and to improve safety and operations. As
documented in NCHRP Synthesis 356,\101\ a number of States and other
jurisdictions currently follow this practice, which is also the
standard practice in Europe and most other developed countries. The
FHWA believes that the existing use of a normal broken lane line for
these non-continuing lanes does not adequately inform road users of the
lack of lane continuity ahead and that standardized use of dotted lane
lines for non-continuing lanes will better serve this important purpose
in enhancing safety and uniformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
231. The FHWA proposes to relocate Chapter 3C Object Markers and
Section 3F.01 Barricades to Part 2 because readers of the MUTCD have
difficulty finding object markers in the MUTCD and because most
jurisdictions treat these devices as signs for purposes of inventory
and policy. The FHWA proposes to place the information on object
markers and barricades in a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 2L Object
Markers and Barricades.''
232. The FHWA proposes to add OPTION statements in various sections
within Part 3 to allow use of retroreflective or internally illuminated
raised pavement markers in the roadway immediately adjacent to curbed
noses of raised medians and curbs of islands, or on top of such curbs.
This is an effective practice commonly used to aid road users in
identifying these channelizing features at night. The FHWA proposes
this optional use based on recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendations
I.C(2), I.C(4f), and I.F(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
233. The FHWA proposes to include arrows in the list of items that
are to be designed in accordance with the Pavement Markings chapter of
the Standard Highway Signs and Markings book.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3A
234. In Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations, the FHWA proposes
relocating the last paragraph of the SUPPORT statement, which pertains
to the general functions of longitudinal lines, to a STANDARD statement
in Section 3A.05, because that section deals specifically with
longitudinal pavement markings. See item 237 below for additional
information.
235. In Section 3A.03 Materials, the FHWA proposes to add
information to the SUPPORT statement regarding marking systems that
consist of clumps or droplets of material with visible open spaces of
bare pavement between the material droplets. The FHWA proposes this new
text in order to clarify that this type of marking system is suitable
for use if it meets other marking requirements of the highway agency.
This also reflects FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-196(I),
dated July 19, 2006.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-196(I), dated
July 19, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_196.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
236. In Section 3A.04 Colors, the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to include red delineators, for
consistency with Chapter 3D and to clarify that the application of red
raised pavement markers and delineators is for one-way roadways and
ramps and for truck escape ramps, because red is not intended to be
used for these devices on undivided highways, except in the special
case of truck escape ramps as provided in existing Section 3D.03.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new 6th paragraph to the
STANDARD statement explaining the use of purple markings to supplement
lane line or edge line markings for toll plaza approach lanes that are
to be used only by vehicles that are equipped with ETC transponders.
The FHWA proposes this new STANDARD paragraph to be consistent with
other proposed changes in the MUTCD regarding the use of the color
purple to readily identify lanes that are to be used by vehicles
equipped with ETC transponders. (See item 23.)
237. In Section 3A.05, the FHWA proposes to change the title to
``Functions, Widths, and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement Markings,''
and to incorporate into a STANDARD statement the information regarding
the general function of longitudinal lines from the SUPPPORT statement
in existing Section 3A.01. The FHWA proposes changing the
classification of this text to a STANDARD for consistency with
requirements in other sections in Part 3 and to appropriately reflect
how this text has been applied.
The FHWA also proposes to change the OPTION statement regarding the
lengths of line segments and gaps used for dotted lines to a GUIDANCE
statement in order to encourage increased consistency in the dimensions
for dotted lines based on their function. The recommended dimensions
reflect the most common practice as documented in NCHRP Synthesis
356.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
238. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section
3A.05. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 3A.06
Definitions Relating to Pavement Markings'' and contains a STANDARD
statement that defines the terms ``neutral area,'' ``physical gore,''
and ``theoretical gore.'' The FHWA proposes this new section to provide
definitions of these terms, because they are used throughout Part 3 to
describe the use and application of pavement markings.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3B
239. In Section 3B.01 Yellow Center Line Pavement Markings and
Warrants, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the 2nd STANDARD
statement to specifically prohibit the use of a single solid yellow
line as a center line marking on a two-way roadway. A single solid
yellow center line marking has not been allowed by the MUTCD but some
agencies have improperly used it because of the lack of a specific
prohibition statement.
The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement after the first
[[Page 299]]
GUIDANCE statement that references sections of the Uniform Vehicle Code
that contain information regarding left turns across center line no-
passing zone markings and paved medians. The information was contained
in the 1988 MUTCD, and the lack of this information in the 2000 and
2003 editions of the MUTCD has generated the need to provide this in
the next edition.
240. In Section 3B.02 No-Passing Zone Pavement Markings and
Warrants, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the first SUPPORT
statement that describes that the values of passing sight distances
shown in Table 3B-1 are for operational use in marking no-passing zones
and are less than the values used for geometric design of highways. The
FHWA proposes this in order to provide clarity and avoid confusion
between operational use of markings and geometric design.
The FHWA also proposes to add language to the last paragraph of the
3rd STANDARD statement specifying that for this application a buffer
zone shall be a flush median island formed by two sets of double yellow
center line markings, in order to clarify how to appropriately mark a
buffer zone and to correspond with the existing illustration in Figure
3B-5.
The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement immediately
following the 3rd STANDARD statement permitting the use of yellow
diagonal markings in the neutral area between the two sets of no-
passing zone markings, reflecting common practice for discouraging
travel in that area.
241. In Section 3B.03 Other Yellow Longitudinal Pavement Markings,
the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE in
order to recommend for certain conditions, rather than just permit, the
use of arrows with two-way left turn lanes. The FHWA proposes this
change as a result of the NCHRP Synthesis 356 \105\ which highlighted a
variety of marking issues for which additional uniformity could be
provided to aid road users. The synthesis found that the use of arrows
in two-way left-turn lanes at the start of the lane and at other
locations along the lane as needed is the predominant practice. The
FHWA also reflects this proposed change in Figures that contain arrows
in two-way left turn lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
242. In Section 3B.04 White Lane Line Pavement Markings and
Warrants, the FHWA proposes to relocate the last GUIDANCE statement to
become the first GUIDANCE statement (currently the last GUIDANCE
statement) and to clarify that the lane line marking requirements do
not apply to reversible lanes, for which the existing text of Part 3
requires the use a different color and pattern of markings.
The FHWA also proposes to add requirements to the STANDARD
statement to specify that dotted lines are required for acceleration,
deceleration, and auxiliary lanes. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
243. In Section 3B.05 Other White Longitudinal Pavement Markings,
the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd STANDARD statement to clarify the
requirements for channelizing lines in gore areas alongside the ramp
and through lanes for exit ramps and for entrance ramps. As part of
this change, the FHWA proposes to change the first existing GUIDANCE
statement to a STANDARD, to require, rather than recommend, the
beginning and ending points of the channelizing lines, in order to
improve uniformity in application and to reflect the predominant
practice as documented in NCHRP Synthesis 356.\106\ The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies. The FHWA proposes to illustrate the proposed changes in
Figure 3B-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add text to the 2nd OPTION statement
permitting the use of white retroreflective or internally illuminated
raised pavement markers to supplement channelizing lines and optional
chevron markings at exit ramp and entrance ramps for enhanced nighttime
visibility, to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation II.A(4a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
244. In Section 3B.07 Warrants for Use of Edge Lines, the FHWA
proposes to add to the OPTION statement that if a bicycle lane is
marked on the outside portion of a traveled way, the edge line that
would mark the outside edge of the bicycle lane may be omitted, because
the lane line separating the motor vehicle lane from the bicycle lane
can serve the purpose of the edge line.
245. In Section 3B.08 Extensions Through Intersections or
Interchanges, the FHWA proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement
to add locations where offset left turn lanes might cause driver
confusion to the listing of examples where dotted lines extensions
should be used, to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook.\108\ FHWA also proposes to add dimensions of the line
segments and gaps for the dotted line extension markings in order to
provide consistency in the application and for consistency with the
provisions of Section 3A.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.E(4d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
246. In Section 3B.09 Lane-Reduction Transition Markings, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement after the STANDARD statement that
exempts agencies from the requirement to place edge lines and/or
delineators along low-speed urban roadways where curbs clearly define
the roadway edge in a lane reduction transition if supported by
engineering judgment. The FHWA also proposes revising the 2nd paragraph
of the 2nd GUIDANCE statement to reference the proposed exemption of
low-speed roadways from the use of edge line markings. The FHWA
proposes these changes because on low-speed urban roadways, curbs often
provide adequate delineation of change of alignment of road edge.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the 2nd GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that a dotted lane line be used approaching a lane reduction,
consistent with the proposed use of dotted lane lines for other
conditions in which a lane does not continue ahead. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
247. In Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions, the FHWA
proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement to clearly indicate
that toll booths at toll plazas are fixed obstructions that shall be
marked according to the requirements of this section. The FHWA proposes
this change based on the recommendations
[[Page 300]]
of the Toll Plazas Best Practices and Recommendations Report.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement
to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than just permit, that
where observed speeds exceed posted or statutory speed limits, longer
tapers should be used. This is consistent with text already contained
in the first GUIDANCE statement in Section 3B.09.
248. In Section 3B.11 Raised Pavement Markers, the FHWA proposes to
modify the first STANDARD statement to specify that the height of a
raised pavement marker is not to exceed approximately 25 mm (1 in)
above the road surface, rather than specifying a minimum height, in
order to clarify that tubular markers and other similar devices that
might be placed on or in the roadway are not raised pavement markers.
The FHWA also proposes to add STANDARD and SUPPORT statements that
clarify that internally illuminated raised pavement markers shall be
steadily illuminated and shall not be flashed, and that flashing raised
pavement markers are considered to be In-Roadway Lights, consistent
with Part 4.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement near
the end of the section that recommends consideration of the use of more
closely spaced retroreflective pavement markers where additional
emphasis is needed. This proposed statement incorporates FHWA
Interpretation 3-176(I) \110\ into the Manual and is consistent with
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ FHWA Official Interpretation 3-176(I), dated
January 21, 2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_176.htm.
\111\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May 2001,
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation III.A(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
249. In Section 3B.12 Raised Pavement Markers as Vehicle
Positioning Guides with Other Longitudinal Markings, the FHWA proposes
to change the SUPPORT statement to a GUIDANCE in order to recommend,
rather than just permit, that the spacing of raised pavement markers
used as positioning guides for typical conditions should be 2N, where N
equals the length of one line segment plus one gap. The FHWA proposes
this change to reflect typical practice and to provide enhanced
uniformity.
250. In Section 3B.13 Raised Pavement Markers Supplementing Other
Markings, the FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION
statement that provides for the use of supplemental retroreflective or
internally illuminated raised pavement markers on horizontal curves to
improve drivers' visibility of curves. The FHWA proposes this new text
based on recommendations of the Older Driver handbook.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation III.A(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
251. In Section 3B.14 Raised Pavement Markers Substituting for
Pavement Markings, the FHWA proposes to change the GUIDANCE statement
to a STANDARD requiring that the color of raised pavement markers shall
simulate the color of the markings for which they substitute, in order
to assure uniformity of markings colors.
252. In Section 3B.15 Transverse Markings, the FHWA proposes to add
arrows and speed reduction markings (which are proposed new types of
markings, as discussed in item 257 below) to the list of transverse
markings in the STANDARD statement that shall be white in order to
provide clarity and provide uniformity in applications.
253. The FHWA proposes several changes to Section 3B.16 Stop and
Yield Lines, as well as to Section 7C.04 Stop and Yield Signs (in Part
7 Traffic Controls for School Areas) to clarify the intended use of
stop and yield lines. In Section 3B.16, the FHWA proposes to add
requirements to the first STANDARD statement regarding the use of STOP
and YIELD lines, specifically as they relate to locations where YIELD
(R1-2) signs or Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a) signs are
used. The FHWA proposes these changes to assure that stop lines are not
misused to indicate a yield condition or vice versa. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies. As part of the proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to require
that stop lines shall not be used at locations on uncontrolled
approaches where drivers are required by State law to yield to
pedestrians. The FHWA proposes this change in accordance with FHWA's
Official Interpretation 3-201(I), dated January 10, 2007.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ FHWA Official Interpretation 3-201(I), dated
January 10, 2007, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_201.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement that requires
the use of Yield Here to Pedestrian (R1-5 and R1-5a) signs at a
crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane approach when a yield
line is used, for consistency with the existing requirement in existing
Section 2B.11.
The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to clarify that Yield
Lines and Yield Here to Pedestrian signs should not be used in advance
of crosswalks that cross an approach or departure from a roundabout.
The FHWA proposes this change because yield lines and signs for the
crosswalk would be too close to the yield lines and signs at the entry
to the circulatory roadway and could be confusing to road users.
The FHWA also proposes to add OPTION and SUPPORT statements that
describe the use of staggered Stop and Yield lines. Longitudinally
offsetting the stop lines and yield lines on a multi-lane approach is a
common practice that improves drivers' view of pedestrians, improves
sight distance for turning vehicles, and increases the turning radius
for left-turning vehicles.
254. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 3B.16
Stop and Yield Lines. The proposed new section is numbered and titled
''Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Markings'' and contains
OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding use of markings to indicate
that the intersection is not to be blocked. The remaining sections in
Chapter 3B would be renumbered accordingly. Do Not Block Intersection
Markings are being used more widely across the country to improve
traffic flow through intersections. Uniformity in the use and type of
markings is needed to minimize road user confusion. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement markings in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
255. In existing Section 3B.17 (new Section 3B.18) Crosswalk
Markings, the FHWA proposes adding a paragraph to the first GUIDANCE
statement that recommends that crosswalk markings should be located so
that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk markings,
to be consistent with provisions in ADAAG \114\ and to
[[Page 301]]
provide more consistency for pedestrians as they negotiate the
crosswalk and curb ramps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes several additional changes to the first
GUIDANCE statement to reflect the findings of FHWA report, ``Safety
Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled
Locations.'' \115\ The proposed changes include deleting some of the
requirements for the specific placement of crosswalk markings and
adding recommendations regarding the placement of crosswalk markings
across uncontrolled approaches based on engineering judgment and
engineering studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ ``Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at
Uncontrolled Locations,'' FHWA report HRT-04-100, Charles
Zegeer, et al., September 2005, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/04100.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement at the end of the
section that incorporates information regarding detectable warning
surfaces that mark boundaries between pedestrian and vehicular ways
where there is no raised curb. The proposed language would be added to
the Manual in response to requests from the U.S. Access Board, based on
ADAAG.\116\ There has been a notable amount of confusion among many
highway agencies regarding the proper use of detectable warning
surfaces and where to find the proper information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
256. In existing Section 3B.19 (new Section 3B.20), the FHWA
proposes to incorporate the word ``arrow'' in several places in the
section to reflect that, although arrows are often not thought of as
symbols, the provisions of this section are intended to apply to
arrows. As part of this change, the FHWA proposes to title the Section,
``Pavement Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings.''
The FHWA also proposes to move the 2nd paragraph of the existing
2nd OPTION statement to a new GUIDANCE statement in order to recommend,
rather than just permit, that the International Symbol of Accessibility
parking space marking should be placed in each parking space designated
for use by persons with disabilities, for consistency with the
provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The FHWA also proposes to add a new GUIDANCE statement that
describes the use and placement of lane-use arrows in lanes designated
for the exclusive use of a turning movement and in turn bays, in lanes
from which movements are allowed that are contrary to the normal rules
of the road, and where opposing offset channelized left-turn lanes
exist. The FHWA proposes this new language to reflect common practice
and provide for increased uniformity, as highlighted in the NCHRP
Synthesis 356.\117\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5
years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, pages 7-13, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement that
recommends the use of ONLY word markings to supplement the required
arrow markings where through lanes approaching an intersection become
mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
5 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes revising the existing 3rd GUIDANCE statement
to add that where through lanes become mandatory turn or exit lanes,
markings and signs should be placed well in advance of the turn or exit
to provide additional advance warning to drivers. The FHWA proposes
these changes to reflect the predominant practice, as documented by
NCHRP Synthesis 356,\118\ and to enhance safety at these potentially
confusing locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, pages 6-7, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement near the end of the
section to clarify that the ONLY word marking is not to be used for
lanes with more than one movement. The FHWA proposes this change to
prevent road user confusion.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to expand the existing 4th GUIDANCE
statement to recommend that lane reduction arrow markings be used on
roadways with a speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) or above, and to
recommend that they be used on roadways with lower speed limits when
determined to be appropriate based on engineering judgment. The
existing MUTCD allows the use of lane reduction arrow markings in an
OPTION statement, however, based on the information in NCHRP Synthesis
356 \119\ the FHWA believes that, for enhanced safety, they should be
recommended on high-speed roads in order to provide a clear indication
that the lane reduction transition is occurring. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ NCHRP Synthesis 356, ``Pavement Markings--Design and
Typical Layout Details,'' 2006, page 32, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_356.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
257. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 3B.20 (new Section 3B.21). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 3B.22 Speed Reduction Markings'' and contains
SUPPORT, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding these proposed
transverse markings that may be placed on the roadway within a lane in
a pattern to give drivers the impression that their speed is
increasing. The FHWA proposes this new section to reflect the Traffic
Control Devices Pooled Fund Study on speed reduction markings,\120\
which found that these markings can be effective in reducing speeds at
certain locations, and to provide a standardized design for such
markings in order to provide uniformity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing speed reduction pavement
markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ ``Pavement Markings for Speed Reduction,'' December 2004,
prepared by Bryan J. Katz for the Traffic Control Devices Pooled
Fund Study, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/04100.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
258. In existing Section 3B.22 (new Section 3B.24) Preferential
Lane Word and Symbol Markings, the FHWA proposes to add information
regarding markings to be used for ETC preferential lanes to the
STANDARD statement, for consistency with other related proposed changes
in Parts 2 and 3 regarding ETC only lanes. As a part of this change,
the FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE regarding the use of
preferential lane symbol and word markings at key decision points on a
preferential lane, to reflect a recent FHWA policy memorandum.\121\ The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ The FHWA's August 3, 2007 policy memorandum on ``Traffic
Control Devices for Preferential Lane Facilities'' can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
259. The FHWA proposes to edit, expand, and reorganize existing
Section 3B.23 (new Section 3B.25) Preferential
[[Page 302]]
Lane Longitudinal Markings for Motor Vehicles. The proposed changes in
this section correspond to comparable sections on preferential lanes in
Chapters 2B and 2E. The resulting proposed changes in this section
include expanding the first STANDARD statement to include longitudinal
pavement markings for buffer-separated left-hand and right-hand side
preferential lanes, and expanding the 2nd STANDARD statement to include
markings for counter-flow preferential lanes on divided highways. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing
pavement markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies. These proposed changes reflect typical existing
practices for the marking of preferential lanes, as documented in
various FHWA guidance and handbooks.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Available FHWA guidance and handbooks on preferential
lanes can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hov.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE regarding the use of
dotted line markings at direct exits from preferential lane facilities,
to reduce the chances of unintended exit maneuvers, reflecting a recent
FHWA policy memorandum.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ The FHWA's August 3, 2007 policy memorandum on ``Traffic
Control Devices for Preferential Lane Facilities'' can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdplfmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
260. To illustrate the proposed changes to existing Section 3B.23
(new Section 3B.25), and to clarify their use, the FHWA proposes to add
more examples to Figures 3B-31 through 3B-34 to show the required
longitudinal markings for buffer-separated preferential lanes and
counter-flow preferential lanes.
261. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 3B.23 (new Section 3B.25). The proposed new section is numbered
and titled ``Section 3B.26 Chevron and Diagonal Crosshatching
Markings'' and contains OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements on
the use of markings intended to discourage travel on certain paved
areas. In this new section, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the optional
use of diagonal markings in gore areas and require chevron markings
because gores separate traffic flowing in the same direction and
diagonal crosshatching is inappropriate for that condition. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement
markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The remaining sections in Chapter 3B would be
renumbered accordingly.
262. The FHWA proposes deleting existing Section 3B.24 Markings for
Roundabout Intersections and existing Section 3B.25 Markings for Other
Circular Intersections because information from those sections has been
edited and expanded, and is now included in proposed new Chapter 3C
(see item 266 below).
263. In existing Section 3B.26 (new Section 3B.27) Speed Hump
Markings, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD to more clearly
state that if speed hump markings are to be used on a speed hump or a
speed table, the only markings that shall be used are those shown in
Figures 3B.35 and 3B.36. Because the existing MUTCD language is not
prescriptive, a wide variety of marking patterns are being used for
speed humps and the FHWA believes that additional uniformity is needed
to enhance safety. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5
years for existing pavement markings in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
264. In existing Section 3B.27 (new Section 3B.28) Advance Speed
Hump Markings, the FHWA proposes to revise STANDARD to more clearly
specify that if advance speed hump markings are used, the only markings
that shall be used are those shown in Fig 3B-37. Because the existing
MUTCD language is not prescriptive, a wide variety of marking patterns
are being used for advance speed hump markings and the FHWA believes
that additional uniformity is needed to enhance safety. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing pavement
markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
265. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 3B.27 (new Section 3B.28). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 3B.29 Markings for Toll Plazas'' and contains
SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements for the use of
pavement markings at toll plazas. The FHWA proposes this new section in
the MUTCD to reflect the recommendations of the Toll Plazas Best
Practices and Recommendations report \124\ and to provide uniformity in
pavement markings at toll plazas because toll plazas have not been
included in previous editions of the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 5 years for existing locations for the
recommendations on the use of solid lane lines and the requirements for
the design of optional purple markings in this new section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 3C through 3H
266. As discussed in item 231 above, the FHWA proposes to move
object markers, contained in existing Chapter 3C, to Part 2. The FHWA
proposes to title Chapter 3C, ``Roundabout Markings.'' This proposed
new chapter contains 7 sections that describe pavement markings at
roundabouts, including lane lines, edge lines, yield lines, crosswalk
markings, and pavement word, arrow, and symbol markings. The chapter
also includes a variety of proposed new figures that illustrate
examples of markings for roundabouts of various geometric and lane-use
configurations. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the state of
the practice for roundabout markings, especially for multi-lane
roundabouts, the safe and efficient operation of which necessitates
specific markings to enable road users to choose the proper lane before
entering the roundabout. The FHWA solicits comments on whether it is
necessary for all the proposed new figures illustrating roundabout
markings to be added to the MUTCD or whether some of those
illustrations should be placed in other documents for reference, such
as an updated version of the Roundabouts Guide. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 5 years for changes from the existing
requirements and guidance for existing pavement markings in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
267. In Section 3D.03 Delineator Application, in the first STANDARD
statement, the FHWA proposes to delete the exemption of routes that
have substantial portions with large sections of tangent alignments
from those locations where single delineators shall be provided on
freeways and expressways. The FHWA proposes this change because the
terms ``substantial portions'' and ``large sections'' cannot be
adequately defined.
The FHWA also proposes to add a new STANDARD statement indicating
that delineators on the left-hand side of a two-way roadway shall be
white. This corresponds to the existing requirement that delineator
color shall match the color of the edge line, but clarifies the
[[Page 303]]
intent for this situation, which has been misinterpreted by some
agencies.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a new paragraph to the first
GUIDANCE statement to recommend that delineators should be used
wherever guardrail or other longitudinal barriers are present in order
to provide for consistency in application. Guardrail and barriers are
typically close to the roadway and delineation on these features helps
road users be aware of the potential to collide with them during
conditions of darkness. The proposed new paragraph reflects existing
common practice. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for delineators on existing guardrail or existing longitudinal
barriers to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
268. In Section 3D.04 Delineator Placement and Spacing, the FHWA
proposes adding an OPTION at the end of the section to allow
delineators of an appropriate color to be mounted on the face of or on
top of guardrails or other longitudinal barriers in a closely-spaced
manner such that they form a continuous or nearly continuous ribbon of
delineation. This OPTION is proposed because this application is
becoming more widely used for special conditions and aids in improving
safety and visibility.
