[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80898-80979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26789]
[[Page 80897]]
Vol. 85
Monday,
No. 240
December 14, 2020
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Parts 470, 635, 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. 85 , No. 240 / Monday, December 14, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 80898]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 470, 635, and 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001]
RIN 2125-AF85
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of proposed amendments (NPA).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD) is incorporated in FHWA regulations and recognized as
the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public
roads. The purpose of this NPA 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
update the technical provisions to reflect advances in technologies and
operational practices, incorporate recent trends and innovations, and
set the stage for automated driving systems as those continue to take
shape. The proposed changes would promote uniformity and incorporate
technology advances in the traffic control device application, and
ultimately improve and promote the safe and efficient utilization of
roads that are open to public travel. These proposed changes are being
designated as the 11th edition of the MUTCD.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2021. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-
9329;
Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket
number or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking
at the beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Sylvester, Office of
Transportation Operations, (202) 366-2161, [email protected], or
Mr. William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1397,
[email protected], Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing
This document and all comments received may be viewed online
through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An
electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing
the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov.
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This regulatory action seeks to collect comments from the public on
proposed revisions to the MUTCD. The proposed changes are intended to
streamline processes and reduce burdens on State and local agencies by
including many of the successful devices or applications that have
resulted from over 180 official experiments that FHWA has approved,
including congestion-reduction strategies such as variable speed
limits, dynamic lane control and shoulder use, and pedestrian safety
enhancements such as the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon.
The proposed changes would update the technical provisions to
reflect advances in technologies and operational practices, incorporate
recent trends and innovations, and set the stage for automated driving
systems as those systems continue to take shape. These changes would
promote uniformity and incorporate technological advances in traffic
control device design and application, and ultimately improve and
promote the safe and efficient utilization of roads that are open to
public travel.
With this proposed rule, FHWA seeks to address any existing
provisions that might have contributed to situations that inhibit or
contravene the purpose of a nationwide standard for traffic control
devices, which is to promote the safe and efficient utilization of the
highways and streets through an uninterrupted uniform system of signs,
signals, and markings as road users travel between jurisdictions.
Uniformity and consistency in message, placement, and operation of
traffic control devices have been shown to address the expectancy of
the road user, resulting in a more predictable response. The system of
uniform traffic control devices works in concert with the natural
tendencies of the road user in the various high-judgment situations
that the road user will encounter.
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in
Question
Key proposed changes in this NPA include the following:
Incorporation of provisional traffic control devices currently
under Interim Approval, including pedestrian-actuated rectangular
rapid-flashing beacons at uncontrolled marked crosswalks, green-colored
pavement for bicycle lanes, red-colored pavement for transit lanes, and
a new traffic signal warrant based on crash experience;
Improvements to safety and accessibility for pedestrians, including
the location of pushbuttons at signalized crosswalks, crosswalk marking
patterns, and accommodations in work zones;
Expanded traffic control devices to improve safety and operation
for bicyclists, including intersection bicycle boxes, two-stage turn
boxes, bicycle traffic signal faces, and a new design for the U.S.
Bicycle Route sign;
Considerations for agencies to prepare roadways for automated
vehicle technologies and to support the safe deployment of automated
driving systems;
Clarifications on patented and proprietary traffic control devices
to foster and promote innovation; and
Safety and operational improvements, including revised procedures
for the posting of speed limits, new criteria for warning signs for
horizontal alignment changes, new application of traffic control
devices for part-time travel on shoulders to manage congestion, and new
application of traffic control devices at busway crossings.
In addition, this regulatory action amends the following:
23 CFR part 470, subpart A, appendix C;
23 CFR 635.309(o); and
23 CFR 655.603(b)(1).
III. Costs and Benefits
FHWA has estimated the costs and evaluated potential benefits of
this rulemaking and believes the rulemaking
[[Page 80899]]
is being proposed in a manner that fulfills the requirements under 23
U.S.C. 109(d) and 23 CFR part 655, while also providing flexibility for
agencies. The estimated national costs are documented in the economic
analysis report titled, ``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Assessment of Economic Impacts of Notice of Proposed Amendment,'' which
is available on the docket.
The proposed rulemaking introduces a variety of revisions resulting
in clarification of language and organization of the MUTCD,
deregulation through increased flexibility and alternatives for
agencies, deregulation through relaxation of standards to guidance, and
the introduction of new traffic devices. For the purposes of this
analysis, where revisions improve the clarity of existing content,
those revisions have been considered non-substantive. All other
revisions are considered substantive as they materially change the
requirements of the MUTCD.
This NPA provides quantitative estimates of the expected compliance
costs associated with the proposed substantive revisions. There are 132
substantive revisions in total. There are 124 substantive revisions
with minimal or no impact, including the introduction of 37 new traffic
control device applications. These revisions materially change the
MUTCD requirements but have no cost impacts or minimal cost impacts.
The remaining eight substantive revisions have quantifiable
economic impacts. For the three substantive revisions for which costs
can be quantified, the total estimated cost measured in 2018 dollars is
$541,978 when discounted to 2018 at 7 percent; and $589,667 when
discounted at 3 percent. These costs are estimated as the sum of the
price of the traffic control device and the removal and installation
costs of the device, applied to the current and future deployment rate
of the traffic control device, considering the compliance date for the
provision relating to the device. The proposed revisions differ in
their compliance dates, the date after which the traffic control
devices must comply with the MUTCD revisions. The cost estimates
reflect whether the proposed revision includes a compliance date. For
those proposed changes without a compliance date, the analysis assumes
that agencies would make traffic control devices comply with the
proposed revisions at the end of the service life of a device. For
those proposed changes with a compliance date, the analysis assumes
that agencies would upgrade non-conforming traffic control devices
through systematic upgrading, proportionally each year until the
compliance date. The analysis period is 10 years starting with an
implementation date of 2021 and extending through 2030. The costs of
five substantive revisions could not be estimated due to lack of
information, but all are expected to have net benefits based on per-
unit or per-mile costs and benefits of the proposed revision. Costs for
each substantive revision with appreciable impacts are estimated based
on the cost of the traffic control device, the removal and installation
costs of the device, the current and future deployment of the traffic
control device, and the compliance date if applicable.
The benefits of the revisions include operational and safety
benefits. Operational benefits include the capacity of the traffic
control device to convey necessary information to road users and any
mobility impacts from efficient operation. Currently, no specific data
or studies exist to measure operational benefits or efficiency gains,
and these benefits are evaluated qualitatively. Ideally, safety
benefits would be measured by the revision's impact on crashes, but
there are no data that correlate the direct impact of traffic control
devices with crash rates, and the safety benefits of these revisions
could not be quantified. Potential safety benefits are evaluated
qualitatively as well.
For each substantive revision with measurable costs, FHWA expects
that the benefits will exceed costs. Based on the qualitative and
quantitative information presented, FHWA expects that, in general, the
potential benefits of the rulemaking will exceed its costs.
Background
This rule is proposed under 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402(a),
which give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to promulgate
uniform provisions to promote the safe and efficient utilization of the
highways. This authority is delegated to FHWA under 49 CFR 1.85.
The text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the
MUTCD incorporating the proposed changes from the current edition are
available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7,
at FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590. Further, the text, figures, and tables of a
proposed new edition of the MUTCD incorporating changes from the
current edition are available on the MUTCD website 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. Though the proposed text, figures, and tables are
available only as separate documents for inspection, all three elements
will be integrated when the new edition of the MUTCD is published in a
consistent format, similar to the current edition. The complete current
2009 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 and Revision No. 2
incorporated is also available on the same website.
This NPA is being issued to provide an opportunity for public
comment on the desirability of these proposed amendments to the MUTCD.
This NPA does not address the proposals contained in FHWA's ongoing
rulemaking titled, ``Maintaining Pavement Marking Retroreflectivity,''
(RIN 2125-AF34; Docket No. FHWA-2009-0139) at 82 FR 770 (January 4,
2017). Based on the comments received and its own experience, FHWA may
issue a final rule concerning the proposed changes included in this
document.
The NPA is being published to address the many advances in
technology, research results, and improved traffic and safety
management strategies that have occurred since the 2009 edition of the
MUTCD. FHWA invites comments on these proposed changes to the MUTCD.
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 FHWA's docket
comment review process more efficient. A form is provided on the docket
to simplify the comment submission process. FHWA requests that
commenters download and utilize this form to submit comments the
docket, but it is not required.
A summary of the proposed general changes and proposed changes for
each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following discussion.
In general, the proposed changes are based on the goal of achieving
uniformity in the appearance, meaning, application, and other critical
attributes of traffic control devices to promote the safe and efficient
utilization of the streets and highways. Uniformity and consistency in
message,
[[Page 80900]]
placement, and operation of traffic control devices have been shown to
accommodate the expectancy of the road user, resulting in a more
predictable response which, in turn, results in a safer, more efficient
operation of the roads nationwide. It is under this premise that the
provisions of the MUTCD are developed and promulgated. These proposals
are based on the best available research, professional judgment, and
data demonstrating that road user confusion would be avoided had a non-
uniform traffic control device been uniform. Where this NPA proposes
regulatory requirements prescribing specific conduct that regulated
entities must adopt, FHWA has determined that these regulations are
necessary to address the compelling need for nationwide uniformity to
ensure the safety and efficiency of the traveling public.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1 General
1. As part of the reorganization, FHWA proposes to delete the
existing Introduction and relocate most of that material into a
proposed expanded/restructured Part 1. The purpose of this
consolidation is to present more logically the general information
about the MUTCD and traffic control devices and to eliminate
duplicative material that appears in both the Introduction and sections
of Part 1. As a part of this change, FHWA also proposes to remove the
existing text and table regarding the historical development of the
MUTCD and paragraphs pertaining to the use of metric units, as this
material is not needed in the MUTCD or can be instead posted on the
MUTCD website for those who are interested in it.
In addition to the changes described herein and shown in the
proposed text of the MUTCD, FHWA proposes a new format for each
specific traffic control device that is consistent with the format
currently used in Part 4 of the Manual, which uses all upper-case
letters for each type of traffic signal indication (e.g., ``CIRCULAR
RED signal indication''). For example, the title of a sign would be
shown in the MUTCD as ``SPEED LIMIT sign'' instead of ``Speed Limit
sign,'' ``CHEVRON ALIGNMENT sign'' instead of ``Chevron Alignment
sign,'' and ``EXIT DIRECTION sign'' instead of ``Exit Direction sign.''
(The sign title would not depend on whether any word legend on a sign
is displayed in upper-case or upper- and lower-case letters.) A similar
format would be used for pavement markings: ``NORMAL WIDTH DOTTED WHITE
lane line'' instead of ``normal width dotted white lane line,'' ``WIDE
SOLID WHITE line'' instead of ``wide solid white line,'' ``DOUBLE SOLID
YELLOW line'' instead of ``double solid yellow line,'' and ``CHEVRON
HATCH markings'' instead of ``chevron hatch markings.'' This proposed
change is not shown in the proposed text of the MUTCD, but would be
incorporated in the new edition of the MUTCD if adopted in the Final
Rule. FHWA requests comment on this reformatting proposal for
implementation throughout the entire Manual.
2. In the proposed consolidated Part 1, FHWA proposes to reorganize
the retained material from the existing Introduction and existing Part
1 into four new chapters, to create a more logical flow of information
and make it easier for users to find the content they need. The four
chapters of the new Part 1 are Chapter 1A (General), Chapter 1B (Legal
Requirements for Traffic Control Devices), Chapter 1C (Definitions,
Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used In This Manual), and Chapter 1D
(Provisions Applicable to Traffic Control Devices in General).
3. In Chapter 1A General, FHWA proposes to create Section 1A.01,
titled, ``Purpose of the MUTCD,'' with new text recommended by Item 525
of the 20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD.\1\ FHWA
proposes this revision because a clear statement of the MUTCD's purpose
is critical in defining what content should be in the MUTCD and how
that content should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices,'' National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, January 9, 2014, can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In Section 1A.02 (existing Section 1A.01), FHWA proposes to
retitle the section to ``Traffic Control Devices--Definition.'' FHWA
also proposes to change the Standard (relocated from the Introduction,
Paragraph 1) to Support, restating and referring to the definition of
``traffic control devices'' (as proposed to be revised in Section
1C.02). FHWA also proposes to add a new Support paragraph about
infrastructure elements and certain operational devices, to explain
that these are not considered traffic control devices. FHWA proposes
these revisions to align proposed content and material being relocated
from the Introduction and from other sections within existing Part 1.
FHWA also proposes to include a new list item (labeled ``F''),
stating that messages displayed on changeable message signs for
America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) alerts and
homeland security information during declared states of emergency are
not being considered as traffic control devices and, therefore,
provisions regarding their design and use are not included in the
MUTCD. FHWA proposes this revision because these two types of messages
are specific exceptions to the use of a traffic control device
expressly allowed by statute. They are referenced in the MUTCD because
the device on which they are displayed is a traffic control device,
even though the specific messages are not traffic control device
messages.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to relocate the Standard and Support
pertaining to advertising to Section 1D.09. FHWA proposes this revision
to align proposed content and material in each Section.
5. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1A.03, titled, ``Target Road
Users,'' with new text recommended by Item 526 of the 20-Year Vision
and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD.\2\ The proposed text describes the
characteristics of the two groups of target road users for traffic
control devices--operators of vehicles (including bicyclists) and
pedestrians. FHWA proposes this revision because proper use of traffic
control devices can be optimized by stating the expectations for road
users responding to the traffic control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan'' can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1A.04, titled, ``Use of the
MUTCD,'' with two new Standard paragraphs and one new Guidance
paragraph consisting of text recommended by items 528 and 529 of the
20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD, plus additional text
relocated from the Introduction.\3\ The proposed text establishes
minimum qualifications for those responsible for performing traffic
control device activities in order to reduce the potential for
unqualified individuals performing traffic control device activities,
specifically recommending that traffic control device decisions should
be made with consideration of multiple factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, FHWA proposes to change Support paragraphs to provide
clarity and to reflect the new use of unnumbered sub-chapter headings.
7. In Section 1A.05 (existing Section 1A.11) Relation to Other
Publications, FHWA proposes to add three additional publications to the
list of useful sources of information (``Manual for Assessing Safety
Hardware'' 2009 Edition
[[Page 80901]]
AASHTO, ``Equipment and Materials Standards of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers'' 1988 Edition ITE, and ``Vehicle Traffic
Control Signal Heads: Light Emitting Diode (LED) Vehicle Arrow Traffic
Signal Supplement'' 2007 Edition ITE). FHWA also proposes to delete
four publications from the existing list of useful sources of
information (``Roundabouts--An Informational Guide (FHWA-RD-00-067)''
2000 Edition FHWA, ``Purchase Specification for Flashing and Steady
Burn Warning Lights'' 1981 Edition ITE, ``Traffic Detector Handbook''
1991 Edition ITE, and ``Traffic Signal Lamps'' 1980 Edition ITE).
Lastly, FHWA proposes to update several of the listed publication
editions. FHWA proposes these revisions to reflect the most current and
applicable supporting publications and to delete any references to
publications that are obsolete or have been superseded. In concert with
this change, FHWA also proposes Standard and Support paragraphs to
explain how specific editions of the resources listed apply to the new
edition of the MUTCD.
8. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1A.06, titled, ``Uniform
Vehicle Code--Rules of the Road,'' with text relocated from the
existing Introduction and from existing Section 1A.02, plus additional
new Support text to explain the current status of the Uniform Vehicle
Code. FHWA proposes these revisions to provide clear guidance on the
application of the Uniform Vehicle Code.
9. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1B.01, titled, ``National
Standard,'' with text relocated from the existing Introduction. As a
part of this change, FHWA proposes to revise existing Paragraph 2,
Sentence 2, of the Introduction, from a Standard to a Support, as it is
a statement of fact rather than a mandate of the MUTCD.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard indicating the types of
facilities to which the MUTCD shall apply and not apply, per 23 CFR
655.603(a). FHWA proposes this revision to make the MUTCD easier for
users to understand its applicability, particularly for smaller
agencies and individual owners of roads open to public travel.
10. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1B.02, titled, ``State
Adoption and Conformance,'' with text relocated from the existing
Introduction and existing Section 1A.07. FHWA proposes this revision to
consolidate information about the adoption of the MUTCD by States and
other Federal agencies and substantial conformance of State MUTCDs and
Supplements.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard paragraph to clarify the fact
that, in addition to State MUTCDs or Supplements, any policies,
directives, or other supplemental documents that a State or other
agency might issue to address traffic control devices are considered
supplements to the MUTCD and must be in substantial conformance with
the national MUTCD. This proposed change is for clarification purposes
and does not represent a change to existing requirements.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add Guidance indicating that traffic
control devices that have been granted Interim Approval, but which have
not yet been adopted into the national MUTCD, should not be included in
State MUTCDs or Supplements. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify the
process for such cases because the technical conditions or status of an
Interim Approval are provisional in nature and can change before
adoption into the MUTCD. Adoption into State Manuals or Supplements can
create a burden for those States for which a legislative change would
be required to comply with any new or revised provisions that FHWA
might issue. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that an Interim
Approval can accommodate flexibility by responding readily to any
changes that might become necessary.
11. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1B.03, titled, ``Compliance
of Devices,'' with text relocated from the existing Introduction and
existing Sections 1A.07 and 1A.10. FHWA proposes this revision to
consolidate information regarding the compliance of traffic control
devices to streamline and improve the usability of the MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes to revise an existing Standard relocated from
Section 1A.07 to Support. FHWA proposes this revision since the
statement is of fact rather than a mandate of the MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Support paragraph clarifying the
status of devices or applications not specifically addressed in the
Manual. FHWA proposes this revision to address a common misperception
that an application of a device is allowed if it is not explicitly
prohibited in the Manual, even if that application is not addressed in
the Manual. In those cases in which there might be some question as to
whether an application that is not specifically mentioned in the MUTCD
might be allowed, an individual is encouraged to seek an official
interpretation, in which FHWA can evaluate whether such application is
consistent with the provisions for that device and whether it would
adversely impact uniformity.
FHWA also proposes to combine a Standard paragraph and an Option
paragraph regarding the replacement of non-compliant traffic control
devices, relocated from the Introduction, into a single Standard. FHWA
proposes this revision to streamline existing language.
FHWA also proposes to remove 12 rows in Table 1B-1 (existing Table
I-2), titled, ``Target Compliance Dates Established by the FHWA.'' FHWA
proposes this revision since these rows contain requirements with
previously established compliance dates that have passed or will have
passed by the date of the publication of the Final Rule resulting from
this NPA. Related to this proposed change, FHWA proposes to delete
additional compliance dates from the table that are in effect at the
time this NPA is published, but expire prior to the effective date of
the Final Rule.
FHWA also proposes to add three new compliance dates to Table 1B-1
(existing Table I-2). For Section 2C.25 Low Clearance Signs, the
compliance date of five years from the effective date of the final rule
for this edition applies to the proposed new Standard requiring that if
used, Low Clearance Overhead signs shall indicate the portion of the
structure with low clearance if the posted clearance does not apply to
the entire structure to indicate the point of applicability. The
proposed changes were based on recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) H-14-11 \4\ to provide signing
indicating the proper lane of travel for over height vehicles traveling
under an arched structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The NTSB report can be viewed at the following internet
website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Section 8B.16 High-Profile Grading Crossings, the compliance
date of five years from the effective date of the final rule for this
edition applies to the proposed new Guidance recommending the
installation of Low Ground Clearance and/or Vehicle Exclusion and
detour signs for vehicles with low ground clearances that might hang up
on high-profile grade crossings. The proposed compliance date applies
only to those locations with known histories of vehicle hang-ups
occurring because sufficient geometric criteria do not currently exist
by which agencies could evaluate crossings to determine the specific
types of vehicles that could be problematic. The proposed changes were
based on recommendation from
[[Page 80902]]
NTSB H-18-24 \5\ to provide signing for high-profile grade crossings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The NTSB report can be viewed at the following internet
website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1801.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Section 8D.10 through 8D.13 Highway Traffic Signals at or Near
Grading Crossings, the compliance date of ten years from the effective
date of the final rule for this edition applies to the determination
and installation of the appropriate treatment (preemption, movement
prohibition, pre-signals, or queue cutter signals) at highway-rail
grade crossings in close proximity to signalized intersections. FHWA
proposes this compliance date due to the high potential for train-
vehicle crashes at locations where a vehicle traveling in a platoon can
come to a stop on a crossing unintentionally due to a queue from a
downstream signalized intersection.
12. FHWA proposes to replace existing Section 1A.10 with seven new
Sections numbered from 1B.03 through 1B.09. The seven new Sections are
Section 1B.03 (Compliance of Devices), Section 1B.04 (Issuance of
Official Rulings Related to this Manual), Section 1B.05 (Official
Interpretations), Section 1B.06 (Experimentation), Section 1B.07
(Changes to the MUTCD), Section 1B.08 (Interim Approvals), and Section
1B.09 (Requesting Official Interpretations, Experiments, Changes to the
MUTCD, or Interim Approvals). FHWA proposes this revision to improve
the organization of material regarding official interpretations,
experimentations, changes to the MUTCD, interim approvals, and
procedures for requesting any of these actions.
13. In proposed Section 1B.06 Experimentation, FHWA proposes to
revise existing Section 1A.10, Paragraph 11, and change from Guidance
to Standard. In addition, FHWA proposes to add Standards, Support, and
Guidance paragraphs further addressing the experimentation process.
FHWA proposes these revisions to clarify and streamline the
experimentation process for agencies wishing to experiment with novel
traffic control devices or applications.
14. In proposed Section 1B.08 Interim Approvals, FHWA proposes to
revise existing Section 1A.10, Paragraph 18, and change from Guidance
to Standard. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify and streamline the
interim approval process.
15. In proposed Section 1B.09 Requesting Official Interpretations,
Experiments, Changes to the MUTCD, or Interim Approvals, FHWA proposes
to add Support paragraphs to provide further clarity on official
rulings.
16. In proposed new Chapter 1C Definitions, Acronyms, and
Abbreviations Used in this Manual, FHWA proposes to replace existing
Section 1A.13 with two new Sections. Section 1C.01, titled,
``Definitions of Headings Used in this Manual'' would cover definitions
of the headings used in the MUTCD (such as Standard, Guidance, etc.).
Section 1C.02, titled, ``Definitions of Words and Phrases Used in this
Manual'' would cover definitions of the words and phrases used in the
MUTCD. FHWA proposes this revision to provide clarity between
definitions of the headings and definitions of words and phrases used
throughout the Manual.
FHWA also proposes to revise the definition of a Standard in
Section 1C.01 to indicate that in limited cases, the results of a
documented engineering study might indicate that a deviation from one
or more requirements of a Standard provision to be appropriate. FHWA
proposes this revision based on Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1(I).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1(I), dated October 1, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In proposed Section 1C.02 Definitions of Words and Phrases Used
in this Manual, FHWA proposes to revise the existing definitions for
the following: ``active grade crossing warning system,'' ``actuated
operation,'' ``actuation,'' ``channelizing line markings,'' ``constant
warning time train detection,'' ``conventional road,'' ``crashworthy,''
``delineator,'' ``emergency-vehicle traffic control signal,''
``engineering judgement,'' ``engineering study,'' ``flashing,'' ``full-
actuated operation,'' ``highway traffic signal,'' ``in-roadway
lights,'' ``intersection,'' ``logo,'' ``median,'' ``minimum track
clearance distance,'' ``overhead sign,'' ``parking area,'' ``paved,''
``pedestrian clearance time,'' ``pedestrian facility,'' ``pictograph,''
``preemption,'' ``pre-signal,'' ``private road open to public travel,''
``queue clearance time,'' ``quiet zone,'' ``raised pavement marker,''
``road user,'' ``semi-actuated operation,'' ``sign,'' ``sign panel,''
``sequence of indications,'' ``statutory speed limit,'' ``traffic,''
``traffic control device,'' ``traffic control signal (traffic
signal),'' and ``worker.'' FHWA proposes these revisions to reflect
accepted practice and terminologies, and for consistency in the usage
of these terms in the MUTCD. The proposed revision to the definition of
``engineering study'' is a specific recommendation of Item 531 of the
20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the MUTCD.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices,'' National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, January 9, 2014, can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add definitions for the following: ``active
grade crossing,'' ``agency,'' ``application,'' ``bicycle signal face,''
``bicycle symbol signal indication,'' ``blank-out sign,'' ``busway,''
``diagnostic team,'' ``driveway,'' ``driving aisle,'' ``dynamic message
sign,'' ``engineer,'' ``exclusive alignment,'' ``fail-safe,'' ``four-
quadrant gate system,'' ``general-purpose lane,'' ``gore area,''
``identification marker,'' ``jughandle turn,'' ``loading zone,'' ``low-
volume rural road,'' ``mixed-use alignment,'' ``on-street parking,''
``option lane,'' ``parking space,'' ``professional engineer (P.E.),''
``queue cutter signal,'' ``reconstructed,'' ``rectangular rapid-
flashing beacon,'' ``right-of-way, public highway,'' ``semi-exclusive
alignment,'' ``serviceable,'' ``shoulder,'' ``sidewalk grade
crossing,'' ``signal dimming,'' ``site roadways open to public
travel,'' ``swing gate,'' ``through train,'' ``toll road (facility),''
``uncontrolled approach,'' and ``variable message sign.'' FHWA proposes
these revisions because these terms either are used or are proposed for
use in the MUTCD.
In addition, FHWA proposes to delete the existing definitions for
the following: ``advance preemption,'' ``advance preemption time,''
``average day,'' ``cantilevered signal structure,'' ``concurrent flow
preferential lane,'' ``end of roadway marker,'' ``interval sequence,''
``maximum highway traffic signal preemption time,'' ``minimum warning
time,'' ``right-of-way transfer time,'' ``simultaneous preemption,''
and ``wayside equipment.'' FHWA proposes these revisions because these
terms are either proposed for deletion from the Manual as part of this
document or used only once in a specific section of the Manual.
FHWA also proposes to delete the definition for ``safe-positioned''
and relocate this information to Part 6. FHWA proposes this revision
because this term is only used in that Part of the MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes to delete the definitions for ``average day,''
``cantilevered signal structure,'' ``concurrent flow preferential
lane,'' and ``end-of-roadway marker.'' FHWA proposes these revisions
because these
[[Page 80903]]
terms are not used anywhere in the MUTCD.
18. In Section 1C.03 (existing Section 1A.14), retitled, ``Meanings
of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Manual,'' FHWA proposes to
delete the acronyms/abbreviations ``EPA'' and ``TDD'' and relocate the
information to Part 2. FHWA proposes these revisions because these
terms are only used in that Part of the MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes to delete the acronyms/abbreviations ``HOT,''
``HOTM,'' ``HOTO,'' ``PCMS,'' and ``RRPM.'' FHWA proposes these
revisions because the terms are not used in the MUTCD text.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add the abbreviations ``cd/lx/m\2\,''
``ft,'' ``in,'' and ``mi.'' FHWA proposes these revisions because these
abbreviations for light intensity and distances are used throughout the
MUTCD.
19. In Section 1D.01 (existing Section 1A.02), retitled, ``Purpose
and Principles of Traffic Control Devices,'' FHWA proposes to revise
the title to reflect the content with the proposed relocation of a
paragraph from existing Section 1A.01 to this section. Also, FHWA
proposes to revise the Guidance about what makes a traffic control
device effective by changing ``meet five basic requirements'' to ``be
consistent with these principles.'' FHWA proposes these revisions to
clarify that the principles are recommendations rather than
requirements, as they are contained within a Guidance provision.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard indicating that
traffic control devices used on site roadways open to the public shall
have the same shape, color, and meaning as those required by the MUTCD,
unless exceptions are noted in the Manual.
20. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 1D.02, titled, ``Traffic
Control Device Characteristics and Activities,'' with new text
recommended by Item 527 of the 20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for
the MUTCD.\8\ The proposed text describes seven characteristics and
activities associated with traffic control devices. FHWA proposes this
revision since clarifying distinctions between types of traffic control
device activities would assist agencies in establishing the
qualifications needed to perform the selected activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``20-Year Vision and Strategic Plan for the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices,'' National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, January 9, 2014, can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://ncutcd.org/wp-content/uploads/MUTCD/MUTCD-20-Year-Vision-NCUTCD-Appvd-1-9-14-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. FHWA proposes to combine existing Sections 1A.07 and 1A.08 into
a single Section 1D.04, titled, ``Responsibility and Authority for
Traffic Control Devices.'' With this revision, FHWA proposes to delete
the last two sentences of Paragraph 1 as this text is redundant with
Section 1B.
FHWA also proposes to relocate several existing paragraphs since
they better align with content presented in other Sections.
FHWA also proposes to delete an existing Support paragraph since
all States have a law on the adoption of, and have adopted, the MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes to delete an existing Guidance paragraph since
this text is redundant to paragraphs contained in other Sections.
FHWA also proposes to revise an existing Standard paragraph to
change the word ``advertisements'' to ``public announcements or
notices'' because the existing term can be misinterpreted to refer only
to announcements of a commercial nature.
In addition, FHWA proposes to delete an existing Guidance paragraph
because the Standard paragraphs in this and other sections define (1)
the authorization for placement and, by inference, removal of traffic
control devices; and (2) the criteria or warrants for the installation
of traffic control devices.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add two additional Support paragraphs to
emphasize further that the highway right-of-way is reserved for highway
related purposes in accordance with 23 CFR 1.23(b), and that States may
adopt restrictions on outdoor advertising that resembles official
traffic control devices, which is required by 23 CFR 750.180 in certain
cases.
22. In Section 1D.05 (existing Section 1A.09) Engineering Study and
Engineering Judgment, FHWA proposes to revise existing Support
paragraphs. FHWA proposes this revision based on Official Ruling No.
1(09)-1(I),\9\ and to emphasize a clear understanding of the
application of engineering studies and engineering judgement in this
Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Official Ruling No. 1(09)-1(I), dated October 1, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. In Section 1D.06 (existing Section 1A.03) Design of Traffic
Control Devices, FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance to clarify
that a traffic control device's design should be modified only in
unusual circumstances based on an engineering study or engineering
judgment.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard requiring that shapes that
are exclusive to a particular sign, such as the octagon for the STOP
sign, shall not be obscured by another sign mounted on the back of the
assembly. This proposed change is consistent with existing provisions
in proposed Section 2B.18 (existing Section 2B.10). FHWA proposes this
revision to ensure that sign shapes that are of critical importance are
easily recognized, because their unique shapes instantly convey a
unique message to road users.
Lastly, FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard indicating that
colors shall be consistent across the face of a sign or panel, and that
color gradients shall not be allowed. FHWA proposes this revision to
provide clarification due to the technological capabilities of sign
printers, which have entered the market in just the last few years.
24. In Section 1D.07 (existing Section 1A.12) Color Code, FHWA
proposes to add a Standard indicating that colors shall be used only as
prescribed in this Manual for specific devices or applications. FHWA
proposes this revision to clarify that the listed color definitions are
general designations and do not mean that any color can be applied in
any combination or orientation for non-standard signs. This proposed
change is for clarification purposes and does not represent a change to
existing requirements.
25. FHWA proposes to create a new Section 1D.08, titled, ``Public
Domain, Copyrights, and Patents,'' with new Standard and Support
paragraphs. FHWA proposes this revision to clarify the existing
provisions on this topic with respect to traffic control devices, and
that the meaning, appearance, operation, and application of traffic
control devices as a road user experiences them shall not be protected
by a patent, trademark, or copyright due to its adverse impact on the
very uniformity the MUTCD is intended to promote. However, their method
of assembly, their method of manufacture, and their component parts can
be, and often are, protected.
Uniformity in the display of traffic control devices is central to
the underlying foundation of the MUTCD. As such, FHWA establishes the
criteria therein with uniformity in mind, including a limitation on
patents, trademarks, and copyrights associated with traffic control
devices. This limited prohibition on intellectual property associated
with a traffic control device is stated in the MUTCD to be associated
with the device's ``design and
[[Page 80904]]
application provision contained in [the] Manual.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ From the Introduction, Paragraph 4, 2009 MUTCD, which is
available at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA occasionally receives requests to approve patented traffic
control device concepts for potential open-road experimentation under
the MUTCD provisions, with the ultimate intent of having the devices
adopted in the provisions of the MUTCD through rulemaking. FHWA
believes that those involved in the development of new traffic control
devices, as well as highway agencies being requested to experiment with
these devices, could benefit from further clarification of the term
``design and application provision'' of a traffic control device as
provided for in the MUTCD, to understand better which aspects of
devices can be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted.
In addition, FHWA continues to receive inquiries related to its
recent rulemaking \11\ that rescinded regulations related to the
procurement of patented or proprietary products on highway projects,
which did not change the patent provisions of the MUTCD. Some
stakeholders believed that the removal of restrictions on the
procurement of patented or proprietary products either did extend or
should have extended to the patent provisions of the MUTCD as well.
However, the limitation in the MUTCD is based on uniformity and its
purpose is separate and distinct from 23 CFR 635.411, which addresses
the procedures for the procurement of proprietary products in highway
construction using Federal-aid funds. The MUTCD limitation on
proprietary products necessarily excludes proprietary traffic control
devices which claim protection on the message conveyed. The purpose of
this limitation is to ensure uniformity in the message. However, any
other aspects of a device may be patented so long as the appearance,
audible message, or other aspects of the message conveyed remain freely
reproducible by all without infringing on any proprietary rights or
interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 84 FR 51023 (September 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed MUTCD language, along with this document, provides
further clarification and background on this subject matter. The
information clarifies what aspects of a traffic control device can and
cannot be patented or otherwise protected. In general, the component
parts of a traffic control device may be patented or otherwise
protected, but how the device is to appear and operate to the observer
(i.e., how it would be specified in the MUTCD) must remain in the
public domain and must not be covered by any patent that would preclude
others from freely producing the traffic control device. As a result,
the road user will always experience the same traffic control device
for similar conditions in the same way.
The purpose of addressing this aspect of traffic control devices is
due to the adverse effect that protections on what the road user
experiences would have on uniformity in the message to the road user.
By virtue of patent or other protections on the message itself,
alternate messages would have to be allowed to address the same
conditions so as not to include infringement by competitors.
Based on the varying views that the public has expressed in the
past on this topic, FHWA requests that commenters provide sufficient
detail and explanation of how the proposal or alternatives would
support both uniformity and cost-effectiveness of traffic control
devices, and enable their manufacture without infringement on
protections enjoyed by patent holders. Specific references should be
made to the proposed MUTCD text and to the explanation provided in this
document.
26. FHWA proposes to create a new Section 1D.09 Advertising, with
text relocated from existing Section 1A.01. In this Section, FHWA
proposes to add Acknowledgment signs to the existing items that are not
considered advertising, consistent with existing text in Part 2 for
that type of sign.
27. In Section 1D.10 (existing Section 1A.15) Abbreviations Used on
Traffic Control Devices, FHWA proposes to revise an existing Guidance
paragraph to be consistent with the notes in Table 1D-2 (existing Table
1A-2).
28. In Section 1D.11 (existing Section 1A.04) Placement and
Operation of Traffic Control Devices, FHWA proposes to add a Standard
statement that, before any new highway, site roadway open to public
travel, detour, or temporary route is opened to public travel, all
necessary traffic control devices shall be in place. FHWA proposes this
revision to consolidate similar Guidance text in existing Section 3A.01
regarding markings and similar Standard text in existing Section 6B.01
regarding signs, and because it is important that all necessary traffic
control devices be in place before new roads, detours, or temporary
routes are opened to public travel.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2A Signs--General
29. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, FHWA proposes
to delete existing P3 referencing definitions for various roadway
types, because the information is repetitive and not necessary.
FHWA also proposes to revise this Section to expand on the language
from existing P1 regarding the use of signs on a frequent basis to
confirm rules of the road or statutes. FHWA proposes a new Guidance
provision recommending that agencies use temporary signs when
determined necessary to advise of new regulations or as part of an
educational campaign. FHWA also adds a recommendation on the placement
of permanent signs for rules of the road in adjacent jurisdictions.
FHWA proposes this new paragraph to limit the amount of signing along a
given route to reduce sign clutter and the informational load imposed
on the road user and to reduce sign maintenance burdens on the
responsible maintaining agency.
30. In Section 2A.02 (existing Section 2A.03) Standardization of
Application, FHWA proposes to add a Support paragraph relocating
certain information from existing Part 5 regarding the use of traffic
control devices on low-volume rural roads. FHWA proposes to
redistribute the provisions of existing Part 5 among the remaining
parts.
FHWA also proposes to delete the second sentence of the Standard
paragraph because the statement is redundant and is implied throughout
the Manual.
31. In Section 2A.04 (existing Section 2A.06) Design of Signs, FHWA
proposes to eliminate the provision in the existing Standard P8 that
allows for minor changes to the proportion of symbols. FHWA proposes
this change because symbol designs are standardized for recognition
based on the specific proportions of the symbol, and this statement
contradicts the subsequent standard.
FHWA also proposes to delete the existing Option P10 because the
subject of orientation is addressed in Section 2A.09 (existing Section
2A.12).
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard to clarify that, except
where explicitly allowed, the substitution of a word legend for a
symbol legend is prohibited where the standard sign legend uses the
specific symbol, as it contravenes uniformity in recognition and
messaging to road users. This proposed change is for clarification
purposes and does not represent a change to existing requirements, and
is consistent with changes included in the 2009 MUTCD, which
discontinued a number of alternate standard signs with word legends for
which the primary standard sign included a symbol legend.
[[Page 80905]]
FHWA proposes to add a new Standard that prohibits an alternative
sign design or dimensions when there is a standard sign provided in the
Manual or detailed in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' publication,
except where specifically allowed. FHWA also proposes a related
Standard for standardized sign layouts that might have a variable
length legend, but otherwise have a standard dimension. FHWA proposes
this change because the standardized designs are often of recognizable
form as well as message.
FHWA also proposes to add a Support paragraph regarding the use of
special word legend signs that may be unclear to road users. FHWA
proposes this addition to encourage evaluation of such signs to
determine comprehension or possible misinterpretation.
FHWA proposes to delete Guidance P15 and revise Standard P14 that
describes provisions related to the range of allowable information and
graphical symbols affixed to the face and back of a sign. FHWA updates
this paragraph to reflect similar forms of information to those listed
in the existing P14 and proposes to prohibit the following additional
items unless otherwise specified for a specific sign: Telephone
numbers, metadata tags (``hash-tags''), quick-response (QR) codes, bar
codes, or other graphics for optical scanning. In conjunction with this
change, FHWA proposes to revise Option P16 to allow for the use of
these items for signs that are intended and oriented for viewing by
pedestrians only. FHWA proposes these changes to consolidate like
information.
FHWA proposes to revise the Standard regarding pictographs to
require that they be devoid of QR codes, bar codes, or other graphics
designed for optical scanning for the purpose of obtaining information
to be consistent with the Standard language described above.
FHWA proposes to add a Standard to clarify the existing prohibition
of Business Identification (formerly Logo) sign panels from being
displayed on signs except as specifically provided in the Manual. FHWA
proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the
existing underlying requirement.
FHWA proposes to reiterate and expand the existing Standard from
Section 2B.10 prohibiting items other than traffic control signs from
being mounted on the back of a sign.
FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting the display of date of
fabrication, sign designation, sign size, and manufacturer name on the
front of a sign face, as well as a Standard specifying the location,
maximum letter heights, and letter color.
32. In Section 2A.05 (existing Section 2A.09) Shapes, FHWA proposes
to add a new Guidance provision with recommendations for mounting a
diamond-shaped warning sign where lateral space is constrained. FHWA
also proposes a new Option to allow a vertically oriented rectangle for
the legend of the warning sign when the methods contained in the
Guidance are impractical. Further, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard
prohibiting other modifications to sign shapes, such as cutting off the
left and right points of a diamond, resulting in a vertical hexagon.
FHWA proposes these changes to ensure consistency and recognition of
sign shapes and to clarify that ``modifying'' a sign to fit into
constrained locations cannot result in a new, non-standard shape.
33. In Section 2A.07 (existing 2A.11) ``Dimensions,'' FHWA proposes
to add a Standard to prohibit the use of larger sign sizes where a
maximum allowable sign size is prescribed. FHWA proposes this to
provide consistency in sign dimensions.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing Guidance P8 to allow for
specific exceptions to the increase in size of supplemental plaques for
larger signs. FHWA proposes this change because some plaques are not
allowed to be enlarged beyond the size specified.
34. In Section 2A.08 (existing Section 2A.13) Word Messages, FHWA
proposes to add a new Standard requiring all word messages to be
aligned horizontally across a sign, reading left to right, except as
provided otherwise in the Manual. FHWA proposes this change to allow
for signs that require a vertically oriented message, such as Reference
Location signs and the Depth Gauge sign, and to make explicit that
words are prohibited on retroreflective sign post strips for enhanced
conspicuity. Though this requirement has always been inherent in the
designs of the standardized signs in the MUTCD, the proposed statement
clarifies the intent.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement that requires
distances displayed on signs to be in a fraction format, not decimal,
except as provided otherwise in the Manual. FHWA proposes this change
to be consistent with language found in other Chapters and standardized
signs throughout the Manual.
35. In Section 2A.09 (existing Section 2A.12) Symbols, FHWA
proposes to clarify the Guidance statement to indicate that new
standardized warning or regulatory symbol signs should be accompanied
by an educational plaque where engineering judgment determines that the
plaque would improve road user comprehension during the transition from
word message to symbol signs.
FHWA also proposes to change the existing Option regarding the use
of mirror images of symbols from a Guidance to an Option to allow the
use of mirror images, rather than recommend their use, thereby allowing
more flexibility.
Finally, FHWA proposes to eliminate the Option to use recreational
and cultural interest area guide sign symbols on streets or highways
outside of a recreational and cultural interest area. FHWA proposes
this change for consistency with other proposed changes in Chapter 2M.
36. In section 2A.10 (existing Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, FHWA
proposes to revise the Standard by incorporating language from existing
Section 2E.16 requiring the border of a sign be the same color as the
legend to outline the shape and ease recognition.
FHWA proposes this change to account for the proposed elimination
of the Standard in Section 2E.16 and provide more specific
justification for the Standard, and because this provision applies to
all signs in general.
FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance to recommend that, on
unusually large signs with oversized letter heights and other legend
elements, the border width be 2\1/2\ inches wide and not exceed 3
inches in width.
FHWA also proposes to add a Support statement that provides
reference to Section 2A.20 (existing Section 2A.07) regarding the use
of LED units within the border of a sign.
37. In Section 2A.11 (existing Section 2A.15) Enhanced Conspicuity
for Standard Signs, FHWA proposes to revise Option P1 to add a maximum
period of 6 months for the NEW plaque to be displayed, adding DO NOT
ENTER and WRONG WAY signs to the signs that are not allowed to be
supplemented by a warning beacon, and allow a rectangular rapid-
flashing beacon (RRFB) to supplement a Pedestrian or School warning
sign at an uncontrolled, midblock crosswalk. FHWA proposes these
changes based on common practice and the proposed addition of the RRFB
to the Manual (proposed Chapter 4L).
FHWA proposes to delete the existing Standard prohibiting the use
of the NEW plaque alone, because plaques by definition may not be used
alone. As a result, this text is unnecessary.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard to clarify that the
display of
[[Page 80906]]
any legend or other information on the retroreflective strip on a sign
support is prohibited. FHWA adds this Standard because some agencies
have added vertically arranged supplemental legends in substandard
letter sizes on retroreflective strips. The existing Option allowing
retroreflective strips does not allow for supplemental legends. FHWA
adds this language to clarify the existing provisions.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement that prohibits the
installation of duplicate signs on the same post facing the same
direction of traffic. The allowable methods of enhancing conspicuity do
not currently allow this practice, and FHWA proposes this addition to
clarify that current practices of this type are not appropriate means
for enhancing conspicuity.
38. In Section 2A.12 (existing Section 2A.16) Standardization of
Location, FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 2A-5 to illustrate the
relative locations of Regulatory, Warning, and Guide Signs on an urban
signalized intersection approach to help clarify typical signing at
these complex situations for practitioners.
FHWA proposes to change the second sentence of the existing
Standard to a Guidance, because the use of the posted or 85th-
percentile speed for determining the appropriate sign spacing is just
one factor, and there may be other factors that are more appropriate.
Changing this to a Guidance statement provides agencies with more
flexibility to use the factors they determine, through engineering
judgment or study, to be most appropriate.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance provision to recommend that
where certain signs indicate an action by a road user in the left lane
or at the left-hand side of a one-way road, such as Merge signs, the
sign should be located on the left-hand side of the roadway. In the
case of a divided road, the sign should be located in the median if
adequate width is available.
FHWA also proposes revising the existing Guidance to recommend that
at locations where there are conflicts between the installation of
regulatory and warning signs and a guide sign, that the guide sign
should be relocated to another appropriate location where it would
still be effective. FHWA also proposes the recommendation that in other
cases, such as at a decision point, the guide sign should take
precedence over other signs whose locations are not as critical to an
immediate decision or action necessary by the road user. In all cases,
careful attention should be given to minimizing sign clutter. FHWA
proposes this additional information to reinforce the importance of
separating critical regulatory and warning information from guidance
information so that road users are not overloaded with important
information all at one location.
39. In Section 2A.14 (existing Section 2A.18) Mounting Height, FHWA
proposes to add a new Standard stating that minimum mounting heights
prescribed in this Section shall not supersede those necessary for
crash performance of sign installations that are required to be
crashworthy. FHWA proposes this change to remind users of the
importance of crash performance of sign installations that are required
to be crashworthy, as stated in existing provisions of the Manual.
40. In Section 2A.15 (existing Section 2A.19) Lateral Offset, FHWA
proposes to relocate existing P7 to Section 2A.17 (existing Section
2A.21) because the Option statement permitting the use of existing
supports is more appropriate in the Posts and Mountings section. In
concert with this change, FHWA proposes to delete P8 because the
Standard is unrelated to the lateral offset of the sign installation
and serves no purpose since the location is prescribed under other
provisions in the Manual.
41. In Section 2A.17 (existing Section 2A.21) Posts and Mountings,
FHWA proposes to add the Option statement relocated from Section 2A.15
(existing Section 2A.19) permitting the use of existing supports. As
part of this change, FHWA proposes to add a Support statement referring
readers to lateral and height placement criteria for Guidance and
Standards contained in this Manual for such signs.
FHWA also proposes to delete the Option paragraph regarding adding
retroreflective strips to sign posts because it is redundant to Section
2A.11 (existing Section 2A.15). In concert with this change, FHWA
proposes to retain a reference and relocate the Standard paragraph to
Section 2A.11 (existing Section 2A.15).
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard with requirements regarding
the placement of equipment for powering electronic components of a
sign, including solar panels, when such equipment is mounted to a sign
support. FHWA proposes these requirements to retain crashworthiness
performance of the sign installation as well as to avoid obscuring the
face or shape of the sign.
42. FHWA proposes to relocate and renumber existing Section 2A.04
Excessive Use of Signs, to Section 2A.19. FHWA proposes clarifications
in P1 recommending signs should be used and located judiciously,
minimizing their proliferation in order to maintain their
effectiveness; that signs should be used conservatively; and that sign
clutter be avoided. FHWA also proposes to modify the second sentence to
specify that route signs and directional guide signs for primary routes
and destinations should be used frequently at strategic locations
because their use promotes efficient operations by keeping road users
informed of their location.
In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a new Support statement
describing sign clutter consistent with Official Ruling No. 2-669(I)
\12\ as well as information regarding vanity signs, which are signs
that are requested by an interested party, but are not essential for,
or have no relation to, traffic control. As part of these changes, FHWA
also proposes new Guidance statements recommending that signs and other
traffic control devices be installed and maintained from a systematic
standpoint rather than individually. FHWA proposes these changes
because of the increased proliferation of signs, often installed
separately over time, which reduces the effectiveness of signs and
distracts road users at decision points and other locations requiring
heightened attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 2-669(I), dated November 20,
2009, can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_669.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. In Section 2A.20 (existing Section 2A.07), retitled,
``Retroreflection and Illumination,'' FHWA proposes to add a new
Standard that requires the use of an opaque or non-retroreflective
material for a black legend or background. Under headlamp illumination,
retroreflective black appears as white, which creates a conflict with
the existing requirement for signs to appear similar under daytime and
nighttime conditions. FHWA proposes this addition to resolve this
conflict.
FHWA also proposes to add two Support statements regarding the use
of LED units. In concert with these additions, FHWA also proposes to
revise existing Standards P7 through P10 and add two new Standards
regarding the pitch and placement along the edge of a sign to
incorporate additional provisions for LED units to ensure that adequate
legibility would be maintained.
44. In Section 2A.21 (existing Section 2A.08) Maintaining Minimum
Retroreflectivity, FHWA proposes to add to Guidance recommendations for
the visual inspection and revised assessment or management methods that
should be used to maintain sign
[[Page 80907]]
retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels in Table 2A-5
(existing Table 2A-3) and that signs that are below the minimum levels
should be replaced. In addition, FHWA proposes to add paragraph
headings to define which methods are management methods and which are
assessment methods, and to include the three procedures that make up
the visual assessment method. FHWA proposes these additions to clarify
the types of methods and to place information that is currently
available in other resources in one location.
45. In Section 2A.22 (existing Section 2A.23), retitled, ``Median
Opening Treatments for Divided Highways,'' FHWA proposes to delete the
existing Guidance and add new recommendations for signing a divided
highway crossing as separate intersections when specific conditions are
present. FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2A-6 to illustrate the
new recommendations. FHWA proposes these changes to provide additional
details for road user safety, based on the results of recently
completed research on this topic.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Traffic Control Devices and Measures for Deterring Wrong-
Way Movements'' NCHRP 881, 2018, can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs,
Barricades, and Gates
46. As part of the reorganization to improve usability of the
MUTCD, FHWA proposes to include subchapter headings in Chapter 2B to
organize sections into related groupings. FHWA proposes the following
subchapters in Chapter 2B: General; Signing for Right-of-Way at
Intersections; Speed Limit Signs and Plaques; Movement and Lane Control
Signs; Passing Keep Right and Slow Traffic Signs; Selective Exclusion
Signs; Do Not Enter, Wrong Way; One-Way and Related Signs and Plaques;
Parking, Standing, Stopping, and Emergency Signs; Pedestrian Signs;
Traffic Signal Signs; Road Closed and Weight Limit Signs; Other
Regulatory Signs, and Barricades and Gates.
47. In Section 2B.01 Application of Regulatory Signs, FHWA proposes
to delete portions of existing Standard P3 and all of P4 requiring
signs to be the same shape and similar color by day and by night and
restricting street lighting use for sign illumination, because the
information is repetitive and covered elsewhere in the Manual.
48. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, FHWA proposes to
delete existing Option P2 and P3 because they are already covered in
existing Section 2A.06.
FHWA also proposes to revise P5 from Guidance to Standard. FHWA
also proposes to apply the Standard to LED signs for a part-time
message and indicate the color scheme of regulatory messages displayed
with LEDs. In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes adding an
Option and two Standard paragraphs pertaining to the use of LEDs in the
border of a sign and the display of regulatory signs in a full matrix
changeable message sign, respectively. FHWA proposes these changes to
provide uniformity in the application LEDs in traffic control signs and
changeable message signs. These changes are necessary to ensure a
consistent appearance in the sign legend regardless of the type of
display, whether static, illuminated, or changeable.
49. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, FHWA proposes to add
a Standard statement regarding the size of regulatory signs on low-
volume roads with operating speeds of 30 mph or less, to capture the
language provided in the existing Part 5 text that has been
redistributed among the remaining parts. FHWA also proposes to delete
P6, requiring the use of 36'' x 36'' STOP signs on multi-lane
approaches, because that requirement already exists in existing P3 and
Table 2B-1. FHWA also proposes to delete P7 and P8 requiring the use of
36'' x 36'' STOP signs on side roads that intersect with multi-lane
streets of 45 mph or higher speed limits, even if the side road is not
multi-lane, because this may place an undue burden on agencies to
change existing 30''x 30'' signs at such locations.
FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance P9 and add a new Guidance
paragraph to allow the use of single lane or multi-lane conventional
road sign sizes on ramps that connect expressways or freeways to
intersections with a conventional roadway. FHWA proposes this change,
because the operating characteristics of exit ramps connecting
expressways or freeways to other expressways or freeways are different
from those connecting expressways or freeways to conventional roads. As
a result, signs on exit ramps connecting to conventional roads do not
require the larger size signs associated with a freeway or an
expressway.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a Standard requiring the use of a
near side NO TURN ON RED or RIGHT (LEFT) ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP sign,
as applicable, to supplement a far side, single-lane sized R10-11, R10-
11a, R10-11b, or R10-17a sign when the distance between the stop line
and the far side sign is more than 120 feet. FHWA proposes this to
provide additional signing for turning vehicles at the near side of the
intersection to supplement the far side sign at an increased distance.
50. FHWA proposes to delete existing Sections 2B.04 (Right-of-Way
at Intersections), 2B.06 (STOP Sign Applications), 2B.07 (Multi-Way
Stop Applications), and 2B.09 (YIELD Sign Applications) and replace
them with new Sections 2B.06 through 2B.18, as described below, to
address comprehensively the need for warrants for no control, yield
control, stop control, or all-way stop control. FHWA proposes these
changes to incorporate the results of a NCHRP Project 03-109,\14\ which
proposed general considerations, alternatives to changing right-of-way
control, and forms of unsignalized control from least restrictive to
most restrictive, beginning with no control and concluding with all-way
stop control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Potential MUTCD Criteria for Selecting the Type of Control
for Unsignalized Intersections, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172596.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. In Section 2B.04 (existing Section 2B.05) STOP Sign (R1-1) and
ALL-WAY Plaque (R1-3P), FHWA proposes to delete P5 regarding the use of
the ALL-WAY Plaque because it is redundant with the preceding
paragraph.
52. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.06 General Considerations,'' incorporating some paragraphs
from existing Section 2B.04 and proposed new general Support and
Guidance paragraphs regarding signing for right-of-way at
intersections. FHWA proposes adding the Support regarding the types of
right-of-way control that can exist at an unsignalized intersection
based on the research results of NCHRP Project 03-109.\15\ FHWA
proposes adding Item G, suggesting the presence of a grade crossing
near an intersection as a factor to consider when selecting a form of
traffic control. FHWA proposes this additional item to address the
potential for resultant queues at an intersection that may extend
toward a nearby grade crossing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Potential MUTCD Criteria for Selecting the Type of Control
for Unsignalized Intersections, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172596.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.07 Determining the Minor Road for Unsignalized
Intersections,'' that includes one Guidance paragraph from existing
Section 2B.04 and one additional Guidance regarding criteria for
selecting the minor road to be
[[Page 80908]]
controlled by YIELD or STOP signs. FHWA proposes these criteria based
on the result of NCHRP Project 03-109.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.08 Right-of-Way Intersection Control Considerations,''
with proposed new Guidance paragraphs regarding the alternative
treatments to consider prior to converting to a more restrictive right-
of-way control.
55. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.09 No Intersection Control,'' consisting of new Guidance
and Option statements regarding factors to consider when making a
decision not to use intersection control. FHWA proposes this new
section specifically to include information in the MUTCD regarding
conditions for consideration when determining the need for intersection
control.
56. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.10 Yield Control,'' consisting of some text relocated from
existing Sections 2B.06 and 2B.09, plus new Guidance paragraphs
regarding the use of YIELD signs to control an intersection. FHWA
proposes this change to combine information regarding yield control in
one location.
57. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.11 Minor Road Stop Control,'' consisting of one paragraph
relocated from existing Section 2B.06, plus proposed new Guidance
paragraphs regarding stop control on the minor road approach only. FHWA
proposes this new section to provide information specific to the use of
stop control on a minor approach.
58. FHWA proposes to add new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2B.12 All-Way Stop Control,'' consisting of one paragraph relocated
from existing Section 2B.07 and proposed new Guidance and Standard
paragraphs regarding warrants for all-way stop control. FHWA proposes
this new section to clarify the application of all-way stop control and
provide an introduction to the proposed new sections (Sections 2B.13
through 2B.17) related to all-way stop control warrants.
59. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.13 All-Way Stop Control Warrant A: Crash Experience,''
consisting of one proposed new Option paragraph regarding the selection
considerations for all-way stop control based on crash experience.
60. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B. 14 All-Way Stop Control Warrant B: Sight Distance,''
consisting of a portion of one Support paragraph relocated from
existing Section 2B.07, plus a proposed new Option paragraph regarding
the selection considerations for all-way stop control based on sight
distance.
61. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.15 All-Way Stop Control Warrant C: Transition to Signal
Control or YIELD Control at a Roundabout,'' consisting of one proposed
Option paragraph regarding the selection considerations for all-way
stop control based on a transition plan to convert an intersection to
signal control.
62. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.16 All-Way Stop Control Warrant D: 8-Hour Volume (Vehicle,
Pedestrians, Bicycles),'' consisting of one proposed new Option
paragraph regarding the selection considerations for all-way stop
control based on the criteria included in Table 2B-2.
63. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.17 All-Way Stop Control Warrant E: Other Factors,''
consisting of portions of an existing Option paragraph relocated from
existing Section 2B.07, plus one proposed new Option paragraph
regarding the selection considerations for all-way stop control based
on other factors.
64. In Section 2B.18 (existing Section 2B.10) STOP Sign or YIELD
Sign Placement, FHWA proposes to remove existing Standard P4 through P6
restricting the use of inventory stickers and other items on STOP and
YIELD signs, because those restrictions apply to all signs, not just
STOP and YIELD signs, and therefor and proposes to relocate this text
to Chapter 2A.
FHWA proposes to add a Guidance limiting supplemental plaques used
in conjunction with a STOP or YIELD sign to those specified in the
MUTCD. FHWA proposes this change to ensure consistency in the use of
supplemental plaques mounted beneath STOP and YIELD signs.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option allowing the use of a TO
TRAFFIC IN CIRCLE (R1-2bP) or TO ALL LANES (R1-2cP) plaque, mounted
below the YIELD sign, for locations where drivers must yield to traffic
in a multi-lane roundabout. FHWA proposes this option to address
situations that occur when drivers at a multi-lane roundabout are not
anticipating the vehicle in the inside lane to maneuver to exit the
roundabout.
