Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[surferdude]

This survey is being conducted for District 1 which includes the following counties: Crawford, Erie, Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren.  Please take a few moments to think about your driving experiences throughout these counties over the past 12 months. We value and appreciate your feedback. 


http://www.getstrategy.com/NWPennDOT/

Thanks

[J N Winkler]

I shouldn't take this survey since I have not driven in PennDOT District 1 in 13 years.  However, if your agency is willing to accept feedback through this thread, I would like to point out a letter sizing problem which I have seen in signing plans covering District 1 and which appear to be produced in-house by the district traffic design unit:  initial capital letters in mixed-case words are too tall.  Some signing plans from the same source also suffer from an unrelated problem--a tendency to shift the baseline up for lowercase letters in mixed-case words.  The following extract from ECMS 76853 (if memory serves, a District 1 resurfacing job with some signing) demonstrates both problems:



A picture of the sign fabricated to this design was posted on this forum (in the "Worst Road Signs" thread, I think) and it matches this plan sheet exactly in all respects except for the Clearview series.  (The Clearview series used on the actual sign matches that called for in the dimensioning but is less condensed than that used to represent the legend on this plan sheet.  The plan sheet does not show the sign with the correct Clearview series because of a technical issue related to SignCAD fonts--I think this page of the plans was plotted using a version of signcad.rsc different from the one used to lay out the sign detail.  I have seen this particular issue in SignCAD plans produced by Arizona DOT, some MoDOT consultants, etc. so it is not a PennDOT-specific problem.)

A sign fabricated with the correct treatment of capital letters (see mockup below, based on a District 11 job) would cost no more and would tend to provide better traffic service since it wouldn't have any conspicuous anomalies that might distract drivers.

[surferdude]

I will PM you about this.

[ARMOURERERIC]

I have a query:  I lived in downtown Erie, 1983-86.  Went to city hall on several occasions, there was a mural inside painted in the late 1960's-early 70's showing downtown after all the (at the time of painting)urban redevelopment projects were completed.  The mural showed the bayfront access road as a freeway, the mural showed diamond intercanges with Liberty, State, and Parade, with that being the limits of the painting.  Ever see and support documents about this.

Some of the oldtimers that I used to discuss roadgeekery with used to tell me about a freeway plan that had a freeway going from about 12th and Sassafrass diagonally up to and over Brown ave to 26th along 26th and out to the Airport, that might explain the high powered exit to 26th st (US 20) WB.

Shame the never built the half diamond with 38th, by 1985 they really needed it.

Eric

[surferdude]

You missed all of the fun Eric in Erie.  I think the construction started in 1989 for the Bayfront Highway.  And the first portion opened up 1991 where it was from Greengarden Road in West to State Street, main street in Erie.  There is more infomation here. 

http://erie.pahighways.com/expressways/bparkway.html

I know that the East side took a little bit longer to complete since there where many bridges they had to gap through the various streams and creeks, other roadways, sound barriers, and had to disconnect many city and township roads so they could place the Connector in.  In 2004 they opened up the east side from Interstate 90 at Colt Station Exit to McClelland Avenue, a tad south to East 38th Street.  In 2005, they opened it up to Broad Street (US 20) where it changes from East 26th to Buffalo Road.  In 2006, they opened it up to East 12 Street (PA Route 5) and finally the rest up to Bayfront Highway.  In 2008, they finally designated part of the Bayfront as PA Route 290.  Mainly it serves the East Side of Erie, but does pick up where Interstate 79 ended at PA Route 5. 

I have never seen plans for a freeway from Sassafras Street to West 26th Street to the airport.  Although there was some widening done on Peninsula Drive (PA Route 832) for dual left turn lanes at West 26th and West 12th Street in 2007, completed in 2008.  Also Asbury Road is to be widened as well at West 26th and 12th Streets.  Which started in 2010, but was put on hold until they get permission from the Airport to work on there property so that they contactor can replace the existing culvert (small bridge).  And is to be completed in 2012. 

As far as them connecting East 38th Street to I-79.  I believe the residence did not want access to I-79.  PennDOT can not purchase additional Right of Way for the purposes of that, they must build ramps so they are stuck not being connected.  I-79 was finished in the 1980's.... 