269. The FHWA proposes several revisions to Chapter 3E Colored
Pavements, Section 3E.01 General, in order to provide for a more
logical flow, to better emphasize traffic control device and non-
traffic control device colored pavements, and to reflect FHWA's
Interpretation 3-169(I) \125\ on non-retroreflective colored pavements.
The resulting language classifies as a traffic control device any
retroreflective colored pavement between crosswalk lines and non-
retroreflective colored pavement between crosswalk lines that is
intended to communicate a regulatory or warning message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 3-169(I), dated September
1, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/3-169-I-FL-S.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
270. As discussed in item 231 above, the FHWA proposes to move the
discussion of barricades to Part 2. As a result, the title of chapter
3F would be ``Channelizing Devices.''
271. In existing section 3F.02 (new Section 3F.01) Channelizing
Devices, the FHWA proposes to modify the STANDARD statement so that it
is consistent with Section 6F.59 Cones. Rather than repeating much of
the information that is already contained in Section 6F.59, the FHWA
proposes to delete the last four paragraphs of the STANDARD statement
and replace them with a reference to the retroreflectivity requirements
in Sections 6F.58 to 6F.60.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement
that the color of the reflective bands on channelizing devices shall be
white, except for bands on channelizing devices that are used to
separate traffic flows in opposing directions, which shall be yellow.
The FHWA proposes this change to correspond with the ``color code'' for
markings.
272. In Section 3G.01 General (Chapter 3G Islands), the FHWA
proposes to add the purpose of toll collection to the definition of
island for traffic control purposes. The FHWA proposes this change
because toll collection is a unique type of island.
273. In Section 3G.02 Approach-End Treatment, the FHWA proposes to
change the first OPTION statement to a SUPPORT statement because bars
and buttons projecting above the pavement surface in the neutral area
between approach-end markings are not considered traffic control
devices, and therefore are not regulated by the MUTCD. In concert with
this change, the FHWA proposes to delete the last GUIDANCE statement
and the first paragraph of the last OPTION statement.
274. In Section 3G.03 Island Marking Application, the FHWA proposes
changing the 2nd paragraph of the STANDARD statement to a GUIDANCE
statement because it is not always practical or necessary for a
jurisdiction to include chevron or diagonal hatching in the triangular
neutral area for all islands, especially small triangular channelizing
islands at intersections.
275. The FHWA proposes adding a new section at the end of Chapter
3G. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 3G.07
Pedestrian Islands and Medians'' and contains SUPPORT statements on the
purpose of pedestrian islands and medians as well as the placement of
detectable warnings at curb ramps. The information proposed within this
section is included in order to assist practitioners with meeting the
provisions of ADAAG.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
276. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter at the end of Part 3.
The proposed new chapter is numbered and titled, ``Chapter 3H Rumble
Strip Markings'' and contains two sections that describe the use of
marking in conjunction with longitudinal and transverse rumble strips.
Rumble strips have been in use for many years and numerous agencies are
considering increased usage as part of their strategic highway safety
plans. The proposed chapter is intended to address the use of markings
in combination with rumble strips.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 4--General
277. The FHWA proposes to reorganize Part 4 to improve the
continuity and flow of information regarding the application of highway
traffic signals in the MUTCD. Various paragraphs and sections would be
relocated throughout the part, and the proposed new organization is
reflected in the descriptions below.
278. The FHWA proposes to replace the word ``shown'' when referring
to signal indications with the word ``displayed'' throughout Part 4.
The FHWA also proposes to remove several references to ``lenses'' being
``illuminated'' and replace these with references to ``signal
indications'' being ``displayed.'' The FHWA proposes these changes to
provide for consistency in terminology and because many newer signal
optical units do not include lenses.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4A
279. In Section 4A.02 Definitions Relating to Highway Traffic
Signals, the FHWA proposes to remove ``signals at toll plazas'' from
the list of items that are not included as ``highway traffic signals''
in its definition. The FHWA proposes this change as a result of the
recommendations in the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations
Report \127\ that indicated that signals at toll plazas have properties
that are similar to some other special uses of highway traffic signals,
and therefore should be included in the definition. Also, the FHWA is
proposing to add a new Chapter 4K that provides for the application of
highway traffic signals at toll plazas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for ``Hybrid Signal'' and
``Pedestrian Hybrid Signal'' to provide clarity to the difference
between normal traffic control signals and Pedestrian Hybrid Signals
and Emergency Hybrid Signals, both of which are proposed for addition
to the MUTCD in Part 4.
[[Page 304]]
The FHWA proposes to add several items to the definition of
``Intersection,'' consistent with the proposed revised definition in
Section 1A.12. The FHWA proposes to add that two roadways separated by
9 meters (30 feet) or more shall be separate intersections; however, if
no stopping point is designated between the two roadways in the median,
the two intersections and the median between them shall be one
intersection. The FHWA also proposes to clarify that any part of any
vehicle legally beyond a stopping point is legally in the intersection,
and a vehicle will remain in the intersection until the rear of the
vehicle has cleared the intersection or crosswalk. The FHWA proposes
these changes to more clearly define an intersection with respect to
roadways divided by a median, particularly as this relates to signal
design and operation.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to revise the definition for
``Permissive Mode'' to include flashing YELLOW ARROW and flashing RED
ARROW indications for permissive phases, as well as circular green. The
flashing YELLOW ARROW and flashing RED ARROW are described in more
detail in subsequent items below.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise the definitions of ``Signal
Face'' and ``Signal Head'' to clarify that a signal face is an assembly
of one or more signal sections, and that a signal head is an assembly
of one or more signal faces. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify
the meanings because they are often misstated.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4B
280. In Section 4B.02 Basis of Installation or Removal of Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to change the OPTION statement (with
the exception of the last sentence of item E) to a GUIDANCE to
recommend the steps that should be taken to remove a traffic control
signal from operation, rather than merely permit steps to be taken. As
part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to remove the suggested
sign legend ``TRAFFIC SIGNAL UNDER STUDY FOR REMOVAL'' from item C,
because the legend for this sign should be based on applicable
circumstances for the individual intersection, and therefore a standard
message should not be included in the MUTCD.
The FHWA proposes to add to the remaining OPTION statement that
only items A and B of the GUIDANCE statement need to be completed for
temporary traffic control signals, because items C through E do not
apply to those locations. The FHWA also adds to the remaining OPTION
statement that controller cabinets may remain in place after removal of
traffic signal heads if the jurisdiction desires to continue analysis
of the traffic signal removal.
281. In Section 4B.04 Alternatives to Traffic Control Signals, the
FHWA proposes to add two items to the list of less restrictive
alternatives that should be considered before a traffic control signal
is installed. Proposed item H discusses revising the geometrics at the
intersection to add pedestrian median refuge islands and/or curb
extensions. Proposed item L discusses the use of a pedestrian hybrid
signal or in-roadway warning lights if pedestrian safety is a major
concern at a location. The remaining items would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes adding these items because they are
viable potential alternatives to a new traffic control signal.
282. In Section 4B.05 Adequate Roadway Capacity, the FHWA proposes
adding a paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement clarifying that additional
methods for increasing roadway capacity that do not involve widening a
signalized intersection should be carefully evaluated. Such methods
could include revising pavement markings and lane-use assignments where
appropriate. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that lower-cost
options should be considered to increase roadway capacity and
operational efficiency at signalized intersections.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4C
283. In Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic
Control Signals, the FHWA proposes adding a new Warrant 9,
``Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing'' to the list of
warrants. This proposed warrant is described in more detail in item 287
below.
The FHWA proposes adding a second paragraph to the first OPTION
statement allowing any four sequential 15-minute periods to be
considered as 1 hour in signal warrants that require conditions to be
present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, if the
separate 1-hour periods used in the analysis do not overlap each other
and both the major and minor street volumes are for the same specific
1-hour periods. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that the 1-
hour periods of peak traffic volumes may not necessarily correspond to
60 minutes starting at the :00 hour on the clock.
284. In Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour, the FHWA proposes
adding to the OPTION statement that a traffic signal justified only
under this warrant may be operated in flash-mode during the hours when
the warrant is not met. The FHWA also proposes a GUIDANCE statement
recommending that the signal be traffic-actuated. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 15 years for this GUIDANCE statement for
existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies. The FHWA proposes these changes to encourage
efficient operational strategies, because a traffic signal justified
only under the Peak Hour warrant may have very low traffic volumes
during much of the day. This language is similar to existing provisions
in Sections 4C.05 (Pedestrian Volume Warrant) and 4C.06 (School
Crossing Warrant).
285. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, the FHWA
proposes to change in the STANDARD the criteria that are to be met in
an engineering study for a traffic signal to be considered. The FHWA
proposes to replace the existing two criteria with two new criteria
based on vehicular and pedestrian volumes, and to require that only one
of the criteria be met. The proposed criteria, and the associated
volume curves, are derived from other vehicle-based traffic signal
warrants and supplemented with data gathered during a TCRP/NCHRP
study.\128\ Similar to other traffic signal warrants, the FHWA proposes
to add an OPTION statement following the criteria, allowing the use of
different volume curves based on the posted or statutory speed limit or
the 85th-percentile speed, or the location of the intersection. The
FHWA also proposes to revise the OPTION to reduce the required
pedestrian volumes for this warrant by as much as 50 percent if the
15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.1 m/sec
(3.5 ft/sec). The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the
recommendations of the joint TCRP/NCHRP study that adjustments are
needed in the existing pedestrian volume warrant. The net effect of the
proposed revisions is as follows: (a) The pedestrian warrant will be
slightly easier to meet with lower pedestrian volumes on streets with
high vehicle volumes, and (b) the pedestrian warrant will be slightly
more difficult to meet on streets with low vehicle volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ ``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Pedestrian
Crossings,'' TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Transportation
Research Board, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
286. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, and Section
4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing, the FHWA
[[Page 305]]
proposes adding recommendations to the GUIDANCE statement that a
traffic signal installed based on the pedestrian warrant or school
crossing warrant only should also control the side street or driveway.
When a traffic control signal is installed at an intersection with stop
signs on the minor street to assist pedestrians in crossing the major
street, minor street traffic can cross and turn left into the major
street after stopping during the display of the green on the major
street. This violates driver expectancies and compromises the meaning
and effectiveness of the green signal indication. The FHWA believes
that, even if the volume of traffic on the minor street is low when a
signal is justified based on Warrant 4, it is in the best interest of
traffic safety that the minor street be signalized also rather than
stop sign controlled. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
287. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section
4C.09. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 4C.10
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing'' and
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION statements describing
the new warrant, which is intended for use in locations where none of
the other eight signal warrants are met, but the proximity of the
intersection to a highway-rail grade crossing is the principal reason
to consider installing a traffic control signal. The FHWA proposes
adding this new warrant, because some stop-controlled approaches to
intersections near highway-rail grade crossings contain a stop line,
which is closer to the track than the length of a large vehicle, and
sight distances may preclude the vehicle from waiting on the approach
side of the grade crossing before entering the intersection. Many of
these intersections do not meet one of the other warrants in the MUTCD
because those warrants use minimum volume thresholds for considering
the installation of a traffic signal and not the proximity of a
highway-rail grade crossing. The proposed warrant is based on
recommendations from an NCHRP research project.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Information about ``Highway Traffic Signal Warrant for
Intersections Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,'' NCHRP Project 03-
76A, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=830.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4D--General
288. The FHWA proposes a significant reorganization of Chapter 4D
so that similar subjects are grouped together in adjacent sections, or
combined into single sections within the Chapter. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to add the use of flashing yellow and flashing red arrows in
Part 4, which affects many sections within Chapter 4D.
289. The FHWA also proposes to add the use of a flashing yellow
arrow indication as an optional alternative to a circular green for
permissive left-turn and right-turn movements throughout Part 4, which
affects many sections within Chapter 4D. The proposed text throughout
Chapter 4D incorporates Interim Approval IA-10, dated March 20, 2006,
for flashing yellow arrows during permissive turn intervals.\130\ The
Interim Approval and the subsequent proposed text in the MUTCD are
based on research contained in NCHRP Report 493.\131\ The research
found that the flashing yellow arrow is the best overall alternative to
the circular green as the permissive signal display for a left-turn
movement, has a high level of understanding and correct response by
left-turn drivers and a lower fail-critical rate than the circular
green, and the flashing yellow arrow display in a separate signal face
for the left-turn movement offers more versatility in field
application. It is capable of being operated in any of the various
modes of left-turn operation by time of day, and is easily programmed
to avoid the ``yellow trap'' associated with some permissive turns at
the end of the circular green display. The application of flashing
yellow arrow indications for right-turn movements is a logical
extension of use for left-turns and will provide jurisdictions with a
useful tool to effectively control a wide variety of situations
involving right turns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-10, dated March 20,
2006, can be found at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/pdf/ia-10_flashyellarrow.pdf.
\131\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays
for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
290. The FHWA also proposes to add information in several places in
this chapter regarding the use of U-turn arrow indications to reflect
the increasing use of U-turn arrows.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4D--Specific
291. In Section 4D.01 General, the FHWA proposes to add a SUPPORT
statement between the first and second paragraphs of the STANDARD
statement to clarify the meaning of a seasonal shutdown. The FHWA
proposes to add this information to incorporate clarifications into the
MUTCD per Official Interpretation 4-288, dated April 27,
2005.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-288, dated April 27,
2005, can be found at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_288.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to relocate a paragraph regarding coordination of
traffic control signals within 800 m (0.5 mi) of one another from
existing Section 4D.14 and add it to the GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA
also proposes to add that coordination for such traffic signals should
be considered where a jurisdictional boundary or a boundary between
different signal systems falls in between them. The FHWA proposes this
change to encourage jurisdictions to coordinate traffic signal timing
plans across jurisdictional or system boundaries. In concert with this
proposed change, the FHWA proposes to add a new SUPPORT statement at
the end of this section that contains information regarding traffic
signal coordination that was previously in Section 4D.14.
292. In Section 4D.03 Provisions for Pedestrians, the FHWA proposes
to change the OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than
merely permit, the use of No Pedestrian Crossing signs at traffic
control signal locations where it is necessary or desirable to prohibit
certain pedestrian movements, where such movements are not physically
prevented by other means. The FHWA proposes this change because if the
pedestrian movement is to be prohibited, a prohibitory sign should be
used.
293. The FHWA proposes to relocate and retitle existing Section
4D.18 to ``Section 4D.04 Signal Indications--Design, Illumination,
Color, and Shape.'' The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD
statement, which states that letters or numbers shall not be displayed
as part of a vehicular signal indication. The FHWA proposes to
specifically prohibit vehicular countdown displays because countdown
indications on vehicular signal indications and similar methods of
attempting to indicate a ``pre-yellow'' warning, such as a flashing
green interval, have been found to lengthen
[[Page 306]]
the ``dilemma zone'' and thereby result in increased crash rates.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ ``Safety Evaluation of a Flashing-Green Light in a Traffic
Signal,'' by D. Mahalel and D.M. Zaidel, Traffic Engineering +
Control magazine, February, 1985, pages 79-81, is available for
purchase from Hemming Information Services, 32 Vauxhall Bridge Road,
London, SW1V 2SS, England, Web site: http://www.tecmagazine.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to provide an exception to the prohibition
on lettering for toll plaza signals (which is proposed for addition to
the MUTCD, see item 347 below) because the Toll Plaza Best Practices
and Recommendations Report \134\ indicates that lettered messages on
toll plaza signals are useful for toll operations and, with the
extremely low speeds in a toll plaza stopped lane environment, such
messages do not significantly detract from the signal indications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add in the first STANDARD statement that
strobes or other flashing displays within or adjacent to red signal
indications shall not be used. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify
that strobes within traffic signals are not approved traffic control
devices and to be consistent with FHWA Official Interpretation 4-
263.\135\ Although FHWA allowed experimentation with strobes in red
traffic signals in the mid-1980s, the FHWA made a determination in 1990
not to approve any further experimentations with strobe lights in
traffic signals, and to terminate all then-current experimentations
with these devices. As stated in the Official Interpretation, research
conducted as part of the experimentation process showed inconsistent
benefits and some significant disbenefits to the use of strobes and
similar flashing displays. Any strobes operating within red traffic
signals are not in accordance with the MUTCD and they are not under any
approved experimentation. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for removing strobes from existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-263, dated July 2, 2003,
can be found at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/4-263-I-FL-s.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to relocate information regarding arrows
from existing Section 4D.16 to the first STANDARD statement, and to add
an item D to require that U-turn arrows, if used, be pointed in a
manner that directs the driver through the turn. The FHWA proposes this
change in order to provide U-turn signal arrow indications for use on
signalized approaches where left turns are prohibited or not physically
possible but U-turns are allowed and need to be positively controlled
with a protected signal phase. In such cases, left-turn arrows are not
appropriate.
294. To better organize the information by subject matter, and to
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add several sections following
Section 4D.04. The proposed new sections are numbered and titled
``Section 4D.05 Size of Vehicular Signal Indications,'' ``Section 4D.06
Positions of Signal Indications Within a Signal Face--General,''
``Section 4D.07 Positions of Signal Indications Within a Vertical
Signal Face,'' and ``Section 4D.08 Positions of Signal Indications
Within a Horizontal Signal Face.'' Much of the information in these
proposed new sections is contained in existing sections within Chapter
4D, but the text is revised to pertain to the subject of each
particular section. Significant additional changes to the sections are
described in items 295 and 296 below.
295. In new Section 4D.05 Size of Vehicular Signal Indications, the
FHWA proposes modifying the STANDARD to require 300 mm (12 in) signal
indications for all new signal installations. As part of this proposed
change, the FHWA proposes to allow existing 200 mm (8 in) signal
indications to be retained for the remainder of their useful life, to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA
proposes to revise the following OPTION statement to allow the use of
200 mm (8 in) signal indications under three specific circumstances
where such use could be advantageous. The FHWA proposes these changes
to reflect the predominant current signal design practice, to reflect
the results of studies \136\ that have shown the significant safety
benefits of using 300 mm (12 in) indications, and to make signal
indications more visible to elderly drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ These studies are summarized and documented in the FHWA
report ``Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering
Countermeasures to reduce Red-Light Running,'' pages 22-23, which
can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf and in
``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA publication
number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, page 283, which can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
296. In Section 4D.06 Positions of Signal Indications Within a
Signal Face--General, the FHWA proposes adding to the STANDARD
statement that unless otherwise stated for a particular application, if
a vertical signal face contains a cluster(s), the face shall have at
least three vertical positions. The FHWA proposes this change because
road users who are color vision deficient identify the illuminated
color by its position relative to the other signal sections.
The FHWA also proposes to add requirements to the STANDARD
statement for the position of U-turn arrow signal sections in a signal
face. The FHWA proposes this change to accommodate the new U-turn
arrows as described previously in item 290.
297. The FHWA also proposes adding several new figures that
illustrate positioning and arrangements of signal sections in left turn
signal faces (Figures 4D-5 to 4D-11) and right turn signal faces
(Figures 4D-12 to 4D-17). The FHWA proposes these new figures in order
to enhance understanding and correct application of the relatively
complex requirements and options for turn signals.
298. In existing Section 4D.04 (new Section 4D.09) Meaning of
Vehicular Signal Indications, the FHWA proposes to add to item A(1) of
the STANDARD statement a requirement that vehicular traffic turning
left yield the right-of-way to other vehicles approaching from the
opposite direction so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard. The
FHWA proposes this change to conform the MUTCD to the Uniform Vehicle
Code and to laws in many States.
The FHWA also proposes to separate existing item B(1) of the
STANDARD statement into two items to more clearly indicate the meaning
of a steady circular yellow and a steady yellow arrow to vehicular
traffic. As part of this change, the FHWA proposes to add that a steady
circular yellow signal indication warns that the related flashing arrow
movement is being terminated. The FHWA proposes this change to provide
consistency with the proposed addition of the applications of flashing
yellow arrows and flashing red arrows.
The FHWA proposes to revise item C(1) of the STANDARD statement to
clarify that where permitted, vehicles making a right turn or a left
turn from a one-way street onto another one-way street when a steady
circular red indication is displayed shall be governed by the rules
applicable to making a stop at a STOP sign. The FHWA proposes this
change to clarify the right of way rules for turning after stopping on
a circular red indication. The FHWA also proposes a revision to item
C(2) related to a steady red arrow signal indication that is similar in
nature but reflects the different
[[Page 307]]
requirements for turning on a red arrows versus on a circular red.
The FHWA proposes to delete the information from existing item D of
the STANDARD statement and instead describe the meanings of flashing
yellow signal indications in a new item E and flashing red signal
indications in a new item F to more specifically clarify their meanings
to vehicular traffic, to pedestrians, and when displayed as a beacon.
The FHWA proposes to state in new item D that a flashing green
indication has no meaning and shall not be used.
In new item E of the STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add
an item 2 that describes the use of flashing yellow arrow indications
for permissive turning movements in the direction of the arrow. The
FHWA proposes this change to allow agencies to use the flashing yellow
arrow, as an option to the steady circular green indication, for
intersections with permitted turning phases. The effectiveness of the
flashing yellow arrow for this purpose has been demonstrated as
reported in NCHRP Report 493.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays
for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
299. In existing Section 4D.05 (new Section 4D.10) Application of
Steady Signal Indications, the FHWA proposes to modify item A(2) in the
first STANDARD to exclude the use of a circular red signal indication
with a green arrow indication when it is physically impossible for
traffic to go straight through the intersection, such as on the stem of
a T-intersection. The FHWA proposes this change to provide for
additional consistency and uniformity of signal displays for the stems
of T-intersections.
The FHWA proposes to modify item E(3) in the first STANDARD to
permit the use of a steady yellow arrow indication to terminate a
flashing yellow arrow or a flashing left-turn red arrow controlling a
permissive left-turn phase. The FHWA proposes this change to provide
consistency with the proposed addition of the flashing yellow arrow
indication for permissive left turns. As documented in NCHRP Report
493,\138\ the steady yellow arrow was found to be successful as the
change interval display following the flashing yellow arrow permissive
interval. A subsequent study by the University of Wisconsin \139\ found
no evidence to suggest that the flashing yellow arrow permissive
indication negatively affects drivers' understanding of the steady
yellow change interval indication. No problems with this display have
been reported to FHWA by the dozens of highway agencies that have
implemented the flashing yellow arrow at several hundred intersections
under experimentation or interim approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays
for Protected/ Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
\139\ An abstract and summary of ``An Evaluation of Driver
Comprehension of Solid Yellow Indications Resulting from
Implementation of Flashing Yellow Arrow,'' 2007, by Michael A.
Knodler, David A. Noyce, Kent C. Kacir, and Chris L. Brehmer, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=802137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add new STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements at
the end of this section that contain new material related to the
proposed addition of the flashing yellow arrow and flashing left-turn
red arrow, as well as information previously contained in portions of
existing Sections 4D.08 and 4D.09, along with minor edits.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to restrict the displays of several
combinations of arrow signal indications of different colors pointing
in the same direction on any one signal face or as a result of the
combination of displays from multiple signal faces on an approach. The
FHWA proposes this change to avoid displaying conflicting or confusing
information to road users.
