BGS's on Surface Streets

[MNHighwayMan]

Madison has a bit of an odd one of these:

I'm not sure I've ever seen analog variation of the "lane closed" symbol. Guess they don't want anyone thinking that's a lane, and driving into the island!

Something tells me that the layout is newer than the sign, and as such, the intersection originally had a third through lane, and this is WisDOT's creative solution to the sign problem.

[J N Winkler]

I did not even know this was a thing. I'm extremely impressed at how good-looking those are, and the fact that they are easy to read, convey the message very accurately, and even include the "control city", eliminating the need for separate signage of those.

Without question, this should be a nationwide standard. Do any other states sign state route junctions like this?

Most states have an option for signing junctions that combines guide-sign shields, directions, and destinations on the same sign panel, but few use it as extensively as Washington state.  Here are some examples:  CA, OR, TX, NM, AZ, CO, KS,  . . .

There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD.  It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly.  Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged.  And finally, some state DOTs have their own rather strict systems for distributing information across multiple sign panels that are not compatible with the WA approach.  For example, MN uses directions, shields, and arrows on green background to form what is effectively single-panel "sign salad" and is often mounted to traffic signal mast arms, while NE has junction diagrammatics.

Unlike the case with freeway guide signs, FHWA's design advice for conventional-road guide signs is fairly high-level, and what is diagrammed in the MUTCD is a minimum option that is considered to represent conservative design.  Very few states actually try to provide vanilla signing exactly as shown in the MUTCD figures.  There is typically a state-specific design manual or collection of specification drawings for small guide signs that is in at least samizdat circulation if it is not online and its existence is not acknowledged outside the state DOT offices.

[MNHighwayMan]

I'm so glad you mention Minnesota, because I think what they do should be standard nationally. Maybe it's bias, but I also think it's actually useful.

Also, I haven't been on MN-13 since the intersection was reconstructed, and I didn't know MnDOT signed it as CR-101 from there. Technically, CR-101 doesn't start until west of US-169, and the road between 169 and 13 is an unsigned state highway.

Edit: What I'm really saying is that the sign in the median should technically have a "TO" above the route markers.

[jakeroot]

There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD.  It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly.  Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged.

The first part of your response really confuses me. What should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?). From skimming through Street View, it appears the standard practice in most states is for one sign to list several destinations, with arrows pointing in the correct direction for each destination, followed by a sign salad with the routes. I guess this is fine, but I don't find it to be superior to WSDOT's method. I've always found sign salads to be rather confusing and cluttered (in my head, it looks like one giant sign with a bunch of holes around the shields, the arrows, and the cardinal direction). Maybe I'm just not used to it.

For the second part of your response, WSDOT just uses some green-out when that happens: https://goo.gl/DNqJX9

[Scott5114]

There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD.  It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly.  Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged.

The first part of your response really confuses me. What should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?). From skimming through Street View, it appears the standard practice in most states is for one sign to list several destinations, with arrows pointing in the correct direction for each destination, followed by a sign salad with the routes. I guess this is fine, but I don't find it to be superior to WSDOT's method. I've always found sign salads to be rather confusing and cluttered (in my head, it looks like one giant sign with a bunch of holes around the shields, the arrows, and the cardinal direction). Maybe I'm just not used to it.

For the second part of your response, WSDOT just uses some green-out when that happens: https://goo.gl/DNqJX9

What J.N. Winkler is getting at is that the non-Washington approach limits message loading, i.e. the amount of messages presented to the driver at one time, by breaking the messages up across successive assemblies. Thus a driver who is looking for a particular highway number can safely ignore the control-city panel, someone looking for a control city can ignore the route number assembly, and someone who's interested in both can look over both assemblies as they pass them without having to speed-read.

I don't think the Washington approach presents too much information (it doesn't appear to be too much more than what you'd see on the average overhead gantry), but I can see how the argument could be made that it's better to break it up.

[webny99]

There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD.

Perhaps I came across as a bit naive in inferring that Washington's practice should be adopted nationwide. While I would certainly advocate it, it would be quite expensive and presents some practical challenges in addition to the concerns you've listed below.

