Will NC Turnpike Highway Shields be purple?

[CanesFan27]

When the Triangle Expressway opens in a two years or so - it is most likely the highway shields for TOLL NC 147 and TOLL NC 540 will be purple.

Bob Malme noted in seroads that in the 2009 NC Turnpike Annual Report a map of the TriEx showed the NC 540 and 147 toll shields with a purple background. All non-toll NC routes were the traditional black background.

This would confirm a note I received informing me that at an unrelated meeting to the Turnpike, an NCDOT official said that local communities couldn't use purple for wayfinding projects because it is reserved for the upcoming toll roads.

The reason for purple?  The FHWA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires it.  From page 10 of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD:

    J. Purple–lanes restricted to use only by vehicles with registered electronic toll collection (ETC)
    accounts

The Triangle Expressway will be completely tolled electronically.  Most likely a 'TOLL' banner will be included above the 540 and 147 shields.

So head to the blog to see a mock up of the shield - and feel free to send along your version of a Toll NC shield...we'll post them up on the blog.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/02/will-nc-turnpike-shields-be-purple.html

[UptownRoadGeek]

I'm assuming the purple background is to be used on stand-online shields, right?  The guide signs will already be purple.

[CanesFan27]

It's possible that the stand alone shields will be purple.  As for the guide signs, that's a good question.  A comment on the blog noted that the 2009 MUTCD also states that purple is to designate ETC lanes that guide, warning and regulatory signs should not be purple.

We may have a better idea in about a year when parts of the TriEx will be near ready to open and some of the guides and shields should be in place.

[froggie]

IIRC, MUTCD only requires purple for denoting that the lanes are ETC.  It doesn't require the route shields to be purple.  So I don't see this being the "reason" the route shields will be purple.

[Chris]

I do remember the Westpark Tollway in Houston has all-purple signs. Quite a weird sight imo.

edit:

[J N Winkler]

I have seen some of the NCTA's standard signing plans for the Raleigh-area expressways.  I filed and forgot them long ago, and in any case standards will be in flux for a new facility built by a new organization, but I am positive purple background was not used for any of the state route shields.  I think the use of a purple marker on the state map is merely to indicate that the Triangle Expressway will be an ETC-only toll road and is not meant to indicate a change in the design of either the guide-sign or independent-mount shields.

[CanesFan27]

I have seen some of the NCTA's standard signing plans for the Raleigh-area expressways.  I filed and forgot them long ago, and in any case standards will be in flux for a new facility built by a new organization, but I am positive purple background was not used for any of the state route shields.  I think the use of a purple marker on the state map is merely to indicate that the Triangle Expressway will be an ETC-only toll road and is not meant to indicate a change in the design of either the guide-sign or independent-mount shields.

Then again signing plans can change: NC 540 had I-540 shields up and in place before being told to take them down. 
http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/raleigh/540.html

As I have stated, they certainly could be purple - and the map along with an NCDOT official telling a local community that they are not able to use purple for wayfinding signs because it is for the new toll road at least makes a purple NC 540 shield possible.

We'll know for certain in about a year or two.

[J N Winkler]

Then again signing plans can change: NC 540 had I-540 shields up and in place before being told to take them down.

That is a different kettle of fish.  The I-540 signs had to come down when it was decided that the relevant portion of the Raleigh outer loop would be a toll road.  This decision was made after much of I-540 had already been constructed.  In the case of purple for ETC, the basic policy was enunciated several years ago and, rather than being changed, has now been codified in the MUTCD.

As I have stated, they certainly could be purple - and the map along with an NCDOT official telling a local community that they are not able to use purple for wayfinding signs because it is for the new toll road at least makes a purple NC 540 shield possible.

NCDOT and the NCTA are free to adopt a different design of shield for toll roads.  But the fact that purple is now a reserved color for ETC-only messages on toll roads does not indicate that purple shields for NC 540 are more or less likely to come about.  When the NCDOT official told the local agency that purple background could not be used for wayfinding signs, he was referring to the use of purple for ETC messages, which is a long-running story (six years at least), and not suggesting that purple might actually be used for wayfinding purposes (such as part of the route shield) on the NCTA's ETC-only toll roads.

In addition to HCTRA's use of purple-background signs on the Westpark Tollway, which was controversial at the time and resulted in HCTRA being told by FHWA to use purple only for sign messages which are specific to electronic toll collection, a number of toll agencies have been using purple specifically to indicate EZ-Pass-only lanes.  (HCTRA's purple-background guide signs do not comply with FHWA's instruction but no enforcement action has actually been taken, as far as I know.)  The current MUTCD language is based on a FHWA report published a few years ago which recommended specifically that purple be used for ETC messages only.