300. To better organize the information by subject matter, and to
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add several sections related to
signal faces following Section 4D.10. The proposed new sections are
numbered and titled ``Section 4D.11 Number of Signal Faces on an
Approach,'' ``Section 4D.12 Visibility, Aiming, and Shielding of Signal
Faces,'' ``Section 4D.13 Lateral Positioning of Signal Faces,''
``Section 4D.14 Longitudinal Positioning of Signal Faces,'' ``Section
4D.15 Mounting Height of Signal Faces,'' and ``Section 4D.16 Lateral
Offset (Clearance) of Signal Faces.'' Much of the information in these
proposed new sections is contained in existing sections within Chapter
4D, but the text is revised to pertain to the subject of each
particular section. Significant additional changes to the sections are
described in items 301 through 305 below.
301. In new Section 4D.11 Number of Signal Faces on an Approach,
the FHWA proposes revising item A of the STANDARD statement to clarify
that two signal faces are required for a straight-through movement if
such movement exists at a location, even if it is not the major
movement, and to require two signal faces for the major signalized
turning movement if no straight-through movement exists, such as on the
stem of a T-intersection. The FHWA proposes these changes to ensure
that the straight-through movement, or major signalized turning
movement in absence of a straight-through movement, contain redundant
signal faces in case of one of the signal faces fails, and to
incorporate the FHWA's Official Interpretation number 4-295(I).\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-295(I), dated October 19,
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_297.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes adding an OPTION to allow a single section
GREEN ARROW signal to be used when there is never a conflicting
movement at an intersection. This single section signal may be used for
a through movement at a T-intersection if appropriate geometrics and
signing are placed according to an engineering study, to allow for
free-flow of traffic where there are no conflicting movements. The FHWA
proposes this change to incorporate Official Interpretation 4-255(I)
into the MUTCD.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 4-255(I), dated February
19, 2003, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/4-255-I-NE-s.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement at the end of the
section that outlines the recommendations for providing and locating
signal faces at intersections where the posted or statutory speed limit
or the 85th-percentile speed on an approach exceeds 60 km/h (40 mph).
As documented in the FHWA reports ``Making Intersections Safer: A
Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running''
\142\ and ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \143\
numerous studies have found significant safety benefits from locating
signal faces overhead rather than at the roadside, providing one
overhead signal face per through lane when there is more than one
through lane, providing supplemental near-side and/or far-side post-
mounted faces for added visibility, and including backplates on the
signal faces. Additionally, two recent studies, by the
[[Page 308]]
URS Corporation \144\ and by Bradley University \145\ found that
reconfiguring diagonal signal spans to ``box'' spans or mast arm
layouts with far-side signal face locations produced significant
reductions in the number of red light violations and entries into the
intersection late in the yellow change interval. The FHWA proposes the
addition of this GUIDANCE to reflect modern signal design practices and
to enhance the safety of signalized intersections along higher-speed
roadways, where the potential benefits are greatest. For the same
reasons, the FHWA also proposes that these recommendations should be
considered as well as for any major urban or suburban arterial street
with four or more lanes. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Pages 17-27 of this report can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
\143\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 73-75 and
281-282, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
\144\ Details on this study, ``Far-Side Signals vs. Diagonal
Span Behavioral Research,'' project number 12937724, February 2006,
can be obtained from URS Corporation, 3950 Sparks Drive SE, Grand
Rapids, MI 49546-2420.
\145\ Evaluation of Signal Mounting Configurations at Urban
Signalized Intersections in Michigan and Illinois'' by Kerrie L.
Schattler, Matthew T. Christ, Deborah McAvoy, and Collette M.
Glauber, August 1, 2007, may be obtained from the Department of
Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, 1501 West
Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
302. In place of existing Figure 4D-3 Typical Arrangements of
Signal Lenses in Signal Faces, the FHWA proposes to add several new
figures showing typical arrangements of signal sections in signal faces
and typical lateral positioning of signal faces for several different
conditions, including U-turn arrows, non-turning, and turning
situations. The proposed new figures include Figures 4D-1, 4D-2, and
4D-6 through 4D-18. The FHWA believes that these new figures will
assist users of the Manual in understanding and applying the relatively
complex provisions, especially regarding turning movements.
303. In new Section 4D.12 Visibility, Aiming, and Shielding of
Signal Faces, the FHWA proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of the
first GUIDANCE statement, which was relocated from existing Section
4D.17, to add that signal backplates should be used on all of the
signal faces that face an approach with a posted or statutory speed
limit or where the 85th-percentile speed on the approach exceeds 60 km/
hr (40 mph), and that signal backplates should be considered when the
speeds are 60 km/hr (40 mph) or less. The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect modern signal design practices to enhance safety by increasing
the visibility of signal faces on higher-speed approaches, especially
for older drivers, to reflect safety studies as documented in the FHWA
reports ``Signalized Intersection: Informational Guide'' \146\ and
``Making Intersections Safer: Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to
Reduce Red Light Running,'' \147\ as well as recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook \148\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 288-290, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
\147\ Page 26 of this report can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
\148\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation
I.N(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement allowing the use
of yellow retroreflective strips along the perimeter of a signal face
backplate. The FHWA proposes this change to increase the conspicuity of
the signal face at night, and to add language to the MUTCD in
accordance with Interim Approval IA-1, dated February 2, 2004.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ The Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on
Signal Backplates, number IA-1, dated February 6, 2004, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_retroborder.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
304. In new Section 4D.13 Lateral Positioning of Signal Faces, the
FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD requiring that overhead-mounted turn
signal faces of certain types for exclusive turn lanes shall be located
directly over the turn lane. The FHWA proposes this change to ensure
that drivers associate the proper turn signal face with the exclusive
turn lane and because the research documented in NCHRP Report 493 \150\
found that this location produced the best driver understanding and
correct behavior. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15
years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays
for Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this proposed change in the preceding paragraph, the
FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement that on an approach with an
exclusive left-turn lane(s) and opposing vehicular traffic where a
circular green signal indication is used for permissive left turns,
signal faces containing a circular green signal indication should not
be post-mounted on the far side median or located overhead above an
exclusive left-turn lane or the extension of the lane. The FHWA
proposes this change because NCHRP Report 493 \151\ found that the
circular green permissive left-turn indication is confusing to some
left-turn drivers who assume it provides right of way during the
permissive interval. The FHWA believes that placement of the circular
green indication directly above or in line with an exclusive left-turn
lane exacerbates the safety issues with this display. Research \152\
found that found that displaying a circular green signal indication in
a separate signal face directly over an exclusive left-turn lane led to
a higher left-turn crash rate than ``shared'' displays placed over the
lane line between the left-turn lane and the adjacent through lane or
to the right of that line. Placing the signal display over the lane
line or to the right of it helps to promote the idea that the signal
display with the circular green indication is being shared by the left-
turn and through lanes. This can help reduce the infrequent but very
dangerous occurrence of the circular green permissive indication being
misunderstood as a protected ``go'' indication by left-turn drivers.
The FHWA clarifies that this proposed recommendation would apply only
to new or reconstructed intersections. The FHWA also proposes similar
wording in proposed new Sections 4D.18 and 4D.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ NCHRP Report 493, ``Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays
for Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Control,'' 2003, page 57, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_493.pdf.
\152\ ``An Evaluation of Permissive Left-Turn Signal Phasing,''
by Kenneth R. Agent, ITE Journal, Vol. 51, No. 12, December, 1981,
pages 16-20, may be obtained from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (Web site: http://www.ite.org.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD repeating the existing
requirement in existing Section 4D.15 (new Section 4D.10) prohibiting
the use of left-turn arrows in near-right signal faces and prohibiting
the use of right-turn arrows in far-left signal faces when supplemental
post-mounted signal faces are used. The FHWA proposes this change for
additional emphasis and to ensure consistency.
305. In new Section 4D.15 Mounting Height of Signal Faces, the FHWA
proposes to revise the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the STANDARD statement
[[Page 309]]
to apply the height requirements for signal housings to any portion of
a highway that can be used by motor vehicles. Because a shoulder is not
included in the definition of roadway, the FHWA proposes this change to
ensure that any portion of the highway on which motor vehicles may
travel is subject to the appropriate height requirements.
306. To better organize the information by subject matter, and to
add clarity, the FHWA proposes to add several sections related to
signal indications for turn movements following new Section 4D.16. The
FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 4D.06 to be
``Section 4D.17 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements--General.''
Proposed new Sections 4D.18 through 4D.20 describe the use of specific
signal indications and signal faces for the permissive only mode, the
protected only mode, and the protected/permissive mode left-turn
movements, respectively. The FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle
existing Section 4D.07 to be ``Section 4D.21 Signal Indications for
Right-Turn Movements--General.'' Proposed new Sections 4D.22 through
4D.24 describe the various modes of signalized right-turn movements in
the same order as the left turns. In addition to adding new material
related to the proposed addition of the flashing yellow arrow and
flashing red arrow, the FHWA proposes several editorial changes within
each new section to ensure that the text pertains to the subject of the
particular section. The FHWA proposes to allow the use of flashing red
arrow for permissive turn movements only in certain unusual
circumstances where an engineering study determines that each
successive vehicle must come to a full stop before making the turn
permissively. The FHWA also proposes to add Figures 4D-6 through 4D-12
and Figures 4D-13 through 4D-18 to illustrate positioning and typical
signal faces for each of the modes of left-turn and right-turn phasing,
respectively. Significant additional changes to the sections are
described in items 307 through 314 below.
307. In new Section 4D.17 Signal Indications for Left-Turn
Movements--General, the FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD statement
specifying the requirements for signal indications on the opposing
approach and for conflicting pedestrian movements during permissive and
protected left-turn movements. The FHWA proposes this addition for
consistency with other requirements in Part 4. The FHWA also proposes
to prohibit the use of a protected-only mode left-turn phase which
begins or ends at a different time than the adjacent through movements
unless an exclusive left turn lane is provided. The FHWA proposes this
change because, without an exclusive left-turn lane, the operation of a
protected-only mode left-turn phase forces left-turning vehicles to
await the display of the protected green arrow while stopped in a lane
used by through vehicles, causing many approaching through vehicles to
abruptly change lanes to avoid delays, and this can result in
inefficient operations and rear-end and sideswipe type crashes.\153\ If
an exclusive left-turn lane is not present and protected only mode is
needed for the left-turn movement, ``split-phasing,'' in which the
protected left-turn movement always begins and ends at the same times
in the signal cycle as the adjacent through movement, can be used. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, page 307, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes adding an OPTION to allow the use of static
signs to inform drivers that left-turn arrows will not be available at
certain times of the day. The FHWA proposes this change to give
agencies an option to inform motorists of the presence of a variable
mode left turn signal.
308. In new Section 4D.18 Signal Indications for Permissive Only
Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD statements
for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow as
permissive left turn signals. The FHWA proposes this change as part of
the addition of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow options
for signalizing permissive left-turns.
309. In new Section 4D.19 Signal Indications for Protected Only
Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the STANDARD
allowing the use of protected-only mode signal faces with the
combination of circular red, left-turn yellow arrow, and left-turn
green arrow. The FHWA proposes this change to enhance uniformity by
requiring States and municipal agencies to use a left-turn red arrow
instead of a circular red for protected-only mode left-turn signals.
Red arrow signal indications have been in use for over 35 years, are
extensively implemented for protected turn movements in the majority of
States, are well understood by road users, present an unequivocal
message regarding what movement is prohibited when the red indication
is displayed, and eliminate the need for the use of a supplemental R10-
10 LEFT TURN SIGNAL sign. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 15 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
310. In new Section 4D.20 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD
statements for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow
signal indications for protected/permissive left-turn movements. The
FHWA also proposes adding a GUIDANCE statement that recommends against
using ``separate'' signal faces for protected/permissive left-turn
movements, since they include the display of a circular green
indication that is located to the left of the lane line separating the
left-turn lane from the adjacent through lane(s).
311. In new Section 4D.21 Signal Indications for Right-Turn
Movements--General, the FHWA proposes adding a STANDARD statement
specifying the requirements for left-turn signal indications on the
opposing approach and for conflicting pedestrian movements during
permissive and protected right-turn movements. The FHWA proposes this
addition for consistency with other requirements in Part 4. The FHWA
also proposes to prohibit the use of a protected-only mode right-turn
phase which begins or ends at a different time than the adjacent
through movements unless an exclusive right turn lane is provided.
Similar to item 307 above for left-turns, the FHWA proposes this change
because, without an exclusive right-turn lane, the operation of a
protected-only mode right-turn phase forces right-turning vehicles to
await the display of the protected green arrow while stopped in a lane
used by through vehicles, causing many approaching through vehicles to
abruptly change lanes to avoid delays, and this can result in
inefficient operations and rear-end and sideswipe type crashes. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes adding an OPTION to allow the use of static
or changeable message signs to inform drivers that right-turn arrows
will not be available at certain times of the day. The FHWA proposes
this change to give agencies an option to inform motorists of the
presence of a variable mode right turn signal.
[[Page 310]]
312. In new Section 4D.22 Signal Indications for Permissive Only
Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD statements
for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow as
permissive right turn signals. The FHWA proposes this change as part of
the addition of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow options
for signalizing permissive right-turns.
313. In new Section 4D.23 Signal Indications for Protected-Only
Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes to retain the provision
currently located in existing Section 4D.07 that allows the use of
protected-only mode right-turn signal faces with the combination of
circular red, right-turn yellow arrow, and right-turn green arrow.
Although the use of circular red indications for protected-only mode
left-turns is proposed for elimination in item 309 above, the FHWA
believes that circular red should be retained for use with protected-
only mode right-turn movements because of the different meanings of the
circular red and the right-turn red arrow signal indications regarding
right-turn-on-red after stop. Circular red would be used in a
protected-only mode right turn signal face if it is intended to allow
right turns on red after stopping. The FHWA also proposes adding
STANDARD statements for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing
red arrow signal indications for protected only mode right-turn
movements.
314. In new Section 4D.24 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD
statements for the use of flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow
signal indications for protected/permissive right-turn movements. The
FHWA also proposes adding a STANDARD statement that prohibits the use
of ``separate'' signal faces for protected/permissive right-turn
movements, since they offer no benefits when compared to a shared
signal face.
315. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 4D.25 Signal Indications for Approaches With Shared Left-
Turn/Right-Turn Lanes and No Through Movement.'' This new section
contains SUPPORT, STANDARD and OPTION statements regarding this type of
lane that is shared by left-turn and right-turn movements, which is
sometimes provided on an approach that has no through movement, such as
the stem of a T-intersection or where the opposite approach is a one-
way roadway in the opposing direction. The FHWA proposes this change to
provide explicit information regarding shared left-turn/right-turn
lanes, which has not previously been included in the MUTCD, and to
enhance uniformity of displays for this application. The FHWA proposes
a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
316. In existing Section 4D.10 (new Section 4D.26) Yellow Change
and Red Clearance Intervals, the FHWA proposes to revise the first
STANDARD regarding yellow change intervals to account for the proposed
introduction of the flashing yellow arrow and flashing red arrow for
permissive turn phases.
The FHWA also proposes to change the first OPTION statement to a
GUIDANCE, to recommend, rather than merely permit, a yellow change
interval to be followed by a red clearance interval to provide
additional time before conflicting movements are released, when
indicated by the application of engineering practices as discussed
below. The FHWA proposes this change based on safety studies indicating
the positive effect on safety of providing a red clearance interval and
surveys indicating that use of a red clearance interval is a
predominant practice by jurisdictions, as documented in the FHWA report
``Making Intersections Safer: Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to
Reduce Red Light Running.'' \154\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing signals in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Pages 35-36 of this report can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to revise the second STANDARD statement to
indicate that the durations of the yellow change interval and, when
used, the red clearance interval, shall be determined using engineering
practices, and to add a new SUPPORT statement to indicate that
engineering practices for determining the durations of these intervals
can be found in two Institute of Transportation Engineers publications.
The FHWA proposes these changes to enhance safety at signalized
intersections by requiring that accepted engineering methods be used to
determine the durations of these critical intervals rather than random
or ``rule of thumb'' settings, and by recommending the provision of a
red clearance interval when such accepted engineering practices
indicate such interval is needed. As documented in the FHWA report
``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \155\ a variety of
studies from 1985 through 2002 have found significant safety benefits
from using accepted engineering practices to determine the durations of
yellow and red clearance intervals. Recent safety studies \156\ have
further documented significant major reductions in crashes when
jurisdictions have revised the durations of the yellow change and red
clearance intervals using the accepted engineering practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 209-211, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
\156\ NCHRP Research Results Digest 299, November 2005, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_299.pdf. This digest
includes data from the study ``Changes in Crash Risk Following
Retiming of the Traffic Signal Change Intervals,'' by R.A. Retting,
J.F. Chapline, and A.F. Williams, as published in Accident Analysis
and Prevention, Volume 34, number 2, pages 215-220, available from
Pergamon Press, Oxford, NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes a new STANDARD statement that requires that
the duration of the yellow change intervals and red clearance intervals
be within the technical capabilities of the signal controller, and be
consistent from cycle to cycle in the same timing plan. The FHWA
proposes this change to accommodate the inherent limitations of some
older mechanical controllers but provide for consistency of interval
timing.
Finally, the FHWA proposes a new STANDARD statement at the end of
the section that prohibits the use at a signalized location of flashing
green indications, countdown vehicular signals, or similar displays
intended to provide a ``pre-yellow warning'' interval. Flashing beacons
on advance warning signs on the approach to a signalized location would
be exempted from the prohibition. The FHWA proposes this change to
clarify the MUTCD consistent with FHWA Official Interpretation
4-246.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Official Interpretation 4-246 can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/pdf/4-246-I-NY-S.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
317. In existing Section 4D.13 (new Section 4D.27) Preemption and
Priority Control of Traffic Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement recommending that agencies provide back-up power
supplies for signals with railroad preemption or that are coordinated
with flashing light signal systems, with the exception of traffic
control signals interconnected with light rail transit systems. The
FHWA proposes this change to ensure that the primary functions of the
[[Page 311]]
interconnected signal systems still function in a safe manner in the
event of a power failure, and for consistency with similar proposed
GUIDANCE in Part 8. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
10 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing light rail
transit signal indications to control preemption or priority control
movements for public transit buses in ``queue jumper'' lanes or bus
rapid transit in semi-exclusive or mixed-use alignments. The FHWA
proposes this change to incorporate clarification into the MUTCD
consistent with FHWA Official Interpretation 10-59(I) and
10-66(I), to provide additional flexibility to agencies
seeking to reduce driver confusion with traffic signals intended to
control only mass transit vehicles.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ FHWA's Official Interpretations 10-59(I), dated April 16,
2003, and 10-66(I), dated October 6, 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web sites: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/10_59.htm and http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/10_66.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
318. Following new Section 4D.27, the FHWA proposes to add several
sections related to the flashing operation of traffic signals. The
proposed sections are numbered and titled, ``Section 4D.28 Flashing
Operation of Traffic Control Signals--General,'' ``Section 4D.29
Flashing Operation--Transition Into Flashing Mode,'' ``Section 4D.30
Flashing Operation--Signal Indications During Flashing Mode,'' and
``Section 4D.31 Flashing Operation--Transition Out of Flashing Mode.''
While much of this information is contained in existing sections of the
MUTCD, the FHWA proposes to edit, add new information, and better
organize the material to provide clarity on the flashing operation of
traffic signals, including how to transition into and out of flashing
mode. Significant additional changes to existing material are described
in items 319 through 322 below.
319. In Section 4D.28 Flashing Operation of Traffic Control
Signals--General, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing traffic
control signals to be operated in flashing mode on a scheduled basis
during one or more periods of the day. The FHWA proposes this change
because more efficient operations may be achieved if the signal is set
to flashing mode when steady mode (stop and go) operation is not
needed. This change is consistent with a similar proposed change in
Section 4C.04 discussed in item 284 above.
320. In Section 4D.29 Flashing Operation--Transition into Flashing
Mode, the FHWA proposes to add information to the STANDARD for
terminating the flashing yellow arrow signal indication when entering
flashing mode. The FHWA proposes this change as part of the proposed
addition of the flashing yellow arrow indication for permissive turns.
321. In Section 4D.30 Flashing Operation--Signal Indications During
Flashing Mode, the FHWA proposes to include a paragraph in the STANDARD
statement that prohibits green signal indications from being displayed
when a traffic control signal is operated in the flashing mode, except
for single-section green arrow signal indications as noted elsewhere in
the section. The FHWA proposes this paragraph to clarify proper
displays during flashing mode.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the STANDARD to allow a signal
face consisting of entirely arrow indications to flash a yellow arrow
indication if it is intended that turns are to be permitted after
yielding, without a full stop required, during flashing mode. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide clarity that this application is
allowed.
322. In Section 4D.31 Flashing Operation--Transition Out of the
Flashing Mode, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD requiring that no
steady green or flashing yellow indication shall be terminated and
immediately followed by a steady red indication without first
displaying a steady yellow indication. The FHWA proposes this change to
ensure that road users receive adequate warning of the onset of the red
indication when the signal is transitioning from flashing mode to
steady mode.
323. As part of the restructuring of Chapter 4D, the FHWA proposes
to renumber and revise the titles of existing Sections 4D.20, 4D.19,
and 4D.21 to be ``Section 4D.32 Temporary and Portable Traffic Control
Signals,'' ``Section 4D.33 Lateral Offset of Signal Supports and
Cabinets,'' and ``Section 4D.34 Use of Signs at Signalized Locations,''
respectively.
324. In new Section 4D.34 Use of Signs at Signalized Locations, the
FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement a recommendation to use
overhead lane-control signs where lane-drops, multiple-lane turns,
shared through and turn lanes, or other lane-use regulations that may
be unexpected by unfamiliar road users are present. The FHWA proposes
this change to enhance safety by providing road users with highly
visible notice of the appropriate lane-use regulations before
approaching an intersection where these unusual and unexpected
conditions exist. This change also reflects safety studies as
documented in the FHWA report ``Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide'' \159\ and recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\160\
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 292-293, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
\160\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.M(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
325. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section
4D.34. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 4D.35
Use of Pavement Markings at Signalized Locations,'' and contains
paragraphs relocated from Section 4D.01.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 4E
326. In Section 4E.02 Meaning of Pedestrian Signal Head
Indications, the FHWA proposes to revise item B of the STANDARD that
defines the meaning of the flashing UPRAISED HAND pedestrian signal
indication. First, the FHWA proposes to allow pedestrians that enter
the intersection on a steady WALKING PERSON indication to proceed to
the far side of the traveled way unless otherwise directed by signs or
signals to proceed only to a median or pedestrian refuge area. The FHWA
proposes this change to allow pedestrians to cross an entire divided
highway and not have to stop at the median if the signal has been timed
to provide sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the entire highway.