It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly.  Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged.

I don't see the issue with message loading, since my personal preference is to associate the route with the destination, and Washington's approach makes it more convenient to do this. I'd rather see a single sign than multiple, since it prevents me from having to make the connection myself - i.e. I automatically know that Route 24 goes to Pullyap with WA's approach. I agree that having multiple signs improves flexibility, but by the same token, I don't think this is a problem that frequently comes into play - perhaps a rare one-off case that is sufficiently addressed by green-out as jakeroot mentioned.

And finally, some state DOTs have their own rather strict systems for distributing information across multiple sign panels that are not compatible with the WA approach.  For example, MN uses directions, shields, and arrows on green background to form what is effectively single-panel "sign salad" and is often mounted to traffic signal mast arms, while NE has junction diagrammatics.

The approaches used by MN and NE are both superior to sign salads, but still lack the control city. As such, this approach requires two green signs anyways. I view two green signs as more excessive than a green sign and a sign salad; therefore, I see the Washington approach as a well-organized and well-executed consolidation of the two.

If the signs used in WA were to be adopted in NY, they could simply replace the existing sign salads. In MN and NE, it would be inefficient to replace existing green signs for the sole purpose of adding the control city, though it would still have the positive impact of reducing total signage volume (regardless of where it was implemented).

[hotdogPi]

MA's paddle signs seem to be at least somewhat similar to WA's surface BGSes.

East end of MA 40 by <name removed>, on Flickr

MA 110 and 113 in Methuen, MA by <name removed>, on Flickr

[webny99]

I'm so glad you mention Minnesota, because I think what they do should be standard nationally. Maybe it's bias, but I also think it's actually useful.

Assuming you're referencing this, I appreciate this approach, but it's still inferior to the WA approach because it requires another green sign for the control cities, as I mentioned above.

Something MN does that I do think should be a nationwide standard is the posting of route shields/arrows on signal mast arms. I've found this very useful in my visits there.

What J.N. Winkler is getting at is that the non-Washington approach limits message loading, i.e. the amount of messages presented to the driver at one time, by breaking the messages up across successive assemblies. Thus a driver who is looking for a particular highway number can safely ignore the control-city panel, someone looking for a control city can ignore the route number assembly, and someone who's interested in both can look over both assemblies as they pass them without having to speed-read.

I'm struggling to think of a circumstance where a motorist would be interested in one and not the other. Even if this is the case, it can't hurt to have that information right there on a single sign - if they know what they're looking for, they should have no trouble reading the route number first or vice versa. I see having enough time to read as less of an issue on surface streets due to the typically lower traveling speeds.

What should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?).

This is a pretty good summary of my position. I also fail to see the issue with sign clutter.

[index]

Caltrans has this one after a small ferry:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.236533,-121.6036244,3a,17.6y,72.62h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEU0qk2jshKLSPbrrlDMcyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It directs drivers to a small unincorporated community. It's on the small side for a BGS, and I like those. Pullman, WA has tons of mini-BGSes on surface streets, I can get GSV links of those later.

[Brian556]

Very common.

Flagstaff, AZ: Route 66, I-17, I-40 by <name removed>, on Flickr

The cutout HISTORIC 66 sign on the overhead is cool. The ground mount 66 signage is overdone, though

At least in Utah, there are way too many examples of this to even try counting. Here are just a few:

North Salt Lake, UT:


Salt Lake City, UT:


This highlights the need for a sign to be added to the MUTCD that tells drivers that they have the right-of-way in situations when they ordinarily wouldn't
Farmington, NM:


Craig, CO:


West Valley City, UT:

[davewiecking]

Salt Lake City, UT:

A large sign basically says it's OK to mow down pedestrians in a marked crosswalk outside the Utah Capitol building, then a few hundred feet later, a very tiny sign says maybe not...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7756776,-111.8882474,3a,19.9y,30.68h,80.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGbli_oSsQdRbXBSiqBedTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[PHLBOS]

I could go on all day, but I won't.

