[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 267-334]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-27]
[[Page 267]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Parts 634 and 655
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision; Proposed
Rule
[[Page 268]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 634 and 655
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2007-28977]
RIN 2125-AF22
National Standards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revision
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The MUTCD (also referred to as ``the Manual'') is incorporated
by our regulations, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, and
recognized as the national standard for traffic control devices used on
all public roads. The purpose of this notice of proposed amendments is
to revise standards, guidance, options, and supporting information
relating to the traffic control devices in all parts of the MUTCD. The
proposed changes are intended to expedite traffic, promote uniformity,
improve safety, and incorporate technology advances in traffic control
device application. These proposed changes are being designated as the
next edition of the MUTCD.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at
http://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: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of
the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may
also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page
at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
The text, figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the
MUTCD incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are
available for inspection and copying, as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 7,
at the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO-1), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Furthermore, the text,
figures, and tables of a proposed new edition of the MUTCD
incorporating proposed changes from the current edition are available
on the MUTCD Internet Web site http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. The proposed
text is available in two formats. The first format shows the current
MUTCD text with proposed additions in blue underlined text and proposed
deletions as red strikeout text, and also includes notes in green boxes
to provide helpful explanations where text is proposed to be relocated
or where minor edits are proposed. The second format shows a ``clean''
version of the complete text proposed for the next edition of the
MUTCD, with all the proposed changes incorporated. The complete current
2003 edition of the MUTCD with Revision No. 1 incorporated is also
available on the same Internet Web site.
This notice of proposed amendments is being issued to provide an
opportunity for public comment on the desirability of these proposed
amendments to the MUTCD. Based on the comments received and its own
experience, the FHWA may issue a Final Rule concerning the proposed
changes included in this notice.
The notice of proposed amendments is being published to address the
many advances in technology, research results, and improved traffic and
safety management strategies that have occurred since the 2002
initiation of the rulemaking process that led to the 2003 edition of
the MUTCD. The FHWA invites comments on these proposed changes to the
MUTCD. The FHWA requests that commenters cite the page number and line
numbers of the proposed MUTCD text for which each specific comment to
the docket about the proposed text is concerned, to help make the
FHWA's docket comment review process more efficient.
A summary of the significant proposed general changes and proposed
changes for each of the parts of the MUTCD is included in the following
discussion.
Discussion of Proposed General Amendments to the MUTCD
1. The FHWA proposes to develop a new cover page for the new
edition of the MUTCD that will maintain general consistency with covers
of previous editions but with changes to give it a distinctive
appearance, to minimize the possibility of confusion by users. Although
a new cover page has not yet been developed and is not illustrated in
the NPA, the FHWA proposes to include a new cover page design in the
edition of the MUTCD published as the Final Rule. The FHWA proposes
that the date of the new edition to be identified on the cover and
elsewhere within the document will be the year in which the Final Rule
is issued.
2. The FHWA proposes to include paragraph numbers for each section,
in the margins, for the final page images of the next edition of the
MUTCD. Although the page images shown for the NPA do not include
paragraph numbers, the FHWA proposes to include them in the edition of
the MUTCD published as the Final Rule in order to aid practitioners in
referencing the MUTCD, as well as to assist readers of future MUTCD
notices of proposed amendments. On the FHWA's MUTCD Web site at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov
, along with the proposed MUTCD text, the FHWA has
posted sample pages showing four possible methods for paragraph
numbering. Interested persons should review the sample pages and
provide comments to the docket on the paragraph numbering options.
3. Throughout the MUTCD, the FHWA proposes minor changes in text
[[Page 269]]
and figures for grammatical or style consistency, to improve
consistency with related text or figures, to improve clarity, or to
correct minor errors. Where the FHWA proposes to add a new chapter
within a part of the MUTCD, a new section within a chapter of the
MUTCD, or a new item within a listing, the chapters or sections or
items that follow the proposed addition would be renumbered or
relettered accordingly. All Tables of Contents, Lists of Figures, Lists
of Tables, and page headers and footers would be revised as appropriate
to reflect the proposed changes.
4. The FHWA proposes, where appropriate, to modify figures and
tables to reflect proposed changes in the text and to add figures and
tables to illustrate new or revised text.
5. In various sections of the Manual, the FHWA proposes to relocate
statements or paragraphs in order to place subject material together in
logical order, to provide continuity, or to improve flow. In addition,
the FHWA proposes to change the titles of some sections in order to
more accurately describe the content of the section.
6. The FHWA proposes to remove the phrase ``reasonably safe''
throughout the Manual, because it cannot be easily defined, and as a
result it is open to too much subjective interpretation. The FHWA
proposes that each occurrence of the term either be eliminated or
replaced with suitable language that is more appropriate.
7. The FHWA proposes to change the phrase ``bicycle trail'' to
``bikeway'' in several places in the Manual. The FHWA proposes this
change because the term ``bikeway'' is a generic term used for any
road, street, or shared-use path that is specifically designated for
bicycle travel and the term ``bicycle trail'' is generally used to
designate only off-road trails or paths that are typically not
constructed to engineering standards or guidelines, and the application
of the MUTCD to such bicycle trails would generally be impractical,
inappropriate, and inadvisable in some locations.
8. The FHWA proposes to change the references to the book
previously titled ``Standard Highway Signs'' to refer to the current
``Standard Highway Signs and Markings.'' This change is proposed
throughout the MUTCD because the FHWA is changing the title of that
book to more accurately reflect its content, which includes information
regarding markings.
9. The FHWA has conducted a comprehensive review of all of the sign
codes used throughout the Manual, and proposes to revise sign codes in
several places in order to provide more consistency and clarity. As
part of this process, the FHWA proposes to revise the term ``sign
code'' to ``sign designation'' to avoid confusion with other uses of
the word ``code,'' and to use the ``a'' suffix in sign designations for
word message signs that are alternatives to symbol signs, use the ``P''
suffix for sign designations for plaques, and add ``(M)'' suffixes for
signs that have metric units.
10. In all Parts of the MUTCD where sign images are shown in the
figures, the FHWA proposes to add sign images that are already in the
Standard Highway Signs and Markings book, but not in the MUTCD, and to
update figures to show proposed new signs or changes to existing signs.
11. The FHWA proposes to add information in the MUTCD regarding
toll plaza applications, because toll facilities are becoming more
common and there is a need to provide more consistent use of signing,
signals, and markings in advance of and at toll plazas, in order to
enhance safety and convenience for road users. The FHWA proposes to add
provisions on toll plaza traffic control devices to Parts 2, 3, and 4
that reflect the results of research study on best practices for
traffic control strategies at toll plazas \1\ (referred to hereafter as
the ``Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations Report'') and
FHWA's policy on toll plaza traffic control devices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm
.
\2\ ``Toll Plaza Traffic Control Devices Policy,'' dated
September 8, 2006, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcstollmemo/tcstoll_policy.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The FHWA proposes to expand the provisions regarding
preferential lanes and add new provisions regarding managed lanes in
various Parts of the MUTCD. This proposed information is contained
primarily in Parts 2 and 3, and is intended to address specific signing
and marking issues associated with electronic toll collection, High
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, variable tolls, etc. In addition, the FHWA
proposes to eliminate some information regarding preferential lanes
that is too specific for the MUTCD because it deals with highway
planning and programmatic matters rather than the traffic control
devices for preferential lanes.
13. In order to further address the needs of motorcyclists, the
FHWA proposes to add information to Parts 2, 3, and 8 regarding traffic
control device considerations for motorcyclists.
14. The FHWA proposes to change the designations of barricades to
Types 1, 2, and 3 to eliminate the use of roman numerals because these
are the only devices that are designated by roman numerals and to be
consistent with other items such as object marker types. This editorial
change would affect the text of several Parts of the MUTCD.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Introduction
15. The FHWA proposes to revise the first STANDARD statement
regarding the locations where the MUTCD applies. The FHWA proposes this
change to incorporate recent changes to 23 CFR 655.603(a) \3\ that
clarify that, for the purpose of MUTCD applicability, the phrase ``open
to public travel'' includes toll roads and roads within shopping
centers, parking lots, airports, sports arenas, and other similar
business and recreation facilities that are privately owned but where
the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. The FHWA
also proposes to modify the wording of 23 CFR 655.603(a) to remove the
military base exemption from the MUTCD. The FHWA proposes to apply the
provisions in the MUTCD and modify the CFR based on a request from the
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to include
military bases in order to facilitate motorist safety through
conformity and consistency with national standards. The FHWA agrees
that many military bases are public and contain public roads that can
be freely accessed, and that the use of such roads by military
personnel from all over the country makes it especially important for
traffic control devices on military bases to be in conformance with the
national standards of the MUTCD. As a part of this change, the FHWA
proposes to indicate that traffic control devices can be placed by the
authority of non-public agencies, and the MUTCD is recognized as the
national standard for traffic control devices on public facilities and
private property open to public travel, as defined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated
December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In the fourth STANDARD statement, the FHWA proposes to add that
substantial conformance of State or other Federal agency MUTCDs or
Supplements shall be as defined in 23 CFR 655.603(b)(1), to reflect the
[[Page 270]]
incorporation of the definition of that term into the CFR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Federal Register Notice for the Final Rule, dated
December 14, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 240, pages 75111-75115, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr14de06-6.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In the listing of target phase-in compliance dates, FHWA
proposes to include the specific target phase-in compliance date for
those items whose dates were determined through previous rulemaking,
now that the effective dates are known. In addition, the FHWA proposes
target phase-in compliance dates for a number of significant proposed
changes in the NPA. The FHWA also proposes to delete from the listing
any items for which the target phase-in compliance dates have already
passed or will be passed by the date of the publication of the Final
Rule resulting from this NPA. It should also be noted that the target
phase-in compliance dates define the end of the ``phase-in compliance
period'' as discussed for various items in the remainder of this
document.
