The MUTCD:Its History and Future

Gene Hawkins, Ph.D., P.E.Texas A&M University

1920s

1930s

1940s

Early 1950s

1960s

Today

Manual on UniformTraffic Control Devices

Known as the MUTCDContains basic principles for

traffic control devicesEssential traffic engineering

toolExtensive informationLong historyMultiple versions – many

editions

Presentation Part 1

MUTCD History

1935 1942 1948 1961 1971 1978 1988 2000

The MUTCD: Where It’s Been

There have been 10 editions of the MUTCD

2003 2009

Summary of MUTCD Evolution

Edition MUTCDEra Pages Parts Size

(inches)Thickness (inches)

1935Initial

166 4 6×9 ⅜

1942 208 4 6×9 ⅜

1948Transition

223 4 6×9 ⅜

1961 333 6 6×9 ⅝

1971

Mature

377 8 6×9 ¾

1978 425 9 6×9 1⅜

1988 473 9 6×9 1⅜

2000

Modern

982 10 8½×11 1⅝

2003 754 10 8½×11 1¼

2009 864 9 8½×11 1⅝

*FHWA assumed MUTCD ownership

How did we end up with a such large document on traffic control devices?

*

Traffic Control Devices History

Early markers were used in the Roman EmpireAlso used on pioneer trails in AmericaAutomobile age created new demands

Colonial America

Early 20th Century

Roman Empire

Automobile Age

Early Intersection Control

Hand signals, police, and semaphores

Traffic Signal Towers

Early Traffic Signals

Many different signal designs

More Early Signals

Early Traffic Signs

Need for devices increased with more automobile travel

Little coordination between agencies

Early Grade Crossings

Early Traffic Control Devices

The wide variety of devices created the need for uniformity

1914 – 1st electric signal Cleveland

1911 – 1st centerline Michigan

1920 – 1st 3-colorsignal Detroit

1923 Sign Shape Recommendations

Mississippi Valley Assoc of St Hwy DeptNumber of sides represents hazard level

RR Grade Crossing

Stop Intersection

Warning (speed reduction)

Caution

Directions or Regulations

1924 Sign Color Recommendations

National Conference on Street and Highway Safety

For signs and signals

Red - stopWhite – directions

or distance

Yellow - caution

Green - proceed

Purple – intersection

1925 Joint Board Report

Report of Joint Board on Interstate Highways

AASHO ledDeveloped U.S. Highway systemIncluded recommendations for

standard signs

1927 AASHO Manual

Evolved from Joint BoardFirst national manualRural signs only Title:

Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture, Display, and Erection of U.S. Standard Road Markers and Signs

Revised 1929 and 1931

1927 Signs

Block letter font

1930 NCHS Manual

Prepared by American Engineering Council

Signs, markings, and signals for urban areas

Title: Manual on Street Traffic

Signs, Signal and Markings

Not Revised

1930 Signs

Birth of the MUTCD

Problems of two manuals led to creation of the MUTCD

Joint Committee

1927 Rural Manual

1930 Urban Manual

1935 MUTCD

1935 MUTCDFirst MUTCD

1935 mimeograph1937 typeset

SignsWhite or yellowDiamond, square, circle,

octagon, rectangleMarkings

White, yellow, or blackSignals

3-color signal as standardRevised 19391937 Typeset

1935 Original

1935 Signs

1942 MUTCD

Few major changesAddressed wartime

conditionsConservation of materialsBlackout traffic control

Not Revised

Blackout Devices

1948 MUTCD

Significant rewriteSigns

Simplified messagesEliminated square signsAdded advisory plateRounded alphabet

Pavement markingsYellow – Double center & barrier lineWhite – all other applicationsEdge lines not recommended

Simplified signal warrants

Revised 1954

1948 Signs

Early Stop & Yield Signs

1954 Revision

Significant sign changes

Became

New SignSecondary messages eliminated

THRU

HWY

Traffic Signal Legacies

Non-standard traffic signals continued in use through the 1950s and 1960s in some locations

Darley 2 bulb signal

Wiley signal

NYC Olives

1958 AASHO Interstate Manual

Created for the new Interstate Highway system

New featuresWhite on green guide signsLower case lettersGreen on white service signs

Utilized larger sign sizesBlue service signs added in

1961 revision

Revised 1961, 1962, 1970

New Interstate Signs

1961 MUTCD

Federal compliance requiredNew material:

Construction traffic controlCivil defense signingFreeway guide signing

Not Revised

1961 Signs

1971 MUTCD

Significant rewriteDOT ownershipNew features:

Content: school areasColor: orangeShapes: pennant, pentagon

International sign influenceMany new symbols

Yellow markings for opposing traffic

Revised 8 times

1971 Signs

1978 MUTCD

Update of 1971 editionLoose leaf (binder) format

Individual page revisions

New contentRR-hwy grade crossingsBicycle facilities

Yellow markings on left side Revised 4 times

1978 Signs

1988 MUTCD

Update of 1978 edition Included new revision (#5)