That's just it.  While the OP doesn't outright prohibit BGS examples at freeway ramp entrances/interchanges (there's tons of those) per say; I believe (& I could be wrong) the OP's more interested in ones that are not near/at freeway interchanges/ramps.  The latter's more of a challenge.

[J N Winkler]

I don't see the issue with message loading, since my personal preference is to associate the route with the destination, and Washington's approach makes it more convenient to do this. I'd rather see a single sign than multiple, since it prevents me from having to make the connection myself - i.e. I automatically know that Route 24 goes to Puyallup with WA's approach.

The issue with message loading is that the driver needs to be able to read the sign twice in the time it is visible.  For this reason WSDOT not only typically uses Series E Modified (for higher unit legibility than Series D, which is used in MUTCD diagrams) but also uses 8 in uppercase versus the MUTCD minimum of 6 in uppercase.

I'm struggling to think of a circumstance where a motorist would be interested in one and not the other [route and destination]. Even if this is the case, it can't hurt to have that information right there on a single sign - if they know what they're looking for, they should have no trouble reading the route number first or vice versa. I see having enough time to read as less of an issue on surface streets due to the typically lower traveling speeds.

In cases where a driver sets out on a trip that crosses multiple counties and knows his destination is on a given route, the intermediate cities (which, on conventional-road state highways, are typically county seats) are often useless information.  For the same driver the city may be more important when he or she is within a county of his or her destination.  The guide signing has to cater to drivers in both situations; it does not necessarily have to do so on a single sign panel.

Lower travel speeds do allow smaller font sizes to be used, to a point.  But urban areas have far more visual clutter and more demands on the driver's attention.  This too is part of the reason it can make more sense to spread directional information across multiple signs.

What should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?).

The underlying issue is that the signing at a junction represents an opportunity to inform drivers of the following:

*  Destinations on each arm

*  Route numbers associated with each arm

*  Cardinal directions associated with each route on each arm

*  Distances to the destinations signed for each arm

*  Orientation of each arm (typically indicated using arrows)

The value of each piece of information varies from driver to driver, as does the value of giving the information at a given point in the approach to the junction.  It is not a question of starting with the premise that a guide sign will be provided with route, cardinal direction, destination and arrow, and then deciding which elements can safely be omitted at a given junction.  It is more one of maximizing the proportion of the total driving population that receives a certain minimum level of service from the guide signing, by ensuring that drivers are able to access all the information they need to decide to turn in time to turn safely and smoothly, and then to confirm in a timely manner that they have chosen the correct leg of the intersection.  There are multiple ways of solving this problem that are sufficiently hard to distinguish from each other in terms of costs and benefits that the MUTCD offers an out-of-the-box solution that is guaranteed to comply, but does not mandate it.

While the OP doesn't outright prohibit BGS examples at freeway ramp entrances/interchanges (there's tons of those) per say; I believe (& I could be wrong) the OP's more interested in ones that are not near/at freeway interchanges/ramps.  The latter's more of a challenge.

I have been assuming that freeway on-ramp guide signs are not being asked for.  They are really part of the total signing package for the freeway, not for the intersecting surface road, even though they are posted on the surface road.  If we are to have a productive discussion about them, it might help to do so in a separate thread with the following elements:

*  Catalogue of states that use panel signs instead of "sign salad" for freeway ramps (MUTCD allows both)

*  Catalogue of states that use interchange approach signs on the surface road and the extent to which they attempt to steer drivers to the correct side of the roadway for a given direction of the freeway

We can then have a discussion about, e.g., whether Zwahlen signs should be a national standard.

[jeffandnicole]

There's also a difference between *freeway* ramps, and simple interchanges between 2 roads that are otherwise not freeways.