18. Although not specifically shown in the NPA, the FHWA is
considering incorporating the phase-in compliance periods into the body
of the MUTCD text throughout the applicable parts and sections in the
Final Rule. The FHWA is considering this change because the list of
phase-in compliance periods is lengthy, and it might be more convenient
and effective for practitioners to have phase-in compliance periods
embedded in the text, rather than in a different area of the Manual.
The FHWA encourages the public to view the Minnesota State Department
of Transportation Web site at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mutcd/index.html
to view how Minnesota has incorporated the
phase-in compliance periods into its State MUTCD text and to provide
comments to the docket on whether Minnesota's method is preferable to
listing all the phase-in compliance periods in the MUTCD Introduction.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 1--General
19. In Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA
proposes to delete the STANDARD statement from this section, and place
the text in Section 2A.06, because that section more appropriately
deals with signs, including their colors and symbols. For the same
reason, text in the OPTION statement relating to signs only is also
proposed to be relocated to Section 2A.06.
20. In Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control
Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that signs
and other devices (as explained in a proposed new SUPPORT statement)
that do not have any traffic control purpose that are placed with the
permission of the public agency or official having jurisdiction, should
be located where they will not interfere with, or detract from traffic
control devices. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that there
are some signs and devices that are placed within the right-of-way for
distinct purposes that are not traffic control devices.
21. In Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes,
and Interim Approvals, the FHWA proposes to revise the 2nd STANDARD
statement to indicate that electronic submittals of requests for
interpretation, permission to experiment, interim approvals, or changes
are preferred. The FHWA proposes to include the e-mail address for such
submittals. As part of this proposed change, the FHWA proposes an
OPTION statement that includes the postal address for such requests to
be mailed to, in the event that the submitter does not have access to
e-mail.
The FHWA also proposes to revise and supplement the language
regarding interim approvals for the use of traffic control devices in
order to provide additional information about the process and reflect
how it has evolved since the 2003 MUTCD.
22. In Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications, the FHWA
proposes to add four FHWA publications and a publication of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to the list of
publications in the SUPPORT statement. All of these documents are
referenced in other Parts of the MUTCD.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to update the list to reflect
current editions of the publications.
The FHWA also proposes to delete existing publication 19, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Recommended Practice
titled, ``School Trip Safety Program Guidelines'' from the list of
publications because ITE has rescinded publication of the reference
document and the information from this publication is included within
the MUTCD text where appropriate.
23. In Section 1A.12 Color Code, the FHWA proposes to add to the
STANDARD statement the assignment of the color purple to indicate
facilities or lanes that are allowed to be used only by vehicles
equipped with electronic toll collection (ETC) transponders. The FHWA
proposes this change to readily identify such facilities or lanes using
signs and pavement markings as discussed below in the proposed changes
in Parts 2 and 3. Color specifications for signing and marking
materials are contained in title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
part 655, appendix to subpart F, Tables 1 through 6. The FHWA has
reviewed color properties of the purple signing and marking materials
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to revise the
existing daytime color coordinates for purple retroreflective sign
material (Table 1), add nighttime color coordinates for purple
retroreflective sign material (Table 2), and add daytime and nighttime
color coordinates and luminance factors for purple retroreflective
marking material (Tables 5, 5A, and 6). The proposed values for purple
in the tables are as indicated below (no change is proposed for the
existing values for luminance factors for purple as contained in Table
1A):
Table 1.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 0.300 Proposed 0.302............. Existing 0.064 Proposed
0.064
Existing 0.320 Proposed 0.307............. Existing 0.200 Proposed
0.202
Existing 0.550 Proposed 0.374............. Existing 0.300 Proposed
0.247
Existing 0.600 Proposed 0.457............. Existing 0.202 Proposed
0.136
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.307...................................................... 0.150
0.480...................................................... 0.245
0.530...................................................... 0.170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.300...................................................... 0.064
0.309...................................................... 0.260
0.362...................................................... 0.295
0.475...................................................... 0.144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 271]]
Table 5A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Purple Retroreflective Pavement
Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.......................................................... 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Purple Retroreflective
Pavement Marking Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.338...................................................... 0.380
0.425...................................................... 0.365
0.470...................................................... 0.385
0.635...................................................... 0.221
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. In Section 1A.13 Definitions of Words and Phrases in This
Manual, the FHWA proposes to revise the definitions for: ``bicycle
lane,'' ``changeable message sign,'' ``contraflow lane,''
``crosswalk,'' ``flashing,'' ``highway traffic signal,''
``intersection,'' ``logo,'' ``occupancy requirement,'' ``public road,''
``raised pavement marker,'' ``road user,'' ``roundabout,'' ``rumble
strip,'' ``sign,'' ``sign legend,'' ``speed,'' ``speed limit,'' ``speed
zone,'' ``traffic,'' and ``traffic control device'' to better reflect
accepted practice and terminologies and for consistency in the usage of
these terms in one or more Parts of the MUTCD.
The FHWA also proposes to add definitions for the words ``alley,''
``average annual daily traffic,'' ``barrier-separated lane,''
``bikeway,'' ``buffer-separated lane,'' ``circulatory roadway,''
``contiguous lane,'' ``electronic toll collection,'' ``flagger,''
``gate,'' ``highway-light rail transit grade crossing,'' ``hybrid
signal,'' ``managed lane,'' ``multi-lane,'' ``open road electronic toll
collection,'' ``opposing traffic,'' ``pathway,'' ``pictograph,''
``preferential lane,'' ``private property open to public travel,''
``public facility,'' ``safe-positioned,'' ``school,'' ``school zone,''
``signing,'' ``splitter island,'' ``symbol,'' ``turn bay,'' ``warning
light,'' ``worker,'' and ``yield line'' to the list of definitions
because they are used in the MUTCD.
25. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following Section 1A.13.
The proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 1A.14
Meanings of Acronyms and Abbreviations in This Manual,'' and contains a
STANDARD statement with 38 acronyms and abbreviations and their
definitions. The remaining section in Chapter 1A would be renumbered
accordingly. The FHWA proposes adding this new section to assist
readers with the acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the Manual.
26. In existing Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15) Abbreviations
Used on Traffic Control Devices, the FHWA proposes to add to the 1st
STANDARD statement a paragraph indicating that the abbreviations listed
in Table 1A-2 shall be used only on Portable Changeable Message Signs
and that when the word messages shown in Table 1A-2 need to be
abbreviated on a Portable Changeable Message sign, the abbreviations
shown in Table 1A-2 shall be used. The original research \5\ on
abbreviations was based on the need to shorten words when used on
portable changeable message signs due to the limited number of
characters available, unlike fixed-message signs. Many of the
abbreviations were developed for words that would not otherwise
normally be abbreviated on signs, and the intent was not to abbreviate
such words on fixed-message signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Report number FHWA/RD-81/039 ``Human Factors Design of
Dynamic Displays'' by C. L. Dudek and R. D. Huchingson, Final
Report, May 1982, is available from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161,
Web site http://www.ntis.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add to the 2nd GUIDANCE statement a
sentence indicating that punctuation marks or other characters that are
not letters or numerals should not be used in abbreviations, unless
absolutely necessary to avoid confusion.
27. In Table 1A-1 Acceptable Abbreviations, the FHWA proposes to
add several additional abbreviations for various terms that are often
used on signs or markings and for which a single abbreviation for each
is needed to enhance uniformity. The FHWA also proposes to remove
several abbreviations from Table 1A-1 that are symbols rather than
abbreviations (such as ``D'' for diesel on general service signs), and
to revise several abbreviations based on accepted practice in the
specific context of the manner in which fixed messages are developed.
The FHWA also proposes to remove from Table 1A-1 some words that should
not be abbreviated on static signs or large permanent full-matrix
changeable message signs. In concert with these changes to Table 1A-1,
the FHWA proposes to revise the title of Table 1A-2 to ``Abbreviations
That Shall Only Be Used on Portable Changeable Message Signs'' and add
to Table 1A-2 some of the abbreviations that would be removed from
Table 1A-1. The FHWA also proposes to revise the content of Table 1A-2
to specifically list the abbreviations (some of which can be used only
with a prompt word) that are appropriate only for use on portable
changeable message signs (PCMS).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Part 2 Signs
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Part 2--General
28. In December 2005, the FHWA published a report on the findings
of a synthesis of non-MUTCD traffic signing.\6\ The purposes of this
synthesis (hereafter referred to as the Sign Synthesis Study) were to
collect information on special (non-MUTCD) sign legends, designs, and
symbols used by the State DOTs and by selected large cities and
counties; to identify commonalities, such as what special conditions
are the most common reasons for developing a special sign and what
design elements have been most commonly used to communicate the
message; and to determine the most likely candidate sign legends and
symbols for potential inclusion in future editions of the MUTCD and
make recommendations for standardized sign designs. The synthesis found
that a considerable number and variety of non-MUTCD signs are in
routine use by State and local highway agencies in the U.S. In many
cases, jurisdictions have used the flexibility given to them by the
MUTCD to develop and install special word message signs to communicate
unique traffic regulations or warnings of conditions that are not
specifically covered in the MUTCD. In some cases the same word message
is used by most or all States to describe a particular condition.