65. In section 2B.19 (existing Section 2B.11) Yield Here to
Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs (R1-5 Series),''
FHWA proposes to add a Support statement describing the intent of the
R1-5 series signs, which is to mitigate scenarios associated with
pedestrian and vehicle visibility.
FHWA proposes to revise the first sentence of Standard P1 to
address confusion on the existing limitation of the R1-5 series signs
that are only appropriate for use on multi-lane approaches where there
is a multiple-threat scenario that can block other drivers' and
pedestrians' views of one another. FHWA also proposes to change the
last sentence of Standard P1 to correct an oversight in the 2009
Edition, prohibiting, rather than allowing, the use of the STATE LAW
legend to be displayed at the top of these signs because the sign
applies to the specific location for yielding or stopping in advance of
a specific crosswalk that is occupied, rather than to the general
requirement to yield or stop at occupied crosswalks.
In addition, FHWA proposes to change the advance placement distance
portion of Guidance P2 to a Standard, requiring that the R1-5 series
signs be placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of the nearest crosswalk line
to ensure that they adequately mitigate the multiple-threat scenario on
a multi-lane approach, which places pedestrians at risk when a second
vehicle blocks other drivers' view of pedestrians and the pedestrians'
view of the vehicles approaching in the adjacent lanes. FHWA proposes
this change to ensure that the placement of the signs does not
interfere with signs at the intersection and/or potentially cause
misinterpretation as a Stop-controlled intersection either by
approaching traffic or traffic on the cross street, as FHWA has
observed in practice.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option for the R1-5a and R1-5c signs
with the schoolchildren symbol in place of the pedestrian symbol,
provided that the signs are only used in advance of a marked crosswalk
that crosses an uncontrolled multi-lane approach within school zones.
FHWA proposes this change to reflect Official Interpretation 2(09)-
40(I),\17\ allowing the use of the schoolchildren symbol in the R1-5
series signs, similar to the R1-6 series In-Street Pedestrian Crossing
signs when used at an unsignalized school crossing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 2(09)-40(I), June 4, 2012, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_09_40.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.12,
``Section 2B.20 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian
[[Page 80909]]
and Trail Crossing Signs (R1-6 and R1-9 Series)'' to reflect the
additional proposed Trail Crossing sign. FHWA also proposes to revise
existing Standard P3 through P5 to include the proposed new Trail
Crossing sign.
FHWA proposes to clarify in Standard P3 that no more than one in-
street sign shall be placed in the roadway, on a lane line for a one-
way roadway application, or on a median island. FHWA proposes this
change to minimize sign proliferation in the roadway and to prevent
potential distraction due to an overuse of signs at a single location.
FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change
the existing underlying requirement, in response to an apparent
misinterpretation of the existing provisions as evidenced by a number
of technical inquiries and observations of noncompliant field
deployments.
FHWA proposes to change existing Option P7 to a Standard and add a
new Standard to require that if used, the In-Street or Overhead
Pedestrian or Trail Crossing sign shall be used as a supplement to a
Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) or Trail Crossing (W11-15) warning sign
with a diagonal downward-pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque at the
crosswalk location. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that if an in-
street or overhead sign is used, that the appropriate non-vehicular
warning sign is in place to ensure uniformity in application at
crosswalks. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which does
not change the existing underlying requirement, in response to an
apparent misinterpretation of the existing provisions as evidenced by a
number of technical inquiries and observations of noncompliant field
deployments.
FHWA proposes to add an Option allowing In-Street Pedestrian or
Trail Crossing signs to be mounted back to back in the median or on the
centerline of an undivided roadway. FHWA proposes this option to
minimize the number of in-street obstructions at the crossing.
FHWA also proposes to clarify in Standard P8 that the In-Street
Pedestrian or Trail Crossing sign and the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing
or Trail sign shall not be used at crosswalks on approaches controlled
by a traffic control signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon, or an emergency
vehicle hybrid beacon. FHWA proposes this clarification to eliminate
conflict between the sign that says STOP or YIELD and a green signal
indication on a traffic control signal or hybrid beacon. In concert
with this change, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement permitting
the use of the In-Street Pedestrian and Overhead Pedestrian and Trail
Crossing sign at intersections or midblock pedestrian crossings with
flashing beacons, because flashing beacons do not display a green
indication, and therefore the use of this sign would not conflict with
the signal indication.
Finally, FHWA proposes to reword existing Option P15 to clarify
that both the in-street and overhead mountings of signs may be used
together at the same crosswalk.
67. In Section 2B.21 (existing 2B.13) Speed Limit Sign (R2-1), FHWA
proposes to reorganize and revise material based on the NTSB's
recommendation \18\ to review how speed limits are determined. FHWA
proposes to move and revise Guidance P10, 12, and 13 and Option P16 to
earlier in the section to clarify the factors that should be considered
when establishing or reevaluating speed limits within speed zones. FHWA
proposes changes to reinforce the stated understanding that other
factors, in addition to the 85th-percentile speed, have a role in
setting speed limits. FHWA retains reference to 85th-percentile speed
as a factor that should be considered, particularly for freeways and
expressways, as well as for rural highways, except those in urbanized
locations within rural regions. FHWA also retains reference to the
setting of speed zones in broad terms, thereby allowing agencies to
establish detailed criteria based upon national guidance or based upon
research, outside the MUTCD. In addition to providing comment on this
proposed change, FHWA also requests comment on the following additional
recommendations of the NTSB report: (1) Removal of the 85th-percentile
speed as a consideration in setting speed limits regardless of the type
of roadway (this recommendation was based in part on the assumption
that that the 85th-percentile speed can increase over time as a result
of the posted speed limit); and (2) the requirement to use an expert
system to validate a speed limit that has been determined through
engineering study. Commenters are also requested to address likely
outcomes if one or more of the other recommendations in the report,
such as increased automated enforcement, were not implemented in
conjunction with the speed-setting recommendations outlined in the
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NTSB report ``Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving
Passenger Vehicles,'' can be viewed at the following internet
website: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add Support to this section directing users
to FHWA's Engineering Speed Limits web page, which provides information
on where to find additional resources on the methods and practices for
setting Speed Limits for specific segments of roads as well as tools to
assist practitioners, such as USLIMITS2.
FHWA also proposes to change the second sentence of P4 from
Standard to Guidance to recommend, rather than require, that additional
Speed Limit signs be installed beyond major intersections and at other
locations where it is necessary to remind road users of the applicable
speed limit. FHWA proposes this change because engineering judgment is
involved to determine what constitutes a major intersection.
FHWA also proposes to modify existing paragraph 9 to reference the
Reduced Variable Speed Zone (W3-5b) and Truck Speed Zone (W3-5c) signs
in conjunction with their addition to Chapter 2C. As part of this
change, FHWA also proposes to add an Option for the use of an END
VARIABLE SPEED LIMIT (R2-13) sign at the downstream end of a variable
speed zone to provide notice to road users of the termination of the
zone.
FHWA also proposes, in conjunction with the above, a Standard
statement requiring an END TRUCK SPEED LIMIT (R2-14) sign be installed
at the downstream end of the zone. This Standard is necessary to ensure
that road users receive notice of the termination of a truck speed zone
where trucks are allowed to resume the general regulatory speed limit.
In addition, FHWA proposes to revise existing P18 to replace the
term ``changeable message sign'' with ``variable speed limit sign'' to
reflect the sign type more accurately. FHWA also proposes to add a
Standard statement requiring the variable speed limit sign legend
``SPEED LIMIT'' to be a black legend on a white retroreflective
background, consistent with the standard legend and background on a
Speed Limit sign. FHWA also proposes in this Standard statement to
require the variable speed limit legend on a variable speed limit sign
to be indicated by white LEDs on an opaque black background. FHWA
proposes to add this Standard to clarify the text, as indicated in
Official Ruling No. 2(09)-3(I).
Finally, FHWA proposes to delete existing Option P19 and Guidance
P20 and add a Support statement referencing Section 2C.14 for
provisions for the use of a Vehicle Speed Feedback sign, to group that
information in Chapter 2C Warning signs.
[[Page 80910]]
68. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.14 to
``Section 2B.22 Vehicle Speed Limit Plaques (R2-2P Series)'' to reflect
proposed changes in the section to clarify that a legend similar to
TRUCKS XX may be used for other vehicles on a speed limit plaque. FHWA
proposes this change to provide agencies with more flexibility in speed
limit signing for various vehicle types, and to streamline processes by
making it easier for agencies to specify and fabricate such plaques by
standardizing the more common legends.
69. FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.16 to ``Section
2B.24 Minimum Speed Limit Plaque (R2-4P) and Combined Maximum and
Minimum Speed Limits (R2-4a) Sign'' to reflect both the plaque and sign
that are currently discussed in the existing Section. In concert with
this change, FHWA also proposes to add a sentence to the existing
Standard to clarify that the R2-4P plaque, if used, must be installed
below the R2-1 sign, which is a stated condition of the existing Option
paragraph that immediately follows. FHWA proposes this change as a
conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying
condition of the Option.
70. In Section 2B.25 (existing Section 2B.17) Higher Fines Signs
and Plaque (R2-6P, R2-10, and R2-11), FHWA proposes to change the first
sentence of existing Standard P1 to Guidance to reflect the
recommendation, rather than the requirement, to use a BEGIN HIGHER
FINES ZONE (R2-10) sign or a FINES HIGHER (R2-6P) plaque to provide
notice to road users. This proposed change would give agencies more
flexibility in determining whether to install such signs and plaques,
particularly those States that have higher fines by statute in school
zones, work zones, and other locations.
71. In Section 2B.26 (existing Section 2B.18) Movement Prohibition
Signs (R3-1 through R3-4, R3-18, and R3-27), FHWA proposes to add a
Guidance recommending the use of Movement Prohibition signs only to
prohibit a turn or through movement from an entire approach and not to
designate movements that are required or permitted from a specific lane
or lanes on a multi-lane approach. FHWA proposes this additional
language to prevent the use of multiple conflicting movement
prohibition signs along an approach where lane use signs and pavement
markings would be more appropriate.
FHWA proposes to revise the first item under Option P12 to replace
the term ``changeable message sign'' with less specific language
describing the operation of the sign. In concert with this change, FHWA
proposes to add a Standard statement regarding the use of blank-out LED
signs and the allowable LED colors, to reflect current practice.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option statement to allow the use
of permanently mounted signs incorporating a supplementary legend
showing the vehicle class restriction where the movement restriction
applies to certain vehicle classes. FHWA proposes to add this language
to provide agencies with flexibility in signing movement prohibitions
for various vehicle classes without having to mount a plaque.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement describing the
design of the blank-out part-time electronic display for the Movement
Prohibition sign. This Standard is necessary to ensure design
consistency and uniformity in appearance with static signs used for the
same purpose.
72. In Section 2B.27 (existing Section 2B.19) Intersection Lane
Control Signs (R3-5 through R3-8), FHWA proposes to change Standard P6
to Guidance to reinforce that the use of an overhead intersection lane
control sign on one lane of an approach does not require the use of
overhead intersection lane control signs on the other lanes of that
same approach, yet such signs can be used. In concert with this change,
FHWA proposes a slight modification to Guidance P3 to clarify the
independent use of signs. FHWA proposes this change to clarify the
application of these signs and eliminate potential confusion with the
use of the signs.
FHWA also proposes to remove Option P7 as the mounting requirements
are specifically outlined in the specific Intersection Lane Control
sections that follow.
73. In Section 2B.28 (existing Section 2B.20) Mandatory Movement
Lane Control Signs (R3-5, R3-5a, R3-7, R3-19 Series, and R3-20), FHWA
proposes to change the second sentence of Standard P1 to Guidance to
provide flexibility as to where to place certain Mandatory Movement
Lane Control signs.
In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes to revise existing
Standard P3 to prohibit explicitly the R3-7 sign from being mounted at
the far side of the intersection, incorporating the existing Standard
P1 that requires these signs to be located in advance of the
intersection. FHWA proposes this change to reinforce the existing
requirement, which is intended to avoid confusion with the sign
applying to a downstream intersection as has been demonstrated in
practice. If a sign at the far side of the intersection is determined
to be needed, then the proposed revision to Standard P1 would allow for
other signs to be mounted overhead and aligned with each lane adjacent
to the signals. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which
would not change the existing underlying requirement.
FHWA also proposes to delete the first phrase of Standard P4, which
specifies the use of the Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol signs
when the number of lanes available to through traffic is three or more.
FHWA proposes to remove this requirement to promote uniformity, since
there is already an existing post-mounted version of the sign (R3-7).
In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance
P5 in this section.
FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending the use of
the EXCEPT BUSES or EXCEPT BICYCLES plaque where the lane restriction
does not apply to buses or bicycles.
FHWA also proposes to delete existing Option P9 regarding the back-
to-back mounting of a Mandatory Movement Lane Control (R3-5) sign for a
left-turn lane and Keep Right (R4-7) signs, because the Mandatory
Movement Lane Control (R3-5) sign is for overhead mounting and
therefore installing a Keep Right (R4-7) sign on the back is not
appropriate.
FHWA proposes to add an Option allowing the use of proposed new
post-mounted LANE FOR LEFT TURN ONLY and LANE FOR U AND LEFT TURNS ONLY
(R3-19 series) signs on the median at the start of the taper to be used
in situations where a left-turn lane is added at a median location.
FHWA proposes these new signs to standardize the message for which a
number of States use a variation.
FHWA proposes to revise Option P11 to indicate that the BEGIN RIGHT
TURN LANE (R3-20R) and the BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs may be
used in situations where the turn lane may not be apparent. FHWA
proposes this revision to clarify when it is appropriate to use the
sign because other standard signs exist to indicate a mandatory turn
lane.
FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance statement describing the
recommended use of the DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER (R4-17) sign at
locations where the transition from a paved shoulder to a mandatory
turn lane might not be apparent and traffic regularly enters the
shoulder to access the turn lane. FHWA proposes this language to
clarify the method to address this condition. Use of the
[[Page 80911]]
BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE sign is not intended for these situations.
74. In Section 2B.29 (existing Section 2B.21) Optional Movement
Lane Control Sign (R3-6 Series), FHWA proposes to change the 2nd
sentence of Standard P1 to Guidance to provide flexibility as to where
to place the Optional Movement Lane Control signs.
FHWA proposes to add a standard U- and Left-Turn symbol Optional
Movement Lane Control sign R3-6a and a standard oblique multiple left
symbol Optional Movement Lane Control sign R3-6b with specific
reference in the Standard P1. FHWA proposes this change to provide for
left-turn lanes from which a U-turn is allowed, such as at median left-
turn lanes as well as where there are multiple left turn angled
movements that can be made from the lane.
FHWA proposes to relocate and revise existing Standard P5 to
incorporate the requirement that the Optional Movement Lane Control
sign be mounted overhead in Standard P1. In concert with this change,
FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance P6, because Optional Movement
Lane Control signs are mounted overhead, not post-mounted. The R3-8
Advance Intersection Lane Controls signs are post-mounted.
FHWA proposes to delete existing Option P7 because the arrows on
the sign indicate permitted movements and the text ``OK'' is repetitive
and not needed.
75. In Section 2B.31 (existing Section 2B.22) Advance Intersection
Lane Control Signs (R3-8 Series), FHWA proposes to add TAXI, BUS, BIKE
or bicycle symbol to the allowable word messages that may be used
within the border in combination with arrow symbols on Advance
Intersection Lane Control signs. FHWA proposes to remove OK and ALL
from the optional word messages as the lane control arrows are
indicating this movement as allowable.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement allowing the
R3-8 sign to be modified to show the bicycle lane with a white legend
on a black background where bicycle lane is between two general purpose
lanes. FHWA proposes these changes to provide additional options for
alerting motor vehicles and bicyclists of appropriate lane usage in
advance of an intersection.
FHWA also proposes to change existing Guidance P3 to clarify that
the Advance Intersection Lane Control sign should be placed either
along the lane tapers or at the beginning of the turn lane. FHWA
proposes this change because, if used in advance of the lane tapers,
the sign and the available lanes would not match; therefore, the sign
would not help a driver discern which lanes are added and could result
in uncertainty due to its ambiguous message.
FHWA proposes a new Standard statement to prohibit mounting an
Advance Intersection Lane Control sign at the far side of an
intersection to which it applies. FHWA proposes this statement to
reinforce placement in advance of the intersection either along the
lane tapers or at the beginning of the turn lane. This Standard is
necessary in order to avoid potential confusion with the sign applying
to a downstream intersection.
FHWA proposes a new Standard statement requiring the R3-5bP and R3-
5fP to be mounted above the R3-8 sign, when the R3-8 sign only shows
the two outermost lanes of the roadway. FHWA adds this sign to display
a complete message to the road user to comprehend the application when
not all of the lanes are being shown on the R3-8 series sign.
76. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.23
``Section 2B.31 Right (Left) Lane Must Exit Signs (R3-33, R3-33a)'' to
provide specific reference to and information regarding the use of the
proposed new R3-33a sign, a vertical rectangle version of the R3-33
sign for use in limited right-of-way situations.
77. In Section 2B.33 (existing Section 2B.25) BEGIN and END Plaques
(R3-9cP, R3-9dP), FHWA proposes to delete the Standard statement, and
instead proposes to incorporate the proper placement of the plaque into
the Option statement, because placement of the plaque does not warrant
a Standard statement.
78. In Section 2B.34 (existing Section 2B.26) Reversible Lane
Control Signs (R3-9e through R3-9i), FHWA proposes to add an Option
statement indicating that where longitudinal barriers separate opposing
directions of traffic, the R3-9g or R3-9h signs may be omitted.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement to provide for
consistency between parking signs and reversible lane signs where curb
parking is allowed. FHWA proposes this to avoid confusion.
79. In section 2B.38 KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS Sign (R4-16) and
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT Sign (R4-3), FHWA proposes to make revisions
to Option P1 and Guidance P2 to clarify that the KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO
PASS sign is to be used where there are two lanes in one direction of
travel. As currently written, ``multi-lane'' implies that no matter how
many lanes are present, all traffic should be in the right lane. The
meaning of this sign is to indicate that the left lane is for passing
only; therefore, the message on the sign is only appropriate for
roadways with two-lanes in the same direction of travel.
80. In Section 2B.40 (existing Section 2B.32), retitled, ``Keep
Right and Keep Left Signs (R4-7 Series, R4-8 Series),'' FHWA proposes
to add a new Guidance statement recommending the word legend (R4-7a,
R4-7b, R4-8a, or R4-8b) signs should be used instead of the symbol (R4-
7 or R4-8) signs to emphasize the degree of curvature away from the
approach direction where the approach end of the island channelizes
traffic away from the approach direction, such as on a loop ramp, to
define the intended uses of signs that have similar legends better.
FHWA also proposes additional Option, Support, and Standard
statements regarding the use of the Keep Right sign on medians on
divided highways, as the result of recent research,\19\ to provide more
clarity regarding the proper use and placement of these signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NCHRP Report 881 ``Traffic Control Devices and Measures for
Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,'' can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, ``2B.45
ALL TRAFFIC Sign (R4-20) and RIGHT (LEFT) TURN ONLY Sign (R4-21)'' to
include new Options, Guidance, and Standards regarding the use of the
subject signs. FHWA proposes to add this section to allow for
additional signs at intersections where movement prohibition and One-
Way signs do not adequately convey the allowable direction of travel.
82. In Section 2B.46 (existing Section 2B.39) Selective Exclusion
Signs, FHWA proposes to add provisions for a new No Snowmobiles Symbol
sign (R9-15) that may be used where snowmobiles are prohibited on
roadways or shared-use paths. FHWA proposes this new symbol sign based
on research indicating that this symbol has high recognition value.\20\
FHWA also proposes to include provisions for the NO THRU TRAFFIC, NO
THRU TRUCKS, AND EXCEPT LOCAL DELIVERIES plaque as typical exclusion
messages to reflect common practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs'', FHWA, December
2005, p. 19, can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34772/dot_34772_DS1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add a reference to R5-10, which would replace
the current R5-10a sign. FHWA
[[Page 80912]]
proposes to revise the R5-10a to include the legend ``ON FREEWAY''
below the primary legend.
Finally, FHWA proposes to eliminate the word legend version of the
NO TRUCKS (R5-2a) as an alternate to the No Trucks (R5-2) symbol sign.
FHWA proposes this change for consistency with word message signs where
a symbol sign exists.
83. In the proposed Sub-Chapter DO NOT ENTER, WRONG WAY, AND ONE-
WAY Signs and Related Signs and Plaques, FHWA proposes to reorganize
the sections so signs associated with wrong-way movements are
consecutive sections rather intermixed with Selective Exclusion signs.
In concert with these changes, FHWA proposes to provide clarifications
and correct inconsistencies between the text and figures related to
wrong-way movement signing, as the result of recent research.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ NCHRP Report 881 ``Traffic Control Devices and Measures for
Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,'' can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. In Section 2B.47 (existing 2B.37), ``DO NOT ENTER Sign (R5-
1),'' FHWA proposes, as the result of recent research,\22\ to clarify
Standard P1 to require DO NOT ENTER signing where a two-way roadway
becomes a one-way roadway and near the downstream end of an interchange
exit ramp. FHWA proposes to add a Standard paragraph requiring a DO NOT
ENTER (R5-1) sign be installed at an intersection with a divided
highway where the crossing functions as two separate intersections,
except on low speed urban streets. In concert with this change, FHWA
proposes to add Option statements allowing the use of DO NOT ENTER
signs at an intersection with a divided highway where crossing
functions as a single intersection, as well as allowing the omission of
DO NOT ENTER signs at an intersection with a low speed urban street
that is a divided highway at a crossing that functions as two separate
intersections. As part of these changes, FHWA proposes to recommend
that if used at an intersection with a divided highway that functions
as a single intersection, DO NOT ENTER signs should be placed on the
outside edge of the roadway facing traffic that might enter the roadway
in the wrong direction. Finally, FHWA proposes to delete existing
Option P4, since it is incorporated in the proposed new language in
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement regarding the use of
white or red LEDs within the border of the DO NOT ENTER sign to enhance
the conspicuity of the sign.
85. In Section 2B.48 (existing Section 2B.38) WRONG WAY Sign (R5-
1a), FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending the WRONG
WAY sign be placed on the same side of the road as the DO NOT ENTER
sign. FHWA proposes this language, as the result of recent
research,\23\ to provide additional notification to road users that
they are not to enter the roadway and clarify the placement of the
WRONG WAY sign as it supplements the DO NOT ENTER sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NCHRP Report 881 ``Traffic Control Devices and Measures for
Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,'' can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to add an Option statement allowing the use of white
or red LEDs within the border to enhance the conspicuity of the sign.
86. In section 2B.49 (existing 2B.41) Wrong-Way Traffic Control at
Interchange Ramps, FHWA proposes to add items F (Lane control or
movement prohibition signs) and G (Keep Right signs) as traffic control
devices that may be used to supplement the signs and pavement markings
at interchange exit ramp terminals where the ramp intersects a
crossroad in such a manner that wrong-way entry could inadvertently be
made. FHWA proposes this new language, as the result of recent
research, to provide additional tools for agencies to use to prevent
vehicles from entering interchange exit ramps in the wrong direction.
FHWA proposes to add a new Option statement for the use of a NO
LEFT TURN (R3-2) sign on the left side of interchange entrance ramps
where the ramp merges with the through roadway and the design of the
interchange does not clearly make evident the direction of traffic.
This text supports the sign shown in existing Figure 2B-19. FHWA also
proposes that a supplemental R3-2 sign may be located on the right side
of the entrance ramp at the gore if one is installed on the left to
provide agencies with greater flexibilities in signing for wrong-way
traffic control.
FHWA also proposes a new Option statement and accompanying figure
for the use of a ONE WAY sign and/or a NO TURNS (R3-3) sign on
interchange entrance ramps where the ramp merges with the through
roadway and the design clearly indicates the direction of flow, to
provide agencies with greater flexibilities in signing for wrong-way
traffic control.
FHWA proposes to delete Option P5 referencing special needs or
prohibitive information. FHWA proposes this change because the
statement is nonspecific and Chapter 2A already contains language
specifying that a decision to use a particular device at a particular
location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or
the application of engineering judgment.
In addition, FHWA revises Option P6 to clarify that the low
mounting height for an independent installation of a DO NOT ENTER or
WRONG WAY sign is for locations along the exit ramp rather than at the
intersection with the crossroad. FHWA also proposes an Option to allow
the installation of a low-mounted WRONG WAY sign on the DO NOT ENTER
assembly at the intersection with the crossroad, provided that the DO
NOT ENTER sign is mounted at a height consistent with the requirements
for signs in general. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that the
basic signing is at the typical mounting height a road user would
expect to see, while still allowing signs at a lower mounting height as
a supplement that are intended for a potentially disoriented driver
whose vision might be focused at a lower height.
87. In Section 2B.50 (existing Section 2B.40) ONE WAY Signs (R6-1,
R6-2), FHWA proposes, as the result of recent research,\24\ to replace
all language describing an intersection with a divided highway that has
a median width at the intersection itself of 30 feet with proposed new
language that describes the crossing of a roadway with a divided
highway as an intersection operating as single or separate
intersections. FHWA proposes these changes because it is important to
base the application of ONE WAY signing on how the intersection
functions, rather than the width of the median.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NCHRP Report 881 ``Traffic Control Devices and Measures for
Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,'' can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to revise Option P11 to indicate that a One-
Direction Large Arrow sign may be used instead of or in addition to a
ONE WAY sign in the central island of a circular intersection. FHWA
proposes this change to reflect the proposed removal of the Roundabout
Directional Arrow from the MUTCD.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a Standard statement specifying
that when a One-Direction Large Arrow sign is used without a ONE WAY
sign, the R6-5P plaque shall be mounted below the Yield sign on the
approach to a roundabout. FHWA proposes this to ensure that when only
the One-
[[Page 80913]]
Direction Large Arrow is used that a regulatory message indicating the
direction of movements is provided.
FHWA also proposes to delete P10 and 13 because they are
duplicative and contradictory, respectively, and therefore not
necessary to include in the MUTCD.
88. In Section 2B.51 (existing 2B.42) Divided Highway Crossing
Signs (R6-3, R6-3a), FHWA proposes similar changes as the result of
recent research,\25\ as described in proposed Section 2A.22, to the
text regarding the description of a divided highway at a crossing that
functions as separate intersection(s), rather than referring to the
median width at the intersection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NCHRP Report 881 ``Traffic Control Devices and Measures for
Deterring Wrong-Way Movements,'' can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178000.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89. FHWA proposes to relocate and renumber existing Section 2B.44
as ``Section 2B.52 Roundabout Circulation Plaque (R6-5P).''
90. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.43 Roundabout
Directional Arrow Signs, because the design of the R6-4 series signs,
for which there are 3 versions, confounds a warning sign with a
regulation and, as a result, have become prone to misuse. To address
the condition for which these signs were intended, this proposed change
also includes associated changes to the use of ONE WAY signs and the
Large Arrow sign, as described above.
91. As discussed above, FHWA proposes to relocate and renumber
existing Section 2B.44 as ``Section 2B. 51 Roundabout Circulation
Plaque (R6-5P).''
92. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.45 Examples of
Roundabout Signing. Roundabouts have become very common. The figures
have been retained in Chapter 2B; however, a separate section dedicated
to examples is not needed.
93. In Section 2B.53 (existing Section 2B.46) Parking, Standing,
and Stopping Signs (R7 and R8 Series), FHWA proposes to expand the
Support statement to categorize parking signs into two categories:
Prohibited parking and permitted parking with restrictions and provide
examples of each category.
94. In Section 2B.54 (existing Section 2B.47) Design of Parking,
Standing, and Stopping Signs, FHWA proposes to revise Standard
paragraphs 2-4 to incorporate the proposed prohibitive and permissive
parking sign classifications and provide additional information on the
design of such signs in order to maintain consistency in general sign
design, while also allowing flexibility for agencies to modify legends
for specific regulations.
To improve consistency in the information provided in parking
signs, FHWA proposes to expand the list of parking information that
should be displayed on signs existing in Guidance P5 to include
qualifying or supplementary information, exemptions to the restriction
of prohibition, and tow-away message or symbol.
FHWA proposes to add a Standard requiring the times and days for
which parking regulations are in effect to be displayed on the signs if
they are not in effect all times of day or all days of the week. FHWA
proposes this to ensure consistent signing methods in order to improve
clarity for drivers wanting to park.
FHWA proposes to modify Option P18 regarding the use of word
message plaques with the R8-3 series signs. FHWA proposes to remove the
EXCEPT SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS (R8-3bP), LOADING ZONE (R8-3gP), and X:XX
A.M to X:XX P.M.(R8-3hP) plaques as these are generally in urban
conditions and are already covered by the R7 series parking signs. FHWA
proposes to modify the ON PAVEMENT (R8-3cP), ON BRIDGE (R8-3dP), ON
TRACKS (R8-3eP), and EXCEPT ON SHOULDERS (R8-3fP) by removing the
plaque designations and combining the word legends with the standard NO
PARKING symbol (R8-3) sign.
FHWA proposes to change the legend of the Emergency Snow Route (R7-
203) sign to ``Snow Emergency Route'' to be consistent with the
prevailing current practice and the fact that the restrictions apply
during a declared snow emergency.
FHWA proposes several changes in this section to incorporate
electronic payment, change the term ``pay parking'' to ``metered
parking'' and other editorial changes to reflect current practice and
commonly used nomenclature. This includes a proposed Option statement
to accompany a proposed new Mobile Parking Payment plaque that may be
installed below a Metered Parking sign.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement to allow the display
of maximum time limits that vary by time of day or day of the week on
the R7-20 sign to be omitted and instead displayed on the multi-space
parking meter so that they are visible to pedestrians as they make
payments.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement immediately
preceding existing Standard P8, to reiterate the existing requirement
that the Accessible Parking (R7-8) sign display only the official
International Symbol of Accessibility and not a modification thereof.
FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change
the existing underlying requirement in Chapter 2A.
FHWA proposes a new Guidance statement to incorporate provisions
for Electronic Vehicle parking. The proposed language is based on
FHWA's Memorandum on Regulatory Signs for Electric Vehicle Charging and
Parking Facilities.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ FHWA's Memorandum on Regulatory Signs for Electric Vehicle
Charging and Parking Facilities can be accessed at the following web
address: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/ rsevcpfmemo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to delete the second and third sentences of existing
Option P14 regarding the color of the bus symbol and the use of transit
logos on the R7-107 sign, or alternates, because the text is not
necessary and the use of transit logos on a sign may not be practical.
In concert with this change, FHWA also proposes to delete the existing
R7-7 sign, because the R7-107, as well as the R7-107a sign, are more
distinguishable, and there is no need for an additional sign.
FHWA proposes to delete P19 and 20 regarding color coding of
parking time limits. FHWA proposes this change to streamline the design
of parking signs and because the standard colors of the parking signs
have specific meanings as prescribed by the manual. In addition, the
time limits are adequately displayed by the numbers on the signs.
Finally, FHWA proposes new Guidance paragraphs at the end of the
section regarding the use of legends other than those on standard
parking signs and the letter height of the principal legend. FHWA
proposes these new paragraphs to provide agencies flexibility in
creating specific signs while maintaining uniformity in design
provisions.
95. In Section 2B.55 (existing Section 2B.48) Placement of Parking,
Stopping, and Standing Signs, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement
recommending signs placed at the head of perpendicular parking stalls
to be parallel to the roadway facing the parking stall. FHWA proposes
this addition to promote uniformity and clarity in signing parking
stalls.
FHWA proposes to change P4 from a Standard to a Guidance to
recommend, rather than require mounting parking signs back to back at
the transition point between two parking zones, to provide
jurisdictions with flexibility when it might be impractical to mount
signs back-to-back.
FHWA also proposes to relocate and revise the Option statement
regarding
[[Page 80914]]
the use of signs to display blanket regulations from existing Section
2B.47 to this section, because this section deals specifically with
sign placement.
96. In Section 2B.56 (existing Section 2B.49) Emergency Restriction
Signs (R8-4, R8-7, R8-8), FHWA proposes to move existing Standard P3 to
the beginning of the section and delete the color red as a legend
color, for consistency with non-standard legends, as only black legends
are allowed on Emergency Restriction signs.
97. In Section 2B.57 (existing Section 2B.50), ``WALK ON LEFT
FACING TRAFFIC and No Hitchhiking Signs (R9-1, R9-4, R9-4a),'' FHWA
proposes to change Standard P2 to Guidance to allow agencies greater
flexibility in the installation of the signs.
98. In Section 2B.59 (existing Section 2B.52) Traffic Signal
Pedestrian and Bicycle Actuation Signs (R10-1 through R10-4, and R10-24
through R10-26), FHWA proposes to revise Standard P1 to clarify that
where manual actuation of a traffic signal is required for pedestrians
or bicyclists to call a signal phase to cross a roadway, traffic signs
related to pushbuttons at those traffic signals are required. FHWA
proposes this change to reduce the burden of sign installation on
agencies.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new sign to the Option
statement, allowing for the use of a PUSH BUTTON IS FOR AUDIBLE MESSAGE
ONLY (R10-3j) sign to provide agencies with the option where a
pedestrian pushbutton is only used to activate accessible pedestrian
features. Similarly, FHWA proposes to add a new sign to the Option
statement allowing for the use of a sign that indicates the pedestrian
button can be activated by either pushing or waving.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to modify the legend of the R10-25 sign to
``PUSH BUTTON FOR WARNING LIGHTS--WAIT FOR GAP IN TRAFFIC.'' FHWA
proposes this change because these signs are used only at uncontrolled
crosswalk locations where pedestrian-activated warning beacons only
alert approaching traffic to the presence of a pedestrian, but do not
assign right-of-way to conflicting traffic streams, such as with a
traffic signal or hybrid-beacon. In such cases, pedestrians are
required to wait for an acceptable gap in vehicular traffic and not
enter the roadway in the path of a vehicle which is so close as to
constitute an immediate hazard.
99. In Section 2B.60 (existing Section 2B.53) Traffic Signal Signs
(R10-5 through R10-30), FHWA proposes to add Option and Guidance for
the use of a text version of a LEFT TURN YIELD ON FLASHING YELLOW ARROW
(R10-12a) sign with Flashing Yellow Arrow signals. FHWA proposes this
change to promote uniformity in the use of signing for these signal
applications.
FHWA proposes to add new Standard, Support, Guidance, and Option
statements regarding the use of a proposed new LEFT TURN YIELD TO
Bicycles (R10-12b) sign to provide agencies with information regarding
the use of this sign to notify turning motorists of the possibility for
unexpected conflicting bicycle movement at certain locations.
FHWA also proposes to add provisions for a new WAIT ON STEADY RED--
YIELD ON FLASHING RED AFTER STOP (R10-23a) sign as an alternative to
the R10-23 sign at pedestrian hybrid beacons. The 2017 Traffic Control
Devices Pooled Fund Study \27\ evaluated the comprehension and
legibility of various alternatives for signing at midblock hybrid
beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that no significant
differences were found between the alternatives; however, they did
highlight the need for a sign, at least initially, while drivers are
learning what actions to take based on the flashing beacon. As a
result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for jurisdictions that
determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid beacons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Comprehension and Legibility of Selected Symbol Signs
Phase IV'' Pooled Fund Study can be viewed at the following internet
website: http://www.pooledfund.org/Document/Download/7559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add an Option for a STOP HERE ON FLASHING RED
(R10-14b) sign to provide extra emphasis at an emergency-vehicle hybrid
beacon.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard to accompany a proposed new
optional Turning Vehicles Stop for Pedestrians (R10-15a) sign to remind
drivers who are making turns to stop for pedestrians, which shall be
used only in jurisdictions where laws, ordinances, or resolutions
specifically require that a driver must stop for a pedestrian.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement allowing the use
of a U TURN SIGNAL (R10-10a) sign adjacent to a signal face that
exclusively controls a U turn movement.
100. In Section 2B.61 (existing Section 2B.54) No Turn on Red Signs
(R10-11 Series, R10-17a, and R10-30), FHWA proposes to change the
designations of the No Turn on Red signs such that the word only
message signs are designated R10-11 and 10-11a and the NO TURN ON RED
with the symbolic circular red sign is designated as R10-11b. FHWA
proposes this change to designate consecutively the word only message
sign designations.
FHWA proposes to relocate existing Option P4 and revise Option P5
to indicate that a blank-out sign is the primary Option for displaying
a part-time NO TURN ON RED restriction. In concert with this change,
FHWA proposes an Option statement that allows the use of white LEDs in
the border, and activated during periods of turn prohibition, to
enhance sign conspicuity.
101. In Section 2B.62 (existing Section 2B.55), retitled, ``Photo
Enforced Signs and Plaques (R10-18, R10-19P, R10-19aP, R10-18a),'' FHWA
proposes to add a new optional Traffic Signal Photo Enforced (R10-18a)
sign that may be installed on an approach to a signalized location
where red-light cameras are present on any approach to the signalized
location. FHWA proposes this new sign, and associated Option and
Standard provisions, in accordance with Interim Approval (IA-12) issued
November 12, 2010.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-12, November 12, 2010, can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia12/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
102. In Section 2B.66 (existing Section 2B.59) Weight Limit Signs
(R12-1 through R12-7), FHWA proposes to add Guidance statements
regarding the use of weight limit signs to indicate a structure has a
vehicle weight restriction. FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement
recommending that the term used for units shown on weight limit signs
be consistent within a State or region with respect to pounds or tons.
FHWA also proposes that the vehicle weight restrictions be depicted
based on gross vehicle weight, and that weight per axle or empty
vehicle weight should only be used when required by local laws to
depict weight restrictions in that manner. In conjunction with this
change, FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance P2 and P4 regarding
axle weight limits. FHWA proposes this change, in concert with the new
Option provisions related to Specialized Hauling Vehicles and the
proposed R12-6 sign which allows for a more comprehensive posting gross
weight based on axle configurations and vehicle types. The proposed
sign allows for distinguishing a single-unit vehicle and a combination
vehicle while restricting to other vehicle types or reducing the
mobility of vehicles that should not be restricted.
FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance P3 regarding restrictions
on
[[Page 80915]]
trucks in residential areas, because the sign is not conveying a weight
restriction, but rather a selective prohibition of trucks in a
neighborhood. A new NO THRU TRUCKS sign is being proposed in
conjunction with this change in 2B.52 to convey more effectively the
intent of the restriction.
FHWA also proposes to add Support and Option provisions related to
Specialized Hauling Vehicles, which are single-unit trucks with closely
spaced axles, for which weight limit signs displaying restrictions
based on the number of axles may be used.
FHWA proposes to add several Standard statements regarding the
symbols shown on the R12-5 and R12-6 Weight Limit signs. The symbols
used are required to apply to all trucks of the type shown (single-
unit, single-trailer or multi-trailer) regardless of the shape of the
vehicle. Symbolic representations of other vehicle shapes or
modifications of standard symbols shall not be used in accordance with
existing requirements in Chapter 2A.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending that
Weight Limit signs show no more than 3 symbols in order to promote
driver comprehension.
FHWA proposes to incorporate Guidance P7 into Standard P6 to
require, rather than recommend that, if used, the Weight Limit sign,
with an advisory distance ahead legend, shall be located in advance of
the applicable section of highway or structure so that prohibited
vehicles can detour or turn around prior to the limit zone. FHWA
proposes this change to give vehicles affected by weight limit
restrictions adequate information about the distance to the restricted
area so that they can properly change their route and to minimize
potential damage to highway infrastructure as a result of an overweight
vehicle.
FHWA proposes provisions for the use of proposed new Emergency
Vehicle Weight limit signs to address conditions where emergency
vehicles can create higher load effects compared to legal loads. The
R12-7 sign is for independent use and the R12-7aP plaque is for use
only in a sign assembly below a primary regulatory Weight Limit sign.
103. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.60
to ``Section 2B.68 Vehicle Inspection Area Signs (R13-1 Series)'' to
provide more flexibility in the use of R13-1 signs for various types of
inspections. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add an
Option statement allowing modification to the legend to match the
specific type of inspection conducted at that station. FHWA also
proposes to delete the existing Option statement allowing the reverse
color combinations of the signs in order to support uniformity.
104. In Section 2B.68 (existing Section 2B.61) TRUCK ROUTE Sign
(R14-1), FHWA proposes to change Option P2 to Support and revise the
statement to provide specific reference to existing Section 2D.20
regarding the use of the TRUCK auxiliary sign on numbered alternative
routes. FHWA proposes this change so as not to duplicate or conflict
with the information contained in Chapter 2D.
105. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.71 Move Over or Reduce Speed Sign (R16-3)'' with an Option
statement regarding the use of the subject sign to require motorists to
change lanes and/or reduce speed when passing stopped emergency
vehicles on the shoulder.
106. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.65
to ``Section 2B.71 Minor Crashes Move Vehicles from Travel Lanes Sign
(R16-4)'' and rephrase the subject sign from ``FENDER BENDER'' to
``MINOR CRASHES.'' FHWA proposes this change to align better with the
various State laws and describe the type of crashes for which the sign
is intended.
107. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.73 No Hand-Held Phones by Driver Signs (R16-15, R16-15a)''
with an Option statement regarding the use of the subject sign, as
State law applies, to notify drivers that they are prohibited from
using hand-held telephones while driving.
108. In Section 2B.77 (existing Section 2B.68) Gates, FHWA proposes
to delete Support P2 through P4 as they are not needed.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing Standard P5 to include a
minimum width of the reflective sheeting. FHWA proposes this change to
be consistent with the information provided in Part 8.
FHWA also proposes to delete existing Standard P9 and 10 and
Guidance P12 regarding lateral offset of the gate arm and support,
because this is addressed in AASHTO design criteria and reflects a
design aspect better suited for other design manuals.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2C Warning Signs and
Object Markers
109. As part of the reorganization to improve usability of the
MUTCD, FHWA proposes to include subchapter headings in Chapter 2C to
organize sections into related groupings. FHWA proposes the following
subchapters in Chapter 2C: General, Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs,
Vertical Grade Warning Signs and Plaques, Roadway Geometry Warning
Signs, Roadway and Weather Condition Signs and Plaques, Traffic Control
and Intersection Signs and Plaques, Merging and Passing Signs and
Plaques, Miscellaneous Warning Signs, Supplemental Plaques, and Object
Markers.
110. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2C.01 Function of
Warning Signs because this information is captured in Chapters 1A and
2A.
111. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2C.02
to ``Section 2C.01 Function and Application of Warning Signs.'' FHWA
also proposes to add a new Standard, referencing the existing
requirements in Chapter 2A, requiring that all warning signs shall be
retroreflective or illuminated. FHWA proposes this change for
consistency with Section 2B.01.
FHWA also proposes to delete all the Option and Support statements
because they restate information already covered in Chapter 1A.
112. In Section 2C.02 (existing Section 2C.03) Design of Warning
Signs, FHWA proposes to add a Support regarding the use of shapes other
than diamond-shaped for freeway overhead installations and a reference
to Chapter 2A for information on modifications where lateral space is
constrained.
FHWA proposes to revise Option P4 to clarify that word message
warning signs other than those provided in this Manual may be developed
and installed by State and local highway agencies for conditions not
addressed by standard signs. FHWA proposes this additional language to
clarify the allowable use of word message warning signs that are not in
the MUTCD. FHWA proposes this clarification in response to an apparent
misinterpretation of the existing provisions, in which noncompliant
field deployments have unnecessarily modified the word legends of
standard signs where used for the condition stated in the MUTCD.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement allowing the use
of static or flashing LEDs within the sign border to enhance the
conspicuity of the sign.
113. In Section 2C.03 (existing Section 2C.04) Size of Warning
Signs, FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance paragraph regarding the
minimum size of diamond-shaped warning signs to restrict the provision
to exit and entrance ramps at major interchanges connecting an
expressway or freeway with an expressway or freeway. FHWA
[[Page 80916]]
also proposes to add a new Guidance statement recommending 36'' x 36''
as the minimum size for all diamond-shaped warning signs facing traffic
on exit and entrance ramps at all other interchanges. FHWA proposes
these changes because the operating characteristics of a single lane
ramp can be closer to that of a single lane conventional roadway than
that of a freeway, with the exception of freeway/expressway to freeway/
expressway connections. The proposed language reaffirms the minimum
recommended sizes and larger sizes can be used based on engineering
judgement, when appropriate.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement regarding the size
of warning signs used on low-volume rural roads with operating speeds
of 30 mph or less to capture language in existing Part 5 FHWA proposes
to redistribute among the remaining parts.
114. In Section 2C.04 (existing Section 2C.05) Placement of Warning
Signs, FHWA proposes to delete the second sentence of P3 because it is
not needed as the preceding guidance discusses placement with respect
to perception-reaction time and the use of engineering judgment as well
as referencing Section 2A for the placement of warning signs.
FHWA also proposes to delete P6 regarding the placement of warning
signs that advise road users about conditions that are not related to a
specific location, and instead include that information in Table 2C-4.
FHWA also proposes updates to Table 2C-4 by referencing the 2018
AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition
and providing for advance placement distances at higher speeds. FHWA
also proposes to modify Condition B to place the AASHTO Stopping Sight
Distance minimum design guidelines in the ``0'' column for STOP
conditions placing Advance Traffic Control signs further in advance of
the intersection providing greater advance notice of the critical
intersection stop condition, a factor of safety for legibility
distance, and more space on the intersection approach for lane control
and guide signing.
115. In Section 2C.05 (existing Section 2C.06), retitled,
``Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs--General,'' FHWA proposes to
delete the Standard statement regarding use of horizontal alignment
warning signs. Instead, FHWA proposes new Option and Guidance
statements regarding various treatments, including items other than
traffic control devices, and factors to consider for other traffic
control devices to warn road users of a change in horizontal alignment
or to provide guidance in navigation. FHWA also proposes to delete
existing Table 2C-5 and replace it with two tables in proposed Section
2C.06. As part of this change, FHWA proposes to move the portion of the
Standard related to speed differential to proposed Section 2C.06 so
that it appears in the same section with the referenced tables. FHWA
proposes these changes based on a research study \29\ that evaluated
advance warning treatments at horizontal curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``Traffic Control Device Guidelines for Curves,''
Preliminary Draft Final Report, NCHRP Report 03-106, can be viewed
at the following internet website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP03-106_FR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
116. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled
``Section 2C.06 Device Selection for Changes in Horizontal Alignment.''
This proposed new section contains Standard, Support, and Option
statements, as well as new tables, to assist practitioners in
determining the type of device to be used in advance of horizontal
curves on freeways, expressways, and roadways. FHWA proposes this new
section to assist practitioners with the selection of the appropriate
device for warning of a change in horizontal alignment.
117. In Section 2C.07 Horizontal Alignment Signs (W1-1 through W1-
5, W1-11, W1-15), FHWA proposes to edit and move P2 from a Standard to
Guidance. FHWA proposes to recommend the use of a Turn (W1-1) sign
instead of a Curve sign in advance of curves where the advisory speed
is half or less of the posted speed or a speed differential of 25 mph
or more. FHWA proposes these changes to allow engineering judgment if a
Turn sign does not fit the field conditions. Also, the proposed change
in criteria to a speed differential limits the use of the Turn sign
where the sign would otherwise be required on lower speed roadways with
small differentials between the posted speed and the advisory speed.
118. In Section 2C.08 (existing Section 2C.09) Chevron Alignment
Sign (W1-8), FHWA proposes to add Option and Standard statements
regarding the use of LEDs when used within Chevron Alignment signs to
enhance the conspicuity.
119. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2C.10 Combination
Supplemental Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed Signs (W1-1a, W1-2a),
because there is considerable evidence that the signs are not being
used as a supplement in accordance with the Standard, since many take
on the form of an Advance Warning sign and are placed in advance,
rather than at the location of the hazard. To address the need to
remind road users of the advisory speed at a location downstream of the
advance warning location, FHWA proposes the Confirmation Advisory Speed
Plaque (W13-1aP) described in proposed Section 2C.59.
120. In Section 2C.10 (existing Section 2C.12) One-Direction Large
Arrow Sign (W1-6), FHWA proposes to revise Option P1 to allow use of
the One-Direction Large Arrow sign either as a supplement or
alternative to Chevron Alignment signs or delineators to delineate a
change in horizontal alignment. FHWA proposes this change to reflect
the results of a recent study on driver response to traffic control
devices \30\ and resulting desire to revise MUTCD language to clarify
the use of devices in areas with change in horizontal alignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Traffic Control Device Guidelines for Curves,''
Preliminary Draft Final Report, NCHRP Report 03-106, can be viewed
at the following internet website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP03-106_FR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to delete Standard paragraph 7 prohibiting the
use of the One-Direction Large Arrow sign in the central island of a
roundabout and instead proposes to allow its use in a new Option. FHWA
proposes to allow the use of the sign in conjunction with the proposed
changes to remove existing Section 2B.43 for Roundabout Directional
Arrow Signs. FHWA proposes these changes to provide agencies with an
Option to use a warning sign within the roundabout instead of, or in
addition to, a One-Way sign to direct traffic counter-clockwise around
the central island. As part of these changes, FHWA proposes to add a
Support statement referencing figures in Chapter 2B that show examples
of regulatory and warning signs for roundabouts.
121. In Section 2C.11 (existing Section 2C.13), retitled, ``Truck
Rollover Sign (W1-13),'' FHWA proposes to revise the existing Option
statement to be more specific regarding locations where it may be
appropriate to use the sign in lieu of a horizontal alignment warning
sign. In addition, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement regarding
the placement of the Truck Rollover sign. FHWA also proposes to add an
Option allowing the use of a Vehicle Speed Feedback (W13-20) sign in
conjunction with a Truck Rollover Warning sign.
122. FHWA proposes to combine existing Sections 2C.14 and 2C.15 and
renumber and retitle the resulting section as, ``Section 2C.12 Advisory
Exit and Ramp Speed Signs (W13-2 and
[[Page 80917]]
W13-3) and Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp
Speed Signs (W13-6 through W13-13).'' FHWA proposes to add Standard,
Guidance, and Option statements clarifying the use of these signs,
including how they are to be used together, where applicable. FHWA also
proposes to reference the proposed new tables in Section 2C.06.
In the proposed new Standard, FHWA proposes to require that the
ramp geometries depicted on the Advisory Exit or Ramp Speed signs be
limited to the standard designs of the proposed Combination Horizontal
Alignment/Advisory Exit Speed and Combination Horizontal Alignment/
Advisory Ramp Speed signs. While this limitation is implicit in the
existing provisions of Section 2A.04 (existing Section 2A.06) that
prohibit alternatives to standard signs or other uses of symbols, FHWA
believes that a specific statement in this proposed Section would help
to ensure that the proposed Combination signs are used only for those
conditions at exit ramps that are atypical or unexpected. This
limitation would minimize overuse of the Combination signs, which could
result in a reduction of their effectiveness. Where typical or expected
geometry exists at or near the ramp terminal, the Advisory Exit or Ramp
Speed (W13-2 or W13-3) signs would continue to be used. FHWA proposes
these new signs to provide agencies and practitioners greater
flexibility to sign for various unexpected conditions at or near ramp
terminals. In addition to the existing signs in the Manual that display
the 270-degree loop arrow (W13-6 and W13-7), FHWA proposes Exit and
Ramp Combination signs depicting the following geometric conditions:
The 180-degree horseshoe curve arrow, the 90-degree turn arrow, and the
truck rollover symbol and arrow. In this new Standard, FHWA also
proposes to incorporate an existing requirement previously contained in
Table 2C-5 for the use of Advisory Exit Speed and Advisory Ramp Speed
signs on turning roadway exits and ramps when the difference between
the speed limit and the advisory speed is 20 mph or greater.
FHWA also proposes to recommend in a new Guidance that the Advisory
Exit Speed and Advisory Ramp Speed signs on turning roadway ramps be
used when the difference between the speed limit and the advisory speed
is 15 mph or greater. FHWA also proposes to add that Regulatory Speed
Limit signs should not be located in the vicinity of exit ramps or
deceleration lanes, particularly where they would conflict with the
advisory speed displayed on the Advisory Exit or Ramp Speed signs.
In a revised Option, where there is a need to remind road users of
the recommended advisory speed, FHWA proposes to allow a horizontal
alignment warning sign with an advisory speed plaque to be installed at
a downstream location along the ramp.
FHWA proposes new Guidance for the installation of a horizontal
alignment warning sign if there are changes to the ramp curvature and
the subsequent curves have advisory speeds that are lower than the
initial ramp curve speed.
FHWA also proposes a new Option for the use of the One-Direction
Large Arrow (W1-6) sign beyond the exit gore on the outside of the
curve to provide additional warning of an immediate change in
curvature.
FHWA proposes the changes in this new combined section to clarify
the use of these signs and provide additional flexibility for their use
on ramps where the speed differential is small, or where road users
need reminding of the advisory speed.
123. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.13 Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign (W13-20, W13-20aP),'' that
contains Option, Standard, and Guidance paragraphs regarding the use of
an LED sign to displays the speed of an approaching vehicle back to the
vehicle operator to provide warning to drivers of their speed in
relation to either a speed limit or horizontal alignment warning
advisory speed sign. FHWA proposes this new section to provide
additional information regarding the use of these signs and plaques, as
well as references to other portions of the Manual to assist with
uniformity in the use of the signs and plaques.
124. In Section 2C.14 (existing Section 2C.16) Hill Signs (W7-1,
W7-1a), FHWA proposes to remove the Standard in P5 requiring that the
percent grade supplemental plaque be placed below the Hill (W7-1) sign
as the Standard for the placement of a plaque below a sign is contained
in Section 2C.57 ``Use of Supplemental Warning Plaques.'' FHWA proposes
this change to remove unnecessary or repetitive content and streamline
the Manual.
125. In Section 2C.16 (existing Section 2C.18) HILL BLOCKS VIEW
Sign (W7-6), FHWA proposes to revise the Option and to add Guidance to
indicate that the HILL BLOCKS VIEW sign may be used on the approach to
a crest vertical curve where the vertical curvature provides inadequate
stopping sight distance at the posted speed limit, and that where such
curve results in a sight distance obstruction to a specific condition
beyond the crest of the vertical curve, the sign for the specific
condition beyond the vertical crest should be used rather than the HILL
BLOCKS VIEW sign. FHWA proposes these changes to provide agencies with
options to provide more specific guidance to conditions to road users
about conditions ahead.
126. In Section 2C.18 (existing Section 2C.20), retitled, ``NARROW
BRIDGE and NARROW UNDERPASS Signs (W5-2, W5-2a)'' and in Section 2C.19
(existing Section 2C.21), retitled, ``ONE LANE BRIDGE and ONE LANE
UNDERPASS Signs (W5-3, W5-3a),'' FHWA proposes to add Option statements
that allow for the respective sign to be omitted on low-volume rural
roads to capture language from existing Part 5 that FHWA proposes to
redistribute among the remaining parts.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add NARROW UNDERPASS and ONE LANE
UNDERPASS signs where the same conditions exist for an underpass.
127. In Section 2C.24 (existing Section 2C.26), retitled, ``DEAD
END, NO OUTLET, and ROAD ENDS Signs (W14-1, W14-1a, W14-2, W14-2a, W8-
26, W8-26a),'' FHWA proposes to change the term ``cul-de-sac'' to
``turn-around'' in Option P1 to reflect the roadway geometry more
accurately.
FHWA proposes to delete Standard P4 prescribing the design of the
sign, because sign design details are required to comply with existing
requirements in Chapter 2A.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new Option for signs for ROAD ENDS
and STREET ENDS for use on the approach to the end of a conventional
road or street. In concert with these new signs, FHWA also proposes a
Guidance paragraph recommending the use of object markers to mark the
end of the road or street if the new signs are used, presuming that the
need for the sign would be based on low visibility of the end of the
road or street. FHWA also proposes a Standard statement prohibiting the
use of the proposed new ROAD ENDS and STREET ENDS signs at the entrance
to a dead end road or street as the DEAD END and NO OUTLET signs are
designated specifically for that purpose.
128. In existing Section 2C.27, renumbered and retitled, ``Section
2C.25 Low Clearance Signs (W12-2, W12-2a, W12-2b),'' FHWA proposes
several revisions to clarify the signing practice for locations where
the clearance is less than 12 inches above the statutory maximum
vehicle height. FHWA proposes these changes to provide agencies with
additional information for placing signs in advance of and on
structures with low clearance. The
[[Page 80918]]
proposed changes were based on recommendations from NTSB H-14-11 to
provide signing indicating the proper lane of travel for over height
vehicles traveling under an arched structure.\31\ As part of these
changes, FHWA proposes to designate the existing W12-2 sign as a Low
Clearance Ahead sign, and the existing W12-2a and a proposed new W12-2b
sign as a Low Clearance Overhead sign, to indicate the portion of the
structure with low clearance if the posted clearance does not apply to
the entire structure. FHWA proposes a compliance date of 5 years based
on the critical nature of the infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-14-11, is available at the
following internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1401.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
129. In Section 2C.26 (existing Section 2C.28) BUMP and DIP Signs
(W8-1, W8-2), FHWA proposes to change P3 from a Standard to a Guidance
statement to discourage, rather than prohibit, the use of the DIP sign
at a short stretch of depressed alignment that might hide a vehicle
momentarily. FHWA proposes this change to give agencies more
flexibility in the placement of the DIP sign.
130. In Section 2C.28 (existing Section 2C.39) DRAW BRIDGE Sign
(W3-6), FHWA proposes to delete the exception for use of a DRAW BRIDGE
sign in urban conditions because it is not necessary.
131. In Section 2C.30 (existing Section 2C.31) Shoulder Signs (W8-
4, W8-9, W8-17, W8-23, and W8-25), FHWA proposes to delete Standard P7
requiring that Shoulder signs be placed in advance of the condition,
because that requirement is applicable to almost all warning signs, and
therefore is not needed as a separate Standard in this section.
132. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.34 NO TRAFFIC SIGNS Sign (W18-1),'' that contains an
Option statement that captures language from existing Part 5 that FHWA
proposes to redistribute among the remaining parts.
133. In Section 2C.35 Weather Condition Signs (W8-18, W8-19, W8-21,
and W8-22), FHWA proposes to change Standard P2 to a Guidance to
provide agencies with flexibility in the placement of the Depth Gauge
sign.