In cases where the signal timing only provides enough time for
pedestrians to cross to the median, signs or signals are required to be
provided to direct pedestrians accordingly. The FHWA also proposes
changes in Section 4E.10 (see item 336 below) for consistency with this
change. In addition, the FHWA proposes to allow pedestrians to enter
the intersection when a countdown pedestrian signal indication is shown
with the flashing UPRAISED HAND if they are able to travel to the far
side of the traveled way or to a median by the time a conflicting
vehicular movement is allowed to proceed. The FHWA proposes this change
because many pedestrians walk faster than the walking
[[Page 312]]
speeds used to calculate the length of the pedestrian change interval;
therefore, many pedestrians are easily able to begin their crossing
after the flashing UPRAISED HAND and countdown period has started and
complete their crossing during the displayed countdown period and the
additional buffer period of vehicular yellow and red clearance
intervals. As a result, pedestrians should be permitted to make their
own determination of whether or not they have sufficient time to begin
and complete their crossing during the remaining pedestrian clearance
time. Some jurisdictions using pedestrian countdown signals, such as
Salt Lake City, Utah, have adopted laws and ordinances similar to the
FHWA's proposal.\161\ The FHWA acknowledges that this change will
require a coordinated change to the Uniform Vehicle Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Salt Lake City ordinance 12.32.055, Pedestrian Signal
Indications, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://66.113.195.234/UT/Salt%20Lake%20City/11008000000007000.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
327. In Section 4E.03 Application of Pedestrian Signal Heads, the
FHWA proposes to add a 2nd STANDARD statement at the end of the section
to explicitly require a steady or flashing red signal indication to be
shown to any conflicting vehicular movement perpendicular to a
crosswalk with an associated pedestrian signal head displaying either a
steady WALKING PERSON or flashing UPRAISED HAND indication. The FHWA
proposes this addition to reflect sound engineering practice.
328. In Section 4E.04 Size, Design, and Illumination of Pedestrian
Signal Head Indications, the FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD
statement to allow the use of a one-section pedestrian signal head with
the WALKING PERSON and UPRAISED HAND symbols overlaid upon each other
or side by side. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect Official
Interpretation 4-303,\162\ dated February 3, 2006, which
clarified that: ``As long as the [signal head] properly displays the
individual upraised hand and walking person indications, visible as
distinctly separate indications meeting all other requirements (color,
shape, luminous intensity, etc.), the light sources comprising the
indications may be overlaid on each other or they may be side-by-
side.'' The FHWA proposes to change Figure 4E-1 Typical Pedestrian
Signal Indications to reflect this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Official Interpretation 4-303 can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_303.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement
recommending that some form of automatic dimming be used to reduce the
brilliance of the pedestrian signal indication if the indication is so
bright as to cause excessive glare in nighttime conditions. The FHWA
proposes this new recommendation to avoid glare conditions, which can
reduce the visibility of the indications at night, similar to the
existing GUIDANCE for vehicular signal indications in Chapter 4D.
329. Both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 require that facilities,
programs and services be accessible to persons with disabilities. The
FHWA proposes changes to Sections 4E.06, 4E.08, and 4E.09 of MUTCD
regarding communication of pedestrian signal information to pedestrians
with vision, vision and hearing, or cognitive disabilities to reflect
research \163\ conducted under NCHRP 3-62, Accessible Pedestrian
Signals, and a 5-year project on Blind Pedestrians' Access to Complex
Intersections sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, National
Eye Institute, that has demonstrated that certain techniques most
accurately communicate information. The proposed changes also result in
making accessible pedestrian detectors easy to locate and actuate by
persons with visual or mobility impairments. Significant proposed
changes to existing material are described in item 330 and items 332
through 335 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Research reports on this topic can be viewed at the U.S.
Access Board's Internet Web site at: http://www.access-board.gov/research/aps.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
330. In Section 4E.06 Accessible Pedestrian Signals, the FHWA
proposes to change the second STANDARD to require both audible and
vibrotactile walk indications, and to add requirements on how audible
and vibrotactile walk indications are to be provided. The FHWA proposes
that audible indications shall not be provided during the pedestrian
change interval because research \164\ has found that visually disabled
pedestrians need to concentrate on the sounds of traffic movement while
they are crossing and audible indications of the flashing UPRAISED HAND
interval would be distracting from that task. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Research reports on this topic can be viewed at the U.S.
Access Board's Internet Web site at: http://www.access-board.gov/research/aps.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to change the existing 4th GUIDANCE
statement regarding the loudness of audible pedestrian walk signals to
a STANDARD. The new STANDARD bases the loudness of an audible
pedestrian walk signal on the ambient sound level and provides for
louder volume adjustment in response to an extended pushbutton press.
The FHWA proposes these changes to allow the audible pedestrian walk
signals to be heard over the ambient sound level, and to allow
pedestrians with hearing impairments to receive a louder audible walk
signal. The FHWA also proposes to add to this STANDARD that an
accessible walk signal shall have the same duration as the pedestrian
walk signal unless the pedestrian signal rests in the walk phase and
add subsequent GUIDANCE regarding the recommended duration and
operation of the accessible walk signal if the pedestrian signal rests
in the walk phase. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that the
duration of accessible walk signals is dependent on whether the signal
controller is set to rest in walk or steady don't walk in the absence
of conflicting demands.
Following the new STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add new
GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements regarding the duration, tone,
and speech messages of audible walk indications in order to clarify
their use and application.
The FHWA proposes to modify the existing 4th STANDARD to require
that speech walk messages only be used where it is technically
infeasible to install two accessible pedestrian signals at one corner
with the minimum required separation. The STANDARD also contains
requirements for what information is allowed in speech messages. The
FHWA also proposes a GUIDANCE statement that recommends that the speech
messages not state or imply a command. The FHWA proposes these changes
to clarify when and under what circumstances speech walk messages are
to be used. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State
or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes deleting the existing last SUPPORT, STANDARD, and
GUIDANCE statements from this section and replacing them with
information regarding the use of audible beaconing as an additional
feature that may be provided as a result of an extended pushbutton
press. The FHWA proposes adding this information, because while they
can be valuable,
[[Page 313]]
activating audible beaconing features at multiple crosswalks at the
same intersection can be confusing to visually disabled pedestrians,
and therefore audible beaconing should be activated only when needed.
331. In Section 4E.07 Countdown Pedestrian Signals, the FHWA
proposes changing the option of using pedestrian countdown displays to
a requirement for new installations of pedestrian signals. The proposed
STANDARD requires the use of countdown displays at all pedestrian
signals except where the duration of the pedestrian change interval is
less than 3 seconds. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
10 years for the addition of pedestrian countdown displays to existing
pedestrian signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies. The FHWA proposes this change to provide
enhanced pedestrian safety because a multi-year research project
involving crash data for hundreds of locations in San Francisco \165\
showed significant overall safety benefits and substantial reductions
in the number of pedestrian-vehicle crashes when countdown signals are
used, as compared to locations that did not have the countdowns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ ``Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience With an
Extensive Pilot Installation,'' by Markowitz, Sciortino, Fleck, and
Yee, published in ITE Journal, January 2006, pages 43-48, is
available from the Institute of Transportation Engineers at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.ite.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FHWA proposes a new STANDARD after the first
paragraph of the GUIDANCE that requires that a pedestrian countdown
signal be dark when the duration of the green interval for a concurrent
vehicular movement has intentionally been set to continue beyond the
end of the pedestrian change interval. The FHWA proposes this change to
ensure consistency with normal pedestrian signal operations, which
requires the countdown display to be dark whenever the steady UPRAISED
HAND is displayed.
332. In Section 4E.08 Pedestrian Detectors, the FHWA proposes
changing the first GUIDANCE statement regarding the location of a
pedestrian pushbutton to a STANDARD and adding criteria that are to be
met for the location of pushbuttons. The FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE
and OPTION statements that contain additional information for locations
where constraints make meeting some of the criteria impractical. The
FHWA proposes these changes to make pedestrian pushbuttons more
accessible to disabled pedestrians and to pedestrians in general. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes modifying the existing first
STANDARD statement to require accessible pedestrian pushbuttons mounted
on the same pole to be provided with the accessible features described
in Section 4E.09 of the MUTCD. The FHWA also proposes to change the
following GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that the
positioning of the pushbuttons and legends on the signs clearly
indicate which crosswalk signal is activated by which pushbutton. The
FHWA proposes these changes to eliminate ambiguity regarding which
pushbutton a pedestrian must activate to cross a particular street. The
FHWA also proposes to add to the existing last STANDARD statement that
a when a pilot light is used at an accessible pedestrian signal
location, each actuation shall be accompanied by the speech message
``wait.'' The FHWA proposes this change to ensure that the activation
confirmation is available to pedestrians with impaired vision.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end
of the section requiring a FOR MORE CROSSING TIME: HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR
2 SECONDS (R10-32P) sign if additional crossing time is provided by
means of an extended pushbutton press. The FHWA proposes this change to
ensure that pedestrians receive instructions of the use of this feature
and are made aware of the feature's existence.
With the exception of the 15 year period proposed for the new
requirements regarding locations of pedestrian pushbuttons, for the
other new or revised provisions in Section 4E.08, the FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
333. In Section 4E.09 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Detectors, the
FHWA proposes to modify the second STANDARD to require pushbutton
locator tones at accessible pedestrian signals. As part of this change,
the FHWA proposes to change the following GUIDANCE statement regarding
locator tones to a STANDARD. The FHWA proposes this change consistent
with item 330 above. In addition, the FHWA proposes to change the first
paragraph of the existing first GUIDANCE statement regarding tactile
arrows to a STANDARD, and relocate it within the section. The FHWA
proposes modifying the remainder of the GUIDANCE statement to reduce
redundancy.
The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD that requires locator tones,
tactile arrows, speech walk messages, and a speech pushbutton
informational message when two accessible pedestrian pushbuttons are
placed on the same pole. Additionally, if the clearance time is
sufficient to only cross to the median of a divided highway, an
accessible pedestrian detector shall be provided on the median. The
FWHA proposes these changes consistent with item 332 above.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the existing 3rd
OPTION statement allowing the use of an extended pushbutton press to
activate additional accessible features at a pedestrian crosswalk. The
FHWA proposes to follow this new paragraph with a new STANDARD
statement that sets requirements for the amount of time a pushbutton
shall be pressed to activate the extra features.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end
of the section requiring that speech pushbutton information messages
only play when the walk interval is not timing. Requirements regarding
the content of these messages are also contained in this new STANDARD.
The FHWA proposes this change to promote uniformity in the content of
speech messages.
For the new or revised provisions of Section 4E.09, the FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
334. The FHWA also proposes to revise existing Figure 4E-2 to show
a general layout of recommended pushbutton locations. The FHWA proposes
to add a new Figure numbered and titled, ``Figure 4E-3 Typical
Pushbutton Locations'' that shows 8 examples of pushbutton locations
for various sidewalk, ramp, and corner configurations. The FHWA
proposes these additional figures to help clarify appropriate locations
under different geometric conditions.
335. In Section 4E.10 Pedestrian Intervals and Signal Phases, the
FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD to require the steady
UPRAISED HAND indication to be displayed during the yellow change
interval and the red clearance interval if used as part of the
pedestrian clearance time. The FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with the proposed change in Section 4E.07 to require
countdown pedestrian signal displays. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good condition to
[[Page 314]]
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement for
calculating pedestrian clearance times to use slower walking speeds,
except where extended pushbutton presses or passive pedestrian
detection has been installed for slower pedestrians to request
additional crossing time as noted in the OPTION. Another proposed
GUIDANCE statement notes that a lower speed should be considered if
significant numbers of pedestrians in wheelchairs or slower pedestrians
are present. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide enhanced
pedestrian safety, based on recent research \166\ regarding pedestrian
walking speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Pedestrian walking speed research was included in
``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Pedestrian
Crossings,'' TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Transportation
Research Board, 2006, which can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf. Also see the article ``The Continuing Evolution of
Pedestrian Walking Speed Assumptions,'' by LaPlante and Kaeser, ITE
Journal, September 2004, pages 32-40, available from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, Web site: http://www.ite.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, based on the same research, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement recommending that the total of the walk phase and
pedestrian clearance time should be long enough to allow a pedestrian
to walk from the pedestrian detector to the opposite edge of the
traveled way at a speed of 0.9 meters (3 feet) per second. The FHWA
proposes this change to ensure that slower pedestrians can be
accommodated at longer crosswalks if they start crossing at the
beginning of the walk phase.
For the changes in recommended walking speeds and method of
determining pedestrian timing, the FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to change the last existing GUIDANCE to a
STANDARD to require, rather than merely recommend, that median-mounted
pedestrian signals, signing, and pushbuttons (if actuated) be provided
when the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only for crossing from
the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for a pedestrian
to wait. The FHWA proposes this change to assure that pedestrians who
must wait on a median or island are provided the means to actuate a
pedestrian phase to complete the second half of their crossing. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement that allows a leading
pedestrian interval when a high volume of pedestrians and turning
vehicles are present. As indicated in the FHWA report ``Signalized
Intersections: Informational Guide,'' \167\ several studies have
demonstrated that leading pedestrian intervals can significantly reduce
conflicts for pedestrians. The FHWA also proposes to add a GUIDANCE
statement that gives a recommended minimum length of the leading
pedestrian interval, reflecting recommendations from the Older Driver
handbook,\168\ and the traffic control devices that should be used to
prevent turning vehicles from crossing the path of pedestrians during
this leading interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ ``Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide'', FHWA
publication number FHWA-HRT-04-091, August 2004, pages 197-198, can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04091/.
\168\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm. Recommendation I.P(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes an OPTION statement that permits the
green time for the concurrent vehicular movement to be set longer than
the pedestrian change interval to allow vehicles to complete turns
after the pedestrian phase. The FHWA proposes these changes to include
this application in the MUTCD that is used by many jurisdictions, and
recommended by the Older Driver handbook \169\ to reduce conflicts
between pedestrians and turning motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ This 2001 report can be viewed at the following Internet
Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/01-051.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 4F through 4L
336. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter to Part 4, numbered and
titled, ``Chapter 4F Pedestrian Hybrid Signals.'' The proposed new
chapter would have three sections that describe the application,
design, and operation of pedestrian hybrid signals. A pedestrian hybrid
signal is a special type of hybrid signal used to warn and control
traffic at an unsignalized location to assist pedestrians in crossing a
street or highway at a marked crosswalk. A pedestrian hybrid signal
contains a circular yellow signal indication centered below two
circular red signal indications, and shall be dark except when
activated. The remaining Chapters in Part 4 would be re-lettered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes this addition to give agencies
additional flexibility by providing an alternative method for control
of pedestrian crosswalks that has been found by research \170\ to be
highly effective. This type of device has been used successfully for
many years in Tucson, Arizona, where it is known as a ``HAWK Signal.''
This type of device offers significant benefits for providing enhanced
safety of pedestrian crossings where normal traffic control signals
would not be warranted. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signals in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ ``Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Pedestrian
Crossings,'' TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Transportation
Research Board, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
337. As part of this new Chapter, the FHWA proposes to add three
new figures. Proposed Figures 4F-1 and 4F-2 contain guidelines for the
justification of installation of pedestrian hybrid signals on low speed
and high speed roadways, respectively. Proposed Figure 4F-3 shows the
proposed sequence of intervals for a pedestrian hybrid signal.
338. The FHWA proposes changing the title of existing Chapter 4F
(new Chapter 4G) to ``Traffic Control Signals and Hybrid Signals for
Emergency Vehicle Access'' to reflect the proposed addition of hybrid
signals to this chapter.
339. In existing Section 4F.01 (new Section 4G.01) Application of
Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control Signals and Hybrid Signals, the FHWA
proposes adding a paragraph to the OPTION statement to allow an
emergency-vehicle hybrid signal to be installed in place of an
emergency-vehicle traffic control signal under the conditions described
in Section 4G.04. The FHWA proposes this change to accommodate
emergency-vehicle hybrid signals as proposed to be added as described
below.
340. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 4F.03 (new Section 4G.03). The proposed new section is numbered
and titled ``Section 4G.04 Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Signals'' and
contains STANDARDS for this type of traffic signal which will be used
in conjunction with signs to warn and control traffic at an
unsignalized location where emergency vehicles enter or cross the
street or highway. An emergency-vehicle hybrid signal contains a
circular yellow signal
[[Page 315]]
indication centered below two circular red signal indications, and
shall be dark except when activated. The FHWA had proposed the addition
of a somewhat similar device, the Emergency Beacon, for the 2003
edition of the MUTCD but decided not to include it in the Final Rule
due to various concerns about some details of the device's design and
operational features and alleged insufficient experience with the
device. Since that time, additional experience has been gained with
this type of device and the current proposal to add the Emergency-
Vehicle Hybrid Signal is revised from the previous proposal to address
the earlier design and operational issues. The FHWA believes that
hybrid signals provide an effective, alternative method to control
traffic at some locations where emergency vehicles enter and cross
roadways. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years
for existing signals in good condition to minimize any impact on State
or local highway agencies.
341. The FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 4G-1 that illustrates
the Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Signal.
342. In existing Section 4H.01 (new Section 4I.01) Application of
Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to delete
unnecessary descriptive language and instead add a SUPPORT statement
referring the reader to FHWA's ``Ramp Management and Control Handbook''
\171\ for information on conditions that might justify freeway entrance
ramp control signals. The FHWA proposes this change because this
publication, which was released after the 2003 MUTCD was published, is
the appropriate place for the information rather than in the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ ``Ramp Management and Control Handbook,'' dated January
2006, FHWA Publication FHWA-HOP-06-001 can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/manual/default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
343. In existing Section 4H.02 (new Section 4I.02) Design of
Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to clarify the
STANDARD by requiring the use of at least two signal faces per ramp on
a single lane ramp or a multiple lane ramp where green signal
indications are always displayed simultaneously. On a ramp with
multiple lanes where the green signal indications are not always
displayed simultaneously, (as is the case in some staggered-release
ramp metering situations in which one lane receives the green while the
other lane is stopped and then the other lane receives the green while
the first lane is stopped), the FHWA proposes to require two signal
faces per lane or group of lanes. The FHWA proposes this change to
incorporate Official Interpretation 4-294(I) \172\ into the
MUTCD, which ensures that each separately controlled lane or group of
lanes has at least two signal faces displayed. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Official Interpretation 4-294(I), dated
September 30, 2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_294.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION to allow ramp control
signals to control some, but not all lanes on a ramp. The FHWA proposes
this change to reflect the current practice in many jurisdictions of
providing HOV bypass lanes on ramps. Also, the FHWA proposes to add
text to allow the two required signal faces to be mounted on the side
of the roadway on the same pole when only one lane is controlled. The
second signal face may be mounted lower than the normal mounting
height. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate existing practice
in many ramp metering systems, designed to avoid motorist confusion
that could arise if a signal were mounted on the side of the ramp where
the lane is not controlled by the signal, due to the standard lateral
separation requirements.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending
that appropriate regulatory signs such as ONE VEHICLE PER GREEN should
be installed adjacent to the signal face, and that special measures
should be considered for freeway to freeway ramps. The FHWA proposes
these changes to reflect the current practices in most jurisdictions
that operate ramp metering systems.
344. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following new Section
4I.02. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 4I.03
Operation of Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals'' and contains
GUIDANCE recommending that the operational strategies for ramp control
signals should be determined prior to their installation, and that a
RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING (W3-7) sign with a warning beacon should be
used for a ramp meter that is only used during certain portions of the
day. The FHWA proposes these changes to ensure that a proper operating
strategy has been developed and that road users are alerted to the
presence and operation of part time ramp meters.
345. In existing Section 4I.02 (new Section 4J.02) Design and
Location of Movable Bridge Signals and Gates, the FHWA proposes to
revise the first STANDARD to require the use of 300 mm (12 in) diameter
signal indications on all new movable bridge signals, and remove the
option of using 200 mm (8 in) signal indications. The FHWA proposes
this change to maintain consistency with the proposed changes in new
Section 4D.05 that require the use of 300 mm (12 in) diameter signal
indications for new signal faces. The FHWA also proposes to revise the
STANDARD statement to require that a stop line be installed on
signalized approaches to a movable span to indicate the point behind
which vehicles are required to stop. The FHWA proposes this change to
be consistent with other proposed changes throughout the MUTCD that
require a stop line.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of the existing
2nd STANDARD to indicate that the stripes on movable bridge warning
gates shall be vertical. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent
with other proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10 and the new Section 2L.06
that require vertical, rather than diagonal, stripes on warning gates.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years to minimize
any impact on State or local highway agencies.
346. In existing Section 4I.03 (new Section 4J.03) Operation of
Movable Bridge Signals and Gates, the FHWA proposes to add to the
GUIDANCE statement that traffic signals on adjacent streets or highways
that are interconnected with drawbridge control should be preempted by
the operation of the movable bridge in accordance with Section 4D.27.
The FHWA proposes to add this language to ensure proper preemption when
appropriate.
347. The FHWA proposes to add a new chapter to Part 4 titled,
``Chapter 4K Toll Plaza Traffic Signals.'' The remaining chapters would
be relettered accordingly. This new chapter includes OPTION, STANDARD,
GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements for traffic control signals in toll
plazas. Items such as the number and size of signal faces, the phases
which may be displayed, and the applications of toll plaza traffic
signals to toll plaza operations are discussed in this chapter. The
FHWA proposes this addition as a result of the recommendations in the
Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report \173\ and to
provide additional
[[Page 316]]
consistency and uniformity of such displays for road users. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signals
in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
348. In existing Section 4K.02 (new Section 4L.02) Intersection
Control Beacon, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that
that two horizontally aligned red signal indications shall be flashed
simultaneously, and two vertically aligned red signal indications shall
be flashed alternately. The FHWA proposes this change to avoid
horizontally aligned red signal indications in an intersection control
beacon from being confused with highway-rail grade crossing flashing-
light signals, and to be consistent with the existing requirement for
stop beacons in existing Section 4K.05 (new Section 4L.05).
349. In existing Section 4K.03 (new Section 4L.03) Warning Beacon,
the FHWA proposes to add an item to the SUPPORT statement to add the
typical use of Warning Beacons in conjunction with a regulatory or
warning sign that includes the phrase WHEN FLASHING in its legend to
indicate that the regulation is in effect or that the condition is
present only at certain times.
The FHWA also proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that
warning beacons used on toll plaza canopies to call attention to signs
denoting electronic toll collection lanes should be distinctly separate
from lane-use control signals. The FHWA proposes this change as a
result of the Toll Plazas Best Practices and Recommendations Report
\174\ and to reflect the new standard requiring a lane-use control
signal above all non-open-road electronic toll collection lanes. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the OPTION statement that
Warning Beacons that are activated by bicycles and pedestrians may be
used as appropriate to provide additional warning to approaching
vehicles. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify the allowable use of
pedestrian-actuated beacons, per FHWA Official Interpretation
4-269.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ FHWA Official Interpretation 4-269, dated June
3, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/4_269.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement allowing
Warning Beacons mounted on toll plaza islands, on toll plaza impact
attenuators, and on toll booth ramparts to be mounted at a height which
is appropriate for viewing in the toll plaza context, even if that
height is lower than the normal minimum height above the pavement. The
FHWA proposes this change as a result of the recommendations in the
Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
350. In existing Section 4K.05 (new Section 4L.05) Stop Beacon, the
FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD that a Stop Beacon shall be used
only to supplement a STOP sign, a DO NOT ENTER sign, or a WRONG WAY
sign. The FHWA proposes this addition to reflect the meaning of a
flashing red indication and for consistency with existing Section 4K.03
(new Section 4L.03). As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes
to add to the last paragraph of the STANDARD that the mounting height
range for the bottom of the signal housing or a Stop Beacon also
applies to the top of a DO NOT ENTER sign or a WRONG WAY sign, in
addition to a STOP sign.
