Level vs. Centered

[ran4sh]

The bottom edges of all signs should be level with the bottom member of the gantry.

Meanwhile, the practice of making all of the signs on a gantry the same vertical height is completely ass-backwards, so much so that the MUTCD actually bans it. To follow the MUTCD, you have to determine the panel size according to the size of the legend and nothing else, certainly not the sizes of other, unrelated signs that happen to be posted nearby. Obviously there will always be some amount of let for practicality's concern (e.g. rounding up to the next whole incremental panel size), but if you are determining panel size based on the sizes of other signs on the gantry you are putting form before function, which should never be allowed in a traffic engineering context.

You're arguing for function before form, which I certainly agree with. And I also agree that making a sign smaller, or adding more information to a restricted-height sign, like California does, should be considered a MUTCD violation.

The issue I have with your position is that I'm not aware of any evidence that making a sign *larger* than what the MUTCD requires, as is done in Georgia and some other areas, actually impedes on the function of the sign. I'm sure a larger-than-normal sign is just as legible as a standard size sign.

[roadfro]

I tend to like having all panels on a gantry be the same height, as it looks a lot cleaner to me, and it seems like a bit less in eye movement making the panels easier to read. Granted, I'm a bit biased in this regard because this is the default in Nevada where I've lived my whole life.

Nevada's approach isn't as rigid as neighboring California. NDOT generally has all panels the same height, and sometimes this results in a modest increase in sign area for some signs. (For example, this advance sign for Oddie Blvd on US 395 south is taller than need be for the amount of text, due to the height of the adjacent I-80 advance sign.) But Nevada doesn't enforce same size signs when it would be an obnoxious waste of sign panel area (like this regular exit sign next to an APL on I-80 West), and sometimes will allow the signs to be different heights even when they could've easily been forced to same height (like the southbound Airport Connector to I-215 signage, although I think this was a Clark County project not directly overseen by NDOT).

Interesting, does NV have any specific rules or guidelines to follow when deciding to make signs the same height or not?

Not to my knowledge, although I've not scoured NDOT design manuals to look. The default appears to be that all signs on a single sign bridge are the same height, and is what you'll see probably 90+ percent of the time. The most common exceptions tend to be situations where one of the signs has shields and its counterpart(s) does not, more complex signing/lane assignment situations (like that airport connector example), or one-off replacements of a single sign on the structure.

An example of a one-off replacement is this I-580/US 395 pull-through sign that was installed circa 2020-2021, to replace a pull-through sign that, when this structure was originally installed, was in Clearview and the same height as the others. The original sign just had a US 395 shield, which was covered by an I-580 shield when the 580 shields first went up on the highway circa 2012-2013–but apparently someone decided much later that the sign needed to be replaced to show both shields (a decision that should have been made in the first place), and we got a sign taller than the rest on the gantry. (This was short-lived, as the current Spaghetti Bowl Express project removed that entire sign structure in mid-late 2021.)

[Scott5114]

The bottom edges of all signs should be level with the bottom member of the gantry.

Meanwhile, the practice of making all of the signs on a gantry the same vertical height is completely ass-backwards, so much so that the MUTCD actually bans it. To follow the MUTCD, you have to determine the panel size according to the size of the legend and nothing else, certainly not the sizes of other, unrelated signs that happen to be posted nearby. Obviously there will always be some amount of let for practicality's concern (e.g. rounding up to the next whole incremental panel size), but if you are determining panel size based on the sizes of other signs on the gantry you are putting form before function, which should never be allowed in a traffic engineering context.

You're arguing for function before form, which I certainly agree with. And I also agree that making a sign smaller, or adding more information to a restricted-height sign, like California does, should be considered a MUTCD violation.

The issue I have with your position is that I'm not aware of any evidence that making a sign *larger* than what the MUTCD requires, as is done in Georgia and some other areas, actually impedes on the function of the sign. I'm sure a larger-than-normal sign is just as legible as a standard size sign.

I'm not sure whether it does or not, but a larger-than-necessary sign is also more expensive. It is already hard enough to fund transportation improvements without part of the budget being spent on aluminum and reflective sheeting square footage with no actual utility.

Also, in practice, states that make all signs the same size often do so statewide. California famously has a standard setting the height of all overhead sign panels to a uniform 90" regardless of what information will be contained on them (which I believe has recently been bumped up to 120" or something like that due to a new sign truss design entering service). This, combined with their unwillingness to use actual exit tabs like nearly every other state does, is the reason for a lot of the fantastically weird sign layouts in that state.

[ran4sh]

Signage is hardly the expensive part of transportation improvement.

California's maximum is 120, but there are plenty of one-line signs that are the correct height less than 120. So they're not "all" the same size. (Plus, at least if you believe them, their reason for not using external tabs was an actual engineering reason and not simply an aesthetic reason.)