134. In Section 2C.36 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2,
W3-3, W3-4), FHWA proposes to change the last sentence of Standard P1
related to visibility criteria for traffic control signals based on
distances specified in Table 4D-2 to a Guidance to allow agencies more
flexibility.
FHWA also proposes to combine and revise existing Option statements
to allow for the use of LEDs within the border of the sign to enhance
conspicuity.
135. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.37 Actuated Advance Intersection Signs (W2-10 through W2-
12),'' that contains Support, Option, and Standard paragraphs regarding
the use of Actuated Advance Intersection Signs to allow agencies
flexibility in implementing warning systems in the vicinity of traffic
signals or other intersection conflict areas. FHWA proposes these
signs, and the associated legends, based on information from a Pooled
Fund Study.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Intersection Conflict Warning System Human Factors: Final
Report, dated November 2016 can be viewed at the following internet
website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/16061/16061.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
136. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2C.52
as, ``Section 2C.39 NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN and SIGNAL OPERATION AHEAD
Signs (W23-2, W23-2a)'' to add a proposed new optional sign that
agencies may use to warn road users of changes in signal phasing.
137. In Section 2C.40 (existing Section 2C.38) Reduced Speed Limit
Ahead Signs, FHWA proposes to add the Variable Speed Zone (W3-5b) and
Truck Speed Zone (W3-5c) Ahead signs in the Guidance and Standard
paragraphs to provide agencies with standard signs to be used to inform
road users in advance of these reduced speed zone types.
138. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.41 WATCH FOR STOPPED TRAFFIC Sign (W23-3).'' The new
section contains an Option to use a new WATCH FOR STOPPED TRAFFIC Sign
(W23-3) to warn road users of the possibility of vehicles stopped
unexpectedly in the travel lane. FHWA proposes this change based on
Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Signing,\33\ which found that at least 20 State
agencies currently use a sign that warns of the possibility of stopped
or almost stopped traffic due to turns or other unexpected conditions,
and therefore recommends adding the sign to the MUTCD. In accordance
with this recommendation, FHWA proposes to add the W23-3 to Figure 2C-4
and Table 2C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Signing can be viewed at the
following internet website: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34772/dot_34772_DS1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
139. In Section 2C.42 (existing Section 2C.46) Intersection Warning
Signs (W2-1 through W2-8), FHWA proposes to remove Option P5 regarding
the design of intersection warning signs to remove language that
implies certain classifications of roadways at an intersection may be
of lesser importance.
FHWA proposes to revise Guidance P8 to exclude Grade Crossing and
Intersection Advance Warning (W10-2 and W10-3) signs from Intersection
Warning signs that are prohibited on approaches controlled by STOP
signs, YIELD signs, or signals. FHWA proposes this change because of
the safety importance associated with these signs.
140. In Section 2C.43 (existing Section 2C.47) Two-Direction Large
Arrow Sign (W1-7), FHWA proposes to delete Standard P4 prohibiting the
use of a Two-Direction Large Arrow Sign in the central island of a
roundabout. FHWA proposes this change because the MUTCD provides
considerable guidance and numerous examples of proper signing at
roundabouts and the use of the sign as described in the statement is
contrary to the definition of a roundabout and relevant MUTCD
provisions.
141. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2C.48
to ``2C.44 Traffic Signal Oncoming Extended Green Signs (W25-1, W25-
2).'' FHWA proposes to delete the last sentence of Standard P1
regarding the sign shape and orientation because the design is
standardized.
142. In Section 2C.45 (existing Section 2C.40) Merge Signs (W4-1,
W4-5), FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph with
recommendations for the orientation and location of the Merge signs.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2C-11 illustrating the use of
Merge signs.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to change the existing Guidance P7 to a
Standard to prohibit the Merge sign from being used for a lane
reduction rather than a merging roadway. FHWA proposes this change to
clarify the purpose of the signs because standard signs already exist
to sign for the condition of a lane termination and the Merge symbol
sign is not intended for any general merging action. Rather, it is
intended specifically for the condition in which two roadways merge,
such as two ramps or a ramp and main highway.
143. In Section 2C.46 (existing Section 2C.41), ``Added Lane Signs
(W4-3, W4-6),'' FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph with
recommendations for the orientation and location of the Added Lane
signs. FHWA also proposes to illustrate the use of the Added Lane signs
on new Figure 2C-12.
[[Page 80919]]
144. In Section 2C.47 (existing Section 2C.42), retitled ``Lane
Ends Signs (W4-2, W9-1),'' FHWA proposes several changes to reflect the
proposed deletion of the LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT (RIGHT) (W9-2) sign. FHWA
proposes deleting this sign, and instead adds new Support and Guidance
statements to clarify the use of the Lane Ends (W4-2) and RIGHT (LEFT)
LANE ENDS (W9-1) signs, including how to use them together, where
applicable, to warn road users of the reduction in the number of lanes.
FHWA proposes a Guidance statement to clarify the Lane Ends (W4-2) sign
should be used to indicate the approximate location of the start of the
lane taper. FHWA proposes these changes and the deletion of the W9-2
sign to provide consistency in signing for a reduction in the number of
lanes, as the W9-2 sign is a word message for which a symbol sign (W4-
2) already exists. In addition, a research study \34\ which examined
the use of these signs, as well as new alternatives, showed that the
W4-2 and W9-1 had the best recognition, while the W9-2 sign had a
greater legibility distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Comprehension and Legibility of Selected Service Symbol
Signs Phase IV'' Final Report, dated December 2017 can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://pooledfund.org/Document/Download/7559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes a new Option that allows the W9-1 sign to be located
at the far-side of the intersection on low-speed roads in urban
environments where space is limited at a signalized intersection. FHWA
also proposes allowing supplemental RIGHT (LEFT) LANE ENDS (W9-1) signs
upstream of the W9-1 that is installed at the advance placement
distance.
FHWA proposes a new Guidance statement to recommend that if
supplemental W9-1 signs are installed, a Distance plaque should be
installed below the W9-1 sign.
145. FHWA proposes to add a new Section numbered and titled,
``2C.48 Lanes Merge Signs (W9-4, W4-8)'' and proposes new LANES MERGE
(W9-4) and Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) signs to warn of the reduction
of two lanes to one in the same direction of travel.
FHWA proposes new Guidance paragraphs for the Lanes Merge (W9-4)
sign to be used to warn that the traffic lane is merging with the
adjacent lane and a merging maneuver would be required, and for the
Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) sign to be used to indicate the
approximate location of the start of the lane taper.
146. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.49 HEAVY MERGE FROM LEFT (RIGHT) Sign (W4-7).'' The new
section contains an Option to use a new HEAVY MERGE FROM LEFT (RIGHT)
XX FT Sign (W4-7) to provide supplemental warning to advise road users
of congested lanes at interchanges. A sign with the legend THRU TRAFFIC
MERGE LEFT (RIGHT) was proposed in the 2008 NPA but was not adopted in
the Final Rule. FHWA received a request to include the THRU TRAFFIC
sign based on the Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Signing,\35\ which found that
at least 11 State agencies currently use such a sign and it should
therefore be added to the MUTCD. FHWA proposes to add the W4-7 with a
HEAVY MERGE FROM LEFT (RIGHT) XX FT legend to Figure 2C-8 and Table 2C-
2 as this legend depicts the warning to drivers more accurately of the
potential for a large volume of entering traffic rather than the THRU
TRAFFIC legend, which warns through traffic to vacate those lanes,
because it implies that the lane is ending. The MUTCD already contains
standard signs to indicate that a lane is either ending or is for exit
traffic only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Signing can be viewed at the
following internet website: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34772/dot_34772_DS1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
147. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2C.43
to ``Section 2C.50 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE FOR EXIT ONLY Sign (W9-7).'' FHWA
also proposes to delete Standard P2 regarding the sign shape and color
because the design is standardized.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement that allows
for the addition of a third line of legend that displays the distance
to the exit if it is more than 1 mile away.
148. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.52 Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane Roadway Sign (W6-5, W6-
5a)'' with an Option and Standard statement associated with the new
sign. FHWA proposes this new optional sign to provide agencies with a
standardized sign to use in locations where such a sign may be
necessary to provide road users with the proper warning for the roadway
configuration.
149. In Section 2C.54 (existing Section 2C.49), ``Vehicular Traffic
Warning Signs (W8-6, W11-1, W11-5, W11-8, W11-10, W11-11, W11-12P, W11-
14, W11-15, and W11-15a),'' FHWA proposes eliminating sign W11-5a
because the secondary version of the Farm Machinery sign is isometric
and inconsistent with the standard symbol design principles.
FHWA also proposes to add the IN STREET and IN ROAD optional
supplemental plaques to expand the options available to agencies to
indicate that non-motorized users may be in the roadway. FHWA proposes
to delete the SHARE THE ROAD supplemental plaque, as discussed below.
150. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2C.08
as, ``Section 2C.59 Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1P) and Confirmation
Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1aP)'' to reflect the proposed addition of a
new use for the optional plaque to supplement a One-Direction Large
Arrow Sign (W1-6) to remind road users of the advisory speed through
the curve. The proposed W13-1aP plaque is redesignated from E13-1P,
which is an existing plaque currently allowed beneath Exit Gore signs
to confirm the advisory exit speed posted at an upstream location. FHWA
proposes to resdesignate this plaque and expand its use to the similar
application on the outside of the beginning of any alignment change
following a Horizontal Alignment Advance Warning sign assembly. The
proposed expanded use of this plaque would replace the existing
Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed signs in existing
Section 2C.10. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a new
Standard paragraph limiting the allowable use of the Confirmation
Advisory Speed plaque only to supplement a One-Direction Large Arrow
(W1-6) or an Exit Gore (E5-1 series) sign and not as a separate sign
installation. FHWA proposes this limitation on the use of the plaque
because the plaque was designed and intended specifically for these two
uses, which are to supplement, near the beginning of the alignment
change, an advisory speed that is posted at the advance location in an
Advance Warning sign assembly.
FHWA also proposes to delete existing Items A through C in Support
P7 and all of Support P8, and instead refer to the Traffic Control
Devices Handbook for information on established engineering practices
for determining advisory speeds for a horizontal curves. As part of
this change, FHWA proposes to add items A through E, which list
established engineering practices.
151. In Section 2C.60 (existing Section 2C.62) NEW Plaque (W16-
15P), FHWA proposes to delete Standard P2 prohibiting the NEW plaque
from being used alone because Section 2C.57 (existing Section 2C.53)
already contains a similar Standard.
FHWA also proposes to change Standard P3 to Guidance to give
agencies more flexibility to retain the NEW plaque longer than 6 months
after
[[Page 80920]]
the regulation has been in effect, if necessary.
152. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2C.60 SHARE THE ROAD
Plaque (W16-1P) and replace it with a new proposed Section 2C.66 IN
ROAD and IN STREET Plaques (W16-1P, W16-1aP) that contains Option and
Standard statements regarding the use of these optional signs to warn
drivers to watch for other forms of slower transportation traveling
along the highway, such as bicycles, golf carts, or horse-drawn
vehicles. Since its adoption in the 2000 MUTCD, research \36\ has shown
that the ``share the road'' message when applied to bicyclists does not
adequately communicate the responsibilities of either user group on the
roadway. Road users are unclear whether ``share the road'' means that
drivers should give space when passing or that bicyclists should pull
to the side to allow drivers to pass. FHWA is proposing the IN ROAD/IN
STREET plaques to replace the SHARE THE ROAD plaque based on this
research and for consistency with all in road vehicle types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The Article, ``Bicycles May Use Full Lane'' Signage
Communicates U.S. Roadway Rules and Increases Perception of
Safety,'' by George Hess and M. Nils Peterson, published August 28,
2015, can be viewed at the following internet website: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136973#sec013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
153. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2C.67 Except Bicycles Plaque (W16-20P).'' The new section
contains an Option to use a new Except Bicycles plaque below a warning
sign where it is appropriate to notify bicyclists that the conditions
depicted by a warning sign are not applicable to bicycles. An example
is a roadway which terminates as a dead end or cul-de-sac but serves as
a continuous route for bicycle travel through the use of connecting
paths or barrier opening and the plaque would be used to supplement a
DEAD END or NO OUTLET warning sign. This section also includes a new
Standard statement that if used with a warning sign, the plaque shall
be a rectangle with a black legend and border on a yellow background,
consistent with similar provisions for the color of supplemental
plaques.
154. In Section 2C.71 (existing Section 2C.65) Object Markers for
Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway, FHWA proposes to add a new Option
permitting the use of Type 2 or Type 3 object markers to mark an
obstruction adjacent to the roadway. The existing MUTCD has a Standard
that currently implies this optional use of Type 2 and Type 3 object
markers. FHWA proposes this change to clarify the intent of the
provisions.
FHWA also proposes to change existing Standard P2 and P3 to
Guidance and revise the language regarding object markers applied to
approach ends of guardrail and other roadway appurtenances to specify
crash cushion terminals as the other roadway appurtenances. The
revision also recommends that the Type 3 object marker should be
directly affixed, without a substrate, and generally conform to the
size and shape of the approach end of the guardrail or crash cushion.
FHWA proposes this change because the term ``roadway appurtenances'' is
not defined in the MUTCD and FHWA wants to eliminate any potential
confusion that may occur between this Guidance paragraph and the
existing Support statement in this section which lists numerous
obstructions where object markers are applied.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2D Guide Signs--
Conventional Roads
As part of the reorganization to improve usability of the MUTCD,
FHWA proposes to include subchapter headings in Chapter 2D to organize
sections into related groupings. FHWA proposes the following
subchapters in Chapter 2D and associated sections (referenced to the
proposed section numbers): General Design (Sections 2D.01 through
2D.08), Route Signs and Auxiliary Plaques (Sections 2D.09 through
2D.28), Sign Assemblies (Sections 2D.29 through 2D.34), Destination and
Distance Signs (Sections 2D.35 through 2D.44), Street Name and Parking
Signs (Sections 2D.45 through 2D.48), Freeway Entrance Signs (Sections
2D.49 and 2D.50), Weigh Station, Truck, and Crossover Signs (Sections
2D.51 through 2D.54) and Other Guide Signs (Sections 2D.55 through
2D.59).
155. In Section 2D.01 (existing Section 2D.02), retitled, ``Scope
of Conventional Road Guide Sign Standards and Application,'' FHWA
proposes to relocate existing Guidance and Support statements regarding
low-volume roads from Chapter 5D. FHWA proposes the change to place all
related material regarding guide signs together.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement recommending that the
primary or control destinations displayed on guide signs be meaningful
to road uses in navigation and orientation, and that such destinations
be identifiable on official maps. FHWA proposes this change to provide
consistency in the use of destinations on guide signs.
FHWA also proposes a new Support statement to indicate that guide
signs, other than Street Name signs, are generally not used on low-
volume rural roads, except as needed to guide road users back to major
roadways.
FHWA also proposes to add new Support and Guidance statements,
along with a new figure, describing signing for airport facility
roadways. This information is based on a study by the National Academy
of Sciences \37\ that examined airport roadway user informational needs
and limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals
and Landside,'' TRB's Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
Report 52, 2011, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165910.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
156. In Section 2D.05 (existing Section 2D.06), FHWA proposes to
add a Standard statement that the minimum letter and numeral height of
the principal legend on conventional road overhead signs be at least 12
inches in height for upper-case letters and 9 inches in height for
lower-case letters. An Option is also proposed to allow 10.67 inches in
height for upper case letters and 8 inches in height for lower-case
letters for such roadways with posted speed limits of 40 miles per hour
or less. FHWA proposes this change to ensure adequate letter height to
meet road user legibility needs for conventional roadway overhead guide
signs based on speed of travel.
157. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2D.07 Abbreviations.'' FHWA proposes to relocate information
from existing Section 2E.17 to Chapter 2D because it also applies to
guide signs for conventional roadways. FHWA also proposes to add a new
figure and two new tables that are specific to the use of the types of
abbreviations described in this Section.
FHWA proposes a new Support statement identifying that the use of
commonly recognized abbreviations for certain words can be useful in
reducing the complexity of the sign message.
158. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, FHWA proposes to designate ``curved-
stem arrows'' as ``Type E directional arrows'' and that they be
associated exclusively with circular intersections. FHWA proposes this
change to provide consistency in terminology throughout the Manual. In
concert with this change, FHWA proposes several revisions within this
section to reflect this terminology and to provide additional
flexibility for agencies to represent
[[Page 80921]]
intended driver paths on guide signs for circular intersections.
159. In Section 2D.09 Numbered Highway Systems, FHWA proposes to
revise the Standard regarding route system order preference to provide
an exception to the order because there may be instances where a
different prioritization might better accommodate driver expectancy. In
concert with the Standard revision, FHWA also proposes to add an Option
statement allowing the modification of the prioritization of route
systems.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard reflecting the existing
requirement that Interstate route numbering be approved by FHWA
consistent with 23 CFR 470.115(a).
160. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, FHWA proposes to
revise the first Standard paragraph to clarify the requirement that
Interstate Route, Off-Interstate Business Route, U.S. Route, State
Route, County Route, and Forest Route sign legends are required to
comply with existing requirements in Chapter 2A.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard paragraph regarding
County Route sign dimensions to require a minimum size of 24 x 24
inches for consistency with the minimum sizes for other Route signs.
FHWA also proposes to revise Option paragraph 4 to designate the
existing optional sign (Interstate Route sign that includes the State
name) as M1-1a and to allow the optional use of this sign in place of
the M1-1 sign when the Interstate Route sign is used in a Route Sign
assembly. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a new Standard
statement limiting the use of the M1-1a sign to Route Sign assemblies
to clarify that the allowable optional use does not extend to other
types of signs, such as when the Interstate Route sign is used within a
guide sign, to limit the informational load imposed on the road user
and because the relative scale of the State name to other legend
elements displayed on the guide sign would be considerably smaller.
FHWA also proposes to delete the Option P7 and P16 statements
regarding Route Signs used on a green guide sign that allow for the use
of a white or yellow background to improve contrast, because FHWA has
revised the design of the Off-Interstate Business Route and County
Route signs to include a wider border to address contrast.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement to reiterate the
existing requirement of the legend on State Route signs to conform to
Standard Alphabets, for consistency. FHWA proposes this change as a
conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying
requirement in Chapter 2A.
FHWA proposes to amend the subsequent Guidance paragraph to limit
the use of complex graphics to maintain consistency.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard paragraph regarding Route
Signs for parks and forest roads to clarify the existing requirement to
comply with the existing provisions of Chapter 2A, and to clarify that
the provisions for the design of park and forest Route signs apply to
non-National Forest routes.
161. In Section 2D.12, retitled, ``Design of Route Sign Auxiliary
Plaques,'' FHWA proposes to delete the Guidance paragraph regarding
Route Signs of larger heights because the sizes are standardized based
on roadway classification, corresponding to the Route Sign sizes.
FHWA also proposes to change the existing Guidance paragraph to a
Standard regarding the color and design of a combination route sign
with auxiliary plaques into a single guide sign, consistent with sign
color requirements for guide signs elsewhere in the MUTCD.
162. In Section 2D.16, retitled, ``Auxiliary Plaque for Alternative
Routes (M4-1P through M4-4P),'' FHWA proposes to modify the section
title because the Option and Standard paragraphs contained within this
section do not apply to the entire M4 series of signs.
163. In Section 2D.17, retitled, ``ALTERNATE Auxiliary Plaques (M4-
1P, M4-1aP),'' FHWA proposes to add a Standard paragraph to prohibit
the use of the M4-1P Series plaques to sign alternative routing not
officially incorporated into the numbered highway system, such as
alternative routings for incident management or emergency detours. FHWA
proposes this additional paragraph to ensure the M4-1P Series plaques
are used in a consistent manner with their stated meaning in this
section.
164. In Section 2D.29 Route Sign Assemblies, FHWA proposes to add a
Guidance paragraph and new figure recommending that when more than four
Route signs are needed in a single Advance Route Turn or Directional
assembly, the Route signs should be mounted in a Guide sign. FHWA
proposes this guidance as this would reduce the significant
informational load on the road user of such assemblies by reducing the
repetition of the cardinal direction and directional arrows.
FHWA also proposes an Option paragraph allowing Route Signs to be
omitted for routes that are part of an agency's internal numbering
system, such as for maintenance or other purposes, and are not publicly
mapped or intended to be used for navigational purposes by the general
public. FHWA proposes this Option to allow agencies flexibility as to
whether to post signs in certain areas.
165. In Section 2D.34 (existing Section 2D.35) Trailblazer
Assembly, FHWA proposes to revise the Option statement to clarify the
use of a Cardinal Direction auxiliary plaque only for routes that
provide access to one direction of the route.
166. In Section 2D.35 (existing Section 2D.36) Destination and
Distance Signs, FHWA proposes to relocate a Guidance paragraph
previously contained in Section 5D.01 regarding destination names on
low-volume roads.
167. In Section 2D.36 (existing Section 2D.37) Designation Signs
(D1 Series), FHWA proposes to add a new Support paragraph to describe
the use of overhead destination guide signs on multi-lane conventional
roadways with complex or unusual roadway alignments to help drivers.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option paragraph suggesting
overhead signs using the Arrow-Per-Lane sign design configuration may
be used to provide lane assignments for some or all lane designations
at the approach to a multi-lane intersection for clarification.
168. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2D.37 Overhead Arrow-Per-Lane Destination Guide Signs,'' to
provide information, requirements, guidance, and a figure related to
the use of these signs on multi-lane conventional roadway
intersections, often associated with complex or unusual roadway
alignments using innovative intersection designs to improve traffic
flow and safety.
169. In Section 2D.39 (existing Section 2D.38) Destination Signs at
Circular Intersections, FHWA proposes to revise the Support paragraph
regarding the use of diagrammatic guide signs for circular
intersections to help ensure that the basic principles of limiting the
amount of legend and aligning the arrows with each destination are
applied. FHWA proposes this clarification to aid road users in
understanding the sign and navigation through the area.
170. In Section 2D.40 (existing Section 2D.39) Destination Signs at
Jughandles, FHWA proposes to delete the Option allowing the use of
diagrammatic guide signs depicting the
[[Page 80922]]
travel path and turns through several intersections, because
diagrammatic signs are limited to circular or successive intersections.
171. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2D.41 Destination Signs at Intersections with Indirect
Turning Movements,'' that contains a Guidance paragraph regarding the
use of guide signs and pavement markings to direct traffic, and a new
figure illustrating examples of destination signs at intersections with
indirect turning movements. FHWA proposes this new section to provide
agencies with examples of proper signing for locations with displaced
left turn and intercepted crossroad intersections, which are newer
intersection designs and becoming more common in practice and provide
for consistency.
172. In Section 2D.45 (existing Section 2D.43), retitled, ``Street
Name Signs (D3-1, D3-1a),'' FHWA proposes to add a Guidance paragraph
regarding the use of Street Name signs at intersections of freeway exit
ramps with cross roads to help minimize the potential for wrong-way
movements onto the freeway ramp.
FHWA also proposes to add Guidance regarding the engineering
considerations that should be used to determine the letter heights used
on Street Name signs at specific locations.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Support paragraph regarding
minimum letter heights to clarify that the minimum letter heights apply
to the roadway that each sign faces, rather than to the street that has
its name displayed on the Street Name sign.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option paragraph to allow different
letter heights in a sign assembly based on the speed limit in order to
clarify that agencies may use different letter heights on different
signs at the same intersection.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing Option P9 to clarify that the
letter height of the street name descriptor, the directional legend, or
any other supplemental legend on the D3-1 and D3-1a signs may be
smaller than that of the street name itself, while maintaining the
letter size proportions between the street name and supplemental
information on the sign. In concert with this Option, FHWA proposes to
add Guidance that smaller letter legend should be at least two-thirds
of the letter height of the street name itself, but not less than 3
inches for the initial upper-case letters and not less than 2.25 inches
for the lower-case letters for adequate legibility. In addition, FHWA
proposes to change the remainder of the first sentence and the second
sentence in existing Option in P9 regarding the use of conventional
abbreviations for all information on the Street Name sign other than
the street name itself to Guidance, and to provide a new table of
acceptable street name descriptors and a table of street name
descriptors that should not be used. FHWA proposes these changes to
provide consistency with guide signs and to encourage the use of
conventional abbreviations to reduce the size of the sign and for more
rapid recognition.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement regarding the
proportional letter height of a supplemental legend to be consistent
with guide signs and the letter heights that are used.
FHWA also proposes to add Option and Guidance statements allowing
the use of block or house numbers as a supplemental legend on Street
Name signs and recommending the application of house numbers for the
left and right blocks of the cross street.
FHWA also proposes to delete a sentence in existing P14 regarding
requirements for sign color and retroreflectivity because allowable
colors for the legend and border are already included in existing P18
of this section and requirements for retroreflectivity are covered in
existing Section 2A.07.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement regarding the
omission of the border on a post-mounted Street Name sign to clarify
that the decision to omit the border should be based on factors related
to providing for adequate recognition of the sign by road users.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement that recommends that
Street Name signs display the street name on both sides of the sign to
facilitate navigation for pedestrians.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Option regarding the use of arrows
where the same road has two different street names. Additional
information has been added to clarify that this option is not allowed
where arrows would point in a movement direction that is not allowed.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance paragraph regarding streets or
segments thereof that have been memorialized or dedicated. Second
Street Name signs should not be used to display the memorial or
dedication name. Memorial or Dedication signs should be located to
minimize conspicuity the potential for confusion by road users.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a Support statement referring users
to Section 2I for information on the identification of streets at
overcrossings and undercrossings.
173. In Section 2D.46 (existing Section 2D.44), retitled, ``Advance
Street Name Signs (D3-2 Series),'' FHWA proposes to revise the Standard
statement regarding the legend and background color of Advance Street
Name signs to clarify that the use of alternative colors is prohibited,
repeating an existing Standard statement from Section 2D.43. FHWA
proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the
existing underlying requirement, to clarify that Advance Street Name
signs must have green backgrounds.
174. In Section 2D.47 Parking Area Guide Sign (D4-1), FHWA proposes
to revise the Standard paragraph to delete the design and color
information for the sign, because design is standardized in accordance
with the existing requirements in Chapter 2A.
175. In Section 2D.49 (existing Section 2D.45) Signing on
Conventional Roads on Approaches to Interchanges, FHWA proposes to add
a Support statement that provides reference to new figures that offer
examples of guide signing for single-point urban intersection and
transposed-alignment crossroads, which are becoming more common in
practice.
176. In Section 2D.51 (existing Section 2D.49), WEIGH STATION
Signing (D8 Series), FHWA proposes to add a Support paragraph that
defines the areas where certain vehicles might be directed to stop to
be weighed or inspected and that such an area can be permanent or a
temporary mobile facility. FHWA adds this provision to give agencies
more flexibility.
FHWA proposes to revise existing Standard P2, and reference the
figure, to indicate the appropriate sequence of signs for Weigh Station
signing on a conventional highway and revises the sign terminology to
match the typical sequence of other types of guide signs. The resulting
sign sequence includes Advance Weigh Station Distance, Weigh Station
Next Right, and Weigh Station Exit Direction Signs. In concert with
this change, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending an
Exit Gore sign with the same basic legend as the Weigh Station Exit
Direction sign be used to emphasize the entrance to the weigh station.
FHWA proposes these revisions to provide more clarity on Weigh Station
signing.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement that allows the use
of the alternate legend COMMERCIAL
[[Page 80923]]
VEHICLE INSPECTION AREA for the D8 series Weigh Station signs. FHWA
proposes this revision to be consistent with the type of activity being
conducted at the station.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement indicating what when
the WEIGH STATION legend of the D8 series signs is replaced with the
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION AREA legend, the WEIGH STATION legend of
the R13-1 sign shall be replaced with the alternate legend INSPECTION
area. FHWA proposes this change for consistency in sign legends.
177. FHWA proposes to relocate and renumber existing Section 2D.54
as Section 2D.52 Crossover Signs (D13-1, D13-2). FHWA proposes to
delete portions of existing Standard P2 and all of Standard P5
pertaining to the design of the Crossover and Advance Crossover signs
because the language is unnecessary since the sign designs are
standardized in accordance with the existing requirements in Chapter
2A.
178. In Section 2D.53 (existing Section 2D.51), retitled, ``Truck
and Passing Lane Signs (D17-1, D17-2, D17-3, and D17-4),'' FHWA
proposes to revise the existing Guidance statement to remove the word
``NEXT'' from a Truck Lane sign used immediately in advance of a truck
lane in order to reserve the use of the word ``NEXT'' for areas where
there is a series of extra lanes added along a highway for trucks to
use, as proposed in the new Guidance statement. In concert with this
change, FHWA proposes to recommend that the sign include a distance of
\1/2\ mile in the legend. As part of these changes, FHWA clarifies that
a truck lane is a lane added to the right of the travel lane to be used
by trucks and other slow-moving vehicles. This allows the faster
vehicles to pass without leaving the travel lane.
FHWA also proposes to add Guidance statements describing the use of
Passing Lane and Next Passing Lane signs in a similar manner as Truck
Lane signs. As part of these changes, FHWA distinguishes that a passing
lane is an added lane to the left of the travel lane to be used by
vehicle passing those in the travel lane.
FHWA also proposes to delete the existing Option allowing alternate
legends, because provisions for the use of Passing Lane signs are
proposed in the new Guidance. In addition, because a climbing lane is
simply another name for a truck lane, FHWA proposes to remove this
option to improve on uniformity in signing.
FHWA also proposes a new Support statement to include a new figure
that illustrates an example of signing for an intermittent passing
lane. FHWA proposes to add this information to provide practitioners
with needed guidance on the use of these signs, and their respective
locations.
179. In existing Section 2D.54, renumbered and retitled, ``Section
2D.54 Emergency and Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Signs (D17-5 through D17-
7),'' FHWA proposes to add a Guidance paragraph regarding the
recommended use of emergency turn-out advance and directional signs
including placement location ranges consistent with advance guide sign
placement and deceleration distance for lower speed maneuvers.
FHWA also proposes to add a new figure illustrating an example of
signing for an emergency turn-out.
180. In Section 2D.55 (existing Section 2D.50) Community Wayfinding
Signs, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance paragraph recommending the
evaluation of the entire existing system of signs for serviceability
and general conformance with the Manual when a community wayfinding
guide sign system is being considered. FHWA proposes this new Guidance
because the condition and serviceability of existing higher priority
signs, such as regulatory, warning, and major Designation signs, should
have priority over the installation of the new community wayfinding
signs.
FHWA also proposes to change the existing Guidance statement
regarding the shape of wayfinding guide signs to a Standard to
eliminate conflict with overall sign shape requirements.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement regarding the
letters, numerals, and other characters should be composed of the
Standard Alphabets in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2A to
maintain consistency of signs.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard paragraph requiring
conventional lettering style, prohibiting the use of italic, oblique,
script, highly decorative, or other unusual forms. FHWA proposes this
new Standard to help identify letter style types that, by their nature,
would not meet the letter style requirements provided in this section
for maintaining adequate legibility under driving conditions.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard paragraph pertaining to
internet and email addresses to be consistent with changes made to the
same provision in Section 1D.09.
181. FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2D.56 (existing Section
2D.53), ``Signing of Named Highways for Mapping and Address Purposes,''
to clarify the intent of the section.
FHWA also proposes to add a Support paragraph to provide
information that distinguishes between highway names, which are used
for navigation and mapping, and memorial, honorary, or secondary names,
which are not considered to be highway names. This information is
needed for agencies to understand the applicability of the Standard,
Guidance, and Option statements in this section.
182. In Section 2D.57 (existing Section 2D.55), retitled,
``National Scenic Byways Sign and Plaque (D6-4, D6-4aP),'' FHWA
proposes a new Support statement to indicate that direction along
routes and to sites is related to touring maps rather than directional
signing and route marking of the byway itself.
FHWA also proposes to add four Guidance paragraphs regarding the
placement of signs displaying the name of the byway and associated
byway Directional Assemblies. FHWA proposes these guidance statements
to encourage uniformity and to separate Route Directional Assemblies
from byway Directional Assemblies.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard that prohibits the use of the
Byway sign or plaque as part of a guide sign assembly, as these signs
are intended only for use in independent Directional Assemblies. FHWA
proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would not change the
existing underlying requirement, consistent with the existing Standard
requiring that other signs have primary visibility.
183. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2D.58 State-Designated Scenic Byway, Historic Trail, and Auto
Tour Route Signs,'' that contains relocated provisions from existing
Section 2H.07, Auto Tour Routes, as well as new provisions for State
scenic byway and historic trails. FHWA proposes this new Section to
address inconsistencies in how these facilities are signed.
184. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2D.59 EMERGENCY ROUTE and EMERGENCY ROUTE TO Signs and
Plaques'' that contains provisions and accompanying figure for
permanently signing emergency routes for the purposes of corridor
management. FHWA proposes these changes based on Official Ruling No.
6(09)-42(I) \38\ ``Signing for Rerouting Due to Traffic Incidents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-42(I), April, 21, 2017,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_42.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80924]]
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2E Guide Signs-Freeways
and Expressways
185. As part of the reorganization to improve usability of the
MUTCD, FHWA proposes to include subchapter headings in Chapter 2E to
organize sections into related groupings. FHWA proposes the following
subchapters in Chapter 2E: General, Sign Design, Installation, Guide
Signing for Interchanges, Other Guide Signs, Signs for Intersections at
Grade, and Interface with Conventional Roadways.
186. In Section 2E.01 Scope of Freeway and Expressway Guide Sign
Standards, FHWA proposes to add Support, Option, Guidance, and Standard
statements regarding the application of design provisions for freeway
and expressway guide signs in tunnels, which can present unique
challenges not encountered elsewhere due to the extended and continuous
distances of constrained vertical and horizontal clearances in which to
place signs. FHWA proposes these new provisions to provide flexibility
to standard sign layouts when needed to accommodate such situations in
tunnels.
187. In Section 2E.06 (existing Section 2E.09) Signing of Named
Highways, FHWA proposes to change P1 from Support to Guidance to
recommend, not just state, that signing of named highways should comply
with provisions of Section 2D.56. FHWA proposes this change to convey
more effectively what was intended by the existing Support statement.
188. In Section 2E.07 (existing Section 2E.13) Designation of
Destinations, FHWA proposes to add Support and Guidance statements, as
well as a new figure, regarding signing for destinations that are
accessed from different exits in opposing directions of travel. FHWA
proposes these new provisions to provide clarity and flexibility
regarding the appropriate signing for destinations based on the local
roadway network.
189. In Section 2E.08 (existing Section 2E.04) General, FHWA
proposes to delete the Standard statement regarding standard traffic
sign shapes and colors because the provisions are already covered in
Chapter 2A. FHWA proposes this change to remove unnecessary and
repetitive content and streamline the Manual to improve its usability.
190. In Section 2E.12 (existing Section 2E.14) Size and Style of
Letters and Signs, FHWA proposes to revise the Standard paragraph
regarding the minimum numeral and letter sizes to be as shown in the
``Overhead'' columns of Tables 2E-2 and 2E-4. FHWA proposes this change
to clarify the application of the ``Overhead'' columns when a larger
size is specified in the same tables based on interchange
classification.
191. In Section 2E.14 (existing Section 2E.16) Sign Borders, FHWA
proposes to relocate the Standard statement regarding the color of the
sign border to Section 2A.14, because that section already contains
information about sign borders, while maintaining the recommendations
on border width, as that is commonly needed information for the larger
size signs on these types of highways. FHWA proposes this change to
remove unnecessary or repetitive content and streamline the Manual to
improve its usability.
192. In Section 2E.15 (existing Section 2E.10), FHWA proposes to
add a Support statement to describe the use of street names on Advance
guide and Exit Direction signs, based on the number of interchanges
that serve a community. FHWA proposes this new statement, including
references to other sections with Chapter 2E, to provide users with
additional information regarding proper and efficient community
interchange signing.
193. In Section 2E.16 (existing Section 2E.17) Abbreviations, FHWA
proposes to delete the Guidance and Standard paragraphs and replace
them with a new Standard that requires abbreviations on freeway and
expressway guide signs to comply with Section 2D.07. FHWA proposes this
change to remove repetitive content and streamline the Manual to
improve its usability.
194. In Section 2E.17 (existing Section 2E.18) Symbols, FHWA
proposes to delete the Standard paragraph regarding symbol designs
because it duplicates language in Section 2A.12.
FHWA also proposes to delete the Option statement permitting the
use of educational plaques below symbol signs where needed. FHWA
proposes this change because symbols, if used on freeway or expressway
signs, are incorporated into the legend of the sign, and the addition
of an educational plaque could distort and overly complicate the
intended message.
195. In Section 2E.18 (existing Section 2E.19) Arrows for
Interchange Guide Signs, FHWA proposes several editorial changes to
attain consistency in the placement of arrows on Exit Direction guide
signs, depending on their placement either overhead or post-mounted,
and position over the exit lane. FHWA also proposes a new figure to
illustrate the provisions.
196. In Section 2E.20 (existing Section 2E.26) Lateral Offset, FHWA
proposes to add an exception to permit a narrower lateral offset for
sign supports when shielded by a rigid barrier. FHWA proposes this
change to provide greater design flexibility for agencies.
197. In Section 2E.21 (existing Section 2E.30) Interchange Guide
Signs, FHWA proposes to change P3 from Guidance to Support, to provide
references to applicable provisions related to sign descriptions and
the order in which they appear at the approach to and beyond an
interchange. FHWA makes this change because the provisions for each are
contained in the individual sections.
FHWA also proposes to revise the wording of P4 to clarify the
intent that the use of Supplemental Guide signing should be minimized.
198. In Section 2E.22 (existing Section 2E.31) Interchange Exit
Numbering, FHWA proposes to provide specific requirements for exit
number suffix assignments and order based on direction of travel and
interchange numbering, while deleting a size requirement for the Exit
Number plaque that is standardized in existing Table 2E-1. FHWA
proposes this change to improve interchange exit numbering consistency
in response to driver expectancy, and to reduce unnecessary duplication
of information.
FHWA also proposes to change the existing Guidance statement
regarding exit number plaques for right-side exits to a Standard for
consistency in placement of exit number plaques and consistency with
similar provisions for left-side exits.
199. In Section 2E.23 (existing Section 2E.33) retitled, ``Advance
Guide Signs (E1 Series),'' FHWA proposes to add a new Standard
requiring at least one Advance guide sign for all interchange
classifications with two exceptions. FHWA proposes this change to
clarify the intent of existing language, which confounds the criteria
for locating the sign with the criteria for when to use the sign. FHWA
believes it is important to provide at least one guide sign in advance
of a freeway or expressway interchange because advance notice of exits
provides road users the time necessary to change lanes to position
themselves to take an exit safely, avoiding last-minute weaving
conflicts and erratic maneuvers. This requirement has been implicit in
subsequent sections but not as clearly stated for Advance guide signs
as it is for Exit Direction signs.
FHWA proposes to modify P4 to recommend displaying distances to the
nearest 100 feet on Advance guide signs less than \1/4\ mile from the
exit. FHWA also proposes to change the last sentence from Guidance to
Standard requiring, instead of recommending,
[[Page 80925]]
that fractions of a mile be displayed rather than decimals, for all
cases to aid in quick recognition of the sign message. FHWA proposes
this change to eliminate conflicts with other provisions of the Manual.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard requiring that an
Exit Number (E1-5P through E1-5eP) plaque be positioned at the top
right-hand edge of the sign for numbered exits to the right. FHWA
proposes this change clarifying the position of the plaque for
consistency with similar provisions for Exit Direction signs.
FHWA also proposes to change P10 regarding omitting the word
EXIT(S) from the distance message where interchange numbering is used
from Guidance to Standard and incorporate the provision into P9. FHWA
proposes this change for consistency in sign legend and to reduce
unnecessary legend on signs.
FHWA proposes to revise the paragraph regarding the use of
Interchange Sequence signs, clarifying that the recommended distance of
800 feet is between the theoretical gores of successive interchange
entrance and exit ramps. FHWA proposes this change because the existing
language is ambiguous and can imply that the distance is between the
interchange crossroads, which is not relevant to the locations of ramps
between which signs can be located.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to delete the Option statement allowing the
W16-16P plaque to be installed below the Advance guide sign. FHWA
proposes this change because the current language does not promote
uniformity. The provision for locating the W16-16P at the top of sign
is Guidance, which provides sufficient flexibility for an agency to
decide differently based on engineering factors when necessary. FHWA
believes that the presence of an Exit Number plaque is not sufficient
justification for a categorical Option.
200. In Section 2E.24 (existing Section 2E.40) retitled,
``Interchange Sequence Signs (E9-1 Series, E9-2 Series),'' FHWA
proposes to change the existing Option statement regarding signing for
closely spaced interchanges to a Support to be consistent with the
language provided in existing Sections 2E.33 and 2E.50.
FHWA also proposes to switch the order of existing Guidance P3 and
P2 and revise the language to match that of Section 2E.23 Advance Guide
Signs with respect to the use of Interchange Sequence signs where there
is less than 800 feet between the theoretical gores of successive
interchange entrance or exit ramps.
FHWA also proposes to change P5 from Support to Standard to
describe the proper use of Interchange Sequence signs and require the
display of the next two or three interchanges by name or route number
with distances to the nearest \1/4\ mile. FHWA proposes this change
because, by definition, these signs are intended for use in a series
and to provide consistency in the signing for the sequence of the
closely spaced interchanges.
201. In Section 2E.25 (existing Section 2E.36) retitled, ``Exit
Direction Signs (E4 Series),'' FHWA proposes to change the existing
Guidance statement regarding placement of the exit number plaque on
signs for numbered exits to the right to a Standard. FHWA proposes this
change to provide consistent placement of exit number plaques for
numbered exits to the left and right. This proposed change is a
companion to the existing requirement that exit number plaques for
numbered exits to the left are required to be on the left-hand edge of
the sign, thereby meeting driver expectation in similar situations.
FHWA also proposes to change P14 from an Option to Guidance to
recommend, instead of allowing, the overhead Exit Direction sign for
the second exit to be placed either on the overcrossing structure or on
a separate structure immediately in front of the overcrossing
structure. FHWA proposes this change for consistency with signing
provisions for cloverleaf interchanges and to clarify the fact that
overhead mounting is recommended in this situation.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Option allowing the use of
warning beacons with the E13-2 sign panel. In concert with this change,
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard requiring the warning beacons to
be placed at least 12 inches from the edges of the E13-2 sign panel,
from the edge of the sign, and from any other legend within the guide
sign, to provide adequate space around the beacons to reduce glare that
can adversely impact the legibility of the sign legend, consistent with
existing provisions in Chapter 4L of the MUTCD.\39\ FHWA proposes these
changes because the use of warning beacons is implied by Figure 2E-7
(existing Figure 2E-31), but no provisions previously existed in
Chapter 2E that would allow the beacons within the sign face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Information on the concept of irradiation and disability
glade can be viewed at the following internet website: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2003.tb03080.x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the change discussed in the previous item, FHWA proposes
to delete the Option statement regarding the placement of the W16-16P
plaque because it does not promote uniformity.
202. In Section 2E.26 (existing Section 2E.37) retitled, ``Exit
Gore Signs and Plaque (E5-1 Series),'' FHWA proposes to clarify that
Exit Gore signs are required for each ramp that departs from the main
roadway of a freeway or expressway.
FHWA also proposes to modify P5 to specify a height of 4 feet above
the ground line for installing the optional Type 1 object markers on
supports to Exit Gore signs.
203. In Section 2E.27 (existing Section 2E.12) retitled, ``Pull-
Through Signs (E6-1 Series and E6-2 Series),'' FHWA proposes to revise
the Guidance statement to indicate that Pull-Through signs should not
be used at exits that are signed with Overhead Arrow-Per-Lane or
Diagrammatic guide signs. FHWA proposes to add this exception because
signing for option lanes is unique, and because either the Overhead
Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs are required to be
used for all freeway and expressway splits that include an option lane,
and both of those sign designs already provide the through roadway
direction guidance to road users.
204. In Section 2E.28 (existing Section 2E.24) Signing for
Interchange Lane Drops, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement
allowing the exit arrow to be positioned to the left or right of the
words ``EXIT ONLY'' when the position of the sign panel is constrained.
FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies flexibility in sign
design where needed due to size constraints.
FHWA also proposes to modify Standard P6 to clarify that in
retrofit situations where the E11-1a and E11-1b sign panels are used,
the references to the white down arrow apply to Advance guide signs.
FHWA also proposes to add a provision regarding placement of the E11-1a
and E11-1b sign panels when used on Exit Direction signs. Similarly,
FHWA proposes to clarify that the position specified for the E11-1c
sign panel requirement for retrofit situations applies to Advance guide
signs.
FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance provision to accommodate lane
drop situations where it is impossible to locate an Advance guide sign
either overhead or above the dropped lane for the down arrow to point
to the dropped lane. This provision is intended to be used sparingly
and only in limited situations. To compensate for this otherwise
inconsistent condition, the addition of a post-mounted warning sign is
recommended.
[[Page 80926]]
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement, and accompanying
example figure, recommending the use of overhead and or post-mounted
warning signs where a mainline lane is dropped immediately after an
exit ramp. FHWA proposes this recommendation to provide additional
warning to road users of a lane drop.
205. In Section 2E.29 (existing Section 2E.43) Signing by Type of
Interchange, FHWA proposes to delete the Standard that requires
interchange guide signing to be consistent for each type of interchange
along a route, because there are instances where the signing for
similar interchanges along a route would need to vary due to
interchange spacing and other geometric features. In concert with this
change, FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance to recommend that the
signing layout be similar for interchanges of the same type.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance provision recommending
that the main roadway major guide signing should be determined by the
specific interchange type for that particular direction of travel where
a single interchange combines a different type of ramp configuration
for each direction of travel.
FHWA proposes to add two figures to this section to provide
practitioners with examples for interchange signing. Figure 2E-15 shows
an example of signing for a complex interchange that combines
intermediate interchange ramps within a major interchange, and Figure
2E-16 shows an example of signing for an interchange exit ramp with a
downstream split.
206. In Section 2E.31 (existing Section 2E.48) Diamond Interchange,
FHWA proposes to delete P2 regarding the EXIT message because the
requirements are redundant with Section 2E.22 (existing Section 2E.31)
and Section 2E.23 (existing Section 2E.33).
FHWA also proposes to delete P5 Option regarding the use of
Advisory Exit Speed signs based on an engineering study, and revise to
refer instead to the provisions contained in Chapter 2C that cover the
Advisory Exit Speed signs to determine when they are necessary. FHWA
proposes this change to remove redundant and potentially conflicting
information, thus streamlining the Manual and improving its ease of
use.
Lastly, FHWA proposes a new Guidance provision to recommend that a
Destination guide sign be placed along the ramp where traffic is
allowed to turn in either direction onto the crossroad. FHWA proposes
this provision, which reflects common practice, to accommodate the road
user's expectancy of positive, continuous guidance in signing to a
destination that is displayed on the highway on an approach to an
interchange.
207. In Section 2E.32 (existing Section 2E.49) Diamond Interchange
in Urban Area, FHWA proposes to revise the existing Option provision
regarding closely spaced interchanges to clarify that the distances
under consideration are those specified in another Section of Chapter
2E. FHWA proposes this change to improve the usability of the Manual.
208. In Section 2E.33 (existing Section 2E.45) Cloverleaf
Interchange, FHWA proposes to revise the Standard statement to remove
redundant information contained in Section 2E.23 (existing Section
2E.33) and Section 2E.26 (existing Section 2E.37).
209. In Section 2E.34 (existing Section 2E.46) Cloverleaf
Interchange with Collector-Distributor Roadways, FHWA proposes to
revise the existing Option provision regarding exit numbering to
Guidance. FHWA proposes this change to accommodate driver expectancy by
more consistently numbering these types of interchanges and more
readily facilitate navigation, in concert with other changes in this
Chapter to make exit numbering more consistent. FHWA believes that
Guidance should still provide sufficient discretion to States in those
limited situations where conditions might warrant.
210. In Section 2E.35 (existing Section 2E.47) Partial Cloverleaf
Interchange, FHWA proposes to delete P3 regarding post-mounted Exit
Gore signs because the requirement is redundant with Section 2E.26
(existing Section 2E.37).
211. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2E.36 Collector-Distributor Roadways for Successive
Interchanges,'' with Support and Guidance statements, along with a new
Figure 2E-21, describing signing for collector-distributor roadways
that provide access to multiple interchanges. FHWA proposes this new
section to assist agencies with signing these configurations.
212. In Section 2E.37 (existing Section 2E.44) Freeway-to-Freeway
Interchange, FHWA proposes to change the existing Standard paragraph
regarding splits where the off-route movements to the left to a Support
statement to refer users to Section 2E.23 for the use of the Left Exit
Number plaque. Similarly, FHWA proposes to add a reference to Section
2E.39 and Section 2E.40 for use of Overhead Arrow-per-lane or
Diagrammatic guide signs for freeway splits with an option lane and for
multi-lane freeway-to-freeway exits having an option lane.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard requiring the signing for the
roadway for the off-route to be signed as an exit from the main route,
requiring that signs comply with Section 2E.22 to provide continuity in
exit numbering along the route, and that the distance messages on the
Advance guide signs comply with Section 2E.23. FHWA proposes this
change for signing consistency and continuity in navigational guidance,
which reduces potential confusion to road users, thus improving
operation and safety.
FHWA proposes to delete the Option regarding the omission of the
control city on Pull-Through signs because there is no requirement to
display the control city on a Pull-Through sign.
FHWA proposes to change P8 from an Option to a Guidance statement
to recommend that the Advisory Exit Speed (W13-2) be used where an
engineering study shows that it is necessary. FHWA proposes this change
to be consistent with the same change in Section 2E.31 (existing
Section 2E.48).
Finally, FHWA proposes to delete the Option regarding extra
emphasis of an especially low advisory ramp speed because it is
redundant with Section 2E.25 (existing Section 2E.36).
213. FHWA proposes to add a section numbered and titled, ``Section
2E.38 Freeway Split with Dedicated Lanes,'' to provide Standard and
Guidance paragraphs regarding freeway splits with dedicated lanes to
accompany Figure 2E-24 (existing Figure 2E-34). FHWA proposes this new
section to provide important information about guide signing for
freeway splits with dedicated lanes that was previously implied by
existing 2E.14, but not described in the text.
214. In Section 2E.40 (existing Section 2E.21) Design of Overhead
Arrow-per-Lane Guide Signs for Option Lanes, FHWA revises P2 to clarify
the requirement to use Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs at
``reconstructed'' locations on freeways and expressways. In accordance
with Official Ruling No. 2(09)-5(I),\40\ a ``reconstructed'' location
is defined as one where the replacement of an existing sign support
structure is necessitated by reconstruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 2(09)-5(I), October 22, 2010,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_09_5.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to add an Option statement and accompanying figure
permitting signs indicating destinations to be added along unusually
long gore areas with narrow lane marking tapers. FHWA proposes this to
allow agencies
[[Page 80927]]
to add these signs to reinforce positive guidance.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option permitting the use of warning
beacons with the E13-2 sign panel when used on an Overhead Arrow-per-
Lane guide sign, consistent with similar changes proposed for Exit
Direction signs.
215. In Section 2E.41 (existing Section 2E.22) Design of Freeway
and Expressway Diagrammatic Guide Signs for Option Lanes, FHWA proposes
to add a Standard statement clarifying that it is not allowed to use a
diagrammatic guide sign on the mainline to depict a downstream split of
an exit ramp. FHWA proposes this change to clarify the existing
provisions, which allow only the depiction of the simplified geometric
configuration at the exit departure, but not beyond the bifurcation, to
avoid an undue informational load imposed on road users. FHWA proposes
to include this clarification to address situations that have been
observed in practice.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option permitting the use of warning
beacons with the E13-2 sign panel when used on a Diagrammatic guide
sign, consistent with similar changes proposed for Exit Direction
signs.
As an alternative to these changes, FHWA proposes to delete in its
entirety Section 2E.41 and the concept of Freeway and Expressway
diagrammatic guide signs for option lanes. FHWA offers this alternative
proposal because most States have now had experience implementing
overhead arrow-per-lane signs, which have been shown to be superior to
diagrammatic signs at option lanes, especially for older road users;
and because FHWA also proposes the Partial-Width Overhead Arrow-per-
Lane sign (Section 2E.42), which would allay concerns expressed in
response to the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD regarding excessive sign sizes
or costs at non-major interchange exits with an option lane. This
alternative proposal would retain the diagrammatic sign concept for
conventional roads and for circular roads to show general or relative
direction, but not lane use indicated by lane lines within the
diagrammatic arrow, as diagrammatic signs have been shown to be
ineffective for that purpose. FHWA seeks comment from the public on
this alternative proposal, including the technical merits, advantages
and disadvantages, and comparative cost information.
216. In Section 2E.42 (existing Section 2E.23) Signing for
Intermediate and Minor Interchange Multi-Lane Exits with an Option
Lane, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement as well as revise
existing Guidance statements recommending the use of a modified form of
the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs at exit locations with an
option lane that also carries the through route. FHWA also proposes to
add figures to provide examples. FHWA proposes these revisions to
provide practitioners with provisions to sign this type of exit, which
can often be confusing to road users, in a uniform, consistent manner.
217. In Section 2E.45 (existing Section 2E.34), retitled, ``Next
Exit Plaques (E2-1P, E2-1aP),'' FHWA proposes to delete the Option
statement regarding the Next Exit plaque with one or two lines because
the designs are standardized. In addition, FHWA proposes to incorporate
the Support information regarding the desirable use of the Next Exit
plaque designs into a Guidance statement because the language
establishes a preferred practice.
218. FHWA proposes to add a section numbered and titled, ``Section
2E.48 Post-Interchange Travel Time Sign (E7-4 Series)'' with Support
and Standard paragraphs regarding a new Post-Interchange Travel Time
Sign. FHWA proposes this new sign series because at certain locations
on freeways and expressways it may be more meaningful to road users to
display the travel time rather than the distance to a destination, and
to standardize the sign designs to ensure that an undue informational
load is not imposed on the road user.
219. FHWA proposes to add a section numbered and titled, ``Section
2E.49 Distance and Travel Time Sign and Comparative Travel Time Sign
(E7-5, E7-6)'' with Support, Standard, and Guidance paragraphs
regarding the new Distance and Travel Time Sign (E7-5) and the
Comparative Travel Time Sign (E7-6). FHWA proposes these new signs
because some locations on freeways and expressways might benefit from a
travel time message displayed with the distance or comparative travel
times for alternative routes to a common destination, and to
standardize the sign designs to ensure that an undue informational load
is not imposed on the road user.
220. In Section 2E.50 (existing Section 2E.35), retitled,
``Supplemental Guide Signs (E3 Series),'' FHWA proposes to add a new
Guidance paragraph recommending limiting Supplemental guide signs to
situations where there is a demonstrated need to sign for more than two
primary destinations from an interchange. FHWA proposes this change
because, consistent with the established guidelines for the use of
Supplemental guide signs, most interchanges would not have a need for
Supplemental guide signs, and it is important to limit amount of
information provided to drivers to that which is necessary for basic
navigational purposes.
FHWA also proposes to relocate and revise existing Guidance P5 to
earlier in the section, recommending that Supplemental guide signs
should not be used unless the destination meets the criteria
established by the State or agency policy. FHWA proposes this addition
because use of a policy is important to establishing and retaining
signing consistency and signing is for justified destination only.
FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance to limit the number of
lines of destination information to no more than three, retaining the
limit of the number of destinations to two, consistent with other
destination guide signs.
FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance recommending that a
Supplemental guide sign not be installed in the same location with or
where it would detract from guide signs for a different interchange.
FHWA proposes to add a Standard that prohibits signing more than
four supplemental traffic generator destinations from a single
interchange along the main roadway, consistent with the limitation on
the number of Supplemental guide signs and the number of destinations
allowed on each sign allowed at each interchange.
FHWA proposes to add a Standard that prohibits the installation of
supplemental guide signs at the same location as Advance guide, Exit
Direction, or other signs related to the exit. FHWA adds this Standard
because the function of a Supplemental guide sign is to supplement the
major guide signs at a separate location with non-primary destination
information so as not to increase the informational load displayed on
the Advance guide and Exit Direction signs.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard that classifies guide signs
for recreational or cultural interest destinations as Supplemental
guide signs, except where the interchange provides direct access to
such a destination and is therefore displayed on the Advance guide and
Exit Direction signs.
Finally, FHWA proposes several changes near the end of the section
to reflect the results of a human factors evaluation of pictographs
\41\ that revealed that pictographs are not effective, resulting in
longer or additional glances, or both, toward
[[Page 80928]]
Guide signs on which they are used, and the subsequent termination of
Official Ruling No. 2-650(E).\42\ FHWA proposes to delete the Option
statement allowing pictographs on a Supplemental guide sign and add a
Standard statement that prohibits the use of pictographs on
supplemental guide signs, except for transit system pictographs on the
Park--Ride supplemental guide sign, and add a Guidance statement
regarding the use and size of transit pictograph and the carpool symbol
on the Park-Ride Supplemental guide sign. Finally, FHWA proposes to
delete existing Standards P8, P10, and P11 regarding the use of
pictographs as general conditions on the use of pictographs would be
addressed in Chapter 2A. Since there would be no provision explicitly
allowing use of a pictograph, such use, therefore, would be prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Sports Logo Evaluation Report,'' Perez, W. et al.,
November 2011.
\42\ FHWA Official Ruling No. 2-650(E), ``Sports Team Logos on
Guide Signs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
221. In Section 2E.51 (existing Section 2E.41) retitled,
``Community Interchanges Identification Signs (E9-4 Series, E9-5
Series),'' FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending that
the legend displayed on the Advance Guide and Exit Direction signs for
each interchange should be consistent with the interchange names
displayed on the Community Interchanges Identification sign, and that
the name of the community should not be repeated on the Advance guide
and Exit Direction signs. FHWA proposes this new Guidance to maintain
uniformity in signing for Community Interchanges.
222. In Section 2E.52 (existing Section 2E.42), retitled, ``NEXT XX
EXITS Sign (E9-3 Series),'' FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement
recommending that the legend displayed on the Advance Guide and Exit
Direction signs for each interchange should not display the region or
area name that is displayed on the NEXT XX Exits sign. FHWA proposes
this new Guidance to maintain uniformity in this type of signing and to
reduce the informational load within a guide sign sequence.
