Yellow NY 80 shields

[Dougtone]

I saw a number of yellow NY 80 shields yesterday in Fort Plain and Nelliston, on NY 5, NY 80 and local streets (possibly on NY 5S as well, but I didn't see any).  While I have reason to believe that it may be a supplemental way of showing there is a weight limit on the NY 80 bridge over the Erie Canal and Mohawk River connecting Fort Plain with Nelliston, I am pretty sure this is not MUTCD compliant.

[Snappyjack]

Well I certainly hope that's not the new look for our state shields..  First we get crappy new license plates and now this?

[bugo]

I don't see why the route markers are not MUTCD compliant.  The MUTCD doesn't have a required design for state routes.  The Kansas route marker uses a very similar color to this one.  The arrow is probably not compliant.

[Dougtone]

As I mentioned before, I am pretty sure that the shield has a big yellow border as a way to warn drivers about a weight limit for a bridge.

[vdeane]

I don't see why the route markers are not MUTCD compliant.  The MUTCD doesn't have a required design for state routes.  The Kansas route marker uses a very similar color to this one.  The arrow is probably not compliant.

I believe the MUTCD specifies the circle for state routes, but it's either not actually required or not enforced.

[TheStranger]

I believe the MUTCD specifies the circle for state routes, but it's either not actually required or not enforced.

IIRC, the circle serves as a "default" option if a state doesn't have its own proprietary design.

[J N Winkler]

I don't see why the route markers are not MUTCD compliant.  The MUTCD doesn't have a required design for state routes.  The Kansas route marker uses a very similar color to this one.  The arrow is probably not compliant.

The route marker itself is acceptable, but its use against a yellow background is not (not least because there is no visual separation between the white background of the route marker and the yellow background of the surrounding panel), and the ordering of the signs on the post is probably wrong.  It is basically a badly thought out assembly.  What is it trying to do?  If it is trying to warn drivers that part of NY 80 is subject to a weight limit, why isn't it showing a way to reconnect with NY 80 that avoids the weight limit?

I am going to try to think up a better way to communicate the information.

[Duke87]

IIRC, the circle serves as a "default" option if a state doesn't have its own proprietary design.

Yup.

Guidance:
State Route signs (see Figure 2D-3) should be rectangular and should be approximately the same size as the U.S. Route sign. State Route signs should also be similar to the U.S. Route sign by containing approximately the same size black numerals on a white area surrounded by a rectangular black background without a border. The shape of the white area should be circular in the absence of any determination to the contrary by the individual State concerned.

As for the yellow background, it's strange, but I don't know that it's necessarily a violation.

[J N Winkler]

Suggested fix:



This is MUTCD-compliant.

[Alps]

Suggested fix:



This is MUTCD-compliant.

No, "Avoiding Weight Limit" is not MUTCD compliant because the message is not in there.  "Trucks over 25 tons" would be acceptable, though.  "Weight Limit 25 tons" is the preferred wording, by the way, for the left panel, and the sign is really black on white because it's regulatory.  So that would also have to change on both the original post and your sign.

[J N Winkler]

No, "Avoiding Weight Limit" is not MUTCD compliant because the message is not in there.  "Trucks over 25 tons" would be acceptable, though.  "Weight Limit 25 tons" is the preferred wording, by the way, for the left panel, and the sign is really black on white because it's regulatory.  So that would also have to change on both the original post and your sign.

"25 ton limit" would be inappropriate against a white background at this location because the real purpose of the panel is to warn of an upcoming, but not imminent, restriction on NY 80.  The principle involved is similar to showing an upcoming speed limit reduction against yellow background.  Where warning signs in general are concerned, the MUTCD allows custom verbiage where there is no standard sign that fits the hazard, and there is no sign in the MUTCD for warning of an upcoming weight limit.  "Avoiding weight limit" is really a guide sign message and so is appropriate against green background.  The MUTCD does not specify all possible guide-sign messages, nor (if memory serves) does it require that guide signs must always conform to layouts shown in Standard Highway Signs (though there have been attempts in the past, notably during the 2002 revision, to put in such a requirement).

The only aspect of the design whose MUTCD compliance I think is questionable is the use of 4" lettering for "Avoiding weight limit."  I am not sure the dispensation allowing 4" lettering for "minor" guide sign legend still exists, though plenty of states continue to use it on guide signs where the primary legend is 6" (one common example being county line signs where the name of the county appears at 6" but "County line" or "Entering" . . . "County" appear at 4").

[D-Dey65]

I realize it's also obstructing a parking regulatory sign. Shouldn't NYSDOT at least put the two of them on the same post?

[Quillz]

I think the actual sign would look fine if the shield was just given an outer black border. White transitioning onto yellow just doesn't look good, but black to yellow does.