However, more often there is considerable variety among the States in
the specific words or phrases used to communicate the same basic
information to road users. Based on the information gathered in the
synthesis, the FHWA believes that additional uniformity is needed for
the frequently used signing not currently included in the MUTCD and is
proposing to add several new signs throughout the MUTCD to provide road
users with a uniform message for commonly encountered conditions. In
addition to describing these proposed new signs in the MUTCD text, the
FHWA proposes to add images of these proposed signs to applicable
figures throughout the MUTCD. A brief discussion of each
[[Page 272]]
proposed new sign is included in the preamble for each appropriate
chapter or section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signing,'' FHWA, December
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases the FHWA is proposing new symbol signs that mirror
existing Canadian MUTCD \7\ standard symbols that have been in
longstanding use in that neighboring country. Such symbols were
reviewed as a part of the signing synthesis. Canada has moved
considerably farther into symbolization of common regulatory, warning,
and guide/information messages (sometimes by adopting European symbols)
than has the U.S. The synthesis found several well-designed Canadian
symbols with intuitively obvious meanings for sign messages for which
some or many States are using a non-MUTCD word message sign (often with
many variations among States). The FHWA proposes adopting some of these
Canadian symbols or close likenesses, with a temporary educational
plaque as needed. The FHWA believes that this will improve the harmony
of North American signing in view of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and will enhance the convenience and safety of U.S.
and international travelers when driving, riding, or walking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada,
4th Edition, is available for purchase from the Transportation
Association of Canada, 2323 St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario
K1G 4J8 Canada, Web site http://www.tac-atc.ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. The FHWA proposes to move object markers from Part 3 to Part 2,
because there has been confusion regarding the location of object
markers in the MUTCD, and the FHWA feels that information regarding
object markers is best placed in Part 2. Object markers are typically
fabricated from retroreflective sheeting mounted on a substrate and
installed on a post and thus are more like a sign than a marking, and
most public agencies handle object markers as signs rather than
markings.
30. The FHWA proposes to delete the recommendation that signs
should only be used where justified by engineering studies or judgment
from several places in Part 2. The FHWA proposes this change because it
is not the intent of the Manual to make all sign device installations
subject to engineering oversight. The FHWA understands that most signs
are installed by sign crews authorized to make field decisions that are
not necessarily reviewed by engineers or covered by policies prepared
by engineers. These proposed revisions recognize the current practice
of installing signs throughout the country and do not detract from the
requirements that engineering studies must be done under engineering
supervision for very specific traffic control decisions. However, at
the same time it is not required that an engineer be involved in the
decisions for each device at every location.
31. The FHWA proposes to update the existing sign size Tables 2B-1
and 2I-1 (new Table 2K-1) to reflect proposed new signs, deleted signs,
and changes to sign sizes. The FHWA proposes to modify Table 2C-2 from
its general treatment of warning sign sizes to instead specifically
address each sign similarly to the way it is done in Table 2B-1.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes to add sign size Tables 2D-1, 2E-1, 2F-
1, and 2I-1 to specify the sizes for guide and motorist information
signs that have a standardized legend.
In Chapters 2B and 2C, the FHWA proposes to add to the appropriate
OPTION statements that the minimum overall sign size may be decreased
for signs in alleys with restrictive physical condition and vehicle
usage that limits installation of the minimum size sign. The FHWA
proposes this change to reflect the results of the FHWA MUTCD
Urbanization Needs Survey,\8\ which included comments from a number of
city traffic engineers that the MUTCD does not adequately address sign
sizes and application for alley installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Urbanizing the MUTCD,'' by W. Scott Wainwright, 2003,
paper no. CB03C184, Compendium of Papers for the 2003 Institute of
Transportation Engineers Technical Conference, is available from the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (Web site: http://www.ite.org
). A presentation based on the paper can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://tcd.tamu.edu/Documents/FHWA/MUTCD_Urbanization.ppt
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. The FHWA proposes to eliminate the option of all uppercase
letters for names of places, streets, and highways, and require that
these names be composed of lowercase letters with an initial uppercase
letter. The FHWA proposes this change, which affects provisions and
figures in various chapters throughout Part 2, based on Older Driver
research documented in FHWA reports \9\ (referred to hereafter as the
``Older Driver handbook'') that shows significant legibility and
recognition distance benefits versus all uppercase letters for
destinations. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 15
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.
Also see Recommendation II.A(2) in
``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May, 2001, which can
be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. In Chapters 2A and 2E, the FHWA also proposes to discourage the
use of punctuation, apostrophes, questions marks or other characters on
signs that are not letters or numerals unless absolutely necessary to
avoid confusion. The FHWA proposes these changes for consistency with a
similar proposed change in Section 1A.14 (new Section 1A.15).
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2A
34. In Section 2A.01 Function and Purpose of Signs, the FHWA
proposes to clarify the definition of ``special purpose road'' in item
D of the STANDARD statement by deleting the phrase ``or that provides
local access,'' because the existing definition is overly broad. FHWA
intends to clarify that neighborhood residential streets are not
special-purpose roads and signing for such streets should be the same
as that for other conventional roads.
35. In Section 2A.06 Design of Signs, the FHWA proposes to relocate
a STANDARD paragraph regarding symbols on signs, and its associated
OPTION paragraph, from Section 1A.03 to this section. The FHWA proposes
this change because Section 2A.06 is the most likely place for a reader
to look for information regarding sign design.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add information regarding the use
of e-mail addresses to the last STANDARD and OPTION statements. The use
of e-mail addresses on signs is to be the same as Internet Web site
addresses. E-mail addresses are just as difficult to read and remember
as Internet Web site addresses and constitute the same issues for a
driver traveling at highway speeds. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
36. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information in existing
Section 2A.07 to proposed new Chapter 2M in order to consolidate all
information on changeable message signs into one chapter. The FHWA
would renumber the remaining sections accordingly.
37. In existing Section 2A.08 (new Section 2A.07) Retroreflectivity
and Illumination, the FHWA proposes to revise the GUIDANCE statement to
clarify that overhead sign installations on freeways and expressways
should be illuminated unless an engineering study shows that
retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination, and that
overhead sign installations on conventional or special purpose roads
[[Page 273]]
should be illuminated unless engineering judgment indicates that
retroreflection will perform effectively without illumination. The FHWA
proposes this change because the current language implies that written
documentation (engineering study) is mandatory for the practitioner to
decide that illumination is not needed for signs on conventional roads.
The FHWA believes that such documentation is not necessary and
therefore the FHWA proposes to recommend that engineering judgment be
used rather than require an engineering study. Overhead sign
installations such as street name signs, lane use signs, and other
smaller sign installations on conventional roads generally would not
warrant overhead lighting and may be impractical for structural
reasons. Many overhead sign installations on conventional roads are on
monotube structures that are not designed to support overhead lighting.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last STANDARD
statement to prohibit the use of individual LED pixels and groups of
LEDs within the background area of a sign, except for the STOP/SLOW
paddles used by flaggers and the STOP paddles used by adult crossing
guards. The FHWA's intent is to clarify that LEDs are to be used only
in the border or in the legend/symbol and not in the background of
signs.
38. In existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.10) Sign Colors, the
FHWA proposes to add an OPTION statement that allows the use of
fluorescent colors when the corresponding color is required. The FHWA
proposes this change in order to give jurisdictions the flexibility to
use fluorescent colors when they determine that they are needed in
order to attract additional attention to the signs. As part of this
proposal, FHWA proposes to revise the color specifications in title 23
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 655, appendix to subpart F,
Tables 3, 3A, and 4 to add the fluorescent version of the color red.
The color specifications for fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange and
fluorescent pink are already included in 23 CFR 655. The FHWA has
reviewed color properties of the fluorescent red signing and materials
available from a variety of manufacturers and proposes to add daytime
color coordinates and luminance factors for fluorescent red
retroreflective sign material (Tables 3 and 3A), and add nighttime
color coordinates for fluorescent red retroreflective sign material
(Table 4). The proposed values for fluorescent red in the tables are as
indicated below:
Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.666...................................................... 0.334
0.613...................................................... 0.333
0.671...................................................... 0.275
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3A.--Daytime Luminance Factors for Fluorescent Red Retroreflective
Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum YF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20............................................ 30 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Nighttime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Red
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.680...................................................... 0.320
0.645...................................................... 0.320
0.712...................................................... 0.253
0.735...................................................... 0.265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA has also reviewed the existing daytime color coordinates for
fluorescent pink retroreflective sign materials and believes that these
coordinates are overly restrictive for current technology. The FHWA
proposes to revise the color coordinates in Table 3 for fluorescent
pink, to include a fifth pair of x and y coordinates, to better define
the color of fluorescent pink sign sheeting material. The proposed
values for fluorescent pink in Table 3 are as follows:
Table 3.--Daytime Chromaticity Coordinates for Fluorescent Pink
Retroreflective Sign Material
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exist. 0.450 Prop. 0.600.................. Exist. 0.270 Prop. 0.340
Exist. 0.590 Prop. 0.450.................. Exist. 0.350 Prop. 0.332
Exist. 0.644 Prop. 0.430.................. Exist. 0.290 Prop. 0.275
Exist. 0.563 Prop. 0.536.................. Exist. 0.230 Prop. 0.230
Exist.--Prop. 0.644....................... Exist.;-- Prop. 0.290
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2A-4 Common
Uses of Sign Colors, to correspond to proposed changes in the text.
Specifically, the FHWA proposes to add the color purple for Electronic
Toll Collection signs and to remove the use of the color yellow from
school signs. The FHWA also proposes to add additional types of
Changeable Message Signs and expand the table to include various legend
and background colors for those signs, consistent with the proposed
text of proposed new Chapter 2M as discussed below. In addition, the
FHWA proposes to note that fluorescent versions of orange, red, and
yellow background colors may be used.