223. In Section 2E.53 (existing Section 2E.54) Weigh Station
Signing, FHWA proposes to add Support, Standard, Option and Guidance
statements, as well as a new figure, to provide provisions for the
standard sign sequence for a Weigh Station on an expressway or freeway
to align better with typical signing conventions used on these types of
roadways and to provide flexibility in the legend to allow an alternate
message COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION AREA, where appropriate. These
changes are in concert with proposed changes in Chapter 2D. As part of
these changes, FHWA proposes to delete the existing Standard statement,
since the proposed new text replaces the existing standard.
224. In Section 2E.54 (existing Section 2E.27) Route Signs and
Trailblazer Assemblies, FHWA proposes to delete the Standard statement
regarding the color of the route sign shield for the Interstate Highway
System sign, as the design is standardized and must comply with the
existing provisions of Chapter 2A.
225. In Section 2E.55 (existing Section 2E.28) Eisenhower
Interstate System Signs (M1-10, M1-10a), FHWA proposes to incorporate
the existing Guidance into the Standard that follows. This change is
consistent with the intent of the design of the M1-10a sign, which uses
a letter style designed for facilities that are not part of an
Interstate main roadway or ramps. FHWA believes the M1-10 sign provides
sufficient opportunity for agencies to sign Interstates and agencies
may use this sign in place of the M1-10a sign if they wish to have a
single standard, as the M1-10a sign is not required to be used.
226. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2E.56 Signs for Route Diversion by Vehicle Class'' that includes
Support, Guidance, and Option statements and an associated figure
showing an example of signing for a route diversion based on vehicle
class. FHWA proposes these provisions to create a more uniform approach
to diversion signing based on vehicle class.
227. In Section 2E.57 (existing Section 2E.29) Signs for
Intersections at Grade, FHWA proposes to replace the existing Option
with a paragraph allowing exit numbering to be maintained when a
freeway or expressway route is interrupted by a short segment of at-
grade intersections. FHWA proposes this change because the existing
Option is inconsistent with grade-separated roadway signing principles
and the new Option allows continuity in navigation and signing along
the length of an otherwise grade-separated route.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2F Toll Road Signs
228. As part of the reorganization to improve usability of the
MUTCD, FHWA proposes to include subchapter headings in Chapter 2F to
organize sections into related groupings. FHWA proposes the following
subchapters in Chapter 2F: General, Regulatory Signs, Warning Signs,
and Guide Signs. FHWA proposes to include a list at the beginning of
the section to assist users in finding the appropriate sections.
229. In Section 2F.02, FHWA proposes to retitle the section ``Sizes
of Toll Road Signs and Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) System
Pictographs'' to reflect the proposed relocation of material from
existing Section 2F.04 to this section.
230. In Section 2F.03, FHWA proposes to retitle the section,
``Color'' to reflect the content of the section more accurately.
231. In Section 2F.04 (existing Section 2F.05) Regulatory Signs for
Toll Plazas, FHWA proposes to change Option P8 pertaining to speed
limit sign placement at toll plazas to Guidance to describe the intent
of the provision better.
232. In Section 2F.05 (existing Section 2F.12) retitled,
``Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) Account-Only Regulatory Sign and
Plaque (R3-31, R3-32P),'' FHWA proposes to change the ETC Account-Only
and NO CASH sign designations from auxiliary to regulatory sign and
plaque for consistency with a similar change to toll auxiliary signs.
233. In Sections 2F.06 through 2F.09, FHWA proposes to add the Take
Ticket (W9-6e) Advance Warning sign, Take Ticket (W9-6bP, W9-6gP)
advance warning plaque, Stop Ahead Take Ticket (W9-6f) warning sign,
and Stop Ahead Take Ticket (W9-6hP) warning plaque, respectively. FHWA
proposes these new signs and plaques to provide practitioners with a
standard sign for use on those facilities where tickets are issued to
determine the length of travel for assessing toll fees.
In Sections 2F.06 through 2F.09, FHWA also proposes to delete the
last sentence of the Standard requiring that the legend PAY TOLL shall
be replaced with a suitable legend such as TAKE TICKET where road users
entering a toll ticket facility are issued a toll ticket.
In Sections 2F.06 through 2F.08, FHWA also proposes to add Guidance
that a Take Ticket Advance Warning sign should be installed overhead at
approximately 1 mile and \1/2\ mile in advance of mainline toll plazas
to provide sufficient advance warning to road users of this required
action.
234. In Section 2F.10 retitled, ``LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL Warning
Plaques (W16-16P, W16-16aP),'' FHWA proposes to add a new W16-16aP
plaque as a two-line alternative to the W16-16P plaque. FHWA proposes
this change to provide agencies design flexibility where the plaque is
used above a narrow-width guide sign.
FHWA also proposes to require the Exit Number Plaque, if used, to
be installed above the LAST EXIT BEFORE
[[Page 80929]]
TOLL plaque for numbered exits. FHWA proposes this change to reiterate
and clarify the existing requirements in Chapter 2E for the position of
the Exit Number plaque. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit,
which would not change the existing underlying requirement.
FHWA proposes to delete the Standard, since the design of the W16-
16P is standardized and compliance is required in accordance with the
existing provisions of Chapter 2A.
235. In Section 2F.11 retitled, ``TOLL Warning Plaque (W16-17P),''
FHWA proposes to change the TOLL auxiliary sign from the Marker series
(M4-15) to a warning plaque and change the designation of the sign
accordingly. FHWA proposes this change because the yellow background
with black legend ``TOLL'' is used to call drivers' attention to the
tolled condition of a highway or highway segment to which they are
being guided and is not consistently used in the same manner as an
auxiliary sign.
236. In Section 2F.12 (existing Section 2F.13) Toll Facility and
Toll Plaza Guide Signs--General, FHWA proposes to add an Option to
allow a State Toll Route system sign to be used in lieu of the State
Route sign in combination with the TOLL warning plaque. FHWA proposes
this change to allow those States that have developed a unique Route
Sign design for tolled State highways to continue to use those types of
signs whose designs conform to the prescribed criteria, rather than
requiring a separate auxiliary sign.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard statement requiring State Toll
Route signs to incorporate the word TOLL into its design using the same
letter height, legend, background colors, and overall plaque dimensions
specified for the W16-20P plaque. FHWA proposes this change to maintain
uniform legibility criteria for either method.
In addition, FHWA proposes to supplement an existing Standard
statement prohibiting the modification of Interstate, Off-Interstate,
and U.S. Route signs for tolled facilities. FHWA proposes this change
to maintain uniformity of these signs because they apply to national
systems. FHWA proposes this change as a conforming edit, which would
not change the existing underlying requirement, as modification of
these signs has never been allowed.
FHWA also proposes to modify existing Standard P20 to require,
rather than allow as an Option, the incorporation of the Toll Taker
(M4-17) symbol panel in signs for attended lanes at toll plazas. In
concert with this change, FHWA also proposes changing the Standard for
word messages such as FULL SERVICE, CASH, CHANGE, or RECEIPTS to an
Option to supplement the required symbol panel. FHWA proposes this
change to standardize and use symbols in place of word messages where a
symbol has been developed that provides at least equivalent levels of
comprehension, legibility, and recognition, based on relevant
research.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study: Comprehension
and Legibility of Selected Symbol Signs, Phase III, dated June 2012
is available at the following internet website: https://www.pooledfund.org/details/study/281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a Standard statement requiring the use
of an Overhead-Arrow-Per-Lane Guide sign in advance of a location where
the mainline lanes split to separate traffic entering Open-Road ETC
lanes from lanes entering a toll plaza where other methods of payment
are accepted and an option lane is provided at the split. FHWA proposes
this standard to be consistent with the use of Overhead-Arrow-Per Lane
Guide signs in Chapter 2E where there is a split in the highway with an
option lane.
237. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2F.13 Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) Signs--General,'' that
contains information from paragraphs 9 through paragraph 17 of existing
Section 2F.13.
FHWA also proposes to relocate the existing Option statement
regarding the use of a toll highway by non-registered toll account
program drivers to new Section 2F.18.
238. In Section 2F.17 Guide Signs for Entrances to ETC Account-Only
Facilities, FHWA proposes to relocate and modify an Option statement
from existing Section 2F.18 to permit a separate information sign
displaying the route number, TOLL warning panel, and the legend NO CASH
within the sequence of the advance guide signs on the approach to the
entrance to an ETC Account-Only facility, which is already depicted in
existing Figure 2F-6. FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies
flexibility to use additional advance signing if needed.
FHWA also proposes an Option to allow the Exit Gore signs for
entrance ramps to ETC Account-Only facilities to incorporate the
pictograph of the ETC payment system with the word ONLY in the header
panel or plaque. FHWA proposes this change to allow agencies to
reinforce that an ETC account is required to use the facility.
239. FHWA proposes to add two new sections numbered and titled,
``Section 2F.18 Guide Signs for Entrances to ETC-Only Facilities'' and
``Section 2F.19 Guide Signs for ETC-Only Entrance Ramps to Non-Toll
Highway'' that contain provisions related to guide signs on facilities
that are electronically tolled but do not require an ETC account. FHWA
proposes to add these sections because of the increasing use of ETC-
Only facilities. The proposed new provisions are intended to provide
consistent and uniform signing, much of which is already depicted in
existing figures within this Chapter.
240. In proposed new Section 2F.18, FHWA proposes to include a new
Standard regarding signs used to identify ETC-Only facilities that
collect tolls by post-travel billing of registered vehicle owners
through postal mail, including if an ETC account program registration
is also accepted. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add an
Option allowing the addition of a plaque with the legend NO CASH on
these signs.
FHWA also proposes to include an Option statement providing
flexibility to display pictographs for other accepted ETC toll programs
on separate information signs if the post-travel billing program also
allows payment through those ETC accounts without restriction in the
agencies' primary ETC program.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement for flexibility
regarding signs that may be used to let motorist know if a surcharge is
added to the toll amount for those not registered in toll account
program.
241. In proposed new Section 2F.19, FHWA proposes to add Standard
statement requiring guide signs for these ramps to comply with the
provisions of 2F.18 to ensure consistency in signing between toll
facilities and ramps.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement allowing a NO-TOLL
panel to be included on the top of the Exit Gore sign for an exit that
provides access to the facility without charging a toll to provide
clarification to the drivers.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2G Preferential and
Managed Lane Signs
242. In Section 2G.01 Scope, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard
statement excluding bike lanes from the provisions of the Chapter
unless otherwise provided. FHWA proposes this change because, in
general, information specific to bike lanes is included in Part 9.
243. In Section 2G.03 Regulatory Signs for Preferential Lanes--
General, FHWA proposes to revise Option P14 to
[[Page 80930]]
increase the minimum vertical clearance from 14 feet to 17 feet for
post-mounted preferential lane regulatory signs on a median barrier
where lateral clearance is limited. FHWA proposes this change for
consistency with Standard P15 which references a requirement in Section
2A.18 to provide a 17-foot minimum vertical clearance for overhead
signs that are over the lane or shoulder. FHWA proposes similar changes
in 2G.08, ``Warning Signs on Median Barriers for Preferential Lanes,''
and Section 2G.10, ``Preferential Lane Guide Signs--General.''
FHWA also proposes to delete Option P19 and Standard P20 allowing
the HOV abbreviation or the diamond symbol on signs because all the
standard signs for HOV lanes include the diamond symbol and therefore
the option is not needed.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to relocate paragraphs 23 through 26 from
Section 2G.03 to Section 2G.16.
244. In Section 2G.04 retitled, ``Vehicle Occupancy Definition
Signs (R3-10 Series and R3-13 Series),'' FHWA proposes to remove
Guidance paragraphs 4 and 5, because the legend format of these signs
is standardized and must comply with existing requirements of Chapter
2A.
FHWA also proposes to change the Standards in paragraphs 9 and 10
and add an Option to allow, rather than require, the placement interval
of \1/2\ mile for R3-11a and R3-10 signs along the length of an HOV
lane where access is denied, to provide agencies greater flexibility.
Finally, FHWA proposes to revise the last Guidance statement to
specify that the Preferential Lane regulatory sign sequence spacing of
800 to 1,000 feet is applicable to freeways and expressways and
proposes to recommend that sign spacing on conventional roads should be
determined by engineering judgment based on speed, block length,
distances from adjacent intersections, and other site-specific
considerations. FHWA proposes these changes due to the differences in
types and speeds of conventional roads and the need to provide agencies
with more flexibility to provide appropriate signing based on site-
specific conditions.
245. In Section 2G.05 retitled, ``Preferential Lane Operation Signs
(R3-11 Series, R3-14 Series),'' FHWA proposes to change the Guidance
statement regarding the size of post-mounted R3-11 series signs to a
Support statement to describe why the sizes are standardized.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement regarding increasing
the height of the R3-11 series signs for locations where regulations
are in place more than one time period of the day to accommodate
additional lines of legend.
In addition, FHWA proposes to change the requirement to show 24
HOURS when a preferential lane restriction is in effect on a full-time
basis to an Option. FHWA proposes this change because typically traffic
regulations are assumed to be in effect on a full-time basis. However,
FHWA retains the option to use the 24 HOURS legend because there are
situations where it is necessary to reinforce that a restriction is in
place at all times as part of a change in operation or where several
facilities in the same area have different hours of operation.
FHWA proposes to add a new Option statement that allows the use of
posted mounted Periods of Operation (R3-11 series) signs instead of
overhead Periods of Operation (R3-14 series) signs on conventional
roads with preferential lane operations. FHWA proposes this option to
provide clarity to an existing provision.
FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance P13 recommending the use
of overhead or post-mounted Period of Operations signs at periodic
intervals along the length of a contiguous or buffer-separated
preferential lane where continuous access with the adjacent general-
purpose lanes is provided, because the use of these signs is required a
Section 2G.05 Standard.
Finally, FHWA proposes to delete existing Option P15 regarding the
use of overhead Periods of Operation (R3-14 series) signs at the
beginning or entry points and/or at intermediate points along
preferential lanes on conventional roads, because stating this as an
Option is unnecessary.
246. In Section 2G.07 retitled, ``Preferential Lane Ends Signs (R3-
12a, R3-12b, R3-12c, R3-12d, R3-12g, R3-12h, R3-15b, R3-15c, R3-15e),''
FHWA proposes to specify that the requirements for installing a
Preferential Lane Ends sign \1/2\ mile in advance of the termination of
the lane or where it becomes a general-purpose lane apply specifically
to freeways and expressways. FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance
statement to determine the location of the Preferential Lane Ends sign
on conventional roads based on engineering judgment. FHWA proposes
these changes due to the differences in types and speeds of
conventional roads and to provide agencies with more flexibility to
provide appropriate signing based on site-specific conditions.
247. In Section 2G.11 retitled, ``Signing for Initial Entry Points
to Preferential Lanes,'' FHWA proposes to add a new Standard to require
an Advance Guide sign approximately 1 mile in advance of the entry
point where a general-purpose lane becomes a preferential lane that
does not provide continuous access with the adjacent general-purpose
lanes. FHWA also proposes to require a yellow panel with black legend
and border displaying a down arrow and the word ONLY on the Advance
Guide and Entrance Direction signs and to add a new Figure to
illustrate an example of these signs. FHWA proposes this change to
provide road users with sufficient advance notice to change lanes if
they desire to continue in the general-purpose lanes, consistent with
signing for dropped lanes at interchanges.
FHWA also proposes to indicate that several of the Standards and
Guidance in this section apply to freeways and expressways, because
such provisions are not appropriate for conventional roads.
248. In Section 2G.17 (existing Section 2G.16) Signs for Priced
Managed Lanes--General, FHWA proposes to delete the last Standard
statement regarding the use of the diamond symbol because it is
redundant with the provisions of Section 2G.03.
249. In Section 2G.19 (existing Section 2G.18) Guide Signs for
Priced Managed Lanes, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard statement and
accompanying figure prohibiting the use of ETC-account pictographs on
the primary guide sign directing traffic to the managed lane when
registration in a toll-account program is not required for travel in a
managed lane in which tolls are charged. In such cases, FHWA proposes
that the purple header panel shall be replaced with a warning header
panel with a black legend and border on yellow background displaying
the word TOLL. FHWA proposes this change to provide consistency in
signing for toll facilities where registration is not required for
travel for the purpose of improving traffic efficiency and safety.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option provision allowing the legend
TOLL BILLED BY MAIL ONLY on a separate information sign within the
sequence of primary guide signs in advance of an entrance to the
managed lane if the managed lane does not accept toll payments from an
ETC account system and collects tolls only by post-travel billing of
registered vehicle owners.
FHWA proposes to add another Option allowing pictographs of the
accepted ETC account programs and the
[[Page 80931]]
legend TOLL BILLED BY MAIL on a separate information sign within the
sequence of primary guide signs in advance of an entrance to the
managed lane if the managed lane accepts payments from registered ETC
accounts but does not require registration to use the lane.
250. In new Section 2G.20, Signs for Part-Time Travel on a
Shoulder--General, FHWA proposes to add a Support statement regarding
the general applicability of part-time travel on shoulders and factors
to consider when planning traffic control for such operations. FHWA
also proposes to add a figure showing an example of signing for part-
time travel on a shoulder.
FHWA proposes a Standard stating that shoulders open to travel on a
permanent full-time basis shall be signed and marked as a standard
travel lane to be consistent with other travel lanes open on a full-
time basis and to accommodate the expectancy of road users.
251. In new Section 2G.21, Regulatory Signs and Plaques for Part-
Time Travel on a Shoulder, FHWA proposes a Standard requiring signs and
plaques to notify road users of the periods of operation that travel is
allowed on a paved shoulder. FHWA proposes to require the use of a
Part-Time Travel on Shoulder Operation (R3-51) sign where traffic is
allowed to travel on the shoulder during certain fixed periods of
operation and the use of the Part-Time Travel on Shoulder Variable
Operation (R3-51d) sign with two flashing beacons mounted above it when
the period of operation is variable. FHWA proposes these two signs to
provide road users with specific signing that distinguishes between
fixed period and variable operation, along with beacons to indicate
when use of the shoulders is allowed for variable operation. FHWA also
proposes to require the use of Selective Exclusion plaques to convey
any restriction on certain types of vehicles.
FHWA also proposes an Option to allow an EMERGENCY STOPPING ONLY
OTHER TIMES (R3-51cP) plaque to be mounted below the R3-51 sign if the
Selective Exclusion plaques are not used.
FHWA proposes Guidance recommending the use of the TRAVEL ON
SHOULDER BEGINS \1/2\ MILE (R3-52c) sign be used in advance of the
location where part-time travel on the shoulder first begins followed
by the DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER (R4-17) sign appropriately spaced
downstream in order to provide road users with additional information
regarding the use of the shoulder.
FHWA also proposes a Standard requiring use of the TRAVEL ON
SHOULDER ENDS (R3-52A), END TRAVEL ON SHOULDER (R3-52), and DO NOT
DRIVE ON SHOULDER (R4-17) signs, appropriately sequenced, to indicate
the termination of the shoulder travel allowance. FHWA proposes this
sequence of signs to provide consistency in signing and improve safety
at all locations that allow part-time travel on shoulder by providing a
common understanding of when shoulder travel is no longer allowed.
FHWA also proposes Guidance regarding the BEGIN EXIT LANE (R3-56)
sign, the EMERGENCY STOPPING ONLY (R8-7) sign, and the TO TRAFFIC ON
SHOULDER (R3-57P) plaque used at the beginning of deceleration lanes
where traffic is allowed to enter during the periods that travel is
prohibited on the shoulder, at turnouts provided for emergency stopping
during periods when travel is allowed on the shoulder, and below YIELD
signs where traffic on an entrance ramp is required to yield to traffic
using the shoulder, respectively. FHWA proposes these recommendations
to provide traffic control devices to manage traffic more effectively
in these circumstances.
252. In new Section 2G.22, Warning Signs for Part-Time Travel on a
Shoulder, FHWA proposes Guidance to use the TRAFFIC USING SHOULDER (W3-
9) sign at entrances to freeways and expressways where part-time
shoulder travel is allowed in order to provide adequate warning to
entering traffic.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option to use the W3-9 sign on
conventional roads where traffic that is required to stop for or yield
to the through street or highway on which part-time travel is allowed
on the shoulder, to provide flexibility for this sign's use.
253. In new Section 2G.23, Guide Signs for Part-Time Travel on a
Shoulder, FHWA proposes a Standard that the Advance and Exit Direction
guide signs shall be modified to include a blank-out or changeable EXIT
ONLY message if an interchange lane drop is created during the periods
when a shoulder is open to travel. This is to ensure adequate warning
to road user and create consistency with requirements for such guide
signs in similar lane configurations.
FHWA also proposes a Standard requiring other Guide signs used in
conjunction with these facilities to be compliant with the provision of
Chapters 2D and 2E to ensure consistency of all guide signs on the
roadway.
FHWA also proposes Guidance recommending the use of Emergency Turn-
Out directional signs (D17-6) where turnouts are provided for emergency
stopping to provide road users with notice of where stopping is allowed
in the case of an emergency.
254. In new Section 2G.24, Lane-Use Control Signals for Part-Time
Travel on a Shoulder, FHWA proposes an Option to allow the use of
overhead lane-use control signals to indicate when a shoulder is open
or closed to travel.
FHWA also proposes a Standard that when lane-use control signals
are used for part-time travel on a shoulder, they shall follow the
provisions of Chapter 4T; that lane-use control signals are not
required to be used on adjacent travel lanes; and that a steady red X
signal indication shall be used to close the shoulder to all travel
except emergencies. FHWA also proposes to require that when part-time
travel on a shoulder is allowed for variable periods of operation,
lane-use control signals shall be used and evenly spaced approximately
evenly \1/2\ mile or less and centered over the shoulder to indicate
the status of the shoulder travel allowance. FHWA proposes the use of
the green down arrow during times when travel is allowed on the
shoulder, a yellow X just before the shoulder is to be closed to
travel, and a red X when shoulder travel is discontinued. As part of
this proposal, FHWA proposes to require that during the period when the
shoulder is open to travel, a lane-use control signal that continuously
displays a yellow X be used approximately \1/2\ mile in advance of the
location where part-time travel on the shoulder ends, and then displays
a red X when the travel on shoulder ends. In addition, FHWA proposes to
require the use of a lane-use control signal with a red X display at
all times at the location where part-time travel on the shoulder ends.
For part-time travel on shoulder with variable periods of operation,
FHWA proposes an Option allowing the use of post-mounted TRAVEL ON
SHOULDER ALLOWED WHEN FLASHING (R3-51d) signs with flashing beacons be
used lieu of the lane-use control signals at the same intervals. FHWA
also proposes an Option allowing the use of the TRAVEL ON SHOULDER ON
GREEN ARROW ONLY (R3-51e) sign with a lane-use control signal. The R3-
51e sign may be mounted adjacent to the signal head, elsewhere on the
signal support, or post-mounted next to, or in advance of, the signal.
FHWA proposes these additions to provide consistency with other lane-
use control signal applications.
[[Page 80932]]
255. In new Section 2G.25, Lane-Use Control Signals for Active Lane
Management on Freeway and Expressways, FHWA proposes a Standard that
lane-use control signals used in this application shall be compliant
with the provisions of Chapter 4T to ensure consistency across all
applications to road users.
FHWA also proposes an Option to allow a steady yellow X signal
indication to be displayed on one or more lane-use control signals in
advance of the steady yellow X signal indication required before on the
last signal before the point of lane closure. FHWA proposes this to
provide flexibility where more advance warning of a lane closure ahead
is considered necessary.
FHWA also proposes a Standard that lane-use control signals shall
be used only to supplement temporary traffic control devices when used
during a planned road closure. FHWA proposes this language to clarify
the existing requirement for temporary traffic control devices in this
application as provided for in Part 6 of the MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes Guidance on spacing lane-use control signals at
\1/2\ mile intervals, or closer spacing when certain geometric
conditions exist, or when intervening interchange ramps are not
adequately served by \1/2\-mile spacing. This is to ensure road users
have adequate warning of lane-use restrictions at all times.
FHWA also proposes Guidance to minimize the combining of lane-use
control signals with overhead sign structures. This is proposed to
minimize the informational load on the road user and avoid conflict or
incorrect messaging.
256. In new Section 2G.26, Variable Speed Limits for Active Traffic
Management on Freeways and Expressways, FHWA proposes a Standard
requiring the regulatory speed display on a changeable speed limit
signs comply with Paragraph 2 of Section 2B.22 of the MUTCD. This is
proposed to ensure that variable speed limit sign designs are
consistent across all roadways to improve recognition, which leads to
better traffic operations and increased safety.
FHWA also proposes to add Guidance that the location and
positioning of Variable Speed Limit signs should associate the speed
displayed on them to the lane or lanes intended to be regulated to
avoid potential confusion as to the applicability of the speed limit.
FHWA also proposes Guidance that variable speed limit signs, in
addition to post-interchange placement, should be spaced based on an
engineering study considering multiple factors including known
congestion points to adjust the operating speed to minimize the extent
of vehicle queuing and improve safety.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2H General Information
Signs
257. In Section 2H.01 (existing Section 2H.02) retitled, ``Scope,''
FHWA proposes to add a Standard indicating there are circumstances
where descriptive messages not relevant to navigation and orientation
shall not be included in the legends of General Information signs. This
clarification is needed to ensure that traffic control devices are
employed only for their intended purpose of regulating, warning, and
guiding road users.
FHWA proposes to revise existing P3 to provide an exception for the
color and shape of State Welcome signs, Acknowledgement signs, and
Alternative Fuels Corridor signs, rather than jurisdictional boundary
signs.
FHWA also proposes to re-designate all signs in this Chapter to be
consistent with the alphanumeric designations for all other signs in
the Manual.
258. In Section 2H.02 (existing Section 2H.01) Sizes of General
Information Signs, FHWA proposes to revise the Option allowing sign
sizes to be larger than those contained in Table 2H-1 to add an
exception that larger sizes may not be used where a maximum allowable
size is specified. FHWA proposes this change to restrict the use of
over-sized signs only to those situations where appropriate.
FHWA also proposes to delete the Recycling Collection Center (I-11)
symbol sign from the MUTCD because residential and curbside recycling
make the need for this sign obsolete and separate Recycling Centers,
apart from waste disposal facilities, generally do not exist anymore.
FHWA proposes to relocate existing Standard P14 regarding the
height of a pictograph on a political boundary General Information sign
to new Section 2H.05 to consolidate information in one location.
259. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 2H.03 titled, ``Airport
Signs,'' which contains portions of existing Section 2H.02. FHWA
proposes to add a new Standard prohibiting the use of airport
pictographs or other graphical representation of the specific airport
with or in place of the specific airport name on guide signs. FHWA
proposes this change in concert with similar changes throughout the
Manual based on human factors research 44 45 that
demonstrated observers generally required longer reading times for
signs that added pictographs, while the pictographs themselves did not
improve comprehension of the sign message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ FHWA Official Ruling No. 2-650(E), ``Sports Team Logos on
Guide Signs.''
\45\ ``Sports Logo Evaluation Report,'' Perez, W. et al.,
November 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to change the provision regarding
trailblazer signs from a Standard to Guidance to recommend, and not
require, these signs prior to the airport guide signs. FHWA proposes
this change to make the provisions more flexible in applying
engineering judgment in specific situations.
260. In Section 2H.04 (existing Section 2H.03) Traffic Signal Speed
Sign (I1-1), FHWA proposes to add a new Standard requiring the
electronic-display changeable section of the Traffic Signal Speed sign
to be a white legend on a black opaque or green background. FHWA
proposes this change to provide uniformity for this portion of the
sign, consistent with the provisions for changeable message signs that
allow the background portion of the sign to match the static sign.
FHWA also proposes to remove the Standard describing the minimum
size of the Traffic Signal Speed Sign as that information is contained
in existing Table 2H-1.
261. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2H.05 Jurisdictional Boundary (I2-1) Signs,'' to provide
Option, Guidance, Standard and Support statements specifically related
to Jurisdictional Boundary signs, which are referred to as Political
Boundary signs in the current MUTCD. FHWA proposes this new section in
concert with the proposed change in Section 2H.01 (existing Section
2H.02) to differentiate between State Welcome signs and Jurisdictional
Boundary signs.
262. FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle section 2H.04
Miscellaneous Information Signs (I2-2) to, ``Section 2H.06, Geographic
Feature (I2-2) Sign,'' and to make appropriate sign title changes
throughout this section to have the sign title better align with the
stated intent of these signs, which is to orient road users on the
roadway based on geographic features.
263. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2H.07 State Welcome Signs,'' to provide information regarding
the design, placement, and function of State Welcome signs, which have
a different purpose from Jurisdictional Boundary signs that identify
and mark State lines. The new section contains provisions for
[[Page 80933]]
the location, display, and size of State Welcome signs.
264. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2H.08 Future Interstate Signs (I2-4, I2-4a),'' to provide
provisions for Future Interstate Route and Future Interstate Corridor
signing along an existing route that has been designated to be
reconstructed as an Interstate route or along an existing route
adjacent to a corridor through which an Interstate route will be
constructed. The new section contains provisions for the location,
spacing, and legend of Future Interstate and Future Interstate Corridor
signs. In concert with this change, FHWA amends 23 CFR part 470,
subpart A, appendix C, ``Policy for the Signing and Numbering of Future
Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of the NHS Designation
Act of 1995 or Designated Under 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(4)(B).'' Specifically,
FHWA proposes to delete the existing text of the section entitled,
``Sign Details,'' and instead refer to the MUTCD for any criteria
involving highway signing for this purpose.
265. FHWA proposes to add a new Section numbered and titled,
``Section 2H.09 Project Information Sign (I2-5)'' with Support and
Standard statements related to signs that are used to provide limited
information about ongoing highway construction projects. FHWA proposes
this section to standardize the design and use of signs provided for in
23 CFR 635.309(o). In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to amend
23 CFR 635.309(o) to refer to the MUTCD for any criteria involving
Project Information signs.
266. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2H.10 Grade Separation Identification Signs (I2-43, I2-
43a),'' to provide Option and Guidance on these signs used for
identifying a grade separation from another highway or transportation
facility such as a railway, bikeway, or pathway.
267. In Section 2H.11 (existing Section 2H.05), retitled,
``Reference Location Signs (D10-1 through D10-3) and Intermediate
Reference Location Signs (D10-1a through D10-3a),'' FHWA proposes to
revise the Option to indicate that Intermediate Reference Location
(D10-1a to D10-3a) signs may also be installed at two tenths of a mile
or one-half mile intervals.
FHWA also proposes to delete two Standard Statements in this
section describing the sign design requirements as these designs are
standardized and must comply with the existing provisions of Chapter
2A.
268. In Section 2H.12 (existing Section 2H.06), retitled,
``Enhanced Reference Location Signs (D10-4) and Intermediate Enhanced
Reference Location Signs (D10-5),'' FHWA proposes to add a Standard
statement to clarify that the display of a decimal point and zero
numeral is required on Intermediate Enhanced Reference Location (D10-5)
signs used at the integer mile point. FHWA proposes this addition to
improve recognition of the sign message through the use of a consistent
numbering nomenclature and provide consistency with the same
requirement in Section 2H.10 for Reference Location Signs (D10-4) and
Intermediate Reference Location Signs (D10-5).
FHWA also proposes to remove the allowance of blue background
enhanced reference location signs, requiring them to be green, to
establish uniformity.
FHWA also proposes to remove the sign design provisions for these
signs as the designs are standardized and are required to comply with
the existing provisions of Chapter 2A.
269. FHWA proposes to relocate Section 2H.07, ``Auto Tour Route
Signs,'' to Chapter 2D and combine with Section 2D.57, ``State-
Designated Scenic Byway, Historic Trail, and Auto Tour Route Signs.''
270. In Section 2H.13 (existing Section 2H.08) retitled,
``Acknowledgment Signs and Plaques (I20 Series),'' FHWA proposes
several revisions to reflect FHWA Order No. 5160.1 A,\46\ that cancels
FHWA Order 5160.1,\47\ both of which are related to FHWA Policy on
Sponsorship Acknowledgement and Agreements within the Public Right-of-
Way. FHWA proposes this change to minimize the number of additional
signs and informational load imposed on road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ FHWA Order 5160.1A, issued April 7, 2014, can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/51601a.cfm.
\47\ FHWA Order 5160.1, issued March 13, 2012, can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/51601.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to change the Guidance related to acknowledgment sign
policy provisions to a Standard to ensure sign design and placement of
these signs does not conflict with other provisions in the MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard requiring that Acknowledgment
signs and plaques have a white legend on a blue background and be
independent post-mounted roadside installations only and not be
overhead-mounted. This change is proposed to ensure these signs are
consistent with other service type signs and maintain their purpose of
acknowledging sponsors of services only.
FHWA proposes to add an Option allowing new Rest Area and Welcome
Center Acknowledgement signs (I20-4 and I20-4a) that provides the name
of the rest area and welcome center sponsor. In concert with this
change, FHWA proposes a new Standard prohibiting the names or
representations of specific products or services provided by the
sponsor within the rest area to be included on the sign. FHWA also
proposes to add a Standard prohibiting the use of program names or
slogans on rest area guide signs or other traffic control devices.
FHWA proposes to revise the Standard paragraph regarding
acknowledgment signs and plaque designs to include additional
provisions related to orientation, dimension, area of the sign, and
sizing the sign based on standard sizes specified in Table 2I-1. FHWA
proposes these changes so that the MUTCD provisions for these signs are
consistent with FHWA Order 5160.1A \48\ and sign size requirements
established earlier in this Chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ FHWA Order 5160.1A, issued April 7, 2014, can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/51601a.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes an Option paragraph allowing for the name of the
municipality or neighborhood in which the sponsoring outlet of a
business is located if there are multiple locations in the same area.
FHWA proposes this change to allow for the acknowledgment of the
specific franchisee in cases in which the corporation itself is not the
sponsor.
FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting Acknowledgement plaques
to be mounted below General Service signs to acknowledge a sponsor of a
corridor- or region- based highway-related service including Radio-
Weather Information (D12-1), Radio-Traffic Information (D12-1a), TRAVEL
INFO CALL 511 (D12-5 and D12-5a), and Roadside Assistance (D12-6)
signs. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes Standard paragraphs
prohibiting the installation of an Acknowledgment plaque in conjunction
with other signs or traffic control devices and limiting the legend
that can be displayed on an Acknowledgment plaque.
271. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2H.14 Alternative Fuels Corridor Sign'' to provide Standard,
Option, Guidance,
[[Page 80934]]
and Support provisions for the use of Alternative Fuels Corridor signs.
FHWA also proposes new Figures 2H-9 and 2H-10 to illustrate Alternative
Fuels Corridor Sign Assembly examples and an Alternative Fuels Corridor
Signing layout example, respectively. This section adds the provisions
of FHWA policy memorandum entitled, ``MUTCD--Signing for Designated
Alternative Fuels Corridors,'' dated December 21, 2016.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ FHWA Policy Memorandum, ``MUTCD--Signing for Designated
Alternative Fuels Corridors,'' issued December 21, 2016, can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/alt_fuel_corridors/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2I General Service Signs
272. In Section 2I.02 General Service Signs for Conventional Roads,
FHWA proposes a new Standard paragraph limiting the use of the Hospital
sign to facilities that operate on a full-time basis. FHWA proposes
this change to accommodate the expectation of road users that a
hospital operates on a full-time basis. In concert with this change,
FHWA proposes an Option paragraph allowing the Emergency Medical
Services sign to be used for medical care facilities that operate only
on a part-time basis.
273. In Section 2I.03 General Service Signs for Freeways and
Expressways, FHWA proposes a new Guidance paragraph recommending the
use of D9-18 or D9-18a signs for numbered interchanges. FHWA also
proposes new Support and Option statements regarding motorist
expectations for facilities providing alternative fuels, as well as
policy criteria for alternative fuel vehicles to address issues
specific to alternative fuel vehicles.
FHWA also proposes to change the Standard requiring sign space be
left blank for future services to a Guidance to provide agencies with
greater flexibility based on the agency's knowledge of local
conditions.
274. In Section 2I.04 retitled, ``Interstate Oasis Signing (D5-12
Series),'' FHWA proposes to delete the Guidance recommending that names
or logos of businesses designated as Interstate Oasis not be included
in the Interstate Oasis sign and instead proposes to add a new Option
permitting the name of the business designated as an Interstate Oasis
to be provided below the Interstate Oasis legend on the D5-12 sign if
Specific Service signing is not used at the interchange. FHWA proposes
this change based on experience with signing for the Interstate Oasis
areas and recognizing that it may be appropriate to include business
names.
FHWA proposes to delete Guidance text indicating that Interstate
Oasis signs should have a white legend with a letter height of at least
10 inches and a white border on a blue background as the designs of
these signs are standardized and must comply with the existing
provisions of Chapter 2A.
FHWA proposes to delete the Interstate Oasis symbol panel, along
with the related Standard, based on poor comprehension of the symbol
and the fact that no State currently uses the symbol.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new Interstate Oasis Directional
(D5-12b) sign to provide road users the direction and distance to the
Interstate Oasis from an exit ramp.
275. In Section 2I.08, retitled, ``Tourist Information and Welcome
Center Signs (D5-7 Series, D5-8),'' FHWA proposes to revise the
Guidance statement regarding the supplemental signs installed with
Tourist Information or Welcome Center signs to suggest limiting the
number of supplemental sign panels to three (3). FHWA proposes this
change for consistency with other provisions in Part 2 related to the
amount of information on a sign legend and driver comprehension, thus
minimizing the informational load imposed on drivers.
276. In Section 2I.09, retitled, ``Radio Information Signing (D12-1
Series),'' FHWA proposes to add two new signs: (1) A Radio-Traffic
Information (D12-1a) sign and (2) an Urgent Message When Flashing (D12-
1bP) plaque. FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement allowing the
Urgent Message When Flashing plaque to be mounted below a D12-1 or D12-
1a sign when supplemented by warning beacons that flash only when a
message related to adverse travel conditions is being broadcast. FHWA
proposes these changes to provide additional signs that may be
beneficial to agencies that provide radio services. As discussed in the
following two items, FHWA proposes to create two new sections that
contain material from existing Section 2I.09 to assist practitioners
better in finding information.
277. FHWA proposes add a new section, numbered and titled,
``Section 2I.10 Channel 9 Monitored Sign (D12-3)'' containing existing
Option and Standard statements from Section 2I.09 pertaining to the
Channel 9 Monitored Sign (D12-3).
278. FHWA proposes a new section, numbered and titled, ``Section
2I.11 EMERGENCY CALL XX Sign (D12-4)'' containing an existing Option
statement from Section 2I.09 pertaining to the EMERGENCY CALL XX Sign
(D12-4).
279. In Section 2I.12 (existing Section 2I.10), ``TRAVEL INFO CALL
511 Signs (D12-5, D12-5a),'' FHWA proposes to revise the Option
statement to allow a pictograph of the transportation agency, or the
travel information service or program to be displayed in place of the
TRAVEL INFO CALL 511 legend on the D12-5a sign. This is proposed to
provide agencies greater flexibility in program identification.
FHWA also proposes to delete the Guidance paragraph related to the
maximum pictograph height and add a new Standard establishing the
maximum height of the transportation agency or travel information
service or program pictograph to be the height of the 511 pictograph
that would otherwise be used on the D12-5a sign for the type of roadway
it is located. FHWA proposes this change to provide uniformity in the
size of travel information signing.
280. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2I.13 Roadside Assistance Sign (D12-6),'' which would permit
the use of a new Roadside Assistance sign along a highway that is
served by an authorized road assistance program with authorized service
vehicles and personnel that provide roadside vehicle repair assistance
to road users free of charge. FHWA proposes this change to provide
agencies with a consistent sign that would be recognized by road users.
281. In Section 2I.14 (existing Section 2I.11), retitled, ``Carpool
and Ridesharing Signing (D12-2),'' FHWA proposes to revise the existing
Standard to add a maximum horizontal dimension of 30 inches for
consistency with similar applications to maintain primacy of other more
critical signs.
FHWA also proposes to remove the existing Guidance pertaining to
legend, border, and background colors as the design requirements of
this sign are standardized and must comply with the existing provisions
of Chapter 2A.
282. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2I.15 Signing for Truck Parking Availability (D9-16b through
D9-16e),'' with Option, Standard, Support, and Guidance statements, as
well as two new figures, related to the use of Truck Parking
Availability General Service signs that may be used to display the
number of available truck parking spaces at roadside areas such as rest
areas, welcome centers, and weigh stations, and at facilities off a
highway that are open to the public and provide parking for commercial
vehicles.
[[Page 80935]]
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2J Specific Service Signs
283. FHWA proposes to replace ``logo'' with ``business
identification'' signs throughout Chapters 2J and 2K to recognize that
a word legend can and often is used in lieu of a logo to identify the
business on the Specific Service sign. This generally occurs when the
business to be identified does not have a logo, their logo is not
widely recognized, or their logo is otherwise unsuitable for display on
the sign. The reclassification does not change the allowance for a
business or service provider to use a corporate logo on a Specific
Service sign.
284. In Section 2J.01 Eligibility, FHWA proposes to delete the 24-
hour Pharmacy Specific Service category because there has been little
demand and most pharmacies that did obtain a logo on a Specific Service
sign have since withdrawn from the associated agency program. Instead,
the 24-hour pharmacy would remain as General Service only. FHWA also
proposes to remove references to 24-hour pharmacies from Section 2J.02.
FHWA also proposes to remove alternative fuels from the
qualifications for a GAS business identification sign panel to
eliminate any potential driver expectancy confusion should a facility
offer one or more of the many alternative fuels only and not gasoline.
FHWA also proposes to change existing Guidance P10 to Standard,
because it is important for States to have a statewide policy for
Specific Signing for the program to be successfully implemented in a
consistent manner. Such policies already exist in a majority of the
States.
285. In Section 2J.02 Application, FHWA proposes to delete 24-hour
Pharmacy Specific Service category from Standard P2 because there has
been little demand and most pharmacies that did obtain a logo on a
Specific Service sign have since withdrawn from the associated agency
program. FHWA also proposes to revise existing P2 to address the
display of distances explicitly to eligible facilities on the Specific
Service signs on the approach to the interchange. While this practice
has never been allowed, FHWA proposes this language to provide
clarification based on the results of official experimentation and
studies demonstrating that the display of distances requires too much
time to read and reduces the effectiveness of these signs.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard statement prohibiting the
inclusion of business identification sign panels for alternative fuel
facilities on GAS Specific Service Signs for those facilities that
offer only alternative fuels, but not gasoline. This addition is
because driver expectancy for businesses on the GAS sign is that the
business sells gasoline, even if one of the several alternative fuels
might also be available. In concert with this change, FHWA also
proposes to add a Support paragraph identifying the option to sign for
alternative fuel facilities with General Service signs and directing
users to Chapter 2I for more information on those provisions.
FHWA also proposes Standard, Guidance, and Support statements
limiting the allowable number of business identification sign panels
for each Specific Service to six and recommending that when there are
more than six eligible facilities for one or more categories of
service, General Service signs for those services should be used
instead. The proposed Support statement explains that Specific Service
signs are intended for areas primarily rural in character, and that
when services at an interchange are abundant, the character of the area
is no longer primarily rural and the need to identify specific types or
brands of facilities is generally unnecessary and General Service signs
would be more appropriate.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending that
the ATTRACTION Specific Service sign should have no more than four
business identification sign panels. FHWA proposes to explain in the
Support statement that, because of the considerable variation in the
types of attractions found on these signs, and the fact that many do
not include well known services or national logos, it is generally more
difficult and requires significantly more time to decipher between
types of attractions shown on an ATTRACTION sign than for other
categories of Specific Service signs where the types of facilities are
more uniform.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing Standard P3 to clarify that
configurations or arrangements of logo sign panels other than those
listed are not allowed.
FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance and a new Option statement
recommending that if a service is no longer available from an
interchange or intersection, then the legend displaying the service
type and direction information should be removed, or may only be
covered if there is indication that this service may become available
in the near future. This is proposed so that the road user does not
misinterpret the sign as indicating that this type of service is still
available, similar to the message on a General Service sign.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 2J-1 to illustrate an
example of General Service Signs in Conjunction with Specific Service
Signs.
286. In Section 2J.03 Logos and Business Identification Sign
Panels, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending that
graphic or trademarked logos used on a logo sign panel should be
consistent with the on-premise business identification signs at the
location of the business that are visible from the roadway. FHWA
proposes this recommendation to provide consistency between the logo
sign panel and the signing on the business and accommodate driver
expectancy and positive guidance.
FHWA also proposes to delete the Option allowing the border to be
omitted where business identification symbols or trademarks are used
alone for a logo. FHWA proposes this change to ensure consistent
apparent size and visibility of the individual logos.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard regarding supplemental
messages on logo sign panels to prohibit specifically additional
amenities or products unrelated to the service category because those
items are considered promotional advertising. FHWA proposes this
revision to clarify the existing provisions, which do not allow for
such messages.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard explicitly prohibiting the
display of messages related to the promotion or availability of logo
space on Specific Service signs.
Further, FHWA proposes to add an Option to clarify that
supplemental messages identifying an alternative fuel available may be
added only to the business identification sign panels on the GAS
Specific Services sign for a gas facility that provides that
alternative fuel in addition to, rather than in lieu of, gasoline. FHWA
proposes this change as a clarification of the Option provision
allowing supplemental messages for essential motorist information and
to accommodate driver expectancy of the nature of the services
displayed.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Guidance provision regarding the
legend and background colors of the supplemental messages, recommending
they be a black legend on a yellow background for that portion of the
business identification sign panel. FHWA proposes this change to make
it easier for motorists to recognize supplemental information that is
critical to their decision making.
[[Page 80936]]
FHWA also proposes to delete the Option and Standard for the
alternative circular RV ACCESS supplemental message to standardize the
RV ACCESS supplemental message for consistency.
Finally, FHWA proposes to revise the Standard regarding business
identification sign panel displays to prohibit a panel from displaying
more than one name or identification logo/trademark for the same
business and to prohibit marketing slogans. This Standard also does not
allow a sign panel to be used to display messages related to the
promotion or availability of adding a business identification sign
panel. FHWA proposes this change because promotional advertising is not
allowed on traffic control devices.
287. In Section 2J.06 Signs at Interchanges, FHWA proposes a
revision to the Standard indicating that Specific Service signs shall
not be used at freeway-to-freeway interchanges, except at ramps that
also provide access to a conventional road within that interchange.
FHWA proposes this to ensure drivers are not confused by indicating a
service is available on the freeway itself.
To complement the existing Guidance providing recommended minimum
spacing between Specific Service ramp signs, FHWA also proposes
recommended minimum spacing between Specific Service ramp signs and
other signs along the ramp. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that
adequate spacing between critical destination, warning, and regulatory
signs along the ramp is maintained.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 2J-6 to illustrate an
example of Specific Services Signing for a Conventional Road Accessed
within a Freeway-to-Freeway Interchange.
288. In Section 2J.07 Single-Exit Interchanges, FHWA proposes to
revise Standard P2 to clarify that the provision applies only to those
ramps that allow a traffic to turn in either direction of the
crossroad. FHWA proposes this clarification to provide greater
flexibility to agencies by not requiring the ramp signs when the ramp
requires all traffic to turn in one direction of the crossroad,
resulting in cost savings to agencies and participating businesses.
FHWA proposes to change the Guidance statement to an Option
statement to allow, rather than recommend that Specific Service ramp
signs display distances to a facility when not visible from the ramp
intersection. FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies greater
flexibility in determining whether to display the distance on Specific
Service ramp signs.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement that recommends
distances of less than \1/4\ mile, when displayed, be displayed to the
nearest \1/10\ mile.
Finally, FHWA proposes to delete the Option allowing the use of an
exit number plaque on Specific Service signs in advance of an
interchange, because the standardized sign already contains the exit
number.
289. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 2J.09 Collector-Distributor Roadways for Successive
Interchanges,'' to include Support, Guidance, and Standard statements
regarding signing for a collector-distributor roadway that provides
access to multiple interchanges. This proposal includes requirements
and recommendation on the number and location of signs based on the
number of service facilities available at the multiple interchanges.
FHWA proposes this new Section to address the application of mainline
Specific Service signing when more than one interchange is accessed
from the collector-distributor roadway.
FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 2J-7 to illustrate an example of
Specific Services Signing from Collector-Distributor Road.
290. In Section 2J.11 (existing Section 2J.10) Signs at
Intersections, FHWA proposes to delete Standard P1 that requires that
the specific service information be incorporated into the tourist-
oriented directional signs at intersections on conventional roads or
expressways when both tourist-oriented directional signs and Specific
Service signs are needed. FHWA proposes removing this requirement to
provide agencies the flexibility to provide continuity of information
on these sign types as may be expected by road users. FHWA also
proposes to add Guidance recommending that sufficient space be provided
between these different types of signs used at the same intersection so
that the road user is not overloaded with information, and a
requirement that if sufficient space is not available to add these
signs to the other guide, warning, and regulatory signs that either or
both of these service sign types shall not be used.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Guidance to remind users that the
use of Specific Service signs in non-rural or conventional roadways is
subject to an engineering study in compliance with Section 2J.01.
291. In renumbered Section 2J.12 Signing Policy, FHWA proposes to
change to a Standard the recommendation that each highway agency that
elects to use Specific Service signs establish a general signing policy
and add a requirement for a Statewide policy on the eligibility of
service providers. FHWA proposes this change to ensure that States have
a policy on eligible businesses for their Specific Service sign program
that provides businesses equitable and consistent qualifications for
signs, thereby meeting road user expectations while maintaining the
recommendations on minimum sign policy criteria to be considered.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2K Tourist-Oriented
Directional Signs
292. In Section 2K.01 Purpose and Application, FHWA proposes to
revise the requirement in Standard P4 to clarify that tourist-oriented
directional signs shall be limited to use on rural highways. FHWA also
proposes to change the terminology from ``rural conventional roads'' to
``rural highways'' to match that used for such facilities as provided
in Section 1C.02 for clarity.
FHWA also proposes to delete the requirement in Standard P5 that
the specific service information be incorporated into the tourist-
oriented directional signs at intersections on conventional roads or
expressways when both tourist-oriented directional signs and Specific
Service signs are needed. This is proposed for consistency with the
removal of the same requirement in Section 2J.11 (existing Section
2J.10).
293. In Section 2K.02 Design, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard
requiring recreational and cultural interest area symbols to be white
on a brown background. In addition, business identification sign panels
shall not exceed 24 inches in width and 15 inches in height. FHWA
proposes these requirements to comply with sign colors as required in
Chapter 2A and ensure the business identification sign panels are
proportional in size with a tourist-oriented sign.
294. In Section 2K.04 Arrangement and Size of Signs, FHWA proposes
to change the Guidance regarding the maximum number of signs installed
in each assembly from four to three to be consistent with guidance
provided in Section 2E.10 that no more than two destination names or
street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit
Direction sign, and consistency with research completed by the Quebec
Ministry of Transport \50\ that
[[Page 80937]]
found road users cannot adequately process the information when more
than three destination panels are present in a sign assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The research report can be viewed at the following internet
website: http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2010/docs/j4/audet.pdf. Discussion of Proposed
Amendments to Chapter 2L Changeable Message Signs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
295. In Section 2L.01 Description of Changeable Message Signs, FHWA
proposes to add a paragraph to the Support statement to clarify that
Changeable Message Signs (CMS) are traffic control devices, and
therefore fundamental principles for the design and application apply,
regardless of the type of message. The statement further explains that
Chapter 2L is not a stand-alone chapter and criteria and use of
engineering processes in other areas of the MUTCD also apply to CMS.
FHWA proposes to relocate and revise Standard P3 to Section 2L.02,
because this language applies to the applications of CMS and not the
description of them.
FHWA proposes to add a new Standard prohibiting information other
than inventory or maintenance-related information from being displayed
on the front or back of a CMS or portable CMS. This prohibition also
includes names or logos of the manufacturer either in the message
display or on the exterior housing. FHWA proposes this change to ensure
the traffic control messages displayed on these signs are not
compromised by other miscellaneous or promotional information,
consistent with the provisions for all traffic control devices.
296. In Section 2L.02 Applications of Changeable Message Signs,
FHWA proposes to relocate and revise Standard P3 from Section 2L.01
because this language applies to the applications of CMS and not the
description of them. As part of the revisions, FHWA proposes to clarify
that CMS are to display only information as provided for in this
chapter and other types of messages not related to traffic control and
not provided for in this chapter shall not be displayed on CMS. FHWA
proposes this additional language to promote uniformity in the use of
CMS and to discourage the use CMS to display messages not provided for
in the MUTCD, ensuring that the CMS adhere to the basic principles of
an effective traffic control device that are stated in the existing
provisions of Part 1.
FHWA also proposes to change existing Option P2 to a Guidance and
move the statement earlier in this section to clarify the types of
messages to be used on CMS in support of the proposed Standard
relocated from Section 2L.01.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance statement recommending
that CMS not be used in place of static guide sign messages except for
blank-out type signs used to display regulatory, warning, and guidance
information that routinely reoccurs but only on a part-time basis. In
addition, only elements of a sign that are subject to change should be
in an electronic display. FHWA proposes these changes to help ensure
consistency in sign design by controlling the potential variability of
information that should not change on a sign.
In addition, FHWA proposes to delete Support Item D, messages
pertaining to control at crossing situations, from the list of types of
messages for which CMS are applicable. FHWA proposes this change,
because ``control at crossings'' is not well understood and such
messages would be covered under the other more general categories
within the list, such as ``Warning situations'' or ``Traffic
regulations.''
FHWA proposes to change existing Guidance P3 to a Standard to
require that agencies that have permanently installed or positioned CMS
have a policy regarding their use and the display of all types of
messages used on CMS. Such policies shall define the types of messages
that would be allowed, the priority of messages, the syntax of
messages, the timing of messages, and other important messaging
elements to ensure messages displayed meet the basic principles that
govern the design and use of traffic control devices in general and
traffic signs in particular as provided for in the MUTCD. In concert
with this change, FHWA proposes that State and local agencies that use
CMS that are not permanently installed or positioned should develop and
establish a similar policy. FHWA proposes these changes in order to
ensure urgent and real-time traffic operational and safety messages
developed to address varying roadway and traffic conditions are easily
understood, timely, and relevant.
FHWA proposes to include recommendations specific to the display of
AMBER alerts, including limiting the length of messages, and details,
such as description of persons, vehicles or license plate numbers. In
addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard paragraph prohibiting
other ``alert'' messages that are not related to traffic or travel
conditions that are not otherwise permitted in P2. FHWA proposes this
to emphasize that AMBER alert messages are a result of a statutory
requirement and are the only ``alert'' exception to the statute that
requires traffic control devices to be related to traffic control.
FHWA also proposes to revise Support P4 to clarify examples of
acceptable traffic safety campaign supporting and transportation-
related messages.
FHWA also proposes to add new Guidance and Standard paragraphs
regarding the appropriate and allowable use of traffic safety campaign
messages on CMS displays. FHWA proposes this new language to clarify
that safety and transportation-related messages should be clear and
direct, and meaningful to the road user on the roadway that the message
is displayed. FHWA recommends that messages with obscure meaning,
references to popular culture, that are intended to be humorous, or
otherwise use nonstandard syntax, not be displayed because they can be
misunderstood or understood only by a limited segment of road users
and, therefore, degrade the overall effectiveness of the sign as an
official traffic control device. FHWA proposes in the Standard that
only traffic safety campaign messages that are part of an active,
coordinated safety campaign that uses other media forms as its primary
means of outreach be displayed on CMS. Based on the widely varying
views that have been expressed on the topic of uses of CMS and message
content, including the use of unconventional syntax and humor, FHWA
requests that commenters provide sufficient detail and explanation of
how their position would maintain the uniformity and effectiveness of
CMS for their intended purpose of displaying real-time traffic
regulatory, warning, or guidance information. FHWA requests that
commenters address, in particular, the use of CMS for messages outside
the scope of traffic-related messages, such as those that are intended
only to modify driver behavior, the frequency and extent of use for
this purpose, and its overall effect on the efficacy of traffic
messages when displayed. Specific references should be made to the
proposed MUTCD text and the explanation provided in this document. In
addition, FHWA requests that commenters provide supporting objective
and empirical data, such as those from human factors evaluations,
engineering studies, and similar nonsubjective assessments.
FHWA also proposes Support, Standard, and Guidance statements
regarding the use of messages related to homeland security and
emergencies that affect traffic patterns, movement, or present other
situations that are atypical. FHWA proposes these statements to provide
provisions for messaging on CMS for such events
[[Page 80938]]
while maintain the integrity of and respect for CMS as a traffic
control device.
FHWA also proposes to add Guidance that safety campaigns using CMS
should include coordinated enforcement efforts when penalties or
enforcement warnings are part of the CMS message displayed to road
users. FHWA proposes this to maintain the credibility of these signs
and improve safety.
297. In Section 2L.03 Legibility and Visibility of Changeable
Message Signs, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement specifying
that changeable message regulatory and warning signs displayed
individually or as part of the legend of a larger sign should conform
to the minimum size requirements as the static versions of those signs.
FHWA also proposes to add a Figure illustrating an example. FHWA
proposes this change to ensure that all components of a sign legend's
legibility are maintained for all road users.
298. FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section 2L.04 to
``Design Characteristics of Messages,'' to describe better the content
of the section.
FHWA proposes to add a new Standard paragraph requiring portable
CMS used as an arrow board with flashing or sequential display for a
lane closure to conform with provisions in Section 6F.61. FHWA proposes
this change for consistency of device operation used for the same
application, because a CMS used in this manner is operating as an arrow
board, which is allowed to have dynamic display.
FHWA proposes to add a new Standard paragraph requiring all message
displays on CMS, whether for regulatory, warning, or guidance
information on traffic operations, or for other allowable message types
as defined in the section, follow the same design and display
principles found in the MUTCD used for other traffic control signs,
except as provided elsewhere in this chapter. FHWA proposes this
Standard to promote uniformity in the display of CMS and maintaining
its effectiveness as a traffic control device.
