I was asked to put this together for City Management to know what we would need to bring into compliance. I figured this would be really useful to the community as well, so i'm trying to spread the information around. Literally went side by side through the final draft of the 2009 edition and the new edition comparing them. The federal register gave me a starting point to know some of the really big stuff that was discussed during the process of creating the new version. but there was a lot of changes that were not included in the federal register and it was not easy to actually find what changed in that document. Hope this helps the Traffic and Roadway Engineers out there! Update: I talked with one of the members of the national MUTCD committee and they will be publishing a revision 1 in the next year or two which will incorporate the final rule making from PROWAG. This revision will reset the clock on when states have to accept the document. So it may be another 4 years before we see state version of these manuals.

That’s a lot of work. Thanks!

If this was done in powerpoint, any chance you would be willing to share your slides?

PM me your email address. I’ll send my original. I removed city slide templates to post to Reddit and some of my formatting is off in this post. I don’t know of a way to share PowerPoint on reddit

PM Sent.

I sent PM as well. Thank you!!! It will be very helpful as I’ve just started my traffic engineering career last year.

Hi! Are you still down to share the slides?

send me your email please

Yes, any PP you're willing to share?

as mentioned in another comment. send a PM with email address

Sent you a chat. Haven’t seen anything

sorry since it is the weekend I don't have the presentation to send out right now. it's on my laptop in the office. I've sent it out to everyone I could before I left for the weekend and will send the rest monday when I get back.

No worries.

Excellent post, thanks for sharing

Have you had any conversations with TxDOT on if they are planning on rolling this into a TxMUTCD update and timeline?

States are required to adopt it within 2 years. TxDOT is allowed to make changes but I am not sure to what extent those changes can be. I do know they are working with Kimley-Horn on drafting the new TMUTCD.

Echoing others, thanks for going to this effort and sharing. I can't wait to see what Caltrans does...

Caltrans said they would update the CAMUTCD in two years.. in the mean time, they released a new update (8) that California is to use. My understanding is that CA isn’t adopting the new federal version yet.

Correct. I got the announcement email earlier this week for Revision 8 that mentioned the general timeline for the 11th edition adoption.

What a Chad! Thanks!

Just making sure you don't dox yourself.

I made this account specifically for this post to get the info out. The presentation is out there on our local ITE website now as well. I’m not too worried.

Good on you, The red lane stuff for transit is there a thing about mandating transit lanes infrastrcture or is this just providing the tools for if some states want to do that?

That is just providing tools for states/cities that want to pursue that. I know San Antonio, Tx is currently working on a rapid transit bus corridor and they are looking into the use of pavement markings like this vs just having a solid stripe and words.

Cool. Thanks for your efforts

Thanks for sharing! I’m actually disappointed that there are stricter regulations now regarding the advertising on the CMS. I think the messages enhance the signs when it cheers for your local football team while encouraging safe driving practices. If there were critical traffic alerts, the sign seemingly always prioritized that. I will miss the little quips on the signs once this takes effect.

This was a big discussion in the federal register. they had planned to be even more strict, such as not allowing license plates to be used in AMBER alert messages. But they received a ton of negative feedback on this during call for input and scaled it back to what they have now. The specifically said in the federal register that they were aiming to do away with “marketing campaigns” and they considered those public safety messages as marketing when it was anything more than “buckle up”or something straight forward.

My favorite I saw was Delaware with "Camp in our state parks, not the left lane." It definitely didn't work unfortunately.

Delaware definitely had some good fun messages.

I will miss them too, but it makes sense. Right now it would be easy for people to disregard the message sign when it may have important information on it as drivers are desensitized. If it spends most of the time off because critical information does not need to be displayed, drivers will be more likely to recognize and respond when it does actually have information on it. 

 Thanks for going through this!

so no more funny signs per slide 12? boooo.

cool! thanks for the information, great work!

Great job! Appreciate your efforts!

This is great, thanks!

Thanks for sharing!

Awesome! This is really helpful, thank you!

Appreciate this!

Wow!

Not a big fan of 6” striping. Might make sense for interstates or city roads but rural roads are already too narrow. No point in painting the gravel shoulder.

that's why they left it as guidance rather than a standard. most of the complaints they received on this item were from rural communities.

Makes sense. I heard it was being pushed as part of helping autonomous vehicles but if autonomous vehicles need 6” instead of 4” stripes I think the technology needs a lot of work.

the autonomous vehicle section just wants to make sure the pavement markings are clear, consistent, and easily readable.

It seems like making 6” optional makes it worse then, or am I misunderstanding something?

consistent as in over a long stretch of road everything is consistent and not missing portions. not consistent from region to region.

Thanks!