351. In existing Section 4J.01 (new Section 4M.01) Application of
Lane-Use Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement
requiring lane-use control signals to indicate lane open/lane closed
status at toll plazas in lanes that are not Open Road electronic toll
collection lanes. The FHWA also proposes an OPTION statement that
allows the use of these signals in Open Road electronic toll collection
lanes. The FHWA proposes these changes as a result of the
recommendations in the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations
Report.\177\ Although some toll facilities use red-yellow-green traffic
signal indications to indicate lane open/lane closed status, this is an
antiquated and non-conforming practice because for several decades the
MUTCD has required the use of standard red X and downward-pointing
green arrow lane-use control signal indications for this specific
purpose. The FHWA proposes a 10-year phase-in compliance period for
this requirement for existing toll plazas to minimize any impacts on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
352. In existing Section 4J.03 (new Section 4M.03) Design of Lane-
Use Control Signals, the FHWA proposes to add an Option to the existing
STANDARD that requires that the bottom of the signal housing of any
lane-use control signal face be at least 4.6 m (15 ft) above the
pavement. The proposed OPTION would allow the signal to be mounted
lower above a toll plaza lane. If the toll plaza canopy has a lower
vertical clearance above the roadway than 4.6 m (15 ft), that clearance
controls the height of vehicles that can use the lane and thus the
lane-use control signal can be mounted below a height of 4.6 m (15 ft)
as long as it is not lower than the bottom of the canopy. The FHWA
proposes this change as a result of the recommendations in the Toll
Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
353. In existing Section 4L.01 (new Section 4N.01) Application of
In-Roadway Lights, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement
that In-Roadway Lights shall only be used for applications described in
this chapter. The FHWA also proposes to add to the STANDARD that In-
Roadway Lights be flashed and not steadily illuminated. The FHWA
proposes these changes to preclude the use of In-Roadway Lights for any
purpose not included in this chapter because such uses have not yet
been sufficiently tested to confirm their effectiveness and because
steadily illuminated lights could be confused with internally
illuminated raised pavement markings.
354. In Section 4L.02 (new Section 4N.02) In-Roadway Warning Lights
at Crosswalks, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to
account for the lower pedestrian walking speeds proposed elsewhere in
Part 4 and to ensure consistency in walking speeds used to calculate
pedestrian intervals. The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD
statement that if pedestrian pushbuttons are used to actuate the In-
Roadway Lights, a PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING LIGHTS sign shall be
mounted adjacent to or integral with each pedestrian pushbutton. The
FHWA proposes this change to direct users on how to activate the In-
Roadway Lights.
[[Page 317]]
The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement requiring
median-mounted pedestrian detectors when the period of operation is
sufficient for crossing only from a curb or shoulder to the median of a
divided highway. The FHWA proposes this change to ensure that
pedestrians who only cross to the median can actuate the In-Roadway
Lights to warn motorists for the remainder of their crossing, and for
consistency with similar proposed changes in Section 4E.10.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing In-Roadway Lights in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 5 Traffic Control Devices for
Low-Volume Roads
355. In Section 5A.01 Function, the FHWA proposes to change item B
of the STANDARD statement to prohibit classifying a residential street
in a neighborhood as a low-volume road for the purposes of Part 5 of
the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes this change to provide consistency with
item A of the STANDARD which states that low-volume roads shall be
facilities lying outside the built-up area of Cities, towns, and
communities.
356. In Section 5C.04 Stop Ahead and Yield Ahead Signs, the FHWA
proposes to delete the OPTION statement that allows word message signs
to be used as an alternative to symbol signs. The FHWA proposes this
change because the use of word message Stop Ahead and Yield Ahead signs
are no longer permitted. This corresponds with a proposed change in
Chapter 2C.
357. In Section 5C.07 Hill Sign, the FHWA proposes to delete the
2nd paragraph of the OPTION statement that permits confining the use of
the Hill sign on low-volume roads to roads where commercial or
recreational vehicles are anticipated. The FHWA proposes this change to
emphasize that the use of the Hill sign should be based on the results
of an engineering study of vehicles and road characteristics, as stated
in the first paragraph of the OPTION statement.
358. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 5E.05 Object
Markers to Chapter 5C. The section will be numbered and titled
``Section 5C.14 Object Markers and Barricades.'' The FHWA proposes this
change in order to locate the subject material with other sections in
Part 5 that deal with signs. This change coincides with the proposed
relocation of object markers and barricades from Part 3 to Part 2 of
the MUTCD.
359. In Section 5F.02 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign
and Number of Tracks Plaque, the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify that the measurement for
the strip of retroreflective material that is to be placed on each
support is to be from the Crossbuck sign or the Number of Tracks sign
to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the ground. The FHWA proposes this change
to be consistent with similar proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10.
360. In Section 5F.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning
Signs, the FHWA proposes several changes to the section to reflect that
a supplemental plaque describing the type of traffic control at a
highway-rail grade crossing shall be used on all low-volume roads in
advance of every crossing. The FHWA proposes these changes to be
consistent with similar proposed changes in Parts 8 and 10.
361. In Section 5F.04 STOP and YIELD Signs, the FHWA proposes
several changes to the section regarding the use and application of
STOP signs or YIELD signs at highway-rail grade crossings. The FHWA
proposes these changes to be consistent with similar proposed changes
in Parts 8 and 10 (see more detailed discussions below).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 6--General
362. The FHWA proposes to revise the Code of Federal Regulations to
delete 23 CFR Part 634 regarding Worker Visibility. The FHWA proposes
this change in order to incorporate those provisions into the MUTCD,
which is applicable to all public roads. As such, 23 CFR Part 634 would
no longer be needed because its requirements would be incorporated into
the MUTCD, and therefore, applicable to all roads open to public travel
in accordance with 23 CFR Part 655, not just Federal-aid highways.
363. The FHWA proposes to revise the first SUPPORT statement in
Chapter 6A to indicate that the acronym ``TTC,'' meaning Temporary
Traffic Control, applies to all of Part 6. In conjunction, the FHWA
would delete the first SUPPORT statement from the remaining Chapters in
Part 6 because it is repetitive.
364. The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement in
Chapter 6A to indicate that the needs and control of all road users
through a TTC zone apply to all public facilities and on private
property open to public travel, in addition to highways. The FHWA
proposes this change to incorporate FHWA's Final Rule to 23 CFR Part
655, dated December 14, 2006, which provided clarification on the
meaning of roads ``open to public travel.'' \179\ The FHWA would delete
the first STANDARD statement from the remaining Chapters in Part 6
because it repeats this information, which is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated
December 14, 2006, (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 75111-75115) can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
365. The FHWA proposes to update the figures throughout Part 6 to
reflect proposed new or revised signs in Part 2 that are applicable to
Temporary Traffic Control Zones.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 6A through 6E
366. In Section 6B.01 Fundamental Principles of Temporary Traffic
Control, the FHWA proposes to clarify items F and G of the second
GUIDANCE statement to indicate that it is on high-volume streets and
highways that roadway occupancy should be scheduled during off-peak
hours and that if significant impacts to roadway operations are
anticipated, early coordination should occur with officials having
jurisdiction over the affected streets and providing emergency
services. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide agencies with more
flexibility in allowing roadway occupancy, particularly for work on
local residential streets and other low volume streets where temporary
traffic control does not cause a problem during peak hours and to
encourage communication.
367. In Section 6C.04 Advance Warning Area, the FHWA proposes to
add information regarding sign spacing to the end of the GUIDANCE
statement, as well as add a new SUPPORT statement. The FHWA proposes
these changes to reinforce that the distances contained in Table 6C-1
are for guidance purposes and should be considered minimum, and that
the recommended distances should be increased based on field
conditions.
368. In Section 6C.08 Tapers, the FHWA proposes to add to the last
GUIDANCE statement that the length of a short taper should be a minimum
of 15 m (50 ft). In addition, the FHWA proposes to add that a
downstream taper with a length of approximately 30 m (100 ft) should be
used to guide traffic back into their original lane. The FHWA proposes
these changes to provide practitioners with more information
[[Page 318]]
regarding taper lengths. In particular, this proposed change provides a
minimum length for a ``short taper,'' because no length had been
provided in the past, and to reflect the use of a ``downstream taper''
as has been shown in various existing figures in Part 6.
369. In Table 6C-3 Taper Length Criteria for Temporary Traffic
Control Zones, the FHWA proposes to add a minimum taper length for one-
lane, two-way traffic tapers. The existing table contained only a
maximum length, and the FHWA believes that it is important to also
state a minimum length. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes
to add minimum taper lengths to existing Figures 6H-10, 6H-11, 6H-12,
6H-18 and 6H-27 (new Figures 6I-10, 6I-11, 6I-12, 6I-18 and 6I-27).
370. In Section 6C.10 One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control, the FHWA
proposes to add an OPTION statement that explicitly allows for the
movement of traffic through a one-lane, two-way constriction to be
self-regulating, provided that the work space is short, on a low-volume
street or road, and that road users from both directions are able to
see the traffic approaching from the opposite direction through and
beyond the work site. The FHWA proposes this change to provide
practitioners with more flexibility on low-volume, low-speed roads.
371. In Section 6C.11 Flagger Method of One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic
Control, the FHWA proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE statement that
traffic should be controlled by a flagger at each end of a constricted
section of roadway, unless a one-lane, two-way TTC zone is short enough
to allow a flagger to see from one end of the zone to the other. The
FHWA proposes this change to emphasize that the preferred method of
flagger control is to use two flaggers.
372. The FHWA proposes relocating the information from existing
Section 6F.54 regarding the PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME Sign and flaggers in
activity areas where a pilot car is being used, to Section 6C.13 Pilot
Car Method of One-Lane, Two-Way Traffic Control. The FHWA proposes this
change because the information is specific to pilot cars, which are
covered in Section 6C.13.
373. The FHWA proposes to relocate several paragraphs related to
accessible pedestrian facilities from Section 6D.01 Pedestrian
Considerations to Section 6D.02 Accessibility Considerations, in order
to consolidate related information into one section.
374. In Section 6D.01 Pedestrian Considerations, the FHWA proposes
to add to the existing 2nd STANDARD statement that accessibility and
detectability shall be maintained along an alternate pedestrian route
if a TTC zone affects an accessible and detectable pedestrian facility.
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect the provisions of ADAAG.\180\
Although this requirement is already included in Section 6G.11, the
FHWA adds it to this section because it is a pedestrian consideration,
and therefore, consistent with the content of this section. As part of
this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to delete the first sentence of
the 3rd GUIDANCE statement, which conflicts with the proposed STANDARD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FHWA proposes to delete the 3rd STANDARD statement
regarding the requirement for TTC devices to be crashworthy because
that requirement is covered in other sections and does not need to be
repeated here.
375. In Section 6D.03 Worker Safety Considerations, the FHWA
proposes to delete item B in the GUIDANCE statement because it would be
superseded by new statements that the FHWA proposes adding later in the
section. The FHWA proposes adding a new STANDARD statement to
incorporate into the MUTCD the provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 regarding
the use of high-visibility safety apparel by workers within the public
right-of-way that were published in the Federal Register on November
24, 2006.\181\ The FHWA also proposes adding a new first paragraph to
the existing OPTION statement that allows first responders and law
enforcement personnel to use safety apparel meeting a newly developed
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for ``public
safety vests'' because this type of vest will better meet the special
needs of these personnel. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 2 years for worker apparel on non-Federal-aid highways to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. A compliance
date of November 24, 2008 has already been established for worker
apparel on Federal-aid highways as a result of 23 CFR Part 634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ The Federal Registrar Notice for the Final Rule, dated
November 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67792-67800) can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-19910.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
376. In Section 6E.02 High-Visibility Safety Apparel, the FHWA
proposes to make several changes regarding the use of high-visibility
safety apparel by flaggers during daytime and nighttime activity, as
well as law by enforcement personnel within a TTC zone, to reflect the
provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 that were published in the Federal
Register on November 24, 2006.\182\ The FHWA also proposes adding a new
OPTION statement that allows first responders and law enforcement
personnel to use safety apparel meeting a newly developed ANSI standard
for ``public safety vests'' because this type of vest will better meet
their special needs. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
2 years for worker apparel on non-Federal-aid highways to minimize any
impact on state or local highway agencies. A compliance date of
November 24, 2008 has already been established for worker apparel on
Federal-aid highways as a result of 23 CFR Part 634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ The Federal Registrar Notice for the Final Rule, dated
November 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67792-67800) can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-19910.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
377. In Section 6E.03 Hand-Signaling Devices, the FHWA proposes to
change the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD, and modify the text
to require that flaggers use a STOP/SLOW paddle, a red flag, or an
Automated Flagger Assistance Device to control road users through TTC
zones. The FHWA proposes this change in order to require that one of
the three listed devices be used, and to explicitly delete `hand
signaling' from the list of permitted methods to control traffic. See
item 379 below for additional discussion.
The FHWA also proposes to add SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements prior
to the first OPTION statement to clarify that it is optimal to place a
STOP/SLOW paddle on a rigid staff, with minimum length of 2.1 m (7 ft),
in order to display a STOP or SLOW message that is stable and high
enough to be seen by approaching or stopped traffic. The FHWA proposes
the new language to add clarity to the use of the staff because the
STOP/SLOW paddle is shown on a staff in existing Figure 6E-1, however,
there is no language in the existing text regarding the use of the
staff.
378. The FHWA proposes to add three new sections following Section
6E.03. The first new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 6E.04
Automated Flagger Assistance Devices.'' This new section contains
SUPPORT, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and OPTION statements describing the use
of Automated Flagger Assistance Devices (AFADs). AFADs are optional
devices
[[Page 319]]
that enable a flagger(s) to be positioned out of the lane of traffic
and are used to control road users through temporary traffic control
zones. The second new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 6E.05
STOP/SLOW Automated Flagger Assistance Devices'' and contains STANDARD,
OPTION, and GUIDANCE statements describing the use of a remotely
controlled STOP/SLOW sign on either a trailer or a movable cart system
and a gate arm. The third new section is numbered and titled, ``Section
6E.06 Red/Yellow Lens Automated Flagger Assistance Devices'' and
contains STANDARD, OPTION, and GUIDANCE statements describing the use
of remotely controlled red and yellow lenses and a gate arm. The
remaining sections in this chapter would be renumbered accordingly. The
FHWA proposes to incorporate the AFAD into the MUTCD based on FHWA's
revised Interim Approval, dated January 28, 2005.\183\ The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing Automated
Flagger Assistance Devices in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ The Revised Interim Approval notice can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_afads012705.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
379. In existing Section 6E.04 (new Section 6E.07) Flagger
Procedures, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement
that flaggers shall use a STOP/SLOW paddle, flag or an AFAD to control
road users, and that the use of hand movements alone is prohibited. The
FHWA proposes this additional language to protect the safety of workers
and road users and to reinforce that hand movements alone are not an
acceptable flagging method.
380. The FHWA also proposes to relocate GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements from existing Section 6E.05 to the end of new Section 6E.07
because they reference flagger procedures more than flagger stations.
381. In existing Section 6E.05 (new Section 6E.08) Flagger
Stations, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that an
escape route for flaggers should be identified. The FHWA proposes this
text in order to emphasize the need to provide flaggers with a way to
avoid an errant vehicle.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 6F
382. In Table 6F-1 Sizes of Temporary Control Signs, the FHWA
proposes to change the minimum size of the TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC (R1-2aP)
sign to 600 mm x 450 mm (24 in x 18 in) to be consistent with the same
sign in Part 2.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the sizes of certain signs listed
in Table 6F-1 to incorporate sizes that are more legible for drivers
with 20/40 visual acuity. This is consistent with similar proposed
changes in sign sizes in Part 2.
383. In Section 6F.02 General Characteristics of Signs, the FHWA
proposes to revise the first OPTION statement to delete fluorescent
red-orange and fluorescent yellow-orange from the alternative colors
for orange. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with a
similar change in Part 2, and because there are no separate color
specifications for these colors, as they are both contained within the
single color specification for fluorescent orange.
384. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 6F.11
STAY IN LANE. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section
6F.12 Work Zone and Higher Fines Signs and Plaques.'' This proposed new
section contains an OPTION statement describing the use of the WORK
ZONE plaque above a Speed Limit Sign to emphasize that a reduced speed
limit is in effect within a TTC zone and the FINES HIGHER, FINES
DOUBLED, and $XX FINE plaques that may be mounted below the Speed Limit
sign if increased fines are imposed for traffic violations within the
TTC zone, as well as the associated signs that may be used to mark the
beginning and ends of these zones. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F
would be renumbered accordingly.
385. In existing Section 6F.15 (new Section 6F.16) Warning Sign
Function, Design, and Application, the FHWA proposes to delete the 2nd
STANDARD statement and the first three paragraphs of the 3rd OPTION
statement, because they provide sign size information that is already
contained in Section 6F.02.
386. In Section 6F.16 (new Section 6F.17) Position of Advance
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the first
GUIDANCE statement recommending that the ROAD WORK sign be the first
advance warning sign encountered by road users when multiple advance
warning signs are needed on an approach to a TTC. The FHWA proposes
this new language to reflect current practice in which the first sign
encountered in advance of a TTC is the most generic sign.
387. In Figure 6F-4 Warning Signs in Temporary Traffic Control
Zones, the FHWA proposes to add the STREET WORK, WORKERS, and FRESH OIL
word signs to the list of optional word message signs listed next to
the asterisk at the bottom of the page. The FHWA proposes this change
to provide practitioners with the flexibility to use various word
message signs in advance of various types of temporary traffic control
zones.
388. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 6F.28 (new Section 6F.29) EXIT OPEN, EXIT CLOSED, EXIT ONLY
Signs. The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 6F.30
NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD Sign (W23-2)'' and contains an OPTION
statement describing the use of the NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD sign to
provide advance warning of a change in traffic patterns, such as
revised lane usage, roadway geometry, or signal phasing. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect current practice
in many States and numerous local jurisdictions as documented in the
Sign Synthesis Study \184\ and to provide a uniform legend for this
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ 184 This December 2005 publication (FHWA-HOP-06-074) can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
389. In existing Section 6F.29 (new Section 6F.31) Flagger Sign,
the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION to allow Flagger signs to remain
displayed to road users for up to 15 minutes when flagging operations
are not occurring under certain circumstances. The FHWA proposes this
change to reflect Official Interpretation 6-200(I), which was
issued on September 22, 2004.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ FHWA Official Interpretation 6-200, dated
September 22, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web
site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/6_200.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
390. In existing Section 6F.42 (new Section 6F.44) Shoulder Signs,
the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to include the
proposed new symbol version of the Shoulder Drop Off sign and the
supplemental plaque to warn road users of a low shoulder to be
consistent with this proposed new sign in Chapter 2C.
391. In existing Section 6F.43 (new Section 6F.45) UNEVEN LANES
Sign, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement to permit the use of
the proposed new Shoulder Drop Off symbol sign with an UNEVEN LANES
supplemental plaque instead of the UNEVEN LANES word sign. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Chapter
2C.
[[Page 320]]
392. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 6F.44 (new Section 6F.46) NO CENTER STRIPE Sign. The proposed
new section is numbered and titled ``Section 6F.47 Reverse Curve Signs
(W1-4 Series)'' and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements describing
the use of the Reverse Curve signs to give road users advance notice of
a lane shift. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes this change to allow for the use of
``single reverse curve'' signs similar to those already allowed in
existing Section 6F.45 for ``double reverse curve'' signs.
393. The FHWA proposes relocating the information from existing
Section 6F.54 PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME Sign (G20-4), to Section 6C.13
because the information is related specifically to pilot cars, which
are covered in Section 6C.13. The remaining sections in Chapter 6F
would be renumbered accordingly.
394. In existing Section 6F.55 (new Section 6F.57) Portable
Changeable Message Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the first
STANDARD statement to a SUPPORT, as well as to add additional
information because this statement just provides information, rather
than requirements.
The FHWA also proposes to change the 2nd paragraph of the first
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD in order to require that Portable
Changeable Message signs comply with specific chapters and tables in
the MUTCD.
The FHWA proposes to revise the last 2 paragraphs of the first
GUIDANCE statement to clarify the recommendations for messages and
phases. As part of these changes, the FHWA proposes to change the
recommended display time for message phases, to expand the
recommendations for message lengths and phases and to delete the OPTION
statement.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the last GUIDANCE statement to
clarify that Portable Changeable Message signs should be placed off the
shoulder of the roadway and behind a traffic barrier, if practical. The
FHWA also proposes to add additional recommendations regarding the use
of Portable Changeable Message signs in temporary traffic control
zones.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement in
the middle of the first GUIDANCE statement that describes the
requirements for the number of phases and number of lines, placement of
messages within each line, techniques for message display and
interaction between signs if more than one is simultaneously visible to
road users.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for the
new requirements for existing Portable Changeable Message Signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes all of the changes in this section to be
consistent with the proposed changes for permanent Changeable Message
signs as proposed in new Chapter 2M, but with differences to suit the
special nature of Portable Changeable Message Signs. These changes are
based on extensive research on changeable message sign legibility,
messaging, and operations conducted over a period of many years by the
Texas Transportation Institute.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Information on the many research projects on changeable
message signs conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
can be accessed via TTI's Internet Web site at: http://tti.tamu.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
395. In Figure 6F-6 Advance Warning Arrow Display Specifications,
the FHWA proposes to add an Alternating Diamond display as one of the
options for a Flashing Caution display. This type of display has been
found effective by experimentation in Utah.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ ``Dancing Diamonds in Highway Work Zones: Evaluation of
Arrow Panel Caution Displays,'' Utah Department of Transportation
Report number UT-02.13, dated June 2002, by Saito and Turley, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.dot.state.ut.us/download.php/tid=297/UT-02.13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
396. In existing Section 6F.58 (new Section 6F.60) Channelizing
Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement that
all channelizing devices shall be crashworthy. As part of this change,
the FHWA proposes to delete from the first GUIDANCE statement the
recommendation that channelizing devices be crashworthy because it
would conflict with the proposed STANDARD. The FHWA proposes these
changes to increase the safety of workers and road users and to be
consistent with other crashworthiness requirements throughout Part 6.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the 2nd paragraph of the 2nd
STANDARD statement to simplify the requirements for the placement of
channelizing devices for channelizing pedestrians. As part of the
revisions, the FHWA proposes to change the minimum required height of
channelizing devices from 900 mm (36 in) to 800 mm (32 in) to reflect
predominant practice. The FHWA also proposes to delete the existing 3rd
STANDARD statement because it is repetitive.
The FHWA proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE that where multiple
channelizing devices are aligned to form a continuous pedestrian
channelizer, connection points should be smooth to optimize long-cane
and hand trailing. The FHWA proposes this additional language to
provide practitioners with recommendations that will enable visually
impaired pedestrians to traverse channelized areas more easily.
In addition, the FHWA proposes adding two new STANDARD statements
and an OPTION statement in the middle of this section describing the
use of warning lights on channelizing devices. Many different types of
lighting methods are currently being used, including flashing, steady-
burn, and sequential. Some lighting methods do not provide roadway
users with the appropriate message and some are confusing. Therefore,
the FHWA proposes this language to provide uniformity in the types of
lighting methods used.
397. In Figure 6F-7 Channelizing Devices, the FHWA proposes to
specify that the 900 mm (36 in) height of the Direction Indicator
Barricade is a minimum height. The ``MIN'' was inadvertently missing in
the 2003 MUTCD.