40. In existing Section 2A.12 (new Section 2A.11) Dimensions, the
FHWA proposes to add new provisions to the STANDARD and GUIDANCE
statements regarding the appropriate use of the various columns in the
Tables throughout the MUTCD that describe sizes for signs on various
classes of roads. The FHWA proposes this new language to clarify how
the columns in the sign size tables are intended to be used. The FHWA
also proposes adding language in each of the sections throughout the
MUTCD that refer to a sign size table, to refer back to this generally
applicable text in existing Section 2A.11 (new Section 2A.12), and to
delete repetitive text on use of the various columns in the size tables
that appears in other sections throughout the MUTCD.
41. In existing Section 2A.13 (new Section 2A.12) Symbols, the FHWA
proposes to add a STANDARD statement and a corresponding OPTION
statement at the end of the section prohibiting the use of symbols from
one type of sign on a different type of sign, except in limited
circumstances or as specifically authorized in the MUTCD. The FHWA
proposes this change because the colors and shapes of symbols are
designed to have a specific impact depending on the intended use of
that type of sign. Intermixing symbols from one type of sign to a
different type of sign may not have the same impact and may be
potentially confusing, and therefore should be specifically prohibited.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
42. In existing Section 2A.14 (new Section 2A.13) Word Messages,
the FHWA proposes to revise the first GUIDANCE statement to recommend
that the minimum specific ratio for letter height should be 22 mm (1
in) of letter height per 9 m (30 ft) of legibility distance. In
conjunction with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to delete the
SUPPORT statement that follows this first GUIDANCE statement. The FHWA
proposes these changes in order to be consistent with
[[Page 274]]
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook \10\ that sign
legibility be based on 20/40 vision. Most States allow drivers with 20/
40 corrected vision to obtain driver's licenses, and with the
increasing numbers of older drivers the FHWA believes that 20/40 vision
should be the basis of letter heights used on signs. This proposed
change will generally not impact the design of guide signs because
existing MUTCD provisions for guide sign letter heights provide
sufficient legibility distances for 20/40 vision in most cases. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies. The sizes of some regulatory and warning signs used
in some situations will need to be increased to provide for larger
letter sizes. Specific changes to sign sizes resulting from the
proposed change in Section 2A.14 are discussed below in the items
pertaining to the sign size tables in other Chapters in Part 2 and in
certain other Parts of the MUTCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and
Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-103, May, 2001, can be
viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.
Also see recommendation number
II.A(1) in ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, which can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. In existing Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders, the
FHWA proposes to clarify the GUIDANCE statement to indicate that the
corner and border radii on signs should be concentric with one another.
The FHWA proposes this clarification to better facilitate the use of
sign fabrication software with inset borders.
44. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following existing
Section 2A.15 (new Section 2A.14) Sign Borders. The proposed new
section is numbered and titled ``Section 2A.15 Enhanced Conspicuity for
Standard Signs'' and contains an OPTION statement regarding the methods
that may be used to enhance the conspicuity of standard regulatory,
warning, or guide signs and a STANDARD statement prohibiting the use of
strobe lights as a sign conspicuity enhancement method. The various
conspicuity enhancement methods proposed reflect widespread and
successful practices by State and local agencies. The FHWA proposes
this new section to provide improved uniformity of such treatments to
benefit road users. The remaining sections in Chapter 2A would be
renumbered accordingly.
45. In existing Section 2A.16 Standardization of Location, the FHWA
proposes to add to the first GUIDANCE an additional recommended
criterion for locating signs where they do not obscure the sight
distance to approaching vehicles on a major street for drivers who are
stopped on minor-street approaches. The FHWA proposes this change to
reflect good engineering practice and improve safety.
The FHWA also proposes to add to the 3rd GUIDANCE statement that
the placement of wayfinding and acknowledgment guide signs should have
a lower priority than other guide signs. The FHWA proposes this change
to clarify the priority of sign type placement, reflecting the proposed
addition to the manual of new types of guide signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph to the last GUIDANCE
statement to provide recommendations on the placement of STOP and YIELD
signs at intersections, to clarify that the dimension shown in Figure
2A-3 for the maximum distance of STOP or YIELD signs from the edge of
pavement of the intersected roadway is GUIDANCE.
46. In Section 2A.18 Mounting Height, the FHWA proposes to change
the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD to require that the
provisions of this section apply to all signs and object markers,
unless specifically stated otherwise elsewhere in the Manual. The FHWA
proposes this change to emphasize that the mounting heights in this
section are mandatory, particularly as they relate to pedestrian
considerations.
The FHWA also proposes to add a SUPPORT statement that refers the
reader to Chapter 2L for mounting heights for object markers and
clarifies that the minimum heights given in combination with
crashworthy supports may not necessarily constitute a crashworthy sign
assembly. The FHWA proposes this new text to provide readers with the
appropriate references to materials with additional information on
mounting heights and crashworthiness.
In addition to reorganizing the text within the STANDARD statements
in this section, the FHWA proposes to clarify that mounting heights
should be measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the level
of the near edge of the pavement. The FHWA also proposes to add text to
clarify that a minimum height of 2.1 m (7 ft) is to be used for signs
installed at the side of the road in business, commercial, or
residential areas where parking or pedestrian movements are likely to
occur, or where the view of the sign might be obstructed, or where
signs are installed above sidewalks. In concert with these changes, the
FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending that a sign not
project more than 100 mm (4 in) into a pedestrian facility if the
bottom of a secondary sign that is mounted below another sign, is
mounted lower than 2.1 m (7 ft). The FHWA proposes these changes in
order to make the mounting height language consistent throughout the
Manual, and to add language that requires consideration of pedestrian
activity in the vicinity of signs, per ADAAG provisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add to the new third STANDARD
statement that where large signs are installed on multiple breakaway
posts, the clearance from the ground to the bottom of the sign shall be
at least 2.1 m (7 ft), in order to provide consistency with other parts
of the Manual.
47. In Section 2A.19 Lateral Offset, the FHWA proposes to add a
GUIDANCE statement that overhead sign supports and post-mounted sign
and object marker supports should not intrude into the usable width of
a sidewalk or other pedestrian facility. The FHWA proposes this new
text to comply with ADAAG provisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Americans With Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG) can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2B
48. In Section 2B.02 Design of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes
changing the first SUPPORT statement to a STANDARD statement to clarify
that regulatory signs are rectangular unless specifically designated
otherwise. As part of this change, the FHWA also proposes adding a
reference to the Standard Highway Signs and Markings \13\ book for sign
design elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The current edition of ``Standard Highway Signs and
Markings,'' FHWA, 2004 Edition, can be viewed at the following
Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes relocating the first two paragraphs of
existing Section 2B.54 to a new OPTION statement in Section 2B.02,
because the paragraphs contain information about regulatory word
messages and symbols which is more relevant in this section.
49. In Section 2B.03 Size of Regulatory Signs, the FHWA proposes to
add a new STANDARD statement at the end of the section that requires
that
[[Page 275]]
minimum sizes for certain regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane
conventional roads shall be as shown on Table 2B-2, and requiring a
specific minimum size for STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches.
The FHWA proposes this new text and table to provide signs on multi-
lane approaches that are more visible and legible to drivers with
visual acuity of 20/40. On multi-lane roads, increased legibility
distances are also needed due to the potential blockage of signs by
other vehicles. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10
years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on
State or local highway agencies.
50. The FHWA proposes to make several changes to Table 2B-1
Regulatory Sign and Plaque Sizes. These proposed changes include adding
more sizes in the ``Minimum'' column for use in low speed environments.
The FHWA also proposes to add several more signs and supplemental
plaques to the table to correspond with other proposed changes within
Part 2.
51. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following Section 2B.03
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections.''
This proposed new section contains information currently contained in
Section 2B.05. In addition, the FHWA proposes additional
recommendations on the factors that should be considered in
establishing intersection control and the use of STOP and YIELD signs.
The proposed additional guidance is intended to provide a more logical
progression from least restrictive to more restrictive controls.
The FHWA also proposes to include a STANDARD statement that
prohibits the use of STOP and YIELD signs in conjunction with other
traffic control signal operation, except for the cases specified in the
STANDARD. While much of this information is in existing Section 2B.05,
the FHWA proposes to add a specific case regarding channelized turn
lanes to the list of cases where STOP or YIELD signs can be used,
reflecting common practice.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to include requirements for the use of
folding STOP signs for traffic signal power outages by adding language
to the MUTCD that corresponds to Official Interpretation 2-
545.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-545, April 9,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/pdf/2_545.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. The FHWA proposes to renumber and retitle existing Section
2B.04 to ``Section 2B.05 STOP Sign and Supplemental Plaques.'' As part
of this change, the FHWA proposes to require the use of the ALL-WAY
supplemental plaque if all intersection approaches are controlled by
STOP signs, to limit the use of the ALL-WAY plaque to only those
locations where all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP
signs, and to prohibit the use of supplemental plaques with the legend
2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, etc. below STOP signs. The FHWA proposes these
changes to provide uniformity in the use of supplemental plaques with
STOP signs, especially at locations where all approaches are controlled
by STOP signs.
The FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement recommending the use
of plaques with appropriate alternate messages, such as TRAFFIC FROM
RIGHT DOES NOT STOP, where STOP signs control all but one approach to
the intersection. The FHWA proposes this change to encourage the use of
these plaques at intersections that need increased driver awareness
regarding an unexpected right-of-way control.
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add an OPTION allowing the use of a
proposed new EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1-10P) plaque mounted below a STOP
sign when an engineering study determines that a special combination of
geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it possible for
right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the
intersection without stopping. The FHWA proposes this change to give
agencies flexibility in establishing right-of-way controls for such
special conditions. The Sign Synthesis Study \15\ found that at least
12 States have developed 7 different sign messages for this purpose.
The FHWA proposes the uniform use of the simplest, most accurate
legend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 18, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. The FHWA proposes to relocate much of the information in
existing Section 2B.05 (new Section 2B.06) STOP Sign Applications to
the proposed new Section 2B.04. The FHWA also proposes to add
additional language to the remaining GUIDANCE statement that lists
conditions under which the use of a STOP sign should be considered.