Here's one of the latter.  One of many examples in NJ is here on NJ 70 at NJ 73: https://goo.gl/maps/mPzWkUxxomu

An example at a traditional intersection (NJ 129 at Cass St, with a 1/2 Mile advanced sign for the next intersection): https://goo.gl/maps/pRpvVQVrbpn

And, a slightly odd case of absolutely no notice you'll be getting on a highway whatsoever.  You can see where the I-295 shield should be placed on the signpost in this shot, but otherwise, if you're on this particular road in this direction, there is absolutely nothing to indicate by continuing straight you're getting on a highway here! https://goo.gl/maps/jjAsZxDHJiq

[Rick1962]

There's also a difference between *freeway* ramps, and simple interchanges between 2 roads that are otherwise not freeways.

Here's one of the latter.  One of many examples in NJ is here on NJ 70 at NJ 73: https://goo.gl/maps/mPzWkUxxomu

An example at a traditional intersection (NJ 129 at Cass St, with a 1/2 Mile advanced sign for the next intersection): https://goo.gl/maps/pRpvVQVrbpn

And, a slightly odd case of absolutely no notice you'll be getting on a highway whatsoever.  You can see where the I-295 shield should be placed on the signpost in this shot, but otherwise, if you're on this particular road in this direction, there is absolutely nothing to indicate by continuing straight you're getting on a highway here! https://goo.gl/maps/jjAsZxDHJiq

Here's some from Tulsa. Two on Cincinnati Ave. downtown approaching the Broken Arrow Expressway, and two on 71st Street at US 169.

SM-G892A

[busman_49]

A couple of examples from Marion, Ohio:

034 Marion Sign gantry I by Ryan busman_49, on Flickr

036 Marion Sign gantry II by Ryan busman_49, on Flickr

[webny99]

I could go on all day, but I won't.

That's just it.  While the OP doesn't outright prohibit BGS examples at freeway ramp entrances/interchanges (there's tons of those) per say; I believe (& I could be wrong) the OP's more interested in ones that are not near/at freeway interchanges/ramps.  The latter's more of a challenge.

I said they didn't have to be at freeway interchanges, since they're more interesting (to the user base as a whole) when they're at random locations, such as the ones in WA at the junction of two state routes. I personally am interested in BGS's at freeway intersections, because they're so rare in NY, but see below:

I have been assuming that freeway on-ramp guide signs are not being asked for.  They are really part of the total signing package for the freeway, not for the intersecting surface road, even though they are posted on the surface road.  If we are to have a productive discussion about them, it might help to do so in a separate thread with the following elements:

*  Catalogue of states that use panel signs instead of "sign salad" for freeway ramps (MUTCD allows both)

*  Catalogue of states that use interchange approach signs on the surface road and the extent to which they attempt to steer drivers to the correct side of the roadway for a given direction of the freeway

We can then have a discussion about, e.g., whether Zwahlen signs should be a national standard.

Consider it done
I've updated the OP of this thread to reflect that it is meant for discussion and pictures of BGS's unrelated to freeway interchanges.

[davewiecking]

I've updated the OP of this thread to reflect that it is meant for discussion and pictures of BGS's unrelated to freeway interchanges.

(I believe that good forum etiquette would dictate that if you make that significant a change in an OP that has already attracted 40 comments, that you make clear in the edited OP exactly how you edited such.)
Having nothing to do with what the OP believes is interesting to the user base as a whole, I was intrigued a few weeks ago when came across this B(g/p/y/e)S at the edge of a school in what is essentially a residential neighborhood:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8516144,-77.2145545,3a,75y,319.52h,87.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snYkh95ZYf9ZbKMMcJOGI0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(Edited to reflect the numerous colors on the B_S.)

[thenetwork]

A couple of examples from Marion, Ohio:

034 Marion Sign gantry I by Ryan busman_49, on Flickr

036 Marion Sign gantry II by Ryan busman_49, on Flickr

Ooooh, Classic overheads old enough to qualify for AARP membership!  My favorite type from Ohio.


----------



Here is the Biggest BGS in my town:  https://goo.gl/maps/JB9HKoWqn8M2

Unfortunately, this overhead was replaced last fall with a more modern APL as they reconstructed this intersection -- now 5 lanes approaching the split.

[webny99]

(I believe that good forum etiquette would dictate that if you make that significant a change in an OP that has already attracted 40 comments, that you make clear in the edited OP exactly how you edited such.)

