DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Division of Transportation Solutions

Statutory Authority: 17 Delaware Code, Sections 134 and 141; 21 Delaware Code, Chapter 41

(17 Del.C. §§134, 141 and 21 Del.C. Ch. 41)

2 DE Admin. Code 2402

PROPOSED

PUBLIC NOTICE

2402 Delaware Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Under Title 17 of the Delaware Code, Sections 134 and 141, as well as 21 Delaware Code Chapter 41, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), adopted a Delaware version of the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The Department has now drafted revisions to the Delaware MUTCD. A description of the proposed changes accompanies this notice.

The Department will take written comments on the draft changes to the Delaware MUTCD from March 1, 2018 through April 2, 2018. Copies of the Draft Delaware MUTCD Revisions can be obtained by reviewing or downloading a PDF copy at the following web address: http://regulations.delaware.gov/

Questions or comments regarding these proposed changes should be directed to: Mark Luszcz, P.E., PTOE, Chief Traffic Engineer, Traffic Section, Division of Transportation Solutions, Delaware Department of Transportation 169 Brick Store Landing Road Smyrna, DE 19977 (302) 659-4062 (telephone) (302) 653-2859 (fax) mark.luszcz@state.de.us

The following is a summary of the official public comments that were submitted to DelDOT based on the October 2017 revision of the Delaware MUTCD posted as a proposed regulation in the November 2017 edition of the Delaware Register. During the 30-day public comment period, DelDOT received extensive comments from several parties, and therefore we are re-noticing the documents with the comments addressed. The comments and suggestions are listed below, along with the proposed action taken by DelDOT.