This change would provide agencies with specific and quantitative
guidance regarding the use of STOP signs.
54. The FHWA proposes to delete existing Section 2B.06 STOP Sign
Placement from the MUTCD, because most of the text in this section is
proposed to be incorporated into Section 2B.10.
55. In Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications, the FHWA proposes to
clarify the STANDARD statement by adding that YIELD signs at
roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall
not be used to control the circular roadway. The FHWA proposes this
change to provide uniformity in signing at roundabouts and to reflect
the prevailing practices of modern roundabout design.
56. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.10 to ``STOP Sign or
YIELD Sign Placement'' to reflect the relocation of language regarding
STOP sign placement from existing Section 2B.06 to this section.
The FHWA proposes to delete the requirement from the first STANDARD
statement that YIELD signs be placed on both the left and right sides
of approaches to roundabouts with more than one lane and instead make
this a recommendation in a GUIDANCE statement near the end of the
Section. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION allowing similar placement of a YIELD sign on the left-hand side
of a single lane roundabout approach if a raised splitter island is
available. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect current practice
on signing roundabout approaches and to allow agencies additional
flexibility.
The FHWA also proposes to add to the first STANDARD statement that
no items other than retroreflective strips on the supports, official
traffic control signs, sign installation dates, or several other
inventory-type items shall be mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or
YIELD signs or on their supports. In conjunction with this proposed
change, the FHWA proposes to clarify the first GUIDANCE statement to
indicate that a sign that is mounted back-to-back with a STOP or YIELD
sign should stay within the edges of the STOP or YIELD sign, and that
if needed, the size of the STOP or YIELD sign should be increased to
accomplish this recommendation. The FHWA proposes these changes to
clarify the language that resulted in confusion amongst some
practitioners regarding the placement of messages on the back of STOP
and YIELD signs and to assure that the shape of these critical
intersection right-of-way signs can be discerned from the opposite
direction of approach. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies. This proposed new phase-in
compliance period would supersede the existing phase-in compliance
period (for existing
[[Page 276]]
Sections 2B.06 and 2B.10) of 10 years from the effective date of the
Final Rule for the 2003 edition, or December 20, 2013.
The FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of the
section prohibiting the placement of two STOP signs or two YIELD signs
on the same support facing the same direction. The FHWA proposes this
change to prohibit this practice, because it is potentially confusing
and not an acceptable method of adding emphasis.
57. The FHWA proposes to retitle Section 2B.11 to ``Yield Here to
Pedestrians Signs and Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs'' to reflect
additional language that FHWA also proposes to add to this section
regarding the use of Stop Here for Pedestrians Signs. The proposed new
language would be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7
regarding the placement of these signs, as well as stop and yield
lines. The FHWA proposes adding the Stop Here for Pedestrians sign
because some State laws require motorists to come to a full stop for,
rather than yield to, pedestrians in a crosswalk.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD and OPTION
statements at the end of the section regarding the combination use of
Pedestrian Crossing warning (W11-2) signs with the Yield Here to (Stop
Here for) Pedestrian (R1-5 series) sign. The FHWA proposes these
additions to allow Pedestrian Crossing signs to be mounted overhead but
not post-mounted where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) signs have been
installed. The FHWA also proposes to allow the use of advance
Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) signs on the approach with AHEAD or
distance plaques and In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs at the
crosswalk where Yield Here to (Stop Here for) Pedestrian signs have
been installed. The FHWA proposes this new language to be consistent
with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is based on FHWA's
Official Interpretation 2-566.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 2-566, July 27,
2005, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/2_566.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. In Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing
Signs, the FHWA proposes to add STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements regarding the use of a proposed new Overhead Pedestrian
Crossing (R1-9 or R1-9a) sign that may be used to remind road users of
laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk.
The FHWA proposes to add this sign based on the Sign Synthesis
Study,\17\ which revealed that some agencies use an overhead sign,
because it is needed in some applications. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The FHWA
proposes to add this sign to Table 2B-1, Figure 2B-2 and to the
appropriate text and figures in Part 7, for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 19, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to insert new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
between the first OPTION and GUIDANCE statements regarding conditions
and criteria to be used in determining when In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing signs should be used at unsignalized intersections. The FHWA
proposes these additional statements to provide for more uniform
application of these signs and discourage over-use.
The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement restricting the
placement of the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign to the roadway at
the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a
median island. In concert with this change, the FHWA proposes to add an
OPTION statement permitting the W11-2 sign with downward sloping arrow
to be post-mounted on the right-hand side of the street if the
Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) warning sign is used in combination with
the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. The FHWA proposes this new text
to be consistent with similar language proposed in Part 7, which is
based on FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-64(1).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FHWA's Official Interpretation 7-64(1), July 23,
2004, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/7_64.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FHWA proposes to revise the existing first STANDARD
statement by specifying that the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
shall have a black legend and border on a white background, surrounded
by an outer fluorescent yellow-green background area, or by an outer
fluorescent yellow background area. FHWA proposes this change to
clarify how the sign is to be designed and to allow the alternate color
of fluorescent yellow.
The FHWA also proposes to revise the 4th paragraph of this STANDARD
statement to indicate that unless an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
is placed on a physical island, it is to be designed to bend over and
then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a
vehicle. The FHWA proposes this change because while all signs must be
crashworthy, these in-street signs need to have special supports to
minimize damage to vehicles and injuries to pedestrians if the signs
are struck by a passing vehicle. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 5 years for existing signs in good condition to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
Finally, the FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement prior
to the last OPTION statement that provides requirements on the mounting
heights for In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. The FHWA proposes this
new STANDARD statement to preclude incorrect mounting of this sign when
it is on an island.
59. In Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign, the FHWA proposes to add to
the STANDARD statement that speed zones (other than statutory speed
limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study
that includes an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-
flowing vehicles. The FHWA proposes this change to clarify that
consideration is to be given to the free-flow speed when determining
altered speed zones, and to clarify that statutorily established speed
limits, such as those typically established by State laws setting
statewide maximum limits for various classes of roads, do not require
an engineering study. The FHWA also proposes adding a new SUPPORT
statement to provide additional information about the difference
between a statutory speed limit and an altered speed zone.
In addition, the FHWA proposes relocating and incorporating the
material from existing Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Signs, to
this section. The FHWA proposes this change in order to place material
regarding the Speed Limit sign in one section for better clarity and
flow.
The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION statement that permits
the use of several new plaques (R2-5P series) to be mounted with the
Speed Limit Sign when a jurisdiction has a policy of installing speed
limit signs only on the streets that enter from a jurisdictional
boundary or from a higher speed street to indicate that the speed limit
is applicable to the entire city, neighborhood, or residential area
unless otherwise posted. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect
common practice in some urban areas, as documented by the Sign
Synthesis Study,\19\ and because
[[Page 277]]
it is often unnecessary and overly costly to install a speed limit sign
on every minor residential street.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 19-20, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes adding a new paragraph to the first GUIDANCE
statement to recommend that a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign be used
where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 20 km/h or 10 mph,
or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice.
The FHWA proposes this change in order to provide consistency with the
recommendations contained in Chapter 2C.
60. The FHWA proposes relocating all of the text from existing
Section 2B.18 Location of Speed Limit Sign to Section 2B.13 Speed Limit
Sign. (See item 59 above.)
61. In existing Section 2B.19 (new Section 2B.18) the FHWA proposes
to change the title to ``Movement Prohibition Signs'' to incorporate
the inclusion of the proposed new No Straight Through (R3-27) sign in
the GUIDANCE statement in this section. The symbolic No Straight
Through sign is most commonly used for traffic restrictions associated
with traffic calming programs. The sign is useful at intersections
having four approaches, where the through movement to be prohibited is
onto a street or road that does not have a ``Do Not Enter'' condition,
such as when 90-degree turns into the roadway are allowed, but the
straight ahead movement into the roadway is prohibited. This proposed
new sign uses the standard Canadian MUTCD RB-10 sign as the basis of
the design. The FHWA proposes to add an illustration of this new sign
to Figure 2B-3.
The FHWA also proposes changing the first paragraph of the 2nd
OPTION statement regarding the use of Turn Prohibition Signs adjacent
to signal heads to a GUIDANCE statement. For conspicuity reasons, these
signs should be mounted near the appropriate signal face, and this
reflects typical practice. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to change this
to a recommended practice rather than an option.
Additionally, the FHWA proposes adding new STANDARD and SUPPORT
statements at the end of this section to prohibit the use of No Left
Turn, No U-Turn, and combination No U-Turn/No Left Turn signs at
roundabouts in order to prohibit drivers from turning left onto the
circular roadway of a roundabout. The proposed language also indicates
that ONE WAY and/or Roundabout Directional Arrow signs are the
appropriate signs to indicate the travel direction for this condition.
The FHWA proposes these changes to provide uniformity in signing at
roundabouts and to reduce the possibility of confusion for drivers who
intend to turn left by circumnavigating the roundabout.
62. In existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19) Intersection Lane
Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add to the GUIDANCE statement that
overhead lane control signs should be installed over the appropriate
lanes on signalized approaches where lane drops, multiple-lane turns
with shared through-and-turn lanes, or other lane-use controls that
would be unexpected by unfamiliar road users are present. The FHWA
proposes this change to be consistent with proposed changes in Part 4
and to enhance safety and efficiency by providing for more effective
signing for these potentially confusing situations. The FHWA proposes a
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing locations to
minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add a paragraph at the end of the OPTION
statement regarding the types of arrows that may be used on
Intersection Lane Control signs at roundabouts. The FHWA also proposes
to add a new figure numbered and titled ``Figure 2B-5 Intersection Lane
Control Sign Arrow Options for Roundabouts'' illustrating the signs.