[Rothman]

Signage is hardly the expensive part of transportation improvement.

California's maximum is 120, but there are plenty of one-line signs that are the correct height less than 120. So they're not "all" the same size. (Plus, at least if you believe them, their reason for not using external tabs was an actual engineering reason and not simply an aesthetic reason.)

Actually, overhead signs still take a decent chunk out of a DOT's capital program budget, since they're replaced cyclically and programmatically, rather than one-by-one.

[J N Winkler]

When construction began on the Springfield Interchange (I-95/I-495/I-395 complex in northern Virginia) in the late 1990's, the Washington Post reported that signing (including structural components) comprised about 10% of the then project cost of about $330 million.  That has become my rule of thumb for guesstimating the contribution signing makes to the cost of large projects, where all or nearly all action signs are mounted overhead and few, if any, structures are re-used.  Other rules of thumb (never intended to be precise, and probably out of date at this point) are $5000 for a ground-mounted sign, $30,000 for a cantilever-mounted sign, and $100,000 for an overhead signbridge.

[epzik8]

Pics in OP suggest each way is good depending on if the signs are all the same size.

[1995hoo]

This one is defunct, but see how you like this one. Neither level nor centered.

https://goo.gl/maps/z5TjanPL2sA55m376

[ran4sh]

That one looks level except for the rightmost sign, which I would treat as an error to have been mounted that high.

[jeffandnicole]

This one probably annoys me the most. https://goo.gl/maps/zdCyXgMgUUjonz8WA  The previous sign (pre-GSV) on the right for Mount Holly had been hit by a construction vehicle when they were reconstructing 295 here. The sign was the same height as the others.  When they replaced it, they used a smaller sign, abbreviated Mount to Mt and leveled it at the top of the other signs (you'll notice they also replaced the catwalk but not the sign lighting also.  Still legible, but not what was there before.  During the pandemic they replaced the signage across the gantry, but otherwise it was replaced in kind, so the new sign is still smaller than the rest, and still leveled to the top. https://goo.gl/maps/GqUBth4ezfJueMe9A

[CtrlAltDel]

This one probably annoys me the most. https://goo.gl/maps/zdCyXgMgUUjonz8WA  The previous sign (pre-GSV) on the right for Mount Holly had been hit by a construction vehicle when they were reconstructing 295 here. The sign was the same height as the others.  When they replaced it, they used a smaller sign, abbreviated Mount to Mt and leveled it at the top of the other signs (you'll notice they also replaced the catwalk but not the sign lighting also.  Still legible, but not what was there before.  During the pandemic they replaced the signage across the gantry, but otherwise it was replaced in kind, so the new sign is still smaller than the rest, and still leveled to the top. https://goo.gl/maps/GqUBth4ezfJueMe9A

That's the fourth option: top level.

[PurdueBill]

I have no issue with that NC example. The sign for the local street uses standard size text, while the sign for the Interstate uses larger than standard text, which is permitted in the MUTCD. Maybe they could remove one of the three destinations to make the sign smaller, but they don't have to. (And IMO I-440 west should have a control city, whether it's Oxford, Durham, etc)

The same assembly in a state like GA would have "wasted space" on the local street sign (Poole Rd), which some of y'all have complained about above.

The larger type with three destinations to go with 3 route shields makes for a too-large sign that makes the much smaller signs around it almost disappear.  Wish they could have used the same size type on all the signs.

Ohio has liked to center-align them usually, made easier in the past because the typical lighting (which Ohio doesn't use anymore now) was essentially part of the sign itself, not the gantry. 
https://goo.gl/maps/g56cNqdBzEfQDmqq7  (vestiges of the sign lighting conduit visible below each green sign, with luminaries removed)
https://goo.gl/maps/Uz9HqM1oPYZuop6K8
https://goo.gl/maps/cazcyvdv6FwzfxT3A
https://goo.gl/maps/Jkv1etvEEQvaHkwt7 (or the 5-wide old version with lights: https://goo.gl/maps/CLvgjsdeNxmTy2R29 )
You get the idea...they like centered ones.

[steviep24]

NYSDOT does centered.


Photo credit: webny99

[odditude]

This one probably annoys me the most. https://goo.gl/maps/zdCyXgMgUUjonz8WA  The previous sign (pre-GSV) on the right for Mount Holly had been hit by a construction vehicle when they were reconstructing 295 here. The sign was the same height as the others.  When they replaced it, they used a smaller sign, abbreviated Mount to Mt and leveled it at the top of the other signs (you'll notice they also replaced the catwalk but not the sign lighting also.  Still legible, but not what was there before.  During the pandemic they replaced the signage across the gantry, but otherwise it was replaced in kind, so the new sign is still smaller than the rest, and still leveled to the top. https://goo.gl/maps/GqUBth4ezfJueMe9A

it was the first time i thought a sign had looked better with a giant bite taken out of the corner!