   

[PAHighways]

A sign fabricated with the correct treatment of capital letters (see mockup below, based on a District 11 job) would cost no more and would tend to provide better traffic service since it wouldn't have any conspicuous anomalies that might distract drivers.

98-99% of the driving public wouldn't notice the difference in size of the capital letters to the lowercase letters, unless someone pointed out the difference.  They only care that there is a sign there to inform them of the upcoming exits.

[J N Winkler]

98-99% of the driving public wouldn't notice the difference in size of the capital letters to the lowercase letters, unless someone pointed out the difference.  They only care that there is a sign there to inform them of the upcoming exits.

I think you underestimate how observant the motoring public is.  But let us assume for a moment that you are correct.  That still leaves two important considerations:

*  When there is a size mismatch between capital and lowercase letters in mixed-case legend, it is almost always because the capital letters are the correct size (as mandated in the MUTCD) while the lowercase letters are too small.  When a sign has smaller lettering than called for in the MUTCD, it has a shorter legibility distance and motorists have less time to read and absorb the message.

*  The cost of a sign is generally dependent on sign panel square footage.  Since the correctly designed sign is no bigger than the incorrectly designed sign, it costs nothing extra to erect a correctly designed sign, and it will tend to have a longer service life because design fault will not come into play as a reason for early replacement.

[surferdude]

98-99% of the driving public wouldn't notice the difference in size of the capital letters to the lowercase letters, unless someone pointed out the difference.  They only care that there is a sign there to inform them of the upcoming exits.

I think you underestimate how observant the motoring public is.  But let us assume for a moment that you are correct.  That still leaves two important considerations:

*  When there is a size mismatch between capital and lowercase letters in mixed-case legend, it is almost always because the capital letters are the correct size (as mandated in the MUTCD) while the lowercase letters are too small.  When a sign has smaller lettering than called for in the MUTCD, it has a shorter legibility distance and motorists have less time to read and absorb the message.

*  The cost of a sign is generally dependent on sign panel square footage.  Since the correctly designed sign is no bigger than the incorrectly designed sign, it costs nothing extra to erect a correctly designed sign, and it will tend to have a longer service life because design fault will not come into play as a reason for early replacement.

This sign was designed in signCAD.  Clearview Lettering Style was used which is new to Pennsylvania, and accepted by the Feds.  The Letters are correctly sized in accordance with PennDOT Publication 111M, Traffic Control Pavement Markings & Signing Standards-TC 8600 & 8700, which uses TC-8700 uses Clearview Lettering which is located on Sheet 8 thru 11. 

[J N Winkler]

The Letters are correctly sized in accordance with PennDOT Publication 111M, Traffic Control Pavement Markings & Signing Standards-TC 8600 & 8700, which uses TC-8700 uses Clearview Lettering which is located on Sheet 8 thru 11.

No, sir, the lettering is not correctly sized.  Here is a picture of the actual sign (click to view at full 1024 x 768 resolution):



If the lettering were correctly sized, the lowercase letters would be larger.

TC-8700 sheets 8 through 11 in Publication 111M (pp. 33-36 in the PDF file currently available from the PennDOT website) are spacing charts for intercharacter spacing, which is not at issue here.  The intercharacter spacing is correct for the height of lowercase letter that is actually used; it is the height itself that is wrong.

I think the problem here is a misinterpretation of TC-8700C (sheet 1 of 18, p. 26 in the PDF file).  It is based on the old days of Series E Modified, when there was just all-uppercase Series E Modified which was dimensioned by capital letter height and a separate Lowercase alphabet which was dimensioned by lowercase loop height.  In correctly sized mixed-case Series E Modified/Lowercase legend, the lowercase loop height is always 3/4 the capital letter height.  The current version of Series E Modified is now mixed-case, so mixed-case legend in that typeface is now correctly specified by capital letter height only.  This means that if you choose 16" capital letter height, you get lowercase letters at the correct 12" lowercase loop height automatically.

There are two issues with using the old Series E Modified/Lowercase letter sizing rules with Clearview legend.  First, none of the Clearview alphabets have a tidy 4:3 ratio between uppercase letter height/lowercase loop height.  The ratio is more like 5:4 or 6:5.  Second, like the post-2000 Series E Modified, Clearview typefaces include both uppercase and lowercase letters and are correctly specified as to height by uppercase letter height only.