FHWA also proposes to provide Guidance that warning beacons should
not be used on CMS for the purpose of drawing attention to certain
types of messages over others, but instead should be limited to those
messages that are critical to real-time conditions on a more frequent
basis. FHWA proposes this provision to ensure that CMS maintain the
same level of respect of road users expected of all traffic control
devices at all times, regardless of message being displayed.
FHWA also proposes to revise Guidance P6 regarding CMS word message
lettering heights to clarify what types of CMS the letter heights apply
to, and to clarify that the provisions do not apply to blank-out signs.
FHWA also proposes to change existing Guidance P15 regarding legend
color when there is a black background to a Standard for sign
consistency since changeable message signs can accommodate multiple
colors.
FHWA also proposes to delete the last sentence of Support P17
regarding newer technologies of CMS and add reference to a new figure
that provides a comparative example of the effects of varying pixel
densities.
FHWA also proposes to revise Guidance P18 to recommend where an LED
matrix is used to form the changeable legend, signs with pixel spacing
greater than 20mm should display only word legends, and no symbols or
route shields. FHWA proposes this change based on a review of
manufacturer products and visual inspections of the appearance of
legends on these types of signs, which indicate that these signs do not
provide adequate resolution to display symbols with sufficient clarity
for road user instant recognition and therefore should only be use for
word messages.
299. In Section 2L.05 Message Length and Units of Information, FHWA
proposes to revise Standard P4 to clarify that when a CMS contains more
than one message phase, each phase shall be communicated so that the
road user may understand each phase by itself regardless of the
sequence in which it is read, and the message shall have the same
meaning regardless of the sequence it is read. FHWA proposes this
change, because it is important that road users be able to understand
the intent of the message if they can only read one of the phases or
when the phases are read in different order.
FHWA proposes to delete Standard P5 since the text is already
covered in Section 2L.04.
FHWA proposes to change Guidance P8 to an Option to clarify that
adding additional CMS is an option available to agencies for displaying
longer messages that would require more than two phases, which is the
most number of phases allowed on a CMS.
FHWA proposes to change and relocate Guidance P9 regarding
abbreviations within a CMS message to a Standard. FHWA proposes this
change because the provisions contained in the referenced Section are
Standards.
FHWA also proposes to add a Support paragraph that provides
reference to two proposed new tables that list examples of message
construction for CMS. FHWA proposes these tables to ensure that message
recognition, comprehension, and effectiveness is maintained for all
road users.
300. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2L.06 Frequency of Display of Messages.'' In this new section, FHWA
proposes Support and Guidance paragraphs to address the potential for
habituation to changeable message signs due to excessive use for the
display of messages that are not related to real-time traffic
conditions.
301. FHWA proposes a new Section 2L.07 titled, ``Travel Time
Messages.'' In this new Section, FHWA proposes a Guidance paragraph
limiting the number of travel times displayed to one when destination
and distance are used as the point of reference, also proposing an
Option to display up to two travel times when reference-location-based
exit numbering is used as the point of reference in place of
destination and distance. FHWA proposes this new Section based on the
established principles regarding informational load and the road user's
ability to process information while operating a vehicle in traffic.
302. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
2L.08 Traffic Safety Campaign Messages.'' In this new section, FHWA
proposes Support, Guidance, and Standard paragraphs describing the
display of traffic safety campaign messages as an ancillary use of CMS.
FHWA proposes a Guidance paragraph recommending that traffic safety
campaign messages be coordinated with the national safety campaigns on
NHTSA's communications calendar. Lastly, FHWA proposes a Standard
paragraph that requires traffic control messages to have primacy over
traffic safety campaign messages. FHWA proposes this new Section to
ensure that CMS be used only for their intended purpose and that
traffic-related messages take precedence over other types of allowable
messages.
303. In Section 2L.09 (existing Section 2L.06) retitled, ``Location
of Permanent Changeable Message Signs,'' FHWA proposes to add a Support
paragraph that provides reference to factors that should be considered
when deciding on proposed locations for CMS. FHWA proposes this change
as proper location of signs helps ensure that message recognition,
comprehension, and sufficient reaction time is maintained for all road
users.
[[Page 80939]]
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2M Recreational and
Cultural Interest Area Signs
304. In Section 2M.02 Application of Recreational and Cultural
Interest Area Signs, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard paragraph
requiring that standard symbols prescribed outside of this section
within the Manual that are used on a roadway outside of a recreational
and cultural interest area shall use the design and size as prescribed.
FHWA proposes this change to clarify existing standards that prohibit
the use of alternative symbol signs. The legend and color of the sign
shall be as prescribed for the standard symbol sign. In concert with
that change, FHWA proposes to add a table, referenced in the Support
statement, that indicates which symbols are for use only within
recreational and cultural interest area facilities.
305. In Section 2M.04 General Design Requirements for Recreational
and Cultural Interest Area Symbol Guide Signs, FHWA proposes to add two
new Standard statements requiring that symbols contained in Chapters 2H
and 2I used in conjunction with recreational and cultural interest area
signing on roadways outside a recreational and cultural interest
facility shall have the legend and background color of the symbol sign
as prescribed in those respective chapters. FHWA proposes this change
as a clarification that the standard colors for General Information and
General Service signs are applicable even when located with a
recreational or cultural interest area destination and that brown as a
sign background color applies only to recreational and cultural
interest destinations or activities.
306. In Section 2M.06 Use of Educational Plaques, FHWA proposes to
delete the Guidance recommending that the educational plaque remain in
place for at least 3 years after the initial installation. FHWA
proposes this deletion to provide agencies with greater flexibility and
for consistency with similar provisions elsewhere in the MUTCD.
307. In Section 2M.07, retitled, ``Use of Prohibitive Circle and
Diagonal for Non-Road Applications,'' FHWA proposes to revise Standard
P1 to provide reference to the existing requirements of Chapter 2A to
ensure consistency in sign design.
308. In Section 2M.08 Placement of Recreational and Cultural
Interest Area Symbol Signs, FHWA proposes to delete Option P3 regarding
the placement of the symbol on the Wildlife Viewing Area sign. FHWA
proposes this deletion to ensure consistency in sign designs.
309. In Section 2M.09 Destination Guide Signs, FHWA proposes to
change the Guidance paragraph regarding the shape and colors of
destination guide signs to a Standard and limit the shape of
Supplemental Guide signs to rectangular with an Option to use a
trapezoidal shape sign on conventional roadways. In concert with this
change, FHWA also proposes to add a Standard describing the required
shape of the trapezoidal sign when used with a directional arrow. FHWA
proposes these changes to eliminate a conflict with existing standards
that define the exclusive uses of sign shapes in Chapter 2A and does
not result in a new requirement.
310. In Section 2M.10 Memorial or Dedication Signing, FHWA proposes
to delete the Option language related to the installation of memorial
or dedication signing along the mainline if installation off the main
roadway is not practical. FHWA proposes this change because an Option
is not needed for deviation from a Guidance paragraph based on
engineering judgment and the provisions for locating such signs on the
highway are provided in the existing Standard provision.
FHWA also proposes to revise and expand the existing Guidance
statement and change an existing Option to Guidance regarding the
design of memorial or dedication signs. FHWA also proposes to add a
Guidance paragraph referencing Section 2A.03 for locating memorial or
dedication signs to ensure adequate visibility of higher priority
signs.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard prohibiting memorial
or dedication signs from displaying a legend that implies that the
highway has been officially renamed. FHWA proposes this change to
ensure positive guidance, consistency, and minimization of confusion in
the information displayed to road users along a particular route.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2N Emergency Management
Signs
311. In Chapter 2N, retitled, ``Emergency Management Signs,'' FHWA
proposes to revise the designations of all standard signs to conform to
the dual-numbering convention used throughout the rest of the MUTCD.
For example, EM-1 would be redesignated EM1-1. This change would result
in each Section's title reflecting a revised sign numbering convention.
312. In Section 2N.02, retitled, ``Design and Use of Emergency
Management Signs,'' FHWA proposes to revise Standard P2 to clarify that
signs normally in place that conflict with Emergency Management signs
shall be removed or covered until such time as the Emergency Management
signs are no longer necessary. FHWA proposes to expand the Standard to
indicate that except for Evacuation Route signs, Emergency Management
signs that are no longer necessitated by the emergency shall be
promptly removed and signs that normally provide guidance, warning, or
regulation that were removed or covered during the emergency shall be
promptly displayed again. FHWA proposes these changes to provide
clarity in the appropriate use of Emergency Management signs.
FHWA also proposes to change Standard P3 to a Support statement
regarding the Federal Government providing guidance to the States as
necessitated by changing circumstances because it is outside the scope
of the MUTCD to make such a requirement that does not involve traffic
control devices.
313. In Section 2N.03, retitled, ``Evacuation Route Signs (EM1
Series),'' FHWA proposes to delete certain design information provided
in Standard P1 because the design is standardized and must comply with
the existing provisions of Chapter 2A.
FHWA proposes to relocate Option text regarding Advance Turn and
Directional Arrow auxiliary plaques to Standard P3. The new Standard
text would require that Advance Turn and Directional Arrow auxiliary
signs have a white arrow and border on a blue background when used with
EM1-2 series signs to provide consistency with similar provisions of
Chapter 2D, which requires the colors of auxiliary plaques to be
consistent with the route sign in a directional assembly.
FHWA also proposes to delete the Option permitting the use of an
approved Emergency Management symbol near the bottom of an Evacuation
Route sign because the Civil Defense pictograph is no longer used in
emergency management applications.
FHWA also proposes to change the Standard statement to a Guidance
statement regarding placement of the Evacuation Route sign in advance
of an approved evacuation route.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending the
use of the specific Evacuation Route (EM1-2 series) be limited to areas
where different evacuation conditions use different evacuation routes
to minimize unnecessary use of additional sign legends and associated
auxiliary plaques instead of the general Evacuation Route (EM1-1) sign.
[[Page 80940]]
314. In Section 2N.04, retitled, ``Area Closed Sign (EM2-1),'' FHWA
proposes to change the Standard to a Guidance to recommend, rather than
require, the provisions related to AREA CLOSED sign placement, to
provide agencies with flexibility.
315. In Section 2N.05, retitled, ``Traffic Control Point Sign (EM2-
2),'' FHWA proposes to change the usage provisions of the first three
paragraphs in the Standard statement to Guidance to provide agencies
with greater flexibility. FHWA also proposes to delete the Standard
describing the design of the TRAFFIC CONTROL POINT sign, because the
design is standardized.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 3--Pavement Markings
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 3--General
316. FHWA proposes to reorganize Part 3 to improve the continuity
and flow of information regarding the application of markings in the
MUTCD by relocating various paragraphs and sections throughout the
part, dividing long sections into several sections each having a
clearly understandable title and function, and creating a new Chapter
3C Crosswalks to compile information across multiple chapters into one
location. The proposed reorganization is reflected in the descriptions
below.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3A
317. In Section 3A.01 (existing Section 3A.02) Standardization of
Application, FHWA proposes to relocate existing P2 to Part 1 to make
this provision applicable to all traffic control devices. FHWA proposes
this change because all traffic control devices, not just markings,
should be in place prior to the opening of any new highway or private
road open to public travel.
318. In Section 3A.02 (existing Section 3A.04) Materials, FHWA
proposes changing existing P2 from Support to Option because the use of
clumps or droplets of material is permissible and the statement is more
appropriate as an Option.
FHWA also proposes to relocate existing P5 to Section 3G.04
(existing Section 3F.04) because it describes delineator placement.
319. In Section 3A.03 (existing Section 3A.05) Colors, FHWA
proposes to clarify that the use of black markings is an Option that
can be used to enhance the contrast of markings on a light-colored
pavement.
FHWA also proposes to relocate information regarding purple
markings to Chapter 3F (existing Chapter 3E) Markings for Toll Plazas
and Chapter 3H (existing Chapter 3G) Colored Pavement and retain a
reference to those locations.
In addition, FHWA proposes to change existing P7 from Option to
Standard since markings that simulate official route signs, when used,
shall have the same colors as those used for the signs. FHWA proposes
this change to ensure uniformity in the application that aids in
recognition of the message.
320. In Section 3A.04 (existing Section 3A.06) Functions, Widths,
and Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement Markings, FHWA proposes to add
Item E to the list of general functions of longitudinal lines to
clarify the functions of dotted lane lines and dotted lines used as a
lane line or edge line extensions.
In the list of widths and patterns of longitudinal lines, FHWA
proposes to indicate that 6-inch wide lines are to be used for
freeways, expressways, and ramps as well as for all other roadways with
speed limits greater than 40 mph and that 4- to 6-inch wide lines are
to be used for all other roadways. FHWA proposes this change to improve
visibility and consistency on ``high speed'' facilities and based on
research showing improved machine vision detectability.51 52
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ ATSSA Report, ``Evaluation of the Effects of Pavement
Marking Width on Detectability by Machine Vision: 4-Inch vs 6-Inch
Markings'' 2018 can be viewed at the following internet website:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/Communications/Booklet_2018PMForMV4vs6in_FinalReport.pdf.
\52\ NCHRP 20-106(6) Report in Progress ``Road Markings for
Machine Vision'' 2019 can be viewed at the following internet
website: https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to change the definition of a wide line to at
least 8 inches in width if 4-inch or 5-inch normal lines are used, and
at least 10 inches in width if 6-inch normal lines are used. This
change is proposed to clarify the definition based on varying practices
for ``normal'' width lines and to reduce the impact on agencies that
use 6 inch lines as their ``normal'' width.
Also, FHWA proposes to expand the definition for a double line to
clarify that the pavement surface must be visible between the lines
except when contrast markings are used based on FHWA's Official Ruling
No. 3(09)-41(I).
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance statement
regarding the width of the discernible space separating the parallel
lines of a double line so that they can be recognized as a double line
rather than two, separate disassociated single lines.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3B
321. In Section 3B.01, retitled, ``Yellow Center Line Pavement
Markings,'' FHWA proposes revising P6 to specify that reversible lanes
and two-way left turn lanes are exceptions to the requirement for two
normal solid yellow lines for undivided roadways with four or more
lanes. The proposed provisions explicitly state exceptions that are
currently implied in existing Section 3B.03.
322. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
3B.02 Warrants for Yellow Center Lines'' comprised of existing P9
through P13 from existing Section 3B.01. FHWA proposes this change to
make it easier to locate the warrant information.
323. In Section 3B.03 (existing Section 3B.02), retitled, ``No-
Passing Zone Pavement Markings,'' FHWA proposes to change the second
and third sentences in existing P4 from Standard to Support because
they contain design information and not traffic control device
requirements and are supported by an NCHRP research report.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ NCHRP Report 605, ``Passing Sight Distance Criteria'' 2008,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_605.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to change existing P9 from Option to Support
because no-passing zone signing information is contained in Part 2.
In addition, FHWA proposes deleting existing P14-P16 since they are
redundant with existing provisions contained in Section 3B.12 (existing
Section 3B.09).
324. FHWA proposes to separate existing Section 3B.03 into two new
sections, titled, ``Section 3B.04 Yellow Pavement Markings for
Reversible Lanes'' and ``Section 3J.03 Islands Designated by Pavement
Markings'' to separate the content for islands into the chapter devoted
to marking and delineation of islands.
325. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
3B.05 Pavement Markings for Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes'' containing P3
through P5 from existing Section 3B.03 and P28 through P30 from
existing Section 3B.20.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph to discourage
extending two-way left-turn lane markings to intersections and proposes
to add a Support statement indicating that two-way left turn lanes can
be transitioned to exclusive left turn lanes. FHWA proposes to modify
Figure 3B-7 to correspond to the new recommendations. FHWA proposes
this
[[Page 80941]]
change to improve intersection safety by minimizing conflict between
corresponding left-turn movements.
326. In Section 3B.06 (existing Section 3B.04), retitled, ``White
Lane Line Pavement Markings,'' FHWA proposes to expand existing P25 by
changing existing P26 from Option to Guidance to recommend, rather than
just allow, solid white lane lines on approaches to intersections to
separate adjacent mandatory turn lanes, and to add a recommended use of
solid white lane lines at toll collection points to separate toll
lanes, payment methods, channelized movements, or obstructions.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option paragraph allowing solid white
lane lines to separate contiguous through traffic lanes on an approach
to an intersection, to separate through traffic lanes from auxiliary
lanes, and on approaches to crosswalks across multi-lane roadways,
reflecting a common current practice.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add new Option and Support paragraphs
for providing curved transitions where an edge line, channelizing line,
or dotted extension line changes direction. FHWA proposes this change
based on the recognition that many agencies currently use curved,
rather than angular, transitions for changes in direction.
327. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
3B.07 White Lane Line Markings for Non-Continuing Lanes'' consisting of
P6-P19, and P23 of existing Section 3B.04. FHWA proposes to revise
existing Standard P13 to add a new Item C requiring a wide dotted white
lane line in advance of freeway route splits with an option lane. FHWA
proposes this change to provide consistency with existing requirements
for similar situations in which traffic in one of the lanes must depart
from the main route. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add
Drawing E showing an example of a route split with option lane to
Figure 3B-10 Examples of Applications of Freeway and Expressway Lane-
Drop Markings.
FHWA also proposes to change two Options to Standards requiring
dotted white line extensions for deceleration lanes at exit ramps and
for acceleration lanes at entrance ramps based on recommendations from
the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices' (NCUTCD) CAV
Task Force and NCHRP 20-102(06).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ NCHRP 20-106(6) Report in Progress ``Road Markings for
Machine Vision'' 2019 can be viewed at the following internet
website: https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
328. In Section 3B.08 (existing Section 3B.05), retitled,
``Channelizing Lines,'' FHWA proposes to change existing P2 from Option
to Support because the information about channelizing lines provides
general information and does not provide an option.
FHWA also proposes to add two new Standard paragraphs requiring
channelizing lines on both sides of the neutral area for bifurcations
created from open-road tolling lanes that bypass a conventional toll
plaza and on both sides of the neutral area formed at access and egress
points to and from a managed-lane facility. FHWA proposes this change
to guide road users around the neutral area either to general purpose
lanes or the tolling and/or managed lanes.
In addition, FHWA also proposes to modify existing P3 to change
``channelizing lines'' to ``neutral area'' regarding the requirement
that other markings in the area be white. In addition, FHWA proposes a
new Support listing chevron markings, retroreflective raised pavement
markers, and internally illuminated raised pavement markers as items
within the neutral area, with section references.
329. In Section 3B.09 (existing Section 3B.06), FHWA proposes to
add a Guidance recommending that edge lines on two-lane roadways should
be at least 6 inches wide, regardless of the width of the normal line
used on the roadway. FHWA proposes to modify existing P2 from Standard
to Guidance to recommend against, instead of prohibit, the use of edge
line markings through intersections or major driveways. FHWA proposes
this change to provide additional practitioner flexibility.
FHWA also proposes to add exceptions for dotted edge line
extensions and the part of the intersection with no intersection
approach (such as the top of a T-intersection) since these are
locations where edge lines are commonly used in practice.
330. In Section 3B.11 (existing Section 3B.08), retitled,
``Application of Pavement Markings Through Intersections or
Interchanges,'' FHWA proposes to change part of P1 requiring that
pavement markings extended into or continued through an intersection or
interchange be the same width from Standard to Guidance. FHWA proposes
this change because the combination of the provision with the existing
Option in P2 is more appropriate as Guidance and the application can be
determined using engineering judgment.
FHWA also proposes to relocate to this section an existing Standard
requiring that extensions of center lines through intersections, if
used, shall be dotted lines. This Standard is an existing requirement
contained only in a Note on existing Figure 3B-13 (D) Examples of Lane
Extensions through Intersections. This Note is proposed for deletion
from the figure to avoid duplication.
FHWA proposes to relocate P2 from Section 3B.09 (existing Section
3B.06) and change from Standard to Guidance for restricting the use of
edge line extensions through intersections. FHWA also proposes to
relocate and revise P5 from Section 3B.09 (existing Section 3B.06) for
maintaining edge lines at driveways that do not meet the definition of
an intersection. FHWA proposes the relocations to consolidate
provisions regarding markings through intersections.
Also, FHWA proposes to modify Standard P6 to provide an exception
to allow solid lines to extend edge lines through intersections or
major driveway when there is no intersecting approach. FHWA proposes
this change based on feedback from designers so markings will send
intended effect and not communicate a conflict where none exists, and
to provide additional user flexibility for situations like the top of a
T-intersection when the prohibition of solid lines through the
intersection is not applicable.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph
recommending that solid lines not be used to extend edge lines into or
through intersections or major driveways except through that part of
the intersection with no intersecting approach (such as at the top of a
T-intersection). FHWA proposes this change to provide drivers a visual
cue of side street traffic.
Further, FHWA proposes to delete existing Guidance P8 because the
information is related to design and not traffic control device
uniformity.
331. In Section 3B.12 (existing Section 3B.09), retitled, ``Lane-
Reduction Transitions,'' FHWA proposes to revise the Standard P3 to
state the criteria for lane-reduction transitions more clearly, rather
than referring to the Figure, which contains elements that are
required, recommended, and optional.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph and list for
recommended markings for lane-reduction transitions, comprising
information throughout the Section and contained in existing Figure 3B-
14.
[[Page 80942]]
FHWA also proposes to delete all the notes in Figure 3B-14 and retitle
it to ``Examples of Applications of Lane Reduction Transitions.''
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Option paragraph permitting
the minimum taper length to be less than 100 feet on roadways where
operating speed is less than 25 mph based on common practice and to
provide practitioner flexibility on low speed roadways.
332. In Section 3B.13 (existing Section 3B.10), Approach Markings
for Obstructions, FHWA proposes to add a new Option paragraph allowing
the minimum taper length to be less than 100 feet on site roadways open
to public travel where the operating speed is less than 25 mph based on
engineering judgment to provide practitioner flexibility on low speed
roadways.
333. In Section 3B.17 (existing Section 3B.14) Raised Pavement
Markers Substituting for Pavement Markings, FHWA proposes to upgrade
existing Guidance P8 from existing Section 3B.11 to a Standard and
relocate it to Section 3B.17, to require that non-retroreflective
raised pavement markers shall not be used alone, without supplemental
retroreflective or internally illuminated markers, as a substitute for
other types of pavement markings due to lack of retroreflectivity and
difficulty for machine vision systems.
334. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 3B.15 Transverse
Markings because transverse markings are already defined in Part 1 and
the section does not provide information related to the application or
operation of traffic control devices.
335. In Section 3B.18 (existing Section 3B.23), retitled, ``Curb
Markings for Parking Regulations,'' FHWA proposes to change P2 related
to curb markings for parking regulations from Standard to Guidance to
allow engineering judgment to determine if signs should be provided
based on site conditions.
FHWA also proposes to change P6 from Support to Guidance because
yellow and white curb markings used frequently for curb delineation and
visibility of parking regulations should be established through the
installation of standard signs and the provision is more appropriate as
a recommendation.
336. In Section 3B.19 (existing Section 3B.16), Stop and Yield
Lines, FHWA proposes to change existing P3 from Option to Standard to
require, rather than just allow, a Yield (R1-2) sign, Yield Here to
Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a), or Bikes Yield to Pedestrians (R9-6) sign,
or some other traffic control device that requires vehicles to Yield
when installing a yield line. This change clarifies ambiguity in the
previous Option statement that the pavement marking cannot be installed
without an enforceable regulatory sign.
FHWA also proposes a new Support paragraph to provide a reference
to Section 9B.12 regarding a sign signing applicable to bicycles also
subject to a yielding requirement at a crosswalk.
337. In Section 3B.20, retitled, ``Word, Symbol, and Arrow Pavement
Markings--General,'' FHWA proposes to add a new Option paragraph
allowing pavement words, symbols, and arrows to be reduced in size no
less than \1/4\ size, but in relative proportion to the associated
full-size word, symbol, or arrow on roadways where the operating speed
is less than 25 mph to provide practitioner flexibility on low speed
roadways.
FHWA also proposes to delete existing Standard P3 because it not
needed to explain that word, symbol, and arrow markings shall be white,
except as otherwise provided.
338. In new Section 3B.21 titled, ``Word Pavement Markings'' that
is comprised of P5, P7, P14, P15, P26, P32, and P33 from existing
Section 3B.20, FHWA proposes to delete the existing Standard P14 that
allows the word STOP to be used in conjunction with a stop line but
does not require a STOP sign. FHWA proposes this change because the
MUTCD explicitly does not apply to driving aisles within parking areas
per Section 1A, and a STOP sign is required with a stop line for all
situations that are covered by the MUTCD.
Also, FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance P5 to note that the
bicycle detector symbol is not intended to be 6 feet or more in height.
In addition, FHWA proposes to delete the second sentence of
existing paragraph 26 since this is related to traffic control design
and not uniformity of the application.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option paragraph allowing the ONLY
word marking to be used or to supplement a preferential lane work or
symbol marking based on common practices.
339. In new Section 3B.22 titled, ``Symbol Pavement Markings'' that
is comprised of P12, P16, P17, P18, and P19 from existing Section
3B.20, FHWA proposes two Guidance statements related to the use of
route shield markings in option lanes based on a TTI study.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ TTI Report FHWA/TX-10/0-5890-1 ``Guidelines for the Use of
Pavement Marking Symbols at Freeway Interchanges'' 2009, can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5890-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option paragraph allowing the use
of a pedestrian symbol pavement marking that may be used on portions of
facilities such as shared-use paths that are reserved exclusively for
pedestrian use.
340. In Section 3B.25 (existing Section 3B.24), retitled, ``Chevron
and Diagonal Markings,'' FHWA proposes to delete the term
``crosshatch'' and instead just use the words ``chevron'' and
``diagonal'' to describe the marking better and provide more situations
where each can be used.
FHWA also proposes to change the existing Option paragraph into
separate Guidance paragraphs for chevron and diagonal markings to
recommend the intended applications for each. FHWA based this on the
NCUTCD CAV Task Force and Automated Driving Systems Task Force joint
recommendations that were approved by the Markings Technical Committee
in June 2019.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph
recommending white markings for diagonal markings used in on-street no-
parking zones and a new Option to allow lines used for diagonal
markings in no-parking zones to be 4 inches wide.
Further, FHWA proposes to modify a Guidance paragraph to recommend
that the lines used for chevron and diagonal markings to be at least 4
inches wide on roadways where the operating speed is less than 25 mph
to provide practitioner flexibility on low speed roadways.
341. In Section 3B.27 (existing Section 3B.19) Parking Space
Markings, FHWA proposes to revise the Standard by adding the phrase
``on-street'' to describe the parking space markings that shall be
white. FHWA proposes this change to clarify that off-street parking
space markings, such as those used in shopping center parking lots, are
not governed by the MUTCD as provided in Item C of Paragraph 3 in the
existing Introduction.
342. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 3B.21 Speed
Measurement Markings because they are not traffic control devices. In
concert with this change, FHWA proposes to remove the optional speed
measurement marking shown on Figure 3B-10, ``Examples of Applications
of Freeway and Expressway Lane-Drop Markings.''
343. In Section 3B.28 (existing Section 3B.22) Speed Reduction
Markings, FHWA proposes to change the second sentence in P3 from
[[Page 80943]]
Standard to Guidance regarding longitudinal spacing between speed
reduction markings. FHWA proposes this change to allow engineering
judgment to determine the longitudinal pattern of the markings based on
the site conditions.
344. In Section 3B.29 (existing Section 3B.25) Speed Hump Markings,
FHWA proposes to add a new Option paragraph allowing discontinuing
center line markings, lane line markings, and edge line markings on the
profile of the speed hump.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard paragraph requiring
installing crosswalk markings when a speed hump specifically
incorporates a crossing movement for pedestrians, bicycles, or
equestrians.
345. FHWA proposes adding a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3B.31 Markings for Diamond Interchange with Transposed
Alignment Crossroad'' which contains Standards, Guidance, and Support
for markings used at these types of interchanges. FHWA proposes to add
this information based on an FHWA research study \56\ that has shown
that there is potential for wrong-way movements, especially at the
crossing points, at these unconventional interchanges. The new
information contains proposed Standards for edge lines, lane use
arrows, and wrong-way arrows as well as a restriction for flush median
islands. The section also contains proposed Guidance recommending edge
and lane line extensions through the crossing points and a Support
paragraph referencing crosswalk and pedestrian movement information in
Section 3C.11 and 9G.05. FHWA also proposes to add Figure 3B-29 to
illustrate an example of markings at this type of interchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational
Report (AIIR)'' FHWA-HRT-06-090, April 2009, can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within New Chapter 3C
346. In Section 3C.01 (existing Section 3B.18), retitled,
``General,'' FHWA proposes to change a Support statement to a Standard
paragraph requiring crosswalk markings at non-intersection crossing
locations to improve safety for pedestrians at locations where vehicles
may not expect pedestrian crossings. The previous Support required
crosswalk markings to mark the crosswalk legally at non-intersection
locations. FHWA proposes to revise this Support into a Standard to
identify clearly the requirements of crosswalk markings at non-
intersection locations.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard paragraph requiring that
paving materials used to function as transverse lines to establish a
marked crosswalk shall be white and retroreflective. FHWA also proposes
that the paving materials be required to use a white additive in the
mixture to produce a white surface. FHWA proposes this change to
improve target value and visibility of the crosswalk for pedestrian
safety and to fulfill the retroreflectivity requirement for traffic
control devices, when paving materials, instead of pavement markings,
are used to define the marked crosswalk.
347. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3C.02 Applications of Crosswalk Markings,'' containing P7-P10
of existing Section 3B.18. FHWA proposes to modify Guidance P8
regarding criteria for engineering studies for crosswalk across
uncontrolled roadways to include pedestrian ages, and to change
``posted or statutory speed limit'' to ``speed limit or the 85th-
percentile speed.''
FHWA also proposes to revise Guidance P9 to discourage the
installation of crosswalks across uncontrolled roadways at locations
with posted speed limits 40 mph or greater and locations where there is
a crash threat due to multiple lane crossings or limited sight
distance. FHWA proposes this change to reduce pedestrian crash
potential and based on an FHWA study.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ FHWA Report FHWA-HRT-04-100 ``Safety Effects of Marked
versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations'' 2005 can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
348. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3C.03 Design of Crosswalk Markings,'' containing P4, P11,
P12, and P17 of existing Section 3B.18. FHWA also proposes to add new
Standard paragraphs requiring a minimum width of 6 feet for marked
crosswalks and a minimum width of 8 feet for crosswalks at non-
intersections and where the posted speed limit is 40 mph or greater.
FHWA proposes this change to improve the visibility and recognition of
pedestrian crosswalks.
FHWA also proposes to modify Guidance P11 to recommend using high-
visibility crosswalk markings at marked crosswalks at non-intersection
locations to reduce pedestrian crash potential. FHWA further proposes
to reduce the second Guidance sentence in P11 to an Option regarding
improving visibility by parking prohibitions on the approach to marked
crosswalks.
In addition, FHWA proposes changing P17 from a Guidance to Standard
requiring, rather than recommending, crosswalk markings to be located
so that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk
markings, where curb ramps are provided. FHWA proposes this change to
accommodate users with visual disabilities better.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph recommending
that transverse crosswalk markings extend the full width of the
pavement or edge of intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal
crossing between crosswalks. FHWA proposes these changes to provide
consistency in crosswalk applications.
349. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3C.04 Basic Crosswalks,'' with new Support and Option
paragraphs to provide information about basic crosswalks, which are
comprised of two parallel transverse lines. FHWA also proposes to
provide a new Figure 3C-1 illustrating basic crosswalks.
350. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3C.05 High-Visibility Crosswalks,'' to provide Support,
Option, Standard, and Guidance paragraphs about the various types of
high-visibility crosswalks including longitudinal bar, perpendicular,
and double-paired designs. FHWA proposes this section to provide
agencies with three standard alternatives to improve crosswalk
visibility when desired consistent with an FHWA research study.\58\
FHWA also proposes to illustrate these crosswalk types in Figure 3C-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ``Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study'' FHWA-HRT-10-
068, November 2010, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10068/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
351. FHWA proposes to add new sections numbered and titled,
``Section 3C.06 Longitudinal Bar Crosswalks,'' ``Section 3C.07
Perpendicular Crosswalks,'' and ``Section 3C.08 Longitudinal Bar Pair
Crosswalks,'' to provide provisions related to the design and spacing
for the three new types of high-visibility crosswalks.
352. FHWA proposes to create a new Section numbered and titled,
``Section 3C.10 Crosswalks for Exclusive Pedestrian Phases that Permit
Diagonal Crossings,'' for crosswalks for exclusive pedestrian phases
that permit diagonal crossing, containing P16 of existing Section
3B.18. FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph recommending
that the segments of the crosswalk markings that facilitate the
[[Page 80944]]
diagonal crossing should not use high-visibility crosswalk markings
since diagonal crossings are typically permitted only when all
vehicular movements are stopped at a signalized intersection and
because high-visibility diagonal markings through the intersection
could be confusing to turning vehicles.
353. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3C.11 Crosswalks at Diamond Interchanges with a Transposed
Alignment Crossroad'' to provide Support, Guidance, and Option
paragraphs regarding pedestrian movements through these unconventional
interchanges. FHWA proposes this new section based on information
contained in a research study \59\ that found that pedestrian movements
require special considerations to avoid violating driver expectancy or
disorienting pedestrians. FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 3C-3 to
illustrate locations of pedestrian crossings at diamond interchanges
with a transposed alignment crossroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ``Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational
Report (AIIR)'' FHWA-HRT-09-060, April 2010, can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/09060.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3D (Existing Chapter
3C)
354. FHWA proposes to retitle Chapter 3D (existing Chapter 3C) to
``Circular Intersection Markings'' because the provisions apply to a
variety of circular intersections, not just roundabouts.
355. In Section 3D.01 (existing Section 3C.01) General, FHWA
proposes to modify Guidance P3 to recommend that markings should
supplement signs to help road users select the proper lane in the
approach to the circular roadway to avoid changing lanes through the
departure of the circular roadway based on an NCHRP Report.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ``Roundabouts: An Informational Guide'' NCHRP Report 672,
2010 can be viewed at the following internet website: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/164470.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
356. In Section 3D.02 (existing Section 3C.02) White Lane Line
Pavement Markings for Roundabouts, FHWA proposes two new Option
paragraphs related to longer lane lines and striped buffer spaces to
help vehicles navigate the roundabout.
357. In Section 3D.04 (existing Section 3C.04) Yield Lines for
Roundabouts, FHWA proposes to upgrade part of existing Option P1 to a
Standard to require that a yield line be used on the entries before
entering multi-line roundabouts. For single-lane roundabouts, the
Option remains to allow a yield line on the entry before entering the
roundabout.
358. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3D.06 Arrow Pavement Markings for Roundabouts'' containing
revisions to P1 and P4-P6 from existing Section 3C.06. FHWA proposes
new Guidance paragraphs to recommend not using lane-use arrows on
single-lane approaches to circular intersections. FHWA also proposes to
add Guidance for two-lane approaches to circular intersections and for
approaches with dual left or dual right turns. FHWA proposes these
changes to improve consistency in the application of lane-use arrows at
circular intersections based on an NCHRP study.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ ``Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition''
NCHRP 672, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard paragraph
prohibiting lane-use arrow pavement markings between a crosswalk and
wide dotted line(s) entering the circular roadway. FHWA proposes this
change because road users need adequate advance notification of the
permitted movements within each lane and this area of the approach is
often obscured by stopped vehicles.
Further, FHWA proposes to change the Option P6 to Guidance to
recommend, rather than just allow, lane-use arrows on the roundabout
approaches to match the type of arrows (normal or elongated) used on
the corresponding regulatory lane-use signs, to improve consistency
between signing and markings for better driver comprehension.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3E (Existing Chapter
3D)
359. FHWA proposes to revise the title of Chapter 3E (existing
Chapter 3D) to ``Preferential Lane Markings for Motor Vehicles'' to
exclude bicycles and move all bicycle lane information to Part 9.
360. In Section 3E.02 (existing Section 3D.02), retitled,
``Longitudinal Markings,'' FHWA proposes to revise P3 to reference
Table 3E-1 (existing Table 3D-1), create a new Table 3E-2 Standard Edge
and Center Line Markings for Counter-Flow Preferential Lanes, revise P9
and P10 to reference new Table 3E-2, and remove redundant text. FHWA
proposes to make these changes to clarify the preferential lane marking
requirements and improve readability.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph recommending
that buffer space for a conventional road should be designed so that it
is not misinterpreted as a bicycle lane or other type of lane.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add new Figure 3E-4 to illustrate an
example of pavement markings used for counter-flow preferential lanes
on divided highways.
361. In Section 3E.03 (existing Section 3D.01) Preferential Lane
Word and Symbol Markings, FHWA proposes to change existing P3 regarding
preferential lane longitudinal markings, word, and symbol markings at
the downstream end of the lane from Standard to Guidance to provide
agencies the flexibility to determine the ideal location based on site
conditions.
FHWA also proposes to revise Standard P6 and combine with P2 and
remove Item C. Bicycle Lane since preferential lanes for bicycles are
covered in Part 9 and no longer apply in this Chapter and Section. FHWA
also proposes to add BUS STOP and TAXI STAND as required word markings
for their respective uses in preferential lanes based on common
practices.
In addition, FHWA proposes to change P7 regarding preferential
lanes with two or more permitted uses in the same lane from Standard to
Guidance to remove the requirement for providing both symbols or words
and instead allow engineering judgment to prioritize and select either
symbols or word markings, or both.
Lastly, FHWA proposes new Standard and Support paragraphs
restricting the use of word or symbol markings denoting motorcycle and
Inherently Low Emission Vehicles (ILEV). FHWA proposes this change
because motorcycle and ILEV vehicle use is communicated using
regulatory signing to complement high occupancy vehicle regulations and
simplifies enforcement functions.
362. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3E.04 Markings for Part-Time Travel on a Shoulder'' to
provide Standard, Guidance, Option, and Support paragraphs for
situations where shoulders are designated for use during peak hour
conditions to increase roadway capacity. FHWA proposes this change
based on a Transit Cooperative Research Program Report \62\ as well as
to address increasing needs of agencies to
[[Page 80945]]
add roadway capacity in constrained urban areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ``A Guide for Implementing Bus On Shoulder (BOS) Systems''
TCRP Report 151, 2012, can be viewed at the following internet
website: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/166878.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add a new Figures 3E-5 and 3E-6 to illustrate
an example of markings for part time travel on a shoulder.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 3F (Existing Chapter
3E) Through Chapter 3K (Existing Chapter 3J)
363. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3F.02 Longitudinal Markings'' consisting of P5-P8 from
existing Section 3E.01. In this section, FHWA proposes to add two new
Guidance paragraphs recommending solid white lane line markings to
separate toll lanes, payment methods, or to channelize movements at
toll plazas and that the solid lines should begin at the upstream end
of the full-width toll lane and continue to the toll plaza.
In existing P6 from existing Section 3E.01, FHWA proposes to change
part of the Standard paragraph for maximum widths of purple solid
longitudinal markings to Guidance to provide additional practitioner
flexibility.
364. In Section 3G.03 (existing Section 3F.03), retitled,
``Application,'' FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph
recommending using delineators of the appropriate color to indicate
lane-reduction transitions where either an outside or inside lane
merges into an adjacent lane. FHWA proposes this change to provide
consistency in the application of delineators proposed in other
Sections.
365. In Section 3H.01 (existing Section 3G.01), retitled,
``Standardization of Application,'' FHWA proposes to add two new
Standard paragraphs limiting the use of colored pavement only where it
supplements other markings and prohibiting colors other than those
specified in Chapter 3H (existing Chapter 3G) Colored Pavement. FHWA
proposes this change to improve upon the previously established
widespread system of uniformity in the application of colored pavement.
366. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3H.02 Materials'' to add new Option, Standard, Guidance, and
Support paragraphs related to retroreflectivity, minimizing the loss of
traction, differentials in skid resistance, and abnormal wear in
colored pavement. FHWA proposes this section to provide agencies with
information to assist in the selection of appropriate colored pavement
materials to improve road user safety.
367. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3H.03 Aesthetic Treatments in Crosswalks,'' with P2 and P6
from existing Section 3G.01 and to add new Standard, Guidance, Option,
and Support paragraphs describing appropriate use of aesthetic
treatments within crosswalks and to provide examples of acceptable
materials and patterns. FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 3H-1 to
illustrate examples of acceptable materials for interior portions of
crosswalks. FHWA proposes these changes to reflect FHWA's Official
Ruling No. 3(09)-24(I),\63\ which was issued in response to a trend by
some agencies toward installing aesthetic treatments on roadway
pavement that include bright colors, visually complex graphics, images,
or words. FHWA believes that this proposed section is necessary because
it is important that these treatments not resemble or interfere with
the uniform appearance of traffic control devices, which could confuse
and distract road users. FHWA's longstanding position is that these
treatments, which are intended to draw the attention of the road user,
can distract from the task of operating a vehicle or crossing the
roadway as a pedestrian, and that many of the goals of an agency
installing these treatments can be accomplished through other means
that do not alter or compromise the uniform appearance of traffic
control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 3(09)-24 (I), dated August 15,
2013, can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_24.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the varying views that the public has expressed on this
topic, FHWA requests that commenters provide sufficient detail and
explanation of how their position would maintain the uniformity and
recognition of crosswalk markings. Since these types of aesthetic
treatments oftentimes are installed with the stated purpose of
improving safety (in addition to establishing community identity or for
``placemaking'' purposes), FHWA requests comment on how allowing more
intricate designs and bright colors around standardized crosswalk
markings improves the safety or operations at and around the crosswalk,
while maintaining the recognition of the crosswalk. FHWA requests that
commenters support their position by providing quantifiable and
objective data, such as from human factors evaluations, about the
safety and operation of vehicular and street traffic, safety and
navigation of pedestrians, any assessments of the effects of
nonstandard designs on pedestrians with low visual acuity or other
vision impairments, and the ability of machine vision of autonomous
vehicles to detect accurately and react appropriately to the markings
as a crosswalk or, if not installed with a crosswalk, other type of
marking.
368. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3H.04 Yellow-Colored Pavement'' to include Standard
paragraphs limiting use of yellow-colored pavement to flush or raised
median islands separating traffic flow in opposite directions, left-
hand shoulders of divided highways, and left-hand shoulders of one-way
streets or ramps.
FHWA also proposes to add Standard paragraphs restricting yellow-
colored pavement from being incorporated into reversible lanes, two-way
left-turn lanes, or channelizing islands where traffic travels in the
same general direction on both sides to be consistent with other
provisions--existing and proposed--in the Manual.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option paragraph to indicate
where yellow-colored pavement may be applied along a roadway.
Further, FHWA proposes to add a new Figure 3H-2 to illustrate an
example of the use of yellow-colored pavement.
369. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3H.05 White-Colored Pavement'' to include Standard paragraphs
limiting use of white-colored pavement to flush or raised island where
traffic passes on both sides in the same direction, right-hand
shoulders, exit gore areas, and entrance gore areas.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance paragraph recommending certain
limitations on its use and Option paragraphs stating where it may be
applied along a roadway to be consistent with other provisions--
existing and proposed--in the Manual.
Further, FHWA proposes to provide a new Figure 3H-3 to illustrate
an example of the use of white-colored pavement.
370. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3H.06 Green-Colored Pavement for Bicycle Facilities'' to
include Standard paragraphs establishing the use of green-colored
pavement for a variety of bicycle facilities and prohibiting its use on
shared-use paths, shared-lane markings, crosswalks, and on separated
bicycle lanes on an independent alignment.
FHWA also proposes Option paragraphs stating where green-colored
pavement can be applied and Guidance
[[Page 80946]]
recommending installation of regulatory and guide signing with green-
colored pavement.
Further, FHWA proposes to provide a new Figure 3H-4 and revise
Figures in Part 9 to illustrate examples of green-colored pavement.
FHWA proposes these changes based on Interim Approval No. 14.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-14, April 15, 2011, can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia14/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
371. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3H.07 Red-Colored Pavement for Public Transit Systems'' to
include Standard paragraphs establishing the use of red-colored
pavement for lanes where general purpose traffic is not allowed and
requiring regulatory signs establishing the allowable use of the lane.
FHWA also proposes Option paragraphs stating where red-colored
pavement can be applied and a Guidance paragraph recommending red-
colored pavement not be used on public transit facilities separated
from the roadway or on exclusive alignments.
In addition, FHWA proposes to provide a new Figure 3H-5 to
illustrate an example of the use of red-colored pavement. FHWA proposes
these changes based on Interim Approval 22 \65\ and the results of
multiple experimentations across the country, including in the
following jurisdictions: City of Chicago, IL; the City of New York, NY;
the District of Columbia; the City of Santa Rosa, CA; and San Diego
County, CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-22, December 4, 2019, can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia22/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
372. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3H.08 Purple-Colored Pavement for Electronic Toll Collection
(ETC) Account-Only Preferential Lanes'' to include Standard paragraphs
limiting use of purple-colored pavement to lanes approaching toll
plazas that are restricted to registered ETC accounts and lanes
approaching an Open Road Tolling (ORT) collection facility, and
prohibiting its use on an approach that also facilitates other payment
methods downstream.
FHWA also proposes Standard paragraphs regarding the use of
longitudinal and edge lines to flank the purple-colored pavement.
In addition, FHWA proposes an Option paragraph allowing its use for
the entire length of the toll lane or ORT collection facility or for
only a portion (or portions). Further, FHWA proposes to provide a new
Figure 3H-6 to illustrate an example of the use of purple-colored
pavement.
373. In Section 3I.01 (existing Section 3H.01) Channelizing
Devices, FHWA proposes to add an Option paragraph to clarify that
orange-colored channelizing devices are allowed to emphasize pavement
markings outside of temporary traffic control zones, as long as the
devices are not permanent. FHWA proposes to add this Option to
facilitate use of channelizing devices in emergency incidents and
planned special events, because it is usually not practical for police
officers or other authorized personnel to obtain and deploy
channelizing devices that match the color of the existing pavement
markings.
FHWA also proposes to delete P5 since this information is related
to maintenance and not related to traffic control device uniformity.
374. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3I.02 Tubular Markers'' to include Standard, Guidance, and
Option paragraphs to provide size requirements and recommended spacing.
FHWA proposes this change because the use of tubular markers have
become more common and to enhance uniformity.
375. FHWA proposes to revise the title of Chapter 3J (existing
Chapter 3I) to ``Marking and Delineation of Islands and Curb
Extensions'' to be more descriptive on the content regarding islands in
this Chapter.
376. In Section 3J.02 (existing Section 3I.02) Approach-End
Treatment, FHWA proposes modifying existing P1 to recommend either an
approach-end treatment, or curb markings, or both at the ends of
islands first approached by traffic. FHWA proposes this change to
improve operations and safety at islands and decision points, and to
meet driver expectation when encountering these facilities.
FHWA also proposes to revise P3 to add a recommendation for raised
bars or buttons that project more than 1 inch above the pavement
surface to be marked with retroreflective materials. FHWA proposes this
change to enhance conspicuity.
377. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3J.03 Islands Designated by Pavement Markings'' to include
new Standard paragraphs for pavement marking color requirements for
islands and to clarify criteria for islands previously located
throughout Part 3. FHWA also proposes a new Option paragraph allowing
both chevron and diagonal markings of the same color within the same
island. FHWA proposes these changes to improve consistency in the
application of islands designated by pavement markings.
378. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3J.04 Curb Markings for Raised Island'' to include existing
P7-P12 from existing Section 3B.23 and P2 of existing Section 3I.04.
FHWA also proposes to change P10 from Support to Option to allow
curb markings to be discontinued where the curbs of the islands become
parallel to the direction of traffic flow or where the island is
illuminated or marked with delineators, based on engineering judgment
or study.
In addition, FHWA proposes to change P11 from Support to Option to
allow curb markings to be omitted at openings in a continuous median
island based on engineering judgment or study.
379. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3J.05 Pavement Markings for Raised Islands'' to include a
Standard, Options, Guidance, and Support paragraphs for the application
of approach-end treatments, channelizing lines, edge lines, and chevron
or diagonal markings for raised islands. FHWA proposes these changes to
improve consistency in the application of markings for raised islands,
to improve operations and safety at islands and decision points, and to
meet driver expectation when encountering these facilities.
FHWA also proposes to provide a new Figure 3J-3 to illustrate an
example of the use of diagonal markings in buffer areas between the
channelizing line and the raised island.
380. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 3J.07 Curb Extensions Designated by Pavement Markings'' to
include Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option paragraphs for the
application of curb extension pavement markings. FHWA proposes these
changes to improve consistency in the application of markings for curb
extensions and uniformity when the application of pavement markings is
to be used.
381. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 3I.03 Island Marking
Application and existing Section 3I.04 Island Marking Colors since the
paragraphs were either relocated to other sections, are redundant with
other MUTCD provisions, or are not related to uniformity.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals
382. FHWA proposes to reorganize Part 4 by dividing some existing
long chapters and sections into several chapters and/or several
sections, each
[[Page 80947]]
having a clearly understandable title, and by moving certain material
to new locations within Part 4 to consolidate similar information in
one place. In some cases, this involves the proposed creation of new
chapters and sections that do not exist in the 2009 MUTCD. FHWA
believes this proposed reorganization would create a more logical flow
of information and make it easier for users to find the content they
need. In addition, FHWA proposes to delete text from various sections
where such material duplicates or is very similar to existing text in
other sections within Part 4 or elsewhere in the MUTCD. These
reorganizations and elimination of redundancies are editorial in nature
and do not significantly change the technical content or meaning,
except as otherwise discussed below.
383. FHWA proposes to allow the optional use of three-section
signal faces using flashing yellow arrow (FYA) signal indications that
use the middle section to show both the FYA and the steady yellow arrow
in Section 4F.08 (existing Section 4D.02) retitled, ``Signal
Indications for Protected/Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements in a
Shared Signal Face'' and Section 4F.15 (existing Section 4D.24)
retitled, ``Signal Indications for Protected/Permissive Mode Right-Turn
Movements in a Separate Signal Face.'' This change would allow agencies
to convert existing three-section protected-only left- and right-turn
signal faces to three-section FYA signal faces, and provide more
opportunities to implement variable mode left- and right-turn phasing.
Similarly, FHWA also proposes to allow the option of displaying
both the FYA and the steady yellow arrow in the same section for five-
section shared left-turn/right-turn signal faces operating in
protected/permissive mode in Section 4F.02 (existing Section 4D.17)
Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements--General, 4F.09 (existing
Section 4E.21) Signal Indications for Right-Turn Movements--General,
and Section 4F.16 (existing Section 4D.25) retitled, ``Signal
Indications for Approaches with Shared Left-Turn/Right-Turn Lanes and
No Through Movement.'' FHWA proposes these changes based on Interim
Approval 17,\66\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-15(I),\67\ and
supporting research.\68\ FHWA also proposes revisions to various
paragraphs and sections throughout the part to reflect these proposed
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-17, August 12, 2014, can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia17/index.htm.
\67\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-15(I), December 12, 2011,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_15.htm.
\68\ ``Evaluation of the Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) Permissive
Left-Turn and Yellow Arrow Change Indications in Protected/
Permissive Left-Turn Control: The Impact of Separate and Shared
Yellow Signal Sections and Head Arrangements,'' NCHRP Project 20-07/
Task 283, June 2014, can be viewed at the following internet
website: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/171653.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
384. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 4A.05 Meanings of Bicycle Symbol Signal Indications.'' This
section defines the meaning of the proposed bicycle traffic signal
indications for bicyclists, described in proposed Chapter 4H, based on
Interim Approval 16.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-16, December 24, 2013, can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia16/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
385. In Section 4A.08 (existing Section 4D.34) Use of Signs at
Signalized Locations, FHWA proposes to change P5 from Standard to
Guidance to provide agencies flexibility, based on engineering
judgement, to achieve an appropriate balance in visibility for both
traffic signal signs and traffic signal faces. The proposed text
maintains priority for the visibility of the traffic signal faces.
386. In Section 4B.02, retitled, ``Basis of Installation of Traffic
Control Signals,'' FHWA proposes to add a Guidance paragraph
recommending against using traffic control signals to penalize drivers
who are speeding. FHWA proposes this change because speeding issues
should be addressed through a programmatic approach and through roadway
design features, rather than through traffic control signals.
387. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 4B.05 Adequate
Roadway Capacity because the information does not relate to traffic
control uniformity and instead discusses roadway design philosophy and
therefore is not appropriate in the MUTCD.
388. In Section 4B.05 (existing Section 4B.04) Alternatives to
Traffic Control Signals, FHWA proposes to clarify in Option Item M that
to reduce vehicular conflicts, a roundabout is an alternative to a
traffic control signal. In addition, FHWA proposes to add a Support
statement referencing Part 8 regarding installation of roundabouts in
proximity to grade crossings. FHWA proposes these changes to reflect
Official Change Request 4(09)-76(C).
389. In Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic
Control Signals, FHWA proposes to add an exception for temporary
traffic signals to the Standard paragraph requiring an engineering
study to justify a traffic control signal. FHWA also proposes to
clarify in Guidance P10 that if a minor-street approach has an
exclusive left-turn lane, the approach should either be analyzed as a
two-lane approach based on the sum of the traffic volumes using both
lanes or as a one-lane approach based on only the traffic volume in the
approach lane with the highest volume. FHWA also proposes to change P12
from Guidance to Option to allow agencies to determine whether a
location with a wide median is considered as one or two intersections
for a signal warrant analysis based on the site-specific conditions.
FHWA proposes these changes to allow additional flexibility.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement referring to
the alternatives to traffic control signals listed in Section 4B.05.
FHWA proposes this change to reflect Official Change Request 4(09)-
76(C) and to remind users of the Manual that there are several
alternatives to traffic control signals.
390. In Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume,
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, Section 4C.04
Warrant 3, Peak Hour, Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume,
Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing, Section 4C.07 Warrant 6,
Coordinated Signal System, Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience,
Section 4C.09 Warrant 8, Roadway Network, and Section 4C.10 Warrant 9,
Intersection Near a Grade Crossing, FHWA proposes to change all
paragraphs describing the application of the signal warrant criterion
to be considered in an engineering study for installing a new traffic
control signal from Standard to Guidance. FHWA proposes this change to
provide agencies flexibility in performing signal warrant analyses.
391. In Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume,
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, Section 4C.04
Warrant 3, Peak Hour, and Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience,
FHWA proposes to change the description of minor-street approaches from
higher volume to more critical based on FHWA's Official Ruling No.
4(09)-59(I).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-59(I), September 12, 2016,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_59.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
392. In Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume, FHWA proposes
to add an Option allowing the criteria to be applied separately to each
direction of vehicular traffic where there is a
[[Page 80948]]
divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to
wait. This option is a variation of the second sentence of Item B in
Paragraph 2 of Section 4C.05 in the 2003 MUTCD and is proposed by FHWA
based on Official Ruling No. 4(09)-25(I).\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-25(I), November 19, 2012,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_25.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to change P4 prohibiting the application of the
Pedestrian Volume warrant if the distance to the nearest traffic
control signal or Stop sign is within 300 feet from Standard to
Guidance. FHWA proposes this change to provide more flexibility for
agencies when considering installation of traffic signals for
pedestrian crossings.
393. In Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience, FHWA proposes to
revise Item B in P2 to include updated signal warrant criteria for 1-
year and 3-year periods, crash type, and severity, as well as major
street speed and intersection location. In conjunction with this
change, FHWA proposes to add additional Support language regarding the
critical minor-street volume, and a new Option paragraph that
accompanies new tables related to criteria for considering traffic
control signals in rural areas. FHWA proposes these changes based on
Interim Approval 19 \72\ and findings contained in a research
study.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-19, February 24, 2017, can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia19/index.htm.
\73\ ``Crash Experience Warrant for Traffic Signals,'' NCHRP 07-
18, July 5, 2014, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/171359.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
394. In Section 4D.01 General, add a new Standard paragraph
requiring the design and operation of traffic control signals to take
into consideration the needs of all modes of traffic to enhance
mobility and safety for all modes of travel.
FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph recommending that
covers placed over traffic control signal faces not in operation
include the backplate if it has a yellow retroreflective strip. The new
paragraph also recommends that if a traffic signal with a
retroreflective backplate is turned away it should not be oriented such
that the backplate border will reflect light back to road users on any
approaches to the intersection. FHWA proposes this change based on
Official Ruling No. 4(09)-1(I).\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-1(I), February 22, 2010,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_001.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to change P7 restricting signalizing midblock
crosswalks if they are located within 300 feet of the nearest traffic
control signal from Standard to Guidance. FHWA proposes this change to
provide more flexibility for agencies when considering placement of
midblock crosswalks.
395. In Section 4D.02 (existing Section 4D.03) Provisions for
Pedestrians, FHWA proposes to delete P2 in concert with the new
Standard added in Section 4D.01 and relocate and revise P1 and relocate
P3 from existing Section 4E.03 to this Section.
FHWA also proposes to delete Standard P3 and add a new Guidance
paragraph recommending pedestrian signal heads at each marked crosswalk
at a location controlled by a traffic control signal.
Finally, FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance in P4 to align
better with the recommendation for an engineering study with specific
factors for consideration as outlined in Section 4K.01.
396. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 4D.03 Provisions for Bicyclists,'' with an Option to allow
bicycle signal faces to be used where it is desired to provide separate
signal indications to control bicycle movements at a traffic control
signal, and a reference to new Chapter 4H Bicycle Signal Faces. FHWA
proposes this change due to the increasing bicycle activity and bicycle
infrastructure deployment throughout the Country and based on Interim
Approval 16.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-16, December 24, 2013, can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia16/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
397. In Section 4D.05 (existing Section 4D.12) Visibility, Aiming,
and Shielding of Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to change P1, P2, P3, P7,
and P13 from Standard to Guidance to provide agencies flexibility in
locating signal faces.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard prohibiting the use of
ancillary legends on signal face backplates. FHWA proposes this change
because backplates are used to improve the contrast between the traffic
signal and its surroundings, and adding a legend reduces the contrast
and could reduce driver comprehension. Section 2B.60 (existing Section
2B.53) allows the installation of signs adjacent to signal faces to
provide the purpose or operation, as needed.
