New US MUTCD (supposedly) coming this year

[freebrickproductions]

As someone over on AARoads pointed out, the MUTCD website was recently updated and now features this in the What's New? box at the top of the page:

October 13, 2023 – Update on the 11th Edition of the MUTCD

On September 29, 2023, the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review of the pending rulemaking for the next edition of the MUTCD. This review was the last major step of the regulatory process allowing FHWA to proceed to preparation of a Notice of Final Rule. The documents and supporting materials for a Final Rule will take just a bit more time to finalize, but we expect to publish this year.

The purpose of the MUTCD is to help ensure traffic control devices used across the country meet the needs of all road users, including the most vulnerable, in a safe and efficient manner. The next edition of the MUTCD will provide road managers nationwide with contemporary options to address safety and operational issues, while maintaining uniformity, in selecting the traffic control devices that will convey the intended operation of their facilities to users.

Check out the MUTCD News Feed for up-to-the-minute information on new items such as Interim Approvals, Official Interpretations, Policy Statements, Federal Register notices—everything you need to make the most of your MUTCD and keep road users on the move!

And of course, in the box underneath it, Status of Rulemaking for the Eleventh Edition of the MUTCD:

On September 29, 2023, the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review of the pending rulemaking for the next edition of the MUTCD. This review was the last major step of the regulatory process allowing FHWA to proceed to preparation of a Notice of Final Rule.

A Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA) to issue a new edition of the MUTCD was published in the Dec. 14, 2020,Federal Register for public comment. More than 17,000 entries submitted to the public docket comprise over 35,000 individual comments, and these comments will inform this rulemaking action and the 11th Edition of the MUTCD. In addition, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs USDOT to update the MUTCD within 18 months of its enactment, and at least every 4 years thereafter to promote the safety, inclusion, and mobility of all road users.

The 11th Edition of the MUTCD will be a comprehensive update, incorporating the results of nearly 200 Official Experiments of novel traffic control devices and applications, Official Interpretations, Interim Approvals, and other research conducted both independently and by the Traffic Control Device Consortium Pooled Fund.

Read more about the MUTCD 11th Edition…and beyond.

FHWA conducted four informational Webinars to acquaint you with the Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA) for the 11th Edition of the MUTCD and the revision process. The recordings for all webinars are available here.

(Apologies if there was a thread for this already, I searched and couldn't find one.)

[Bryn666]

So the big question is, what's in it and when it's out?

[freebrickproductions]

That's honestly a good question, though I personally don't think I can answer them all that well, especially for what may be in it. I know there have been some discussions in a thread about the upcoming MUTCD on AARoads, but I doubt it'll be anything too major. Seems most of the want from that thread is in relation to improving APL and/or option lane signage, though I know one user there wanted the minimum retroreflectivity for blue and brown signs to be fully standardized. I suspect it won't be anything too major beyond anything like that though, outside of maybe removing some options to further standardize some things. I could very well see the FYA signals becoming the only standard in the next MUTCD for protected/permissive left turns, given that most states have already adopted them in favor of the traditional shared-face "doghouse" and "inline-5" signals that were used before. I'm guessing some of the official interpretations will be worked into it as well, to better clarify things that agencies had struggled with in the 2009 MUTCD.

As for when it's out, that's also not entirely known, beyond theoretically the end of the year as per the MUTCD website, though the when of when it's gonna come-out has slipped a few times already. As mentioned at the start of the linked thread, it was originally expected to come-out in Spring of 2019, but that obviously hadn't happened. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that was passed within the past few years had initially apparently set a hard deadline of May 15, 2023 for the release, but that came and went without much fanfare outside of a seemingly hurried message of "we're still working on it" that got posted on the website that day, and apparently had removed the specific date and replaced it with a more nebulous "within 18 months of its enactment". Admittedly, there wasn't any kind of an enforcement mechanism in the bill, and, even if there was, given the ongoing trainwreck up in Washington I doubt anyone in Congress would've even remembered, or cared, that it's supposed to already be out by now. Either way, when this MUTCD finally comes-out, it'll've been the longest gap between two major MUTCD revisions, though not by an abnormal amount.

[freebrickproductions]

Update! Per the Federal Register, the new MUTCD is coming-out tomorrow, December 19, 2023!

[freebrickproductions]

Apologies for the double post, but the new MUTCD has finally been released!
https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/fhwa- ... edestrians
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_11th_Edition.htm

No HTML counterpart starting with this one, sadly, but they do at least have smaller PDFs for the various chapters.

[Conekicker]

Presumably there'll be a revised SHS coming out eventually?

[freebrickproductions]

Presumably there'll be a revised SHS coming out eventually?

Potentially, it sounds like.

[Conekicker]

Presumably there'll be a revised SHS coming out eventually?

Potentially, it sounds like.