The interchange sequence sign being discussed in this thread would have been correctly designed if the lettering had been specified only as Clearview 5-W 13.4" capital letter height.  The sign design actually calls for 13.4" capital letters paired with lowercase letters that are designed to match the height of 10" capital letters.  In other words, the actual lowercase loop height is considerably less than 10"--eyeballing it, I would say about 8".

I would note in addition that other PennDOT districts like Districts 6 and 11 have been sizing Clearview legend by uppercase letter height only, as I have outlined above.  This results in signs where the lowercase letters match the uppercase letters and are easy to read.  The part of TC-8700C sheet 1 which deals with uppercase and lowercase letters is obsolete and should not be used for legend in Clearview or the current versions of the FHWA alphabet series; the only parts which are still relevant are the ones dealing with composition of fraction rectangles and exit tab legend.

[surferdude]

The Letters are correctly sized in accordance with PennDOT Publication 111M, Traffic Control Pavement Markings & Signing Standards-TC 8600 & 8700, which uses TC-8700 uses Clearview Lettering which is located on Sheet 8 thru 11.

No, sir, the lettering is not correctly sized.  Here is a picture of the actual sign (click to view at full 1024 x 768 resolution):



If the lettering were correctly sized, the lowercase letters would be larger.

TC-8700 sheets 8 through 11 in Publication 111M (pp. 33-36 in the PDF file currently available from the PennDOT website) are spacing charts for intercharacter spacing, which is not at issue here.  The intercharacter spacing is correct for the height of lowercase letter that is actually used; it is the height itself that is wrong.

I think the problem here is a misinterpretation of TC-8700C (sheet 1 of 18, p. 26 in the PDF file).  It is based on the old days of Series E Modified, when there was just all-uppercase Series E Modified which was dimensioned by capital letter height and a separate Lowercase alphabet which was dimensioned by lowercase loop height.  In correctly sized mixed-case Series E Modified/Lowercase legend, the lowercase loop height is always 3/4 the capital letter height.  The current version of Series E Modified is now mixed-case, so mixed-case legend in that typeface is now correctly specified by capital letter height only.  This means that if you choose 16" capital letter height, you get lowercase letters at the correct 12" lowercase loop height automatically.

There are two issues with using the old Series E Modified/Lowercase letter sizing rules with Clearview legend.  First, none of the Clearview alphabets have a tidy 4:3 ratio between uppercase letter height/lowercase loop height.  The ratio is more like 5:4 or 6:5.  Second, like the post-2000 Series E Modified, Clearview typefaces include both uppercase and lowercase letters and are correctly specified as to height by uppercase letter height only.

The interchange sequence sign being discussed in this thread would have been correctly designed if the lettering had been specified only as Clearview 5-W 13.4" capital letter height.  The sign design actually calls for 13.4" capital letters paired with lowercase letters that are designed to match the height of 10" capital letters.  In other words, the actual lowercase loop height is considerably less than 10"--eyeballing it, I would say about 8".

I would note in addition that other PennDOT districts like Districts 6 and 11 have been sizing Clearview legend by uppercase letter height only, as I have outlined above.  This results in signs where the lowercase letters match the uppercase letters and are easy to read.  The part of TC-8700C sheet 1 which deals with uppercase and lowercase letters is obsolete and should not be used for legend in Clearview or the current versions of the FHWA alphabet series; the only parts which are still relevant are the ones dealing with composition of fraction rectangles and exit tab legend.

You are correct in saying that sheet 1 of 26 is for the older method which did use Series E/mod.  I know for a fact that they never changed the first sheet around after going to Clearview Lettering.  When I was looking at it I was comparing the intercharcter spacing.  I thought the height was the correct height, which it is not.  I don't think they will change it around since the sign was placed recently.  I guess you will have to wait 12 years or more for the sign to be replaced, which is the expected sign life.  Thank you for pointing and posting that out. 

[PAHighways]

I think you underestimate how observant the motoring public is.  But let us assume for a moment that you are correct.

I think you overestimate how much the motoring public cares about the aesthetics of signage.  I know non-roadgeeks who didn't know there was a new font being used for signage, until I showed them a picture of one in FHWA and one in Clearview.

*  The cost of a sign is generally dependent on sign panel square footage.  Since the correctly designed sign is no bigger than the incorrectly designed sign, it costs nothing extra to erect a correctly designed sign, and it will tend to have a longer service life because design fault will not come into play as a reason for early replacement.