398. In existing Section 6F.60 (new Section 6F.62) Tubular Markers,
the FHWA proposes to revise the 3rd paragraph of the first STANDARD to
clarify the requirements for reflectorization bands on tubular markers
that are less than 1050 mm (42 in) in height as well as for tubular
markers that are 1050 mm (42 in) or more in height. The FHWA proposes
this language in order to provide more clarity on the width and spacing
of reflectorization bands for bands on tubular markers of different
heights.
399. In existing Section 6F.61 (new Section 6F.63) Vertical Panels,
the FHWA proposes to add to the 2nd paragraph of the first STANDARD
statement a requirement that clearance between the bottom of a vertical
panel and the roadway shall be a maximum of 300 mm (12 in). The FHWA
proposes the change to provide consistency between Figure 6F-7 and the
text.
The FHWA also proposes to change the first OPTION statement to a
STANDARD to require, rather than merely permit, a panel stripe width of
100 mm (4 in) to be used where the height of the reflective material on
a vertical panel is 900 mm (36 in) or less. The FHWA proposes this
change to reflect predominant practice and encourage uniformity.
400. In existing Section 6F.62 (new Section 6F.64) Drums, the FHWA
proposes changing the first sentence of the second GUIDANCE paragraph
to a STANDARD statement to prohibit
[[Page 321]]
weighting drums with sand, water, or any material to the extent that
would make them hazardous to road users or workers when struck. As part
of this change, the FHWA also proposes deleting the remaining sentence
of this GUIDANCE statement because drums shall have closed tops (per
the last sentence of the first STANDARD statement), which should keep
large amounts of water out of the device, therefore, reducing the
effects of freezing.
401. In existing Section 6F.63 (new Section 6F.65) Type 1, 2, or 3
Barricades, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD after the 4th
paragraph of the first GUIDANCE statement requiring continuous
detectible bottom and top rails with no gaps on barricades that are
used to channelize pedestrians. In addition, the FHWA proposes to add
an OPTION statement following the proposed STANDARD that provides the
ability to facilitate drainage between the bottom rail and the ground
surface.
402. In existing Section 6F.64 (new Section 6F.66) Direction
Indicator Barricades, the FHWA proposes to delete the first Guidance
statement because it conflicts with the proposed requirement in
existing Section 6F.58 (new Sections 6F.60) that all channelizing
devices shall be crashworthy, as discussed in item number 396 above.
403. In existing Section 6F.65 (new Section 6F.67) Temporary
Traffic Barriers as Channelizing Devices, the FHWA proposes to change
the first paragraph of the GUIDANCE to a STANDARD in order to prohibit,
rather than discourage, the use of temporary traffic barriers for a
merging taper, except in low-speed urban areas. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide consistency on the use of temporary traffic barriers
within this section.
The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of
the section requiring that temporary traffic barriers used to
channelize pedestrians meet specific criteria that aid pedestrians with
visual disabilities, to be consistent with requirements elsewhere in
Part 6.
404. The FHWA proposes retitling existing Section 6F.66 (new
Section 6F.68) to ``Longitudinal Channelizing Devices,'' to provide for
devices for this purpose other than just barricades. The FHWA also
proposes to change the first GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD in order
to require that, if longitudinal channelizing devices are used singly
as Type 1, 2, or 3 barricades, they must comply with design and
placement characteristics established for the devices in Chapter 6F.
The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with provisions
elsewhere in Chapter 6F.
The FHWA also proposes to delete the second paragraph of the first
OPTION statement, so as to no longer permit longitudinal channelizing
devices to be filled with water as ballast. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide consistency throughout Part 6 because the FHWA
proposes to no longer allow water to be used as ballast for any
channelizing devices.
405. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 6F.67 (new Section 6F.69), numbered and titled, ``Section 6F.70
Temporary Lane Separators.'' This new section contains OPTION,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of these optional
devices that may be used to channelize road users, to divide opposing
vehicular traffic lanes, or divide lanes when two or more lanes are
open in the same direction, and to provide continuous pedestrian
channelization. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect existing
successful practices. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
5 years for existing devices in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
406. In existing Section 6F.69 (new Section 6F.72) Temporary Raised
Islands, the FHWA proposes to change the recommended width of temporary
raised islands in the GUIDANCE statement from 450 mm (18 in) to 300 mm
(12 in). The FHWA proposes this change to facilitate the use of
existing devices that have been successfully used in many applications.
407. The FHWA proposes to make several revisions to existing
Section 6F.71 (new Section 6F.74) Pavement Markings, and existing
Section 6F.72 (new Section 6F.75), retitled, ``Temporary Markings'' to
clarify, reduce redundancy, and organize the text in a more logical
order. The proposed changes include differentiating the usage of
pavement markings in long-term stationary temporary traffic control
zones from those used in intermediate-term and shorter temporary
traffic control zones. The FHWA proposes to clarify that temporary
broken line segments can be shorter than those required for normal
permanent broken line markings but that temporary no-passing zone
markings must meet the normal standards for permanent markings.
408. In existing Section 6F.73 (new Section 6F.76) retitled
``Temporary Raised Pavement Markers,'' the FHWA proposes to add OPTION,
STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements at the beginning and end of the
section to provide more information regarding the color, patterns, and
spacing of raised pavement markers in temporary traffic control zones.
The proposed changes repeat certain requirements and recommendations
from Part 3 and also provide for optional use of temporary short-term
(usually no longer than 14 days) use of a less expensive pattern of
raised pavement markers to substitute for a broken line marking.
409. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 6F.76
Floodlights, because floodlights are not traffic control devices and it
is not appropriate for the MUTCD to have regulatory language regarding
their design or use. The remaining sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
410. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 6F.77 Flashing
Warning Beacons, because the material is already covered in Chapter 4K
and does not need to be repeated in Part 6.
411. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 6F.79 Steady-Burn
Electric Lamps, because the FHWA believes that most jurisdictions are
using other types of warning lights, therefore, making steady-burn
electric lamps obsolete.
412. The FHWA proposes to delete the 3rd STANDARD in Section 6F.80
Temporary Traffic Control Signals, because the prohibition against
supports for temporary traffic control devices encroaching into
pedestrian access routes is covered elsewhere in Part 6 and does not
need to be repeated.
In addition, the FHWA proposes adding a new STANDARD at the end of
the section requiring temporary traffic signals placed within 60 m (200
ft) of a highway-rail grade crossing or a highway-light rail transit
grade crossing to have preemption unless arrangements are made to
prevent traffic from queuing across the tracks. The FHWA proposes this
change to protect road users from conflicts with rail crossings in TTC
zones and to be consistent with provisions in Parts 4 and 8.
413. In Section 6F.81 Temporary Traffic Barriers, the FHWA proposes
to add in the STANDARD that temporary traffic barriers, including their
end treatments, shall be crashworthy in order to correspond with
similar requirements for other roadside devices. The FHWA also proposes
to add several paragraphs to the end of the 2nd SUPPORT statement
regarding the use of movable barriers, and describing their use in
existing Figures 6H-45 and 6H-34 (new Figures 6I-45 and 6I-34). The
FHWA proposes to add this text in Chapter 6F and delete existing
Section
[[Page 322]]
6G.18 Movable Barriers, so that the information is contained in one
location.
414. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Sections 6F.82 Crash
Cushions and 6F.83 Vehicle Arresting Systems, because neither crash
cushions nor vehicle arresting systems are traffic control devices and
it is not appropriate for the MUTCD to have regulatory language
regarding their design or use. The FHWA believes that adequate and
appropriate guidance on crash cushions and vehicle arresting systems is
readily available in a variety of FHWA, AASHTO, ITE, and industry
publications and Web sites, such as the FHWA Office of Safety's Roadway
Departure Web site (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/). The
remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
415. In existing Section 6F.84 (new Section 6F.82) Rumble Strips,
the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that black and
orange are acceptable colors for transverse rumble strips in TTC zones.
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect research showing that in
addition to white, the colors black and orange work well in TTC
zones.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Report No. K-TRAN: KY-02-3 ``Guidelines for the
Application of Removable Rumble Strips,'' August 2006 can be viewed
at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ksdot.org/idmws/DocContent.dll?Library=PublicDocs-dt00mx38&ID=003717523&Page=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
416. The FHWA proposes to delete Section 6F.85 Screens, because
glare screens are not traffic control devices and it is not appropriate
for the MUTCD to have regulatory language regarding their design or
use. The FHWA believes that adequate and appropriate guidance on glare
screens is readily available in a variety of FHWA, AASHTO, ITE, and
industry publications and Web sites, such as the FHWA Office of
Safety's Roadway Departure Web site (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/). The remaining sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
417. The FHWA proposes to delete Section 6F.86 Future and
Experimental Devices, because such devices are already covered in Part
1.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapters 6G Through 6I
418. In Section 6G.01 Typical Applications, the FHWA proposes to
add a new GUIDANCE statement recommending that a TTC plan should be
developed for all planned special events and approved by the highway
agencies having jurisdiction. The FHWA proposes this change to help
assure that proper traffic controls are installed when planned special
events, such as parades, street fairs, farmers' markets, etc. impact
traffic, and to respond to a National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) report on this subject.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ NTSB Report HAR-04/04, ``Rear End Collision and Subsequent
Vehicle Intrusion into Pedestrian Space at Certified Farmers'
Market, Santa Monica, California, July 16, 2003'', dated August 3,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http;//
ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/HAR0404.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
419. In Section 6G.11 Work Within the Traveled Way of Urban
Streets, the FHWA proposes to relocate the first sentence of the
STANDARD statement to Section 6D.01 because the information about
maintaining accessibility and detectability along pedestrian routes is
most appropriately covered in Section 6D.01.
420. In Section 6G.12 Work Within the Traveled Way of Multi-Lane,
Nonaccess Controlled Highways, the FHWA proposes to reference existing
Section 6F.65 (new Section 6F.67) Temporary Traffic Barriers as
Channelization Devices in the first GUIDANCE statement, and delete the
2nd STANDARD statement and the first paragraph of the 2nd SUPPORT
statement. The FHWA proposes this change to eliminate unnecessary
repetition regarding temporary traffic barriers.
421. As discussed in item 413 above, the FHWA proposes to delete
existing Section 6G.18 Movable Barriers and place all information
regarding movable barriers in Section 6F.81.
422. The FHWA proposes to reverse the order of existing Chapters 6H
and 6I so that Chapter 6H would be Control of Traffic Through Traffic
Incident Management Areas and Chapter 6I would be Typical Applications.
The FHWA proposes this change so that the numerous Typical Application
diagrams will be at the end of Part 6 and to enhance the position
within Part 6 of the text and figures on incident management.
423. In existing Section 6I.01 (new Section 6H.01) General, the
FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that the Incident
Command System (ICS) as required by the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) shall be implemented in traffic incident management
areas. The FHWA proposes this language per The Department of Homeland
Security and Presidential Directives (DHSPD) 5 and
8,\190\ which require the adoption of the National Incident
Management System and the Incident Command System by all Federal,
State, tribal and local governments. These two systems are required for
all planned and unplanned incidents in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ The Department of Homeland Security and Presidential
Directives (DHSPD) 5 and 8 can be viewed at Internet Web
site addresses: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html and http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-6.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add to the 2nd paragraph of the GUIDANCE
statement that all on-scene responders and news media personnel should
wear high-visibility apparel. The FHWA proposes this text to
incorporate into the MUTCD the provisions of 23 CFR Part 634 regarding
high-visibility apparel, as discussed in Section 6D.03 (item 375)
above.
424. In existing Sections 6I.02 (new Section 6H.02) Major Traffic
Incidents and 6I.03 (new Section 6H.03) Intermediate Traffic Incidents,
the FHWA proposes to add OPTION statements near the end of the sections
explaining the use of light sticks at incidents. The FHWA proposes
these changes to reflect the increasingly common use of light sticks by
emergency responders as a more convenient and effective device than
flares.
425. In existing Section 6H.01 (new Section 6I.01) Typical
Applications, the FHWA proposes changing the Typical Applications to
reflect the proposed changes to all parts of the MUTCD with particular
reference to proposed Part 6 text and figure changes.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add clarification to the existing
second SUPPORT statement that except for the notes to the typical
applications (which are clearly classified using headings as being
STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, or SUPPORT), the information presented in
the typical applications can generally be regarded as Guidance. The
FHWA proposes this change to provide additional information about the
nature of the information in the Typical Application illustrations.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes the following changes to the notes
to the figures of typical applications:
a. Notes for existing Figure 6H-4 (new Figure 6I-4): The FHWA
proposes adding a new item 4 allowing stationary signs to be omitted if
the work is mobile because the use of such signs is often not practical
with mobile operations. The FHWA also proposes adding a new item 9 in
the STANDARD statement stating that vehicle-mounted signs shall be
mounted in a manner such that they are not obscured by equipment or
supplies, and that sign legends shall be covered or turned from view
when work is not in progress, for consistency with similar provisions
in the notes for existing Figure 6H-17 (new Figure 6I-17).
[[Page 323]]
b. Notes for existing Figures 6H-5, 6H-34, and 6H-36 (new Figures
6I-5, 6I-34, and 6I-36): The FHWA proposes revising the STANDARD
statement to indicate that temporary traffic barriers shall comply with
the provisions of Section 6F.81. The FHWA proposes this revision to
provide users with clear, consistent requirements for the use of
temporary traffic barriers.
c. In existing Figures 6H-12 and 6H-14 (new Figures 6I-12 and 6I-
14), the FHWA proposes to clarify that the dimension between the
nearest signal face for each approach and the stop line should be 45 m
(150 ft) for 200 mm (8 in) signal indications and 55 m (180 ft) for 300
mm (12 in) signal indications, for consistency with provisions of Part
4.
d. Also in existing Figure 6H-14 (new Figure 6I-14), the FHWA
proposes to delete the NO PASSING ZONE pennant signs and the DO NOT
PASS signs because they have been illustrated in an incorrect location
and they are not necessary.
e. Notes for existing Figure 6H-16 (new Figure 6I-16): The FHWA
proposes to add a new item 1 to the GUIDANCE statement indicating that
all lanes should be a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) in width to be consistent
with guidance in other applications. The FHWA also proposes deleting
existing item 2 regarding spacing of channelizing devices because that
information is covered elsewhere in the Manual and does not need to be
repeated here.
f. Notes for existing Figures 6H-31 and 6H-36 (new Figures 6I-31
and 6I-36): The FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement to
describe the use of the Reverse Curve signs. The FHWA proposes this
change to be consistent with the proposed new section numbered and
titled ``Section 6F.47 Reverse Curve Signs.'' As part of this change,
the FHWA also proposes deleting existing items in the OPTION statements
regarding the ALL LANES THRU supplemental plaque because the reverse
curve signs graphically indicate that message.
g. Notes for existing Figures 6H-37, 6H-38, 6H-39, 6H-42 and 6H-44
(new Figures 6I-37, 6I-38, 6I-39, 6I-42 and 6I-44): The FHWA proposes
adding a STANDARD note that requires an arrow panel be used on all
freeway lane closures, and that a separate arrow panel be used for each
closed lane when more than one freeway lane is closed. The FHWA
believes that an arrow panel is essential for safety at all lane
closures on freeways due to the high speeds. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 2 years for these arrow board requirements at
existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
h. Notes for existing Figure 6H-38 (new Figure 6I-38): The FHWA
also proposes to add a STANDARD note that requires that temporary
traffic barriers comply with the provisions and requirements in Section
6F.81. The FHWA proposes this change for consistency with provisions
elsewhere in Part 6.
i. In existing Figure 6H-38 (new Figure 6I-38), the FHWA proposes
to change the dimension label for the single row of channelizing
devices in advance of the traffic split from 30 m (100 ft) ``MAX'' to
``MIN'' to reflect that the distance labeled is the minimum distance,
not the maximum distance. The dimension was inadvertently mislabeled in
the 2003 MUTCD.
j. Notes for existing Figure 6H-41 (new Figure 6I-41): The FHWA
proposes adding to item 3 the recommendation that channelizing devices
should be placed to physically close the ramp when an exit is closed.
The FHWA proposes this change to reflect existing practice, and provide
for positive closure instead of just relying on a sign.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 7 Traffic Controls for School
Areas
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 7--General
426. The FHWA proposes to change the name of the S1-1 sign from
``School Advance Warning'' to ``School'' sign throughout Part 7 and in
Table 7B-1. The FHWA proposes this change in order to simplify the name
of the S1-1 sign and to provide flexibility in the sign's application
and use of the sign with other signs and plaques to form a sign
assembly.
427. The FHWA also proposes changing the name of the ``School
Crosswalk Warning Assembly'' to ``School Crossing Assembly'' to
simplify its name and to provide additional flexibility in its usage.
428. In Section 7A.04 Scope, the FHWA proposes to relocate the
existing OPTION statement to Section 7B.03 because the positioning of
in-roadway signs is more consistent with the subject of that section.
429. The FHWA proposes to delete Sections 7A.05 through 7A.10
because the subjects of those sections are already covered in other
parts of the Manual. In their place, the FHWA proposes to add a
paragraph to the SUPPORT statement to Section 7A.04 providing cross
references to the appropriate sections. In addition, the FHWA proposes
to add that provisions discussed in Part 3 are applicable in school
areas. The FHWA proposes these changes to reduce redundancy in the
Manual.
430. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 7A.05 Grade-Separated School Crossings'' that contains a
SUPPORT statement regarding the use of grade-separated crossings for
school pedestrian traffic. Much of the information in this proposed new
section was previously covered in existing Chapter 7F Grade Separated
Crossings, which the FHWA proposes to delete. The FHWA proposes these
changes because grade-separated crossings are not traffic control
devices regulated by the MUTCD.
431. In Section 7B.01 Size of School Signs, the FHWA proposes to
delete from the second paragraph of the STANDARD statement the phrase
``on public roads, streets, and highways'' because 23 CFR 655.603 \191\
now makes the MUTCD apply to more than just public roads and thus makes
this phrase inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ See fn. 3 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
432. In Section 7B.03 Position of Signs, the FHWA proposes to
relocate an OPTION statement from Section 7A.04 to this section
regarding the use of in-roadway signs because the information is more
consistent with the subject of this section.
433. In Section 7B.07 Sign Color for School Warning Signs, the FHWA
proposes to revise this section to make the use of fluorescent yellow-
green as the background color for all school warning signs and plaques
a STANDARD rather than an option. The FHWA proposes to revise the
STANDARD statement accordingly, and to delete the associated OPTION and
GUIDANCE statements. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of
10 years for existing school warning signs and plaques in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes these changes because the use of fluorescent yellow-
green has become predominant practice in most jurisdictions.
Fluorescent yellow-green provides enhanced conspicuity for these
critical signs, especially in dusk and dawn periods, and the FHWA
believes that uniform use of this background color for all school
warning signs and plaques will enhance safety and road user
recognition. The FHWA proposes to revise the background color of school
warning signs and plaques in the figures throughout Part 7 to reflect
this proposed change.
434. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 7B.08 School
Advance
[[Page 324]]
Warning Assembly, and replace it with three new sections numbered and
titled, ``Section 7B.08 School Sign,'' ``Section 7B.09 School Area or
School Zone Sign,'' and ``Section 7B.10 School Advance Crossing
Assembly.'' The remaining sections in Chapter 7B would be renumbered
accordingly. As discussed in item 426 above, the FHWA proposes this
change in order to provide flexibility in the sign's application and
use of the sign with other signs and plaques to form a sign assembly.
435. The FHWA proposes to revise Section 7B.08 to include one
SUPPORT statement that describes three specific applications for the
School (S1-1) sign. As part of this new SUPPORT, the FHWA proposes to
add a new figure numbered and titled, ``Figure 7B-2 Example of Signing
for a School Zone,'' that illustrates the use of the School (S1-1) sign
and the Fines Higher (R2-6P) plaque. The remaining figures in Chapter
7B would be renumbered accordingly. Proposed new Sections 7B.09 through
7B.11 contain additional STANDARD and OPTION statements for each of the
three uses of the S1-1 sign.
436. In proposed Section 7B.09 School Area or School Zone Sign and
Section 7B.10 School Advance Crossing Assembly, the FHWA proposes to
add an OPTION statement that permits the use of a supplemental arrow
plaque on a School (S1-1) sign in locations where a school area/zone or
school crosswalk that is located on a cross street less than 38 m (125
ft) from the edge of a street or highway. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide jurisdictions with flexibility for installing signs
where there is not sufficient distance for advance signing.
437. In existing Section 7B.09 (new Section 7B.11) School Crossing
Assembly, the FHWA proposes to add to the OPTION statement that when
used at a school crossing, the In-Street Pedestrian sign may use the
schoolchildren symbol (as found on the S1-1 sign), rather than the
single pedestrian symbol. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate
Official Interpretation 7-65(I), which was issued on September
6, 2004.\192\ The FHWA proposes to show these optional sign designs in
existing Figure 7B-4 (new Figure 7B-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-65(I), dated September 6,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/7_65.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add to the OPTION statement to allow the
use of the proposed new Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign (discussed in
Chapter 2B) sign at school crossings and to add a complementary
restriction to the last STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of this
sign at signalized crossings. The FHWA proposes these changes to allow
appropriate use of this overhead sign to enhance the safety of school
crossings.
438. In existing Section 7B.10 (new Section 7B.12) SCHOOL BUS STOP
AHEAD Sign, the FHWA proposes revising the GUIDANCE statement by
removing the specific distance of 150 m (500 ft) that a stopped school
bus should be visible to road users, and in its place inserting a
reference to distances given in Table 2C-4. The FHWA proposes this
change because Table 2C-4 provides more detailed information about
proper placement of warning signs.
439. In existing Figure 7B-1 School Area Signs, the FHWA proposes
to replace the existing School Bus Stop Ahead (S3-1) word message sign
with a symbol sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign based on positive
experiences in West Virginia, where a symbol sign for this message has
been used for 25 to 30 years \193\ and in Canada, where it has also
been used since the 1970s. The FHWA proposes to use a symbol that is
similar to the Canadian MUTCD \194\ standard WC-9 symbol. The proposed
symbol features a school bus with a depiction of red flashing lights, a
bus-mounted STOP sign, and students getting on or off the bus. A recent
study \195\ found that the proposed symbol sign was better understood
than the existing word message sign and that the symbol provides
comparable legibility distance. The FHWA believes that the replacement
of selected word message signs with well-designed symbol signs will
improve safety in view of increasing globalization and non-English
speaking road users in the United States. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ For additional information on West Virginia's successful
experience with this symbol sign, contact Mr. Ray Lewis, Staff
Engineer--Traffic Research and Special Projects Traffic Engineering
Division, West Virginia DOT, Division of Highways, phone: 304-558-
8912, email: [email protected].
\194\ The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada,
4th Edition, is available for purchase from the Transportation
Association of Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario
K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site http://www.tac-atc.ca.
\195\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluations of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to revise the illustration in Figure 7B-1 to
clarify that the S4-1 (time) and S4-6 (Monday-Friday) plaques may be
used together, but other combinations of plaques are not allowed.