398. In Section 4D.06 (existing Section 4D.13) Lateral Positioning
of Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph
recommending locating separate turn signal faces at least 3 feet,
horizontally and vertically, from the nearest traffic signal face for a
different movement on the same approach. FHWA proposes this change to
minimize driver confusion and enhance signal visibility.
FHWA proposes to change P7 from Standard to Guidance to provide
agencies flexibility in locating signal faces.
FHWA also proposes to revise Standard P10 for supplemental post-
mounted signal faces to clarify that the intent is to prohibit the
display of left-turn arrows to the right of adjacent through and right-
turn lanes, and not to prohibit such a display if an opportunity is
available to post-mount a signal face that is to the immediate right of
the left-turn lanes. FHWA proposes a similar change for the display of
right-turn arrows.
399. In Section 4D.07 (existing Section 4D.14) Longitudinal
Positioning of Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to delete Item A.3 of P1
because it redundant with information contained in Section 4D.06
(existing Section 4D.13).
FHWA also proposes to change the existing Item B of P1 from
Standard to Guidance to provide agencies flexibility when deciding
where to install supplemental near-side signal faces.
400. In Section 4D.08 (existing Section 4D.15) Mounting Height of
Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to change all Standards related to the
maximum height for vehicular signal faces from Standard to Guidance.
FHWA proposes this change because increasing maximum heights does not
impact the safety of road and sidewalk users and therefore agencies
should have the flexibility to do so where they deem it advisable to
meet site conditions.
401. In Section 4D.09 (existing Section 4D.16) Lateral Offset
(Clearance) of Signal Faces, FHWA proposes to change the Standard
paragraph to Guidance to provide agencies flexibility when designing
signal face placement.
402. In Section 4D.10 (existing Section 4D.32) Temporary and
Portable Traffic Control Signals, FHWA proposes to delete Item C in P4
because existing Item D supersedes it, and to provide agencies more
flexibility in temporary traffic signal control operations. In concert
with this change, FHWA proposes to add a new Option permitting
temporary traffic signals to operate in semi-actuated mode instead of
being placed in flashing mode.
403. In Section 4E.01 (existing Section 4D.06) Signal Indications--
Design,
[[Page 80949]]
Illumination, Color, and Shape, FHWA proposes to revise P9 to require
that displays meet the minimum requirements of ``Equipment and
Materials Standards of the Institute of Transportation Engineers'' for
signal optical units that use incandescent lamps within optical
assemblies that include lenses. FHWA also proposes to add the
requirements of the publications entitled, ``Vehicle Traffic Control
Signal Heads: Light Emitting Diode (LED) Circular Signal Supplement''
and ``Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads: Light Emitting Diode (LED)
Vehicle Arrow Traffic Signal Supplement'' that pertain to the aspects
of the signal head design that affect the display of the signal
indications shall be met for light emitting diode (LED) traffic signal
modules, except during nighttime conditions, which is addressed in the
revised paragraph 11. FHWA proposes this change based on Official
Ruling No. 4(09)-28(I).\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-28(I), January 25, 2013,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_28.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to change P11 from Standard to Support
and combine with P12 because it contains general information about
signal lenses and is not a requirement for traffic control signals.
404. In Section 4E.02 (existing Section 4D.07) Size of Vehicular
Signal Indications, FHWA proposes to require all arrow signal
indications to be twelve-inch to enhance safety and conspicuity of the
arrow legend. FHWA also proposes to modify the existing Option to allow
8-inch circular indications in a flashing beacon based on Official
Ruling No. 4(09)-7(I).\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-7(I), February 8, 2011,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_7.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option allowing the use of
different sizes of signal indications in the same face or signal head.
This option is a variation of P5 of Section 4D.15 in the 2003 MUTCD.
Even though this was implied in the 2009 MUTCD, this new Option would
provide agencies explicit flexibility to install twelve-inch arrows
with eight-inch circular displays if the conditions permit eight-inch
circular displays.
405. In Section 4F.01 (existing Section 4D.05), retitled,
``Application of Steady and Flashing Signal Indications during Steady
(Stop-and-Go) Operation,'' FHWA proposes to add items E and G to
Standard P3 to include provisions for flashing red arrow and flashing
yellow arrow signal indications for steady (stop-and-go) mode of
operation. FHWA proposes this change to clarify the application of
flashing signal indications in steady (stop-and-go) mode based on their
addition to the 2009 MUTCD. FHWA also proposes to clarify in Item H
that except for under certain circumstances, a steady green arrow
signal indication shall be displayed only to allow vehicular movements
in the direction indicated, that are not in conflict with other
vehicles moving on a green or yellow signal indication, even if the
other vehicles are required to yield the right-of-way to the traffic
moving on the GREEN ARROW signal indication. FHWA proposes this
clarification to reflect Official Change Request 4(09)-75(C).\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ An inventory of FHWA's Official Rulings can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to expand existing Option P5 to include conditions
where a steady straight-through green arrow may be used to discourage
wrong-way turns. FHWA proposes this clarification to reflect Official
Change Request 4(09)-75(C).\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard, prior to existing
Standard P13, for signal displays on separate signal faces at pre-
signals for left-turn and/or right-turn lanes that extend from the
downstream signalized intersection back to and across a grade crossing.
FHWA proposes this change to permit agencies to display straight-
through green arrow with circular red or circular yellow on the same
approach to the pre-signal to improve safety by discouraging road users
from inadvertently turning onto railroad or light rail transit (LRT)
tracks.
406. In Section 4F.02 (existing Section 4D.17) Signal Indications
for Left-Turn Movements--General, FHWA proposes to change P1 from
Standard to Support because the paragraph provides information
regarding the applicability of signal indications for U-turns to the
left and is more appropriate as a Support statement.
FHWA also proposes to revise Standard P5 to prohibit explicitly the
simultaneous display of a protected left-turn movement with opposing
right-turn green arrow or yellow arrow signal indication unless there
are separate departure lanes available and there are pavement markings
or a channelizing island clearly indicating which departure lane to
use. This prohibition has been implicit in the description of what
constitutes conflicting movements elsewhere in Part 4, but FHWA
proposes this change to be specific about conflicting movements between
left-turns and opposing right-turns.
In addition, FHWA proposes to modify Standard P6 to clarify which
signal displays are prohibited when a combined left-turn/through lane
exists on an approach.
FHWA proposes similar changes in Section 4F.09 (existing Section
4D.21) for right-turn movements.
407. In new ``Section 4F.04 Signal Indications for Permissive Only
Mode Left-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face,'' new ``Section
4F.06 Signal Indications for Protected Only Mode Left-Turn Movements in
a Separate Signal Face,'' new ``Section 4F.08 Signal Indications for
Protected/Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal
Face,'' new ``Section 4F.11 Signal Indications for Permissive Only Mode
Right-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face,'' new ``Section 4F.13
Signal Indications for Protected Only Mode Right-Turn Movements in a
Separate Signal Face,'' and new ``Section 4F.15 Signal Indications for
Protected/Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal
Face,'' FHWA proposes to add a new Standard in each section prohibiting
the use of a separate turn signal face on an approach that does not
include an exclusive turn lane. FHWA proposes this change because if an
exclusive lane does not exist, then a separate turn signal face should
not be provided because both the turning and through vehicles share the
same lane and a separate turn signal face can be confusing to road
users in this situation.
408. In new ``Section 4F.06 Signal Indications for Protected Only
Mode Left-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face'' which consists of
P3 of existing Section 4D.19, FHWA proposes to delete the reference to
signal instruction sign and requirement for the LEFT ON GREEN ARROW
ONLY (R10-5) sign. FHWA proposes this change to remove the undefined
term ``signal instruction sign'' and to provide additional flexibility
for the use of traffic signal signs for separate left-turn signal faces
operating in a protected only mode.
FHWA proposes a similar revision to new ``Section 4F.13 Signal
Indications for Protected Only Mode Right-Turn Movements in a Separate
Signal Face'' which consists of P3 of existing Section 4D.23 to delete
the reference to signal instruction sign and requirement for the RIGHT
ON GREEN ARROW ONLY (R10-5a) sign.
409. In new ``Section 4F.08 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Left-Turn Movements in a
[[Page 80950]]
Separate Signal Face'' which consists of P3-P6 of existing Section
4D.20, FHWA proposes to modify the Standard (P1 in existing Section
4D.20) to allow the display of a steady left-turn red arrow immediately
following the steady left-turn yellow arrow signal indication to
provide a red clearance interval, enabling the opposing traffic to
start up before releasing the permissive left-turn movement.
410. In Section 4F.09 (existing Section 4D.21), Signal Indications
for Right-Turn Movements--General, FHWA proposes to delete P6 to allow,
when needed, a yellow change interval for the right-turn movement when
the status of the right-turn operation is changing from permissive to
protected within any given signal sequence. FHWA proposes this change
because this yellow change interval is frequently needed when a right-
turn overlap is the next phase in order to allow opposing permissive
left-turn traffic to clear the intersection.
411. In new ``Section 4F.15 Signal Indications for Protected/
Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face,'' which
is comprised of existing P2-P6 of existing Section 4D.24, FHWA proposes
to allow the display of a steady right-turn red arrow signal indication
immediately following the steady right-turn yellow arrow signal
indication to provide a red clearance interval, enabling the opposing
traffic to start up before releasing the permissive right-turn
movement.
FHWA also proposes to add a new requirement to display a steady
right-turn yellow arrow and if needed, steady right-turn red arrow
following the flashing right-turn yellow arrow for permissive right-
turn movements changing to protected right-turn movements when there is
an opposing permissive left-turn movement that is being terminated
simultaneously. FHWA proposes this change because a yellow change
interval and red clearance interval might be needed during a right-turn
overlap to allow opposing permissive left-turn traffic to clear the
intersection.
412. In Section 4F.16 (existing Section 4D.25), retitled, ``Signal
Indications for Approaches with No Through Movement,'' FHWA proposes to
expand information regarding signal displays in situations where all
traffic on an approach must turn onto the intersecting roadway.
Existing Section 4D.25 does not address situations for approaches where
there is no through movement and there is not a shared left-turn/right-
turn lane or the lanes operate with variable lane-use regulations.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option to allow the continuous display
of a steady circular red signal indication during time when the traffic
control signal is being operated in steady (stop-and-go) mode. FHWA
proposes to add a new Standard prohibiting the display of circular
green and circular yellow signal indications to an approach with no
through movement and an approach speed 35 mph or greater, to an
approach where the one-way roadway that opposes the approach is an exit
ramp from a freeway or expressway, or to an approach where the one-way
roadway that opposes the approach has a speed limit of 35 mph or
greater. FHWA proposes the new Option and Standards to improve safety
by minimizing the potential for road users driving straight through in
the wrong direction onto a one-way roadway or exit ramp.
413. In Section 4F.17 (existing Section 4D.26) Yellow Change and
Red Clearance Intervals, FHWA proposes to change P2 from Standard to
Support because the paragraph describes the function of a yellow change
interval, rather than specific requirements.
FHWA also proposes to revise Support P7 to reference ``Guidelines
for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Intervals: A
Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers,''
which contains the current practices for determining the duration of
yellow change and red clearance intervals. In addition, FHWA proposes
to revise Guidance P14 to recommend the maximum duration of yellow
change interval for through movements should be 6 seconds and for
turning movements should be 7 seconds. As part of this change, FHWA
proposes to delete the second sentence of Guidance P14 and Guidance
P15. FHWA proposes these changes to reflect new guidance in the new ITE
publication.
414. In new ``Section 4F.19 Preemption Control of Traffic Control
Signals'' consisting of paragraphs from existing Section 4D.27, FHWA
proposes to revise the Standard regarding preemption control
transitions to permit the shortening or omission of any pedestrian
change interval only when the traffic control signal is being preempted
because a boat is approaching a movable bridge or because rail traffic
is approaching a grade crossing. FHWA proposes this change to improve
pedestrian safety. The existing MUTCD allows the shortening or omission
of the pedestrian change interval regardless of the reason. Unlike
boats and trains, emergency vehicles and buses generally have the
ability to slow, stop, or alter their course if necessary to avoid a
collision.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option permitting the display of a
distinctive indication to inform law enforcement personnel who are
escorting traffic that the traffic control signal has changed because
it has been preempted. FHWA proposes this change based on an NTSB
recommendation from the results of their investigation into the causes
of the fatal truck/train crash that occurred in Midland, Texas, when
law enforcement officers were escorting a parade.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ ``Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Collision, Midland,
Texas, Accident Report'' NTSB/HAR-13/02, November 15, 2012, can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1302.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to modify P11 to recommend that backup
power supply for traffic control signals with railroad preemption or
coordinated with flashing-light signal systems should provide a minimum
operating period sufficient to allow the implementation of alternative
traffic control during a power outage. FHWA proposes this change to
provide agencies with more guidance on the duration for backup power
supplies.
415. In Section 4G.02 (existing 4D.29) Flashing Operation--
Transition Into Flash Mode, FHWA proposes to change P1 from Standard to
Option because the language does not provide a requirement and is more
appropriate as an Option.
416. In Section 4G.04 (existing Section 4D.31) Flashing Operation--
Transition Out of Flashing Mode, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance
paragraph providing two recommended display sequences for transitioning
out of yellow-red flashing mode where there is a common major-street
green interval. FHWA also proposes to revise the existing
recommendation for display sequences for transitioning out of yellow-
red flashing mode where there is not a common major-street green
interval to provide a steady yellow signal indication followed by a
steady red clearance interval on the major traffic movement on the
major street. FHWA proposes these changes for safety and consistency in
signal operations.
417. FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter, numbered and titled,
Chapter 4H Bicycle Signals, that includes provisions for the
application, design, and operation of bicycle signals. This chapter
contains twelve sections and provisions related to the use, warrants,
application, size, placement, mounting height, intensity and light
distribution, and yellow change and red clearance
[[Page 80951]]
intervals for Bicycle Signal Faces. These sections and provisions are
generally consistent with provisions for traffic control signals. A
bicycle signal face consists of RED BICYCLE, YELLOW BICYCLE, and GREEN
BICYCLE symbol signal indications that controls bicycle movements from
a designated bicycle lane or from a separate facility, such as a shared
use path. The proposed provisions are based on the Interim Approval 16
\81\ and multiple experimentations across the Country. One notable
change from IA-16 is the removal of the green arrow signal indication
requirement when there are conflicts with motor vehicles moving
concurrently from an adjacent lane. FHWA proposes this change to
provide agencies with an option to control bikeways or bicycle lanes at
signalized intersections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-16, December 24, 2013, can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia16/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
418. In existing Section 4E.03 Application of Pedestrian Signal
Heads, FHWA proposes to delete the section and relocate P1 and P3 to
Section 4D.02. FHWA proposes to delete P2 in concert with the proposed
new Guidance in Section 4D.02 that provides additional flexibility to
use pedestrian signals.
419. In Section 4I.01 (existing Section 4E.01) Pedestrian Signal
Heads, FHWA proposes to modify P2 to align better with the
recommendation for an engineering study with specific factors for
consideration as outlined in Section 4K.01.
420. In Section 4I.02 (existing Section 4E.04) Size, Design, and
Illumination of Pedestrian Signal Head Indications, FHWA proposes to
revise P3 and add new Standard and Guidance paragraphs to provide more
accurate references to the ITE standards for pedestrian signal heads.
FHWA also proposes to change P5 from Standard to Guidance. FHWA
proposes this change for clarification and because the Walking Person
and Upraised Hand symbols could be slightly visible to pedestrians at
the far end of a crosswalk when not illuminated, due to sun phantom and
other visual phenomena.
421. In Section 4I.03 (existing Section 4E.05) Location and Height
of Pedestrian Signal Heads, FHWA proposes to change Standard P2 to
Guidance to provide agencies with flexibility in the location of
pedestrians signal heads with respect to vehicular signal heads when
mounted on the same support.
422. In Section 4I.04 (existing Section 4E.07) Countdown Pedestrian
Signals, FHWA proposes to clarify Standard P6 that countdown displays
shall not be used during the red clearance interval of a concurrent
vehicular phase that is ending simultaneously with or after the end of
the pedestrian phase because countdown displays sometimes overlap
across more than one vehicular phase and are used during the red
clearance interval of the first overlapped phase.
423. In Section 4I.05 (existing Section 4E.08) Pedestrian
Detectors, FHWA proposes adding an Option to address the need for
``touch-free'' pedestrian push buttons.
FHWA also proposes in Guidance P4 to clarify ``easy activation'' of
pedestrian push buttons as no more than 5 pounds of force to activate
to reflect accessibility requirements contained in the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), 309.4 Operable
Parts. FHWA also proposes several additional criteria for pushbutton
locations to provide practitioners with additional guidance related to
the placement of pedestrian push buttons in relation to curb ramps,
crosswalks, shoulders, and the edge of pavement, as well as
recommending a minimum 4-foot continuous clear width for a pedestrian
access route. These proposed changes reflect Official Change Request
4(09)-77(C).\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ An inventory of FHWA's Official Rulings can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to delete P17 since this is a repeat of P23 in
existing 4E.11.
424. In Section 4I.06 (existing Section 4E.06) Pedestrian Intervals
and Signal Phases, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard requiring the
display of a flashing red signal indication when the pedestrian signal
heads at a pedestrian hybrid beacon are displaying a flashing Upraised
Hand signal indication. FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with
the specified operation of pedestrian hybrid beacons in new Section
4J.03 (existing Section 4F.03).
FHWA also proposes to revise existing P4 to reduce the minimum
buffer interval from 3 seconds to 2 seconds. FHWA proposes this change
based on the results of an official experiment that was performed by
the Delaware DOT.\83\ The experiment concluded there was no
statistically significant difference from a safety perspective when the
minimum buffer interval was reduced from 3 seconds to 2 seconds. FHWA
proposes this change to provide additional flexibility to agencies in
optimizing the timing of traffic signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ ``MUTCD Experimentation with Countdown Pedestrian Signals
and Change Intervals,'' Delaware Center for Transportation,
University of Delaware, October 2011, can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://sites.udel.edu/dct/files/2013/10/Rpt.-211-Pedestrian-Signals-2d65hei.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to revise existing P7 to recommend
calculating pedestrian clearance time based on crossing distance
measured from the edge of the pavement and not from the shoulder or
edge of the traveled way. FHWA proposes this change because pedestrians
who are waiting for a walk indication typically do not feel safe
waiting on a paved shoulder and instead wait at the edge of the
pavement.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a Standard requiring the minimum
required time for the Walk interval be displayed in addition to the
time provided for the leading pedestrian interval at locations where
leading pedestrian intervals are being utilized without accessible
pedestrian signals. FHWA proposes this change to align with accessible
pedestrian signal guidance throughout Part 4.
425. In Section 4J.01 (existing Section 4F.01) Application of
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, FHWA proposes to add a new Option to allow
the reduction of the signal warrant criteria for pedestrian volume
crossing the major street by as much as 50 percent if the 15th-
percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per
second. FHWA proposes this change for consistency with traffic control
signal Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option to allow the separate
application of the major-street traffic volumes criteria in each
direction when there is a divided street having a median of sufficient
width for pedestrians to wait in accordance with Official Ruling No.
4(09)-25(I) \84\ and for consistency with the proposed change in
Section 4C.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-25(I), November 19, 2012,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_25.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
426. In Section 4J.02 (existing Section 4F.02) Design of Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacons, FHWA proposes to add Item E in Standard P1 requiring a
Stop sign for the minor-street approach when a pedestrian hybrid beacon
is installed at or immediately adjacent to an intersection. FHWA also
proposes to delete existing items A and C of Guidance P4 regarding
placement of pedestrian hybrid beacons with respect to side streets and
driveways and the installation of signs and pavement markings. FHWA
proposes these changes based on an FHWA evaluation
[[Page 80952]]
study of field implementations \85\ of pedestrian hybrid beacons
installed at or near intersections, which found that there were no
significant safety or operational problems with such locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ ``Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing
Treatment,'' FHWA June 2010, can be viewed at the following internet
website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10042/10042.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending accessible
pedestrian signals be installed in conjunction with a pedestrian hybrid
beacon in response to Official Change Request 4(09)-42(C).
FHWA also proposes to change the first sentence of Standard P8 to
an Option, allowing the CROSSWALK STOP ON RED or STOP ON RED-PROCEED ON
FLASHING RED WHEN CLEAR signs to be installed facing each major street
approach to provide agencies flexibility on where to locate these
signs. FHWA proposes these changes based on the field experience of
agencies that have extensively used pedestrian hybrid beacons.
The 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study--``Comprehension
and Legibility of Selected Symbol Signs Phase IV'' \86\ evaluated the
comprehension and legibility of various alternatives for signing at
midblock hybrid beacon pedestrian crossings. The results indicated that
no significant differences were found between the alternatives;
however, they did highlight the need for a sign, at least initially,
while drivers are learning what actions to take based on the flashing
beacon. As a result, FHWA proposes to add a word message sign for
jurisdictions that determine the operational need at pedestrian hybrid
beacons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 2017 Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study--
``Comprehension and Legibility of Selected Symbol Signs Phase IV''
can be found at the following internet website: https://pooledfund.org/Document/Download/7559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes a new Standard prohibiting the use of bicycle
signal faces at a pedestrian hybrid beacon. FHWA proposes this because
the speed at which bicyclists are able to enter and traverse the
crosswalk would make it unsafe to allow a green or yellow bicycle
symbol signal indication to be shown at the same time that a flashing
red signal indication is shown to motorists. If the motorists are shown
a steady red signal indication for the entire length of time that the
bicycle signal face is showing a green or yellow bicycle symbol signal
indication and a red clearance interval, the hybrid beacon would
essentially be functioning as a traffic control signal, and not as a
pedestrian hybrid beacon.
427. In Section 4J.03 (existing Section 4F.03) Operation of
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance
paragraph recommending that pedestrian hybrid beacons operated as part
of a coordinated signal system should not have a variable flashing
yellow interval duration on a cycle-by-cycle basis. FHWA also proposes
new Guidance that the pedestrian hybrid beacon should remain in the
dark condition after a pedestrian actuation has been received until the
point in the background cycle when the flashing yellow interval needs
to begin to maintain the system coordination. FHWA proposes this change
in accordance with Official Ruling No. 4(09)-32(I).\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-32(I), March 21, 2013, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_32.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, FHWA proposes to add a new Option allowing the pedestrian
hybrid beacon to remain in dark condition after a pedestrian actuation
until the minimum dark time has been provided, if the minimum dark time
has been set on the controller.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option allowing the use of a steady
red clearance interval after the steady yellow change interval. FHWA
also proposes to add an Option allowing the alternating flashing
CIRCULAR RED signal indications to continue for a short period after
the pedestrian change interval has terminated to provide a buffer
interval for pedestrians. FHWA proposes these two new Options to
increase safety and in accordance with Official Ruling No. 4(09)-
14(I).\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-14(I), August 8, 2011, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_14.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option to allow a pedestrian
hybrid beacon in close proximity to an active grade crossing to be
preempted.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a Standard requiring a pedestrian
hybrid beacon to flash circular yellow signal indications to each major
street approach and requiring the pedestrian signal heads to revert to
the dark condition when placed into a flashing mode by a conflict
monitor or manual switch. The proper signal and pedestrian displays for
pedestrian hybrid beacons placed into flashing mode are not addressed
in the current MUTCD and this new standard is intended to provide
uniformity and consistency for road users.
428. FHWA proposes to change existing Option P9 to Guidance and
revise the text to recommend pedestrian push buttons be used to
activate the accessible pedestrian signals at locations where it is not
necessary for pedestrians to push a push button detector to receive a
WALKING PERSON signal indication, and to provide information in non-
visual formats. FHWA proposes this revision to align with accessible
pedestrian signal guidance throughout Part 4.
429. In Section 4K.03 (existing Section 4E.11), retitled, ``Walk
Indications,'' FHWA proposes to revise Standard P7 to clarify the
existing requirements for a percussive tone for the audible walk
indications. The only exception is for locations with two accessible
pedestrian signals on the same corner, or on a median, that are
associated with different phases and are located less than 10 feet
apart, in which case a speech message is required for the audible walk
indication. FHWA proposes this change in accordance with Official
Ruling No. 4(09)-3(I).\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-3(I), July 30, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to delete the second sentence in Support P14 allowing
the use of transmitted speech messages, because there is no assurance
that all impacted pedestrians would have a transmitter.
FHWA proposes to remove the second sentence of Standard P17
limiting the use of speech walk messages to specific locations. FHWA
proposes this revision to avoid redundancy, since this is addressed in
greater detail, in P8.
FHWA also proposes to change P17 through P20 from Standard to
Guidance to provide agencies flexibility in developing speech walk
messages.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard requiring accessible pedestrian
signal speech messages in a language other than English to follow the
message first stated in English. FHWA proposes this change to establish
consistency in the order of such messages when an optional secondary
message in a language other than English is used, thereby meeting the
expectancy of pedestrians.
430. In Section 4K.04 (existing Section 4E.12), retitled,
``Vibrotactile Arrows and Locator Tones,'' FHWA proposes to revise P1
and P2 to clarify the requirements for vibrotactile arrows and locator
tones to improve safety for pedestrians with visual disabilities.
FHWA also proposes a new Option to allow the pushbutton locator
tone to default to deactivated mode during periods when the steady
UPRAISED HAND is displayed for the associated
[[Page 80953]]
crosswalk if a passive pedestrian detection system is implemented that
activates the locator tone when a pedestrian is present within a 12-
foot radius from the push button location, in accordance with Official
Ruling No. 4(09)-26(I).\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-26(I), January 25, 2013,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_26.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to change the second portion of P6 from
Standard to Guidance to recommend, rather than require, that pushbutton
locator tones to be audible 6 to 12 feet from the pushbutton, or to the
building line, whichever is less. FHWA proposes this change to provide
agencies additional flexibility in locating pushbutton locator tones
and pushbuttons.
431. In Section 4K.05 (existing Section 4E.13), retitled,
``Extended Push Button Press Features,'' FHWA proposes to change P7
from Option to Guidance to recommend that audible beaconing be
initiated by an extended pushbutton press. FHWA makes this change to
provide more consistent applications of audible beaconing.
FHWA also proposes to add a value of 100 dBA for the maximum volume
of the pushbutton locator tone during the pedestrian change interval
and to require that the loudspeaker be mounted at the far end of the
crosswalk at a height of 7 to 10 feet above the pavement. FHWA proposes
this change to be consistent with existing provisions for accessible
pedestrian signals in Section 4E.11, which are based on ``NCHRP 3-62
Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices.'' \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ NCHRP Web-Only Document 117A can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w117a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph recommending
that the audible beaconing loudspeaker at the far end of the crosswalk
should be within the width of the crosswalk.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option to permit the sound
level of the accessible pedestrian signal walk indication and
subsequent pushbutton locator tone to be increased by an extended
pushbutton press.
FHWA proposes these changes to improve accessible pedestrian
signals for pedestrians with vision disabilities.
432. FHWA proposes to add a new Chapter numbered and titled,
``Chapter 4L Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons'' (RRFBs) that includes
three new sections and provisions for the application, design, and
operation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons used to supplement
pedestrian warning signs. RRFBs consist of two rapidly-flashed
rectangular-shaped yellow indications, each with an LED-array based
pulsing light source. The proposed provisions are based on the Interim
Approval 21,\92\ a research study \93\ performed on the effectiveness
of various flash patterns, and FHWA official interpretations \94\ and
experimentations. One notable revision from the IA-22 is a new Standard
requiring the design of the RRFBs to conform to the requirements for
post-mounted or overhead placement described in paragraph 3 of Section
4L.02 if used at intersections. RRFBs have been shown to achieve high
rates of compliance at a low relative cost in comparison to other more
restrictive devices that provide comparable results, and they have been
shown to provide an enhanced level of pedestrian safety at uncontrolled
crosswalks that has been previously unattainable without costly and
delay-producing full traffic signalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-21, March 20, 2018, can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia21/index.htm.
\93\ ``Driver-Yielding Results for Three Rectangular Rapid-Flash
Patterns--Overview,'' TTI, June 18, 2014, can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://tti.tamu.edu/2014/06/18/new-rapid-flash-beacon/. ``Driver-Yielding Results for Three Rectangular
Rapid-Flash Patterns--Executive Summary,'' TTI, June 17, 2014, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2014-5.pdf.
\94\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4-376 (I), December 9, 2009, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_376.htm. FHWA's
Official Ruling No. 4(09)-5 (I), August 12, 2010, can be viewed at
the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_5.htm. FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-17 (I),
January 9, 2012, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_17.htm.
FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-21 (I), June 13, 2012, can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_21.htm. FHWA's Official Ruling No.
4(09)-22 (I), August 8, 2012, can be viewed at the following
internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_22.htm. FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-24
(I), September 27, 2012, can be viewed at the following internet
website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_24.htm. FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-37 (I), October 9,
2013, can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_37.htm. FHWA's
Official Ruling No. 4(09)-38 (I), October 22, 2013, can be viewed at
the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_38.htm. FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-41
(I), July 25, 2014, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_41.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement in Section 4L.02 to
recommend the use of audible information devices with RRFBs to assist
pedestrians with vision disabilities. FHWA proposes this revision to
provide additional assistance due to the lack of audible traffic cues.
433. In Section 4M.03 (existing Section 4G.03) Operation of
Emergency-Vehicle Traffic Control Signals, FHWA proposes to change P3
and P4 from Standard to Guidance to provide agencies additional
flexibility in the operation of emergency-vehicle traffic control
signals and warning beacons.
434. In new ``Section 4N.03 Operation of Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid
Beacons,'' consisting of paragraphs from existing Section 4G.04, FHWA
proposes to add a Standard requiring the beacon faces to display
flashing yellow signal indications to each approach on the major street
if placed into flashing mode by a conflict monitor or manual switch.
FHWA proposes this change for consistency with requirements for traffic
control signals.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option to allow an emergency-
vehicle hybrid beacon in close proximity to an active grade crossing to
be preempted.
435. In Section 4P.02 (existing Section 4I.02) Design of Freeway
Entrance Ramp Control Signals, FHWA proposes to reorder the paragraphs
and revise existing P3 to clarify that a minimum of two signal faces
shall be provided on ramps that have one controlled lane as well as
ramps that have more than one controlled lane and the ramp control
signals are operated such that green signal indications are always
displayed simultaneously to all of the controlled lanes on the ramp.
For locations where there is more than one lane on an entrance ramp
and the ramp control signals are not operated such that the green
signal indications are always displayed simultaneously, FHWA proposes
to split the requirements between two-lane entrance ramps and entrance
ramps with three or more lanes. For two-lane entrance ramps that are
separately controlled, at least two ramp control signals shall be
provided for each lane. For three or more entrance ramp lanes that are
separately controlled, one ramp control signal shall be provided over
the approximate center of each lane. FHWA proposes these changes in
accordance with Official Ruling No. 4(09)-6(I).\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-6(I), January 5, 2011, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_6.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes a new Option to expand the existing exception to
the requirement of 8-foot minimum lateral separation of signal faces
for one-lane
[[Page 80954]]
entrance ramps to apply to entrance ramps with two or more controlled
lanes. FHWA proposes this change for consistency with single-lane
ramps.
Further, FHWA proposes to change P6 from Standard to Guidance to
provide agencies additional flexibility in the location and design of
ramp control signals.
436. In Section 4P.03 (existing 4I.03) Operation of Freeway
Entrance Ramp Control Signals, FHWA proposes to revise Standard P3 to
prohibit the use of flashing light emitting diode (LED) units within
the legend or border of signs to inform road users that ramp control
signal is in operation. FHWA also proposes similar revisions to Section
4S.03 (existing Section 4L.03) Warning Beacon and Section 4S.04
(existing Section 4L.04) Speed Limit Sign Beacon to prohibit the use of
flashing LED units within the legend or border of signs to inform road
users that a regulation is in effect or that a condition is present.
FHWA believes that warning beacons should be used to inform road users
that a regulation is in effect and that flashing LED lights within the
border or legend of the sign should only provide added conspicuity to
sign legends.
437. In Section 4Q.02 (existing Section 4J.02) Design and Location
of Movable Bridge Signals and Gates, FHWA proposes to change P9, the
last sentence of P13, P16, and P20 from Standard to Guidance and change
P12 from Standard to Support to provide agencies with more flexibility
in the design of movable bridge signals, gates, and signs.
438. In Section 4S.01 (existing Section 4L.01) General Design and
Operation of Flashing Beacons, FHWA proposes to revise Standard P4 to
discontinue the existing allowance of a beacon within the border of a
sign for School Speed Limit Sign Beacons. FHWA proposes this change
because under certain light and weather conditions, the flashing beacon
causes irradiation that can obscure the sign message if the beacon is
within the sign or too close to the sign legend. This proposal is
consistent with research demonstrating the phenomenon of irradiation or
disability glare.\96\ FHWA also proposes a corresponding revision to
Section 4S.04 (existing Section 4L.04) Speed Limit Sign Beacon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Information on the concept of irradiation and disability
glade can be viewed at the following internet website: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2003.tb03080.x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to add Interchange Exit Direction signs with
advisory speed panels as an exception to the Standard prohibiting
flashing beacons within the border of the sign. FHWA proposes this
revision to clarify the existing practice and for consistency with
Figure 2E-27.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Standard establishing eight-inch
and twelve-inch as the two nominal diameter sizes for flashing beacon
signal indications in accordance with Official Ruling No. 4(09)-
7(I).\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-7(I), February 8, 2011,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_7.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
439. In Section 4S.02 (existing Section 4L.02) Intersection Control
Beacon, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard requiring twelve-inch
signal indications for Intersection Control Beacons facing approaches
where road users view both flashing beacon indications and lane-use
control signal indications simultaneously or where the nearest flashing
beacon signal face is more than 120 feet beyond the stop line, unless a
supplemental near-side flashing beacon signal face is provided. FHWA
also proposes a new Guidance recommending twelve-inch signal
indications for Intersection Control Beacons facing approaches where
the speed is 40 mph or higher or where post-mounted flashing beacon
signal faces are used. FHWA proposes these changes to increase the
signal indication visibility for the road users and for consistency
with provisions for traffic control signals.
440. In Section 4S.03 (existing Section 4L.03) Warning Beacon, FHWA
proposes to delete P5 requiring a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of
19 feet clearance above the pavement for warning beacons suspended over
the roadway. FHWA proposes this change because P2 in new Section 4S.01
adequately addresses clearances and in accordance with Official Ruling
No. 4(09)-11(I).\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 4(09)-11(I), June 29, 2011, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_11.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes to modify P11 to specify that the BE PREPARED TO
STOP (W3-4) sign and a WHEN FLASHING (W16-13P) plaque is the traffic
signal warning sign assembly that may be used with the Warning Beacon
interconnected with a traffic signal controller.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement to recommend the use
of audible information devices with pedestrian-actuated Warning Beacons
to assist pedestrians with visual disabilities. FHWA proposes this
revision to provide additional assistance due to the potential lack of
audible traffic cues.
FHWA proposes adding a new Standard prohibiting the use of
vibrotactile and percussive indications in conjunction with audible
information devices at pedestrian-actuated Warning Beacons at a
pedestrian crossing. FHWA also proposes a new Guidance recommending
that, if used, the audible message should be a speech message that
says, ``Yellow lights are flashing'' and should be spoken twice. FHWA
proposes these changes because the vibrotactile and percussive
indications are reserved for the Walk indication.
441. In Section 4S.04 (existing Section 4L.04) Speed Limit Sign
Beacon, FHWA proposes to delete the second sentence of P2 to provide
agencies more flexibility in arranging two or more indications.
FHWA also proposes to modify P3 to expand the provision beyond two
signal indications to address situations where four signal indications
are used.
442. In Section 4S.05 (existing Section 4L.05) Stop Beacon, FHWA
proposes to change P3 from Standard to Guidance to provide agencies
flexibility in designing and installing the Stop Beacon with the Stop,
Do Not Enter, and Wrong Way signs.
443. In Section 4T.01 (existing Section 4M.01) Application of Lane-
Use Control Signals, FHWA proposes to add a new Option allowing the use
of a USE LANE(S) WITH GREEN ARROW (R10-8) sign in conjunction with
lane-use control signals, for consistency with Section 2B.62 (existing
Section 2B.53).
444. In Section 4T.03 (existing Section 4M.03) Design of Lane-Use
Control Signals, FHWA proposes to change P6 through P10 from Standard
to Guidance to provide agencies flexibility in the design of lane-use
control signals.
445. In Section 4T.04 (existing Section 4M.04) Operation of Lane-
Use Control Signals, FHWA proposes to change the second sentence of P3
from Standard to Guidance to allow agencies flexibility in the duration
of the Red X signal indication display.
446. In Section 4U.01 (existing Section 4N.01), retitled,
``Application of In-Roadway Warning Lights,'' FHWA proposes to relocate
and change P3 from Standard to Guidance to provide agencies additional
flexibility in designing the height above the roadway surface of in-
roadway warning lights.
447. In Section 4U.02 (existing Section 4N.02) In-Roadway Warning
Lights at Crosswalks, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement
recommending audible information devices be used with In-Roadway
Warning Lights to provide assistance for
[[Page 80955]]
pedestrians with visual disabilities. FHWA proposes this revision to
provide additional assistance due to the potential lack of audible
traffic cues.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard prohibiting the use of
vibrotactile and percussive indications in conjunction with audible
information devices at In-Roadway Warning Lights. FHWA also proposes
new Guidance recommending that, if used, the audible message should be
a speech message that says, ``Yellow lights are flashing'' and should
be spoken twice. FHWA proposes these changes because the vibrotactile
and percussive indications are reserved for the Walk indication and
pedestrians with vision disabilities could misinterpret the device as
an accessible pedestrian signal.
Discussion of Proposed New Part 5 Automated Vehicles
448. As part of the relocation of material related to low-volume
roads to other parts within the Manual, FHWA proposes to provide
content and retitle Part 5 Automated Vehicles. FHWA proposes all new
content for this part. The purpose of this new part is to provide
agencies with general considerations for vehicle automation as they
assess their infrastructure needs, prepare their roadways for automated
vehicle (AV) technologies, and to support the safe deployment of AVs.
449. FHWA proposes a new ``Section 5A.01 Purpose and Scope'' which
contains a Support statement with general information about AV
technologies, the MUTCD, and the purpose of the new part.
450. In new ``Section 5A.02 Overview of Connected and Automated
Vehicles,'' FHWA proposes to include a Support statement describing
various types of AV technology and sensors used by AVs.
451. In new ``Section 5A.03 Definition of Terms,'' FHWA proposes to
include a Support statement with several definitions for terms used
extensively in AV technology. The definitions proposed are summarized
from those found in the Society of Automotive Engineers Standard SAE
J3016.\99\ The proposed terms include: Automated Driving Systems,
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, Automation Levels, Cooperative
Automation, Driving Automation Systems (DAS), Dynamic Driving Task, and
Operational Design Domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ The Society of Automotive Engineers' Standard SAE J3016 can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://www.sae.org/news/2019/01/sae-updates-j3016-automated-driving-graphic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
452. In new ``Section 5A.04 Traffic Control Device and Use
Considerations,'' FHWA proposes a Support statement that describes the
challenges related to the interaction between traffic control devices
and DAS.
FHWA also proposes to include a Guidance statement recommending
agencies adopt maintenance policies or practices that consider both the
human vehicle operator and DAS technology needs, and to use engineering
judgment to determine traffic control device selection and placement
with similar consideration.
FHWA also proposes Support and Guidance statements regarding the
fundamental principles and considerations to be applied in evaluating
traffic control devices and other maintenance to support of AV
technologies during maintenance and infrastructure improvements.
453. FHWA proposes a new chapter titled, ``Chapter 5B Provisions
for Traffic Control Devices'' with sections regarding signs, markings,
traffic signals, and temporary traffic control, as well as provisions
for traffic control at railroad and light rail transit grade crossings,
and traffic control for bicycle facilities.
454. In new ``Section 5B.01 Signs,'' FHWA proposes to include
Support and Guidance statements regarding signs. In the Guidance
statement, FHWA recommends that signs be clearly associated to the
specific lane/road to which they apply, such as parallel roads with
different speed limits and that information spreading practices be
employed to minimize informational load. FHWA also proposes that
standard sign designs be retained as much as possible. Finally, FHWA
proposes that the illuminated portion of electronic signs should have a
standard refresh/flicker rate, greater than 200 Hz. FHWA proposes this
language to accommodate machine vision technology, while also helping
human drivers.
455. In new ``Section 5B.02 Markings,'' FHWA proposes to include
Support and Guidance statements with a list of considerations that
should be used to accommodate machine vision used to support the
automation of vehicles and benefit the performance of the human vehicle
operator. Most of these considerations are addressed in more detail in
Part 3 and references are provided to the primary Sections. These
considerations include uniform line widths, the use of dotted edge line
extensions along all entrance and exit ramps, along all auxiliary
lanes, and along all tapers where a deceleration or auxiliary lane is
added, use of chevron markings in exit gore areas, continuous markings
in work zones and in all lane transitions, and minimum dimensions for
dashed lines. FHWA also proposes to recommend that raised pavement
markers not be used as a substitute for markings and that decorative
elements in crosswalks be avoided to minimize any potential confusion
for automated systems.
456. In new ``Section 5B.03 Highway Traffic Signals,'' FHWA
proposes to include a Guidance statement with a list of considerations
that should be used to accommodate machine vision used to support the
automation of vehicles and benefit the performance of the human vehicle
operator. The list includes consistency along a corridor of traffic
signal design and placement with respect to approach lanes, and
consistent LED refresh rates greater than 200 Hz.
In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a Support statement
describing the challenges in achieving corridor-based consistency
necessary for machine vision. Information is provided on the benefits
of using vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technology for traffic signal
systems to address inconsistencies in a corridor.
457. In new ``Section 5B.04 Temporary Traffic Control,'' FHWA
proposes Guidance and Standard statements regarding the use of signs
and pavement markings to accommodate machine vision better and benefit
the performance of the human vehicle operator in and through work
zones. FHWA proposes that type of signs, spacing, and mounting height
should follow the requirements in Part 6 and that the END ROAD WORK
sign should be used to establish the end of the work zone.
In the Standard, FHWA proposes existing pavement markings be
maintained in all long-term stationary temporary traffic control zones
in accordance with other referenced areas of the Manual. FHWA also
proposes pavement markings match the alignment of the markings in place
at both ends of the Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) zone and that they
be placed along the entire length of any paved detour or temporary
roadway prior to the detour or roadway being opened to road users. FHWA
also proposes pavement markings in the temporary traveled way that are
no longer applicable be removed or obliterated as soon as practical. As
part of this requirement, FHWA proposes that pavement marking
obliteration remove the non-applicable pavement marking material, the
obliteration method minimize pavement scarring, and painting over
existing pavement markings with black paint or spraying
[[Page 80956]]
with asphalt shall not be accepted as a substitute for removal or
obliteration. FHWA proposes these changes to accommodate machine vision
of AVs, which might not have the capabilities to distinguish between
markings that appear to conflict with one another in the same way that
a human road user can.
Finally, FHWA proposes a Guidance statement to recommend provisions
to enhance the visibility of vertical panels, tubes, and other
channelizing devices, as well as markings, to accommodate machine
vision as well as human vehicle operators.
458. In new ``Section 5B.05 Traffic Control for Railroad and Light
Rail Transit Grade Crossings,'' FHWA proposes a Guidance statement
recommending that placement of signs and markings be consistent within
a corridor at both passive and active highway-rail grade crossings. In
addition, FHWA proposes Guidance recommending that V2I communication be
employed at a highway-rail grade crossing. Finally, FHWA proposes a
Support statement recommending signs and pavement marking associated
with railroad crossings and tracks that are no longer active be
removed. FHWA proposes this language to accommodate machine vision
better and benefit the performance of the human vehicle operator.
459. In new ``Section 5B.06 Traffic Control for Bicycle
Facilities,'' FHWA proposes a Guidance statement recommending that
bicycle facilities be segregated from other vehicle traffic using
physical barriers where practicable and that road markings are needed
to denote the end of a bike lane that is merged with traffic. FHWA
proposes this language to accommodate machine vision better and benefit
the performance of the human vehicle operator.
460. FHWA proposes to reserve Chapter 5C for potential future
provisions.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control
461. FHWA proposes to reorganize Part 6 by dividing some existing
long chapters and sections into several chapters and/or several
sections, each having a clearly understandable title, and by moving
certain material to new locations within Part 6 to consolidate similar
information in one place. In some cases, this involves the proposed
creation of new Chapters and Sections that do not exist in the 2009
MUTCD. FHWA believes this proposed reorganization would create a more
logical flow of information and make it easier for users to find the
content they need. In addition, FHWA proposes to delete text from
various sections where such material duplicates or is very similar to
existing text in other sections within Part 6 or elsewhere in the
MUTCD. These reorganizations and elimination of redundancies are
editorial in nature and do not significantly change the technical
content or meaning, except as otherwise discussed below.
462. Throughout Part 6, FHWA proposes to make various editorial
revisions to eliminate the use of unacceptably vague and undefined
terms, such as ``reasonably safe,'' replacing such phrases with more
appropriate language.
463. FHWA is proposing to revise several Guidance statements
related to sidewalk closure during construction and accessible
pedestrian access. Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), all State and local governments are required to take
appropriate steps to ensure that their communications with people with
disabilities are as effective as communications with others. [28 CFR
35.160(a)]. Effective communication means that whatever information is
conveyed by or on behalf of a public entity must be as clear and
understandable to people with disabilities as it is for people who do
not have disabilities. The ADA requires public entities to furnish
auxiliary aids and services--which include the acquisition or
modification of equipment or devices--where necessary to afford
individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in,
and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public
entity. [28 CFR 35.160(b)(1)]. The provision of pedestrian facilities
in the public right-of-way is generally recognized as a service
provided by the public entity that owns such facilities. See, e.g.,
Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002). When
sidewalks are closed temporarily due to construction, it is important
for the closure to be communicated to pedestrians in a manner that is
accessible to pedestrians with vision loss. FHWA proposes to strengthen
the language in Part 6 to address this need.
Under Title II of the ADA, all State and local governments must
operate services, programs, and activities, including pedestrian
facilities in public street rights-of-way, such that, when viewed in
their entirety, they are readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires that a public entity's
newly constructed facilities be made accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities to the extent that it is not structurally
impracticable to do so. The ADA also requires that, when an existing
facility is altered, the altered facility be made accessible and usable
by individuals with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, generally referred to as
Section 504, includes similar requirements for public entities that
receive Federal financial assistance. FHWA proposes to eliminate text
that refers to a level of usage by pedestrians with disabilities as a
basis for taking certain accessibility-related actions because the need
to comply with the ADA does not depend on the frequency with which the
facility is used by pedestrians with disabilities. FHWA also proposes
to eliminate text suggesting that the accommodation of pedestrians with
disabilities is sometimes unnecessary.
464. In conjunction with the elimination of existing Part 5 Low-
Volume Rural Roads, FHWA proposes to add a new Support paragraph in
Section 6A.01 General regarding temporary traffic controls on low-
volume rural roads. FHWA also proposes to change the last two sentences
of existing P10 from Standard to Guidance, to make this information
regarding statutory authority to be consistent with similar information
in Part 1.
465. In Section 6A.02 (existing Section 6B.01) Fundamental
Principles of Temporary Traffic Control, FHWA proposes to add
information on the spacing and number of signs in the advance warning
area in order to address excessive queue lengths based on the findings
of NTSB/HAR-15/02 Multivehicle Work Zone Crash I-95 Cranbury, New
Jersey.\100\ FHWA proposes to clarify the language in the Guidance
statement of paragraph 7 parts 3A and 3B pertaining to pedestrian
accessibility in accordance with 28 CFR 35.160(a)(1), which requires a
public entity to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications
with applicants, participants, members of the public, and companions
with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ ``Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95, Cranbury,
New Jersey, June 7, 2014,'' NTSB/HAR-15/02, can be viewed at the
following internet website: https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/har1502.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
466. FHWA proposes to divide existing Section 6F.01 Types of TTC
Devices into two new sections, 6A.03 ``TTC Devices'' and 6A.04
``Crashworthiness of TTC Devices.'' FHWA proposes to revise the
Standard
[[Page 80957]]
paragraph in new Section 6A.03 defining ``traffic control devices'' and
the Support paragraph in Section 6A.04 regarding crashworthiness to be
consistent with the revised definitions proposed for these terms in
Part 1.
467. In Section 6B.01 (existing Section 6C.01) Temporary Traffic
Control Plans, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending
the development of a TTC plan for any activity, either planned or
unplanned, that will affect road users, because TTC plans for such
activities are an important element of roadway safety. In addition,
FHWA proposes to delete the last three sentences of the Guidance
paragraph about pedestrians with disabilities because this information
is covered elsewhere in Part 6.
468. In Section 6B.04 (existing Section 6C.04) Advance Warning
Area, FHWA proposes to change the second sentence in P4 from Guidance
to Option to clarify the intent of the language. FHWA proposes this
change to provide flexibility for cases such as low-speed residential
streets.
469. In Section 6B.05 (existing Section 6C.05) Transition Area,
FHWA proposes to clarify the intent of the Standard Statement by adding
that signs, arrow boards, and/or channelizing devices are the
appropriate devices for directing road users from the normal path to a
new path, except in the case of short-term mobile operations.
470. In Section 6B.08 (existing Section 6C.08) Tapers, FHWA
proposes to delete the first sentence of Guidance P15, because the use
of flaggers or temporary traffic control signals is covered elsewhere.
471. In Section 6C.02 (existing Section 6D.01) Pedestrian
Considerations, FHWA proposes to edit and change existing P3 from
Standard to Guidance because advance notification of a sidewalk closing
is not always possible, especially in emergencies, therefore it is not
appropriate to require advance notification. FHWA also proposes to
delete the second sentence of existing P4 regarding adequate pedestrian
access in TTC zones to eliminate repetition with Section 6B.03
(existing Section 6C.03). In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option
statement about accommodating pedestrians if a short-term work zone is
attended by project personnel, in order to provide more flexibility
while maintaining pedestrian safety and convenience. FHWA also proposes
to add a Guidance statement to recommend designing TTC zones to
minimize conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian movements due to
the likelihood of high pedestrian presence in roadways open to public
travel to enhance pedestrian safety. FHWA further proposes to delete
the existing second sentence of P22 about the upstream leading ends of
temporary traffic barrier because this information is adequately
covered in Section 6M.02 (existing Section 6F.85).
472. In Section 6C.03 (existing Section 6D.02) Accessibility
Consideration, FHWA proposes to eliminate the first portion of the
second sentence in existing paragraph 3 that refers to a level of usage
by pedestrians with disabilities as a basis for taking certain
accessibility-related actions because the need to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act does not depend on the frequency with
which the facility is used by pedestrians with disabilities.
473. In Section 6C.05 (existing Section 6E.02) High-Visibility
Safety Apparel, FHWA proposes to update the text to reflect the latest
ANSI Standard 107 dated 2015, per Official Ruling Nos. 6(09)-2(I),\101\
6(09)-4(I),\102\ 6(09)-12(I),\103\ and 6(09)-37(I),\104\ and in concert
with these changes proposes to delete repetitive information covered by
the ANSI standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-2(I), April 1, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_002.htm.
\102\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-4(I), May 10, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_004.htm.
\103\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-12(I), February 1, 2012,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_12.htm.
\104\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-37(I), June 1, 2016, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_37.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
474. In Section 6D.02 STOP/SLOW Paddle for Hand-Signaling, FHWA
proposes to delete the second, third, and fourth sentences of the
Standard regarding the design details of this device, because those
details are standardized and must comply with the existing provisions
of Chapter 2A. FHWA also proposes to add an Option to allow the use of
a STOP/STOP or SLOW/SLOW paddle in certain situations where
appropriate, to provide additional flexibility.
475. In proposed Section 6D.03 Flag for Hand-Signaling, FHWA
proposes to incorporate information about the color of flags to allow
an alternate color of fluorescent orange-red based on Official Ruling
No. 6(09)-1(I) \105\ to provide flexibility during emergency
situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-1(I), March 10, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_001.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
476. In Section 6D.05 (existing Section 6E.07) Flagger Procedures,
FHWA proposes to revise P2 to reflect Official Ruling No. 6(09)-16(I)
\106\ related to the use of hand movements alone by uniformed law
enforcement officers to control road users approaching a TTC zone. FHWA
also proposes further revisions to P2 that are intended to allow hand
movements alone by uniformed law enforcement officers when directing
traffic at special events. FHWA proposes to add an Option to allow the
use of a STOP/STOP or SLOW/SLOW paddle in certain situations where
appropriate, consistent with a similar proposed Option in Section
6D.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-16(I), September 20,
2012, can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_16.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
477. In Section 6D.06 (existing Section 6E.08) Flagger Stations,
FHWA proposes to change P1 from Standard to Guidance, since the
required flagger station location may not achievable in some geometric
conditions and signing would have to be relied upon.
478. In Section 6E.04 (existing Section 6C.13) Pilot Car Method,
FHWA proposes to revise the Standard statement to allow mounting of the
sign on top of the pilot vehicle as well as on the rear, and to clarify
that pilot car operations shall be coordinated with flagging or other
control methods, as this is necessary for safety. FHWA also proposes to
add a new Standard to require a flagger to operate an Automated Flagger
Assistance Device (AFAD) in pilot car operations based on Official
Ruling No. 6(09)-15(I) \107\ to clarify that an AFAD is not a temporary
traffic control signal and should not be operated in an automatic
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-15(I), September 19,
2012, can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_15.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
479. In conjunction with the elimination of existing Part 5 Low-
Volume Rural Roads, FHWA proposes to revise P9 of Section 6F.01
(existing Section 6F.02) General Characteristics of TTC Zone Signs, to
integrate information about low-volume rural roads and to reduce the
speed below which minimum sign sizes can be used from 35 mph to 30 mph.
FHWA proposes to change P10 of this Section from Standard to Guidance
because there may be cases where it is necessary to deviate from
standard sign sizes in increments other than in 6-inches. FHWA proposes
to remove the requirement in P14 for sign material to have a smooth,
sealed outer surface,
[[Page 80958]]
since such requirement is not appropriate for the MUTCD.
480. In Section 6F.02 (existing Section 6F.03) Sign Placement, FHWA
proposes to remove the support statement of existing paragraph 18
because NCHRP Report 350 is no longer a valid method of determining
crashworthiness.
481. In Section 6G.07 (existing Section 6F.11) STAY IN LANE Signs
(R4-9, R4-9a), FHWA proposes the STAY IN LANE TO MERGE POINT (R4-9a)
sign to support the Late Merge option in Section 6N.19.
482. In Section 6G.10 (existing Section 6F.14) SIDEWALK CLOSED
Signs (R9-9, R9-10, R9-11, R9-11a), FHWA proposes to delete the last
sentence in the support statement of existing paragraph 6 because it
contradicts the Standard in 6C.03 Accessibility Considerations.
483. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 6G.11 Turn Off 2-Way Radio
and Cellphone (R22-2) Sign and relocate the information about this sign
(which is currently numbered W22-2) from existing Section 6F.42 to this
new section, because the sign conveys a regulatory message rather than
a warning message.
484. In Section 6H.01 (existing Section 6F.16) Warning Sign
Function, Design, and Application, FHWA proposes to change the last
phrase of existing P2 (new P3) regarding fluorescent yellow-green
backgrounds from Standard to Option to be consistent with Part 2.
485. In Section 6H.03 (existing Section 6F.18) ROAD (STREET) WORK
Sign (W20-1), FHWA proposes to change P3 from Standard to Option
because the primary legend is specified in the ``Standard Highway
Signs'' publication, and the allowable alternate legends are covered by
the new Option.
486. In Section 6H.04 (existing Section 6F.19) DETOUR Sign (W20-2),
FHWA proposes to change P2 from Standard to Option because the primary
legend is specified in the ``Standard Highway Signs'' publication, and
the allowable alternate legends are covered by the new Option.
487. In Section 6H.05 (existing Section 6F.20) ROAD (STREET) CLOSED
Sign (W20-3), FHWA proposes to change P2 from Standard to Option
because the primary legend is specified in the ``Standard Highway
Signs'' publication, and the allowable alternate legends are covered by
the new Option.
488. In Section 6H.06 (existing Section 6F.21) ONE LANE ROAD Sign
(W20-4), FHWA proposes to change the second sentence of P2 from
Standard to Option because the primary legend is specified in the
``Standard Highway Signs'' publication, and the allowable alternate
legends are covered by the new Option.
489. In Section 6H.07, retitled, (existing Section 6F.22) ``Lane(s)
Closed Signs (W20-5, W20-5a, and W9-3),'' FHWA proposes to change part
of P2 from Standard to Option because the allowable alternate legends
are covered by the new Option. FHWA also proposes to combine existing
Section 6F.23 The CENTER LANE CLOSED AHEAD (W9-3) sign into this
section since Section 6H.07 includes all the other lane closure signs.
490. In Section 6H.08 (existing Section 6F.24) Lane Ends (W4-2, W9-
2a) signs, FHWA proposes the Merge Here Take Turns (W9-2a) sign to
identify the merge point and to take turns merging during Late Merge
applications.
491. In Section 6H.24 (existing Section 6F.39) UTILITY WORK Sign
(W21-7), FHWA proposes to change P3 from Standard to Option because the
primary legend is specified in the ``Standard Highway Signs''
publication, and the allowable alternate legends are covered by the new
Option.
492. In Section 6H.25 (existing Section 6F.40) Signs for Blasting
Areas, FHWA proposes to consolidate existing Sections 6F.40 thru 6F.43
since they all relate to signs in blasting areas. FHWA also proposes to
revise P2 to reflect the change of the W22-2 sign to a regulatory sign
because the sign is requiring an action and not warning about a hazard.
493. In Section 6J.01 (existing Section 6F.77) Pavement Markings in
TTC Zones, FHWA proposes to change the first two sentences of P4 from
Standard to Guidance, because ``as soon as practical'' is not defined
and obliteration of pavement markings cannot always be complete and
without significant scarring.
494. In Section 6J.03 (existing Section 6F.79) Temporary Raised
Pavement Markers, FHWA proposes to revise the required spacing for
temporary raised pavement markers in P3 and P4 to simplify layout in
the field by providing specific distances rather than equations.
