<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Effectiveness of Supplementary Signage in Improving Driver Understanding of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Intervals</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2767297</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) have been increasingly implemented across the United States to enhance pedestrian safety at midblock and unsignalized crossings. However, given driver confusion and lack of understanding of proper driving actions, particularly during the Flashing Red interval, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends the use of supplementary signage to improve driver understanding and compliance. This study evaluated the effectiveness of eight candidate supplementary signage options, including MUTCD-recommended signs, signs used by several transportation agencies, and three newly developed signage options, by assessing driver ratings through paired t-tests. Using multiple linear regression model, the study also evaluated sign design features and messaging strategies and used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate the effect of demographic characteristics, driver travel patterns, and PHB familiarity to better understand how elements of a sign and other factors are associated with signage effectiveness. The results revealed that the MUTCD (2023) recommended supplementary signs received relatively lower ratings, indicating a need for a reevaluation of current MUTCD recommendations. Conversely, the supplementary sign used with PHBs in Texas was rated significantly higher among all signage options evaluated in this study. Furthermore, use of a single sign panel, color differentiation on the top text row, and symbols significantly increased the perceived effectiveness of the signage. The findings of the study offer practical recommendations for transportation agencies to improve the operational and safety improvement of PHBs with supplementary signage. Further, it provides insights into effective signage development strategies to improve user understanding of new/novel traffic control devices.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:21:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2767297</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Benchmarking Computer Vision-Based Approaches to Derive Engineering-Oriented Condition from Existing UDOT Assets Data</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2685461</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Condition assessment of how transportation infrastructure supports safe and reliable road and highway operation. Departments of Transportation across the country rely heavily on manual inspections, which are time-consuming and costly. This study evaluated whether modern computer vision (CV) methods can support traffic sign condition assessment along Utah highways. High-resolution roadway images collected using a camera-mounted vehicle were curated and annotated for three sign types (regulatory, warning, and guide) and four defect conditions (fading, delamination, missing letters/symbols, and broken signs) based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. This study compared two different CV algorithms of YOLO11 and RT-DETR for traffic-sign detection and defect classification. Overall, the CV models showed promising performance for defect cases where an adequate number of training data existed. For example, for fading, YOLO11 and RT-DETR achieved 75% F1 on the validation. Binary classification of delamination (i.e., delamination versus no delamination) yielded similar performance for both models (68% F1). In contrast, the models showed poor performance to identify missing letters/symbols due to texture overlap with delamination and a limited number of annotated sign images with such defects. The results suggested that data quality and label definition had a greater impact on model performance than the choice of algorithms for the studied models.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 17:01:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2685461</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Traffic Sign Management for Local Urban Streets Handbook</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2676798</link>
      <description><![CDATA[n 2010, the Local Road Research Bureau (LRRB) developed the Traffic Sign Maintenance/Management Handbook. The focus of this current project will be to review and update the 2010 handbook, with a specific focus on local urban streets and guidance on using the minimum signage appropriate to the setting. Street signage is a critical part of maintaining a safe roadway, ensuring drivers are fully informed of conditions. However, in a densely developed urban setting with significant pedestrian activity, on-street parking, and frequent driveways, excessive signage can clutter the right-of-way and compromise public safety. The MN Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) provides guidance on signage types, numbers, placement, and size. Although a comprehensive resource, its focus is more on higher-speed, limited-access highways than on local streets. It requires interpretation, and there is often no specific guidance for local urban streets.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 08:45:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2676798</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pavement Art on Public Roads</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2636121</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In recent years, the use of pavement art has gained momentum as a means to transform and activate public spaces, specifically paintings applied directly to the public right of way (ROW). These creative installations can be found in a variety of settings, including sidewalks, crosswalks, bump outs, roundabouts, and travel lanes. Often community-driven, these projects aim to enhance the visual character of neighborhoods, foster civic engagement, and promote the use of active transportation modes. In addition to aesthetic and social benefits, there are claims that painted pavement art has had the effect of calming traffic in pedestrian-heavy environments. While interest in roadway painting is growing with support from community initiatives and national organizations, many agencies encounter challenges due to a lack of clear and consolidated guidance. Existing regulations can appear fragmented, overly restrictive, or absent altogether, leaving local agencies uncertain about how to implement or approve such projects within current design and policy frameworks. Note, pavement art is a case-by-case scenario and agencies should apply professional judgement in accordance with MUTCD standards.