New contentRecreational/cultural signsLogo signsTODS

Planned to be revised only for safety reasons Revised 7 times

Rev 3: Part VI

MUTCD During the 1990sBlue ribbon panel (1989)

Recognize shortcomings of 1988 MUTCDRecommended reformat and rewrite of 1988 MUTCD

Need to clarify intent of languageExamples of language challenges

“shall be permitted”“shall preferably be”“normally should” “may be required”

Two step process: reformat then rewriteStarted in early 1990s

“may be justified”“it is desirable that”“it is necessary that” “is intended for use”

Rewrite/Reformat EffortFirst step

Evaluate current languageReformat language using shall, should, & may

Classify as standard, guidance, option, support (with headings)

Second stepRewrite reformatted languageUpdate contentFix inconsistencies

Multiple proposed rules in mid- to late-1990sResulted in 2000 MUTCD

2000 MUTCD

Millennium editionReformatted/rewrittenSignificantly different

from 1988 MUTCDFirst with 8½11 pagesFirst to be on the internetMany errors & shortcomings

Editorial and technical errorsErrata did not correct all problems

1 Errata1 Revision

Significant Changes

New structureStandard, Guidance, Option, Support

New parts added to MUTCDLow Volume RoadsHighway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings

Islands part deletedDefinitions addedPrimary units: metric

2000: Selected Key Changes

Legibility index = 40 ft/inSign graphics not accurateLane ending symbol

(W4-2) droppedCrosswalk lines dropped

from crossing signsNew Yield LineIn-road lights

2003 MUTCD

Primarily an update of the 2000 MUTCDChanges

Editorial improvementsGraphics correctedTechnical correctionsSome new material

Compressed text982 to 754 pages

2 Revisions

2003: Selected Key Changes

Some new/revised signsNew sign color

Pink for incident mgmt

Countdown ped signalsMetric sign changesAccessibility in work zonesRevisions:

1: Pharmacy signing2: Min sign retro

2009 MUTCD

Current edition (10th overall)Final rule: Dec 16, 2009NPA received more

comments than any other1,840 individual letters15,000+ comments

Many changes611 significant changes listed

in Federal Register final rule

2009: Philosophical ChangesFWHA focus for 2009 MUTCD

UniformityComplete street concept: all road usersAging populationInnovation

More specific detail, reduced ability to deviateFine tuning of TCD useMore devices addressed

Compliance dates restructuredCompliance as part of systematic upgrade

MUTCD applies to private propertyCombine RR and LRT partsNew content

Toll road & managed lanes traffic control Purple for toll roads

Changeable message signs

2009: Selected Key ChangesParagraphs numbered, guidance italicized, metric values removedChange in definition for a standard

Added: “Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study”

Legibility index = 30 ft/inIncreases in sign sizes – 36 in Stop sign required for some situationsIncreased requirements for One Way signsRequirements for warning signs for

changes in horizontal alignmentRevised optional lane guide signing

Individual arrowsHigh-visibility safety apparel

Required for all workers within the public right-of-way

School warning signs: FYG only Cannot use Speed Limit sign alone to end school speed limit zoneYield or Stop signs required at passive grade crossings

2009: Signal Changes

12 inch indications for all new installationsLimited use of 8 inch indications

Signal head for each lane when speed 45Backplates required

Flashing yellow arrow for left turnsHybrid beacon (HAWK) for ped crossing

2009 MUTCD Revisions

Rev 1: engineering judgment & definition of a standardAdded: the MUTCD is not a substitute for

engineering judgmentDeleted: standard statements shall not be

modified or compromised based on engineering judgment

Rev 2: compliance dates12 of the previous 58 compliance dates retainedSeveral of the remaining 12 have been modified

Hotlinks 2009 MUTCDFHWA posted hotlinks version of the 2009 MUTCD

Cross-referenced chapters, sections, figures, and tablesPop-up definitionsLinks to external documents and web sitesLinks to official interpretationsIndications of material affected by known errors 31 MB file – download instead of using on-line version

MUTCD ResourcesMUTCD web site

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.govHTML & PDF versions of MUTCD (incl hotlink)Lists of changes

mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

Additional Resources

MUTCD History ResourcesSearch “Gene Hawkins MUTCD” – goes to CE Profs website

Select MUTCD History linkMUTCD history PPT presentationITE Journal articlesScans of old MUTCDs

Presentation Part 2

MUTCD Future

Future of the MUTCD

Two areas of interest:Recent and upcoming FHWA action

Request for comments on splitting MUTCDExpected 2016 MUTCD edition and related

rulemaking activitiesLong-range vision and strategic plan

NCUTCD effort to identify questions and identify needs for the MUTCD of the 2030s

Splitting the MUTCDJanuary 2013

FHWA Federal Register notice requesting comments on splitting MUTCD into 2 documents1) Standards document (MUTCD) subject

to rulemaking2) Supplemental document that can be

changed without rulemakingJune 2013

FHWA announces that comments were against splitting and FHWA agrees with comments