The general public already thinks PennDOT wastes money.  People were ready to storm the Keystone Building when the amount spent on ARRA signage made it to the news.

If that sign is legible, accurate, reflective, and still standing, it doesn't need to be replaced.  I don't care if a replacement would cost $10,000 or $10, I'd rather that money be spent on repairing roads and the over 2,000 structurally deficient bridges, some of which I probably drive over on a daily basis!  I am sure if asked, other Pennsylvania taxpayers would take a new bridge or a smooth road over fixing font sizes on newly installed signs.

[J N Winkler]

I think you overestimate how much the motoring public cares about the aesthetics of signage.  I know non-roadgeeks who didn't know there was a new font being used for signage, until I showed them a picture of one in FHWA and one in Clearview.

The size mismatch between the lowercase and uppercase letters is an aesthetic fault, I grant you, but the actual issue here is that the Pennsylvania taxpayer has spent 100% of the cost for 75% of the traffic service that could be expected from the correctly designed sign.  In other words, engineering and economics are the critical considerations; aesthetics is secondary.

In my posts to this and other forums, I generally try to avoid recommending public policy measures on the basis of aesthetics.  This is why I have never argued, for example, that the FHWA alphabet series should be used instead of Clearview "because Clearview is ugly."  Except in a few narrowly defined instances, government departments are expected to shape their policy preferences on the basis of objective measures of public cost and public benefit.

If that sign is legible, accurate, reflective, and still standing, it doesn't need replaced.

I haven't actually argued that it should be replaced, and Surferdude has a good point about the sunk cost.  Economists have a saying:  bygones are bygones.  Replacing the sign that now exists with a correctly designed sign would be buying an additional 25% of traffic service at 100% of the cost, and while that might be justified in the case of a few very safety-critical signs, I actually don't think it is in the case of an interchange sequence sign.  Another consideration is that the contractor made the sign precisely as shown in the plans PennDOT supplied, so the cost of a replacement cannot be recovered from him on the basis of contractor error.  (Contractors cannot be expected to assume financial liability for events not under their control.)

I don't care if a replacement would cost $10,000 or $10, I'd rather that money be spent on repairing roads and the over 2,000 structurally deficient bridges, some of which I probably drive over on a daily basis!  I am sure if asked, other Pennsylvania taxpayers would take a new bridge or a smooth road over fixing font sizes on newly installed signs.

Pennsylvania taxpayers, if they are rational, will want the most benefit from their tax dollars.  This won't necessarily mean just fixing bridges or road surfaces.  Signing is part of the mix.

Since District 1 has an ongoing sign replacement program, it has replaced some signs in the past and will replace other signs in the future.  I am not asking that this specific sign be replaced; instead, I ask that the design error not be repeated on other signs in the future.  I chose this particular interchange sequence sign purely as a convenient example (one picture being worth a thousand words, and all that).

[PAHighways]

The size mismatch between the lowercase and uppercase letters is an aesthetic fault, I grant you, but the actual issue here is that the Pennsylvania taxpayer has spent 100% of the cost for 75% of the traffic service that could be expected from the correctly designed sign.

My issue is that my tax dollars have been spent on a sign; 75% is better than 0%.  If that, or any, sign is somehow damaged or looses reflectivity which renders it a detriment to safety than an enhancement, or if it was manufactured poorly, then by all means it needs replaced.

Pennsylvania taxpayers, if they are rational, will want the most benefit from their tax dollars.  This won't necessarily mean just fixing bridges or road surfaces.  Signing is part of the mix.

When people see an agency that cries poverty, and legislators trying to toll a free Interstate as well regurgitate the same solutions (raise registration/license costs and gas taxes), taxpayers will be irate.  More so if said agency is replacing what appears to the layman to be perfectly good (and new) signage, it will be viewed as nothing more than pork.

[J N Winkler]

My issue is that my tax dollars have been spent on a sign; 75% is better than 0%.

So, what is your point?  Do you want the new sign taken down and destroyed and the old sign salvaged from whichever scrapyard it has been taken to, and re-erected?

Pennsylvania taxpayers, if they are rational, will want the most benefit from their tax dollars.  This won't necessarily mean just fixing bridges or road surfaces.  Signing is part of the mix.