Pages	Sec/Fig/Table	Para.	Public Comment	DelDOT Response
1A-12	1A.13	01	When the term “shall” is used there is no variance or modification allowed. When the term “should” is used a written request for modification must be submitted to the chief traffic engineer and the ADA compliance officer of the department for approval. If there is no agreement between the ADA officer and the chief engineer the request shall be sent to the Secretary for final approval of the request. All decisions shall be produced in writing and filed with the original request in the project award/specifications for future reference.	No action taken. Justification: Mixing DE MUTCD and ADA requirements and processes.
2B-3	Table 2B-1 Sheet 2	-	Add a smaller “Do Not Enter” sign size to be used at development access points so it can fit on the back side of a 36” stop sign shape.	An option for a 24” x 24” DO NOT ENTER sign was added to be used on the back side of 36” STOP signs at development access points. Justification: Reduces the number of required sign assemblies at development entrances where DO NOT ENTER signs are required.
2B-10	2B.06	02	Add an additional criteria for the guidance to consider the use of STOP signs on minor-street approaches: “The vehicular volumes on the minor-street approach exceed 100 vehicles per day”. Adding a minimum volume threshold for the installation of STOP signs would reduce the costs to construct intersections with low-volume approaches; for example, at access points to new development or roadside businesses.	A guidance statement was added accordingly. Justification: The DE MUTCD provides minimum volume thresholds for major street approach but not minor street approach volumes for the installation of STOP signs. This guidance statement will allow for the omission of STOP signs on very low volume approaches based on engineering judgement.
2B-38	2B.37	03C	Consider shifting this guidance to Section 2B.38 as it regards placement of “DO NOT ENTER” signs moreso than “WRONG WAY” signs.	No action taken. Justification: The guidance statement is located in the DO NOT ENTER section already (as suggested) and in the first place chronologically that the reader might look.
2B-78 2B-79	Figure 2B-33 2B.72	08A	Consider placing this guidance under Chapter 2I (General Service Signs) due to the blue background.	No action taken. Justification: While signs with blue backgrounds are typically located in Chapter 2I, it is more appropriate to place the guidance for the supplemental plaque shown in Figure 2B-33 in the same section where the reader would look for this guidance.
2I-2 2I-13 2I-14	Table 2I-1 Figure 2I-8 2I.09	01A 09A	Is the intent to receive calls related to congestion? Consider safety concerns due to too many drivers making calls. This messaging might leave too much leeway for drivers to call about less important issues.	No action taken. Justification: The intent of this sign is for motorists to call with any kind of traffic problem. DelDOT can handle the number of calls.
3B-4	3B.01	11C	Add a Delaware Revision to accommodate on-street parking. Engineering judgment should be used in determining whether to place center line markings on roadways that accommodates on-street parking. At minimum, centerline striping should be installed at the beginning and ending of the roadway for 30 feet and leading in and out of a horizontal traffic calming device.	Guidance statement was added accordingly. Justification: DE MUTCD guidance does not account for roadways with on-street parking.
3B-4 3B-37	3B.01 3B.08	11D 03A	Add guidance or option (guidance preferred) to maintain or allow existing center line or edge line striping along roadways at the intersection with minor roadways or driveways with an ADT of 200 vehicles per day or lower; for example, at access points to new development or roadside businesses. Allowing center line and edge line striping to remain when constructing new intersections with low-volume roadways and driveways would result in reduced construction costs and improved pavement quality, which would naturally deteriorate when markings are eradicated from the pavement surface.	Guidance statement was added accordingly. Justification: This guidance statement will allow the center line and edge line to be maintained at low volume driveways based on engineering judgement.
3B-58	Figure 3B-15F	-	Add dimension between skip line RPMs. 80 feet?	Dimension was added accordingly. Justification: Provides additional clarification to designers.
3B-59	3B.16	01E	Add guidance: “Stop lines should not be installed at a stop-controlled approach with an ADT of 100 vehicles per day or lower, unless a crosswalk is present or engineering judgment indicates such a need.” Adding a minimum volume threshold for the installation of stop lines would reduce the costs to construct intersections with low-volume approaches; for example, at access points to new development or roadside businesses.	A guidance statement was added accordingly. Justification: This guidance statement will allow for the omission of stop lines on very low volume approaches based on engineering judgement.
