Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

[jakeroot]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/43563547702/in/dateposted-public/
I always find Missouri's overhead assemblies like these to be very cool!

In my opinion, only BGSs where all signs are the same height can qualify as "good". All others are simply fine. Can that sometimes result in a little extra green space on one or two signs? Yes, but my OCD will not allow me to like anything less, so...

I give that Missouri sign a "fine" rating. I don't see anything special about it. It's just a normal array of guide signs. However, one giant, glaring issue is the leftmost sign being mounted higher than the other two. That's almost a disqualifier for being "fine" (nearly bumping it to "okay").

[PHLBOS]

I give that Missouri sign a "fine" rating. I don't see anything special about it. It's just a normal array of guide signs. However, one giant, glaring issue is the leftmost sign being mounted higher than the other two. That's almost a disqualifier for being "fine" (nearly bumping it to "okay").

Such is almost as if it's center-justified vertically with respect to the main panel of the middle sign while the sign on the right is bottom-justified.  IMHO, choose either one or the other in terms of vertical-justification not both.

[jakeroot]

I give that Missouri sign a "fine" rating. I don't see anything special about it. It's just a normal array of guide signs. However, one giant, glaring issue is the leftmost sign being mounted higher than the other two. That's almost a disqualifier for being "fine" (nearly bumping it to "okay").

Such is almost as if it's center-justified vertically with respect to the main panel of the middle sign while the sign on the right is bottom-justified.  IMHO, choose either one or the other in terms of vertical-justification not both.

My preference is definitely for bottom-justified, but certainly one or the other needs to be used.

This sign on southbound WA-167 has an alignment issue that has bothered me for years: https://goo.gl/V9uFyp. The signs are nearly the same height, but the one on the left is aligned above the one to its right.

[PHLBOS]

This sign on southbound WA-167 has an alignment issue that has bothered me for years: https://goo.gl/V9uFyp. The signs are nearly the same height, but the one on the left is aligned above the one to its right.

Look to be top-justified; the sign on the right is slightly taller than the one on the left.

[jakeroot]

This sign on southbound WA-167 has an alignment issue that has bothered me for years: https://goo.gl/V9uFyp. The signs are nearly the same height, but the one on the left is aligned above the one to its right.

Look to be top-justified; the sign on the right is slightly taller than the one on the left.

On the approach, it looks to be purely out of alignment; it's only up close that they look to be top-justified. The sign on the right is definitely taller (by a couple inches at most). Nevertheless, I would have appreciated bottom-justified, as is the norm in Washington.

[Scott5114]

In my opinion, only BGSs where all signs are the same height can qualify as "good".

BGS assemblies where all signs are the same height are incredibly silly.

Draw up a vanilla MUTCD gantry where the left panel is a 1-mile advance sign for an interstate with two control cities and the right panel is an exit direction sign for a local street. Figure out a way to make them both the same size without making it look stupid or like a college kid writing an essay with a page quota made it. (You can't.)

However, one giant, glaring issue is the leftmost sign being mounted higher than the other two. That's almost a disqualifier for being "fine" (nearly bumping it to "okay").

I think this is a case of practicality winning over aesthetics, since the panel in question is just barely bigger than the height of the gantry. That leads me to believe that it would have been awkward to mount the sign in justification with the other two. It probably would have required such a minute amount of z-bar as to not be worth the hassle of cutting it to size, so they decided to nudge it a few inches and figured nobody would notice or care.

The only real weakness in their work product is that they tend to include information (such as US route overlaps) that doesn't really need to be there, but always with impeccable space padding.

At least in the sign pictured, there's little reason to not include US-40, since the determining panel size factor is "Kansas City". If you ditched the shield, you'd just have more green space. (This is disregarding message-loading concerns, but I don't think throwing one shield in would really affect that much on that front. Now, in downtown Kansas City, it could cause problems.)

[freebrickproductions]

Here's a sign here in Huntsville with two vastly different arrow sizes on it:
Different Arrow Sizes by freebrickproductions, on Flickr

[jakeroot]

Draw up a vanilla MUTCD gantry where the left panel is a 1-mile advance sign for an interstate with two control cities and the right panel is an exit direction sign for a local street. Figure out a way to make them both the same size without making it look stupid

Challenge accepted. There's three ways to do this: (1) widen the left panel to avoid a tall sign, (2) use a single sign panel, or (3) use a modified APL.





The top two signs are 108" tall. The third is 123" tall.

or like a college kid writing an essay with a page quota made it. (You can't.)

You mean "being crafty"? Infrastructure is an art. Some see the importance in particular things more than others (sign heights for me), but that doesn't totally negate the importance of these things.

However, one giant, glaring issue is the leftmost sign being mounted higher than the other two. That's almost a disqualifier for being "fine" (nearly bumping it to "okay").