MUTCD to remain as single document

Rulemaking for Next MUTCD

FHWA has indicated a plan to publish a new edition of the MUTCD in 2016

Expect proposed rulemaking in late 2014 or early 2015

Potential proposed changesCritical technical changesReduce number of shall statementsImprovements in organization and language

Potential Enhancements for Next Edition

Incorporate routine updatesNCUTCD recommended changesCorrecting errors or inaccuracies in 2009 Edition

Improve with new contentAdding content to address new technologies or treatmentsAdding content necessitated by new legislationAdding content related to an urgent or critical need

Reassess each standard statement: Retain, delete, or downgrade

Eliminate redundant or unnecessary textReorganize content where opportunities for improving

flow are identifiedReorganize/reconfigure existing figures to better

correlate with text

20-Year Future of the MUTCDWhat is the future of the MUTCD?

If we were to write the MUTCD from a blank sheet of paper, what would we end up with?

Some key questions:What is the MUTCD?

Book of standards, engineering guidelines, best practices, other

What audience is the MUTCD written for? (this is a different question from who uses the MUTCD)

Traffic engineers (new, mid-career, experienced), contractors, lawyers, traveling, public, elected officials, architects, private property owners, other

Who should be responsible for the MUTCD?FHWA, NCUTCD, AASHTO, ITE, other

MUTCD needs a long-range (20+ year) vision

Why a Vision and Strategic Plan (VSP)?

MUTCD grown in size and complexityMost MUTCD changes developed on individual

basis without strategic coordinationCritical unknowns not yet defined:

MUTCD purpose (why it exists)MUTCD target user (who written for)MUTCD basic content concepts (what goes in it)

2009 MUTCD issuesSize of NPA and coordination of revisionsSpecificity of content mandates

Where does the MUTCD need to go over the next 20 years?

VSP DevelopmentVision & Strategic Planning (VSP) effort conducted by National

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD)2010-2012: Initial efforts by NCUTCD task force to develop

VSP2012-2013: Presentations to stakeholder groups and

development of white papersMultiple attempts to create a plan

Nothing worked well, tried to keep it smallResult of volunteer committee approach

May 2013: start overCombined every document

into one fileOrganized the pieces

Found order from chaosNCUTCD review: Fall 2013NCUTCD approval: January 2014

VSP Website

At http://mutcd.tamu.edu

VSP document

Document Structure

79 pagesFront matterCh 1: IntroductionCh 2: MUTCD Opinions, Challenges,

Needs, and QuestionsCh 3: Recommended VisionCh 4: Recommended Strategic PlanReferences and Appendices

Highlights: Front Matter and Introduction (Ch 1)

Background information on development of VSP

Process used to develop VSPStructure and status of document

Structure: Opinions, Challenges, Needs, and Questions (Ch 2)

Categories:TCDs as independent elementsMUTCD as authoritative

reference documentStructure and organizationContentUse and usersAdministrationTechnology influence

Groups for each category:OpinionsChallengesNeedsQuestions

Highlights: Opinions, Challenges, Needs, and Questions (Ch 2)

Series of thoughts related to categoryOpinions and challenges generally lead

to needs and questionsNeeds and questions generally lead to

recommendations in the Vision chapter

Need to read this chapter so you know the basis for the Vision recommendations

There are 124 items (#1-124)

Structure: Vision (Ch 3)

This chapter recommends what MUTCD should be in 20 years

Chapter structure:Fundamental assumptionsFundamental recommendationsGuiding rules for the MUTCD contentRecommended MUTCD languageMUTCD contentMUTCD structureMUTCD revisions

There are 49 items (#501-549)

Highlights: Vision (Ch 3)Keep as one document

Proposed alternative structure conceptDefine TCD activitiesMore levels of mandate

Distinguish uniform and consistent standards4 levels of mandate:

Standard, requirement, recommendation, optionDistinguish user content

Engineer (decision) Non-engineer (instruction)

Better coordinate contentNeeds more than hyperlinksConcept of “smart tags”

Limits on size of rulemaking

Structure: Strategic Plan (Ch 4)

Phase I: complete strategic planActivities that are beyond volunteer abilitiesAdditional outreach

Phase II: 2016 MUTCDContent improvementNo major changes

Phase III: 2024-26 MUTCD Restructuring levels of mandate

Phase IV: mid-2030s MUTCDContent coordinationNeed to start in near future to finish by mid-2030s

Key thought: MUTCD stability is importantDon’t want to make all the changes at once

Structure: Appendices

A: Portions of US Code and Code of Federal Regulations

B: History and Growth of the MUTCDC: Revising the MUTCDD: National Committee on Uniform Traffic

Control DevicesE: Future of Traffic Control DevicesF: ADA Laws and Regulations

Signs Not in the Next MUTCD

Questions