4D-14 4D-15 4D-17	4D.11 4D-12	07A-07D 18-19B	Paragraph 07A is an option for backplates to be used, however design directive 2017-1 in the Traffic Design Manual provides more of a guidance statement pertaining to the usage of backplates. Do we want these statements to be consistent across both manuals?	Text was modified accordingly. Justification: Consistency with the Traffic Design Manual.
4E-11	4E.09	01-13	Since vehicles are considerably quieter due to motors shutting off when stopped or electric vehicles making no noise and improved exhaust and muffler technology, the determination regarding the placement of APS signals should be determined by the speed of vehicle traffic and the number of pedestrians that utilize the intersection. The APS will stop traffic making it safe and possible for all pedestrians to cross safely When traffic travels above 35 MPH all intersections should be assessed for an APS signal.	No action taken. Justification: DelDOT is following current “on request” process until the US Access Board finalizes rulemaking on this topic.
4E-15	4E.12	02	A short audible beep shall be audible to pedestrians walking along the intersected area to indicate the location of the APS signal button.	No action taken. Justification: Locator tone requirements are already included in the Manual.
4E-5	4E.04	07	If a marked crosswalk is skewed at an angle (not perpendicular to the road), then the pedestrian crossing distance used should be the distance along the crosswalk, not the perpendicular edge of road to edge of road distance.	No action taken. Justification: This is how crosswalks are measured. No MUTCD changes are required.
4E-7	4E.08	04	Strengthen the “should” guidance so that deviation from these criteria will occur infrequently when it is impossible due to physical constraints to comply. Lines A, E, G and H are especially important to people with a variety of disabilities.	No action taken. Justification: Existing constraints in the built environment precludes DelDOT from making this a standard.
4E-7	4E.08	05	Make this more stringent that it is impossible, not impractical, (shall) to have a level surface.	No action taken. Justification: Existing constraints in the built environment precludes DelDOT from making this a standard.
4E-9	Figure 4E-4	-	Figure 4E-4 shows the extension of the level area 18 inches beyond the centerline of the face of the pushbutton in compliance with Section 4E.08, paragraph 04, line H.	No action taken. Justification: An “extension of the level area 18 inches beyond the centerline of the face of the pushbutton” meets the guidance in Section 4E.08, paragraph 04, line H. It should also be noted, Figure 4E-4 is not drawn to scale, and the figure does not depict specific dimensions for the extension of the level area.
4E-12 4E-13 4E-15 4E-15 6D-1	4E.10 4E.11 4E.12 4E.13 6D.01		Utilize the ADA representative for DelDOT to assure compliance with regulations are taken into consideration.	No action taken. Justification: Mixing DE MUTCD and ADA requirements and processes.
4F-1	4F.01	01-08	A pedestrian hybrid beacon shall never be installed after a marked crosswalk which follows a curve in the road that blocks or decreases visibility.	No action taken. Justification: No changes were proposed. Also, specific engineering studies will determine the appropriate TCD’s at crosswalks.
6F-11	6F.04	04-06	Should this information be included in construction standards? Not appropriate for MUTCD?	No action taken. Justification: DelDOT believes this is applicable to this Manual.
6F-27	6F.59	13	Due to the inclusion of the modified 9”x12” pedestrian detour trailblazer (M4-9b-DE) in both the sign tables/figures as well as Typical Applications 28 and 29, is there ever a time when the standard M4-9b pedestrian detour trailblazer would be used? Can it be removed from the manual?	No action taken. Justification: Generally, the smaller sign should be used as shown by the new revisions. The larger sign is being kept in the Manual for the occasional situation where conspicuity of the smaller sign may be limited.
6H-38	Figure 6H-11A	Note 2	Proposed note 2 is not shown as a revision of the Typical Application 11A.	No action taken. Justification: Individual notes for figures such as the Typical Applications are considered part of the figure and have not been shown as individual revisions.
9B-6	9B.05	02	Consider making R4-4-DE mandatory instead of optional. Signage is important to clearly define that cars should yield to bikes in these situations. Current language discourages use of the sign, saying it should only be use in “special circumstances”. Should these circumstances be defined in sign remains optional?	No action taken. Justification: There is no evidence that these signs have any impact on road user behavior. DelDOT believes that roadway striping properly and sufficiently conveys the intended traffic control message related to lateral placement of motor vehicles and bicyclists. DelDOT has been reducing the number of these signs with no known negative comments or consequences. Further reduction of the use of this sign will allow other more important signs to be more prominent.
9B-12	9B.19	02	Add language to include the intent for when to install the Bicycle “IN LANE” sign (physical constraint, bridge overpass/underpass)	No action taken. Justification: The requested language (physical constraint, etc.) is already in paragraph 02, but is on the previous page, 9B-11.
9B-20	Figure 9B-9	-	Interested in not using the words “LOW STRESS” but using the word “NEWARK” along with “BIKEWAY” to identify what will grow to become a real network in Newark. The plan would be to use 24”x18” access signs at major points of entry and use a combination of two 24”x12” (identification plus information) signs to point out destinations and direction, including time and distance. On the information signs, we would prefer not to use all caps text, as it hinders quick readability.	Per discussions with FHWA, this section has been deleted. Justification: Discussions with FHWA
9B-20	9B.27	01 – 05	We are aware of the Department’s multi-year effort to use existing provisions in the Delaware MUTCD (e.g. section 2D.50) for bicycle wayfinding; we appreciate the Department’s persistence in trying to identify an effective signage solution for bicycle route wayfinding; and we enthusiastically endorse your recent submission to the Delaware MUTCD that include bicycle-specific wayfinding (Section 9B.27 Low Stress Bicycle Network Signs) to the Delaware Register. The proposed wayfinding signs will serve a critically important role for route decision-making, route monitoring and destination recognition for cyclists. In addition, the signs will be an indispensable tool to enable the Department to inform cyclists how to reach their destinations via “low stress” bicycle routes that avoid high-speed and/or high-volume motor vehicle traffic (which are profoundly frightening to most people and can also be unsafe). They will also serve an even more basic function. While Delaware has spent well over $50 million on new “low stress” cycling network infrastructure over the last five years, the public remains largely unaware of the existence of this embryonic network, even when it can be accessed nearby. The Department’s 9B.27 signs will enable the Department to “brand” the network it is building so the public is made aware of its existence. While many people have inflated and misguided ideas about the ability of signs to change behavior, signs are nevertheless critical at providing the information that transportation system users need. For cyclists, our most critical informational need is for “low stress” wayfinding. Over the next decade, as Delaware continues its efforts to build out an “all ages and abilities” low stress bicycle network, these section 9B.27 signs will be critical to the network’s function.	Per discussions with FHWA, this section has been deleted. Justification: Discussions with FHWA.
9B-15 9C-2 9C-3 9C-4 9C-6 9C-7 9C-8 9C-12 9C-15 9C-16	Figure 9B-5 Figure 9C-1 Figure 9C-1A Figure 9C-1B Figure 9C-1D Figure 9C-1E Figure 9C-1F 9C.04 Figure 9C-4B Figure 9C-4C	15 – 21	Agree that optional signs should be removed but R4-4-DE was not previously listed as optional in these figures. We believe this sign should remain. Also consider use of green paint in weaving area for emphasis.	No action taken. Justification: There is no evidence that these signs have any impact on road user behavior. DelDOT believes that roadway striping properly and sufficiently conveys the intended traffic control message related to lateral placement of motor vehicles and bicyclists. DelDOT has been reducing the number of these signs with no known negative comments or consequences. Further reduction of the use of this sign will allow other more important signs to be more prominent. DelDOT has requested and been granted approval by FHWA for the optional use of green paint in bicycle lanes. However, there is little evidence at this time that the green paint has any influence on driver or bicyclist’s behavior, or crash reduction potential. DelDOT is considering green bicycle lanes on a project by project basis, and will be more supportive of this feature if other (such as municipalities) are willing to maintain the green paint.”