I look forward to it being uploaded then

[jervi]

It would be interesting (and time consuming) to directly compare TSM / DMRB with MUTCD, and other countries' standards

[Conekicker]

It would be interesting (and time consuming) to directly compare TSM / DMRB with MUTCD, and other countries' standards

All of North and South America follows US signing to a decent degree, Spanish/Portuguese wording on certain signs excepted of course. The main difference is speed limit signing, where roundels tend to be used outside of the USA.

The closest similarity with US/UK signing is the STOP sign of course.

[freebrickproductions]

One thing I noticed on a read-through tonight, looking for something else, is that the MUTCD now allows 4 in./100mm lenses to be used on supplemental nearside bicycle signals. I think this is the first time in years a new allowed lens size has been added to the MUTCD, previously only 8 in./200mm and 12 in./300mm lenses were allowed for traffic signals (while pedestrian signals could only use 12 inch/300mm or 16 inch/~400mm square lenses). Presumably this brings the 4 inch SWARCO heads that Portland, OR, had been using as of the past few years into compliance as a result.

It would be interesting (and time consuming) to directly compare TSM / DMRB with MUTCD, and other countries' standards

All of North and South America follows US signing to a decent degree, Spanish/Portuguese wording on certain signs excepted of course. The main difference is speed limit signing, where roundels tend to be used outside of the USA.

The closest similarity with US/UK signing is the STOP sign of course.

Traffic signals are probably going to be one of the bigger differences between the MUTCD and TSM/DMRB. Some of the bigger differences would be the standard placement of the primary signal heads, the use of red and yellow arrows (and u-turn arrows) over here, and that our pedestrian signals use an upright hand for the "Don't Walk" indication on pedestrian signals while y'all (and most other countries) use a standing man. The pedestrian signals over here are also required to use Portland Orange for the "Don't Walk" and white for the "Walk" indications, while y'all (and many other countries) use red and green for the pedestrian signals.
Another key difference is also the standard lens sizes. As I understand it, over there, y'all are only allowed to use round 8 in./200mm lenses on traffic and pedestrian signals, save for the box signs and 4 in./100mm low level cycle signals. Round 12 in./300mm were only allowed for special lenses such as pedestrian, cycle, and arrow indications during the Mellor era. Over here in the US, round 12 in./300mm lenses are the standard, barring a handful of exceptions listed in Chapter 4, Section 4E.02 of the MUTCD, and all arrow indications must be 12 in./300mm as well. Pedestrian signals must use square 12 in./300mm or 16 in./~400mm lenses as well. And of course, as mentioned above, the 4 in./100mm bike signals now being allowed for installation.

Standard:
01 There shall be three nominal diameter sizes for vehicular signal indications: 4 inches, 8 inches,
and 12 inches.

02 Four-inch signal indications shall only be used for bicycle signal faces per Section 4H.07.

03 Twelve-inch signal indications shall be used for all arrow signal indications.

04 Except as provided in Paragraph 5 of this Section, 12-inch signal indications shall be used for all
circular signal indications in all new signal faces.

Option:
05 Eight-inch circular signal indications may be used in new signal faces only for:
A. The green or flashing yellow signal indications in an emergency-vehicle traffic control signal
(see Section 4M.02);
B. The circular indications in signal faces controlling the approach to the downstream location where two
adjacent signalized locations are close to each other and it is impractical because of factors such as high
approach speeds, horizontal or vertical curves, or other geometric factors to install visibility-limited signal
faces for the downstream approach;
C. The circular indications in a signal face that is located less than 120 feet from the stop line on a roadway
with a posted or statutory speed limit or operating speed of 30 mph or less;
D. The circular indications in a supplemental near-side signal face;
E. The circular indications in a supplemental signal face installed for the sole purpose of controlling
pedestrian movements rather than vehicular movements; and
F. The circular indications in a flashing beacon (see Chapter 4S).

06 Different sizes of signal indications may be used in the same signal face or signal head, provided that the
signal face or signal head complies with the requirements contained in Paragraphs 3 through 5 of this Section.

[Bryn666]

Quite good to see low level cycle signals in the USA - it's a very slow burn process but it appears some states are grasping the nettle better than others and understanding active travel at last.

The biggest weakness of the US sign system, for me, remains the direction sign system away from freeways followed by the verbosity of many warning and regulatory signs.

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

The biggest weakness of the US sign system, for me, remains the direction sign system away from freeways followed by the verbosity of many warning and regulatory signs.

American road signs remain verbose due to absurd levels of patriotism, i.e. nationalism.

The relevant Wikipedia article provides some information about the topic. Trials began in preperation for a "quick" switch to the Vienna Convention, however, mentions of a "quick" switch were quietly removed in later editions of the US MUTCD, and some signs were reverted back to their verbose counterparts in the relevant documentation.

I can't help but think of the phrase
"This is America, speak American"