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:19:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2636121</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Lesson 11: Pedestrian Design at Intersections</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2592670</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation contains modular resource material that is intended for use in university courses on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. This lesson provides an overview of several design features critical to providing pedestrian access at intersections. Much research has been done on this topic, and several design manuals provide much detail, including the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, among others]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2025 17:29:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2592670</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Lesson 15: Bicycle Lanes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2592785</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation contains modular resource material that is intended for use in university courses on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The public agency and community support for bike lanes as a reasonable accommodation of bicyclists has been growing in many American cities. Although some cities such as Davis, CA, have several decades of experience, many American cities are still developing innovative ways to design bike lanes into complex roadway and traffic environments. A number of best design practices have emerged and are included in the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities or in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This lesson includes the design standards from AASHTO as well as additional design guidelines that other cities or States have developed. This lesson also summarizes other innovative bike lane designs and concepts (some are borrowed from Europe) that are still being tested and evaluated.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2025 17:29:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2592785</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Placement Options for In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6a)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2593953</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study evaluated the effects of R1-6a pedestrian crossing signs, installed in various configurations, on driver yielding behavior at uncontrolled marked crosswalks across six Oregon locations. The research analyzed both staged and naturalistic crossings under different experimental conditions, including baseline, tubular markers, single and multiple R1-6a signs, and gateway installations. Video data were coded to assess crossing volumes and yielding rates for over 5,900 pedestrians. Baseline yielding was already high, averaging 85% nearside and 89% farside, but increased further with sign treatments. The gateway configuration achieved the highest yielding rates of 92% (nearside) and 97% (farside), while curb-top edge sign placement produced 87% nearside yielding and 99% farside yielding. These findings demonstrate that R1-6a signs, particularly in gateway configurations, enhance driver yielding even when baseline compliance is high, though variations across sites highlight the influence of differing roadway contexts and pedestrian environments.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 12:29:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2593953</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research and Assessment of Needs for Sign Maintenance</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2593930</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) District offices need to verify in-house sign/signal installation and maintenance crews are prepared to implement criteria set forth in the new Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This requires a thorough assessment of each District’s sign and signal crews to identify needs. This evaluation must review crew staffing levels, equipment and material needs, and training schedules. Based on findings of this assessment, KYTC’s sign installation handbook can be updated with best practices for assembling and managing effective sign and signal crews as well as for conducting effective and safe sign maintenance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 11:32:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2593930</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Efficacy of Speed Warning Technologies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2582810</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Research was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of various speed warning technologies across a variety of critical speed-change contexts in order to provide guidance to support future installation and operation of such treatments in Michigan. The speed warning technologies evaluated in this research included dynamic speed feedback signs (DSFS), a flashing LED chevron system, a weather-activated slippery curve warning system, and targeted winter weather messages on changeable message signs (CMS). The speed reduction effectiveness of the selected speed warning technologies was assessed through a series of field evaluations performed at 21 highway locations representing various speed-change contexts, which included: freeway exit ramps (DSFS), mainline freeway curves (DSFS), rural highway curves (DSFS, flashing LED chevrons, weather-activated slippery curve warning system), transition from rural highway into a community (DSFS), transition from freeway to non-freeway (DSFS), and at bridges susceptible to winter icing (CMS messaging). The messaging strategies, warning alerts, and installation positions for each evaluation were selected based on the highway context and warning technology being evaluated. Speeds of free-flowing vehicles were tracked using LIDAR under existing baseline conditions and after the installation of the specified sign treatments. The primary measure of effectiveness was the speed reduction for each test sign condition compared to the existing signing. Overall, the study concluded that enhanced speed warning signing technologies can contribute to meaningful speed reductions in critical areas. The magnitude of the speed reductions varied based on the context, although speed reductions of up to 3.5 mph were observed at both horizontal curves and speed limit transition areas after the installation of the selected enhanced warning sign treatment. Similarly, drivers were 50 to 75 percent less likely to exceed the curve advisory speed or posted speed limit (or some increment above those speeds) after treatment installation. Typically, the greatest speed reductions were observed for drivers approaching at higher-than-average speeds, which is typically the group most targeted by the installation of such treatments. Based on the study findings, the continued use of the tested speed warning technologies is recommended for the highway contexts evaluated in this study. A series of specific recommendations related to sign characteristics, operational performance, and installation details are provided within the project report for each road context. The recommendations comply with the requirements of the 11th Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which provides considerably greater restrictions towards the utilization of DSFS compared to prior editions. The recommendations may be utilized by MDOT and other transportation agencies towards the development of implementable guidelines, standards, and/or provisions for the use of speed warning technologies at freeway and non-freeway horizontal curve applications, speed limit transition areas, and CMS messaging during winter weather conditions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 12:16:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2582810</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Size of Regulatory and Warning Signs







</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2558385</link>
      <description><![CDATA[BACKGROUND - The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets, highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site roadways open to public travel. Regulatory and warning signs are covered in MUTCD Chapters 2A (Dimensions), 2B (Size of Regulatory Signs), 2C (Size of Warning Signs and Plaques), 6G (Regulatory Sign Design and Size), 6H (Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application), 7B (Design of School Signs), 8B (Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs), 9A (General), 9B (Regulatory Signs), and 9C (Warning Signs and Object Markers). Transportation agencies face challenges with the size of regulatory and warning signs because real-world roadway features do not always clearly match the categories (e.g., conventional, expressway) in the MUTCD tables (e.g., Table 2C-1, Warning Sign and Plaque Sizes). For example, some high-speed roads pass through urban areas without a reduction in speed, which can lead to sign clutter and sign sizes that do not match roadway conditions. These issues can increase costs, create maintenance difficulties, and result in the overuse of larger signs.

Human factors is an applied scientific discipline that tries to enhance the relationship between devices and systems and the people who are meant to use them. As a discipline, human factors approaches system design with the user as its focal point. Human factors research can help address transportation agencies’ challenges with the size of regulatory and warning signs by focusing on how drivers and other road users see and respond to signs. This user-centered approach can provide transportation agencies evidence-based guidance on choosing optimum sign sizes. With this kind of support, states can reduce costs, improve consistency, and make sure regulatory and warning signs are both effective and easy to understand.

Research is needed to incorporate human factors into regulatory and warning signs to help transportation agencies select optimum sign sizes.

OBJECTIVE - The objective of this research is to provide guidance for selecting sizes of regulatory and warning signs based on traffic speed and highway context, considering human factors. 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

TASKS - Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and subaward time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective.

PHASE I – Planning and Method Development: (Task 1) Conduct a literature review of relevant research and the current state of the practice for the size of regulatory and warning signs, including existing sign manufacturing practice, text legibility, oversize sign usage, and effectiveness of larger signs. The review shall include published and unpublished research conducted by U.S. and international public- and private-sector organizations. Synthesize the literature review and the current state of the practice to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities related to the size of regulatory and warning signs. (Task 2) Propose a method to achieve the research objective that includes human factors testing. The method shall consider: (1) Sign sizes that can be used with engineering judgment based on constraints (e.g., budgetary, available space) and context (e.g., urban, rural, single lane); (2) Roadway functional classification; (3) Operating and posted speed; (4) Conspicuity of larger regulatory and warning signs;
(5) Impact of sign color and contrast. 

The proposed guidance for sizes of regulatory and warning signs must consider at minimum: (1) Language and tables for MUTCD Chapters 2A (Dimensions), 2B (Size of Regulatory Signs), 2C (Size of Warning Signs and Plaques), 6G (Regulatory Sign Design and Size), 6H (Warning Sign Function, Design, and Application), 7B (Design of School Signs), 8B (Sizes of Grade Crossing Signs), 9A (General), 9B (Regulatory Signs), and 9C (Warning Signs and Object Markers); (2) Sizes of text and symbols; (3) Definitions for high speed, low speed, expressway, conventional, urban, rural, single lane, and multilane; (4) Definitions for roadway context that identify the minimum size selection; (5) 
Definitions for the sign classification categories; (6) The importance of functional classification and speed, including which one takes precedence. (Task 3) Prepare an annotated outline for draft language for consideration by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to incorporate the research results in the next update of the MUTCD. (Task 4) Prepare Interim Report No. 1 to document Tasks 1 through 3 and provide an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. 

PHASE II – Method Execution: (Task 5) Execute the method developed in Tasks 3 and 4 according to the approved Interim Report No. 1. (Task 6) Prepare Interim Report No. 2 to document Task 5. This interim report shall include an updated work plan for Phase III.

PHASE III – Final Deliverables: (Task 7) Prepare draft language for consideration by the FHWA to incorporate the research results in the next update of the MUTCD (hereafter called the MUTCD Deliverable). Note: The MUTCD Deliverable is due at least 6 months before the subaward end date to allow for review and revisions. (Task 8) Prepare final deliverables, including: (1) The MUTCD Deliverable; (2) A final research report documenting the entire research effort, findings, and guidance for sizes of regulatory and warning signs; (3) Recommended future research; (4) A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” that includes plans for future model deployment (see Special Note L); (5) A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes summarizing the project and clearly illustrating how the results can be applied.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 14:05:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2558385</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Speed Limit Setting Handbook</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2543105</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This handbook provides practitioners with information on how to conduct an engineering study to set a speed limit for a speed zone based on the provisions in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). The discussion includes preparing for the study, the factors to consider, the data-collection process, evaluating the results, and implementing the results after completing the engineering study. This handbook also includes seven case studies to show examples of jurisdictions’ processes for setting speed limits aligned to the steps in this Handbook and speed limit setting policy examples.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 17:02:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2543105</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ITE and the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518163</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article provides the author's overview of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE)  involvement with and participation in the NCUTCD. The 11th edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was published by the Federal Highway Administration in 2023.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:29:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518163</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The 11th Edition of the MUTCD –What it Means to You</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518162</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the 11th edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) on December 18, 2023. It was the first new edition of the MUTCD since 2009. The author of this article discusses the new MUTCD and what it means for transportation engineers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:29:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518162</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pedestrian Accessibility and the MUTCD: A Changing Landscape</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518165</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The adoption of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) will shape pedestrian accessibility of our streets, but their concurrent development led to some inconsistencies and conflicts that can leave designers in the dark. Which guidance should practitioners follow? This article highlights four notable discrepancies related to pedestrian accessibility and offers suggestions for applying the new guidance to projects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:06:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518165</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>88 Years of MUTCD Editions: How the New MUTCD Evolved</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518164</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The newest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was published about a month after the 88th birthday of the first MUTCD. During those 88 years, the MUTCD evolved from 166 to 1,156 pages. While the newest edition has a great deal of valuable information on traffic control devices (TCDs), the reality is that significant portions of its content are similar to or the same as that in one or more earlier editions. This article describes how the MUTCD has evolved over time in order to help users to better understand and use the content in the current MUTCD.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:06:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2518164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>