The following is a summary of proposed changes to be incorporated into Revision 3 of the Delaware MUTCD, dated February 2018. This summary includes additional changes after the public comment period after the November 2017 publication of the Delaware Register.

Pages	Sec/Fig/Table	Para.	DelDOT Comment / Proposed Change	Modification
1A-3	Section 1A.07	01A	Add option for traffic control devices and applications based on engineering judgment and approval of DelDOT Chief Engineer.	Text added. Justification: Clarified approval process for traffic control devices that do not comply with standard statements.
1A-14	Section 1A.13	03	Add definition of bicycle box.	Text added. Justification: Concept of bicycle box is being introduced into the DE MUTCD.
2B-3	Table 2B-1	-	Add a footnote for ONE WAY (R6-1) signs to allow smaller signs on multi-lane conventional roads and expressways based on engineering judgment.	Table modified. Justification: Excessively large ONE WAY signs takes away from the visibility and message of the STOP sign on the minor street approach and other more important sign messages.
2B-3	Table 2B-1	-	Add option for 24” x 24” DO NOT ENTER sign to be used on the back side of 36” STOP signs at development access points.	Table modified. Justification: Reduces the number of required sign assemblies at development entrances where DO NOT ENTER signs are required.
2B-10	Section 2B.06	02	Add guidance for use of STOP signs on minor-street approaches.	Text added. Justification: The DE MUTCD provides minimum volume thresholds for major street approach but not minor street approach volumes for the installation of STOP signs. This guidance statement will allow for the omission of STOP signs on very low volume approaches based on engineering judgement.
2B-14	Section 2B.11	01E	Incorporate FHWA Official Interpretation – R1-5 Sign text into manual.	Text added. Justification: Updated text to reflect the FHWA official interpretation of the R1-5 series.
2B-38	Section 2B.37	03C	Provide guidance regarding spacing between DO NOT ENTER and WRONG WAY signs.	Text added. Justification: Numerous instances across the state where DO NOT ENTER AND WRONG WAY signs are being installed too close together.
2B-78 2B-79	Figure 2B-33 Section 2B.72	08A	Added IT CAN WAIT! plaque as an option	Text added and figure modified. Justification: Revised to reflect use of educational plaque
2C-2 2C-5 2C-35 2C-36	Table 2C-1 Table 2C-2 Section 2C.50 Figure 2C-11	01	Change designation for the Duck Crossing sign from W11-11-DE to W11-3-DE.	Table modified, text added, and figure modified. Justification: Revised to reduce potential confusion regarding sign designations for the Duck Crossing (originally W11-11-DE) sign and the Golf Cart (W11-11) sign.
2C-17	Figure 2C-3	-	Remove signs W1-11R and W13-1P from figure; keep text referring to these signs as an option.	Figure modified. Justification: W11-1R and W13-1P signs are often misused based on their depiction in Figure 2C-3d
2C-2 2C-5 2C-33 2C-34 2C-39	Table 2C-1 Table 2C-2 Section 2C.49 Figure 2C-10 Section 2C.60	06A 01A	Create new sign called W11-1-DE with text “IN LANE”. Provide guidance about preferred width of shoulder. Add new sign to list of vehicular traffic warning signs on Page 2C-33.	Text added and figure modified. Justification: Updated to reflect DelDOT’s desire to discontinue the use of the Share the Road plaque.
2D-3 2D-4 2E-6	Section 2D.05 Section 2E.14	01 04 07A	Revise text regarding lettering style to match original federal text.	Text modified. Justification: FHWA rescinded use of Clearview font.
2D-3 2D-21 2D-28	Table 2D-1 Figure 2D-7 Section 2D.41	08A	Add DART Beach Bus Park & Ride (D2-2-DE) sign to Figure 2D-7 and as an option in Section 2D.41, paragraph 08A.	Text and figure modified. Justification: Sign provides guidance regarding the distance to Park & Rides serving the DART Beach Bus
2D-29	Section 2D.43	07A 08A	Incorporate Interim Guidance – Overhead Street Signs Mounted on Traffic Signals memo	Text modified. Justification: Smaller letter heights are sufficient to convey information to motorists and problems with mounting large signs on signal mast arms and span wires.