495. In Section 6K.01 (existing Section 6F.63) Channelizing
Devices--General, FHWA proposes to add P10 and revise P12 to reflect
changes associated with Official Ruling No. 6(09)-11(I).\108\ Also,
FHWA proposes to change existing P18 from a Standard to a Guidance
statement because ``significant amount'' is not defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-11(I), January 3, 2012,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_11.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
496. FHWA proposes to create a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 6K.02 Pedestrian Channeling Devices'' that contains
information relocated from existing Section 6F.63 plus new Standard,
Guidance, Option, and Support information specific to pedestrian
channelizing devices. Within this new section, FHWA proposes to add a
new figure, Figure 6K-2, illustrating an example of a pedestrian
channelizing device, including hand-trailing for visually-disabled
pedestrians.
497. In Section 6K.07 (existing Section 6F.68) Type 1, 2, or 3
Barricades, FHWA proposes to change the second sentence of P22 from
Standard to Guidance, because ``adequate'' is not defined and cannot be
achieved in all geometric conditions.
498. FHWA proposes to revise Section 6K.11 (existing Section 6F.72)
Temporary Lane Separators, to reflect the intended use of these devices
more accurately. FHWA proposes to revise the two Standard statements
and to add a new Guidance statement to clarify the design if these
devices and to indicate that temporary lane separators should not be
used to shield obstacles or provide positive protection for workers for
pedestrians. FHWA also proposes to revise P5 to reflect the intentional
movement of temporary lane separators in a TTC zone per Official Ruling
No. 6(09)-14(I).\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-14(I), August 8, 2012,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_014.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
499. FHWA proposes to revise Section 6L.01 (existing Section 6F.84)
Temporary Traffic Control Signals to conform to proposed changes in
Section 4K.01.
500. In Section 6L.03 (existing Section 6E.05) STOP/SLOW Automated
Flagger Assistance Devices, FHWA proposes to add an Option for use of a
new WAIT ON STOP-GO ON SLOW sign combining the messages of the two
existing signs, to provide additional flexibility.
501. In Section 6L.05 (existing Section 6F.60) Portable Changeable
Message Signs, FHWA proposes to revise P19 regarding the use of
portable changeable message signs to simulate an Arrow Board display,
per Official Ruling No. 6(09)-18(I).\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-18(I), December 4, 2012,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_18.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
502. In Section 6L.07 (existing Section 6F.83), retitled,
``Flashing Beacons and
[[Page 80959]]
Warning Lights,'' FHWA proposes to relocate a portion of Standard P11
from existing Section 6F.63 pertaining to the use of flashing warning
lights in order to place this information in the appropriate section.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing P9 to clarify that the only
allowable use of a series of sequential flashing warning lights is on
channelized devices that form a merging taper.
503. FHWA proposes to add a new Section 6M.01 General, consisting
of a Support statement to introduce the proposed new Chapter 6M, in
which is grouped the existing information concerning TTC zone design
features and devices that are not traffic control devices.
504. In Section 6M.02 (existing Section 6F.85) Positive Protection
and Temporary Traffic Barriers, FHWA proposes to change P4 from
Guidance to Standard to improve worker safety within the work zone.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing P8 and delete P9 and P10 to
broaden the description of movable barriers.
505. In Section 6M.04 (existing Section 6F.74) Detectable Edging
for Pedestrians, FHWA proposes to eliminate the first portion of the
first sentence in P2 that refers to a level of usage by pedestrians
with disabilities as a basis for taking certain accessibility-related
actions because the need to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act does not depend on the frequency with which the facility is used by
pedestrians with disabilities and to correct the edging distance in the
second sentence of existing P2 from 6 inches to 8 inches to be
consistent with new Section 6K.02
506. In Section 6M.05 (existing Section 6F.86) Crash Cushions, FHWA
proposes to delete the last existing Guidance paragraph about use of
these devices in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and
instead insert this into P5 as part of the Standard statement, to
consolidate information about design and use.
507. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 6F.81 Lighting
Devices, because such devices are not defined. As part of this change,
FHWA proposes to relocate two of the existing paragraphs to Sections
6L.07 and 6N.01.510.
508. In Section 6M.08 (existing Section 6F.82) retitled, ``Lighting
for Night Work,'' FHWA proposes to change existing P4 from a Standard
to a Guidance statement to reflect the intent to minimize glare caused
by floodlighting. FHWA proposes to add two new sentences to existing P5
to recommend that lighting should be sufficient so as to identify a
worker clearly as a person and care should be taken to minimize the
potential for shadows to conceal workers within the work area.
509. In Section 6N.01 (existing Section 6G.02) Work Duration, FHWA
proposes to change P2 from Standard to Guidance to allow flexibility in
the definition of the five categories of work duration at a location.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Support to describe the rolling
roadblock method for temporary traffic control based on findings from
the NTSB H-17-2 Bus Crash-US 101 San Jose, California.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ ``Motorcoach Collision with Crash Attenuator in Gore Area
US Highway 101, San Jose, CA,'' NTSB Recommendation H-17-002 can be
viewed at the following internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-17-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
510. In Section 6N.04 (existing Section 6G.05) Work Affecting
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, FHWA proposes to add new Guidance,
Support, and Standard statements, to provide additional information for
accommodating bicycles through TTC zones.
511. In Section 6N.05 (existing Section 6G.06) Work Outside of the
Shoulder, FHWA proposes to revise from Option to Guidance a sentence
about the use of a SHOULDER WORK sign if work vehicles are on the
shoulder, for enhanced safety.
512. In Section 6N.13 (existing Section 6G.14) Work Within the
Traveled Way of a Freeway or Expressway, FHWA proposes to add a new
Support on the spacing and number of since in the advance warning area
due to excessive queue lengths based on the findings of NTSB/HAR-15/02
Multivehicle Work Zone Crash I-95 Cranbury, New Jersey.
513. In Section 6N.14 (existing Section 6G.15) Two-Lane, Two-Way
Traffic on One Roadway of a Normally Divided Highway, FHWA proposes to
revise P2 to clarify that Opposing Lane Traffic Divider (W6-4) signs on
flexible supports are one of the types of devices that can be used to
separate opposing vehicular traffic.
514. FHWA proposes to add Section 6N.19 Late Merge to provide
Guidance and Option statements to provide consistency when utilizing
the Late Merge concept with lane closures.
515. In Section 6O.01 (existing Section 6I.01) General, FHWA
proposes to include an explanation to incorporate estimated time
durations in the planning and training initial incident estimate. FHWA
also proposes to revise P8 to include an explanation of safe
positioning of emergency vehicles arriving at an incident. This
information is currently included in Part 1 in the definition of the
term ``safe-positioned'' but, as noted previously, the definition is
being deleted since the term is only used in Section 6O.01.
516. In Section 6P.01 (existing Section 6H.01) Typical
Applications, FHWA proposes to add eight new Typical Application
figures along with notes to accompany them. New Figures 6P-47 through
6P-51 illustrate and describe five different situations involving work
impacting bicycle facilities, to supplement proposed new text
information in Section 6N.04 (existing Section 6G.05). New Figures 6P-
52 through 6P-54 illustrate and describe procedures for work at a
roundabout. In addition, FHWA proposes to revise the existing drawings
and/or notes for the following existing figures in Chapter 6P (existing
Chapter 6H):
a. Notes for Figure 6P-3 (existing Figure 6H-3) Work on Shoulders:
FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding the use of positive
protection devices.
b. Notes for Figure 6P-4 (existing Figure 6H-4) Short Duration or
Mobile Operation on a Shoulder: FHWA proposes to add a new option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
c. Notes for Figure 6P-6 (existing Figure 6H-6) Shoulder Work with
Minor Encroachment: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding
the use of positive protection devices.
d. Notes for Figure 6P-7 (existing Figure 6H-7) Road Closure with a
Diversion: FHWA proposes to revise existing note 10 from Option to
Guidance, to recommend rather than merely allow the use of delineators
along the diversion.
e. Notes for Figure 6P-10 (existing Figure 6H-10) Lane Closure on a
Two-Lane Road Using Flaggers: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
f. Notes for Figure 6P-11 (existing Figure 6H-11) Lane Closure on a
Two-Lane Road with Low Traffic Volumes: FHWA proposes to add a new
Option note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
g. Notes for Figure 6P-12 (existing Figure 6H-12) Lane Closure on a
Two-Lane Road Using Traffic Control Signals: FHWA proposes to revise
Standard note 4 by deleting the requirement to use stop lines for
intermediate-term closures, to provide additional flexibility. FHWA
also
[[Page 80960]]
proposes to add a new Option note regarding the use of positive
protection devices.
h. Notes for Figure 6P-13 (existing Figure 6H-13) Temporary Road
Closure: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding the use of
positive protection devices.
i. Notes for Figure 6P-14 (existing Figure 6H-14) Haul Road
Crossing: FHWA proposes to revise Standard note 7a for completeness and
clarity, and to add new Standard note 7b and Guidance note 11
pertaining to the use of actuated signal operation per Official Ruling
No. 6(09)-7(I).\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 6(09)-7(I), June 1, 2011, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/6_09_7.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
j. Notes for Figure 6P-15 (existing Figure 6H-15) Work in the
Center of a Road with Low Traffic Volumes: FHWA proposes to add a new
Option note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
k. Notes for Figure 6P-17 (existing Figure 6H-17) Mobile Operations
on a Two-Lane Road: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding
the use of positive protection devices.
l. Notes for Figure 6P-18 (existing Figure 6H-18) Lane Closure on a
Minor Street: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding the use
of positive protection devices.
m. Notes for Figure 6P-21 (existing Figure 6H-21) Lane Closure on
the Near Side of an Intersection: FHWA proposes to add a new Option
note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
n. Figure 6P-22 (existing Figure 6H-22) Right-Hand Lane Closure on
the Far Side of an Intersection: FHWA proposes to revise the drawing in
this figure to correspond with proposed changes in the notes for the
figure as follows. In Option note 2, FHWA proposes to relocate the
third sentence to Support for consistency with the notes for other
similar figures. FHWA also proposes to add a new Option note regarding
the use of continuous channelizers and a new Option note regarding the
use of positive protection devices.
o. Notes for Figure 6P-23 (existing Figure 6H-23) Left-Hand Lane
Closure on the Far Side of an Intersection: FHWA proposes to add a new
Option note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
p. Figure 6P-24 (existing Figure 6H-24) Half Road Closure on the
Far Side of an Intersection: FHWA proposes to revise the drawing in
this figure to remove the optional temporary markings and also to
correspond with the proposed addition of a new Option note regarding
the use of continuous channelizers and a new Option note regarding the
use of positive protection devices.
q. Figure 6P-25 (existing Figure 6H-25) Multiple Lane Closures at
an Intersection: FHWA proposes to revise the drawing in this figure to
correspond with proposed changes in the notes for the figure as
follows. FHWA proposes to delete Guidance note 1 regarding placement of
a LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT sign. FHWA also proposes to add a new Option
note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
r. Notes for Figure 6P-27 (existing Figure 6H-27) Closure at the
Side of an Intersection: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
s. Figure 6P-28 (existing Figure 6H-28) Sidewalk Detour or
Diversion: FHWA proposes to revise the drawing in this figure to
correspond with the proposed changes in the notes for the figure as
follows, to correspond with text changes in new Section 6N.04 (existing
Section 6G.05). FHWA proposes to delete existing Standard note 1 and
replace it with five new Standard notes. In addition, FHWA proposes to
delete existing Guidance note 2 and replace it with two new Guidance
notes, and to add one new Option note. FHWA also proposes to change the
existing Guidance note 3 to a Standard in order to comply with 28 CFR
35.160(a)(1). These proposed changes are to correct discrepancies
between the figure for Sidewalk Diversion and other sections in Part 6.
t. Figure 6P-29 (existing Figure 6H-29) Crosswalk Closures and
Pedestrian Detours: FHWA proposes to add two new Standard statements
and move the existing Guidance statement 3 to a Standard in order to
comply with 28 CFR 35.160(a)(1).
u. Notes for Figure 6P-30 (existing Figure 6H-30) Interior Lane
Closure on a Multi-Lane Street: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
v. Notes for Figure 6P-31 (existing Figure 6H-31) Lane Closure on a
Street with Uneven Directional Volumes: FHWA proposes to add a new
Option note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
w. Notes for Figure 6P-32 (existing Figure 6H-32) Half Road Closure
on a Multi-Lane, High-Speed Highway: FHWA proposes to add a new Option
note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
x. Notes for Figure 6P-33 (existing Figure 6H-33) Stationary Lane
Closure on a Divided Highway: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
y. Notes for Figure 6P-35 (existing Figure 6H-35) Mobile Operation
on a Multi-Lane Road: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding
the use of positive protection devices.
z. Notes for Figure 6P-37 (existing Figure 6H-37) Double Lane
Closure on a Freeway: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding
the use of positive protection devices.
aa. Notes for Figure 6P-38 (existing Figure 6H-38) Interior Lane
Closure on a Freeway: FHWA proposes to delete two Guidance statements
regarding visibility of the arrow boards because the statements are not
needed and not consistent with the notes of other similar figures. FHWA
proposes to add an Option Statement to allow the use of a truck mounted
attenuator to improve worker safety. FHWA also proposes to add a new
Option note regarding the use of positive protection devices.
bb. Notes for Figure 6P-40 (existing Figure 6H-40) Median Crossover
for an Entrance Ramp: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding
the use of positive protection devices.
cc. Notes for Figure 6P-41 (existing Figure 6H-41) Median Crossover
for an Exit Ramp: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding the
use of positive protection devices.
dd. Notes for Figure 6P-42 (existing Figure 6H-42) Work in the
Vicinity of an Exit Ramp: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
ee. Notes for Figure 6P-43 (existing Figure 6H-43) Partial Exit
Ramp Closure: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note regarding the use
of positive protection devices.
ff. Notes for Figure 6P-44 (existing Figure 6H-44) Work in the
Vicinity of an Entrance Ramp: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
gg. Notes for Figure 6P-46 (existing Figure 6H-46) Work in the
Vicinity of a Grade Crossing: FHWA proposes to add a new Option note
regarding the use of positive protection devices.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 7 Traffic Control for School
Areas
517. As part of the reorganization, FHWA proposes to consolidate
Chapter 7A into two sections numbered and titled, ``Section 7A.01
Introduction'' and ``Section 7A.02 School Route Plans and School
Crossings.'' The two sections consist of provisions from existing
Section 7A.01 through Section 7A.04.
518. 520. In Section 7A.01 ``Introduction,'' FHWA proposes to
change existing P1 in Section 7A.04
[[Page 80961]]
from a Standard to Support because the general information in this
paragraph describing the scope of Part 7 is more appropriate as a
Support statement.
FHWA also proposes to delete existing Support P2-4 and the first
sentence of P5 that contain references to other sections, chapters, and
parts in the Manual, because this text is unnecessary. The MUTCD users
are accustomed to knowing that other areas of the Manual should be
consulted when working in Part 7, because school areas include signs,
pavement markings, and traffic signals. FHWA retains the reference to
the School Crossing signal warrant, because it is specific to school
areas.
519. FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 7A.03 School Crossing
Criteria. FHWA proposes to delete Support P1, because the information
is not needed in the MUTCD, and relocate P2 to Section 7D.01 in order
to place information about gaps in traffic with similar information in
new Section 7D.01 (existing Section 7D.03).
520. FHWA proposes to consolidate and combine information from
existing Sections 7B.01 through 7B.07 into one section numbered and
titled, ``Section 7B.01 Design of School Signs.'' FHWA proposes to
delete Standards and Guidance that are covered in Section 2A.11 as the
information is redundant.
521. FHWA also proposes to create a new section numbered and
titled, ``Section 7B.02 School Area Signs and Plaques'' using
information from existing Sections 7B.08 through Section 7B.10.
FHWA proposes to change Standard P1 in existing Section 7B.10 to
Guidance because many States have higher fines by statute in school
zones, work zones, and other locations. Retaining this as a Standard
may have an unintended consequence of placing a financial burden on
States and municipalities to sign for every location where there are
increased fines; therefore, FHWA believes that the use of engineering
judgment is more appropriate.
FHWA also proposes to add new Guidance, Standard, and Option
paragraphs to clarify the application of Higher Fines Signs and Plaques
in school areas based on Official Ruling No. 7(09)-3(I).\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 7(09)-3(I), August 17, 2020,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/reqdetails.asp?id=1150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
522. FHWA proposes to create a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 7B.03 School Crossing Signs'' by combining information from
existing Sections 7B.11 and Section 7B.12.
FHWA also proposes to change a portion of Standard P3 in existing
Section 7B.12 prohibiting the use of School Crossing assemblies on
approaches controlled by a YIELD sign to Guidance. FHWA proposes this
change to revert back to the language in the 2003 MUTCD. NCUTCD
suggested this change because the language in the 2009 Edition that
prohibited the use of School Crossing assemblies on approaches
controlled by a STOP or a YIELD sign was too restrictive. An NCUTCD
task force working on this issue cited that the School Crossing
assembly provides beneficial guidance to road users on approaches where
vehicles are not required to stop; therefore, prohibiting their use
where YIELD signs are placed could have a negative effect on the safety
of school children. In conjunction with this change, FHWA proposes two
new Options allowing a School Crossing Assembly on Yield approaches to
roundabouts and channelized right turn lanes controlled by a Yield
sign. Also, FHWA proposes to allow a Yield Here To (Stop Here For)
Pedestrians (R1-5a or R1-5c) sign in advance of a marked crosswalk on a
multi-lane approach in a school zone in accordance with the provisions
in Section 2B.20.
FHWA proposes to change existing Options P4, P5, P6, and existing
Standard P8 in existing Section 7B.12 to clarify the application of In-
Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6 or R1-6a) sign, In-Street School
Crossing (R1-6b or R1-6c) sign, Overhead Pedestrian Crossing (R1-9 or
R1-9a) sign, and 12-inch reduced size in-street School (S1-1) sign may
be used at school crossings on approaches that are not controlled by a
traffic control signal, a pedestrian hybrid beacon, or emergency
vehicle hybrid beacon. FHWA proposes these changes to eliminate any
potential confusion whether the various types of beacons are considered
unsignalized intersections.
FHWA proposes to modify the name of the In-Street Schoolchildren
Crossing sign to In-Street School Crossing sign to be more consistent
with other signs that it supplements and more accurately describe the
use of the sign.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add an Option to allow an In-Street
Pedestrian Crossing or In-Street School Crossing sign at intersections
or midblock crossings with flashing beacons.
523. FHWA proposes to retitle Section 7B.04 (existing Section
7B.13) ``School Bus Stop Signs'' and incorporate information from
existing Section 7B.14.
524. FHWA proposed to add a new Section 7B.05 ``School Bus Stop
When Flashing Signs.'' In this section FHWA proposes a new sign, ``STOP
FOR SCHOOL BUS WHEN RED LIGHTS FLASH'' to remind drivers of the
requirement to stop for school buses when the flashing red lights on
the school bus are in operation. FHWA proposes this new sign in
response to a recommendation from the NCUTCD as many States currently
use variations of regulatory word messages for this purpose. The new
sign would standardize the message for drivers.
525. FHWA proposes to retitle Section 7B.06 (existing Section
7B.15) ``School Speed Limit Signs and Plaques'' and incorporate
information from existing Section 7B.16.
FHWA proposes to change Standard P3 in existing Section 7B.15 to
Guidance to allow flexibility on required signing for fines in school
zones based on engineering judgment. Many States have higher fines by
statute in school zones, work zones, and other locations; therefore,
requiring the use of the FINES HIGHER, FINES DOUBLE, or $XX FINE
plaques could place an undue burden on States and municipalities to
sign for every location where there are increased fines.
Also, FHWA proposes to revise existing Guidance P7 to recommend
that the maximum beginning point of a reduced school speed limit zone
in advance of school grounds is 500 feet. The recommendation was
suggested by the NCUTCD and based on the results of research conducted
on Speeds in School Zones.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ FHWA/TX-09/0-5470-1, ``Speeds in School Zones,'' can be
viewed at the following internet website: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5470-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, FHWAproposes to add a new Guidance paragraph to clarify
that duplicate plaques for fines should be omitted if other traffic
violations in addition to exceeding the speed limit are subject to
higher fines based on Official Ruling No. 7(09)-3(I).
526. In Section 7D.01 (existing Section 7D.03) ``Qualifications of
Adult Crossing Guards,'' FHWA proposes to incorporate the existing
Option from existing Section 7D.02.
527. In Section 7D.02 (existing Section 7D.05) ``Operating
Procedures for Adult Crossing Guards,'' FHWA proposes to incorporate
the existing Standard from existing Section 7D.04.
Also, FHWA proposes to add a Standard requiring that the STOP
paddle comply with the provisions for a STOP/SLOW paddle and provide a
reference to Section 6D.02 for information. FHWA also adds a reference
to STOP paddles in Section 6D.02. Note: this proposed new
[[Page 80962]]
language is intended to state an existing requirement specifically
regarding the provisions of the STOP paddle and is not a new
requirement.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to delete existing Options P4 and P5 and
Standard P6 regarding the flashing lights because it is redundant
information that is contained in Section 6E.03.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 8 Traffic Control for
Railroad and Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings
528. In Section 8A.01 Introduction, FHWA proposes a new Support
statement that the highway agency or authority with jurisdiction, the
regulatory agency with statutory authority, and the railroad company or
transit agency jointly perform the engineering study of grade crossings
and the traffic control devices that are associated with them. FHWA
proposes this new language to encourage coordination and cooperation
between the appropriate knowledgeable parties of interest.
FHWA also proposes new Support statements regarding grade crossing
warning systems, which complement the existing support statement about
traffic control systems at grade crossings.
529. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8A.02 Highway-LRT Grade Crossings,'' which is comprised of existing P8
through 12 of Section 8A.01. FHWA proposes to revise Item B to
highlight that LRT has the right-of-way over other road users at grade
crossings and intersections in a semi-exclusive alignment, and to
revise Item C to highlight that LRT does not have the right-of-way over
other road users at grade crossings and intersections in a mixed-use
alignment. FHWA proposes this change to provide clarity regarding
right-of-way at semi-exclusive and mixed-use alignments.
FHWA also proposes a revised Guidance statement to recommend that
if a highway-LRT grade crossing is equipped with a flashing-light
signal system and is located within 200 feet of an intersection or
midblock controlled by a traffic control signal, a pedestrian hybrid
beacon, or an emergency-vehicle hybrid beacon, the highway traffic
signal should be provided with preemption. FHWA proposes this change to
encourage use of preemption in such locations.
Finally, FHWA proposes a new Option statement allowing the use of
traffic signal priority or preemption if determined to be appropriate
by a Diagnostic Team when LRT vehicles are operating in a mixed-use
alignment. FHWA proposes this change because there might be locations
where traffic signal priority or preemption is appropriate.
530. In Section 8A.03 (existing Section 8A.02), retitled, ``Use of
Standard Devices, Systems, and Practices at Grade Crossings,'' FHWA
proposes new Standard paragraphs to require that the Diagnostic Team
shall reach a determination through consensus, documented in an
engineering study, on new grade crossing traffic control systems and on
proposed changes to an existing grade crossing traffic control system.
FHWA proposes this change, consistent with 49 CFR part 222, appendix F,
because there are a large number of significant variables to be
considered and no single standard system of traffic control devices is
universally applicable for all grade crossings.
FHWA also proposes a new Option statement that general maintenance
activities or minor operational changes to the grade crossing traffic
control system that do not have a negative impact on the overall
operation of the traffic control system can be made without a
Diagnostic Team. FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies with
more flexibility and to reduce the burden on Diagnostic Team members
for minor changes.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph to recommend
that the Diagnostic Team distributes the determination made regarding
traffic control system at a grade crossing to the Diagnostic Team
members. FHWA proposes this change to encourage documentation of the
decisions made regarding traffic control systems at grade crossings.
531. In Section 8A.04 (existing Section 8A.03) Use of Standard
Devices, Systems, and Practices at Highway-LRT Grade Crossings, FHWA
proposes to delete several Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option
paragraphs, because most of this text is now proposed to be
incorporated into Sections 8A.02 and 8A.03.
532. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8A.05 Engineering Studies at Grade Crossings'' comprised of P2 through
P4 of existing Section 8A.02 and P5 of existing Section 8A.03 as part
of the reorganization to group similar information together.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement recommending the
factors to be considered in the determining which traffic control
devices are appropriate to install at a grade crossing.
533. In Section 8A.06 (existing Section 8A.04) Uniform Provisions,
FHWA proposes a new Guidance paragraph regarding raised median islands
installed supplemental to an automatic gate to discourage road users
from driving around a lowered gate.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement discouraging the use
of two-way center left turn lanes in the immediate vicinity of grade
crossings and recommending other treatments. FHWA proposes this change
because two-way left turn lanes at grade crossings are problematic,
especially when automatic gates are or may be installed. Only extending
gates to the center of the two-way left turn lane on both sides of the
crossing insufficiently discourages road users in that lane from
circumventing the gates and is in conflict with 49 CFR 234.223. This
practice is consistent with the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering
(MRE),\115\ current edition and the AREMA Communication & Signals
Manual.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ The ``Manual for Railway Engineering'' can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://www.arema.org/AREMA_MBRR/AREMAStore/MRE.aspx.
\116\ The ``Communications & Signals Manual'' can be viewed at
the following internet website: https://www.arema.org/AREMA_MBRR/AREMAStore/Communications_Signals_2019.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
534. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8A.07 Minimum Track Clearance Distance'' to provide Support statements
regarding the minimum track clearance distance at a grade crossing.
FHWA proposes this new section to describe more fully the applications
of Minimum Track Clearance Distance that are too lengthy and complex to
be included with the definition in Part 1. All uses of the term within
other sections of Part 8 include a cross reference to Section 8A.07 so
that readers would know where to go to find out how this term is
applied.
535. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8A.08 Adjacent Grade Crossings'' to provide Support and Guidance
statements for adjacent grade crossings. FHWA proposes this new
section, because it is important to treat closely-spaced grade
crossings properly, which sometimes result from separate railroads or a
railroad and an LRT alignment operating in parallel corridors. FHWA
also includes a reference to Part 3.1.11 of the ``AREMA Communications
& Signals Manual'' \117\ for more information about adjacent grade
crossings that are located within 200 feet of each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
536. In Section 8A.09 (existing Section 8A.05) Grade Crossing
Elimination, FHWA proposes a new
[[Page 80963]]
Option statement permitting an engineering study to determine the costs
and benefits of eliminating a crossing that appears to be redundant or
unnecessary. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to add Guidance
paragraphs recommending the engineering study and subsequent steps for
eliminating the grade crossing if it is determined to be appropriate.
This replaces the existing Guidance statement about eliminating grade
crossings that cannot be justified. FHWA proposes this new material to
provide practitioners with information to assist with eliminating grade
crossings, which are a potential source of crashes and congestion. FHWA
also proposes to delete a Guidance paragraph that seemed to recommend
that engineering studies regarding potential grade crossing elimination
should be conducted for every grade crossing.
537. In Section 8A.12 (existing Section 8C.12) Grade Crossings
Within or In Close Proximity to Circular Intersections, FHWA proposes
to change the Standard regarding an engineering study to determine
queuing impacts to a Guidance statement to provide agencies with more
flexibility in the engineering study and design of grade crossings near
circular intersection.
538. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8A.13 Busway Grade Crossings'' to provide Standards, Guidance, Support,
and Option statements for busway grade warning and crossing systems.
FHWA proposes this new section to provide standardization of traffic
control devices for grade crossings of highways with busways.
539. In Section 8A.14 (existing Section 8A.08) Temporary Traffic
Control Zones, FHWA proposes a new Guidance paragraph regarding
temporary traffic control zones that extend over grade crossings
equipped with automatic gates and either one-lane two-way or reversible
lane operation is used.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Guidance paragraph recommending the
preparation of a traffic control plan when traffic is detoured over an
existing grade crossing with passive warning devices. FHWA proposes
this change because it is important to analyze traffic safety during
detours.
540. In Section 8B.02 Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs, FHWA proposes
to clarify that the sizes shown in Table 8B-1 are minimum sizes. FHWA
also proposes to change the minimum required size of a Yield sign at
multi-lane conventional road grade crossings from 48''x 48'' to 36''x
36.'' FHWA proposes this change to provide clarity regarding the
requirements of the sign size and based on Official Ruling No. 8(09)-
7(I).\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)-7 (I), April 8, 2011, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/8_09_7.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
541. In Section 8B.03 Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and
Number of Tracks Plaque (R15-2P) at Active and Passive Grade Crossings,
FHWA proposes to upgrade an existing Option to a Standard to require a
minimum of one Crossbuck sign on each highway approach to a gated
highway-LRT grade crossing on a semi-exclusive alignment. FHWA proposes
this change to make sure that road users understand why a gate is
present.
FHWA proposes to revise existing Paragraph 5 to require the Number
of Tracks plaque below the Crossbuck sign where there are two or more
tracks at a grade crossing, regardless of the presence of automatic
gates. This revision is necessary because the presence of two or more
tracks at a crossing adds complexity for road users and additional
risks, such as in situations in which trains occupy both tracks, where
the tracks are spaced such that a vehicle could become stuck between
the tracks, or where the visibility of the second track is limited.
This revision would improve safety by providing uniformity for
multitrack crossings that would accommodate the expectancy of the road
user.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing Paragraph 7 to reduce the
requirement for retroreflective white material on the back of the
Crossbuck sign to apply only to passive grade crossings. FHWA proposes
this change because active grade crossings have signals or warning
lights for traffic control device conspicuity.
FHWA also proposes new Standard paragraphs regarding minimum
lateral clearance between the edge of the Crossbuck sign and the face
of a vertical curb, edge of traveled way, and/or edge of paved or
surfaced shoulder. FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with the
dimensions shown in Figure 8B-3 for Crossbuck Assemblies and to be
consistent with Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of existing Section 8C.01.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement recommending the
Crossbuck sign to be at least 12 feet from the center of the nearest
track. FHWA proposes this change to formalize the dimensions shown on
Figure 8D-2.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance paragraph recommending the
mounting height to the center of Crossbuck signs to be approximately 9
feet and an Option to adjust the height based on local conditions and
to accommodate signs below the Crossbuck sign. FHWA proposes this
change to clarify the dimension shown on Figure 8B-2.
542. In Section 8B.04 Crossbuck Assemblies with YIELD or STOP Signs
at Passive Grade Crossings, FHWA proposes a new Guidance paragraph
recommending the use of a STOP sign at the Crossbuck Assembly where a
passive grade crossing is located at the stem of a T-intersection with
inadequate clear storage area between the tracks and the parallel
roadway. FHWA also proposes that if a STOP sign is installed,
consideration should also be given to installing a YIELD sign at the
highway-highway intersection. FHWA proposes this new text to provide
practitioners with additional information for crossings with this
geometry.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard paragraph requiring a Yield sign
and TO TRAINS (R15-9P) supplemental plaque when Crossbuck Assemblies
are used within the limits of a highway-highway intersection controlled
by a traffic control signal not interconnected with the grade crossing
and not preempted by the approach of rail traffic. FHWA also proposes
to prohibit the use of a Stop sign with the Crossbuck Assembly in this
situation. FHWA proposes this change for consistency with Section 4A.08
(existing Section 4D.34) regarding the use of stop signs with traffic
control signals.
FHWA proposes to revise existing Paragraph 10 regarding YIELD and
STOP sign mounting heights on Crossbuck Assemblies to require at least
5 feet in rural areas and at least 7 feet in areas where parking or
pedestrian movements are likely to occur. FHWA proposes this change to
provide consistency throughout the Manual regarding vertical mounting
height.
FHWA also proposes to revise the existing Guidance paragraph
regarding a Crossbuck Assembly on a separate support than the Crossbuck
sign, to clarify the recommended location of YIELD or STOP sign in
relationship to the Crossbuck sign and to clarify the lateral
clearances from a curb or edge of traveled way. FHWA proposes this
change to provide consistency throughout the Manual regarding lateral
offset.
FHWA also proposes to revise the existing Standards regarding the
vertical strip of retroreflective white material on a Crossbuck support
to clarify that a white retroreflective strip wrapped around a round
support satisfies the requirement as long at the round support has an
outside diameter of at least 2 inches. FHWA proposes this
[[Page 80964]]
change to provide clarity regarding the requirements of the white
retroreflective strip and based on Official Ruling No. 8(09)-1(I).\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)-1(I), March 10, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/8_09_001.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
543. In Section 8B.05 Use of STOP (R1-1) or YIELD (R1-2) Signs
without Crossbuck Signs at Highway-LRT Grade Crossings, FHWA proposes
to eliminate the Guidance statement regarding LRT speed and replace it
with a Guidance statement in Section 8D.04 (Use of Active Traffic
control Systems at LRT Grade Crossings) with recommendations for active
traffic control systems where LRT operating speeds are less than 25 mph
unless an engineering study determines that passive devices would
provide adequate control. FHWA proposes this change based on the
stopping distance of LRT vehicles at speeds less than 25 mph and
consistent with industry practice.
544. In Section 8B.06 Grade Crossing Advance Warning Signs (W10-1
through W10-4), FHWA proposes to modify the Standard statement to
remove the requirement at all highway-LRT grade crossing in semi-
exclusive alignments and add a condition that the warning signs are not
required where Crossbuck signs are not used. FHWA proposes these
changes to reduce the number of locations where Grade Crossing Advance
Warning Signs are required at highway-LRT grade crossings.
545. In Section 8B.07 (existing Section 8B.09) DO NOT STOP ON
TRACKS Sign (R8-8), FHWA proposes a new Guidance paragraph recommending
the use of a DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) sign if a traffic control
signal is installed within 200 feet downstream from a grade crossing
such that highway vehicle queues are likely to extend onto the tracks
except where a pre-signal is installed. FHWA proposes this change to
improve safety at grade crossings near signalized intersections.
FHWA also proposes to revise existing Paragraph 1 to separate the
provision into two paragraphs and to delete the text regarding an
engineering study. FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies more
latitude in installing the R8-8 sign based on engineering judgment.
546. In Section 8B.08 (existing Section 8B.10) TRACKS OUT OF
SERVICE Sign (R8-9), FHWA proposes a new Option statement allowing
warning signs such as Low Ground Clearance Crossing (W10-5) and Skewed
Crossing (W10-12) to be left in place after tracks are taken out of
service to warn road users about physical roadway conditions that are
still present. FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies with
flexibility to retain signs for a longer period than other traffic
control devices at the crossing.
FHWA also proposes two new Standards requiring that Emergency
Notification System (I-13) signs be retained at grade crossings that
are out of service until the tracks are removed or covered. Emergency
Notification System signs provide emergency contact information for the
railroad responsible for the crossing. Retaining the existing signs
until the tracks are removed would ensure a contact number is available
for road users to reach if there is a safety concern or another issue
that requires the railroad to be contacted.
547. FHWA proposes new Option and Support statements in Section
8B.16 (existing Section 8B.23) to address warning, selective exclusion,
and detour signing for additional vehicle types and combinations that
may encounter hang-up situations at low ground clearance crossings. The
proposed changes are in response to NTSB recommendation H-18-24.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ ``Collision Between Freight Train and Charter Motorcoach
at High-Profile Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing, Biloxi,
Mississippi, March 7, 2017,'' NTSB/HAR1801, can be viewed at the
following internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
548. FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 8.17 LOOK Sign
(R15-8) to Section 9B.21 to allow the use of a LOOK sign on a shared-
use path or separated bikeway at a grade crossing. FHWA proposes this
change because these signs are no longer to be installed to communicate
with drivers, as the YIELD or STOP sign on the Crossbuck Assemblies at
passive crossings imply that motorists should look for rail traffic. An
Option was also added in Section 8E.03 for using LOOK signs for
pathways and sidewalks.
549. In Section 8B.20 (existing Section 8B.24) Storage Space Signs
(W10-11, W10-11a, W10-11b), FHWA proposes a new Standard paragraph that
clarifies that the Storage Space sign shall not be used as a
replacement for the Advanced Warning (W10-1) sign and that the signs
shall be mounted on separate posts. FHWA proposes this change because
it is important that the Advance Warning sign have priority over the
Storage Space sign.
550. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8B.23 Next Crossing Plaques (W10-14P and W10-14aP)'' to provide Option
statements describing where the NEXT CROSSING (W10-12P) plaque and USE
NEXT CROSSING (W10-14aP) plaque may be mounted.
551. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8B.24 ROUGH CROSSING Plaque (W10-15P)'' to provide an Option statement
for the installation of the ROUGH CROSSING (W10-15P) plaque.
552. In Section 8B.26 (existing Section 8B.18) Emergency
Notification System Sign (I-13), FHWA proposes changing P1 from
Guidance to Standard to require installing Emergency Notification signs
for all highway-rail grade crossings and all highway-LRT grade
crossings on semi-exclusive alignments. FHWA proposes this change to be
consistent with regulations promulgated by the FRA.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 49 CFR 234.311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes a new Standard paragraph requiring minimum width
and height dimensions, as well as number and letter heights for the
Emergency Notification sign to be consistent with new requirements
promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). FHWA also
proposes changing the provision for the sign to be retroreflective from
Guidance to a Standard to be consistent with requirements promulgated
by the FRA.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 49 CFR 234.309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes an Option statement allowing the seven-character
grade crossing inventory number to be shown on the sign as a black
legend on a white rectangular background. FHWA proposes this change to
allow additional flexibility.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement recommending Emergency
Notification signs be attached to the Crossbuck Assemblies or grade
crossing signal masts on the right-hand side of each roadway approach
to the grade crossing. FHWA proposes this recommendation to provide
uniformity in sign placement.
Finally, FHWA proposes an Option statement to allow Emergency
Notification signs to be located on a separate post and permitting
additional Emergency Notification signs to be installed at a grade
crossing.
553. FHWA proposes relocating the pavement markings sections from
Chapter 8B and placing them in a new Chapter 8C to make it easier for
the reader to find text in the MUTCD. FHWA proposes a new section
numbered and titled, ``Section 8C.01 Purpose and Application'' to
provide Support statements to describe the
[[Page 80965]]
purpose and application of markings at grade crossings to provide
context for the remainder of new Chapter 8C.
554. In Section 8C.02 (existing Section 8B.27) Pavement Markings,
FHWA proposes a Standard statement incorporating an existing
requirement that pavement markings be placed in each approach lane on
all paved approaches to highway-LRT grade crossings where a Crossbuck
sign is placed at the grade crossing. FHWA proposes this change in
conjunction with making the first three paragraphs of this section
applicable only to highway-rail grade crossings. FHWA proposes this
change as a conforming edit, which would not change the existing
underlying requirement.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard statement that if pavement
markings are used on a multi-lane approach to a grade crossing,
identical markings shall be placed in each approach lane that crosses
the tracks. FHWA proposes this change because pavement markings serve
an important function to warn road users of the presence of a grade
crossing and drivers will always be able to see the full message even
when traffic is stopped in adjacent lanes by having the entire symbol
placed in their own lane.
FHWA also proposes to delete a portion of P5 recommending that the
X symbol and letters at grade crossings to be elongated. FHWA proposes
this change because the standard layout for the symbol is already
elongated.
Finally, FHWA proposes a new Guidance statement recommending that
if supplemental pavement marking symbols are placed between the Grade
Crossing Advance Warning sign and the grade crossing, then the
downstream transverse line should be at least 50 feet in advance of the
stop or yield line at the grade crossing. FHWA proposes this change to
provide uniform placement of the supplemental pavement marking symbols
and to avoid the appearance that the downstream transverse line is the
stop line or that the downstream transverse line and the stop line form
a crosswalk.
555. In Section 8C.03 (existing section 8B.28) Stop and Yield
Lines, FHWA proposes to modify the last Guidance and Standard
statements in this section to clarify the location of stop lines where
active traffic control devices are used.
556. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8C.04 Lane-Use Arrow Markings'' to provide a Standard and Guidance on
the placement of lane-use arrow markings. FHWA proposes this change to
address recent train-auto crashes in which a roadway user made an
improper turn and turned onto the railroad tracks rather than at an
adjacent intersection immediately beyond the grade crossing. In these
crashes, an arrow pavement marking denoting an exclusive lane was
located on the roadway between the stop line for the grade crossing and
the track area.30. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 8C.05 Edge Lines, Lane Lines, Raised Pavement Markers, and
Tubular Markers'' to provide Guidance, Option, and Standard statements
regarding the use of edge lines, lane lines, raised pavement markers,
and tubular markers on an approach to a grade crossing. FHWA proposes
this addition to address recent train-auto crashes in which a roadway
user made an improper turn and turned onto the railroad tracks rather
than at an adjacent intersection immediately beyond the grade crossing.
In these crashes, the roadway edge line stopped near the stop line for
the grade crossing and did not continue across the track area.
557. In Section 8C.06 (existing Section 8B.29) Dynamic Envelope
Markings, FHWA proposes to delete the Support statement describing
dynamic envelope markings because the definition is covered in Part 1.
FHWA also proposes to revise the existing Standard statement to
allow dynamic envelope markings to be up to 24 inches wide. This change
is proposed to provide agencies with more flexibility to improve
visibility and to provide easier maintenance of the markings.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Option paragraph allowing white
cross-hatching lines to be placed on the highway pavement within the
dynamic envelope as a supplement to the 4-inch normal solid white lines
and in areas adjacent to the dynamic envelope where vehicles are not
intended to stop or stand. FHWA proposes this addition, as well as a
figure with examples, to provide agencies with additional options to
emphasize the dynamic envelope and discourage vehicles from stopping in
the approach to the dynamic envelope.
558. In Section 8D.01 (existing Section 8C.01) Introduction, FHWA
proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending that when the
automatic gate is in its upright position, no portion of the physical
features of flashing-light signals and gates should be closer than 12
feet from the center of the nearest track. FHWA proposes this language
to provide adequate vertical clearance in the vicinity of the tracks
and to formalize the dimensions shown in Figure 8D-2 (existing Figure
8C-2).
FHWA also proposes to eliminate the Support statement in existing
Paragraph 15 regarding LRT typical speeds through semi-exclusive and
mixed-use alignment because the statement does not add useful
information. In concert with this change, FHWA proposes to relocate
existing Paragraph 16 to the beginning of the Section with the other
Support statements.
559. In Section 8D.02 (existing Section 8C.02) Flashing-Light
Signals, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement, and an accompanying
Support statement regarding the placement of the Number of Tracks
plaque with respect to the flashing-light backgrounds, as well as the
Crossbuck sign.
FHWA also proposes adding a Guidance paragraph recommending that if
flashing-light signals are used, at least one pair of flashing lights
should be provided for each approach lane of the roadway. FHWA proposes
this Guidance to provide uniform flashing light signals across the
roadway.
FHWA proposes three Guidance paragraphs to provide text that
supports the dimensions for placement and mounting shown in Figure 8D-1
(existing Figure 8C-1).
FHWA also proposes Guidance paragraphs recommending that where the
storage distance for vehicles approaching a grade crossing is less than
a design vehicle length, the Diagnostic Team should consider providing
additional flashing-light signals aligned toward the movement turning
toward the grade crossing. FHWA also recommends that the Diagnostic
Team consider the use of additional flashing-light signals to provide
supplemental warning to pedestrians. FHWA proposes these changes to
provide additional warning of the grade crossing.
Finally, FHWA proposes to delete the last Standard statement in
this section, because the provisions are covered elsewhere.
560. In Section 8D.03 (existing Section 8C.04) Automatic Gates,
FHWA proposes a Standard requiring the width of the retroreflective
sheeting on the front of the gate arm to be at least 4 inches. FHWA
proposes this addition to provide an adequate width of material for
visibility.
FHWA also proposes a Standard statement requiring that except for
the continuously illuminated light at the tip of the gate, the left-
most flashing gate light in each additional pair of lights flashes
simultaneously with the left-hand light of the flashing-light signals
and the right-most flashing gate light in each additional pair of
lights flashes
[[Page 80966]]
simultaneously with the right-hand light of the flashing-light signals.
FHWA proposes this addition to provide uniformity in flashing patterns
between the flashing-light signals and the flashing lights on the gate.
FHWA proposes a Guidance paragraph with recommendations for the
location of the tip of the automatic gate arm when it is in the down
position relative to the center of the nearest track. FHWA proposes
this addition to support the dimensions shown in Figure 8D-2 (existing
Figure 8C-2).
Finally, FHWA proposes Guidance paragraphs with recommendations for
the length, height, and position of the automatic gate arm. FHWA
proposes these additions to support the dimensions shown in Figure 8D-1
(existing Figure 8C-1).
561. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8D.04 Use of Active Traffic Control Systems at LRT Grade Crossings''
that replaces existing Sections 8C.03 and 8C.05.
FHWA also proposes active traffic control system Standards for
highway-LRT grade crossings based on the maximum operating speed of the
LRT vehicles. Where the maximum LRT operating speed exceeds 40 mph,
active traffic control systems with automatic gates would be required.
Where the maximum LRT operating speed is greater than 25 mph but is
less than 40 mph, active traffic control systems would be required and
automatic gates would be optional. FHWA proposes this change based on
the safety experience of modern LRT systems and to replace paragraphs
that were previously in existing Section 8C.03.
FHWA also proposes a Guidance statement with recommendations for
active traffic control systems where LRT operating speeds are less than
25 mph unless an engineering study determines that passive devices
would provide adequate control.
FHWA also proposes a Guidance statement with a recommendation not
to use a traffic control signal alone at locations that are not
intersections and LRT speeds are above 20 mph.
562. In Section 8D.05 (existing Section 8C.06), retitled, ``Exit
Gate and Four-Quadrant Gate Systems,'' FHWA proposes to add Support
paragraphs to clarify the difference between Exit Gate systems and
Four-Quadrant Systems.
FHWA also proposes a Standard statement to require the queue
clearance time be long enough to permit the exit gate arm to lower
after a design vehicle of maximum length is clear of the minimum track
clearance distance where a Four-Quadrant Gate system is present. This
proposed Standard is necessary to ensure that vehicles can clear the
tracks safely without becoming entrapped between the gates on the
tracks while a train is approaching.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement recommending
that exit gates be independently controlled for each direction of
roadway traffic. FHWA proposes these additions to provide consistency
with industry practice.
Lastly, FHWA proposes to delete existing Paragraph 17 because this
recommendation resulted in exit gates being located significantly
further from the grade crossing than the entrance gates.
563. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8D.07 Another Train Coming'' to provide Guidance and Support for a new
traffic control device to provide warning of another train approaching
a grade crossing. FHWA proposes this addition to provide practitioners
with information for uniform application.
564. In Section 8D.09 (containing portions of existing Section
8C.09), retitled, ``Use of Traffic Control Signals at Grade
Crossings,'' FHWA proposes an edit to the Option that allows traffic
control signals be used instead of flashing-light signals to control
road users at industrial highway-rail grade crossings and other places
where the maximum speed of trains is 10 mph or less. FHWA proposes this
change to include a specific train speed to improve clarity and to be
consistent with FRA track classifications.
565. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8D.10 Preemption of Highway Traffic Signals at or Near Grade
Crossings.'' Several of the paragraphs in the proposed new section are
from existing Section 8C.09.
FHWA also proposes new Standards, Guidance, Options, and Support
statements regarding traffic signal preemption at grade crossings. FHWA
proposes this new material to provide consistency with the changes in
the industry resulting from the investigation into the causes of the
fatal train/school bus crash in Fox River Grove, Illinois.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ ``Highway/Railroad Accident Report Collision of Northeast
Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA) Train and
Transportation Joint Agreement School District 47/155 School Bus at
Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing in Fox River Grove, Illinois on
October 25, 1995'' NTSB/HAR-96/02, can be viewed at the following
internet website: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR9602.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA proposes new Support statements about the systems that are
involved in preemption. FHWA proposes the change to provide agencies
with additional background information about preemption.
FHWA also proposes changes to Guidance to include additional
measures for situations where the traffic signal is located farther
than 200 feet from the grade crossing. FHWA proposes the change to
provide additional information to agencies to improve safety at grade
crossing that do not have preemption.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance paragraphs to provide additional
recommendations for the use of active grade crossing warning systems
near traffic signals, the use of automatic gates at traffic signals
with preemption, and the annual inspection of the preemption operation.
FHWA proposes the changes to reflect industry practices resulting from
investigation of train/vehicle crashes.
FHWA proposes a new Standard paragraph that requires preemption
where traffic signal faces are located within 50 feet of a grade
crossing that has flashing-light signals. FHWA proposes this change to
avoid display of traffic signal indications that conflict with the
flashing-light signal system.
FHWA also proposes new Support and Option statements to provide
additional information about double-break and supervised circuits. FHWA
proposes this change to provide practitioners with information to make
the preemption fail-safe.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance statements to provide
recommendations for locations with track detection circuits at passive
grade crossings and left turn movements at a preempted traffic signal
downstream from a grade crossing. FHWA proposes the changes to provide
agencies with recommendations for situations that are not addressed in
the existing MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance and Support statements to describe
the considerations and recommendations for application of simultaneous
and advance preemption. FHWA proposes these changes to provide
practitioners with more information to improve consistency in the
application of preemption.
FHWA also proposes new Standard statements regarding the end of the
track clearance interval. FHWA proposes these changes to prohibit the
track clearance interval from being terminated too early in situations
when there is variability in train approach times.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement recommending the use of
advanced preemption with exit gates. FHWA proposes this change because
additional preemption time is needed for the safe operation of the exit
gate system.
[[Page 80967]]
FHWA also proposes new Guidance statements recommending the ability
of traffic signal equipment to restart or reservice preemption
requests. FHWA proposes this change to provide consistent preemption
operation where train movements may stop or start on the approach to
the grade crossing.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard statement to prohibit the
flashing mode of a traffic signal from beginning until rail traffic has
entered the grade crossing. FHWA proposes this change to prevent road
user confusion that could result in stopping on the tracks.
Finally, FHWA proposes a new Standard paragraph to require
evaluation of the priority of preemption calls when both boats and
trains operate at a grade crossing. FHWA proposes this change to
require agencies to resolve competing preemption requests.
566. In Section 8D.11 (existing Section 8B.08), retitled,
``Movements Prohibited During Preemption,'' FHWA proposes new Guidance
and Option statements that prohibit movements towards a grade crossing
using traffic signal indications and blank-out signs. FHWA proposes
this change to provide more detailed recommendations and information to
agencies for the prohibition of permissive-only turn movements,
protected-only turn movements and straight-through movements towards a
grade crossing.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance statements for the recommended use
of LRT-activated blank-out signs. FHWA proposes this change to improve
consistency in the application of the signs.
Finally, FHWA proposes a revised Standard that requires blank-out
signs used in preemption be activated only when the preemption is
active. FHWA proposes this change to improve the consistent operation
of the signs.
567. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8D.12 Pre-Signals at or Near Grade Crossings.'' Several of the
paragraphs in this proposed new section are from existing Section
8C.09.
FHWA proposes revised and new Standards that require red signal
indications to be displayed during preemption. FHWA proposes the change
to prevent conflicting indications between the pre-signal and the grade
crossing flashing-light signal system.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance paragraph to recommend measures
at downstream traffic signals. FHWA proposes this change to reduce
vehicles queuing from a downstream signal through a grade crossing.
FHWA also proposes revised and new Options for the green interval.
FHWA proposes this change to provide agencies with additional
information and flexibility in the operation of a pre-signal.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard statement to define the
calculation of the queue clearance time. FHWA proposes the change to
improve safety of road users by ensuring the queue clearance time is
long enough to clear vehicles out of the grade crossing after the pre-
signal indications turn red.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance paragraphs to provide
recommendations for indications over turn lanes that extend from a
downstream intersection through a pre-signal. FHWA proposes the change
to avoid road user confusion between indications at a pre-signal and a
downstream traffic signal and based on Official Ruling No. 8(09)-
19(I).\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)-19(I), November 5, 2014,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/8_09_19.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also proposes new Standards and Support paragraphs that
require agencies to use specific indications at a pre-signal. FHWA
proposes the change to improve safety by discouraging road users from
inadvertently turning onto railroad or LRT tracks.
Finally, FHWA proposes new Option statements for the location of
pre-signal indications and additional signing. FHWA proposes the
changes to provide agencies with flexibility to install indications
where they will be most visible and effective.
568. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8D.13 Queue Cutter Signals at or Near Grade Crossings'' for the
placement and implementation of queue cutter signals near grade
crossings.
FHWA proposes new Support and Option statements to provide
information about the application, and operation of queue cutter
signals. FHWA proposes the change to allow agencies explicitly to
install queue cutter signals which are not addressed in the existing
MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard paragraph that requires agencies
to use specific indications at a queue cutter signal. FHWA proposes the
change to improve safety by discouraging road users from inadvertently
turning onto railroad or LRT tracks.
FHWA also proposes new Options for the locations of queue cutter
indications. FHWA proposes the changes to provide agencies with
flexibility to install indications where they will be most visible and
effective.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance and Options for signing associated
with the queue cutter. FHWA proposes the changes to provide agencies
with flexibility to install signing that discourages road users from
stopping in the grade crossing.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance and Options for the operation of
queue cutter signals. FHWA proposes the change to provide
recommendations for the safe and effective operation of the signal.
FHWA also proposes new Standards that require interconnection and
preemption of a queue cutter signal. FHWA proposes the change to
require uniform application and to prevent conflicting or confusing
displays by the queue cutter signal and flashing-light signal system.
FHWA also proposes new Guidance and Support paragraphs to provide
recommendations and information for indications over turn lanes that
extend from a downstream intersection through a queue cutter. FHWA
proposes the change to avoid road user confusion between indications at
a pre-signal and a downstream traffic signal.
FHWA also proposes new Standards and Support statements to require
additional measures for situations where a turn lane from a downstream
intersection is controlled separately from through movements at a queue
cutter signal. FHWA proposes the change to avoid road user confusion
when different indications are displayed in adjacent lanes at a queue
cutter signal and based on Official Ruling No. 8(09)-19(I).\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)-19(I), November 5, 2014,
can be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/8_09_19.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, FHWA proposes new Support statements that provides
information differentiating a queue cutter signal and a queue jump
signal. FHWA proposes the change to prevent confusion by users of the
MUTCD.
569. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8D.14 Warning Beacons or LED-Enhanced Warning Signs at Grade
Crossings'' for the utilization, activation, and operation of warning
beacons and LED-enhanced warning signs at grade crossings.
FHWA proposes new Option and Support paragraphs to provide
information about the considerations and application of warning beacons
and enhanced signs. FHWA proposes the change to provide consistency in
the use of these devices.
FHWA also proposes new Standard and Support statements to require
preemption interconnection to control the activation of warning beacons
and
[[Page 80968]]
enhanced signs at grade crossings. FHWA proposes the change to improve
safety through the consistent and fail-safe operation of the devices.
FHWA also proposes new Option and Guidance statements to recommend
the timing of warning beacon and sign activation. FHWA proposes the
change to provide for consistent operation of the devices.
Finally, FHWA proposes a new Guidance paragraph that recommends the
use of back-up power for warning beacons and enhanced signs. FHWA
proposes the change to reflect best practices for devices at grade
crossings.
570. In Section 8D.15 (existing Section 8C.10) Traffic Control
Signals at or Near Highway-LRT Grade Crossings, FHWA proposes to delete
existing P16 that recommends that all existing turning movements toward
the highway-LRT grade crossing be prohibited when a signalized
intersection is preempted and located within 200 feet of a highway-LRT
grade crossing. FHWA proposes the change because the Guidance is
redundant with new Section 8D.10.
571. In Section 8D.16 (existing Section 8C.11), retitled, ``Use of
LRT Signals for Control of LRT Vehicles at Highway-LRT Grade
Crossings,'' FHWA proposes to delete Paragraph 1 recommending special
LRT signal indications for LRT movements in semi-exclusive alignments
at non-gated grade crossings that are equipped with traffic control
signals. FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with the updated
definition of a semi-exclusive LRT alignment.
FHWA also proposes to delete the LRT traffic signal configurations
in Figure 8D-3 (existing Figure 8C-3). FHWA proposes this change to
provide agencies with more flexibility in the design of LRT signal
configurations.
FHWA proposes to add Guidance, Standard, and Option statements
regarding the positioning of signal faces used to control LRT
movements, requiring special LRT signal indications to be white, and
providing the option to allow individual LRT signal sections to be
displayed to form clustered signal faces, or for multiple LRT signal
indications to be displayed using a single housing. FHWA proposes these
changes to improve consistency in the use of LRT signal indications.
572. In Section 8E.01 (existing Section 8D.01) Purpose, FHWA
proposes to include sidewalks in the provisions in Chapter 8E (existing
Chapter 8D). FHWA also proposes a new Figure 8E-1 and accompanying text
to illustrate and describe the difference between a pathway grade
crossing and a sidewalk grade crossing. FHWA proposes these changes, as
well as the following proposed changes in Chapter 8E, because
additional focus has been placed on accessibility for all modes of
travel at grade crossings, and as ridership has increased on light
rail, commuter rail, and passenger rail facilities, pedestrian
interaction with trains has led to an increasing trend in pedestrian
and rail incidents.
573. In Section 8E.02 (existing Section 8D.02) Use of Standard
Devices, Systems, and Practices, FHWA proposes a new Guidance statement
recommending that the pathway or sidewalk user's ability to detect the
presence of approaching rail traffic should be considered in
determining the type and placement of traffic control devices at grade
crossings, and that a Diagnostic Team should design and develop the
traffic control devices.
FHWA also proposes a Support statement and accompanying new figures
describing the pathway and sidewalk design that best enhances
pedestrian safety at grade crossings.
574. In Section 8E.03 (existing Section 8D.03), retitled, ``Pathway
and Sidewalk Grade Crossing Signs and Markings,'' FHWA proposes a new
Guidance statement to recommend a 10-foot vertical clearance between
overhead traffic control devices and the pathway surface directly under
the sign or device on pathways used by equestrians.
FHWA also proposes Standard statements requiring that if overhead
traffic control devices are placed above sidewalks, the clearance from
the bottom edge of the device to the sidewalk surface directly under
the sign or device to be at least 7 feet, and traffic control devices
mounted adjacent to sidewalks that are mounted at a height of less than
7 feet must be at least 2 feet laterally offset from the sidewalk. FHWA
proposes this change to incorporate existing provisions of Parts 2 and
4, which require a minimum mounting height of 7 feet when a traffic
control device extends above the sidewalk. Restatement of these
provisions within Part 8 is necessary to minimize situations where
pedestrians may hit their heads and become injured while walking under
a sign, signal, or other device.