I think it is improbable that the NCTA will actually use purple shields, for these reasons:

*  Purple shields haven't actually been used for any toll roads, even ETC-only toll roads like the Westpark Tollway.

*  Because of HCTRA's difficult experience trying to get approval for purple background from FHWA, which was well publicized within the traffic engineering community, toll agencies will be leery of using purple for signs or guide sign elements which have a general localization function and are not relevant strictly to electronic toll collection.  Shields, and guide signs which give directional information without mentioning toll amounts or specifying toll collection procedures, fall into this category.  On guide signs which combine directional information with toll amounts and toll collection procedures, messages involving ETC are supposed to appear on purple patches while the overall sign background is green.

*  Purple shields by themselves won't give drivers the information they need in order to avoid entering the tolling zone when they are not prepared to pay.

These are much more likely than purple shields:





The other side of the coin is that there is precedent for using special shields for toll facilities.  Texas, for example, has special shields for toll roads, including derivatives of the US and Interstate route markers for toll elements of US and Interstate highways.  These do not use the color purple, even when toll collection is performed solely by ETC.  However, MUTCD color assignments pertain to overall panel and patch backgrounds, not to instances of spot color within route shields (state DOTs have the freedom to develop designs for state route markers which use reserved colors).  For this reason it is possible that NCDOT and the NCTA could agree on a special design of shield for ETC-only toll facilities, and this design could use purple somewhere without falling foul of MUTCD requirements.  But for the reasons cited above I think this is unlikely to happen and it certainly won't happen without additional signing explaining to motorists what they need to do to avoid the tolling zone.  Using an ordinary shield is the KISS solution.

[CanesFan27]

Here's a comment we received on our facebook page about the subject:

"We had a long debate about stuff like this at the NCUTCD January Meeting in Arlington. Seems that a lot of people misinterpreted the meaning of the color purple...and unfortunately, a lot of sign designs have already been contracted out with purple.

The intended use of purple was for toll roads where you have to do something in advance before you can drive on it...ie, you have to have a toll tag or you have to register your plate number in advance. If you don't have to do anything in advance, it is supposed to be signed as a normal toll road, with perhaps a supplemental sign noting that no cash is accepted, and you'll get a bill by mail. In otherwords, the purple doesn't signify the electronic tolling, it signifies a toll road (or toll lane) where you have to do something in advance...such as the entrance to a toll road like the Westpark Tollway, or an E-ZPass only toll booth in NYC.

Florida's toll road shields are no longer allowed as standalone, since having toll in the shield is no longer considered adequate to warn a driver that they have to pay a toll...the 2009 MUTCD is clear that you have to have a black text on yellow BG "Toll" plaque on the sign next to the shield. So Florida will likely have the word toll twice...once on the shield and once on the sign, to tell you that Toll 869 is a Toll Road. ... "

[Brandon]

Then again signing plans can change: NC 540 had I-540 shields up and in place before being told to take them down.

That is a different kettle of fish.  The I-540 signs had to come down when it was decided that the relevant portion of the Raleigh outer loop would be a toll road.  This decision was made after much of I-540 had already been constructed.

That makes go go "WTF!?!"  Just because one segment is free and the other being built will be toll does not (to me) justify the response of removing the signage.  Interstate numbers have been used on plenty of roads specifically built to be tollways.  I-355 in Illinois is a prime example.  It was originally built to be a tollway in 1989, and it was always intended to have an interstate number.  There is no reason I can see preventing I-540 from being extended along the tollway.

[J N Winkler]

I am sure Adam has the details, but I vaguely recall that since I-540 was built with federal funds (NHS?) and NCTA wanted to charge tolls on a portion that had already been built with federal funding, NC had to "buy back" that stretch (i.e., repay the federal share) and the I-540 shields had to come down.  SR 895 (the Pocahontas Parkway) in Virginia cannot be signed as I-895 for a similar reason.

[CanesFan27]

I am sure Adam has the details, but I vaguely recall that since I-540 was built with federal funds (NHS?) and NCTA wanted to charge tolls on a portion that had already been built with federal funding, NC had to "buy back" that stretch (i.e., repay the federal share) and the I-540 shields had to come down.  SR 895 (the Pocahontas Parkway) in Virginia cannot be signed as I-895 for a similar reason.

That would be correct.

[UptownRoadGeek]

I do remember the Westpark Tollway in Houston has all-purple signs. Quite a weird sight imo.

edit:

I forgot all about the purple sheilds that HCTRA uses for Sam Houston, Westpark, Hardy, and Fort Bend.