The FHWA proposes to add this information to reflect current practice
for roundabout signing and to correspond with similar options proposed
for pavement marking arrows on roundabout approaches in Part 3.
63. In existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) Mandatory
Movement Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to revise the first
paragraph of the STANDARD statement to clarify that Mandatory Movement
Lane Use Control signs shall indicate only the single vehicle movement
that is required from each lane, and to clarify the placement of the
signs. The FHWA also proposes to add that where three or more lanes are
available to through traffic and Mandatory Movement Lane Control symbol
signs are used, these shall be mounted overhead. The FHWA proposes
these changes for consistency with existing Section 2B.22 (new Section
2B.21).
The FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION statement at the end of
this section describing the optional use of the proposed new BEGIN
RIGHT TURN LANE (R3-20R) and BEGIN LEFT TURN LANE (R3-20L) signs at the
upstream ends of mandatory turn lanes. The FHWA proposes this change to
give agencies flexibility to use these proposed new signs to designate
the beginning of mandatory turn lanes where needed for enforcement
purposes.
64. In existing Section 2B.22 (new Section 2B.21) Optional Movement
Lane Control Sign, the FHWA proposes to revise the STANDARD statement
to clarify that, if used, Optional Movement Lane Control signs shall be
located in advance of and/or at the intersection where the lane
controls apply. This proposed change also provides consistency with
existing Section 2B.21 (new Section 2B.20) regarding placement of
Movement Lane Control Signs.
The FHWA also proposes to add a STANDARD statement at the end of
the section prohibiting the use of the word message only when more than
one movement is permitted from a lane. The FHWA proposes this change to
be consistent with other requirements in the MUTCD regarding the use of
the term ONLY for lane use.
65. In existing Section 2B.23 (new Section 2B.22) Advance
Intersection Lane Control Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a STANDARD at
the end of the section prohibiting the overhead placement of Advance
Intersection Lane Control (R3-8) signs where the number of lanes
available to through traffic on an approach is three or more. In such
cases, overhead R3-5 signs are used. The FHWA proposes this change to
be consistent with existing Section 2B.20 (new Section 2B.19).
66. The FHWA proposes adding a new section following new Section
2B.22 (existing Section 2B.23). The new section is numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.23 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT Sign.'' This proposed new
section contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this sign
for a lane of a freeway or expressway that is approaching a grade-
separated interchange where traffic in the lane is required to depart
the roadway onto the exit ramp at the next interchange. As documented
in the Sign Synthesis Study,\20\ at least 12 States currently use this
type of regulatory sign for freeway lane drop situations to establish
the ``must exit'' regulation and make it enforceable where warning
signs and markings alone have proven ineffective. (The overhead ``Exit
Only'' plaque on
[[Page 278]]
guide signs is yellow and is a warning message.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 22, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf_____________________________________-
67. The FHWA proposes editorial and organizational changes to
existing Sections 2B.26 through 2B.28 to improve the consistency and
flow of information and improve its usability by readers. These
proposed changes involve relocating paragraphs within and between these
sections and reorganizing the text into five sections. The sections are
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.26 Regulatory Signs for Preferential
Lanes--General,'' ``Section 2B.27 Preferential Lanes Vehicle Occupancy
Definition Signs,'' ``Section 2B.28 Preferential Lane Periods of
Operation Signs,'' ``Section 2B.29 Preferential Lane Ahead Signs,'' and
``Section 2B.30 Preferential Lane Ends Signs.'' As a part of this
change, the FHWA proposes adding STANDARD, GUIDANCE, OPTION, and
SUPPORT statements regarding regulatory signing for lanes that are
restricted to Electronic Toll Collection only, as a form of
preferential lane, to provide consistency in regulatory signing for
this increasingly used management strategy, and regarding mounting of
preferential lane regulatory signs where lateral clearance is limited,
to reflect existing practices. The FHWA also proposes removing text
from existing Section 2B.27 regarding the establishment and revision of
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane operations that is not directly
related to traffic control devices but is programmatic in nature, and
instead refer to an FHWA program guidance document that contains this
information.
68. The FHWA proposes to add several new sign images and to revise
several existing sign images in existing Figure 2B-7 (new Figure 2B-8)
Examples of Preferential Lane Regulatory Signs that illustrate the
various regulatory signs used to designate HOV and bus preferential
lanes, to reflect state of the practice for improved conspicuity and
legibility of Preferential Lane regulatory signs for HOV Lanes, and to
reflect recent FHWA policy guidance on traffic control devices for
preferential lane facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This August 3, 2007 FHWA policy memorandum can be viewed at
the following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/policy/tcdpflmemo/preferen_lanes_tcd.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. The FHWA proposes to add two sections that further describe
regulatory signing at toll plazas and for managed lanes. The proposed
sections are numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.31 Regulatory Signs for
Toll Plazas'' and ``Section 2B.32 Regulatory Signs for Managed Lanes
and ETC Only Lanes.'' The FHWA proposes these new sections in order to
provide consistency and uniformity in signing practices for these types
of facilities, which are becoming increasingly common and for which
uniform signing provisions are not currently contained in the MUTCD.
The proposed provisions generally reflect available guidance such as
the Toll Plaza Best Practices and Recommendations report \22\ and
various FHWA publications on managed lanes.\23\ As a part of these
changes, new symbols that denote exact change and attended lanes are
proposed for use in toll plaza signing in order to help road users more
quickly identify the proper lane(s) to choose for the type of toll
payment they will use. A new symbol that denotes that a toll facility's
ETC payment system is nationally interoperable with all other ETC
payment systems is also proposed for future use as this
interoperability is anticipated to become available in the next few
years. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``State of the Practice and Recommendations on Traffic
Control Strategies at Toll Plazas,'' June 2006, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/index.htm
.
\23\ ``Managed Lanes--A Primer,'' FHWA publication number FHWA-
HOP-05-031, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/managelanes_primer/managed_lanes_primer.pdf
and ``Managed Lanes--A Cross-Cutting Study,'' FHWA
report number FHWA-HOP-05-037, November, 2004, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. The FHWA proposes to add a new section titled, ``Section 2B.33
Jughandle Signs.'' The new section contains SUPPORT, STANDARD, and
OPTION statements regarding the use of regulatory signs for jughandles.
Regulatory signing for jughandles is critical because the geometry
typically requires left turns and U-turns to be made via a right turn,
either in advance of or beyond the intersection, and this is contrary
to normal driver expectations. The Sign Synthesis Study \24\ found that
jughandles are currently in common use in at least six States and the
FHWA believes that jughandles are likely to see increasing use in the
future in more States in order to improve intersection safety and
operations. Therefore, in order to provide agencies with uniform
signing practices for several of the most common geometric layouts of
jughandles, the FHWA proposes this new section along with several new
signs and a figure to illustrate their use. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good condition
to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. In existing Section 2B.29 (new section 2B.34) Do Not Pass Sign,
the FHWA proposes to introduce a new symbol sign that has been in use
and well understood in Europe and Canada (the Canadian MUTCD RB-31
sign) for many decades.\25\ The FHWA proposes to add this symbol sign
due to the need to reduce the number of word message signs, increase
symbolization, and promote better harmony due to globalization and
increasing international travel. Because this symbol is new, the FHWA
proposes to allow the use of a DO NOT PASS educational plaque with this
sign. The FWHA also proposes to allow the optional continued use of the
existing word message sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. The FHWA proposes to add two new sections following existing
Section 2B.29 (new Section 2B.34). The first new section, numbered and
titled, ``Section 2B.35 DO NOT PASS WHEN SOLID LINE IS ON YOUR SIDE
Sign,'' contains an OPTION statement describing the use of this word
sign. As found by the Sign Synthesis Study,\26\ at least five States
use signs to remind road users of the meaning of a solid yellow line
for no-passing zones, however, there is considerable variety in the
wording that is used. The term ``Do No Pass'' is preferable because
that same terminology has been used in the R4-1 sign. ``Solid Line'' is
preferable because it is fewer words and all center lines are yellow,
so it is not necessary to state the color of the line. ``On Your Side''
is simpler and easier to understand than ``right of center line'' or
``in your lane.'' Therefore, the FHWA proposes that the new sign have a
standard message of ``Do Not Pass When Solid Line Is On Your Side'' in
order to provide consistency and uniformity. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
[[Page 279]]
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 24, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. The second new proposed section is numbered and titled,
``Section 2B.36 DO NOT DRIVE ON SHOULDER Sign and DO NOT PASS ON
SHOULDER Sign'' and contains an OPTION statement regarding the use of
these two proposed new signs to inform road users that use of the
shoulder as a travel lane or to pass other vehicles is prohibited. The
FHWA proposes these two new signs because the Sign Synthesis Study \27\
found that at least 19 States are using some version of regulatory sign
to prohibit driving, turning, and/or passing on shoulders and the FHWA
feels that consistent and uniform messages for these purposes should be
provided to road users. The remaining sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.31 (new
Section 2B.38) ``SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT Sign and KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT
TO PASS Sign'' and expand the existing OPTION and GUIDANCE statements
in this section to add the proposed new KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS sign.