440. The FHWA proposes to add a new Section following existing
Section 7B.10 (new Section 7B.13), numbered and titled, ``Section 7B.13
SCHOOL BUS TURN AHEAD Sign (S3-2).'' This new section contains an
OPTION statement about the use of this proposed new sign that can be
installed in advance of locations where there is a school bus turn
around on a roadway at a location not visible to approaching users for
a distance as determined in Table 2C-4. The remaining sections in
Chapter 7B would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA also proposes to
add a new Figure 7B-1 Illustrating the proposed sign. The FHWA proposes
this new sign to provide a standard sign for applications that fit this
need. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
441. In existing Section 7B.11 (new Section 7B.14) School Speed
Limit Assembly, the FHWA proposes to change the first paragraph of the
2nd OPTION statement to a STANDARD to require, rather than merely
permit, fluorescent yellow-green pixels to be used when the ``SCHOOL''
message is displayed on a changeable message sign for a school speed
limit. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with other
proposed changes that require fluorescent yellow-green to be the
standard color for school zone warning signs.
442. In existing Section 7B.12 (new Section 7B.15), the FHWA
proposes to change the name of the ``Reduced Speed School Zone Ahead''
sign to ``Reduced School Speed Limit Ahead'' sign to be consistent with
the Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, and Signal Ahead sign names and to be
consistent with the proposed change in the name of the similar warning
sign in Chapter 2C.
443. In existing Section 7B.13 (new Section 7B.16) END SCHOOL ZONE
Sign, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD to clarify that the end
of a designated school zone shall be marked with both an END SCHOOL
ZONE sign and a Speed Limit sign for the section of highway that
follows. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with proposed
changes to Section 7B.08. It is important and sometimes legally
necessary to mark the end points of designated school zones. The use of
a
[[Page 325]]
Speed Limit sign showing the speed limit for the following section of
highway is required by existing section 2B.13. The FHWA also proposes
to modify figures in Chapter 7B to reflect these proposed changes. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for installation
of END SCHOOL ZONE signs at existing locations to minimize any impact
on state or local highway agencies.
444. In Section 7C.03 Crosswalk Markings, the FHWA proposes to add
a 5th paragraph to the first GUIDANCE statement recommending that
warning signs be installed for marked crosswalks at nonintersection
locations, and adequate visibility be provided by implementing parking
prohibitions. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with a
similar proposed change in existing Section 3B.17 (new Section 3B.18).
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the 2nd GUIDANCE
statement, a recommendation that the spacing between diagonal or
longitudinal lines should not exceed 2.5 times the line width. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent with existing text in Section
3B.17.
445. In Section 7C.04 Stop and Yield Lines, the FHWA proposes to
incorporate several changes to be consistent with proposed changes to
Section 3B.16 with the same title. See item 262 for more information.
446. In Section 7C.05 Curb Markings for Parking Regulations, the
FHWA proposes to add to the OPTION statement that curb markings without
word markings or signs may be used to convey a general prohibition by
statute of parking within a specified distance of a STOP sign,
driveway, fire hydrant, or crosswalk. The proposed text is already
contained in existing Section 3B.21 (new Section 3B.22), and the FHWA
believes it is important to restate it in Section 7C.05 for emphasis
and consistency.
447. In Section 7C.06 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings, the FHWA
proposes to revise this section to provide consistency with Section
3B.19 (new Section 3B.20).
448. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Chapter 7D Signals
because it is a small chapter whose only purpose is to provide
reference to Part 4 and Section 4C.06. The FHWA proposes to incorporate
the references in Section 7A.04 instead. The FHWA would reletter the
remaining chapters accordingly.
449. In existing Section 7E.01 (new Section 7D.01) Types of
Crossing Supervision, the FHWA proposes to delete the reference
document, ``Civilian Guards for School Crossings'' from the 2nd
paragraph of the SUPPORT statement because Northwestern University is
phasing out such publications and it will not be available in the
future.
450. In existing Section 7E.03 (new Section 7D.03) Qualifications
of Adult Crossing Guards, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE
statement to indicate that the list represents the minimum
qualifications of adult crossing guards. In addition, the FHWA proposes
to add three additional qualifications (new items C, D, and E) that are
similar to applicable provisions in Section 6E.01 for flaggers.
451. In existing Section 7E.04 (new Section 7D.04) Uniform of Adult
Crossing Guards and Student Patrols, the FHWA proposes to delete ``and
Student Patrols'' from the title of the section and to delete the
second paragraph of the STANDARD statement, which relates to the
apparel worn by student patrols. The FHWA believes that student patrols
do not control vehicular traffic and provisions relating to student
patrols are not appropriate for the MUTCD. The FHWA also proposes to
delete the first GUIDANCE statement because most adult crossing guards
do not wear a uniform. In addition, as part of proposed changes to the
STANDARD statement, the GUIDANCE statement is no longer necessary. The
FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to reflect that law
enforcement officers performing school crossing supervision shall use
high-visibility safety apparel labeled as ANSI 107-2004. The FHWA
proposes these changes to incorporate into the MUTCD the provisions of
23 CFR Part 634 that were published in the Federal Register on November
24, 2006.\196\ As part of these proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to
delete the second GUIDANCE statement because it is superseded by the
new proposed statements discussed above. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 2 years for crossing guard apparel on non-Federal-
aid highways to minimize any impact on state or local highway agencies.
A compliance date of November 24, 2008, has already been established
for worker apparel on Federal-aid highways as a result of 23 CFR Part
634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ The Federal Register Notice was published in the Federal
Register on November 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 226, Page 67792-
67800) and can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-19910.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
452. In existing Section 7E.05 (new Section 7D.05) Operating
Procedures for Adult Crossing Guards, the FHWA proposes to change the
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD, thereby making all of the paragraphs
requirements, rather than recommendations. Because the safety of school
children is paramount, it is important that adult crossing guards
follow specific requirements when controlling traffic for the purpose
of assisting school children.
453. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 7E.06 Uniformed
Law Enforcement Officers, because the information is covered in
existing Section 7E.01 (new Section 7D.01). The remaining sections
would be renumbered accordingly.
454. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Sections 7E.07, 7E.08,
and 7E.09 because these sections pertain to student patrols. The FHWA
believes that student patrols do not control vehicular traffic and
provisions relating to student patrols are not appropriate for the
MUTCD. The FHWA believes that adequate and appropriate guidance on
student patrols is readily available from other sources, such as the
American Automobile Association's ``School Safety Patrol Operations
Manual.'' \197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ This 2004 publication can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://www.aaa.com/aaa/049/PublicAffairs/SSPManual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
455. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Chapter 7F Grade
Separated Crossings, because the information from that chapter is to be
covered by the proposed changes to Section 7A.05. (See item 430 above.)
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 8 Traffic Controls for
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
456. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, the FHWA proposes to add the
following definitions: ``Constant Warning Time Train Detection,''
``Diagnostic Team,'' ``Locomotive Horn,'' ``Pathway-Rail Grade
Crossing,'' ``Quiet Zone,'' ``Station Crossing,'' and ``Wayside Horn.''
The FHWA proposes adding these definitions because these words are used
in Part 8 and have not previously been defined.
457. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 8A.04. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 8A.05
Illumination at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings'' and contains information
previously included in existing Chapter 8C. The FHWA proposes to change
the designation of the text in this section to SUPPORT because
illumination is not a traffic control device and thus should not be
regulated by GUIDANCE and OPTION language. The FHWA believes
[[Page 326]]
that adequate and appropriate guidance on illumination of highway-rail
grade crossings is readily available from other sources, such as the
ANSI's Practice for Roadway Lighting RP-8, available from the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ Information on obtaining this publication can be viewed on
the following Internet Web site: https://www.iesna.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
458. The FHWA proposes to make several changes throughout Chapter
8B Signs and Markings, to require that a YIELD sign or STOP sign be
installed at all passive highway-rail grade crossings, except where
train crews always provide flagging of the crossing to road users. The
FHWA proposes this change to incorporate information from FHWA's Policy
Memorandum, ``Guidance for Use of YIELD or STOP Signs with the
Crossbuck Sign at Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,'' \199\ dated
March 17, 2006, into the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to strengthen the
language to a STANDARD in the MUTCD from the informational guidance
contained in the policy memo, to require, rather than recommend, the
use of YIELD or STOP signs in conjunction with the Crossbuck sign at
all passive crossings except where train crews always provide flagging
to road users. While the Crossbuck sign is in fact a regulatory sign
that requires vehicles to yield to trains and stop if necessary, recent
research \200\ indicates insufficient road user understanding of and
compliance with that regulatory requirement when just the Crossbuck
sign is present at passive crossings. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ FHWA's Policy Memorandum, ``Guidance for Use of YIELD or
STOP Signs with the Crossbuck Sign at Passive Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings,'' dated March 17, 2006, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/yieldstop_guidememo/yieldstop_policy.htm
\200\ National Cooperative Highway Research Report 470 titled
``Traffic Control Devices for Passive Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings,'' Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
459. The FHWA proposes to revise existing Figures 8B-1 and 8B-6,
and to add a new figure, numbered and titled, ``Figure 8B-2 Highway-
Rail Grade Crossings (Crossbuck) Regulatory Signs with Separate Posts''
to reflect the proposed requirement to install a YIELD sign or STOP
sign at all passive highway rail-grade crossings, except where train
crews always provide flagging of the crossing to road users. The
remaining existing Figures in Chapter 8B would be renumbered
accordingly.
460. In Section 8B.03 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign
and Number of Tracks Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION
statement that allows the Crossbuck sign to have reflectorized red
lettering, rather than the standard black lettering, at non-signalized
crossings. The FHWA proposes this change to emphasize that the
Crossbuck assigns the right-of-way to rail traffic at a highway-rail
grade crossing.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the 3rd paragraph of the 3rd
STANDARD statement, and the associated figure, to indicate that
measurement for the retroreflective strip that is placed on the front
and back of the support for the Crossbuck or Number of Tracks sign is
to be from the ground, rather than the roadway. The FHWA proposes this
change because there may be some cases where the ground level at the
base of the sign is higher than the edge of the roadway.
461. The FHWA proposes to relocate and retitle existing Section
8B.08 to be, ``Section 8B.04 Use and Meaning of STOP or YIELD Signs at
Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.'' The FHWA proposes replacing all
of the existing text with new text that describes the use of STOP and
YIELD Signs at passive highway-rail grade crossings, as proposed in
item 458 above.
462. The FHWA also proposes to add a new section numbered and
titled, ``Section 8B.05 Crossbuck Assemblies with YIELD Signs or STOP
Signs at Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings'' to provide information
on the use of the Crossbuck Assemblies as proposed in item 458 above.
The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.
463. In existing Section 8B.04 (new Section 8B.06) Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the
first STANDARD statement a requirement that a supplemental plaque
describing the type of traffic control at the highway-rail grade
crossing shall be used with the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance
Warning sign (W10-1). As part of this proposed change, the FHWA
proposes to require the use of a No Signal (W10-10P) supplemental
plaque in advance of a crossing that does not have active traffic
control devices, and the use of a new Signal Ahead (W10-16P) plaque in
advance of a crossing that does have active traffic control devices.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes to add the new Signal Ahead (W10-16P) plaque to
existing Figure 8B-2 (new Figure 8B-3) and Table 8B-1.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add at the end of the 1st
STANDARD statement that a Yield Ahead or a Stop Ahead Advance Warning
Sign shall also be installed if criteria are met, along with
information regarding the distance between signs in advance of a
highway-rail grade crossing, to emphasize existing requirements in Part
2.
The FHWA proposes these changes to improve safety by providing road
users with additional information regarding traffic control devices at
highway-rail grade crossings, as recommended by recent research.\201\
Because of these proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to delete existing
Section 8B.15 because the information from that section would be
included in the revisions to Section 8B.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ National Cooperative Highway Research Report 470 titled
``Traffic Control Devices for Passive Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings,'' Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In concert with the above proposed changes, the FHWA proposes to
add to the 2nd STANDARD statement a requirement that a supplemental
plaque describing the type of traffic control at a highway-rail grade
crossing also be used with W10-2, W10-3, and W10-4 warning signs where
the distance between the railroad tracks and a parallel highway is less
than 30 m (100 ft). In these situations, the distance to the tracks
does not allow for the use of a W10-1 sign, but the additional
information provided by the supplemental plaques is just as important.
464. In existing Section 8B.10 (new Section 8B.11) STOP HERE WHEN
FLASHING Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a new sign designated R8-10a.
This proposed sign is similar in design and size to the existing R10-6a
sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign in order to provide a 600 mm x
750 mm (24 in. x 30 in.) alternate to the R8-10 sign. The FHWA proposes
to add both the proposed new R8-10a sign and the existing R10-6a signs
to Table 8B-1.
465. The FHWA proposes to rewrite existing Section 8B.12 (new
Section 8B.13) Emergency Notification Sign in its entirety. The
proposed text includes STANDARD statements that specify the minimum
amount of information to be placed on Emergency Notification signs,
sign placement, and the proposed sign color of a white legend and
border on a blue background. The proposed new
[[Page 327]]
text includes an OPTION statement that allows similar information to be
displayed on the enclosure for signal apparatus at crossings that are
equipped with active traffic control devices. The proposed new text
also includes a GUIDANCE statement with additional information on sign
retroreflectivity, sign placement, and sign size. To illustrate the
proposed change, FHWA would revise Figure 8B-4 and Table 8B-1
accordingly. The FHWA proposes these changes to simplify the
requirements for these signs and to assure that the appropriate
information is displayed on these valuable signs that provide
information to roadway users in the event of an emergency or signal
malfunction requiring notification to the railroad. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
466. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 8B.15 because the
information from this section is included in the proposed revisions to
Section 8B.04. See item 461 above.
467. The FHWA proposes to revise Section 8B.16 LOOK Sign to
indicate that the LOOK sign may be mounted on a separate sign post
(rather than to give the option of mounting it as a supplemental plaque
on the Crossbuck sign) in the immediate vicinity of the highway-rail
grade crossing on the railroad right-of-way. The FHWA proposes this
change because other proposed changes require other signs to be placed
on the Crossbuck assembly and there would be insufficient space for the
LOOK sign.
468. In Section 8B.21 Stop Lines, the FHWA proposes to add a
STANDARD statement requiring the use of stop lines on paved roadways at
highway-rail grade crossings that are equipped with active control
devices. This requirement is currently implied by STANDARD language in
Section 8B.20 and illustrated in Figure 8B-6. The FHWA proposes to add
this specific requirement in Section 8B.21 for clarification and
because the stop line provides road users with a clear indication of
the point behind which they are required to stop when the traffic
control devices are activated.
469. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Chapter 8C Illumination,
and place the information from this Section in a new Section numbered
and titled, ``Section 8A.05 Illumination at Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings.'' See item 457 above. The remaining Chapters in Part 8 would
be relettered accordingly.
470. In existing Section 8D.03 (new Section 8C.03) Flashing-Light
Signals, Overhead Structures, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD
statement that except as noted in this section, flashing-light signals
mounted overhead shall comply with the applicable provisions of new
Section 8C.02. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that the
requirement in existing Section 8D.02 (new Section 8C.02) for back-to-
back pairs of flashing-light signals on each side of the tracks when
there is highway traffic in both directions applies also to overhead
mounted flashing light signals.
471. In existing Section 8D.04 (new Section 8C.04) Automatic Gates,
the FHWA proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of the STANDARD statement
to indicate that the stripes on gate arms shall be vertical, rather
than 45-degree diagonal. The FHWA would change the stripes on Figures
8C-1, 10D-3, and 10D-4 accordingly. The diagonal stripes tend to
encourage road users to drive around the gates because diagonal stripes
are used on other devices such as barricades, object markers, etc. to
indicate the direction in which road users are expected to change their
path of travel. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing stripes on gate arms in good condition to minimize
any impact on State or local highway agencies or railroad companies.
472. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section
8D.05 (new Section 8C.05) numbered and titled, ``Section 8C.06 Wayside
Horn Systems.'' This new section contains OPTION, STANDARD, and
GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of wayside horn systems to
provide directional audible warning at highway-rail grade crossings
pursuant to the Interim Approval for the Use of Wayside Horn Systems,
issued August 2, 2004.\202\ The Interim Approval and proposed MUTCD
text support the Final Rule adopted by Federal Railroad Administration
mandating the sounding of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade
crossings (49 CFR Part 222).\203\ The FHWA would renumber the remaining
sections in this chapter accordingly. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ The Interim Approval can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_waysidehorns.htm.
\203\ The Federal Register Notice was published on December 18,
2003, (Volume 68, Number 243, Page 70586-70687) and can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
473. In existing Section 8D.07 (new Section 8C.08) Traffic Control
Signals at or Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, the FHWA proposes to
add a 3rd paragraph to the GUIDANCE statement recommending that back-up
power be supplied to traffic control signals that have railroad
preemption or that are coordinated with flashing-light signal systems
at a highway-rail grade crossing. The FHWA proposes to add this
recommendation because railroad flashing-light signals are typically
provided with standby power supply to ensure their operation during
power outages and it is important that traffic signals at or near the
crossings also be provided with standby power during power outages to
help prevent vehicles from queuing on approaches crossing tracks. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a 4th paragraph to the
GUIDANCE statement to conform with Section 8A.01, which states that the
highway agency or authority with jurisdiction and the regulatory agency
with statutory authority jointly determine the need and selection of
devices at a highway-rail grade crossing. In conjunction with that
proposed change, the FHWA proposes to add to the 2nd STANDARD statement
to clarify that the timing parameters must be furnished by the
jurisdiction so that the railroad will be able to design the train
detection circuitry. The FHWA proposes these changes, because railroads
often do not have the expertise or the authority to determine the
preemption operation and timing of the traffic signals.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to the last SUPPORT statement to
provide a cross-reference to the proposed new Section 4C.10, which
describes the Intersection Near a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing signal
warrant that is intended for use at a location where the proximity to
the intersection of a highway-rail grade crossing on an intersection
approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic control signal.
474. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 8D.07 (new Section 8C.08) numbered and titled, ``Section 8C.09
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing(s) Within or In Close Proximity to
Roundabouts, Traffic Circles, or Circular Intersections.'' This new
section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE
[[Page 328]]
statements that clarify the need for active traffic control devices
where highway-rail grade crossings are within or in close proximity to
roundabouts, traffic circles or circular intersections. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for traffic control
devices in good condition at existing locations to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
475. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 8D
Quiet Zone Treatments at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.'' The purpose of
this new Chapter is to add language to support and directly refer to
the Final Rule adopted by Federal Railroad Administration regarding
quiet zones established in conjunction with restrictions on train horns
at certain highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR Part 222).\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ The Federal Register Notice was published on December 18,
2003 (Volume 68, Number 243, Page 70586-70687) and can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
476. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 8E
Pathway-Rail Grade Crossings.'' The purpose of this new Chapter is to
provide information for traffic control devices used at pathway-rail
grade crossings. Shared-use paths and other similar facilities often
cross railroad tracks and it is important that suitable traffic control
devices be used to provide for safe and effective operation of such
crossings. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 9 Traffic Controls for
Bicycle Facilities
477. In Section 9A.03 Definitions Relating to Bicycles, the FHWA
proposes to change the definition of ``bicycle lane'' to indicate that
a bicycle lane is to be designated by pavement markings, and that signs
may be used to supplement the markings designating a bicycle lane, but
they are not required. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent
with proposed changes in Sections 1A.13 and 9B.04. The FHWA also
proposes to delete the second sentence of the definition of ``Designed
Bicycle Route'' and relocate this text to existing Section 9B.20 (new
Section 9B.21) where it is more appropriate.
478. In Section 9B.01 Application and Placement of Signs, the FHWA
proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to indicate that no portion
of a sign or its support shall be placed less than 0.6 m (2 ft)
laterally from the near edge of the path, or less than 2.4 m (8 ft)
vertically over the entire width of the shared-use path. As part of
this change, the FHWA proposes to remove the requirement that signs be
placed a maximum of 1.8 m (6 ft) from the near edge of a path. The FHWA
proposes this change to be more consistent with Part 2 and in response
to feedback from practitioners that the existing MUTCD standards for
sign height and offset can restrict the ability of agencies to
effectively install signs on many shared-use path locations. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies. The FHWA also proposes to modify Figure 9B-1 to illustrate
the proposed minimum vertical offset information for overhead mounted
signs.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement
that the clearance for overhead signs on shared-use paths should be
adjusted to accommodate path users requiring more clearance, such as
equestrians or typical maintenance or emergency vehicles.
479. In Section 9B.04, retitled Bike Lane Signs and Plaques, the
FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements to clarify
that Bike Lane signs are not required along bicycle lanes, and to give
recommendations on the placement of Bike Lane signs and plaques when
they are used. Whether the presence or absence of the Bicycle Lane sign
provides a clearly measurable benefit in indicating a designated
bicycle lane has not been conclusively demonstrated. Amending the MUTCD
to make the use of Bicycle Lane signs with marked bicycle lanes a
recommended, rather than a mandatory, condition would provide
flexibility for jurisdictions that do not desire to use the Bicycle
Lane sign, without restricting the ability of jurisdictions that prefer
to use the signs to continue to do so. These changes are consistent
with proposed changes to the definition of ``bicycle lane'' as
discussed in item 477 above.
480. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 9B.05
numbered and titled, ``Section 9B.06 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
(R4-11).'' This Section includes OPTION and SUPPORT statements
regarding the use of this proposed new sign, which is illustrated in
Figure 9B-2. The FHWA proposes this new sign, and accompanying text and
figure, to provide jurisdictions with a consistent sign design, along
with application information, for locations where it is important to
inform road users that the travel lanes are too narrow for bicyclists
and motor vehicles to operate side by side. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
481. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section
9B.08 (new Section 9B.09) to ``Selective Exclusion Signs'' and add new
text regarding the exclusion of various designated types of traffic
from using particular roadways or facilities. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. As
part of the change, the FHWA proposes to add No Skaters (R9-13) and No
Equestrians (R9-14) signs to the text and to Figure 9B-2.
482. In existing Section 9B.10 (new Section 9B.11) Bicycle
Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes to add information about three
proposed new signs for bicycle pushbuttons, consistent with similar
proposed text in Chapter 2B.
483. In existing Section 9B.17 (new Section 9B.18), which the FHWA
proposes to retitle, ``Bicycle Warning and Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian
Signs,'' the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement permitting the
use of the proposed new Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian (W11-15) sign where
both bicyclists and pedestrians might be crossing the roadway, such as
at an intersection with a shared-use path. Further discussion of this
proposed sign can be found above in the discussion of existing Section
2C.40 (new Section 2C.51). The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes to permit a TRAIL XING (W11-15P) supplemental
plaque to be mounted below the W11-15 sign. The FHWA also proposes to
illustrate this configuration in Figure 9B-3. The FHWA proposes these
changes to be consistent with Chapter 2C.
484. In existing Section 9B.18 (new Section 9B.19) Other Bicycle
Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the legend on the W5-4a sign
from ``BIKEWAY NARROWS'' to ``PATH NARROWS.'' The FHWA proposes this
change because shared-use paths are the only bikeway type on which the
W5-4a sign is used, therefore, use on other types of bikeways would be
inappropriate or confusing, and should not be encouraged. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on
[[Page 329]]
State or local highway agencies. In conjunction with the proposed
change in the text, FHWA proposes to make the appropriate change in
Table 9B-1.
485. In existing Section 9B.19 (new Section 9B.20), the FHWA
proposes to retitle the section ``Bicycle Guide Signs'' and add several
new signs, along with information on their use. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide flexibility and potentially reduce costs for signing
bicycle routes in urban areas where multiple routes intersect or
overlap. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies. Along with additional text regarding the use of
the proposed new Alternative Bike Route Guide (D11-1c) and Bicycle
Destination signs (D1-1b, D1-1c, D1-2b, D1-2c, D1-3b, and D1-3c), the
FHWA proposes adding the various new signs to Table 9B-1 and Figure 9B-
4.