When people see an agency that cries poverty, and legislators trying to toll a free Interstate as well as regurgitate the same solutions (raise registration/license costs and gas taxes), taxpayers will be irate.

PennDOT's conflicted relationship with its public has many causes and is too complex to be dealt with effectively in this thread.  However, it is safe to say that design errors are not a good way to rebuild public trust.

More so if said agency is replacing what appears to the layman to be perfectly good (and new) signage, it will be viewed as nothing more than pork.

This sounds like a retort to a suggestion that brand-new signage should be replaced when, in fact, I have made no such suggestion, nor have I seen anyone else do so in this thread.  I am afraid I don't understand where you are coming from.

[PAHighways]

Do you want the new sign taken down and destroyed and the old sign salvaged from whichever scrapyard it has been taken to, and re-erected?

The new sign destroyed?  Absolutely not!

PennDOT's conflicted relationship with its public has many causes and is too complex to be dealt with effectively in this thread.  However, it is safe to say that design errors are not a good way to rebuild public trust.

I know all too well the issues as a resident of this state, and wasn't going into a complex discussion of them.  As I have said, people don't notice minor errors in layouts, or if they do, they don't report them for whatever reason.  Either they don't notice them as they glance at a sign and the problem doesn't register in that brief amount of time, they figure that is how a sign should look because they don't know the MUTCD or investigate sign plans, etc. etc.  Looking through Outlook at all of the e-mailed complaints that I have received over the years about PennDOT, I can't find one about a sign not looking right.

My issue is if people traveling the route often see the replacement going in and then another similar sign going in only a few months later, they'll think it is a waste which will not help the public's view.  I've heard people complain about pavement being torn up for something not even remotely related to anything the DOT has done or not done, and more often than not, "Didn't they just pave that road?  Figures, that's PennDOT for you!" will be uttered somewhere along the way.

[qguy]

My issue is if people traveling the route often see the replacement going in and then another similar sign going in only a few months later, they'll think it is a waste which will not help the public's view.  I've heard people complain about pavement being torn up for something not even remotely related to anything the DOT has done or not done, and more often than not, "Didn't they just pave that road?  Figures, that's PennDOT for you!" will be uttered somewhere along the way.

I can confirm that. When I worked at PennDOT District 6, the Utilities section would work long and hard to line up all the utilities to ensure they would perform all their planned work ahead of a repaving project (whether a simple mill-and-fill at one end of the spectrum to a full-depth reconstruction or reconfiguation on the other end).

It never failed though; no matter the commitments obtained ahead-of-time (yeah, we promise) not a month would pass (sometimes not even a week) that one of the utilities would open the new pavement for some odd thing that could've been done before the project. The district's Utilities section chief would be seen throwing chairs and other office equipment, pulling out his hair, and later wimpering in a fetal position in the corner.

Of course, the patch on the opening would be done in a haphazard manner and would slump, and members of the public would be heard mumbling, "Typical PennDOT." Many times I've explained to friends and acquaintances that small-time roadword is almost never PennDOT's doing, PennDOT is often surprised by it, and we're actually even more annoyed by it than you (the public) are.

Don't know about higher levels of state government, but at the district level in PennDOT, they're extremely sensitive to things which cause them to be perceived as wasting taxpayer money.

[billpa]

I think it's clear that JN Winkler is saying Penndot should get it right before putting the sign in place.  That sign is obviously wrong- it just looks wrong to the eye without even considering the math involved in putting it together.  I, as a PA citizen, want Penndot to install good signage that works as designed- this one fails the test. 
For the most part I think Penndot's highway signage is fine....

I 'do' wish the posts used for signs on minor roads would stand up straight for longer periods of time.

[hbelkins]

If PA used demountable copy, this issue would be easily resolved. Remove the offending lettering and replace with correct lettering. To fix this sign in PA would require either a totally new sign or extensive greenouts.

[PAHighways]

I'm all for PennDOT getting it right the first time, and more often than not, signage is fabricated without any issues.  My point was that even if it isn't perfect, a sign like that is still useable.  If there are enough complaints from motorists, then use green-outs to cover up the original text.

[Alex]

There are several more examples along Interstate 79 of the misaligned Clearview font in the Erie area, some for exits that also include signage that was done correctly.