2I-2 2I-13 2I-14	Table 2I-1 Figure 2I-8 Section 2I.09	01A 09A	Change “DISABLED VEHICLES” in sign D12-4-DE to “TRAFFIC PROBLEMS” and update text accordingly in Section 2I.09. Create new plaque “TRAFFIC ALERT WHEN FLASHING” as an optional supplement to the D12-1-DE sign, and update text accordingly in Section 2I.09	Text and figure modified. Justification: Revised to reflect current practices; TRAFFIC PROBLEMS conveys are more comprehensive message compared to DISABLED VEHICLES.
2K-3 2K-6	Figure 2K-1 Section 2K.07	02	Add reference to Standards for Agricultural Tourism Attraction Guide Signs memo; delete existing guidance	Text and figure modified. Justification: Standards for Agricultural Tourism signs have been modified.
3B-4	3B.01	11C	Add guidance for centerline markings on roadways with on-street parking	Text modified. Justification: Previous DE MUTCD guidance did not account for roadways with on-street parking.
3B-4 3B-37	3B.01 3B.08	11D 03A	Add guidance for maintaining center line and edge line striping along roadways at the intersection with minor roadways or driveways with an ADT of 200 vehicles per day or lower.	Text modified. Justification: This guidance statement will allow the center line and edge line to be maintained at low volume driveways based on engineering judgement.
3B-58	Section 3B-13 Figure 3B-15F Figure 3B-15G Figure 3B-15H	01.B.6	Remove RPMs from turn lanes on Figure 3B-15F and 3B-15H. Remove Figure 3B-15G. Create new Figure 3B-15G for RPM application for two-way left-turn lanes with 80’ spacing through the two-way left-turn lane and 40’ spacing approaching the intersection. Remove 48’ RPM spacing from Figure 3B-15F. Remove any text regarding 20’ RPM spacing (note 2 in multiple figures) along conventional roadways. Revise spacing for all RPMs to 40’ or 80’ for conventional roadways.	Text and figures modified. Justification: Excessive use of RPMs along conventional roadways; clarification needed for usage of RPMs along two-way left-turn lanes.
3B-59	3B.16	01E	Add guidance for stop lines at stop-controlled approaches with an ADT of 100 vehicles per day or lower.	Text modified. Justification: This guidance statement will allow for the omission of stop lines on very low volume approaches based on engineering judgement. Adding a minimum volume threshold for the installation of stop lines would reduce the costs to construct intersections with low-volume approaches; for example, at access points to new development or roadside businesses.
3B-60	3B.16	10	Add text to reference bicycle boxes in Part 9.	Text modified. Justification: Added Bicycle Boxes based on recommendations from the NCUTCD.
4D-14 4D-15 4D-17	Section 4D.11 Section 4D-12	07A-07D 18-19B	Change Guidance for use of signal backplates on signal heads mounted on mast arms and where an engineering study indicates their need. Add Standard for two-inch wide yellow retroreflective border on backplates and tether wire on signal heads with backplates on span wire.	Text modified. Justification: Text updated to be consistent with the DelDOT Traffic Design Manual.
4E-7 to 4E-10	Section 4E.08 Figure 4E-3 Figure 4E-4	04 06A	Add text to Section 4E.08 paragraph 04 with additional criteria regarding 10” guidance at landing area and extension. Revise wording in Section 4E.08 paragraph 06A. Update depictions of landing areas and pedestrian pushbuttons in Figure 4E-3 and Figure 4E-4.	Text and figures modified. Justification: Corrected issues with landing areas in Figure 4E-4. Updated for current practice in Delaware for Figure 4E-3.
6E-11	Section 6E.08	01A 01B 04A	Add Standard to prohibit flagger stations on Interstates, Freeways, and Expressways. Add Option for use of flaggers to support emergencies and incidents. Add Guidance for location of flagger stations for moving operations on two-lane, two-way roadways.	Text added. Justification: Reflects DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6F-1 6F-11	Section 6F.01 Section 6F.03	02 03 05 18	Add reference to AASHTO’s Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) when referring to NCHRP Report 350	Text modified. Justification: AASHTO’s MASH is an update to NCHRP Report 350