486. In existing Section 9B.20 (new Section 9B.21) Bicycle Route
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new Bicycle Route (M1-8a) sign that
retains the clear, simple, and uniform design of the M1-8 sign, but
provides an area near the top of the panel to include a pictograph or
words that are associated with the route or with the agency that has
jurisdiction over the route. There has been a significant amount of
interest in allowing agencies to develop unique or distinctive route
number signs for bicycle routes, in much the same way that States use
distinctive M1-5 signs for State highways. However, this could lead to
route sign designs that are unclear and non-uniform. As a result, the
FHWA proposes the new M1-8a sign to provide a clear, uniform sign. The
M1-8 sign would continue to remain in the MUTCD for use when agencies
do not wish to use a distinctive pictograph, symbol, or wording. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to change the existing 2nd OPTION
statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit, a U.S.
Bicycle Route number designation be requested from AASHTO for a
designated bicycle route that extends through two or more States. The
FHWA also proposes to add this GUIDANCE the text relocated from the
definition of ``designated bicycle route'' in Section 9A.03 regarding
continuous routing of bicycle routes, as discussed above in item 478.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise the design of the U.S. Bike
Route Sign in Figure 9B-4 so that a larger bicycle is shown on the top
part of the sign with a smaller number below it. The reason for the
change is to present an immediate impression of a ``bicycle numbered
route'' rather than a ``highway numbered route which can also be used
by bicyclists'' and to provide consistency with AASHTO's recommended
design for the sign.
487. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section
9B.21 (new Section 9B.22) to ``Bicycle Route Sign Auxiliary Plaques''
and to revise the content of the section considerably. As part of the
changes, the FHWA proposes to revise the size and design of the M4-11
BEGIN plaque to be consistent with similar M4 series auxiliary signs in
Part 9. The FHWA also proposes to delete the M4-12 and M4-13 plaques
from this section and Figure 9B-4 because these duplicate the M4-6 and
M4-5 auxiliary signs. In addition, FHWA proposes to delete the M7
series arrow plaques from this section and Figure 9B-4 because these
duplicate the proposed new sizes of the M5 and M6 auxiliary signs. The
FHWA also proposes to add 300 mm x 150 mm (12 in x 6 in) sizes for
selected M3 and M4 series auxiliary signs, and add 300 mm x 225 mm (12
in x 9 in) sizes for all M5 and M6 series auxiliary signs, and to refer
to these smaller sizes in this section, Table 9B-1, and Figure 9B-4.
These smaller sizes will be suitable for use with M1-8, M1-8a, and M1-9
signs. These proposed changes will ensure that route auxiliary
designations are consistent between Part 2 and Part 9.
488. The FHWA proposes to replace existing Figure 9B-6 with a new
Figure 9B-6 titled, ``Example of Bicycle Guide Signing'' that
illustrates an example of guide signing for bicycles, including the
Bicycle Destination signs.
489. The FHWA proposes to add three new sections following existing
Section 9B.22 (new Section 9B.23) Bicycle Parking Area Sign. The first
proposed new section is numbered and titled, ``Section 9B.24 Reference
Location Signs and Intermediate Reference Location Signs'' and contains
information regarding the use of the signs on shared-use paths.
Reference Location signs (formerly called mileposts) have been defined
in Chapter 2D of the MUTCD since 1971, and have proven extraordinarily
valuable for traveler information, maintenance and operations,
emergency response, and numerous other applications. The linear nature
of many shared-use paths would seem to also naturally lend itself to
the application of Reference Location signs. However, the use and
design of such signs has not yet been explicitly addressed in Part 9 of
the MUTCD. Defining a standard and uniform design could provide more
uniform traveler guidance, reduce the proliferation of non-standard
reference location signs, and encourage the use of these signs where
desirable and appropriate. The proposed signs would be proportionately
sized for the lower operating speeds of shared-use paths, using a 150
mm (6 in) wide panel with 113 mm (4.5 in) numerals. The proposed text
is adapted directly from existing Section 2D.46 defining the use of
these signs for conventional roadways. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. In addition to
revising the text, the FHWA proposes to revise Figure 9B-4 and Table
9B-1 to include the use of these signs.
490. The second proposed new section is numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.25 Mode-Specific Guide Signs for Shared-Use Paths'' and
contains information regarding the use of signs to guide different
types of users to separate pathways where they are available.
Currently, the Manual provides tools only to prohibit user types, not
to show which user types are permitted. As a result, jurisdictions are
commonly installing varied, non-standard mode permission signs. The
proposed changes are intended to provide clarity and uniformity for
mode-specific guide signs on shared-use paths by adding five new signs
to the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies. In addition to adding the new signs to
Figure 9B-4 and Table 9B-1, the FHWA proposes to add Figure 9B-8
``Example of Mode-Specific Guide Signs on Shared-Use Paths'' to
illustrate the use of the proposed signs.
491. The third proposed new section is numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.26 Object Markers.'' The FHWA proposes to relocate the
text and figures from Section 9C.03 to this section, to be consistent
with a similar proposed move of object markers from Part 3 to Part 2.
492. In Section 9C.03 Marking Patterns and Colors on Shared-Use
Paths, the FHWA proposes to relocate the last five paragraphs to new
Section 9B.26 as discussed in item 491 above.
493. In Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes, the FHWA proposes
several changes in this Section to correspond with proposed changes to
the definition of ``bicycle lane'' in Section 1A.13 (item 477 above)
and
[[Page 330]]
signs and plaques for bike lanes in Section 9B.04.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to expand the last STANDARD
statement to include ``other circular intersections'' as locations
where bicycle lanes are prohibited. The FHWA proposes this additional
language to clarify that in addition to being prohibited on the
circular roadway of a roundabout, bicycle lanes are not to be provided
on the circular roadway of other circular intersections.
494. The FHWA proposes to add a new section at the end of Chapter
9C numbered and titled, ``Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking.'' This new
section contains OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding
the use of a proposed new Shared Lane Marking. This proposed new
pavement marking indicates the legal and appropriate bicyclist line of
travel, and cues motorists to pass with sufficient clearance, and is
based on field research conducted in San Francisco, California.\205\
The purpose of this proposed new marking is to reduce the number and
severity of bicycle-vehicular crashes, particularly crashes involving
bicycles colliding with suddenly opened doors of parked vehicles. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing
pavement markings in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies. In addition to the text, the FHWA proposes to
illustrate the appropriate use of the marking in a new figure, titled,
``Figure 9C-9 Shared Lane Marking.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ ``San Francisco's Shared Lane Pavement Markings: Improving
Bicycle Safety,'' Final Report, February 2004, prepared for the City
of San Francisco Department of Traffic and Parking by Alta Planning
and Design can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 10 Traffic Controls for
Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings
495. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 10A.04. The new section is numbered and titled, ``Section
10A.05 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings'' and
contains information previously included in existing Section 10C.22.
The FHWA proposes to change the designation of the text in this section
to SUPPORT because illumination is not a traffic control device and
thus should not be regulated by GUIDANCE and OPTION language. A similar
change is proposed in Part 8--see item 457 above.
496. In Section 10B.01 Introduction, the FHWA proposes to add to
the STANDARD and OPTION statements that Crossbuck Assemblies are also
appropriate traffic control devices at highway-light rail transit grade
crossings in semi-exclusive alignments, if an engineering study
indicates that their use would be adequate. The FHWA also proposes to
add to the last SUPPORT statement that Section 8B.04 and Figures 8B-1,
8B-2, and 8B-6 contain information regarding the use and placement of
Crossbuck Assemblies. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency
with changes in Part 8 as discussed in item 458 above.
497. In Section 10C.02, which the FHWA proposes to re-title ``Use
of Crossbuck Assemblies at Passive Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade
Crossings,'' the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION that allows the
Crossbuck sign to have reflectorized red lettering, rather than the
standard black lettering, at non-signalized crossings. The FHWA
proposes this change to emphasize that the Crossbuck assigns the right-
of-way to LRT traffic at a highway-light rail transit grade crossing.
The FHWA also proposes to delete the requirement that Crossbuck
signs be used on each highway approach to every highway-light rail
transit grade crossing on a semi-exclusive alignment from the STANDARD
statement. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect standard practice
with most light rail transit agencies in the U.S. Crossbuck signs are
not typically used at crossings controlled by traffic signals,
particularly in downtown areas. Crossings within highway-highway
intersections in urban areas with train speeds of 60 km/h (35 mph) or
less are typically controlled by traffic signals and Crossbuck signs
are not used. Crossbuck signs are not appropriate for light rail
transit crossings in downtown areas or at intersections controlled by
traffic signals, since they are believed to be ineffective and create
sign clutter. The FHWA proposes to revise the OPTION statement to allow
the use of Crossbuck Assemblies (described in Section 8D.05) on
semiexclusive alignments, to allow agencies the flexibility to use the
Crossbuck sign if they choose to do so for certain situations.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the 3rd paragraph of the second
STANDARD statement to clarify that the strip of reflective material
that is required on Crossbuck Assembly supports shall be vertical and
placed on the back of the support from the bottom of the Crossbuck sign
to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above the ground. In conjunction with this
change, the FHWA clarifies that on Crossbuck Assemblies where the YIELD
or STOP sign is installed on a separate support, or is omitted in
accordance with Section 8B.04, a vertical strip of retroreflective
white material, not less than 50 mm (2 in) in width, shall be used on
the front of the Crossbuck Assembly support from the bottom of the
Crossbuck sign or Number of Tracks sign to within 0.6 m (2 ft) above
the ground. The FHWA proposes these changes to clarify the types of
reflective strips to be used, how they are to be measured, and when
they are to be used.
498. The FHWA proposes to revise Section 10C.03 LOOK Sign to
indicate that the LOOK sign may be mounted on a separate sign post
(rather than to give the option of mounting it as a supplemental plaque
on the Crossbuck sign) in the immediate vicinity of the highway-light
rail grade crossing on the railroad right-of-way. The FHWA proposes
this change because other proposed changes require other signs to be
placed on the Crossbuck assembly and there would be insufficient space
for the LOOK sign.
499. The FHWA proposes to change the title of Section 10C.04 to
``Use of STOP or YIELD Signs without Crossbuck Signs at Highway-Light
Rail Transit Grade Crossings'' to reflect proposed changes to this
section that clarify when it is appropriate to use only STOP or YIELD
signs, without the Crossbuck Sign. As part of the proposed changes,
FHWA proposes to delete the OPTION statement allowing a STOP or YIELD
sign to be installed on the Crossbuck post, because this is proposed to
be covered in Sections 10B.01 and 10C.02.
500. In existing Section 10C.08 STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING Sign
(renumbered Section 10C.07 because the order of Sections 10C.07 and
10C.08 is proposed to be reversed to follow the same order as they are
in Part 8), the FHWA proposes to add a new sign designated R8-10a. This
proposed sign is similar in design and size to the existing R10-6a
sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign in order to provide a 600 mm x
900 mm (24 in x 30 in) alternate to the R8-10 sign. The FHWA proposes
to add both the proposed new R8-10a sign and the existing R10-6a signs
to Table 8B-1.
501. In Section 10C.15 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement a
requirement that a supplemental plaque describing the type of traffic
control at the highway-light rail grade crossing shall be used with the
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning sign (W10-
[[Page 331]]
1). As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to require the
use of a No Signal (W10-10P) supplemental plaque in advance of a
crossing that does not have active traffic control devices, and the use
of a new Signal Ahead (W10-16P) plaque in advance of a crossing that
does have active traffic control devices. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for the use of these supplemental plaques
at existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add at the end of the 1st
STANDARD that a Yield Ahead or a Stop Ahead Advance Warning Sign shall
also be installed if criteria are met, along with information regarding
the distance between signs in advance of a highway-light rail grade
crossing, to emphasize existing requirements in Part 2.
The FHWA proposes these changes to improve safety by providing road
users with additional information regarding traffic control devices at
highway-rail grade crossings as recommended by recent research.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ National Cooperative Highway Research Report 470 titled
``Traffic Control Devices for Passive Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings,'' Transportation Research Board, 2002, can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
502. In Figure 10C-4 Warning Signs and Light Rail Station Sign, the
FHWA proposes to revise the symbol shown on the W10-7 sign to utilize
the same symbol of a light rail vehicle as that used on the I-12 sign.
The light rail vehicle symbol on the existing W10-7 sign was an
inadvertent error that the FHWA proposes to correct so that the symbols
will be consistent. The FHWA also proposes to add the No Signal (W10-
10P) and Active Control (W10-16P) plaques to this figure.
503. The FHWA proposes to rewrite Section 10C.21 Emergency
Notification Sign in its entirety. These proposed changes are very
similar to those proposed in existing Section 8B.12 (new Section 8B.13)
in item 465 above. The proposed text includes STANDARD statements that
specify the minimum amount of information to be placed on Emergency
Notification signs, sign placement, and the proposed sign color of a
white legend and border on a blue background. The proposed new text
includes an OPTION statement that allows similar information to be
displayed on the enclosure for signal apparatus at crossings that are
equipped with active traffic control devices. The proposed new text
also includes a GUIDANCE statement with additional information on sign
retroreflectivity, sign placement, and sign size. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. To
illustrate the proposed change, FHWA would revise Figure 10C-4. The
FHWA proposes these changes to simplify the requirements for these
signs and to assure that the appropriate information is displayed on
these valuable signs that provide information to roadway users in the
event of an emergency or signal malfunction requiring notification to
the railroad LRT agency.
504. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 10C.22
Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Transit Crossings, and place the
information from this Section in a new Section numbered and titled,
``Section 10A.05 Illumination at Highway-Light Rail Grade Crossings.''
The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly. See item 495
above.
505. In existing Section 10C.24 (new Section 10C.23) Stop Lines,
the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement requiring the use of stop
lines on paved roadways at highway-light rail transit grade crossings
that are equipped with active control devices. This requirement is
currently implied by STANDARD language in Section 10C.22 and
illustrated in Figure 10C-2. The FHWA proposes to add this specific
requirement in Section 10C.24 for clarification and because the stop
line provides road users with a clear indication of the point behind
which they are required to stop when the traffic control devices are
activated.
506. In Section 10D.01 Introduction, the FHWA proposes to change
the OPTION statement to a STANDARD statement, which will require
audible devices to the provided and operated in conjunction with
flashing-light signals or traffic control signals where they are
operated at a crossing that is used by pedestrians. The FHWA proposes
this change because light rail transit vehicles are often nearly
silent, and blind pedestrians cannot see flashing lights. Requiring the
use of an audible warning device would assure that information about
the approach of a light rail transit vehicle is available to persons
with visual disabilities. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance
period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
507. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section
10D.04 numbered and titled, ``Section 10D.05 Wayside Horn Systems.''
This new section contains OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements
regarding the use of wayside horn systems to provide directional
audible warning at highway-light rail grade crossings, pursuant to the
Interim Approval for the Use of Wayside Horn Systems, issued August 2,
2004.\207\ The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years
for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies. See item 472 above for additional information because this
proposed new section is very similar to proposed new Section 8C.06.
FHWA would renumber the remaining sections in this chapter accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ The Interim Approval can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_waysidehorns.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
508. In existing Section 10D.08 (new Section 10D.07) Use of Traffic
Control Signals for Control of Light Rail Transit Vehicles at Grade
Crossings, the FHWA proposes to change the first paragraph of the
SUPPORT statement to a GUIDANCE statement, to recommend that the light
rail transit signal indications shown in Figure 10D-1 be used to
control light rail transit movements. The existing MUTCD indicates that
the indications shown in the figure are only examples of indications
that could be used, and there is no requirement or recommendation to
use these particular indications. As a result, there is no uniformity
in the light rail transit signal indications used around the country.
The FHWA believes that such uniformity is needed and that the
indications shown in Figure 10D-1 should be recommended for use. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway or transit
agencies.
509. In Figures 10D-3 and 10D-4, the FHWA proposes to change the
striping on the gate arms from diagonal to vertical to reflect the
proposed striping change in Section 8D.04.
510. In existing Section 10D.08 (new Section 10D.09) Pedestrian and
Bicycle Signals and Crossings, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE
statement that an audible device should be installed, in addition to a
Crossbuck sign, at pedestrian and bicycle crossings where determined by
an engineering study. The FHWA also proposes to add that if an
engineering study shows that flashing-light signals with a Crossbuck
sign and an audible device would not provide sufficient notice of an
approaching light rail transit vehicle, the LOOK sign and/or pedestrian
gates should be considered. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide
[[Page 332]]
consistency with proposed changes in Section 10D.01 in item 506 above.
511. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 10D.08 (new Section 10D.09) numbered and titled, ``Section
10D.10 Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings(s) Within or In Close
Proximity to Roundabouts, Traffic Circles, or Circular Intersections.''
This new section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements
that clarify the need for active traffic control devices where highway-
rail grade crossings are within or in close proximity to roundabouts,
traffic circles, or circular intersections. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 5 years for existing locations to minimize any
impact on State or local highway agencies.
512. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 10E
Quiet Zone Treatments at Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings.''
The purpose of this new Chapter is to add language to support and
directly refer to the Final Rule adopted by Federal Railroad
Administration regarding quiet zones established in conjunction with
restrictions on train horns at certain highway-rail grade crossings (49
CFR Part 222) \208\ which may have applicability to certain highway-
light rail transit grade crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ The Federal Register Notice was published on December 18,
2003 (Volume 68, Number 243, Page 70586-70687) and can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/train_horn_rule/fed_reg_trainhorns_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
513. The FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter titled, ``Chapter 10F
Pathway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings.'' The purpose of this new
Chapter is to provide information for traffic control devices used at
pathway-rail grade crossings. Shared-use paths and other similar
facilities often cross light rail transit tracks and it is important
that suitable traffic control devices be used to provide for safe and
effective operation of such crossings. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action would not be a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of U.S. Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. These changes are not anticipated
to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy.
Most of the proposed changes in the MUTCD would provide additional
guidance, clarification, and optional applications for traffic control
devices. The FHWA believes that the uniform application of traffic
control devices will greatly improve the traffic operations efficiency
and roadway safety. The standards, guidance, and support are also used
to create uniformity and to enhance safety and mobility at little
additional expense to public agencies or the motoring public. In
addition, these changes would not create a serious inconsistency with
any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of
any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Therefore, a
full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes
on small entities and has determined that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would add some alternative traffic control devices
and only a very limited number of new or changed requirements. Most of
the proposed changes are expanded guidance and clarification
information.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48,
March 22, 1995). The proposed revisions can be phased in by the States
over specified time periods in order to minimize hardship. The proposed
changes to traffic control devices that would require an expenditure of
funds all would have future effective dates sufficiently long to allow
normal maintenance funds to replace the devices at the end of the
material life-cycle. To the extent the proposed revisions would require
expenditures by the State and local governments on Federal-aid
projects, they are reimbursable. This action would not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2
U.S.C. 1532).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and
the FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this rulemaking will not
preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability
to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The MUTCD is
incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 655, subpart F. These proposed
amendments are in keeping with the Secretary of Transportation's
authority under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a) to promulgate uniform
guidelines to promote the safe and efficient use of the highway. The
overriding safety benefits of the uniformity prescribed by the MUTCD
are shared by all of the State and local governments, and changes made
to this rule are directed at enhancing safety. To the extent that these
proposed amendments override any existing State requirements regarding
traffic control devices, they do so in the interest of national
uniformity.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175,
dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and
would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant
energy action under that order because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order
13211 is not required.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
[[Page 333]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that
this action does not contain collection information requirements for
purposes of the PRA.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not concern an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking
of private property or otherwise have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has
determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
23 CFR Part 634
Design standards, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference,
Workers, Traffic regulations.
23 CFR Part 655
Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Issued on: December 14, 2007.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority 23 U.S.C.
315, the FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
parts 634 and 655 as follows:
PART 634--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
1. Part 634, as added at 71 FR 67800 (November 24, 2006), is
removed and reserved.
PART 655-TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
2. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.48(b).
3. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 655.601 to read as follows:
Sec. 655.601 Purpose.
* * * * *
(a) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), ------ [date to be inserted] Edition, FHWA, dated --
---- [date to be inserted]. This publication is incorporated by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is
on file at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA call (202)
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. It is available for
inspection and copying at the Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, as provided in 49 CFR part 7.
The text is also available from the FHWA Office of Operations Web site
at: http//mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov.
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 655.603 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 655.603 Standards.
(a) National MUTCD. The MUTCD approved by the Federal Highway
Administrator is the national standard for all traffic control devices
installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public
travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a). For the purpose
of MUTCD applicability, open to public travel includes toll roads and
roads within shopping centers, parking lot areas, airports, sports
arenas, and other similar business and/or recreation facilities that
are privately owned but where the public is allowed to travel without
access restrictions. Private gated properties where access is
restricted and private highway-rail grade crossings are not included in
this definition.
Appendix to Subpart F of Part 655--[Amended]
5. Amend Table 1 by changing the daytime chromaticity coordinates
for retroreflective sign material for the color Purple as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302............. Existing 0.064 Proposed
0.064.
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307............. Existing 0.200 Proposed
0.202.
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374............. Existing 0.300 Proposed
0.247.
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457............. Existing 0.202 Proposed
0.136.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Amend Table 2 by adding the nighttime chromaticity coordinates
for retroreflective sign material for the color Purple as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.307...................................................... 0.150
0.480...................................................... 0.245
0.530...................................................... 0.170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Amend Table 3 by changing the daytime chromaticity coordinates
for retroreflective sign material for the color Fluorescent Pink as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.450 Proposed 0.600............. Existing 0.270 Proposed
0.340.
Existing 0.590 Proposed 0.450............. Existing 0.350 Proposed
0.332.
Existing 0.644 Proposed 0.430............. Existing 0.290 Proposed
0.275.
Existing 0.563 Proposed 0.536............. Existing 0.230 Proposed
0.230.
Existing------Proposed 0.644.............. Existing------Proposed
0.290.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Amend Table 3 by adding after Fluorescent Pink the color
Fluorescent Red and its daytime chromaticity coordinates for
retroreflective sign material as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.666...................................................... 0.334
0.613...................................................... 0.333
0.671...................................................... 0.275
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 334]]
9. Amend Table 3A by adding after Fluorescent Pink the color
Fluorescent Red and its daytime luminance coordinates for
retroreflective sign material as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum YF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................................ 30 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Amend Table 4 by adding after Fluorescent Green the color
Fluorescent Red and its nighttime chromaticity coordinates for
retroreflective sign material as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.680...................................................... 0.320
0.645...................................................... 0.320
0.712...................................................... 0.253
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Amend Table 5 by adding after the color Blue the daytime
chromaticity coordinates for Purple retroreflective pavement marking
material as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.309...................................................... 0.260
0.362...................................................... 0.295
0.475...................................................... 0.144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Amend Table 5A by adding after the color Blue the daytime
luminance factors for Purple retroreflective pavement marking material
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.......................................................... 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Amend Table 6 by adding after the color Yellow the nighttime
chromaticity coordinates for Purple retroreflective pavement marking
material as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.338...................................................... 0.080
0.425...................................................... 0.365
0.470...................................................... 0.385
0.635...................................................... 0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-24863 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P