FHWA also proposes Guidance and Option statements for utilizing and
mounting the LOOK (R15-8) sign and the Skewed Crossing (W10-12) sign.
FHWA also proposes accompanying revised and new figures to
illustrate the application of signing and pavement markings for
pathways and sidewalk grade crossings.
FHWA proposes all of the changes in this section to be consistent
with other areas of the MUTCD.
575. In Section 8E.04 (existing Section 8D.04) Stop Lines, Edge
Lines, and Detectable Warnings, FHWA proposes a new Guidance statement
and accompanying new figure recommending that pavement markings be
installed in advance of the pathway grade crossing if pathway users
include those who travel faster than pedestrians and that a stop line
be provided at a pathway grade crossing if the surface where the
marking is to be applied is capable of retaining the application of the
marking. FHWA also proposes an Option that allows a stop line to be
provided at a sidewalk grade crossing if the surface where the marking
is to be applied is capable of retaining the marking.
FHWA also proposes Standard and Guidance statements, consistent
with existing provisions in Part 3, regarding the design,
implementation, and utilization of detectable warnings based on ADAAG
criteria and to provide clarity for the new figures that address this
issue. These provisions are restatements of the existing requirements
of Part 3, which were previously referenced only in a Support
statement. FHWA proposes these changes as conforming edits, which would
not change the existing underlying provisions.
576. In Section 8E.05 (existing Section 8D.05), retitled, ``Passive
Traffic Control Devices--Crossbuck Assemblies,'' FHWA proposes changes
to the Standard paragraph, requiring a Crossbuck Assembly to be
installed on each approach to the pathway or sidewalk grade crossing
when the nearest edge of a pathway or sidewalk grade crossing is
located more than 25 feet from the center of the nearest traffic
control warning device at a grade crossing.
FHWA also proposes a new Option statement allowing the
retroreflective strip on the back of the support to be omitted on the
Crossbuck support at a pathway or sidewalk grade crossing.
Finally, FHWA proposes a new Standard statement and accompanying
new figure requiring the minimum height of Crossbuck Assemblies
installed on pathways or sidewalks to be 4 feet where the lateral
offset to the nearest edge of the sign is at least 2 feet and 7 feet
where the lateral offset to the nearest edge of the sign is less than 2
feet. The proposed Standard also requires the minimum lateral offset to
be 0 feet for sidewalks and 2 feet for pathways.
[[Page 80969]]
577. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8E.06 Passive Traffic Control Devices--Swing Gates, Fencing, and
Pedestrian Barriers'' for designing and implementing swing gates,
fencing, and pedestrian barriers.
FHWA proposes new Support and Option statements for the application
of automatic gates and swing gates for sidewalk or pathway grade
crossings. FHWA proposes the change to provide agencies with more
information for the consistent and safe application of these measures.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement for the signing
recommended on swing gates. FHWA proposes the change to provide
pedestrians with clear messages about the use of the swing gate.
Finally, FHWA also proposes a new Support paragraph and
accompanying revised figure for the application of fencing near
sidewalk or pathway grade crossings. FHWA proposes the change to
provide agencies with information about measures that improve the
effectiveness of automatic and swing gates at sidewalk and pathway
grade crossings.
578. In Section 8E.07 (existing Section 8D.06), retitled, ``Active
Traffic Control Systems,'' FHWA proposes new Standard paragraphs and
accompanying revised figure requiring an active traffic control system
at pathway-LRT and sidewalk-LRT grade crossings where LRT operating
speeds on a semi-exclusive alignment exceed 25 mph. FHWA also proposes
to add a new Standard requiring an active traffic control system,
including automatic gates at pathway-LRT and sidewalk-LRT grade
crossings where LRT operating speeds on a semi-exclusive alignment
exceed 40 mph. Both proposed new Standards include an exception to omit
flashing-light signals, bells, and other audible warning devices when
the pathway or sidewalk grade crossing is located within 25 feet of an
active warning device that is equipped with those devices.
FHWA also proposes a new Option statement that allows additional
pairs of flashing-light signals, bells, or other audible warning
devices to be installed on the active traffic control devices at a
grade crossing for pathway or sidewalk users approaching the grade
crossing from the back side of those devices.
Lastly, FHWA proposes a new Guidance statement recommending that if
there is space, a pedestrian refuge area or island should be provided
between the tracks and the roadway where railroad or LRT tracks in a
semi-exclusive alignment are immediately adjacent to a roadway.
579. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8E.08 Active Traffic Control Devices--Signals,'' for pedestrian signal
heads, flashing red lights, and other active traffic control devices at
pathway and sidewalk grade crossings. Some of the material in this
section was relocated from existing Section 8C.13 and has been
reorganized to provide all relevant information for flashing-light
signals at pathway and sidewalk grade crossings in one section.
FHWA proposes new Standard and Support paragraphs that prohibit the
use of pedestrian signal heads at pathway and sidewalk grade crossings.
FHWA proposes the change to improve pedestrian safety and prevent user
confusion at grade crossings.
FHWA also proposes a new Option statement that allows the use of
pedestrian signal heads at pathway and sidewalk grade crossings with
LRT. FHWA proposes the change to provide agencies with flexibility
where the LRT movements are controlled by a traffic signal.
FHWA also proposes new Standards for flashing-light signals at
pathway and sidewalk grade crossings. FHWA proposes the changes to
provide uniformity in the design and operation of flashing-light
signals.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement for use of pedestrian
gates in situations where flashing-light signals have not been
effective. FHWA proposes the change to improve pedestrian safety at
pathway and sidewalk grade crossings.
Finally, FHWA also proposes changes to an existing Guidance
statement to clarify that flashing-light signals are recommended along
semi-exclusive LRT alignments. FHWA proposes the change to improve
pedestrian safety at LRT grade crossings which typically have much
higher volumes of pedestrians and rail traffic.
580. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8E.09 Active Traffic Control Devices--Automatic Pedestrian Gates,'' for
the design, utilization, and implementation of automatic pedestrian
gates including accompanying figures. Some of the material in this
section was relocated from existing Section 8D.06 and has been
reorganized to provide all relevant information for automatic gates at
pathway and sidewalk grade crossings in one section.
FHWA proposes a new Standard statement to require automatic
pedestrian gates, swing gates and fencing for pathway and sidewalk
grade crossings where trains are permitted to travel 80 miles per hour
and higher. FHWA proposes this change for pedestrian safety at grade
crossings where higher speed trains operate.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance statement to recommend an
emergency escape route at automatic pedestrian gates. FHWA proposes
this change to reflect industry best practices in the design of
automatic pedestrian gates.
FHWA also proposes new Standards to require at least one red light
on the automatic pedestrian gate arm and if there is more than one red
light, they must be flashed in an alternating pattern. FHWA also
proposes a new Option to omit the red light if the pathway or sidewalk
crossing is within 25 feet of the roadway grade crossing. FHWA proposes
this change for consistency with Section 8D.03, while providing
agencies flexibility where the pathway or sidewalk grade crossing is in
close proximity to automatic gates for the roadway grade crossing.
FHWA also proposes a new Option statement to clarify that a
separate pedestrian gate is not required if the vehicular gate
mechanism does not allow it to be raised by a pedestrian raising the
pedestrian gate arm based on Official Ruling No. 8(09)-3(I).\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ FHWA Official Ruling No. 8(09)-3(I), August 24, 2010, can
be viewed at the following internet website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/8_09_3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, FHWA proposes new Option and Guidance statements to
provide information about the use of horizontal hanging bars from a
pedestrian gate arm.
581. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
8E.10 Active Traffic Control Devices--Multiple-Track Pathway or
Sidewalk Grade Crossing'' that contains the first sentence of P1 in
existing Section 8C.13.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 9 Traffic Control for Bicycle
Facilities
582. FHWA proposes to consolidate existing Sections 9A.02 through
9A.04 into one section numbered and retitled, ``Section 9A.01
General.'' This section provides an overview of traffic control devices
on bicycle facilities and describes some of the benefits and
limitations thereof.
583. FHWA proposes to remove existing Sections 9A.01, 9A.05, 9A.06,
9A.07, and 9A.08 because they are not needed.
584. FHWA proposes to replace and retitle Section 9A.02
``Standardization of Application for Signing,'' which includes
Standard, Guidance, and Option statements from existing Sections 9B.01
and 9B.02. FHWA proposes to change P4 and P5 in
[[Page 80970]]
existing Section 9B.01 from Standard to Guidance to provide agencies
the discretion in placement of sign supports to accommodate field
conditions that may require modifications during design or sign
installation.
Lastly, FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement allowing 18''
x 18'' warning signs that are only applicable to bicyclists and
pedestrians. FHWA proposes this change to allow agencies to use smaller
signs where appropriate.
585. FHWA proposes to relocate and consolidate existing Sections
9C.01 and 9C.02 into a replaced and retitled, Section 9A.03
``Standardization of Application for Markings.'' FHWA also proposes to
remove Guidance about using bikeway design guides because the sentence
did not provide any specific information.
FHWA also proposes to modify the existing Standard in Section 9C.02
requiring reflectorized markings on bikeways to require that pavement
markings on bicycle facilities that must be visible at night be
retroreflective unless the pavement markings are visible under provided
lighting. FHWA proposes this change to clarify when retroreflectivity
is required.
FHWA also proposes to add new Guidance paragraphs discouraging
raised pavement markers with bicycle lanes or shared-use paths and also
recommending that if raised pavement markers used around bicycle
facilities that they are not immediately adjacent to the travel path of
bicycles. FHWA proposes this Guidance because raised pavement markers
create collision potential for bicyclists by placing fixed objects
immediately adjacent to the travel path of the bicyclist.
586. FHWA proposes to separate existing Chapter 9B Signs into three
chapters--retitle Chapter 9B to ``Regulatory Signs,'' add a new Chapter
9C ``Warning Signs and Object Markers,'' and add a new Chapter 9D
``Guide and Service Signs.'' In addition, FHWA proposes to separate
Table 9B-1 Bicycle Facility Sign and Plaque Minimum Sizes into three
tables--Table 9B-1 for regulatory signs, Table 9C-1 for warning signs
and object markers, and Table 9D-1 for guide and service signs. These
changes are for consistency with how signs are organized in Part 2 and
to make it easier to locate bicycle-related signs by sign type.
587. In Section 9B.01 (existing Section 9B.03) STOP and YIELD Signs
(R1-1, R1-2), FHWA proposes adding a Standard that prohibits a STOP
sign or a YIELD sign from being installed in conjunction with a bicycle
signal face. FHWA proposes this restriction to provide uniformity in
the application of signals and to avoid conflicts between bicycle
signal indications and signs.
588. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.02 Except Bicycles Plaque (R3-7bP).'' This section
describes the use of this plaque for circumstances where bicycles are
exempt from regulatory restrictions that apply to other traffic. FHWA
proposes new Standard paragraphs to prevent Except Bicycles Plaques
from conflicting with STOP signs or YIELD signs and requires the
plaques to be placed below the regulatory sign that it supplements.
FHWA also proposes new Figure 9B-1 to show examples of how the Except
Bicycles Plaque can be applied. FHWA proposes this new section because
there are circumstances where it is appropriate to exempt bicyclists
from regulatory restrictions applied to other traffic.
589. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.03 Advance Intersection Lane Control Signs for Bicycle
Lanes (R3-8 Series)'' to provide Standard, Guidance, Option, and
Support statements for accommodating bicycle lanes on the R3-8 series
of signing where determined to be appropriate. FHWA proposes this new
section because improper dissemination of this information can result
in unwieldy sign designs or legends. The amount of information that can
be legibly displayed and comprehended by road users on signs or in
signing sequence on the same approach to an intersection is limited.
The number and combination of permissible movements by both the motor
vehicle and the bicycle may be numerous, thereby complicating the
cognitive task of the road user at a decision point.
590. In Section 9B.04, retitled, ``Bike Lane Signs and Plaques (R3-
17, R3-17aP, R3-5hP),'' FHWA proposes changing a portion of the
existing Guidance regarding the placement of Bike Lane signs and
plaques periodically along the bicycle lane to an Option in order to
give agencies the discretion of sign placement when developing a policy
for the use of Bike Lane signs. As part of this change, FHWA also
proposes to allow the use of other regulatory plaques such as BEGIN
(M4-14) and END (M4-6) with Bike Lane signs.
FHWA also proposes adding Option statements allowing the use of a
BIKE LANE plaque to supplement Mandatory Movement Lane Control signs in
places where only a single bicycle movement is permitted from the
bicycle lane and to supplement Optional Movement Lane Control signs
where two or more movements from a bicycle lane are permitted in order
to prevent operational problems. FHWA proposes these additional
statements to provide uniformity in signing.
591. In Section 9B.08 (existing Section 9B.09) Selective Exclusion
Signs, FHWA proposes the deletion of the Standard requiring that
Selective Exclusion signs clearly indicate the type of traffic that is
excluded. FHWA proposes this change, because the Selective Exclusion
signs specify the user type, therefore a separate Standard statement is
not necessary.
592. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.10 Back-In Parking Sign (R7-10).'' This section provides
Option and Support statements and a figure regarding the application of
the proposed new R7-10 sign, which may be used where back-in angle
parking is required by motor vehicles due to the presence of a bike
lane.
593. In Section 9B.11, retitled, ``Bicycles Use Ped Signal (R9-
5),'' FHWA proposes a new Option to remind drivers making turns that a
Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians (R10-15) or Left Turns Yield to
Bicycles (R10-12b) sign may be used. Also, to increase uniformity in
placement location, FHWA proposes new Guidance for the location and
installation of the R9-5 sign to recommend placement where bicyclists
cross the street.
594. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.12 Bicycles Yield to Peds Sign (R9-6).'' While this sign
exists in Section 9B.11 of the 2009 MUTCD, FHWA proposes to add
additional Standard paragraphs regarding the application and use of
this sign, along with a new figure, to provide practitioners with
additional information and to promote uniformity in its use.
595. In Section 9B.14 (existing Section 9B.06), FHWA proposes to
change the legend of the existing R4-11 (Bicycles May Use Full Lane)
sign to ``Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane.'' The standardized sizes
of the sign would not change and the proposed legend would continue to
be of commensurate size for its application, ensuring adequate levels
of legibility and recognition. FHWA proposes this change because the
legend of the existing sign, which was introduced in the 2009 edition
of the MUTCD, conveys a warning message on a regulatory sign while the
proposed legend would be consistent with regulatory signs that display
notification of vehicle codes governing rules of the road.
[[Page 80971]]
In addition to this change, FHWA proposes to redesignate this sign
from R4-11 to R9-20. FHWA proposes this change to group this sign with
several other proposed bicycle-related signs with the R9 series
designations.
596. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.15 Bicycle Passing Clearance Sign (R4-19)'' to describe
the use of this proposed new sign.
Option and Guidance paragraphs are added to provide details on the
use and restrictions of this sign that is only allowed in jurisdictions
that have passed a law or ordinance specifying a specific passing
clearance.
597. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.16 Bicycles Use Shoulder Only Sign (R9-21)'' to describe
the use of this proposed new sign that is an option to use on freeways
or expressways. Also, FHWA proposes a new plaque R5-10dP that is an
option to use on freeways to prohibit bicycles on ramps leading to an
adjacent or parallel freeway. The Guidance provided in this section
proposes that the Bicycles Use Shoulder Only sign (R9-21) only be
placed adjacent to the on-ramp or entrance to the freeway at or near
the location where the full-width should resume beyond the entrance
ramp taper. FHWA proposes this sign because there are places where
bicycles are permitted on a freeway but are required to travel on an
available and usable shoulder.
598. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.17 Signing for Bicycles on Freeways and Expressways'' to
provide Standard, Option, and Support paragraphs along with a new
figure, for bicycle signing on freeways and expressways. FHWA proposes
to add a new Bicycles Must Exit (R9-22) sign that is required in
advance of a location where a freeway or expressway becomes prohibited
to bicycle travel. FHWA also proposes a new Standard requiring the No
Bicycling Sign (R5-6) be placed downstream from the ramp departure
point where the prohibited segment of freeway or expressway begins.
FHWA proposes this new section to provide uniformity in signing for
bicycles on freeways and expressways.
599. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.18 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box Regulatory Signing (R9-23
series).'' FHWA proposes Standard, Option, and Support for the new sign
as well as a new Figure 9B-5 that illustrates required signing for two-
stage turn boxes that are used to simplify the turning task for
bicyclists at certain intersections.
600. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.19 Bicycle Jughandle Signs (R9-24, R9-25, R9-26, and R9-27
Series).'' FHWA proposes the new section to define a bicycle jughandle
turn and provide Guidance, Option, and Support, as well as a new Figure
9B-6, that illustrates signing for such locations.
601. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.20 Bicycle Actuation Signs (R10-4, R10-22, R10-24, R10-25,
and R10-26),'' created from paragraphs in existing Section 9B.11 and
Section 9B.13. FHWA proposes to rename sign R10-22 from ``Bicycle
Signal Actuation'' to ``Bicycle Detector.'' Also, FHWA proposes to add
a Guidance paragraph giving recommendations on where to place Bicycle
Detector signs.
602. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.21 LEFT TURN YIELD TO Bicycles Sign (R10-12b)'' to provide
information regarding the proposed new R10-12b sign and refers the user
to Section 2B.53. FHWA proposes this change because road users
approaching a signalized intersection with opposing counter-flow
bicycle lanes may not expect to yield to oncoming bicycles.
603. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.22 Bicycle SIGNAL Signs (R10-40, R10-40a, R10-41, R10-41a,
R10-41b).'' FHWA proposes this new section in concert with the addition
of bicycle signal faces in the MUTCD. The proposed Standard in this
section requires that a Bicycle Signal sign be installed immediately
adjacent to every bicycle signal face to inform road users that the
specialized signal control face is intended only for bicyclists. FHWA
proposes this new section to be consistent with past FHWA action and
proposed changes to Part 4 to establish uniform signal control
indications for bicycles on a national basis, which would improve
bicyclist safety, especially at locations where separate signal phases
are provided for motor-vehicle and bicycle traffic.
604. In Section 9B.23 (existing Section 8.17) LOOK Sign (R15-8),
FHWA proposes to relocate this section from Part 8 and allow the use of
a LOOK sign on a shared-use path or separated bikeway at a railroad or
LRT grade crossing.
605. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9B.25 General Service Signing for Bikeways'' to provide
information regarding General Service signs and their applicability for
bicycles as referenced in Chapter 2I.
606. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9C.05 Except Bicycles Plaque (W16-20P)'' to provide
information regarding a proposed new plaque that can be used to notify
bicyclists that a warning sign is not applicable to them.
607. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9C.06 Bicycle Cross Traffic Warning Plaques (W16-21P, W21-
16aP)'' to provide information regarding a proposed new plaque
recommended for use below a STOP sign in isolated locations to alert
motor vehicles of unexpected bicycle traffic.
608. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9C.07 Bicycle Lane Ends Warning Sign (W9-5) and Bicycle
Merging Sign (W9-5a)'' to provide Support, Option, and Guidance for two
new signs, W9-5 and W9-5a that can be used to alert road users when a
bicycle lane is ending or a bicycle merge is occurring.
609. In Section 9C.08 (existing Section 9B.19) Other Bicycle
Warning Signs, FHWA proposes an Option to use a plaque displaying the
legend IN ROAD (W16-1p and W16-1aP) with the Bicycle Warning Sign (W11-
1) to communicate to bicycles and motor vehicles that bicycles are in
the road. The SHARE THE ROAD plaque has been removed from the MUTCD
based on research indicating that road users do not understand the
intended message.
610. In Section 9C.09 (existing Section 9B.26) Object Markers, FHWA
proposes to delete existing P3 and P4 regarding how markers are striped
and instead reference Section 2C.69.
611. In Section 9D.01 (part of existing Section 9B.20), retitled,
``Bicycle Destination Signs (D1-1b, D1-1c, D1-2b, D1-2c, D1-3b, D1-
3c),'' FHWA proposes to change the Guidance regarding the substitution
of Bicycle Destination signs for vehicular destination signs to a
Standard to be consistent with existing provisions in existing Section
9B.02. FHWA proposes this change to prohibit the use of smaller size
Bicycle Destination signs when the message is also intended to be
applicable to motorists as well as address an existing conflict in the
MUTCD.
FHWA also proposes to add a new Support paragraph regarding the
purpose of Bicycle Destination signs and example locations for
placement.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option statement to permit Destination
signs and Street Name signs to be installed instead of or in addition
to Bicycle Destination signs if the
[[Page 80972]]
Destination or Street Name sign applies to motorists and bicyclists.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement to permit the
use of an oversized bicycle symbol as the top line of a Bicycle
Destination sign instead of individual bicycle symbols for each of the
destination/distance lines. FHWA proposes this option to facilitate
legibility on these signs and in accordance with FHWA's Official Ruling
No. 9(09)-20(I).\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 9(09)-20(I), July 29, 2011, can
be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/9_09_20.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, FHWA proposes Guidance to clarify that the bicycle symbol
should be to the left of the destination legend where the arrow is
located at the extreme right.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a Guidance statement to discourage
displaying travel times on Bicycle Destination signs. FHWA proposes
this recommendation because travel times vary greatly by bicycle user
speed and experience. Further, in terms of bike travel, the travel time
does not provide any useful information that a distance would not
already provide.
612. FHWA proposes to create a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9D.02 BIKE ROUTE Guide Signs (D11-1, D11-1c, D11-1d, D11-1e,
D11-1f, D11-1g)'' that contains relocated paragraphs from existing
Section 9B.20 and new D11-1d, D11-1e, D11-1f, and D11-1g signs. FHWA
proposes to add these new signs to provide alternative layouts and
eliminate the potential need for an additional, separate sign on the
same post.
FHWA also proposes to add a Guidance statement to discourage
displaying travel times on BIKE ROUTE Guide signs or Alternative BIKE
ROUTE guide signs in concert with the proposed change in Section 9D.01
(existing Section 9B.20).
613. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9D.03 BIKE ROUTE Plaque (D11-1bP)'' to provide two new
Options for installing the D11-1bP plaque to supplement the Alternative
BIKE ROUTE Guide (D11-1c) sign and a Street Name (D3-1) sign, in
addition to the Option contained in P3 of existing Section 9B.25 to
supplement the Bicycle Directional (D11-1a) sign. FHWA also proposes to
add three new Standards regarding the use of the proposed new sign.
614. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9D.04 Numbered Bikeway Systems'' to provide Support,
Guidance, Standard, and Option statements, as well as a new Figure 9D-
3, describing the proper signing for numbered bicycle routes. FHWA
proposes this new section to provide uniformity in the numbering and
signing of bicycle route systems.
615. In Section 9D.05 (existing Section 9B.21), retitled,
``Numbered Bicycle Route Signs (M1-8, M1-8a),'' FHWA proposes a new
Standard to require a bicycle symbol when the Numbered Bicycle Route
(M1-8, M1-8a) sign is used on a roadway so that the bicycle route can
be distinguished from other numbered route systems. FHWA also proposes
new Guidance to clarify the dimensions and placement of use of a
pictograph, if used, on these signs.
FHWA also proposes to relocate text related to U.S. Bicycle Route
(M1-9) signs to new Sections 9D.02, 9D.04, and 9D.07.
616. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9D.06 Non-Numbered Bicycle Route Sign (M1-8b, M1-8c)'' to
provide Support, Option, Standard, and Guidance statements on the use
and design of the Non-Numbered Bicycle Route (M1-8b, M1-8c) sign. FHWA
proposes this new section to provide information for signing bicycle
routes that are designated specifically by name or established using a
distinctive route identity but are excluded from a numbered route
system.
617. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9D.07 U.S. Bicycle Route Sign (M1-9)'' containing paragraphs
from existing Section 9B.21. FHWA also proposes to change the M1-9 sign
layout in accordance with FHWA Interim Approval IA-15.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ FHWA's Interim Approval IA-15, June 1, 2012, can be viewed
at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia15/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
618. In Section 9D.08 (existing Section 9B.22) Bicycle Route Sign
Auxiliary Plaques, FHWA proposes a new Standard to require the route
sign and auxiliary plaques for bikeways to be installed on independent
assemblies if a designated or numbered bicycle route is concurrent with
a numbered highway. FHWA proposes this change to minimize road user
confusion in route signing.
FHWA also proposes to add a Standard prohibiting installing route
signs for bikeways on guide signs or overhead because these signs are
typically intended for motorists and bicyclists may not expect or be
able to view the legends.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add an Option permitting route
assemblies for a designated or numbered bicycle route to be installed
at locations and distances other than those prescribed in Chapter 2B
based on FHWA's Official Ruling No. 9(09)-39(I).\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ FHWA's Official Ruling No. 9(09)-39(I), December 26, 2012,
can be viewed at the following internet website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/9_09_39.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, FHWA proposes adding clarification to the Guidance paragraph
regarding the M4-8 plaque and that the sign color should match the
color combination of the route for uniformity. FHWA proposes a new
Guidance paragraph regarding minimum route sign sizes to improve
visibility.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard to require the Junction, Cardinal
Direction, or Alternative Route auxiliary plaque be installed above the
Bicycle Route sign, and the Advance Turn Arrow or Directional Arrow
auxiliary plaque be installed below the Bicycle Route sign where both
are used on the same sign assembly. FHWA proposes this new section to
provide uniformity in placement of auxiliary plaques on sign
assemblies.
Also, FHWA proposes to delete the Option statement regarding
destination sign mounting because it is redundant with Paragraph 4 of
existing Section 9D.20.
FHWA proposes a new Standard regarding the usage of Bicycle Route
Sign assembly that shall consist of a route sign and auxiliary sign.
FHWA proposes this new Standard to improve uniformity and for
consistency with provisions for other Route Sign assemblies, which
provide positive direction to road users.
Also, FHWA proposes Guidance to clarify that Bicycle Route Sign
assemblies should be installed on all approaches where bicycle routes
meet other bicycle routes. This Guidance would improve bicycle network
wayfinding.
In addition, FHWA proposes new a Standard regarding the arrangement
of information displayed on groups of assemblies for bicycle routes to
improve uniformity and consistency with existing provisions for other
types of assemblies, which facilitates recognition by the road user.
FHWA proposes a new Option allowing Bicycle Route Sign assemblies to be
installed on common supports with numbered highway routes to reduce
sign clutter.
Also, FHWA proposes new Standard and Option statements for the
required signing of the Junction assembly and the optional placement in
advance of an intersection to improvement uniformity and wayfinding for
bicyclists.
[[Page 80973]]
Finally, FHWA proposes new Standard, Guidance, Option, and Support
statements for bicycle route signs regarding the use and layout of
Directional signs or Directional assemblies to improve uniformity and
wayfinding for bicyclists.
619. In Section 9D.09 (existing Section 9B.23), retitled, ``Bicycle
Parking Signs (D4-3, D4-4),'' FHWA proposes to delete the Standard
regarding the color of the legend and border because the color for
guide signs is covered elsewhere.
FHWA also proposes to add an Option permitting a new Bicycle-
Sharing Station (D4-4) sign to be installed to provide directional
information to a designated bicycle sharing system. FHWA proposes to
add a Guidance recommending that, if used, the Bicycle-Sharing Station
sign should be used in conjunction with a regulated bicycle-sharing
system. FHWA proposes these changes to establish uniformity with
signing for these new bicycle facilities.
In addition, FHWA proposes to add a new Standard reiterating
existing prohibitions on promotional advertising, business logos, or
other identification that would convey the involvement of a public-
private partnership, in accordance with the existing provisions of
Section 1A.02 that prohibit promotional advertising on traffic control
devices.
620. In Section 9D.10 (existing Section 9B.24) Reference Location
Signs (D10-1 through D10-3) and Intermediate Reference Location Signs
(D10-1a through D10-3a), FHWA proposes to delete existing Standard P5
regarding the design of reference location signs because minimum sign
sizes are specified in the existing table and sign designs are
standardized and must comply with the existing provisions of Chapter
2A.
FHWA also proposes to change existing P4 and P6 regarding the use
of decimal points and a zero numeral on the integer mile point on
intermediate reference location signs and the placement of reference
location signs from a Standard to a Guidance to provide agencies
flexibility in mile point displays and sign placement.
621. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9D.12 Destination Guide Signs for Shared-Use Paths (D11-10a,
D11-10b, D11-10c)'' to provide Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option
statements regarding the application of Destination Guide signs for
shared-use paths. FHWA proposes new Standards that require the
destination guide signs on shared-use paths, when used, to be
retroreflective and limits the use of symbols to allowable modes on the
path. FHWA also proposes new Standards related to sign content and
layout requirements, including arrows, lettering, and pictographs. FHWA
proposes this new section to provide practitioners information for
shared-use path signing, the need for which has increased in recent
years, as evidenced by an increasing number of technical inquiries that
FHWA has answered regarding this type of signing.
622. FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled,
``Section 9D.13 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box Guide Signing (D11-20
series)'' with Standard, Option, and Support statements related to the
use of the guide signs for two-stage bicycle turn boxes. FHWA also
proposes a new Figure 9D-6 that illustrates the guide signing for two-
stage turn boxes that are used to simplify the turning task for
bicyclists at certain intersections.
623. In Section 9E.01 (part of existing Section 9C.04), retitled,
``Bicycle Lanes,'' FHWA proposes to revise the Standard to require the
use of bicycle lane symbol or word markings, in addition to
longitudinal pavement markings, to define bicycle lanes. In concert
with this change, FHWA proposes to add an Option statement permitting
the use of the word marking BIKE LANE as an alternative to the bicycle
symbol. FHWA proposes these changes to inform road users of the bicycle
lane and to reduce wrong-way bicycling.
In addition, FHWA proposes adding clarification to the Guidance
regarding the placement of the first symbol or word denoting a bicycle
lane. This proposed change makes the bicycle markings consistent with
preferential lane word and symbol markings.
FHWA also proposes a new Option allowing the use of arrow markings
in conjunction with the bicycle lane symbol or word markings.
Finally, FHWA proposes to add a Standard prohibiting the bicycle
symbol or BIKE LANE pavement word marking and the pavement marking
arrow in a shoulder. FHWA also proposes to require that a portion of
the travel way cannot be established as both a shoulder and a bicycle
lane because each serves a different use and has differing regulations
that apply. The uniform marking of each type would minimize any
confusion and accommodate the expectancy of the road user.
624. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.02 Bicycle Lanes at Intersection Approaches,'' which contains
material from existing Section 9C.04.
FHWA proposes a new Option statement to allow a bicycle lane to be
located on the outside of a turn lane if a bicycle signal face is used
and the signal phasing and signing eliminates potential conflicts.
FHWA also proposes a new Standard that requires bicycle lanes
located at an intersection approach between contiguous lanes for motor
vehicle movements be marked with a bicycle symbol and arrow pavement
markings. FHWA also proposes a Standard to prohibit bicycle lanes from
being marked as contiguous with a general purpose turn lane, either
with dotted or any other line markings. FHWA proposes these additions
to alert motor vehicles of the presence of bicyclists and prevent
potential conflicts.
In addition, FHWA proposes Option, Guidance, and Support statements
for shifting over of buffer separated or separated bike lanes at
intersections to improve visibility for motor vehicles and bicycles to
account for developments in bicycle facility design since 2009 edition
of the MUTCD.
Finally, FHWA proposes new Option, Standard, and Support statements
and a new figure to provide an option and requirements for the use of
mixing zones, which are when general purpose and bike lanes must share
the same space through an intersection.
625. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.03 Extensions of Bicycle Lanes through Intersections'' to provide
Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option statements on the application
of bicycle lane extensions. In this section, FHWA proposes to clarify
that shared-lane markings and chevrons shall not be used through
intersections. This is not a new Standard, rather a clarification of
the Standard in existing Section 9C.07 and of the use of chevrons. FHWA
proposes new Standard statements requiring only dotted lane lines for
extensions of bike lanes through intersections, and requiring lane
extension markings to extend buffer-separated or separated bicycle
lanes through intersections and driveways. As part of these changes,
FHWA proposes Support and Guidance statements regarding pavement
markings for bicycle lanes through intersections. FHWA also adds a
Standard requiring the lateral limits of bicycle lane extensions
through intersections when the bicycle lane is contiguous to a
crosswalk. FHWA proposes this new section because the uniform
application of extensions of bicycle lanes through intersections
assists all users of the intersection in identifying where bicyclists
are expected to operate.
[[Page 80974]]
626. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.04 Bicycle Lanes at Driveways'' to provide options for bicycle lanes
at or through driveways. FHWA proposes this new section to provide
practitioners with options for marking bicycle lanes in the vicinity of
driveways and to promote the uniform application of these treatments.
627. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.05 Bicycle Lanes at Circular Intersections,'' which contains
material relocated from existing section 9C.04. FHWA proposes
additional Support statements related to the use of shared-lane
markings and bicycles on the sidewalk at circular intersections, since
bicycle lanes are already prohibited through circular intersections.
628. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.06 Buffer-Separated Bicycle Lanes'' to provide practitioners with
Support, Standard, Guidance, and Option statements and a new figure to
provide information on the application of buffer-separated bicycle
lanes. FHWA proposes new Standards that provide requirements on the
buffer-separated bicycle lines, including line types, markings in the
buffer, width, location, and color. FHWA proposes this new section and
associated figure, because providing a buffer space between a bicycle
lane and a travel lane can reduce vehicle encroachment into the bicycle
lane and reduce crashes between a bicyclist and open vehicle doors in a
parking lane. In addition, the provisions of this Section would promote
uniformity in the use of this treatment in accordance with existing
traffic control devices in Section 3B.25 (existing Section 3B.24) and
Chapter 3E (existing Chapter 3D).
629. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.07 Separated Bicycle Lanes'' to provide Support, Standard, Option,
and Guidance statements, along with a new figure, for the application
of separated bicycle lanes. FHWA proposes Standard statements requiring
a buffer space between parking spaces and separated bicycle lanes,
buffer space markings, restrictions for edge line and lane line colors,
and requiring directional arrows. FHWA also proposes Standards related
to requirements for signalization with two-way separated bicycle lanes
and prohibiting right turns on red across separated bicycle lanes when
bicycle traffic is allowed to proceed through the intersection. FHWA
proposes this new section to provide practitioners information for
uniformity in application to promote the safe and efficient operation
of the bicycle lanes by reducing conflicts between bicycles and
pedestrians accessing parked vehicles, and between bicycles and motor
vehicles turning across their path on separate traffic signal phases.
630. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.08 Counter-Flow Bicycle Lanes'' to provide Support, Standard, and
Guidance statements, along with a new figure, for the application of
counter-flow bicycle lanes, which is when one direction bicycle lanes
travel the opposite direction of the general traffic that is also
traveling in one direction. FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend that a
counter-flow bicycle lane be placed on the right-hand side of the road
with opposing traffic on the left.
FHWA also proposes a Standard requiring double yellow line
markings, a painted median island, raised median island, or some form
of physical separation to define the counter-flow bicycle lane where
the speed limit is 30 mph or less. When the speed limit is 35 mph or
greater, FHWA proposes a Standard requiring a buffer, a painted median,
raised median island, or another form of physical separation to ensure
safe operation through adequate separation between opposing flows of
bicycles and motor vehicles.
Lastly, FHWA proposes new Standards and Guidance for required and
recommended signing and signalization for counter-flow bicycle lanes.
FHWA proposes this new section to provide practitioners information for
uniformity in application.
631. In Section 9E.09 (existing Section 9C.07) Shared-Lane Marking,
FHWA proposes to revise the Guidance to recommend that shared-lane
markings not be used on roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or
above, instead of 35 mph or above per the 2009 version of the Manual.
FHWA also proposes to revise the Standard to expand the listing of
locations where shared-lane markings are prohibited. FHWA proposes this
change to include some of the new applications that are proposed in
this NPA but are not in the 2009 Edition of the Manual, and to address
field experience with this marking since it was adopted in the 2009
MUTCD.
In addition, FHWA provides new Guidance statements on the placement
of shared-lane markings and the use of Bicycles Allowed Use of Full
Lane (R9-20, resdesignated from R4-11) signs.
Lastly, FHWA proposes new Options and an associated figure, for
implementation of shared-lane markings in places where the width of the
roadway is insufficient to continue a bike lane or separate bikeway on
approach to the intersection. FHWA proposes this new section to provide
practitioners discretion when developing a policy for the use of the
shared-lane markings on intersection approaches.
632. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.10 Shared-Lane Markings for Circular Intersections'' to provide
Guidance and Support statements recommending that shared-lane markings
not be used in the circulatory roadway of multi-lane circular
intersections. FHWA proposes this new section to assist practitioners
with providing uniform treatments of shared-use paths in the vicinity
of circular intersections based on an NCHRP study.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ ``Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition''
NCHRP 672, 2010, can be viewed at the following internet website:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
633. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.11 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes'' to provide Support, Standard,
Option, and Guidance statements, as well as two new figures, to
describe the application of two-stage bicycle turn boxes. FHWA proposes
Standards to provide requirements on location, pavement markings,
arrows, and passive detection of bicycles at traffic signals. As two-
stage bicycle turn boxes are intended to be positioned within an
intersection for bicyclists to queue safely, these Standards define
what is required to make those spaces both safe and operationally
effective for bicyclists at traffic signals.
In addition, FHWA proposes Guidance to consider the peak hour
bicycle demand and adjacent land uses for the size of the bicycle turn
box.
FHWA also proposes an Option to use green colored pavement with an
associated Standard that requires the entire turn box to be green
colored pavement when used.
Lastly, FHWA proposes a Standard that requires a full-time turns-
on-red prohibition where the path of vehicles lawfully turning right on
red would pass through the bicycle turn box. FHWA proposes this section
to describe the proper use of this new application that simplifies the
turning task for bicyclists.
634. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.12 Bicycle Box'' to provide Option, Standard, Guidance, and Support
statements and a new figure, to describe the application of a bicycle
box.
FHWA also proposes Guidance recommending consideration of motor
vehicle and bicycle conflicts for when
[[Page 80975]]
the bicycle box should be used, recommending that a bicycle lane be
used on the approach to a bicycle box, and recommending that a bicycle
box not be contiguous with a crosswalk.
In addition, FHWA proposes Standards requiring locations, markings,
signal yellow change and red clearance intervals, and countdown
pedestrian signals when the bicycle box extends across more than one
approach lane of motor vehicles. FHWA proposes these changes to
mitigate the potential conflict between bicyclists crossing a bicycle
box across multiple lanes while motor vehicle traffic is given a green
indication to move into the intersection.
Lastly, FHWA also proposes an Option to use green colored pavement
with an associated Standard that requires the entire bicycle box to be
green colored pavement when used. FHWA proposes this addition to
describe the proper use of this new application that increases the
visibility of stopped bicyclists on the approach to a signalized
intersection when the signal is red.
635. In Section 9E.13 (existing Section 9C.03), retitled, ``Shared-
Use Paths,'' FHWA proposes a new Option and Standard, and accompanying
figure, to provide additional design options for pavement markings.
FHWA also proposes a new Guidance that the crossing areas for
bicyclists should use green-colored pavement in order to distinguish
between the crosswalk for pedestrians and the crossing area for
bicyclists. FHWA proposes this new Guidance in concert with the
proposal to add green-colored pavement for bicycle facilities.
636. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.14 Bicycle Route Pavement Markings'' to provide Option, Standard,
and Guidance statements, as well as a new figure, for the application
of pavement markings to simulate route auxiliary plaques and Bicycle
Route Guide signs to provide navigational guidance for bicyclists and
pedestrians on shared-use paths, separated bikeways on independent
alignment, and on improved trails.
Also, FHWA proposes Standards to limit the use of route markers on
bicycle lanes, separated bikeways in the roadway, or on roadways where
the shared-use path runs contiguous or concurrent with a street or
highway.
Lastly, FHWA also proposes a Guidance to require that pavement
markings simulating official guide signs for bicycle routes be
supplemental to the sign(s) and shall not be a substitute for the
sign(s), with an associated Guidance that recommends a systematic
methodology of locating signs and bicycle route pavement markings. FHWA
proposes this new section to provide uniformity for this new practice.
637. In Section 9E.15 (existing Section 9C.05) Bicycle Detector
Symbol, FHWA proposes the addition of an Option statement that allows
WAIT HERE FOR GREEN word markings to be placed on the pavement
immediately below the bicycle detector symbol to help bicyclists know
to stop on the bicycle detector symbol.
638. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9E.17 Raised Devices'' to provide Support, Option, Standard, and
Guidance statements for the application of raised devices in
coordination with bicycle facilities. FHWA proposes a Standard that
channelizing devices shall not incorporate the color green, consistent
with an existing requirement in Part 3 that the color of channelizing
devices shall match the color of the pavement markings they supplement.
FHWA proposes this requirement to reiterate the existing requirement
because some bicycle facilities utilize optional green-colored pavement
to supplement the required white or yellow markings and the existing
requirement could imply that the color of the channelizing devices are
allowed to match the color of the pavement (green, in this case) rather
than the color of the pavement marking. FHWA proposes this change as a
conforming edit, which would not change the existing underlying
requirement.
FHWA also proposes Guidance statements that the channelizing
devices should be tubular markers, and that the selection of a raised
device consider the collision potential of both the post and the base.
Lastly, FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend that if used in buffer-
separated bicycle lanes, channelizing devices should be placed in the
buffer space and at least one foot from the longitudinal bicycle lane
pavement marking. FHWA proposes this new section because the purpose of
channelizing devices is to emphasize pavement marking patterns
associated with bicycle facilities.
639. FHWA proposes a new section numbered and titled, ``Section
9F.02 Bicycle Signal Face'' to provide a reference to Chapter 4H on the
design and application of bicycle signal faces and Section 9B.22 for
the Bicycle SIGNAL sign.
640. FHWA proposes a new chapter numbered and titled, ``Chapter 9G
Bicycle Accommodations at Alternative Intersections.'' This new chapter
contains six proposed new sections numbered and titled as follows:
``Section 9G.01 General,'' ``Section 9G.02 Displaced Left-Turn
Intersection,'' ``Section 9G.03 Median U-Turn Intersection,'' ``Section
9G.04 Intercepted Crossroad Intersection,'' ``Section 9G.05 Restricted
Crossing Intersection,'' and ``Section 9G.06 Diamond Interchange with
Transposed-Alignment Crossroad'' to provide practitioners with
information on how to accommodate bicyclists through these various
types of alternate intersections. FHWA also proposes four new figures
demonstrating examples of the bicycle accommodations at alternative
intersections. The information in these proposed sections, along with
the accompanying figures, are based on supporting research.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ ``Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational
Report (AIIR)'' FHWA-HRT-09-060, April 2010, can be viewed at the
following internet website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/09060.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
641. In proposed Section 9G.01 General, FHWA proposes a Support
that clarifies that the Chapter describes examples for the application
and accommodation of bicycle traffic at alternative intersections but
is not a requirement to provide the bicycle traffic control herein.
642. In proposed Section 9G.02 Displaced Left Turn Intersection,
FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend that a left-turning bicycle
movement should transition to an independent alignment that facilitates
the bicycle to a two-stage turn box where bicycle lanes or shared-lane
markings are used on the major street approaching a displaced left-turn
intersection.
643. In proposed Section 9G.03 Median U-turn Intersection, FHWA
recommends Guidance that a two-stage bicycle turn box should be used
where left-turning bicycles need to be accommodated at median U-Turn
intersections.
644. In proposed Section 9G.04 Intercepted Crossroad Intersection,
FHWA recommends Guidance that shared-lane markings should be
discontinued on a single lane intersection approach on cross streets
and the bicycle movement should be transitioned to a bicycle lane
contiguous to the exclusive right or left turn lane for motor vehicles.
645. In proposed Section 9G.05 Restricted Crossing Intersection,
FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend that bicycle destination or bicycle
route guide signs should be used at restricted crossing intersections
where it is demonstrated that it would be difficult for bicycle
movements.
[[Page 80976]]
646. In proposed Section 9G.06 Diamond Interchange with Transposed-
Alignment Crossroad, FHWA proposes Guidance to recommend destination
guide signs for shared-use paths to transition pedestrian and bicycle
travel to and from the median of the transposed alignment where a
shared-use path is used.
647. In Appendix A1, FHWA proposes to retitle the section to
``Congressional Actions'' and add a new option to allow an alternative
letter style for destination legends on freeway and expressway guide
signs. For clarity in application, FHWA designates this letter style,
commonly referred to as ``Clearview 5-W,'' as ``Series E (modified)--
Alternative.'' In concert with this change, FHWA proposes a Standard
provision to define the applicability and scope of this letter style
because the design criteria differ from those of the Standard
Alphabets. FHWA proposes these provisions to address the operational
effect of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 that required
FHWA to, ``. . . reinstate Interim Approval IA-5, relating to the
provisional use of an alternative lettering style on certain highway
guide signs, as it existed before its termination, as announced in the
Federal Register on January 25, 2016 (81 FR 4083).'' FHWA requests
comments on the proposed revisions to Appendix A1 as well as the
proposal to add ``Series E (modified)--Alternative'' to Appendix A1.
FHWA granted Interim Approval (IA-5) to use Clearview 5-W in
certain applications on September 2, 2004, based on early research that
suggested improvements in sign legibility. FHWA rescinded this Interim
Approval on January 25, 2016,\132\ after subsequent research and a more
thorough review of the early research finding showed no discernable
improvement. In addition, it became apparent that having a separate
optional letter style with different design criteria caused confusion
in sign design and layouts resulting in inappropriate and sometime
ineffective signs. However, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2018
(section 125 of Division L) required FHWA to reinstate Interim Approval
IA-5 for that fiscal year. In addition, the Joint Explanatory Statement
House Report 115-237 \133\ directed FHWA to conduct a comprehensive
review of the research on this alternative font and report on the
safety and cost implications of the decision while fully addressing the
comments submitted by affected States during the December 13, 2016,
Request for Information \134\ related to the alternative font. FHWA
reviewed the comments submitted and conducted a comprehensive analysis
of all research identified as being associated with the alternative
font and submitted the Report on Highway Guide Sign Fonts,\135\ to
Congress with the findings of these reviews. As a result of this
Congressional action, FHWA reinstated Interim Approval IA-5 on March
18, 2018.\136\ Though not required, Interim Approval IA-5 has been
allowed to continue past the end of that fiscal year so that FHWA could
request comments on potential inclusion of this alternative letter
style as part of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Federal Register notice of Interim Approval IA-5 recension
(81 FR 4083, Jan. 25, 2016) can be viewed at the following website:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-01-25/html/2016-01383.htm.
\133\ The Joint Explanatory Statement House Report 115-237 can
be viewed at the following website: https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt237/CRPT-115hrpt237.pdf.
\134\ The December 13, 2016, Request for Information on
Clearview font (81 FR 89888, Dec. 13, 2016) can be viewed at the
following website: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-13/html/2016-29819.htm.
\135\ https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ia5rptcongress.pdf.
\136\ Information on FHWA reinstatement of IA-5 can be viewed at
the following website: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Under 1 CFR Part 51
FHWA is proposing to incorporate by reference the more current
versions of the manuals listed herein.
FHWA's 2009 ``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets
and Highways,'' including Revisions No. 1 and No. 2, dated May 2012
would be replaced with a more current edition the MUTCD. This document
was developed by FHWA to define the standards used by road managers
nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all
public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public
travel.
The document that FHWA is proposing to incorporate by reference is
reasonably available to interested parties, primarily State DOTs, local
agencies, and tribal governments carrying out Federal-aid highway
projects. The text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of
the MUTCD incorporating the proposed changes from the current edition
are available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR part
7, at FHWA Office of Transportation Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590. Further, the text, figures, and tables of a
proposed new edition of the MUTCD incorporating changes from the
current edition are available on the MUTCD website 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. Though the proposed text, figures, and tables are
available only as separate documents for inspection, all three elements
will be integrated when the new edition of the MUTCD is published in a
consistent format, similar to the current edition. The complete current
2009 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 and Revision No. 2
incorporated is also available on the same website. The specific
standards are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this preamble.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), Executive Order
13771 (Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs), and 49
CFR Part 5 (DOT Rulemaking Procedures)
The proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT regulatory policies and
procedures. This action complies with EOs 12866, 13563, and 13771 to
improve regulation. These changes are not anticipated to affect
adversely, 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.
FHWA believes that the uniform application of traffic control devices
supports efficiency of traffic operations 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 impact analysis is
not required. An assessment of the potential economic impacts is
available on the docket. FHWA requests public comment on all aspects of
this analysis including data sources, methodology, and assumptions.
[[Page 80977]]
FHWA has considered the provisions of this NPA in relation to the
regulatory policies found in 49 CFR 5.5 and has determined that the
proposals contained herein are consistent with the policies governing
the development and issuance of regulations. These include policies
that there should be no more regulations than necessary, regulations
should specify performance objectives, and, where they impose burdens,
regulations should be narrowly tailored to address identified market
failures or specific statutory mandates. Where this NPA proposes
regulatory requirements prescribing specific conduct that regulated
entities must adopt, FHWA has determined that these regulations are
necessary to address the compelling need for nationwide uniformity to
ensure the safety and efficiency of the traveling public.
Finally, this proposed rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action
because it is not significant under E.O. 12866. The proposed rulemaking
introduces a variety of revisions resulting in clarification of
language and organization of the MUTCD, deregulation through increased
flexibility and alternatives for agencies, deregulation through
relaxation of standards to guidance where appropriate, and the
introduction of new traffic devices. For the purposes of this analysis,
where revisions increase the clarity of existing content, those
revisions have been considered non-substantive. All other revisions are
considered substantive as they materially change the requirements of
the MUTCD.
This NPA provides quantitative estimates of the expected compliance
costs associated with the proposed substantive revisions. There are 132
substantive revisions in total. There are 124 substantive revisions
with minimal or no impact, including the introduction of 37 new traffic
control device applications. These revisions materially change the
MUTCD requirements but have no cost impacts or minimal cost impacts.
The remaining eight substantive revisions have quantifiable
economic impacts:
Weight Limit signs (proposed Section 2B.66);
Normal longitudinal line widths (proposed Section 3A.04);
Wide longitudinal line widths (proposed Section 3A.04);
Stop and yield lines (proposed Section 3B.19);
Markings for diamond interchange with transposed-alignment
crossroad (proposed Section 3B.31);
Markings for part-time travel on a shoulder (proposed
Section 3E.04);
Accessible pedestrian signals and audible information
devices (proposed Sections 4K.01, 4J.02, 4L.02, 4S.03, and 4U.02); and
Stop and Yield signs on bicycle facilities (proposed
Section 9B.01).
For the three substantive revisions for which costs can be
quantified, the total 10-year estimated cost measured in 2018 dollars
is $541,978 when discounted to 2018 at 7 percent and $589,667 when
discounted at 3 percent. These costs are estimated as the sum of the
price of the traffic control device and the removal and installation
costs of the device, applied to the current and future deployment rate
of the traffic control device, considering the compliance date for the
provision relating to the device. The proposed revisions differ in
their compliance dates, the date after which the traffic control
devices must comply with the MUTCD revisions. The cost estimates
reflect whether the proposed revision includes a compliance date. For
those proposed changes without a compliance date, the analysis assumes
that agencies would make traffic control devices comply with the
proposed revisions at the end of the service life of a device. For
those proposed changes with a compliance date, the analysis assumes
that agencies would upgrade non-conforming traffic control devices
through systematic upgrading, proportionally each year until the
compliance date. The analysis period is 10 years starting with an
implementation date of 2021 and extending through 2030.
The costs of five substantive revisions could not be estimated due
to lack of information, but all are expected to have net benefits based
on per-unit or per-mile costs and benefits of the proposed revision.
Costs for each substantive revision with appreciable impacts are
estimated based on the cost of the traffic control device, the removal
and installation costs of the device, the current and future deployment
of the traffic control device, and the compliance date if applicable.
The benefits of the revisions include operational and safety
benefits. Operational benefits include the capacity of the traffic
control device to convey necessary information to road users and any
mobility impacts from efficient operation. Currently, no specific data
or studies exist to measure operational benefits or efficiency gains,
and these benefits are evaluated qualitatively. Ideally, safety
benefits would be measured by the revision's impact on crashes, but
there are no data that correlate the direct impact of traffic control
devices with crash rates, and the safety benefits of these revisions
could not be quantified. Potential safety benefits are evaluated
qualitatively as well.
For each substantive revision with appreciable costs, FHWA believe
expects that the benefits will exceed the costs. Based on the
qualitative and quantitative information presented, FHWA expects that,
in general, the potential benefits of the rulemaking will exceed the
costs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on
small entities. Based on the evaluation, FHWA anticipates that this
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would add some new traffic
control devices and only a limited number of new or changed
requirements associated with existing topic areas, as well as new topic
areas that were not previously addressed. Most of the proposed changes
are expanded guidance and clarification information. Therefore, FHWA
certifies that the action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
FHWA has determined that this NPA will not impose unfunded mandates
as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4,
March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The proposed revisions can be phased in
by the States over specified time periods in order to minimize
hardship. Unless a compliance date is specified, the proposed changes
to traffic control devices that would require an expenditure of funds
allow for 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 State and local governments on Federal-aid
projects, they are reimbursable. This regulatory action will not result
in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155,000,000 or more in any one
year (2 U.S.C. 1532). In addition, the definition of ``Federal
mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial
assistance of the type in which State, local, or Tribal governments
have authority to adjust their participation in the program in
accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal
[[Page 80978]]
Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of
flexibility. FHWA will publish a final analysis, including its response
to public comments, when it publishes a final rule.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
FHWA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined that this action
will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism assessment. FHWA has also determined that
this action 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
utilization of the highways. 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 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction,
for further information.
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 (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FHWA has determined
that this action does not contain collection information requirements
for purposes of the PRA.
National Environmental Policy Act
FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and
has determined that this action would not have any effect on the
quality of the human and natural environment because it only would make
technical changes and incorporate by reference the latest versions of
design standards and standard specifications previously adopted and
incorporated by reference under 23 CFR part 625 and would remove the
corresponding outdated or superseded versions of these standards and
specifications. The proposed rule qualifies as a categorical exclusion
to NEPA under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13175 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.
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 470
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads.
23 CFR Part 635
Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
23 CFR Part 655
Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Signs, Traffic regulations.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.85(a)(1).
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA proposes to amend title 23,
Code of Federal Regulations, parts 470, 635, and 655, as set forth
below:
Title 23--Highways
PART 470--HIGHWAY SYSTEMS
0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 470 to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(2), 103(c), 134, 135, and 315; and
49 CFR 1.85.
0
2. Amend appendix C to subpart A of part 470 by revising the Policy
paragraph and Conditions paragraph 5 and removing the Sign Details
heading and accompanying paragraphs 1 through 4 to read as follows:
Appendix C to Subpart A of Part 470--Policy for the Signing and
Numbering of Future Interstate Corridors Designated by Section 332 of
the NHS Designation Act of 1995 or Designated Under 23 U.S.C.
103(c)(4)(B)
Policy
State transportation agencies are permitted to erect
informational signs along a federally designated future Interstate
corridor only after the specific route location has been established
for the route to be constructed to Interstate design standards.
Conditions
* * * * *
0
5. Signing and other identification of a future Interstate route
segment must comply with the provisions of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.
* * * * *
PART 635--CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
0
3. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1525 and 1303 of Pub. L. 112-141, Sec. 1503
of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; 23 U.S.C. 101 (note), 109, 112,
113, 114, 116, 119, 128, and 315; 31 U.S.C. 6505; 42 U.S.C. 3334,
4601 et seq.; Sec. 1041(a), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 23 CFR
1.32; 49 CFR 1.85(a)(1).
0
4. Amend Sec. 635.309 by revising paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 635.309 Authorization.
* * * * *
(o) The FHWA has determined that, where applicable, provisions are
included in the PS&E that require the erection of funding source signs
that comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways, for the life of the construction project, in
accordance with section 154 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended (Pub. L. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894; primarily codified in
42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.;) (Uniform Act).
* * * * *
PART 655--TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
0
5. Revise the authority citation for part 655 to read as follows:
[[Page 80979]]
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 104, 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and
402(a); 23 CFR 1.32; and, 49 CFR 1.85.
0
6. Amend Sec. 655.601:
a. In the introductory text to paragraph (d), by removing the text
``below'' and ``call (202) 741-6030'' and adding in their places
``paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section'' and ``email
[email protected]'', respectively; and
b. By revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 655.601 Purpose.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), 11th Edition, FHWA, dated [date to be determined].
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 655.603 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 655.603 Standards.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Where State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or supplements are
required, they shall be in substantial conformance with the national
MUTCD. Substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or supplement
shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements included in the
national MUTCD. The FHWA Division Administrators and Associate
Administrator for the Federal Lands Highway Program may grant
exceptions in cases where a State MUTCD or supplement cannot conform to
standard statements in the national MUTCD because of the requirements
of a specific State law that was in effect prior to January 16, 2007,
provided that the Division Administrator or Associate Administrator
determines based on information available and documentation received
from the State that the non-conformance does not create a safety
concern. The guidance statements contained in the national MUTCD shall
also be in the State Manual or supplement unless the reason for not
including it is satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment,
specific conflicting State law, or a documented engineering study. A
State MUTCD or supplement shall not contain standard, guidance, or
option statements that contravene or negate standard or guidance
statements in the national MUTCD. In addition to a State MUTCD or
supplement, supplemental documents that a State issues, including but
not limited to policies, directives, standard drawings or details, and
specifications, shall not contravene or negate standard or guidance
statements in the national MUTCD. The FHWA Division Administrators
shall approve the State MUTCDs and supplements that are in substantial
conformance as defined in this paragraph (b)(1) with the national
MUTCD. The FHWA Associate Administrator of the Federal Lands Highway
Program shall approve other Federal land management agencies' MUTCDs
and supplements that are in substantial conformance as defined in this
paragraph (b)(1) with the national MUTCD. The FHWA Division
Administrators and the FHWA Associate Administrators for the Federal
Lands Highway Program have the flexibility to determine on a case-by-
case basis the degree of variation allowed in a State MUTCD or
supplement to accommodate existing State laws as described in this
paragraph (b)(1), for the express purpose of amending such laws over
time.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-26789 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P