I think this is a case of practicality winning over aesthetics, since the panel in question is just barely bigger than the height of the gantry. That leads me to believe that it would have been awkward to mount the sign in justification with the other two. It probably would have required such a minute amount of z-bar as to not be worth the hassle of cutting it to size, so they decided to nudge it a few inches and figured nobody would notice or care.

Wow. I'm really impressed by their laziness.

[Eth]

Draw up a vanilla MUTCD gantry where the left panel is a 1-mile advance sign for an interstate with two control cities and the right panel is an exit direction sign for a local street. Figure out a way to make them both the same size without making it look stupid

Challenge accepted. There's three ways to do this: (1) widen the left panel to avoid a tall sign, (2) use a single sign panel, or (3) use a modified APL.

https://i.imgur.com/FiF99zN.png
https://i.imgur.com/0fAWrNa.png
https://i.imgur.com/Jcpk4Iu.png

GDOT could use your services.



And no, the new signs aren't necessarily any better:

[jakeroot]

Draw up a vanilla MUTCD gantry where the left panel is a 1-mile advance sign for an interstate with two control cities and the right panel is an exit direction sign for a local street. Figure out a way to make them both the same size without making it look stupid

Challenge accepted. There's three ways to do this: (1) widen the left panel to avoid a tall sign, (2) use a single sign panel, or (3) use a modified APL.

https://i.imgur.com/FiF99zN.png
https://i.imgur.com/0fAWrNa.png
https://i.imgur.com/Jcpk4Iu.png

GDOT could use your services.

http://ten93.com/roadphotos/i285w_exit28.jpg

And no, the new signs aren't necessarily any better:

http://ten93.com/roadphotos/i285e_exit26.jpg

Top gantry could be fixed as so, from left to right:

1) align 285 West vertically instead of horizontally
2) center sign cannot be reconfigured due to lane width restrictions
3) Peachtree-Dunwoody Road should be spelled out completely (not using "Rd"), across three lines, with an arrow below the lines of text. This would allow the sign to be narrower

Bottom gantry could fixed as so, from left to right:

1) move the 19 & 400 shields to the left of the destinations, to reduce the sign height by about half
2) sign on right should now be appropriately.

I'm basically taking a page out of Caltrans with my designs, since they have to work with [self imposed] sign height requirements.

[D-Dey65]

Just keep giving me more reasons to find an excuse to hit the Atlantic City Expressway, New Jersey:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5502987,-74.7371541,3a,75y,310.4h,99.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKJKSnKSTs8K9e9CJSAT30w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[Scott5114]

Wow. I'm really impressed by their laziness.

Every hour spent cutting z-bar costs the State of Missouri money. That's spending money on labor and materials that can't go to the Bella Vista Bypass, and for what, to get a panel a few inches into alignment on a sign most people will be enthusiastically not looking at as they go under it at 70+ MPH? Not worth the hassle.

If you own a house you start to develop an appreciation for this kind of economizing. Do I really want to make sure this shelf is mathematically dead center on the wall and thus have to drill toggle bolts into the sheetrock, or am I cool with it being six inches off center so I can mount it to the wall studs and have it be more secure without the toggle bolts? That kind of thing.

[myosh_tino]

In my opinion, only BGSs where all signs are the same height can qualify as "good".

BGS assemblies where all signs are the same height are incredibly silly.

Draw up a vanilla MUTCD gantry where the left panel is a 1-mile advance sign for an interstate with two control cities and the right panel is an exit direction sign for a local street. Figure out a way to make them both the same size without making it look stupid or like a college kid writing an essay with a page quota made it. (You can't.)

As jakeroot said, challenge accepted!

[J N Winkler]

I think this is a case of practicality winning over aesthetics, since the panel in question is just barely bigger than the height of the gantry. That leads me to believe that it would have been awkward to mount the sign in justification with the other two. It probably would have required such a minute amount of z-bar as to not be worth the hassle of cutting it to size, so they decided to nudge it a few inches and figured nobody would notice or care.

I don't see how there would have to be a difference in materials cost.  To me it looks like they didn't want to lower the crane the few inches or so it would have taken to place the mounting clips so that the pull-through is bottom-justified with the other two signs.

The only real weakness in their work product is that they tend to include information (such as US route overlaps) that doesn't really need to be there, but always with impeccable space padding.

At least in the sign pictured, there's little reason to not include US-40, since the determining panel size factor is "Kansas City". If you ditched the shield, you'd just have more green space. (This is disregarding message-loading concerns, but I don't think throwing one shield in would really affect that much on that front. Now, in downtown Kansas City, it could cause problems.)