6F-11	Section 6F.04	04 – 06	Add Guidance, Option, and Standard for use of ballasts and sandbags with temporary sign stands.	Text added. Justification: Reflects DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6F-3 6F-20 6F-26 6H-79 6H-81	Table 6F-1 Figure 6F-5 Section 6F.59 Figure 6H-28 Figure 6H-29	03, 13 & 13A	Add the following signs to Table 6F-1 and Figure 6F-5: M4-9-DE1 (48”x36” I/F/E, 30”x24” Other), M4-9b-DE (9”x12”), and M4-9b-DE1 (9”x12”). Update text in Section 6F.59 to include new signs. Update the TA-28 and TA-29 to show new smaller signs.	Text, table and figures modified. Justification: There have been reports that motorists have confused pedestrian / bicycle detour signs for vehicular detour signs. The smaller version of these signs for pedestrians / bicyclists are intended to reduce driver confusion
6F-24	Section 6F.50	02A	Replace Share the Road plaque with W11-1-DE.	Text modified. Justification: Text updated to reflect DelDOT’s current standard practice to discontinue the use of the Share the Road plaque, as discussed in the Bicycle Warning Sign and Share the Road Plaque memorandum.
6F-29	Section 6F.60	30D	Add Guidance for placement of portable changeable message sign and drums to accommodate bicycles to the extent possible on conventional roads.	Text added. Justification: Reflects DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6F-37	Section 6F.67	01	Add Standard for base color of drums (orange).	Text added. Justification: Reflects DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6G-10	Section 6G.13	04A	Update text to include reference to Traffic Control Within Intersections memorandum.	Text modified. Justification: The memorandum describes DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6G-12	Section 6G.14	05 06	Add Standard to prohibit use of flaggers on Interstates, Freeways, and Expressways. Add Option for use of flaggers to support emergencies or incidents	Text added. Justification: Reflects DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6G-16	Section 6G.22	All	Create new section based on Interim Guidance – Rolling Road Blocks memorandum.	Section added. Justification: The memorandum describes DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6G-17	Section 6G.23	All	Create new section based on Interim Guidance – Installing and Removing TTC Devices memorandum.	Section added. Justification: The memorandum describes DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6G-19	Section 6G.24	All	Create new section based on Interim Guidance – Aerial Work memorandum.	Section added. Justification: The memorandum describes DelDOT’s current standard practice.
6H-38	Figure 6H-11A	01	Include Note 2 (Standard) from Figure 6H-11 in Figure 6H-11A	Figure modified. Justification: Modifications to regulatory signs (e.g., new STOP signs and new intersection traffic control types/operations), albeit temporary, require DelDOT Traffic’s formal approval and Traffic Control Device Authorization.
6H-66 & 6H-67	Figure 6H-21A	-	Create new typical application (TA-21A) for turn lane closure (left-turn or right-turn lane). Include shoulder closure taper transitioning into in-place left or right turn lane closure.	Figure added. Justification: A right-turn lane closure is a very common MOT application; yet, TA-21 is primarily intended for thru lane applications and TA-23 is a relatively uncommon double left-turn lane closure.
6H-71	Figure 6H-23	-	Shift signs and sign dimensions A and B on the eastbound approach back.	Figure modified. Justification: The former sign dimensions erroneously depicted the stop line as the primary point of measure; however, the beginning of the turn lane closure taper is the appropriate reference point.
7B-1 7B-4 7B-7 7B-9	Table 7B-1 Figure 7B-1 Figure 7B-3 Figure 7B-5	-	Update name and size of overhead school speed limit sign in Table 7B-1. Update overhead school speed limit sign in Figures 7B-1, 3, and 5.	Table and figures modified. Justification: Previously, sign read “School Speed XX Limit When Flashing”. Sign has been updated to read “School Speed Limit XX When Flashing” as described in Interim Guidance – Overhead School Speed Limit XX When Flashing Sign memorandum.
7B-7 7B-9 7B-13	Figure 7B-3 Figure 7B-5 Section 7B.15	17 & 18	Update school speed limit assembly signs with flashing beacons in Figures 7B-3 and 7B-5. Remove paragraph 18 in Section 7B.15, as paragraph 16 is sufficient for the description and location of the beacons, and paragraph 18 is incorrect.	Text and figures modified. Justification: Flashing beacons on school speed limit sign assembly has been updated to comply with MUTCD standards. Previously, both flashing beacons were located on top of the assembly, an arrangement which should only be used at railroad crossings.