Which I did, did I not? Looks very clear to me.

Having nothing to do with what the OP believes is interesting to the user base as a whole...

Actually, it confirms my belief, because it's both very interesting and not at a freeway interchange. I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouth, just stating what I thought was obvious; things seen less frequently are more interesting. The subsidiary discussion about freeway interchanges is interesting to me - but perhaps not to everyone.

[hotdogPi]

(I believe that good forum etiquette would dictate that if you make that significant a change in an OP that has already attracted 40 comments, that you make clear in the edited OP exactly how you edited such.)

Which I did, did I not? Looks very clear to me.

Your OP doesn't say that the extra sentence was added after 40 posts; it looks like it was there from the beginning, with no obvious reason for the "last edit: today" message.

[US 89]

Salt Lake City, UT:

A large sign basically says it's OK to mow down pedestrians in a marked crosswalk outside the Utah Capitol building, then a few hundred feet later, a very tiny sign says maybe not...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7756776,-111.8882474,3a,19.9y,30.68h,80.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGbli_oSsQdRbXBSiqBedTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'll give you that the crosswalk could be marked better. However, you would be surprised how many people stop there when there aren't any pedestrians, just because the road ends at a T intersection. That's the reason for the large white "No Stop Required" sign.

The intersection is set up so that traffic heading northbound has the right of way. This allows cars and traffic to get out of downtown Salt Lake City faster. Congestion on that part of State Street is already bad during rush hour, so imagine how bad that would be if it were a traditional intersection or 3-way stop.

[doorknob60]

Front St (US-20/26) in Boise, ID:


GSV

Capitol Blvd at Front St (US-20/26):

GSV


This one's pretty small, probably counts though. Broadway Ave. at Park Blvd (both US-20/26):

GSV

Here's some on Main St/Fairview Ave. The one in the distance in the second picture is for a freeway ramp, the rest I'd say aren't.

GSV


GSV

In the other direction. It's under the freeway but after all freeway ramps (Fairview and US-20/26 West are surface streets):

GSV

I'm a fan of the ones near BSU on Capitol Blvd:

GSV


GSV

There's certainly more outside of downtown areas, but that's where the majority seem to be clustered and the ones that come to mind for me. Got kind of carried away, only planned on grabbing a couple

They're all over the place if we wanted to post ones at freeway on-ramps, but that's low hanging fruit.

[webny99]

In cases where a driver sets out on a trip that crosses multiple counties and knows his destination is on a given route, the intermediate cities (which, on conventional-road state highways, are typically county seats) are often useless information.

I agree with that premise. As a roadgeek, I tend to be interested in control cities for reasons other than strict navigational purposes.

For the same driver the city may be more important when he or she is within a county of his or her destination.  The guide signing has to cater to drivers in both situations; it does not necessarily have to do so on a single sign panel.

Of course, it doesn't have to be on a single panel, but I still don't see why it shouldn't be. In most cases, it's the route number that's being looked for, the destination is simply extra information that may prove helpful, especially if the signage establishes a connection between route and destination, as is done on freeways. That is to say, the destination becomes more helpful/usable information when associated with a route number.

But urban areas have far more visual clutter and more demands on the driver's attention.  This too is part of the reason it can make more sense to spread directional information across multiple panels.

I don't see adding signs (or simply not removing them, as the case may be) as a solution to signage clutter. Were I in a position to influence signage design and placement, I'd seek to minimize the total number of signs, even if it meant a few existing signs got bigger. Place "H" hospital signs on or above existing assemblies, for example. Same for airport and area attraction signage.

There are multiple ways of solving this problem that are sufficiently hard to distinguish from each other in terms of costs and benefits that the MUTCD offers an out-of-the-box solution that is guaranteed to comply, but does not mandate it.

I've read this sentence several times and I don't think I fully understand. What is the out-of-the-box solution you're alluding to?

[formulanone]

Florida has plenty of these.

Ocala:


Wellington:


Port Myacca:


Pembroke Pines:


West Palm Beach:


North Miami: