National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision

Federal RegisterJan 2, 2008

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 634 and 655

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977]

RIN 2125-AF22

National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision

AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed amendments.

SUMMARY:

The MUTCD (also referred to as “the Manual”) is incorporated by our regulations, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on all public roads. The purpose of this notice of proposed amendments is to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD. The proposed changes are intended to expedite traffic, promote uniformity, improve safety, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control device application. These proposed changes are being designated as the next edition of the MUTCD.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES:

Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at

www.regulations.gov

or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the

Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Page 19477-78) or you may visit

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Hari Kalla, Office of Transportation Operations, (202) 366-5915; or Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel (202) 366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:

www.regulations.gov

. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:

http://www.archives.gov

and the Government Printing Office's Web page at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

The text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the MUTCD incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7, at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the MUTCD incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are available on the MUTCD Internet Web site

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

The proposed text is available in two formats. The first format shows the current MUTCD text with proposed additions in blue underlined text and proposed deletions as red strikeout text, and also includes notes in green boxes to provide helpful explanations where text is proposed to be relocated or where minor edits are proposed. The second format shows a “clean” version of the complete text proposed for the next edition of the MUTCD, with all the proposed changes incorporated. The complete current 2003 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 incorporated is also available on the same Internet Web site.

This notice of proposed amendments is being issued to provide an opportunity for public comment on the desirability of these proposed amendments to the MUTCD. Based on the comments received and its own experience, the FHWA may issue a Final Rule concerning the proposed changes included in this notice.

The notice of proposed amendments is being published to address the many advances in technology, research results, and improved traffic and safety management strategies that have occurred since the 2002 initiation of the rulemaking process that led to the 2003 edition of the MUTCD. The FHWA invites comments on these proposed changes to the MUTCD. The FHWA requests that commenters cite the page number and line numbers of the proposed MUTCD text for which each specific comment to the docket about the proposed text is concerned, to help make the FHWA's docket comment review process more efficient.

A summary of the significant proposed general changes and proposed changes for each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following discussion.

Discussion of Proposed General Amendments to the MUTCD

1. The FHWA proposes to develop a new cover page for the new edition of the MUTCD that will maintain general consistency with covers of previous editions but with changes to give it a distinctive appearance, to minimize the possibility of confusion by users. Although a new cover page has not yet been developed and is not illustrated in the NPA, the FHWA proposes to include a new cover page design in the edition of the MUTCD published as the Final Rule. The FHWA proposes that the date of the new edition to be identified on the cover and elsewhere within the document will be the year in which the Final Rule is issued.

2. The FHWA proposes to include paragraph numbers for each section, in the margins, for the final page images of the next edition of the MUTCD. Although the page images shown for the NPA do not include paragraph numbers, the FHWA proposes to include them in the edition of the MUTCD published as the Final Rule in order to aid practitioners in referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of future MUTCD notices of proposed amendments. On the FHWA's MUTCD Web site at

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

, along with the proposed MUTCD text, the FHWA has posted sample pages showing four possible methods for paragraph numbering. Interested persons should review the sample pages and provide comments to the docket on the paragraph numbering options.

3. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA proposes minor changes in text

and figures for grammatical or style consistency, to improve consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, or to correct minor errors. Where the FHWA proposes to add a new chapter within a part of the MUTCD, a new section within a chapter of the MUTCD, or a new item within a listing, the chapters or sections or items that follow the proposed addition would be renumbered or relettered accordingly. All Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists of Tables, and page headers and footers would be revised as appropriate to reflect the proposed changes.

4. The FHWA proposes, where appropriate, to modify figures and tables to reflect proposed changes in the text and to add figures and tables to illustrate new or revised text.

5. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA proposes to relocate statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition, the FHWA proposes to change the titles of some sections in order to more accurately describe the content of the section.

6. The FHWA proposes to remove the phrase “reasonably safe” throughout the Manual, because it cannot be easily defined, and as a result it is open to too much subjective interpretation. The FHWA proposes that each occurrence of the term either be eliminated or replaced with suitable language that is more appropriate.

7. The FHWA proposes to change the phrase “bicycle trail” to “bikeway” in several places in the Manual. The FHWA proposes this change because the term “bikeway” is a generic term used for any road, street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for bicycle travel and the term “bicycle trail” is generally used to designate only off-road trails or paths that are typically not constructed to engineering standards or guidelines, and the application of the MUTCD to such bicycle trails would generally be impractical, inappropriate, and inadvisable in some locations.

8. The FHWA proposes to change the references to the book previously titled “Standard Highway Signs” to refer to the current “Standard Highway Signs and Markings.” This change is proposed throughout the MUTCD because the FHWA is changing the title of that book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes information regarding markings.

9. The FHWA has conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign codes used throughout the Manual, and proposes to revise sign codes in several places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As part of this process, the FHWA proposes to revise the term “sign code” to “sign designation” to avoid confusion with other uses of the word “code,” and to use the “a” suffix in sign designations for word message signs that are alternatives to symbol signs, use the “P” suffix for sign designations for plaques, and add “(M)” suffixes for signs that have metric units.

10. In all Parts of the MUTCD where sign images are shown in the figures, the FHWA proposes to add sign images that are already in the Standard Highway Signs and Markings book, but not in the MUTCD, and to update figures to show proposed new signs or changes to existing signs.

11. The FHWA proposes to add information in the MUTCD regarding toll plaza applications, because toll facilities are becoming more common and there is a need to provide more consistent use of signing, signals, and markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to enhance safety and convenience for road users. The FHWA proposes to add provisions on toll plaza traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4 that reflect the results of research study on best practices for traffic control strategies at toll plazas

(referred to hereafter as the “Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report”) and FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices.

“State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,” June 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

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

“Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,” dated September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm

12. The FHWA proposes to expand the provisions regarding preferential lanes and add new provisions regarding managed lanes in various Parts of the MUTCD. This proposed information is contained primarily in Parts 2 and 3, and is intended to address specific signing and marking issues associated with electronic toll collection, High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls, etc. In addition, the FHWA proposes to eliminate some information regarding preferential lanes that is too specific for the MUTCD because it deals with highway planning and programmatic matters rather than the traffic control devices for preferential lanes.

13. In order to further address the needs of motorcyclists, the FHWA proposes to add information to Parts 2, 3, and 8 regarding traffic control device considerations for motorcyclists.

14. The FHWA proposes to change the designations of barricades to Types 1, 2, and 3 to eliminate the use of roman numerals because these are the only devices that are designated by roman numerals and to be consistent with other items such as object marker types. This editorial change would affect the text of several Parts of the MUTCD.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction

15. The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate recent changes to 23 CFR 655.603(a)

that clarify that, for the purpose of MUTCD applicability, the phrase “open to public travel” includes toll roads and roads within shopping centers, parking lots, airports, sports arenas, and other similar business and recreation facilities that are privately owned but where the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. The FHWA also proposes to modify the wording of 23 CFR 655.603(a) to remove the military base exemption from the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to apply the provisions in the MUTCD and modify the CFR based on a request from the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to include military bases in order to facilitate motorist safety through conformity and consistency with national standards. The FHWA agrees that many military bases are public and contain public roads that can be freely accessed, and that the use of such roads by military personnel from all over the country makes it especially important for traffic control devices on military bases to be in conformance with the national standards of the MUTCD. As a part of this change, the FHWA proposes to indicate that traffic control devices can be placed by the authority of non-public agencies, and the MUTCD is recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices on public facilities and private property open to public travel, as defined above.

The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf

16. In the fourth STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add that substantial conformance of State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or Supplements shall be as defined in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1), to reflect the

incorporation of the definition of that term into the CFR.

The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf

17. In the listing of target phase-in compliance dates, FHWA proposes to include the specific target phase-in compliance date for those items whose dates were determined through previous rulemaking, now that the effective dates are known. In addition, the FHWA proposes target phase-in compliance dates for a number of significant proposed changes in the NPA. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the listing any items for which the target phase-in compliance dates have already passed or will be passed by the date of the publication of the Final Rule resulting from this NPA. It should also be noted that the target phase-in compliance dates define the end of the “phase-in compliance period” as discussed for various items in the remainder of this document.

18. Although not specifically shown in the NPA, the FHWA is considering incorporating the phase-in compliance periods into the body of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and sections in the Final Rule. The FHWA is considering this change because the list of phase-in compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more convenient and effective for practitioners to have phase-in compliance periods embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the Manual. The FHWA encourages the public to view the Minnesota State Department of Transportation Web site at

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mutcd/index.html

to view how Minnesota has incorporated the phase-in compliance periods into its State MUTCD text and to provide comments to the docket on whether Minnesota's method is preferable to listing all the phase-in compliance periods in the MUTCD Introduction.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1—General

19. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to delete the STANDARD statement from this section, and place the text in Section 2A.06, because that section more appropriately deals with signs, including their colors and symbols. For the same reason, text in the OPTION statement relating to signs only is also proposed to be relocated to Section 2A.06.

20. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that signs and other devices (as explained in a proposed new SUPPORT statement) that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed with the permission of the public agency or official having jurisdiction, should be located where they will not interfere with, or detract from traffic control devices. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that there are some signs and devices that are placed within the right-of-way for distinct purposes that are not traffic control devices.

21. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, and Interim Approvals, the FHWA proposes to revise the 2nd STANDARD statement to indicate that electronic submittals of requests for interpretation, permission to experiment, interim approvals, or changes are preferred. The FHWA proposes to include the e-mail address for such submittals. As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes an OPTION statement that includes the postal address for such requests to be mailed to, in the event that the submitter does not have access to e-mail.

The FHWA also proposes to revise and supplement the language regarding interim approvals for the use of traffic control devices in order to provide additional information about the process and reflect how it has evolved since the 2003 MUTCD.

22. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA proposes to add four FHWA publications and a publication of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to the list of publications in the SUPPORT statement. All of these documents are referenced in other Parts of the MUTCD.

In addition, the FHWA proposes to update the list to reflect current editions of the publications.

The FHWA also proposes to delete existing publication 19, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Recommended Practice titled, “School Trip Safety Program Guidelines” from the list of publications because ITE has rescinded publication of the reference document and the information from this publication is included within the MUTCD text where appropriate.

23. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement the assignment of the color purple to indicate facilities or lanes that are allowed to be used only by vehicles equipped with electronic toll collection (ETC) transponders. The FHWA proposes this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes using signs and pavement markings as discussed below in the proposed changes in Parts 2 and 3. Color specifications for signing and marking materials are contained in title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 1 through 6. The FHWA has reviewed color properties of the purple signing and marking materials available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to revise the existing daytime color coordinates for purple retroreflective sign material (Table 1), add nighttime color coordinates for purple retroreflective sign material (Table 2), and add daytime and nighttime color coordinates and luminance factors for purple retroreflective marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6). The proposed values for purple in the tables are as indicated below (no change is proposed for the existing values for luminance factors for purple as contained in Table 1A):

Table 1.—Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Sign Material

Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302

Existing 0.064 Proposed 0.064

Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307

Existing 0.200 Proposed 0.202

Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374

Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.247

Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457

Existing 0.202 Proposed 0.136

Table 2.—Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Sign Material

0.300

0.064

0.307

0.150

0.480

0.245

0.530

0.170

Table 5.—Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Pavement Marking Material

0.300

0.064

0.309

0.260

0.362

0.295

0.475

0.144

Table 5A.—Daytime Luminance Factors for Purple Retroreflective Pavement Marking Material

Minimum

Maximum

Table 6.—Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective Pavement Marking Material

0.338

0.380

0.425

0.365

0.470

0.385

0.635

0.221

24. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This Manual, the FHWA proposes to revise the definitions for: “bicycle lane,” “changeable message sign,” “contraflow lane,” “crosswalk,” “flashing,” “highway traffic signal,” “intersection,” “logo,” “occupancy requirement,” “public road,” “raised pavement marker,” “road user,” “roundabout,” “rumble strip,” “sign,” “sign legend,” “speed,” “speed limit,” “speed zone,” “traffic,” and “traffic control device” to better reflect accepted practice and terminologies and for consistency in the usage of these terms in one or more Parts of the MUTCD.

The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for the words “alley,” “average annual daily traffic,” “barrier-separated lane,” “bikeway,” “buffer-separated lane,” “circulatory roadway,” “contiguous lane,” “electronic toll collection,” “flagger,” “gate,” “highway-light rail transit grade crossing,” “hybrid signal,” “managed lane,” “multi-lane,” “open road electronic toll collection,” “opposing traffic,” “pathway,” “pictograph,” “preferential lane,” “private property open to public travel,” “public facility,” “safe-positioned,” “school,” “school zone,” “signing,” “splitter island,” “symbol,” “turn bay,” “warning light,” “worker,” and “yield line” to the list of definitions because they are used in the MUTCD.

25. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 1A.13. The proposed new section is numbered and titled “Section 1A.14 Meanings of Acronyms and Abbreviations in This Manual,” and contains a STANDARD statement with 38 acronyms and abbreviations and their definitions. The remaining section in Chapter 1A would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA proposes adding this new section to assist readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the Manual.

26. In existing Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15) Abbreviations Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the 1st STANDARD statement a paragraph indicating that the abbreviations listed in Table 1A-2 shall be used only on Portable Changeable Message Signs and that when the word messages shown in Table 1A-2 need to be abbreviated on a Portable Changeable Message sign, the abbreviations shown in Table 1A-2 shall be used. The original research

on abbreviations was based on the need to shorten words when used on portable changeable message signs due to the limited number of characters available, unlike fixed-message signs. Many of the abbreviations were developed for words that would not otherwise normally be abbreviated on signs, and the intent was not to abbreviate such words on fixed-message signs.

Report number FHWA/RD-81/039 “Human Factors Design of Dynamic Displays” by C. L. Dudek and R. D. Huchingson, Final Report, May 1982, is available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, Web site

http://www.ntis.gov.

The FHWA also proposes to add to the 2nd GUIDANCE statement a sentence indicating that punctuation marks or other characters that are not letters or numerals should not be used in abbreviations, unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion.

27. In Table 1A-1 Acceptable Abbreviations, the FHWA proposes to add several additional abbreviations for various terms that are often used on signs or markings and for which a single abbreviation for each is needed to enhance uniformity. The FHWA also proposes to remove several abbreviations from Table 1A-1 that are symbols rather than abbreviations (such as “D” for diesel on general service signs), and to revise several abbreviations based on accepted practice in the specific context of the manner in which fixed messages are developed. The FHWA also proposes to remove from Table 1A-1 some words that should not be abbreviated on static signs or large permanent full-matrix changeable message signs. In concert with these changes to Table 1A-1, the FHWA proposes to revise the title of Table 1A-2 to “Abbreviations That Shall Only Be Used on Portable Changeable Message Signs” and add to Table 1A-2 some of the abbreviations that would be removed from Table 1A-1. The FHWA also proposes to revise the content of Table 1A-2 to specifically list the abbreviations (some of which can be used only with a prompt word) that are appropriate only for use on portable changeable message signs (PCMS).

Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 2 Signs

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 2—General

28. In December 2005, the FHWA published a report on the findings of a synthesis of non-MUTCD traffic signing.

The purposes of this synthesis (hereafter referred to as the Sign Synthesis Study) were to collect information on special (non-MUTCD) sign legends, designs, and symbols used by the State DOTs and by selected large cities and counties; to identify commonalities, such as what special conditions are the most common reasons for developing a special sign and what design elements have been most commonly used to communicate the message; and to determine the most likely candidate sign legends and symbols for potential inclusion in future editions of the MUTCD and make recommendations for standardized sign designs. The synthesis found that a considerable number and variety of non-MUTCD signs are in routine use by State and local highway agencies in the U.S. In many cases, jurisdictions have used the flexibility given to them by the MUTCD to develop and install special word message signs to communicate unique traffic regulations or warnings of conditions that are not specifically covered in the MUTCD. In some cases the same word message is used by most or all States to describe a particular condition. However, more often there is considerable variety among the States in the specific words or phrases used to communicate the same basic information to road users. Based on the information gathered in the synthesis, the FHWA believes that additional uniformity is needed for the frequently used signing not currently included in the MUTCD and is proposing to add several new signs throughout the MUTCD to provide road users with a uniform message for commonly encountered conditions. In addition to describing these proposed new signs in the MUTCD text, the FHWA proposes to add images of these proposed signs to applicable figures throughout the MUTCD. A brief discussion of each

proposed new sign is included in the preamble for each appropriate chapter or section.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signing,” FHWA, December 2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

In some cases the FHWA is proposing new symbol signs that mirror existing Canadian MUTCD

standard symbols that have been in longstanding use in that neighboring country. Such symbols were reviewed as a part of the signing synthesis. Canada has moved considerably farther into symbolization of common regulatory, warning, and guide/information messages (sometimes by adopting European symbols) than has the U.S. The synthesis found several well-designed Canadian symbols with intuitively obvious meanings for sign messages for which some or many States are using a non-MUTCD word message sign (often with many variations among States). The FHWA proposes adopting some of these Canadian symbols or close likenesses, with a temporary educational plaque as needed. The FHWA believes that this will improve the harmony of North American signing in view of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and will enhance the convenience and safety of U.S. and international travelers when driving, riding, or walking.

The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada, 4th Edition, is available for purchase from the Transportation Association of Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site

http://www.tac-atc.ca

29. The FHWA proposes to move object markers from Part 3 to Part 2, because there has been confusion regarding the location of object markers in the MUTCD, and the FHWA feels that information regarding object markers is best placed in Part 2. Object markers are typically fabricated from retroreflective sheeting mounted on a substrate and installed on a post and thus are more like a sign than a marking, and most public agencies handle object markers as signs rather than markings.

30. The FHWA proposes to delete the recommendation that signs should only be used where justified by engineering studies or judgment from several places in Part 2. The FHWA proposes this change because it is not the intent of the Manual to make all sign device installations subject to engineering oversight. The FHWA understands that most signs are installed by sign crews authorized to make field decisions that are not necessarily reviewed by engineers or covered by policies prepared by engineers. These proposed revisions recognize the current practice of installing signs throughout the country and do not detract from the requirements that engineering studies must be done under engineering supervision for very specific traffic control decisions. However, at the same time it is not required that an engineer be involved in the decisions for each device at every location.

31. The FHWA proposes to update the existing sign size Tables 2B-1 and 2I-1 (new Table 2K-1) to reflect proposed new signs, deleted signs, and changes to sign sizes. The FHWA proposes to modify Table 2C-2 from its general treatment of warning sign sizes to instead specifically address each sign similarly to the way it is done in Table 2B-1. Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add sign size Tables 2D-1, 2E-1, 2F-1, and 2I-1 to specify the sizes for guide and motorist information signs that have a standardized legend.

In Chapters 2B and 2C, the FHWA proposes to add to the appropriate OPTION statements that the minimum overall sign size may be decreased for signs in alleys with restrictive physical condition and vehicle usage that limits installation of the minimum size sign. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect the results of the FHWA MUTCD Urbanization Needs Survey,

which included comments from a number of city traffic engineers that the MUTCD does not adequately address sign sizes and application for alley installations.

“Urbanizing the MUTCD,” by W. Scott Wainwright, 2003, paper no. CB03C184, Compendium of Papers for the 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers Technical Conference, is available from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Web site:

http://www.ite.org).

A presentation based on the paper can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/Documents/FHWA/MUTCD_Urbanization.ppt

32. The FHWA proposes to eliminate the option of all uppercase letters for names of places, streets, and highways, and require that these names be composed of lowercase letters with an initial uppercase letter. The FHWA proposes this change, which affects provisions and figures in various chapters throughout Part 2, based on Older Driver research documented in FHWA reports

(referred to hereafter as the “Older Driver handbook”) that shows significant legibility and recognition distance benefits versus all uppercase letters for destinations. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm

. Also see Recommendation II.A(2) in “Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, which can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm

33. In Chapters 2A and 2E, the FHWA also proposes to discourage the use of punctuation, apostrophes, questions marks or other characters on signs that are not letters or numerals unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with a similar proposed change in Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15).

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2A

34. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, the FHWA proposes to clarify the definition of “special purpose road” in item D of the STANDARD statement by deleting the phrase “or that provides local access,” because the existing definition is overly broad. FHWA intends to clarify that neighborhood residential streets are not special-purpose roads and signing for such streets should be the same as that for other conventional roads.

35. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, the FHWA proposes to relocate a STANDARD paragraph regarding symbols on signs, and its associated OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03 to this section. The FHWA proposes this change because Section 2A.06 is the most likely place for a reader to look for information regarding sign design.

In addition, the FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use of e-mail addresses to the last STANDARD and OPTION statements. The use of e-mail addresses on signs is to be the same as Internet Web site addresses. E-mail addresses are just as difficult to read and remember as Internet Web site addresses and constitute the same issues for a driver traveling at highway speeds. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

36. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information in existing Section 2A.07 to proposed new Chapter 2M in order to consolidate all information on changeable message signs into one chapter. The FHWA would renumber the remaining sections accordingly.

37. In existing Section 2A.08 (new Section 2A.07) Retroreflectivity and Illumination, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that overhead sign installations on freeways and expressways should be illuminated unless an engineering study shows that retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination, and that overhead sign installations on conventional or special purpose roads

should be illuminated unless engineering judgment indicates that retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination. The FHWA proposes this change because the current language implies that written documentation (engineering study) is mandatory for the practitioner to decide that illumination is not needed for signs on conventional roads. The FHWA believes that such documentation is not necessary and therefore the FHWA proposes to recommend that engineering judgment be used rather than require an engineering study. Overhead sign installations such as street name signs, lane use signs, and other smaller sign installations on conventional roads generally would not warrant overhead lighting and may be impractical for structural reasons. Many overhead sign installations on conventional roads are on monotube structures that are not designed to support overhead lighting.

The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last STANDARD statement to prohibit the use of individual LED pixels and groups of LEDs within the background area of a sign, except for the STOP/SLOW paddles used by flaggers and the STOP paddles used by adult crossing guards. The FHWA's intent is to clarify that LEDs are to be used only in the border or in the legend/symbol and not in the background of signs.

38. In existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.10) Sign Colors, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement that allows the use of fluorescent colors when the corresponding color is required. The FHWA proposes this change in order to give jurisdictions the flexibility to use fluorescent colors when they determine that they are needed in order to attract additional attention to the signs. As part of this proposal, FHWA proposes to revise the color specifications in title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 3, 3A, and 4 to add the fluorescent version of the color red. The color specifications for fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange and fluorescent pink are already included in 23 CFR 655. The FHWA has reviewed color properties of the fluorescent red signing and materials available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to add daytime color coordinates and luminance factors for fluorescent red retroreflective sign material (Tables 3 and 3A), and add nighttime color coordinates for fluorescent red retroreflective sign material (Table 4). The proposed values for fluorescent red in the tables are as indicated below:

Table 3.—Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red Retroreflective Sign Material

0.666

0.334

0.613

0.333

0.671

0.275

0.735

0.265

Table 3A.—Daytime Luminance Factors for Fluorescent Red Retroreflective Sign Material

Minimum

Maximum

Table 4.—Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red Retroreflective Sign Material

0.680

0.320

0.645

0.320

0.712

0.253

0.735

0.265

The FHWA has also reviewed the existing daytime color coordinates for fluorescent pink retroreflective sign materials and believes that these coordinates are overly restrictive for current technology. The FHWA proposes to revise the color coordinates in Table 3 for fluorescent pink, to include a fifth pair of x and y coordinates, to better define the color of fluorescent pink sign sheeting material. The proposed values for fluorescent pink in Table 3 are as follows:

Table 3.—Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Pink Retroreflective Sign Material

Exist. 0.450 Prop. 0.600

Exist. 0.270 Prop. 0.340

Exist. 0.590 Prop. 0.450

Exist. 0.350 Prop. 0.332

Exist. 0.644 Prop. 0.430

Exist. 0.290 Prop. 0.275

Exist. 0.563 Prop. 0.536

Exist. 0.230 Prop. 0.230

Exist.—Prop. 0.644

Exist.;— Prop. 0.290

39. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2A-4 Common Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to proposed changes in the text. Specifically, the FHWA proposes to add the color purple for Electronic Toll Collection signs and to remove the use of the color yellow from school signs. The FHWA also proposes to add additional types of Changeable Message Signs and expand the table to include various legend and background colors for those signs, consistent with the proposed text of proposed new Chapter 2M as discussed below. In addition, the FHWA proposes to note that fluorescent versions of orange, red, and yellow background colors may be used.

40. In existing Section 2A.12 (new Section 2A.11) Dimensions, the FHWA proposes to add new provisions to the STANDARD and GUIDANCE statements regarding the appropriate use of the various columns in the Tables throughout the MUTCD that describe sizes for signs on various classes of roads. The FHWA proposes this new language to clarify how the columns in the sign size tables are intended to be used. The FHWA also proposes adding language in each of the sections throughout the MUTCD that refer to a sign size table, to refer back to this generally applicable text in existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.12), and to delete repetitive text on use of the various columns in the size tables that appears in other sections throughout the MUTCD.

41. In existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.12) Symbols, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement and a corresponding OPTION statement at the end of the section prohibiting the use of symbols from one type of sign on a different type of sign, except in limited circumstances or as specifically authorized in the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes this change because the colors and shapes of symbols are designed to have a specific impact depending on the intended use of that type of sign. Intermixing symbols from one type of sign to a different type of sign may not have the same impact and may be potentially confusing, and therefore should be specifically prohibited. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

42. In existing Section 2A.14 (new Section 2A.13) Word Messages, the FHWA proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend that the minimum specific ratio for letter height should be 22 mm (1 in) of letter height per 9 m (30 ft) of legibility distance. In conjunction with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to delete the SUPPORT statement that follows this first GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA proposes these changes in order to be consistent with

recommendations from the Older Driver handbook

that sign legibility be based on 20/40 vision. Most States allow drivers with 20/40 corrected vision to obtain driver's licenses, and with the increasing numbers of older drivers the FHWA believes that 20/40 vision should be the basis of letter heights used on signs. This proposed change will generally not impact the design of guide signs because existing MUTCD provisions for guide sign letter heights provide sufficient legibility distances for 20/40 vision in most cases. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The sizes of some regulatory and warning signs used in some situations will need to be increased to provide for larger letter sizes. Specific changes to sign sizes resulting from the proposed change in Section 2A.14 are discussed below in the items pertaining to the sign size tables in other Chapters in Part 2 and in certain other Parts of the MUTCD.

“Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm

. Also see recommendation number II.A(1) in “Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, which can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm

43. In existing Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, the FHWA proposes to clarify the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the corner and border radii on signs should be concentric with one another. The FHWA proposes this clarification to better facilitate the use of sign fabrication software with inset borders.

44. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders. The proposed new section is numbered and titled “Section 2A.15 Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard Signs” and contains an OPTION statement regarding the methods that may be used to enhance the conspicuity of standard regulatory, warning, or guide signs and a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of strobe lights as a sign conspicuity enhancement method. The various conspicuity enhancement methods proposed reflect widespread and successful practices by State and local agencies. The FHWA proposes this new section to provide improved uniformity of such treatments to benefit road users. The remaining sections in Chapter 2A would be renumbered accordingly.

45. In existing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE an additional recommended criterion for locating signs where they do not obscure the sight distance to approaching vehicles on a major street for drivers who are stopped on minor-street approaches. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect good engineering practice and improve safety.

The FHWA also proposes to add to the 3rd GUIDANCE statement that the placement of wayfinding and acknowledgment guide signs should have a lower priority than other guide signs. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify the priority of sign type placement, reflecting the proposed addition to the manual of new types of guide signs.

The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last GUIDANCE statement to provide recommendations on the placement of STOP and YIELD signs at intersections, to clarify that the dimension shown in Figure 2A-3 for the maximum distance of STOP or YIELD signs from the edge of pavement of the intersected roadway is GUIDANCE.

46. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA proposes to change the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD to require that the provisions of this section apply to all signs and object markers, unless specifically stated otherwise elsewhere in the Manual. The FHWA proposes this change to emphasize that the mounting heights in this section are mandatory, particularly as they relate to pedestrian considerations.

The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement that refers the reader to Chapter 2L for mounting heights for object markers and clarifies that the minimum heights given in combination with crashworthy supports may not necessarily constitute a crashworthy sign assembly. The FHWA proposes this new text to provide readers with the appropriate references to materials with additional information on mounting heights and crashworthiness.

In addition to reorganizing the text within the STANDARD statements in this section, the FHWA proposes to clarify that mounting heights should be measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the level of the near edge of the pavement. The FHWA also proposes to add text to clarify that a minimum height of 2.1 m (7 ft) is to be used for signs installed at the side of the road in business, commercial, or residential areas where parking or pedestrian movements are likely to occur, or where the view of the sign might be obstructed, or where signs are installed above sidewalks. In concert with these changes, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending that a sign not project more than 100 mm (4 in) into a pedestrian facility if the bottom of a secondary sign that is mounted below another sign, is mounted lower than 2.1 m (7 ft). The FHWA proposes these changes in order to make the mounting height language consistent throughout the Manual, and to add language that requires consideration of pedestrian activity in the vicinity of signs, per ADAAG provisions.

The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm

Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to the new third STANDARD statement that where large signs are installed on multiple breakaway posts, the clearance from the ground to the bottom of the sign shall be at least 2.1 m (7 ft), in order to provide consistency with other parts of the Manual.

47. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement that overhead sign supports and post-mounted sign and object marker supports should not intrude into the usable width of a sidewalk or other pedestrian facility. The FHWA proposes this new text to comply with ADAAG provisions.

The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2B

48. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes changing the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement to clarify that regulatory signs are rectangular unless specifically designated otherwise. As part of this change, the FHWA also proposes adding a reference to the Standard Highway Signs and Markings

book for sign design elements.

The current edition of “Standard Highway Signs and Markings,” FHWA, 2004 Edition, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm

The FHWA also proposes relocating the first two paragraphs of existing Section 2B.54 to a new OPTION statement in Section 2B.02, because the paragraphs contain information about regulatory word messages and symbols which is more relevant in this section.

49. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement at the end of the section that requires that

minimum sizes for certain regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane conventional roads shall be as shown on Table 2B-2, and requiring a specific minimum size for STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches. The FHWA proposes this new text and table to provide signs on multi-lane approaches that are more visible and legible to drivers with visual acuity of 20/40. On multi-lane roads, increased legibility distances are also needed due to the potential blockage of signs by other vehicles. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

50. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2B-1 Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. These proposed changes include adding more sizes in the “Minimum” column for use in low speed environments. The FHWA also proposes to add several more signs and supplemental plaques to the table to correspond with other proposed changes within Part 2.

51. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 2B.03 numbered and titled, “Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections.” This proposed new section contains information currently contained in Section 2B.05. In addition, the FHWA proposes additional recommendations on the factors that should be considered in establishing intersection control and the use of STOP and YIELD signs. The proposed additional guidance is intended to provide a more logical progression from least restrictive to more restrictive controls.

The FHWA also proposes to include a STANDARD statement that prohibits the use of STOP and YIELD signs in conjunction with other traffic control signal operation, except for the cases specified in the STANDARD. While much of this information is in existing Section 2B.05, the FHWA proposes to add a specific case regarding channelized turn lanes to the list of cases where STOP or YIELD signs can be used, reflecting common practice.

Finally, the FHWA proposes to include requirements for the use of folding STOP signs for traffic signal power outages by adding language to the MUTCD that corresponds to Official Interpretation #2-545.

FHWA's Official Interpretation #2-545, April 9, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/2_545.pdf

52. The FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section 2B.04 to “Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and Supplemental Plaques.” As part of this change, the FHWA proposes to require the use of the ALL-WAY supplemental plaque if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs, to limit the use of the ALL-WAY plaque to only those locations where all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs, and to prohibit the use of supplemental plaques with the legend 2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, etc. below STOP signs. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide uniformity in the use of supplemental plaques with STOP signs, especially at locations where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs.

The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending the use of plaques with appropriate alternate messages, such as TRAFFIC FROM RIGHT DOES NOT STOP, where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection. The FHWA proposes this change to encourage the use of these plaques at intersections that need increased driver awareness regarding an unexpected right-of-way control.

Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing the use of a proposed new EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1-10P) plaque mounted below a STOP sign when an engineering study determines that a special combination of geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it possible for right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the intersection without stopping. The FHWA proposes this change to give agencies flexibility in establishing right-of-way controls for such special conditions. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that at least 12 States have developed 7 different sign messages for this purpose. The FHWA proposes the uniform use of the simplest, most accurate legend.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 18, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

53. The FHWA proposes to relocate much of the information in existing Section 2B.05 (new Section 2B.06) STOP Sign Applications to the proposed new Section 2B.04. The FHWA also proposes to add additional language to the remaining GUIDANCE statement that lists conditions under which the use of a STOP sign should be considered. This change would provide agencies with specific and quantitative guidance regarding the use of STOP signs.

54. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement from the MUTCD, because most of the text in this section is proposed to be incorporated into Section 2B.10.

55. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, the FHWA proposes to clarify the STANDARD statement by adding that YIELD signs at roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to control the circular roadway. The FHWA proposes this change to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reflect the prevailing practices of modern roundabout design.

56. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.10 to “STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement” to reflect the relocation of language regarding STOP sign placement from existing Section 2B.06 to this section.

The FHWA proposes to delete the requirement from the first STANDARD statement that YIELD signs be placed on both the left and right sides of approaches to roundabouts with more than one lane and instead make this a recommendation in a GUIDANCE statement near the end of the Section. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing similar placement of a YIELD sign on the left-hand side of a single lane roundabout approach if a raised splitter island is available. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect current practice on signing roundabout approaches and to allow agencies additional flexibility.

The FHWA also proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement that no items other than retroreflective strips on the supports, official traffic control signs, sign installation dates, or several other inventory-type items shall be mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs or on their supports. In conjunction with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to clarify the first GUIDANCE statement to indicate that a sign that is mounted back-to-back with a STOP or YIELD sign should stay within the edges of the STOP or YIELD sign, and that if needed, the size of the STOP or YIELD sign should be increased to accomplish this recommendation. The FHWA proposes these changes to clarify the language that resulted in confusion amongst some practitioners regarding the placement of messages on the back of STOP and YIELD signs and to assure that the shape of these critical intersection right-of-way signs can be discerned from the opposite direction of approach. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. This proposed new phase-in compliance period would supersede the existing phase-in compliance period (for existing

Sections 2B.06 and 2B.10) of 10 years from the effective date of the Final Rule for the 2003 edition, or December 20, 2013.

The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of the section prohibiting the placement of two STOP signs or two YIELD signs on the same support facing the same direction. The FHWA proposes this change to prohibit this practice, because it is potentially confusing and not an acceptable method of adding emphasis.

57. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.11 to “Yield Here to Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs” to reflect additional language that FHWA also proposes to add to this section regarding the use of Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs. The proposed new language would be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7 regarding the placement of these signs, as well as stop and yield lines. The FHWA proposes adding the Stop Here for Pedestrians sign because some State laws require motorists to come to a full stop for, rather than yield to, pedestrians in a crosswalk.

In addition, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD and OPTION statements at the end of the section regarding the combination use of Pedestrian Crossing warning (W11-2) signs with the Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian (R1-5 series) sign. The FHWA proposes these additions to allow Pedestrian Crossing signs to be mounted overhead but not post-mounted where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) signs have been installed. The FHWA also proposes to allow the use of advance Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) signs on the approach with AHEAD or distance plaques and In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs at the crosswalk where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian signs have been installed. The FHWA proposes this new language to be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's Official Interpretation #2-566.

FHWA's Official Interpretation #2-566, July 27, 2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_566.htm

58. In Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION statements regarding the use of a proposed new Overhead Pedestrian Crossing (R1-9 or R1-9a) sign that may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk. The FHWA proposes to add this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study,

which revealed that some agencies use an overhead sign, because it is needed in some applications. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA proposes to add this sign to Table 2B-1, Figure 2B-2 and to the appropriate text and figures in Part 7, for consistency.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 19, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

The FHWA also proposes to insert new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements between the first OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding conditions and criteria to be used in determining when In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs should be used at unsignalized intersections. The FHWA proposes these additional statements to provide for more uniform application of these signs and discourage over-use.

The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement restricting the placement of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign to the roadway at the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a median island. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement permitting the W11-2 sign with downward sloping arrow to be post-mounted on the right-hand side of the street if the Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) warning sign is used in combination with the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. The FHWA proposes this new text to be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's Official Interpretation # 7-64(1).

FHWA's Official Interpretation #7-64(1), July 23, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/7_64.htm

In addition, FHWA proposes to revise the existing first STANDARD statement by specifying that the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend and border on a white background, surrounded by an outer fluorescent yellow-green background area, or by an outer fluorescent yellow background area. FHWA proposes this change to clarify how the sign is to be designed and to allow the alternate color of fluorescent yellow.

The FHWA also proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of this STANDARD statement to indicate that unless an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed on a physical island, it is to be designed to bend over and then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a vehicle. The FHWA proposes this change because while all signs must be crashworthy, these in-street signs need to have special supports to minimize damage to vehicles and injuries to pedestrians if the signs are struck by a passing vehicle. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

Finally, the FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement prior to the last OPTION statement that provides requirements on the mounting heights for In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. The FHWA proposes this new STANDARD statement to preclude incorrect mounting of this sign when it is on an island.

59. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study that includes an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that consideration is to be given to the free-flow speed when determining altered speed zones, and to clarify that statutorily established speed limits, such as those typically established by State laws setting statewide maximum limits for various classes of roads, do not require an engineering study. The FHWA also proposes adding a new SUPPORT statement to provide additional information about the difference between a statutory speed limit and an altered speed zone.

In addition, the FHWA proposes relocating and incorporating the material from existing Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Signs, to this section. The FHWA proposes this change in order to place material regarding the Speed Limit sign in one section for better clarity and flow.

The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION statement that permits the use of several new plaques (R2-5P series) to be mounted with the Speed Limit Sign when a jurisdiction has a policy of installing speed limit signs only on the streets that enter from a jurisdictional boundary or from a higher speed street to indicate that the speed limit is applicable to the entire city, neighborhood, or residential area unless otherwise posted. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect common practice in some urban areas, as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study,

and because

it is often unnecessary and overly costly to install a speed limit sign on every minor residential street.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 19-20, can be

viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

The FHWA also proposes adding a new paragraph to the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice. The FHWA proposes this change in order to provide consistency with the recommendations contained in Chapter 2C.

60. The FHWA proposes relocating all of the text from existing Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Sign to Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign. (See item 59 above.)

61. In existing Section 2B.19 (new Section 2B.18) the FHWA proposes to change the title to “Movement Prohibition Signs” to incorporate the inclusion of the proposed new No Straight Through (R3-27) sign in the GUIDANCE statement in this section. The symbolic No Straight Through sign is most commonly used for traffic restrictions associated with traffic calming programs. The sign is useful at intersections having four approaches, where the through movement to be prohibited is onto a street or road that does not have a “Do Not Enter” condition, such as when 90-degree turns into the roadway are allowed, but the straight ahead movement into the roadway is prohibited. This proposed new sign uses the standard Canadian MUTCD RB-10 sign as the basis of the design. The FHWA proposes to add an illustration of this new sign to Figure 2B-3.

The FHWA also proposes changing the first paragraph of the 2nd OPTION statement regarding the use of Turn Prohibition Signs adjacent to signal heads to a GUIDANCE statement. For conspicuity reasons, these signs should be mounted near the appropriate signal face, and this reflects typical practice. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to change this to a recommended practice rather than an option.

Additionally, the FHWA proposes adding new STANDARD and SUPPORT statements at the end of this section to prohibit the use of No Left Turn, No U-Turn, and combination No U-Turn/No Left Turn signs at roundabouts in order to prohibit drivers from turning left onto the circular roadway of a roundabout. The proposed language also indicates that ONE WAY and/or Roundabout Directional Arrow signs are the appropriate signs to indicate the travel direction for this condition. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reduce the possibility of confusion for drivers who intend to turn left by circumnavigating the roundabout.

62. In existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19) Intersection Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that overhead lane control signs should be installed over the appropriate lanes on signalized approaches where lane drops, multiple-lane turns with shared through-and-turn lanes, or other lane-use controls that would be unexpected by unfamiliar road users are present. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Part 4 and to enhance safety and efficiency by providing for more effective signing for these potentially confusing situations. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph at the end of the OPTION statement regarding the types of arrows that may be used on Intersection Lane Control signs at roundabouts. The FHWA also proposes to add a new figure numbered and titled “Figure 2B-5 Intersection Lane Control Sign Arrow Options for Roundabouts” illustrating the signs. The FHWA proposes to add this information to reflect current practice for roundabout signing and to correspond with similar options proposed for pavement marking arrows on roundabout approaches in Part 3.

63. In existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) Mandatory Movement Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the first paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify that Mandatory Movement Lane Use Control signs shall indicate only the single vehicle movement that is required from each lane, and to clarify the placement of the signs. The FHWA also proposes to add that where three or more lanes are available to through traffic and Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol signs are used, these shall be mounted overhead. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with existing Section 2B.22 (new Section 2B.21).

The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of this section describing the optional use of the proposed new BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE (R3-20R) and BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs at the upstream ends of mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA proposes this change to give agencies flexibility to use these proposed new signs to designate the beginning of mandatory turn lanes where needed for enforcement purposes.

64. In existing Section 2B.22 (new Section 2B.21) Optional Movement Lane Control Sign, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement to clarify that, if used, Optional Movement Lane Control signs shall be located in advance of and/or at the intersection where the lane controls apply. This proposed change also provides consistency with existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) regarding placement of Movement Lane Control Signs.

The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of the section prohibiting the use of the word message only when more than one movement is permitted from a lane. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with other requirements in the MUTCD regarding the use of the term ONLY for lane use.

65. In existing Section 2B.23 (new Section 2B.22) Advance Intersection Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD at the end of the section prohibiting the overhead placement of Advance Intersection Lane Control (R3-8) signs where the number of lanes available to through traffic on an approach is three or more. In such cases, overhead R3-5 signs are used. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19).

66. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following new Section 2B.22 (existing Section 2B.23). The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2B.23 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign.” This proposed new section contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this sign for a lane of a freeway or expressway that is approaching a grade-separated interchange where traffic in the lane is required to depart the roadway onto the exit ramp at the next interchange. As documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,

at least 12 States currently use this type of regulatory sign for freeway lane drop situations to establish the “must exit” regulation and make it enforceable where warning signs and markings alone have proven ineffective. (The overhead “Exit Only” plaque on

guide signs is yellow and is a warning message.)

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 22, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

67. The FHWA proposes editorial and organizational changes to existing Sections 2B.26 through 2B.28 to improve the consistency and flow of information and improve its usability by readers. These proposed changes involve relocating paragraphs within and between these sections and reorganizing the text into five sections. The sections are numbered and titled, “Section 2B.26 Regulatory Signs for Preferential Lanes—General,” “Section 2B.27 Preferential Lanes Vehicle Occupancy Definition Signs,” “Section 2B.28 Preferential Lane Periods of Operation Signs,” “Section 2B.29 Preferential Lane Ahead Signs,” and “Section 2B.30 Preferential Lane Ends Signs.” As a part of this change, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and SUPPORT statements regarding regulatory signing for lanes that are restricted to Electronic Toll Collection only, as a form of preferential lane, to provide consistency in regulatory signing for this increasingly used management strategy, and regarding mounting of preferential lane regulatory signs where lateral clearance is limited, to reflect existing practices. The FHWA also proposes removing text from existing Section 2B.27 regarding the establishment and revision of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane operations that is not directly related to traffic control devices but is programmatic in nature, and instead refer to an FHWA program guidance document that contains this information.

68. The FHWA proposes to add several new sign images and to revise several existing sign images in existing Figure 2B-7 (new Figure 2B-8) Examples of Preferential Lane Regulatory Signs that illustrate the various regulatory signs used to designate HOV and bus preferential lanes, to reflect state of the practice for improved conspicuity and legibility of Preferential Lane regulatory signs for HOV Lanes, and to reflect recent FHWA policy guidance on traffic control devices for preferential lane facilities.

This August 3, 2007 FHWA policy memorandum can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf

69. The FHWA proposes to add two sections that further describe regulatory signing at toll plazas and for managed lanes. The proposed sections are numbered and titled, “Section 2B.31 Regulatory Signs for Toll Plazas” and “Section 2B.32 Regulatory Signs for Managed Lanes and ETC Only Lanes.” The FHWA proposes these new sections in order to provide consistency and uniformity in signing practices for these types of facilities, which are becoming increasingly common and for which uniform signing provisions are not currently contained in the MUTCD. The proposed provisions generally reflect available guidance such as the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations report

and various FHWA publications on managed lanes.

As a part of these changes, new symbols that denote exact change and attended lanes are proposed for use in toll plaza signing in order to help road users more quickly identify the proper lane(s) to choose for the type of toll payment they will use. A new symbol that denotes that a toll facility's ETC payment system is nationally interoperable with all other ETC payment systems is also proposed for future use as this interoperability is anticipated to become available in the next few years. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,” June 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

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

“Managed Lanes—A Primer,” FHWA publication number FHWA-HOP-05-031, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf

and “Managed Lanes—A Cross-Cutting Study,” FHWA report number FHWA-HOP-05-037, November, 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf.

70. The FHWA proposes to add a new section titled, “Section 2B.33 Jughandle Signs.” The new section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and OPTION statements regarding the use of regulatory signs for jughandles. Regulatory signing for jughandles is critical because the geometry typically requires left turns and U-turns to be made via a right turn, either in advance of or beyond the intersection, and this is contrary to normal driver expectations. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that jughandles are currently in common use in at least six States and the FHWA believes that jughandles are likely to see increasing use in the future in more States in order to improve intersection safety and operations. Therefore, in order to provide agencies with uniform signing practices for several of the most common geometric layouts of jughandles, the FHWA proposes this new section along with several new signs and a figure to illustrate their use. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf.

71. In existing Section 2B.29 (new section 2B.34) Do Not Pass Sign, the FHWA proposes to introduce a new symbol sign that has been in use and well understood in Europe and Canada (the Canadian MUTCD RB-31 sign) for many decades.

The FHWA proposes to add this symbol sign due to the need to reduce the number of word message signs, increase symbolization, and promote better harmony due to globalization and increasing international travel. Because this symbol is new, the FHWA proposes to allow the use of a DO NOT PASS educational plaque with this sign. The FWHA also proposes to allow the optional continued use of the existing word message sign.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

72. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections following existing Section 2B.29 (new Section 2B.34). The first new section, numbered and titled, “Section 2B.35 DO NOT PASS WHEN SOLID LINE IS ON YOUR SIDE Sign,” contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this word sign. As found by the Sign Synthesis Study,

at least five States use signs to remind road users of the meaning of a solid yellow line for no-passing zones, however, there is considerable variety in the wording that is used. The term “Do No Pass” is preferable because that same terminology has been used in the R4-1 sign. “Solid Line” is preferable because it is fewer words and all center lines are yellow, so it is not necessary to state the color of the line. “On Your Side” is simpler and easier to understand than “right of center line” or “in your lane.” Therefore, the FHWA proposes that the new sign have a standard message of “Do Not Pass When Solid Line Is On Your Side” in order to provide consistency and uniformity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good

condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

73. The second new proposed section is numbered and titled, “Section 2B.36 DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER Sign and DO NOT PASS ON SHOULDER Sign” and contains an OPTION statement regarding the use of these two proposed new signs to inform road users that use of the shoulder as a travel lane or to pass other vehicles is prohibited. The FHWA proposes these two new signs because the Sign Synthesis Study

found that at least 19 States are using some version of regulatory sign to prohibit driving, turning, and/or passing on shoulders and the FHWA feels that consistent and uniform messages for these purposes should be provided to road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

74. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.31 (new Section 2B.38) “SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT Sign and KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS Sign” and expand the existing OPTION and GUIDANCE statements in this section to add the proposed new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that at least 19 States use a “Keep Right Except to Pass” sign to legally require vehicles to stay in the right-hand lane of a multi-lane highway except when passing a slower vehicle, and the FHWA feels that a consistent message should be provided to road users.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

75. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.32 (new Section 2B.39) to “TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE Sign” and revise the section to discontinue the use of the TRUCK LANE XXX FEET (R4-6) as a regulatory sign because the message is one of guidance information (distance to the start of the truck lane) rather than regulatory in nature. This is consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2D that adds a new guide sign with this message. Also, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION that describes the appropriate optional use of the TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE sign on multi-lane roadways to reduce unnecessary lane changing.

76. In existing Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40) Keep Right and Keep Left Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new narrow Keep Right (R4-7c) sign that may be installed on narrow median noses where there is insufficient lateral clearance for a standard width sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign, which is only 12 inches wide rather than the standard 24 inch wide R4-7 sign, to reflect current practice in some States and to provide other agencies with the flexibility to use this sign where applicable.

77. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40). The first proposed new section is numbered and titled “Section 2B.41 STAY IN LANE Sign” and contains OPTION and GUIDANCE statements on the use of STAY IN LANE (R4-9) signs and the pavement markings that should be used with them. The second proposed new section is numbered and titled “Section 2B.42 RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY Sign” and contains a GUIDANCE statement regarding the use of the RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY Sign near truck escape ramp entrances. Both the STAY IN LANE and RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY signs are existing signs illustrated in existing Figure 2B-8 (new Figure 2B-13), but not described in the existing text of the MUTCD. The third proposed new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2B.43 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out Signs” and contains SUPPORT, OPTION, and STANDARD statements regarding three proposed new signs that may be used on two-lane highways where physical turn-out areas are provided for the purpose of giving a group of faster vehicles an opportunity to pass a slow-moving vehicle. As documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,

at least eight States, mostly in the west, use regulatory signs to legally require slow moving vehicles to use the turnout if a certain number of following vehicles are being impeded. Most of the eight States use similar wording on their signs, but there are some variations. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for the use of Slow Vehicle Turn-Out signs to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA proposes adding these new signs to provide for uniformity of the message. The remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered accordingly.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

78. In existing Sections 2B.34 and 2B.35 (new Sections 2B.44 and 2B.45), the FHWA proposes to allow lower mounting heights for Do Not Enter and Wrong Way signs as a specific exception when an engineering study indicates that it would address wrong-way movements at freeway/expressway entrance ramps. The FHWA proposes this exception based on recommendations from the Older Driver handbook

and positive experience in several States.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendation II.D(4d).

79. In existing Section 2B.36 (new Section 2B.46) Selective Exclusion Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the legend of several existing selective exclusion signs to use the word NO rather than PROHIBITED or EXCLUDED, to simplify the messages and make them easier to read from a distance. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

The FHWA also proposes to add regulatory AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY signs to the last OPTION statement to reflect current practice.

80. In existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29) Pedestrian Signs and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to modify the designs of the R10-3, R10-3a through R10-3e, R10-4, R10-4a, and R10-4b to include the Canadian MUTCD standard symbol for pushbuttons (in addition to the words), to begin the symbolization of the “pushbutton” message. The FHWA proposes this change to provide better harmony in North American signing design, which is needed as a result of the increased travel between the US, Canada, and Mexico resulting from NAFTA. The FHWA proposes to use this new pushbutton symbol on several signs throughout the MUTCD.

81. In existing Section 2B.37 (new Section 2B.47) ONE WAY Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the existing GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require, rather than recommend, that ONE WAY signs be placed on the near right, far left, and far right corners of each intersection with the directional roadways of divided highways. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA proposes to revise Figures 2B-18 through 2B-20 accordingly. In concert with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to revise the second paragraph of the OPTION statement to clarify that agencies may omit the use of certain ONE WAY signs at intersections with

medians less than 9 m (30 ft). The FHWA proposes to require the installation of ONE WAY signs to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendations I.E(4), I.K(2), and I.K(3).

The FHWA also proposes to add two new paragraphs to the 2nd STANDARD statement to require two ONE WAY signs for each approach for T-intersections and cross intersections, one near side and one far side. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendations I.K(4) and I.K(5).

The FHWA also proposes to add new OPTION, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements at the end of the Section regarding the use of ONE WAY signs on central islands of roundabouts. The FHWA proposes to add this text to promote consistency in signing for roundabouts.

82. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing Section 2E.50 to a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2B.48 Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps.” The FHWA proposes this change because these types of signs are regulatory in nature, rather than guide signs. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

83. In existing Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49) Divided Highway Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement to a STANDARD and revise the text to require the use of Divided Highway Crossing Signs for all approaches to divided highways in order to encompass recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.

As part of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement to allow the sign to be omitted if the divided road has average annual daily traffic less than 400 vehicles per day and a speed limit of 40 km/h (25 mph) or less.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendation I.K(1).

The FHWA also proposes changing the existing 2nd OPTION statement to a STANDARD in order to require that the Divided Highway Crossing sign be located on the near right corner of the intersection. As part of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement to permit the installation of an additional Divided Highway Crossing sign on the left-hand side of the approach to supplement the sign on the near right corner of the intersection. As in the previous item, these proposed changes are to implement recommendations from the Older Driver handbook. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for the revised provisions on the use of Divided Highway Crossing signs at existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

84. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49). The first proposed new section is numbered and titled “Section 2B.50 Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs (R6-4, R6-4a, and R6-4b)” and contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION statements on the use of Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs. The second proposed new section is numbered and titled “Section 2B.51 Roundabout Circulation Sign (R6-5P)” and contains GUIDANCE and OPTION statements regarding the use of the Roundabout Circulation Sign at roundabouts and other circular intersections. The third proposed new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2B.52 Examples of Roundabout Signing” and it contains a SUPPORT statement referencing new Figures 2B-24 through 2B-26 that illustrate examples of regulatory and warning signs for roundabouts of various configurations. The proposed new SUPPORT statement also references other areas in the Manual that contain information on guide signing and pavement markings at roundabouts. The remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA proposes these new sections in order to add valuable information regarding regulatory and warning signs at roundabouts to the MUTCD. The use of roundabouts has increased over the past 10 years, and it is important that more detailed information on effective signing of roundabouts be included in the Manual in order to have consistency for road users throughout the country. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing regulatory signs for roundabouts in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

85. In existing Section 2B.40 (new Section 2B.54) Design of Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs, the FHWA proposes several changes to the colors of the borders of parking signs. The FHWA proposes to revise the 2nd paragraph of the first STANDARD statement to reflect that the Parking Prohibition signs R7-201a, R8-4, and R8-7 shall have a black legend and border on a white background, and the R8-3a sign shall have a black legend and border and a red circle on a white background. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the existing designs of these specific signs.

The FHWA also proposes changing the last paragraph of the existing GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that a VAN ACCESSIBLE plaque be installed below the R7-8 sign where parking spaces that are reserved for persons with disabilities are designated to accommodate wheelchair vans. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect Section 502.6 of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement following the (new) 2nd GUIDANCE statement that specifies the required colors of the R7-8, R7-8a, and R7-8b signs, to reflect the existing sign color schemes for these signs as illustrated in existing Figure 2B-16 (new Figure 2B-27).

Finally, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE and STANDARD statements prior to the last OPTION statement regarding the use of proposed new Pay for Parking and Parking Pay Station signs where a fee is charged for parking and a midblock pay station is used instead of individual parking meters. The FHWA proposes to add these signs to reflect current practice in many areas where cities and towns are replacing individual parking space meters with a “pay and display” system. The FHWA proposes a design for the fee station sign that is very similar to a standard European symbol, because the results of the Sign Synthesis Study

showed that several U.S. cities are using a sign very similar to the European design.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 27, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

86. In existing Section 2B.44 (new Section 2B.58) Pedestrian Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to recommend that No Pedestrian Crossing Signs be supplemented with detectable guidance, such as grass strips, landscaping, planters, fencing, rails, or barriers in order to provide pedestrians who have

visual disabilities with additional guidance as to where not to cross.

87. In existing Section 2B.45 (new Section 2B.59) Traffic Signal Signs, the FHWA proposes to delete the first existing GUIDANCE statement regarding the placement of Traffic Signal signs because locations of signs near signal faces are proposed to be specifically recommended for individual signs where this is appropriate.

To correspond with proposed changes in Chapter 4E requiring that signs for pedestrian pushbuttons clearly indicate which crosswalk signal is actuated by each pedestrian detector, the FHWA proposes to revise the first SUPPORT and OPTION statements in this section and the sign images in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29). The proposed revisions eliminate the use of the existing R10-1, R10-3 and R10-4 sign designs because these do not identify a specific crosswalk, and therefore do not meet the proposed requirement in Chapter 4E. The FHWA proposes to redesign those signs and revise the text in this section to clarify how to use the R10 series of pushbutton signs appropriately. The FHWA also proposes to add paragraphs to the 2nd OPTION statement regarding the use of a new R10-25 sign, where a pushbutton detector has been installed for pedestrians to activate In-Roadway Warning Lights or flashing beacons, and a new R10-24 sign, where a pushbutton detector has been installed exclusively for bicyclists, to enable bicyclists to actuate a separate bike signal phase or a parallel vehicular green phase at a signalized crossing. Bikes need less time to cross than pedestrians, so the push buttons actuate timing specifically appropriate for bikes, which is an operationally efficient strategy. The FHWA proposes to add both of these new signs to reflect current practice as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study,

and to provide consistent and uniform messages for these purposes.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

The FHWA also proposes to add a proposed new FOR MORE CROSSING TIME—HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 2 SECONDS sign to this section and to illustrate the sign image in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29). The FHWA proposes to add this sign to correspond with comparable proposed provisions in Chapter 4E.

The FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements in this section regarding the location of LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY, LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN, and LEFT TURN SIGNAL YIELD ON GREEN signs, independently and with an AT SIGNAL supplemental plaque. The FHWA proposes these new statements based on recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendation I.H(4).

In the existing 2nd GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA proposes to add locations where the skew angle of the intersection roadways creates difficulty for older drivers to see traffic approaching from their left, to the list of conditions where consideration should be given to the use of No Turn on Red signs. The FHWA proposes this change based on recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.

“Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians,” FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.

Recommendations I.A(3) and I.I(3).

The FHWA proposes to add to the (new) 4th OPTION statement information regarding the use of a blank-out sign instead of a NO TURN ON RED sign during certain times of the day or during portions of a signal cycle where a leading pedestrian interval is provided. The FHWA proposes this new text to correspond to other proposed changes in Part 4 regarding the use of these signs. The FHWA also proposes to add information to this OPTION statement regarding the use of a post-mounted NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT FROM RIGHT LANE sign and a NO TURN ON RED FROM THIS LANE (with down arrow) overhead sign that may be used on signalized approaches with more than one right-turn lane.

Finally, to correspond with proposed changes in Part 4 that would add a new Pedestrian Hybrid Signal, the FHWA proposes to add to the last STANDARD statement a paragraph that describes the use of a CROSSWALK STOP ON RED sign that is proposed to be required with pedestrian hybrid signals.

The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for the use of proposed new signs and proposed new sign designs at existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

88. In existing Figure 2B-19 (new Figure 2B-30) Traffic Signal Signs and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to change the design of the TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15) sign to be a symbolic sign. The FHWA proposes this change to reduce the number of words, give a more precise symbolized message, and make the sign more conspicuous to road users. The proposed sign design has been in extensive use by the New York City Department of Transportation. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

89. In existing Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60) Photo Enforced Signs and Figure 2B-1, the FHWA proposes to replace the existing word message PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) plaque with a new symbol plaque for Photo Enforced. The FHWA proposes to retain the existing word message plaque as an alternate. In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the design of the TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-18) sign to add the symbolic camera. The FHWA proposes these changes based on preliminary results of the “Evaluation of Symbol Signs” study.

Preliminary results from “Evaluation of Symbol Signs,” conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf

90. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60). This new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2B.61 Ramp Metering Signs” and contains a GUIDANCE statement describing the recommended use of proposed new regulatory signs that should accompany ramp control signals. The FHWA proposes to add these new signs because ramp metering signals are used in several States, but there are not standard signs for them in the MUTCD, so States have developed a variety of signs, as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study.

In this new Section, the FHWA proposes two new signs, X VEHICLES PER GREEN and X VEHICLES PER GREEN EACH LANE. The FHWA proposes these new signs to provide uniformity in ramp meter signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 28-29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

91. In existing Section 2B.50 (new Section 2B.65) Weigh Station Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the text of the R13-1 sign to “TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION—NEXT RIGHT” to reflect that the message is regulatory, rather than guidance. The FHWA proposes a

phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

In addition, in Figure 2B-33, the FHWA proposes to illustrate the customary regulatory sign color of a black legend on a white background, rather than the allowable option of the reverse color pattern, for the TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION—NEXT RIGHT sign.

92. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2B.53 (new Section 2B.68). The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2B.69 Headlight Use Signs” and contains GUIDANCE, SUPPORT, and OPTION statements that describe the use of several proposed new signs that may be used by States that require road users to turn on their vehicle headlights under certain weather conditions. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that there is a wide variation in the legends currently being used by States for this purpose. FHWA proposes these new signs to provide increased uniformity of the messages for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

93. The FHWA proposes changing the number and title of existing “Section 2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs” to “Section 2B.70 Miscellaneous Regulatory Signs.” As discussed in item 48 above, the FHWA proposes to relocate the existing OPTION statements from this section to Section 2B.02. The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION statement regarding the use of a proposed new FENDER BENDER MOVE VEHICLES FROM TRAVEL LANES sign that agencies may use to inform road users of State laws that require them to move their vehicles to the shoulder if they have been involved in a minor non-injury crash. As an integral part of active incident management programs in many urban areas, an increasing number of States and cities are using signs requiring drivers who have been involved in relatively minor “fender bender” or non-injury crashes to move their vehicles to the shoulder. A variety of sign messages are in use for this purpose, as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study.

The FHWA proposes adding this sign because, with the increasing popularity of these laws and incident management programs, a standardized sign legend is needed. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C—General

94. The FHWA proposes to remove the following word signs from the MUTCD, because related symbol signs have been in use for 35 years, thereby making these word signs obsolete: HILL Sign (W7-1b) in existing Section 2C.12, DIVIDED HIGHWAY (W6-1a) and DIVIDED ROAD (W6-1b) in existing Section 2C.18, DIVIDED HIGHWAY ENDS (W6-2a) and DIVIDED ROAD ENDS (W6-2b) in Section existing 2C.19, STOP AHEAD (W3-1a) and YIELD AHEAD (W3-2a) and SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3a) in existing Section 2C.29.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C—Specific

95. In Section 2C.03 Design of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the last paragraph of the OPTION to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than merely allow, a fluorescent yellow-green background for warning signs regarding conditions associated with pedestrians, bicyclists, and playgrounds. Also proposed is a new STANDARD statement that would require that warning conditions associated with school buses and schools have a fluorescent yellow-green background. The FHWA is also proposing to revise similar wording in other sections in Chapter 2C and in Part 7. In the intervening years since the fluorescent yellow-green background color was introduced as an option, most highway agencies have adopted policies to use this color for school warning signs and many have also decided to use it for all warnings associated with pedestrians and bicycles. This predominant usage is due to the enhanced conspicuity provided by fluorescent yellow-green, particularly during dawn and twilight periods. The FHWA proposes these changes in Section 2C.03 to provide more uniformity and consistency in school, pedestrian, and bicycle warning signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

In place of the existing paragraph in the OPTION statement, the FHWA proposes to add two new paragraphs that describe allowable changes in warning sign sizes and designs. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide agencies with flexibility in designing signs to meet field conditions, such as allowing modifications to be made to the symbols shown on intersection warning signs in order to approximate the geometric configuration of the roadway.

The FHWA also proposes to add a 2nd STANDARD statement that establishes a minimum size for all diamond-shaped warning signs facing traffic on multi-lane conventional roads of 900 mm × 900 mm (36 in × 36 in). This proposal is consistent with other proposed changes as discussed above regarding existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.14) that base sign size dimensions on letter sizes needed for a visual acuity of 20/40, which results in larger sign sizes. On multi-lane roads, increased legibility distances are needed due to the potential blockage of signs by other vehicles.

96. The FHWA proposes to revise Table 2C-2 Warning Sign and Plaque Sizes to incorporate additional sign series and to specify that for several diamond-shaped signs, the minimum size required for signs facing traffic on multi-lane conventional roads is 900 mm × 900 mm (36 in. × 36 in). The FHWA proposes these changes to provide signs on multi-lane approaches that are more visible to drivers with visual acuity of 20/40 and to be consistent with and incorporate other proposed changes in Chapter 2C. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

97. In Section 2C.05 Placement of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the SUPPORT and GUIDANCE statements to refer to the use of Perception-Response Time (PRT), rather than Perception, Identification, Emotion, and Volition (PIEV) Time, in determining the placement of warning signs. The older terminology of PIEV Time has been replaced with the current term Perception-Response Time, which has come into common use and is the terminology used in the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policies. The Traffic Control Devices Handbook

addresses both terms but

correctly identifies PRT as the terminology now in common use. Accordingly, it is appropriate to update the MUTCD using the common terminology PRT. In addition to proposed changes in Section 2C.05, the FHWA proposes to change the notes for Table 2C-4 by replacing “PIEV time” with “PRT,” as well as other changes in the notes and values in Table 2C-4 in order to provide adequate legibility of warning signs for 20/40 visual acuity. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for revised placement of existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

The Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2001, is available for purchase from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, at the following Internet Web site:

http://www.ite.org.

PIEV and PRT are discussed on pages 34-39.

98. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after existing Section 2C.05. The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs” and contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and OPTION statements regarding the use of the proposed new Table 2C-5 Horizontal Alignment Sign Selection, in which the FHWA proposes a hierarchal approach to use of these signs and plaques and proposes to define required, recommended, and optional warning signs. The FHWA proposes a standard to make the requirements applicable to freeways, expressways, and functionally classified arterials and collectors over 1,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) and an option statement allowing their use on other roadways. These road classifications represent higher volume roadways, a larger percentage of unfamiliar drivers, and have the potential to yield the largest safety benefits in reducing crashes due to road users' lack of awareness of a change in horizontal alignment, as documented in a recent National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study.

NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7, “A Guide for Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves,” can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v7.pdf

99. In concert with the changes in the previous item, the FHWA proposes several changes to existing Section 2C.06 (new Section 2C.07) Horizontal Alignment Signs to incorporate the proposed material in new Table 2C-5 and to provide agencies with additional information on the appropriate use of horizontal alignment signs. The FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2C-2 to illustrate an example of the use of warning signs for a turn, and to modify existing Figure 2C-7 (new Figure 2C-3) to illustrate horizontal alignment signs for a sharp curve on an exit ramp.

100. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.46 Advisory Speed Plaque so that it appears earlier in the Chapter as Section 2C.08 because of its predominant application with horizontal alignment warning signs. In addition, the FHWA proposes several revisions to the section to incorporate the proposed new Table 2C-5, and to require that Advisory Speed plaques be used where it is determined to be necessary on the basis of an engineering study that follows established traffic engineering practices.

Finally, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION and GUIDANCE statements at the end of the section describing the use of Advisory Speed plaques at toll plazas. The FHWA proposes this additional information to incorporate toll plaza signing into the MUTCD.

101. In existing Section 2C.10 (new Section 2C.09) Chevron Alignment Sign, the FHWA proposes to change the first sentence of the first OPTION statement to a STANDARD to require the use of the Chevron Alignment sign in accordance with the hierarchy of use as listed in proposed new Table 2C-5, as discussed earlier regarding new Section 2C.06. The FHWA also proposes to add information to the 2nd STANDARD statement regarding the minimum installation height of these signs. The proposed minimum mounting height of 4 feet would be an exception to the normal minimum mounting height for signs, based on established practices. The FHWA also proposes to add a reference in the GUIDANCE statement to proposed new Table 2C-6 Approximate Spacing for Chevron Alignment Signs on Horizontal Curves. The proposed spacing criteria are based on research.

FHWA/TX-04/0-4052-1, “Simplifying Delineator and Chevron Applications for Horizontal Curves,” dated March 2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4052-1.pdf.

The FHWA also proposes to add a new STANDARD statement at the end of the section clarifying conditions in which the Chevron Alignment sign should not be used. The FHWA proposes this new text to preclude possible misinterpretations of the appropriate use of this sign.

102. In existing Section 2C.07 (new Section 2C.10) Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Speed Signs, the FHWA proposes to amplify the existing STANDARD statement in order to clarify how these signs are to be used.

103. In existing Section 2C.09 (new Section 2C.12) One-Direction Large Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement a prohibition on the use of a One-Direction Large Arrow sign in the central island of a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change in conjunction with other proposed changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to provide consistency in signing at roundabouts.

104. In existing Section 2C.11 (new Section 2C.13) Truck Rollover Warning Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the beginning of the section to require the use of the Truck Rollover Warning sign on freeway and expressway ramps in accordance with the proposed new Table 2C-5.

The FHWA also proposes to change the existing first OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend the use of the Truck Rollover Warning sign for appropriate conditions.

105. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.36 so that it appears earlier in the Chapter as new Section 2C.14 to consolidate all sections relating to horizontal alignment in one area of the chapter for ease of reference and consistency. In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the title of the section to “Advisory Exit and Ramp Speed Signs,” as well as the text to remove the optional Curve Speed sign. The Curve Speed sign has had only limited usage and, with the proposed hierarchal approach to warning signs usage for horizontal curves, this sign is no longer needed. The FHWA believes it is desirable to broaden the consistent usage of a few signs providing better driver communications rather than adding potential driver confusion with a mixed application of several signing options.

The FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD to require that the use of the Advisory Exit Speed and Advisory Ramp Speed signs on freeway and expressway ramps be in accordance with the proposed new Table 2C-5.

In addition, the FHWA proposes several other clarifications throughout the section to aid readers on the placement of advisory speed signs and plaques.

For all of the proposed changes in applications of warning signs and plaques for horizontal curves in new Sections 2C.06 through 2C.14 and in the new Table 2C-5, the FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing horizontal alignment signs in good condition, to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

106. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2C.15 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp Speed Signs.” The FHWA proposes this new sign for optional use where ramp or exit curvature is not apparent to drivers in the deceleration or exit lane

or where the curvature needs to be specifically identified as being on the ramp rather than on the mainline. The FHWA proposes the design and the use of this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study,

which found that at least four States have developed signs for this purpose, but with varying designs. The FHWA proposes a uniform design for this type of sign, to provide consistency for road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 43, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

107. The FHWA proposes to relocate existing Section 2C.13 Truck Escape Ramp Signs to Chapter 2F, to reflect the proposed new classification and design of these signs as general service signs. These signs provide guidance and information messages similar in function to the signs used for weigh stations, chain-up areas, and similar highway features, so it is appropriate for these signs for truck escape ramps to be designed as general service signs.

108. In existing Section 2C.18 (new Section 2C.21) Divided Highway Sign, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD that the Divided Highway (W6-1) sign shall not be used instead of a Keep Right (R4-7 series) sign on the nose of a median island. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect accepted signing practices and prevent misuse of the W6-1 sign.

109. In existing Section 2C.19 (new Section 2C.22) Divided Highway Ends Sign (W6-2), the FHWA proposes to revise the existing OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE statement, recommending that the Two-Way Traffic (W6-3) sign should also be used. The FHWA proposes this change in order to be consistent with the existing GUIDANCE in existing Section 2C.34 (new Section 2C.45) that the W6-3 sign should be used for this condition.

110. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2C.19 (new Section 2C.22). The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.23 Freeway or Expressway Ends Signs” and contains OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of these proposed new signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs because there are many locations where a freeway or expressway ends by changing to an uncontrolled access highway, and it is important to warn drivers of the end of the freeway or expressway conditions. In other cases, the need for this type of warning may be generated by other conditions not readily apparent to the road user, such as the need for all traffic to exit the freeway or expressway on exit ramps. The Sign Synthesis Study

found that at least 21 States have developed their own standard warning signs for this purpose but with varying legends and designs. The FHWA proposes uniform designs for these signs, to provide consistency for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 43-44, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

111. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section 2C.26 (new Section 2C.30) to “Shoulder and Uneven Lanes Signs” to incorporate a proposed new symbolic Shoulder Drop Off sign and two plaques to warn road users of either a low shoulder or uneven lanes. The FHWA proposes this new sign as a result of the Sign Synthesis Study,

which found that symbol signs and/or different word messages are being used in at least 13 States to convey these or similar messages, with a wide variety of legends and symbol designs. The States are not consistent in how these symbol signs are used, with some being used for uneven lanes and some for low shoulder or shoulder drop-off conditions. The Canadian MUTCD prescribes a single standard symbol warning sign (TC-49) for use to warn of either a low shoulder or uneven lanes. The FHWA proposes to adopt the standard Canadian sign to provide a single uniform symbol for these conditions, which are similar in terms of issues for vehicular control, with supplemental educational word message plaques as needed. Adoption of the Canadian symbol will also aid in promoting North American harmony of traffic signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 37, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

The FHWA also proposes to add a NO SHOULDER sign to the option statement in this section to allow agencies to use a sign of uniform legend, which would warn road users that shoulders do not exist along the roadway. The FHWA proposes this new sign and its design based on the “Sign Synthesis Study,”

which found inconsistencies in the legends of signs currently in use by the States for this purpose.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 37, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

112. The FHWA proposes to change the title of existing Section 2C.27 (new Section 2C.31) to “Surface Condition Signs” in order to incorporate several additional signs and supplemental plaques into this section. The FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use of supplemental plaques with legends such as ICE, WHEN WET, STEEL DECK and EXCESS OIL with the W8-5 sign to indicate the reason that the slippery conditions might be present.

The FHWA also proposes to add information regarding the existing LOOSE GRAVEL and ROUGH ROAD word signs. These signs and plaques have been illustrated in new Figure 2C-6 and the Standard Highway Signs book but have not previously been discussed in the MUTCD text.

In addition, the FHWA proposes to incorporate the information in existing Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD sign into this section in order to maintain cohesiveness of information.

Finally, the FHWA proposes to add a new symbolic Falling Rocks sign and an educational plaque to this section to reflect common practice in many States to warn road users of the frequent possibility of rocks falling (or already fallen) onto the roadway. The Sign Synthesis Study

found a lack of consistency in the sign legends or symbols currently in use by the States for this purpose. To provide consistency in sign design, the FHWA proposes to add a symbol sign (along with an educational plaque for use if needed) that may be used to warn road users of falling or fallen rocks, slides, or other similar situations. Although the most common sign currently used in the U.S. is a word sign, Canadian, Mexican, European, and international standards use symbols, all of which are very similar, for this message. The FHWA proposes to adopt the standard Mexican MUTCD symbol, because its design appears to offer the best simplicity and legibility. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 37-38, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

113. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2C.27 (new Section 2C.31). The new

section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.32 Warning Signs and Plaques for Motorcyclists” and contains SUPPORT and OPTION statements regarding the use of two new warning signs and an associated symbolic plaque that may be specifically placed to warn motorcyclists of road surface conditions that would primarily affect them, such as grooved or brick pavement and metal bridge decks. The proposed new signs are based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,

which found a variety of different messages in use by the States for these purposes. Subsequently, a study

evaluated several different motorcycle symbols and arrangements of such symbols both within the primary warning sign and as a supplemental plaque. The study found that the best legibility distance is provided by depicting a motorcycle on a supplementary plaque and that one particular style of motorcycle provides the best comprehension of the intended message. As a result, the FHWA proposes to adopt word message signs with standardized legends of GROOVED PAVEMENT and METAL BRIDGE DECK and a new supplementary plaque featuring a side view of a motorcycle.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 39-40, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf

The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

114. As discussed above, the FHWA proposes to incorporate all of the information contained in existing Section 2C.28 BRIDGE ICES BEFORE ROAD Sign into new Section 2C.31. The FHWA proposes to title existing Section 2C.28 (new Section 2C.33) “NO CENTER STRIPE Sign,” and include an OPTION statement regarding the use of the NO CENTER STRIPE Sign. The FHWA proposes this new language based on a review of the 2003 MUTCD and 2004 SHS that revealed that the MUTCD did not contain language about this existing sign, which has been illustrated in Figure 2C-4.

115. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2C.34 Weather Condition Signs” that contains OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of three proposed new signs to warn users of potential adverse weather conditions. The proposed WATCH FOR FOG, GUSTY WINDS AREA, ROAD MAY FLOOD, and Depth Gauge signs are all based on results of the Sign Synthesis Study

that showed that signs for these purposes were in very common use in many parts of the country, but with widely varying legends. The FHWA proposes to add uniform designs for these signs to provide road users with consistent messages. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State and local agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 38-39, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

116. The FHWA proposes to add a new section numbered and titled, “Section 2C.36 Advance Ramp Control Signal Signs” that contains OPTION, GUIDANCE, and STANDARD statements regarding the use of two proposed new signs. The FHWA proposes new RAMP METER AHEAD and RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING signs to provide uniformity of signing at ramp metering locations, especially because the practice of ramp metering continues to grow. The common existing use of these signs is documented in the Sign Synthesis Study

and is recommended in the FHWA's Ramp Management and Control Handbook.

The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 34, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

“Ramp Management and Control Handbook,” FHWA, January 2006, page 5-29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ramp_mgmt_handbook/manual/manual/pdf/rm_handbook.pdf

117. In existing Section 2C.30 (new Section 2C.37), the FHWA proposes to change the title of the section to “Reduced Speed Limit Ahead Signs” to reflect the proposed change of the sign name to be consistent with the Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, and Signal Ahead warning sign names.

The FHWA proposes revising the GUIDANCE statement to recommend that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice. The FHWA believes that reductions in speed limit of more than 10 mph are unexpected by road users and may require special actions to reduce speed before reaching the start of the lower speed zone, and thus justify the use of a warning sign. The FHWA proposes this change in order to provide consistency for determining where speed reduction signs should be placed. This change corresponds to proposed changes in Section 2B.13.

118. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing Section 2C.30 (new Section 2C.37). The new section is numbered and titled “Section 2C.38 DRAWBRDIGE AHEAD Sign (W3-6)” and contains a STANDARD statement and a figure regarding the use of this sign. The FHWA proposes this new Section because existing Section 4I.02 (new Section 4J.02) Design and Location of Moveable Bridge Signals and Gates requires the use of the DRAWBRIDGE AHEAD sign in advance of all drawbridges. Because the W3 series is used for advance warning signs and this sign is required in advance of the condition, it is appropriate to include the text and a figure in Chapter 2C. The remaining sections in Chapter 2C would be renumbered accordingly.

119. In existing Section 2C.31 (new Section 2C.39) Merge Signs, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of the section to incorporate a proposed new NO MERGE AREA supplemental plaque that may be mounted below an Entering Roadway Merge sign, a Yield Ahead sign, or a YIELD sign to warn road users on an entering roadway or channelized right-turn movement that they will encounter an abrupt merging situation at the end of the ramp or turning roadway. When there are only a few entrance ramps or channelized right turns in an area that do not have acceleration lanes, those few locations do not meet driver expectations. The FHWA proposes this plaque based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study

that indicated some States routinely use this plaque to provide road users with important warning information for these conditions.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 34, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

120. In existing Section 2C.33 (new Section 2C.41) Lane Ends Signs, the FHWA proposes to add the W4-7 THRU TRAFFIC MERGE RIGHT (LEFT) sign to the OPTION statement to allow the use of this sign, as a supplement to other signs, to warn road users in the right-hand (left-hand) lane that their lane is about to become a mandatory turn or exit lane. The FHWA proposes this

change to be consistent with the current use of that sign in Part 6.

121. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2C.33 (new Section 2C.41). This new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.42 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY AHEAD Sign.” This proposed new section contains OPTION, STANDARD, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT statements regarding the use of this proposed new sign to provide advance warning of a freeway lane drop. The FHWA proposes to add this sign based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study

that showed several States use a similar warning sign for these conditions, particularly when overhead guide signs are not present on which to use EXIT ONLY plaques. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 35, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

122. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections numbered and titled, “Section 2C.43 Toll Road Begins Signs” and “Section 2C.44 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Sign.” Both sections include GUIDANCE, OPTION, and STANDARD statements regarding the use of these proposed new signs on toll facilities to provide for consistency and uniformity of signing for these messages and to implement the signing portions of FHWA's “Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy.”

The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

“Policy on Traffic Control Strategies for Toll Plazas,” dated October 12, 2006 can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm

123. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2C.34 (new Section 2C.45). The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.46 Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane Roadway Sign” and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of this proposed new sign for warning of two-way traffic on roads having three through lanes, with one lane in one direction and two lanes in the other direction. The proposed sign is a variant of the existing W6-1 two-way traffic warning sign. The FHWA proposes this new sign for optional use based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study

that indicated that several States use this type of sign to warn drivers of this condition.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 36, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

124. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing Section 2C.36 Advisory Exit, Ramp, and Curve Speed Signs, to Section 2C.14 in order to place all horizontal alignment warning signs in the same area of the manual.

125. In existing Section 2C.37 (new Section 2C.48) Intersection Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the existing OPTION statement to indicate that an educational plaque with a legend such as TRAFFIC CIRCLE or ROUNDABOUT may be mounted below a Circular Intersection symbol sign. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the GUIDANCE statement, the recommendation that Circular Intersection symbol warning signs should be installed on the approach to a YIELD sign controlled roundabout. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide consistency for roundabout signing throughout the MUTCD.

The FHWA also proposes to add new Offset Side Roads and Double Side Roads symbols for use on Intersection Warning Signs to the GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA proposes these new symbols based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study

that showed that variants of the W2-2 sign depicting offset side roads or two closely spaced side roads are used in many States, but the relative distance between the two side roads and the relative stroke widths of the roadways varies significantly. As a result, the FHWA proposes uniform designs.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

126. In existing Section 2C.38 (new Section 2C.49) Two-Direction Large Arrow Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that the Two-Direction Large Arrow sign shall not be used in the central island of a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change in conjunction with other proposed changes in Chapters 2B and 2D to provide consistency in signing at roundabouts.

127. In existing Section 2C.39 (new Section 2C.50) Traffic Signal Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the STANDARD statement that the provision of flashing yellow arrow signal faces and flashing red arrow signal faces are additional exceptions to the requirement for use of W25-1 or W25-2 signs, consistent with similar proposed changes in Chapter 4D. The FHWA also proposes a clarification to the STANDARD statement that W25-1 and W25-2 signs are to be vertical rectangles, for consistency with existing Table 2C-2 Warning Sign Sizes, which indicates that the W25 series signs are rectangular in shape.

128. In existing Section 2C.40 (new Section 2C.51) Vehicular Traffic Signs and existing Section 2C.41 (new Section 2C.52) Nonvehicular Signs, the FHWA proposes to add OPTION statements regarding the use of Warning Beacons and supplemental WHEN FLASHING plaques to indicate specific periods when the condition or activity is present or is likely to be present. The FHWA proposes these changes to clarify this allowable use, for consistency with existing provisions in Part 4 regarding warning beacons.

129. The FHWA also proposes to add to the first OPTION statement in existing Section 2C.40 (new Section 2C.51) information regarding the use of the Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian sign and the TRAIL XING supplemental plaque. With the increasing mileage of shared-use paths in the U.S., the number of places where shared-use paths, used by both bicyclists and pedestrians, cross a road or highway is also increasing. To provide advance warning of these crossings and to indicate the location of the crossing itself, it is currently necessary to use both the W11-1 (bicycle) and W11-2 (pedestrian) crossing warning signs, mounted together on the same post, or sequentially along the road. The Sign Synthesis Study

revealed that several States have developed combination signs to simplify and improve the signing for shared-use path crossings, using either a single sign with combined bicycle and pedestrian symbols or a word message sign with a variety of different legends. The FHWA proposes to add this sign for use to serve this increasing need and to provide a uniform design for consistency. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 42, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

130. In existing Section 2C.41 (new Section 2C.52) Nonvehicular Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement that requires school signs and their related supplemental plaques to have a fluorescent yellow-green background with a black legend and border to be

consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2A and in Part 7. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

The FHWA also proposes to change the 2nd paragraph of the 3rd OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE to recommend, rather than merely permit, the use of fluorescent yellow-green for pedestrian, bicycle, and playground nonvehicular warning signs and their supplemental plaques. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. These proposed changes are also reflected in existing Section 2C.42 (new Section 2C.53) Playground Sign and in Chapter 2A and Part 7.

131. In Figure 2C-12 Nonvehicular Traffic Signs, the FHWA proposes to add images of new symbolic warning signs for moose, elk/antelope/caribou, wild horses (horse without a rider), burro/donkey, sheep, bighorn sheep, and bears. The MUTCD includes only three signs to warn of the possible crossings of large animals—deer crossing (W11-3), cattle crossing (W11-4), and equestrian crossing (horse with rider, W11-7). The prevalence of other types of large animals that may cross roads (and which may cause significant damage or injury if struck by a vehicle) has caused at least 16 States to develop signs (usually symbolic) for warning of one or more different animal crossings, as documented in the Sign Synthesis Study.

The FHWA proposes adding the new signs because these animals all look significantly different from the three existing animal symbols and the existing standard MUTCD signs would not provide an accurate meaning and adequate warning. Also, because there is a lack of consistency in the signs currently being used for this purpose by the States, the FHWA proposes uniform symbol designs for consistency. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, pages 41-42, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

132. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2C.42 (new Section 2C.53). The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.54 NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AHEAD Sign” and contains OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of this sign to provide advance warning of a change in traffic patterns, such as revised lane usage, roadway geometry, or signal phasing. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect existing practices in many States and numerous local jurisdictions as documented in the Sign Synthesis Study

and to provide a uniform legend for this purpose, consistent with similar proposed changes in Part 6. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

133. The FHWA proposes to add a new section after proposed new Section 2C.54. This new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.55 Warning Signs on Median Barriers for Preferential Lanes” and contains OPTION, STANDARD, and GUIDANCE statements regarding the use of warning signs applicable only to preferential lanes on median barriers. The FHWA proposes this new section for consistency with similar existing provisions for preferential lane regulatory signs in Chapter 2B and to reflect existing practices by agencies operating preferential lane facilities. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

134. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing Section 2C.46 Advisory Speed Plaque, to Section 2C.08 in order to place all horizontal alignment warning signs in the same area of the manual.

135. In existing Section 2C.47 (new Section 2C.59) Supplemental Arrow Plaques, the FHWA proposes to delete the references to the W16-7 downward diagonal arrow plaque, because the W16-7 plaque is not used for the application described in this section. The diagonal downward arrow plaque is only used with Nonvehicular Crossing warning signs and has a different design than the W16-5p and W16-6p plaques, which are the subject of this Section.

136. In existing Section 2C.49 (new Section 2C.61) Advance Street Name Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement, and an accompanying figure, that recommends the order in which street names should be displayed on an Advance Street Name plaque. The FHWA proposes this change to provide consistency for road users.

137. In existing Section 2C.50 (new Section 2C.62) Cross Traffic Does Not Stop, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to recommend that plaques with appropriate alternative messages, such as TRAFFIC FROM LEFT DOES NOT STOP, be used at intersections where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection. The FHWA proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2B.

138. In existing Section 2C.51 (new Section 2C.63) SHARE THE ROAD Plaque, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD that requires that the SHARE THE ROAD plaque be used only as a supplement to a Vehicular Traffic or Nonvehicular sign. The FHWA proposes this change to provide road users with more clarity on the type of vehicle or nonvehicle that may be present, and because plaques are not intended for independent use.

139. In existing Section 2C.53 (new Section 2C.65) Photo Enforced Plaque, the FHWA proposes replacing the existing “PHOTO ENFORCED” word message plaque with a new symbol plaque designated as W16-10P. The existing word message plaque would be retained as an alternate to the new symbol plaque and its sign number reassigned as W16-10aP. The proposed new symbol plaque is illustrated in Figure 2C-14. The FHWA proposes this change based on preliminary results of the “Evaluation of Symbol Signs” study.

http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf

140. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2C.53 (new Section 2C.65). The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2C.66 METRIC Plaque” at the end of the section. This proposed new section contains a GUIDANCE statement that recommends the use of the METRIC plaque above a Weight Limits sign that shows the load limits in metric units. This plaque is currently illustrated in existing Figure 2B-8 and has a regulatory sign code, even though it has a black legend on a yellow background and is intended to warn road users that the values on the regulatory sign are in metrics. Accordingly, the FHWA proposes redesignating this plaque as a warning plaque and adding text regarding its use to Chapter 2C.

141. Following proposed Section 2C.66, the FHWA also proposes to add a new Section numbered and titled, “Section 2C.67 NEW Plaque” that describes the use of this optional plaque that may be mounted above a regulatory

sign when a new traffic regulation takes effect or above an advance warning sign for a new traffic regulation. The FHWA proposes that the use of this plaque be limited to 6 months after the traffic regulation has been in effect. The FHWA proposes this new plaque based on the Sign Synthesis Study,

which showed that some States and Canadian provinces are using similar plaques and signs for this purpose, and to provide a uniform plaque design for consistency. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 33, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

142. The FHWA also proposes two additional sections at the end of the Chapter numbered and titled, “Section 2C.68 LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL Plaque” and “Section 2C.69 Stop Ahead Pay Toll Plaque” that describe the use of these proposed new plaques. The FHWA proposes the use of these plaques to provide for consistency and uniformity of signing for these messages and to implement the signing portions of FHWA's “Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy.”

The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,” dated September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2D—General

143. In existing Section 2D.28 (new Section 2D.31) Junction Assembly, existing Section 2D.29 (new Section 2D.32) Advance Route Turn Assembly, and existing Section 2D.35 (new Section 2D.42) Location of Destination Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the requirements and recommendations for the locations of these signs. In new Section 2D.31, the FHWA proposes revising the required distances to recommended distances, and in new Sections 2D.32 and 2D.42, the FHWA proposes adding new recommendations regarding the distances between signs. The FHWA proposes these changes in order to provide more flexibility for the placement of these various signs, particularly as it relates to rural areas, and to indicate that the dimensions shown on Figure 2D-7 are recommendations.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2D—Specific

144. In Section 2D.07 Amount of Legend, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to clarify that guide signs should be limited to no more than three lines of destinations, and that action information should be provided on guide signs in addition to the destinations, where appropriate. The FHWA proposes this change to reduce confusion regarding the number of lines on a guide sign and to address the results of recent NCHRP research on driver information overload.

NCHRP Report 488, “Additional Investigations on Driver Information Overload” 2006, page 65, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_488c.pdf

In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the OPTION statement and add a STANDARD statement regarding the use of pictographs on guide signs. The FHWA proposes these changes in order to incorporate information regarding pictographs in the MUTCD, to reflect FHWA's Official Interpretation numbers 2-540(I)

and 2-565(I)

and to restrict the maximum size of such pictographs so that they do not detract from the primary legend of the signs.

This official interpretation can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_540.htm

This official interpretation can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_565.htm

145. In Section 2D.08 Arrows, the FHWA proposes to make several revisions to this section to clarify the use and design of arrows on guide signs. In the first STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to require that down arrows on overhead signs shall always be vertical and positioned directly over the approximate center of the applicable lane. However, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement that permits diagonal arrows pointing diagonally downward on overhead guide signs only if each arrow is located directly over the center of the lane and only for the purpose of emphasizing a separation of diverging roadways. Some States have installed overhead guide signs with downward slanting arrows that are not centered over the appropriate lanes, but pointing toward the center of a lane, only for the purpose of reducing sign size. The FHWA believes that overhead signs with arrows designed and oriented in this fashion are confusing to drivers because they imply movement out of a lane. The FHWA proposes these changes to prohibit the use of diagonally slanted down arrows on overhead guide signs to indicate a specific lane where roadways do not diverge, in order to reduce this confusion and assure consistent sign design practices. In concert with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of more than one down and/or diagonal arrow pointing to the same lane, for the same reasons. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement to permit the use of curved-stem arrows that represent the intended driver paths to destinations involving left-turn movements on guide signs on approaches to roundabouts. The FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the following GUIDANCE statement that references readers to the appropriate sections that describe the principles for such arrows.

Finally, the FHWA proposes to revise Figure 2D-2 and the text of Section 2D.08 to describe and illustrate the various types of arrows used on guide signs, to clarify appropriate arrow use.

146. In Section 2D.11 Design of Route Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the second sentence of the second OPTION statement to a GUIDANCE statement to recommend, rather than just allow, the use of a white square or rectangle behind the Off-Interstate Business Route sign when it is used on a green guide sign. The FHWA proposes this change to enhance the conspicuity of the Off-Interstate Business Route sign in this usage, since the green route sign alone blends into the green guide sign background.

147. In Section 2D.12 Design of Route Sign Auxiliaries, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement clarifying that if a route sign and its auxiliary signs are combined in a single sign, the background color of the sign should be green, and a STANDARD that auxiliary signs shall not be mounted directly to a guide sign. If placed on a green guide sign background, the legends of the auxiliary messages shall be white legend placed directly on the green background. The FHWA proposes these changes to provide consistency for background colors, because background colors currently in use for this application are not consistent across the country and green is the appropriate background color for a directional guide sign, and to preclude mis-application of auxiliary signs on green guide signs.

148. In Section 2D.14 Combination Junction Sign, the FHWA proposes to delete the 2nd paragraph of the OPTION statement that permitted the use of other

designs to accommodate State and county route signs. The FHWA proposes this change, because it was not the intent to allow agencies to use their own unique designs that do not match the design of the M2-2 sign.

149. The FHWA proposes to add a section following Section 2D.22. The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2D.23 BEGIN Auxiliary Sign” and contains OPTION and STANDARD statements regarding the use of this proposed new sign where a numbered route begins. The FHWA proposes this sign based on the Sign Synthesis Study

that revealed that several States use an auxiliary BEGIN sign above the confirming route marker at the start of a route to provide additional helpful information to road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 52, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

150. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections following existing Section 2D.23 (new Section 2D.24). The two new sections are numbered and titled, “Section 2D.25 TOLL Auxiliary Sign” and “Section 2D.26 Electronic Toll Collection Only Auxiliary Signs.” The Signs Synthesis Study

found that some States are using the TOLL auxiliary sign to provide road users useful information that a numbered route is a toll facility. The proposed Electronic Toll Collection Only auxiliary sign would complement and be consistent with signs proposed in Chapters 2B and 2E to inform road users that a highway is restricted to use only by ETC-equipped vehicles. The FHWA also proposes to add a new Figure 2D-5 to illustrate these signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs to provide consistency and uniformity in signing applications for toll facilities. The remaining sections and figures would be renumbered accordingly. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,” FHWA, December 2005, page 52, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:

http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf

151. In existing Section 2D.26 (new Section 2D.29) Directional Arrow Auxiliary Signs, the FHWA proposes to add that a Directional Arrow auxiliary sign that displays a double-headed arrow shall not be mounted in advance of or at a roundabout. The FHWA proposes this change to eliminate any possible confusion that would be created by the use of this sign in the proximity of a roundabout, where direct left turns are not allowed.

152. In existing Section 2D.27 (new Section 2D.30) Route Sign Assemblies, the FHWA proposes to add a paragraph to the OPTION statement allowing diagrammatic route sign formats to be used on approaches to roundabouts. The FHWA proposes this change to incorporate signing for roundabouts in the MUTCD.

153. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing Section 2D.29 (new Section 2D.32). The new section is numbered and titled, “Section 2D.33 Lane Designation Auxiliary Signs” and contains an OPTION statement regarding the use of these optional signs that may be used as a method to tell road users which lane to get into to travel a particular numbered route and direction. The FHWA also proposes to add an additional illustration in existing Figure 2D-6 to illustrate the use of these auxiliary signs. The FHWA proposes these new signs based on the results of the Sign Synthesis Study,

which found that at least seven States use M6 auxiliary signs stating “Left Lane,” “Center Lane,” or “Right Lane” below route signs in route sign assemblies. This can be an economical alternative to one or more larger green guide signs in certain situations. The remaining sections would be renumbered accordingly.

“Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,”

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.