7B-10	Section 7B.12	04A	Add paragraph 04A to Section 7B.12 to include R1-5 series signs.	Text modified. Justification: Updated text to reflect the FHWA official interpretation of the R1-5 series described in FHWA Official Interpretation – R1-5 Sign memorandum.
9B-2 9B-5 9B-8	Table 9B-1 Figure 9B-2(1) Section 9B.11	06 - 09	Add text and update table and figure for new EXCEPT BICYCLES R3-7bP plaque.	Text, table, and figure modified. Justification: Added plaque based on recommendations from the NCUTCD Except Bicycles Plaque and FHWA Interim Approval #18 memorandums.
9B-3 9B-11 9B-15	Table 9B-1 Section 9B.19 Figure 9B-3 Figure 9B-5	02	Remove W16-1P sign from Table 9B-1 and Figure 9B-3 (no longer related to bicycles). Add W11-1-DE sign to Figure 9B-3. Replace paragraph 02 with Option for W11-1-DE instead of SHARE THE ROAD plaque.	Text, table, and figures modified. Justification: New Bicycle IN LANE warning sign added based on DelDOT’s current practice. Text updated to reflect DelDOT’s current standard practice to discontinue the use of the Share the Road plaque, as discussed in the Bicycle Warning Sign and Share the Road Plaque memorandum.
9B-4 9B-13	Section 9B.04 Section 9B.21	01A 01A	Add Guidance for use of Bike Lane (R3-17) and Bicycle Route (M1-8) signs.	Text added. Justification: Reduce overuse of signs.
9B-5 9B-6 9B-7 9C-2	Figure 9B-2(1) Section 9B.05 Figure 9C-1	01 - 04	Eliminate use of the R4-4. Replace all references to R4-4 with R4-4-DE. Modify text to allow optional use of R4-4-DE for all weaving movements between bicycles and right-turning vehicles.	Table and figures modified. Justification: Application of both sign messages was confusing.
9B-15 9C-2 9C-3 9C-4 9C-6 9C-7 9C-8 9C-13 9C-14 9C-15 9C-16 9C-17	Figure 9B-5 Figure 9C-1 Figure 9C-1A Figure 9C-1B Figure 9C-1D Figure 9C-1E Figure 9C-1F Figure 9C-4 Figure 9C-4A Figure 9C-5 Figure 9C-6 Figure 9C-6A	-	Remove optional signs from figures.	Figures modified. Justification: Optional signs shown on figures have led to the overuse of optional signs.
9C-9	Figure 9C-1G	-	Remove Figure 9C-1G	Figure removed. Justification: Figure is no longer needed since the use of raised pavement markers is changing in Part 3 and will no longer be used along dotted lines.
9C-10	Section 9C.04	03A	Modify the Guidance text to include “should” condition.	Text modified. Justification: Clarified Guidance statement.
9C-12 9C-15 9C-16	Section 9C.04 Figure 9C-4B Figure 9C-4C	15 – 21	Add paragraphs 15 – 21 in Section 9C.04. Add Figures 9C-4B and 9C-4C.	Text and figures added. Justification: Text and figures added to depict common practice in Delaware for right-turn lane treatments where space does not exist to provide a dedicated bicycle lane to the left of a right-turn only lane, as described in the Interim Guidance; Part 9, Right-Turn Lane Markings for Bicycles memorandum.
9C-23 9C-25 9C-26	Section 9C.08 Figure 9C-10 Figure 9C-11	01 – 07	Add new section and figures.	Text and figures added. Justification: Added Bicycle Boxes based on recommendations from the NCUTCD Bicycle Box and FHWA Interim Approval #18 memorandums.

*Please Note: Due to the size of the proposed regulation, the Delaware Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is not being published here. A PDF version is available at the following location:

DE MUTCD Revision 3 - Part 1 - General

http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/march2018/proposed/MUTCDPart1General.pdf

DE MUTCD Revision 3 - Part 2 - Signs

http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/march2018/proposed/MUTCDPart2Signs.pdf

DE MUTCD Revision 3 - Part 3 - Markings

http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/march2018/proposed/MUTCDPart3Markings.pdf

DE MUTCD Revision 3 - Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals

http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/march2018/proposed/MUTCDPart4HighwayTrafficSignals.pdf

DE MUTCD Revision 3 - Part 6 - Temporary Traffic Control

http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/march2018/proposed/MUTCDPart6TemporaryTrafficControl.pdf

DE MUTCD Revision 3 - Part 7 - School Areas

http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/march2018/proposed/MUTCDPart7SchoolAreas.pdf