In Kansas, the US 40 shield would have been left out regardless of space because it is the less important route and does not change direction at this interchange, and not signing minor routes in empty rural areas avoids creating an expectation of continuity in route signing that may be difficult to support in dense urban areas.  This is the real weakness of signing on the Missouri side in the Kansas City metro area--because all minor routes are signed, the signs are noticeably busier even though they are impeccably formatted.

Because this is a cloverleaf interchange at which US 65 is not a freeway, it falls under the cloverleaf signing section in MUTCD Chapter 2E, for which the accompanying figure shows no pull-through signs.  MoDOT could therefore eliminate the Kansas City sign without providing less signing than is shown in the MUTCD.  I would contend that even if US 65 were a freeway and thus covered by the system interchange section, the pull-through could still be omitted, but this would entail providing less signing than in the typical figure and so would be harder to justify.

In the late-nineties cult classic Ronin, Robert De Niro's character insults another by saying, "You're great in the locker room, pal, and your reflexes might die hard, but you're weak when you put your spikes on."  So it is with MoDOT signing, which looks great on the plan sheet but is weak in the field.

[jeffandnicole]

I think this is a case of practicality winning over aesthetics, since the panel in question is just barely bigger than the height of the gantry. That leads me to believe that it would have been awkward to mount the sign in justification with the other two. It probably would have required such a minute amount of z-bar as to not be worth the hassle of cutting it to size, so they decided to nudge it a few inches and figured nobody would notice or care.

Site detail plans are extremely specific.  Brackets - and the holes for the bolts - are also in those detailed plans and are very specific.  This isn't something that's decided on at the whim of some guy operating heavy machinery.

[ipeters61]

If we're talking about overheads with same height signs, let's not forget about the I-95/I-676 interchange in Philadelphia...

[PHLBOS]

If we're talking about overheads with same height signs, let's not forget about the I-95/I-676 interchange in Philadelphia...

Given the recent placing of New York over the Trenton legends on I-95 northbound signage (in anticipation of its connection to the PA Turnpike opening later next month); this would've been a candidate IMHO to replace that sign with a new one at the same height with two-line Trenton/New York combo.  The top border would then be at the top edge.

[roadman]

Regarding the practice of making all BGSes on a gantry the same height, regardless of legend, this is usually based on a common misconception I've heard over the years that doing so will make your structural design simpler.  Actually, the opposite is true.  By increasing the size of your panels, you are also increasing loading, which always requires a more complex gantry.  Bothe the larger panels and the more complex gantries = more $$$$$$$$.

[jeffandnicole]

Regarding the practice of making all BGSes on a gantry the same height, regardless of legend, this is usually based on a common misconception I've heard over the years that doing so will make your structural design simpler.  Actually, the opposite is true.  By increasing the size of your panels, you are also increasing loading, which always requires a more complex gantry.  Bothe the larger panels and the more complex gantries = more $$$$$$$$.

On a similar note, I remember someone saying that they thought all traffic lights and their masts came in a kit, and that they were all the same size and length.  Even though this is so obviously wrong it's laughable, that's how little people actually look at things and understand the engineering that takes place to design something. 

[chays]

Saw this from a thread on Arkansas highways.  Highway 980 is the designation for all state-maintained airport roads.


From Wikimedia contributor Brandonrush

[plain]

I was tempted to put this in the "Worst of" thread.


SM-S820L

[ErmineNotyours]

Button-type sign on Beardsly Blvd, Bothell, Washington.

Button type at Beardsly Blvd, Bothell, WA by Arthur Allen, on Flickr

[jakeroot]

Button-type sign on [Beardslee] Blvd, Bothell, Washington.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1814/43753406121_7dce2eb79c_z.jpg

Took me a while to find that sign (I don't drive in that area much at all). It's placed well after the intersection for the right turn onto 405 southbound (which moron decided that?!?). Beautiful sign, though! At least by our standards. Lack of a button copy shield might knock it down a few notches by national standards.

Similarly-specced sign in Tacoma for the southbound 5 entrance from Portland Ave: https://goo.gl/akNzbK (still standing, despite the construction).

[jakeroot]

Is it common for lane-use signs to do double-duty as both regulatory and commercial vehicle route signs? https://goo.gl/EyTZnN

I've seen lane-use signs for truck routes before, but only on the right, and in place of the standard route marker arrows (must have been accidental): https://goo.gl/8PKuPJ

[ipeters61]

Is it common for lane-use signs to do double-duty as both regulatory and commercial vehicle route signs? https://goo.gl/EyTZnN

I've seen lane-use signs for truck routes before, but only on the right, and in place of the standard route marker arrows (must have been accidental): https://goo.gl/8PKuPJ

This is the first time I've seen it (I've lived in the northeast/mid-Atlantic my whole life).  Maybe they're trying to get turning trucks out of the option lane.