The Sign Synthesis Study \28\ found that at least 19 States use a
``Keep Right Except to Pass'' sign to legally require vehicles to stay
in the right-hand lane of a multi-lane highway except when passing a
slower vehicle, and the FHWA feels that a consistent message should be
provided to road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. The FHWA proposes to retitle existing Section 2B.32 (new
Section 2B.39) to ``TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE Sign'' and revise the section
to discontinue the use of the TRUCK LANE XXX FEET (R4-6) as a
regulatory sign because the message is one of guidance information
(distance to the start of the truck lane) rather than regulatory in
nature. This is consistent with proposed changes in Chapter 2D that
adds a new guide sign with this message. Also, the FHWA proposes to add
an OPTION that describes the appropriate optional use of the TRUCKS USE
RIGHT LANE sign on multi-lane roadways to reduce unnecessary lane
changing.
76. In existing Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40) Keep Right and
Keep Left Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a new narrow Keep Right (R4-
7c) sign that may be installed on narrow median noses where there is
insufficient lateral clearance for a standard width sign. The FHWA
proposes this new sign, which is only 12 inches wide rather than the
standard 24 inch wide R4-7 sign, to reflect current practice in some
States and to provide other agencies with the flexibility to use this
sign where applicable.
77. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing
Section 2B.33 (new Section 2B.40). The first proposed new section is
numbered and titled ``Section 2B.41 STAY IN LANE Sign'' and contains
OPTION and GUIDANCE statements on the use of STAY IN LANE (R4-9) signs
and the pavement markings that should be used with them. The second
proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 2B.42 RUNAWAY
VEHICLES ONLY Sign'' and contains a GUIDANCE statement regarding the
use of the RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY Sign near truck escape ramp entrances.
Both the STAY IN LANE and RUNAWAY VEHICLES ONLY signs are existing
signs illustrated in existing Figure 2B-8 (new Figure 2B-13), but not
described in the existing text of the MUTCD. The third proposed new
section is numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.43 Slow Vehicle Turn-Out
Signs'' and contains SUPPORT, OPTION, and STANDARD statements regarding
three proposed new signs that may be used on two-lane highways where
physical turn-out areas are provided for the purpose of giving a group
of faster vehicles an opportunity to pass a slow-moving vehicle. As
documented in the Sign Synthesis Study,\29\ at least eight States,
mostly in the west, use regulatory signs to legally require slow moving
vehicles to use the turnout if a certain number of following vehicles
are being impeded. Most of the eight States use similar wording on
their signs, but there are some variations. The FHWA proposes a phase-
in compliance period of 10 years for the use of Slow Vehicle Turn-Out
signs to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies. The
FHWA proposes adding these new signs to provide for uniformity of the
message. The remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 25, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. In existing Sections 2B.34 and 2B.35 (new Sections 2B.44 and
2B.45), the FHWA proposes to allow lower mounting heights for Do Not
Enter and Wrong Way signs as a specific exception when an engineering
study indicates that it would address wrong-way movements at freeway/
expressway entrance ramps. The FHWA proposes this exception based on
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook \30\ and positive
experience in several States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation II.D(4d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. In existing Section 2B.36 (new Section 2B.46) Selective
Exclusion Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the legend of several
existing selective exclusion signs to use the word NO rather than
PROHIBITED or EXCLUDED, to simplify the messages and make them easier
to read from a distance. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA also proposes to add regulatory AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY
and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY signs to the last OPTION statement to reflect
current practice.
80. In existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29) Pedestrian Signs
and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to modify the designs of the R10-3, R10-
3a through R10-3e, R10-4, R10-4a, and R10-4b to include the Canadian
MUTCD standard symbol for pushbuttons (in addition to the words), to
begin the symbolization of the ``pushbutton'' message. The FHWA
proposes this change to provide better harmony in North American
signing design, which is needed as a result of the increased travel
between the US, Canada, and Mexico resulting from NAFTA. The FHWA
proposes to use this new pushbutton symbol on several signs throughout
the MUTCD.
81. In existing Section 2B.37 (new Section 2B.47) ONE WAY Signs,
the FHWA proposes to change the existing GUIDANCE statement to a
STANDARD to require, rather than recommend, that ONE WAY signs be
placed on the near right, far left, and far right corners of each
intersection with the directional roadways of divided highways. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
The FHWA proposes to revise Figures 2B-18 through 2B-20 accordingly. In
concert with this proposed change, the FHWA proposes to revise the
second paragraph of the OPTION statement to clarify that agencies may
omit the use of certain ONE WAY signs at intersections with
[[Page 280]]
medians less than 9 m (30 ft). The FHWA proposes to require the
installation of ONE WAY signs to reflect recommendations from the Older
Driver handbook.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendations I.E(4),
I.K(2), and I.K(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add two new paragraphs to the 2nd
STANDARD statement to require two ONE WAY signs for each approach for
T-intersections and cross intersections, one near side and one far
side. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendations I.K(4) and
I.K(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add new OPTION, GUIDANCE, and SUPPORT
statements at the end of the Section regarding the use of ONE WAY signs
on central islands of roundabouts. The FHWA proposes to add this text
to promote consistency in signing for roundabouts.
82. The FHWA proposes to relocate the information from existing
Section 2E.50 to a new section numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.48
Wrong-Way Traffic Control at Interchange Ramps.'' The FHWA proposes
this change because these types of signs are regulatory in nature,
rather than guide signs. The remaining sections would be renumbered
accordingly.
83. In existing Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49) Divided Highway
Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the first OPTION statement
to a STANDARD and revise the text to require the use of Divided Highway
Crossing Signs for all approaches to divided highways in order to
encompass recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\33\ As part
of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION
statement to allow the sign to be omitted if the divided road has
average annual daily traffic less than 400 vehicles per day and a speed
limit of 40 km/h (25 mph) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation I.K(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes changing the existing 2nd OPTION statement
to a STANDARD in order to require that the Divided Highway Crossing
sign be located on the near right corner of the intersection. As part
of this proposed change, the FHWA also proposes to add an OPTION
statement to permit the installation of an additional Divided Highway
Crossing sign on the left-hand side of the approach to supplement the
sign on the near right corner of the intersection. As in the previous
item, these proposed changes are to implement recommendations from the
Older Driver handbook. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for the revised provisions on the use of Divided Highway
Crossing signs at existing locations to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
84. The FHWA proposes adding three new sections following existing
Section 2B.38 (new Section 2B.49). The first proposed new section is
numbered and titled ``Section 2B.50 Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs
(R6-4, R6-4a, and R6-4b)'' and contains STANDARD, GUIDANCE and OPTION
statements on the use of Roundabout Directional Arrow Signs. The second
proposed new section is numbered and titled ``Section 2B.51 Roundabout
Circulation Sign (R6-5P)'' and contains GUIDANCE and OPTION statements
regarding the use of the Roundabout Circulation Sign at roundabouts and
other circular intersections. The third proposed new section is
numbered and titled, ``Section 2B.52 Examples of Roundabout Signing''
and it contains a SUPPORT statement referencing new Figures 2B-24
through 2B-26 that illustrate examples of regulatory and warning signs
for roundabouts of various configurations. The proposed new SUPPORT
statement also references other areas in the Manual that contain
information on guide signing and pavement markings at roundabouts. The
remaining sections in Chapter 2B would be renumbered accordingly. The
FHWA proposes these new sections in order to add valuable information
regarding regulatory and warning signs at roundabouts to the MUTCD. The
use of roundabouts has increased over the past 10 years, and it is
important that more detailed information on effective signing of
roundabouts be included in the Manual in order to have consistency for
road users throughout the country. The FHWA proposes a phase-in
compliance period of 10 years for existing regulatory signs for
roundabouts in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
85. In existing Section 2B.40 (new Section 2B.54) Design of
Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs, the FHWA proposes several
changes to the colors of the borders of parking signs. The FHWA
proposes to revise the 2nd paragraph of the first STANDARD statement to
reflect that the Parking Prohibition signs R7-201a, R8-4, and R8-7
shall have a black legend and border on a white background, and the R8-
3a sign shall have a black legend and border and a red circle on a
white background. The FHWA proposes these changes to reflect the
existing designs of these specific signs.
The FHWA also proposes changing the last paragraph of the existing
GUIDANCE statement to a STANDARD to require that a VAN ACCESSIBLE
plaque be installed below the R7-8 sign where parking spaces that are
reserved for persons with disabilities are designated to accommodate
wheelchair vans. The FHWA proposes this change to reflect Section 502.6
of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
In addition, the FHWA proposes to add a new STANDARD statement
following the (new) 2nd GUIDANCE statement that specifies the required
colors of the R7-8, R7-8a, and R7-8b signs, to reflect the existing
sign color schemes for these signs as illustrated in existing Figure
2B-16 (new Figure 2B-27).
Finally, the FHWA proposes to add GUIDANCE and STANDARD statements
prior to the last OPTION statement regarding the use of proposed new
Pay for Parking and Parking Pay Station signs where a fee is charged
for parking and a midblock pay station is used instead of individual
parking meters. The FHWA proposes to add these signs to reflect current
practice in many areas where cities and towns are replacing individual
parking space meters with a ``pay and display'' system. The FHWA
proposes a design for the fee station sign that is very similar to a
standard European symbol, because the results of the Sign Synthesis
Study \34\ showed that several U.S. cities are using a sign very
similar to the European design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 27, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
86. In existing Section 2B.44 (new Section 2B.58) Pedestrian
Crossing Signs, the FHWA proposes to add a GUIDANCE statement to
recommend that No Pedestrian Crossing Signs be supplemented with
detectable guidance, such as grass strips, landscaping, planters,
fencing, rails, or barriers in order to provide pedestrians who have
[[Page 281]]
visual disabilities with additional guidance as to where not to cross.
87. In existing Section 2B.45 (new Section 2B.59) Traffic Signal
Signs, the FHWA proposes to delete the first existing GUIDANCE
statement regarding the placement of Traffic Signal signs because
locations of signs near signal faces are proposed to be specifically
recommended for individual signs where this is appropriate.
To correspond with proposed changes in Chapter 4E requiring that
signs for pedestrian pushbuttons clearly indicate which crosswalk
signal is actuated by each pedestrian detector, the FHWA proposes to
revise the first SUPPORT and OPTION statements in this section and the
sign images in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29). The proposed
revisions eliminate the use of the existing R10-1, R10-3 and R10-4 sign
designs because these do not identify a specific crosswalk, and
therefore do not meet the proposed requirement in Chapter 4E. The FHWA
proposes to redesign those signs and revise the text in this section to
clarify how to use the R10 series of pushbutton signs appropriately.
The FHWA also proposes to add paragraphs to the 2nd OPTION statement
regarding the use of a new R10-25 sign, where a pushbutton detector has
been installed for pedestrians to activate In-Roadway Warning Lights or
flashing beacons, and a new R10-24 sign, where a pushbutton detector
has been installed exclusively for bicyclists, to enable bicyclists to
actuate a separate bike signal phase or a parallel vehicular green
phase at a signalized crossing. Bikes need less time to cross than
pedestrians, so the push buttons actuate timing specifically
appropriate for bikes, which is an operationally efficient strategy.
The FHWA proposes to add both of these new signs to reflect current
practice as documented by the Sign Synthesis Study,\35\ and to provide
consistent and uniform messages for these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA also proposes to add a proposed new FOR MORE CROSSING
TIME--HOLD BUTTON DOWN FOR 2 SECONDS sign to this section and to
illustrate the sign image in existing Figure 2B-18 (new Figure 2B-29).
The FHWA proposes to add this sign to correspond with comparable
proposed provisions in Chapter 4E.
The FHWA also proposes to add new GUIDANCE and OPTION statements in
this section regarding the location of LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY, LEFT
TURN YIELD ON GREEN, and LEFT TURN SIGNAL YIELD ON GREEN signs,
independently and with an AT SIGNAL supplemental plaque. The FHWA
proposes these new statements based on recommendations from the Older
Driver handbook.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendation I.H(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the existing 2nd GUIDANCE statement, the FHWA proposes to add
locations where the skew angle of the intersection roadways creates
difficulty for older drivers to see traffic approaching from their
left, to the list of conditions where consideration should be given to
the use of No Turn on Red signs. The FHWA proposes this change based on
recommendations from the Older Driver handbook.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older
Drivers and Pedestrians,'' FHWA Report no. FHWA-RD-01-051, May,
2001, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01105/cover.htm.
Recommendations I.A(3) and
I.I(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA proposes to add to the (new) 4th OPTION statement
information regarding the use of a blank-out sign instead of a NO TURN
ON RED sign during certain times of the day or during portions of a
signal cycle where a leading pedestrian interval is provided. The FHWA
proposes this new text to correspond to other proposed changes in Part
4 regarding the use of these signs. The FHWA also proposes to add
information to this OPTION statement regarding the use of a post-
mounted NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT FROM RIGHT LANE sign and a NO TURN ON RED
FROM THIS LANE (with down arrow) overhead sign that may be used on
signalized approaches with more than one right-turn lane.
Finally, to correspond with proposed changes in Part 4 that would
add a new Pedestrian Hybrid Signal, the FHWA proposes to add to the
last STANDARD statement a paragraph that describes the use of a
CROSSWALK STOP ON RED sign that is proposed to be required with
pedestrian hybrid signals.
The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for the
use of proposed new signs and proposed new sign designs at existing
locations to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
88. In existing Figure 2B-19 (new Figure 2B-30) Traffic Signal
Signs and Plaques, the FHWA proposes to change the design of the
TURNING TRAFFIC MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15) sign to be a
symbolic sign. The FHWA proposes this change to reduce the number of
words, give a more precise symbolized message, and make the sign more
conspicuous to road users. The proposed sign design has been in
extensive use by the New York City Department of Transportation. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
89. In existing Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60) Photo Enforced
Signs and Figure 2B-1, the FHWA proposes to replace the existing word
message PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-19) plaque with a new symbol plaque for
Photo Enforced. The FHWA proposes to retain the existing word message
plaque as an alternate. In addition, the FHWA proposes to revise the
design of the TRAFFIC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED (R10-18) sign to add the
symbolic camera. The FHWA proposes these changes based on preliminary
results of the ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs'' study.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Preliminary results from ``Evaluation of Symbol Signs,''
conducted by Bryan Katz, Gene Hawkins, and Jason Kennedy for the
Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study, can be viewed at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.pooledfund.org/documents/TPF-5_065/PresSymbolSign.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2B.46 (new Section 2B.60). This new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2B.61 Ramp Metering Signs'' and contains a GUIDANCE
statement describing the recommended use of proposed new regulatory
signs that should accompany ramp control signals. The FHWA proposes to
add these new signs because ramp metering signals are used in several
States, but there are not standard signs for them in the MUTCD, so
States have developed a variety of signs, as documented by the Sign
Synthesis Study.\39\ In this new Section, the FHWA proposes two new
signs, X VEHICLES PER GREEN and X VEHICLES PER GREEN EACH LANE. The
FHWA proposes these new signs to provide uniformity in ramp meter
signing. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for
existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or
local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, pages 28-29, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. In existing Section 2B.50 (new Section 2B.65) Weigh Station
Signs, the FHWA proposes to change the text of the R13-1 sign to
``TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION--NEXT RIGHT'' to reflect
that the message is regulatory, rather than guidance. The FHWA proposes
a
[[Page 282]]
phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in good
condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway agencies.
In addition, in Figure 2B-33, the FHWA proposes to illustrate the
customary regulatory sign color of a black legend on a white
background, rather than the allowable option of the reverse color
pattern, for the TRUCKS OVER XX TONS MUST ENTER WEIGH STATION--NEXT
RIGHT sign.
92. The FHWA proposes to add a new section following existing
Section 2B.53 (new Section 2B.68). The new section is numbered and
titled, ``Section 2B.69 Headlight Use Signs'' and contains GUIDANCE,
SUPPORT, and OPTION statements that describe the use of several
proposed new signs that may be used by States that require road users
to turn on their vehicle headlights under certain weather conditions.
The Sign Synthesis Study \40\ found that there is a wide variation in
the legends currently being used by States for this purpose. FHWA
proposes these new signs to provide increased uniformity of the
messages for road users. The FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period
of 10 years for existing signs in good condition to minimize any impact
on State or local highway agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. The FHWA proposes changing the number and title of existing
``Section 2B.54 Other Regulatory Signs'' to ``Section 2B.70
Miscellaneous Regulatory Signs.'' As discussed in item 48 above, the
FHWA proposes to relocate the existing OPTION statements from this
section to Section 2B.02. The FHWA also proposes to add a new OPTION
statement regarding the use of a proposed new FENDER BENDER MOVE
VEHICLES FROM TRAVEL LANES sign that agencies may use to inform road
users of State laws that require them to move their vehicles to the
shoulder if they have been involved in a minor non-injury crash. As an
integral part of active incident management programs in many urban
areas, an increasing number of States and cities are using signs
requiring drivers who have been involved in relatively minor ``fender
bender'' or non-injury crashes to move their vehicles to the shoulder.
A variety of sign messages are in use for this purpose, as documented
by the Sign Synthesis Study.\41\ The FHWA proposes adding this sign
because, with the increasing popularity of these laws and incident
management programs, a standardized sign legend is needed. The FHWA
proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing signs in
good condition to minimize any impact on State or local highway
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Synthesis of Non-MUTCD Traffic Signs,'' FHWA, December
2005, page 31, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/rwstc/Signs_Synthesis-Final_Dec2005.pdf
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C--General
94. The FHWA proposes to remove the following word signs from the
MUTCD, because related symbol signs have been in use for 35 years,
thereby making these word signs obsolete: HILL Sign (W7-1b) in existing
Section 2C.12, DIVIDED HIGHWAY (W6-1a) and DIVIDED ROAD (W6-1b) in
existing Section 2C.18, DIVIDED HIGHWAY ENDS (W6-2a) and DIVIDED ROAD
ENDS (W6-2b) in Section existing 2C.19, STOP AHEAD (W3-1a) and YIELD
AHEAD (W3-2a) and SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3a) in existing Section 2C.29.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments Within Chapter 2C--Specific
95. In Section 2C.03 Design of Warning Signs, the FHWA proposes to
change the last paragraph of the OPTION to a GUIDANCE statement to
recommend, rather than merely allow, a fluorescent yellow-green
background for warning signs regarding conditions associated with
pedestrians, bicyclists, and playgrounds. Also proposed is a new
STANDARD statement that would require that warning conditions
associated with school buses and schools have a fluorescent yellow-
green background. The FHWA is also proposing to revise similar wording
in other sections in Chapter 2C and in Part 7. In the intervening years
since the fluorescent yellow-green background color was introduced as
an option, most highway agencies have adopted policies to use this
color for school warning signs and many have also decided to use it for
all warnings associated with pedestrians and bicycles. This predominant
usage is due to the enhanced conspicuity provided by fluorescent
yellow-green, particularly during dawn and twilight periods. The FHWA
proposes these changes in Section 2C.03 to provide more uniformity and
consistency in school, pedestrian, and bicycle warning signing. The
FHWA proposes a phase-in compliance period of 10 years for existing
signs in good condition to minimize any impact on State or local
highway agencies.
In place of the existing paragraph in the OPTION statement, the
FHWA proposes to add two new paragraphs that describe allowable changes
in warning sign sizes and designs. The FHWA propos