Signs With Design Errors

[kphoger]

They should all read "Cross traffic is not obligated to stop" instead.   

[Special K]

"Cross traffic can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead"

[sp_redelectric]

Exit 291 by SP RedElectric, on Flickr

Fairly new sign installation on I-5 southbound in Tigard, Oregon - Exit 291 sign contains two "Exit Only" arrows, the left of those two lanes continues on the mainline and drops at Exit 290.

[J N Winkler]

Actually, that is correctly designed per the 2009 edition of MUTCD.

[formulanone]

Actually, that is correctly designed per the 2009 edition of MUTCD.

Hmmmm...I prefer to know in advance whether a lane is going to drop away via an exit, or if that's also a through lane; this way you can react in time to someone not paying attention (didn't mean to exit).

[Special K]

Actually, that is correctly designed per the 2009 edition of MUTCD.

Hmmmm...I prefer to know in advance whether a lane is going to drop away via an exit, or if that's also a through lane; this way you can react in time to someone not paying attention (didn't mean to exit).

It's an option lane exit.  If it's done correctly, there will be advance warning upstream of exit sign.

[PurdueBill]

Indeed it is correct; the sign(s) upstream would (if designed correctly) indicate that the second lane counting from the right is an option lane.  Above the gore, the dual arrows over the exiting lanes are ok.  The other sign to the left indicates what's going on with the other half of the now-split option lane.

Traditional practice would probably have been dancing arrows on adjacent signs; new practice would be enormous arrow-per-lane or misleading EXIT ONLY over only one lane with markings and lane assignment signage separate.  But that's a gripe for another thread...

[roadfro]

Indeed it is correct; the sign(s) upstream would (if designed correctly) indicate that the second lane counting from the right is an option lane.  Above the gore, the dual arrows over the exiting lanes are ok.  The other sign to the left indicates what's going on with the other half of the now-split option lane.

Traditional practice would probably have been dancing arrows on adjacent signs; new practice would be enormous arrow-per-lane or misleading EXIT ONLY over only one lane with markings and lane assignment signage separate.  But that's a gripe for another thread...

Traditional practice varies. In many places out west, it would've been a green on white arrow over the option lane (down arrow at the upstream sign, up/right arrow at the exit). New practice for a minor interchange as pictured, per MUTCD, uses upstream sign with exit only over the drop lane with supplemental lane markings and lane use signs to indicate the option. If this were a system interchange, then the huge arrow per lane signs come into play.

Mark me as one that agrees that the new design is misleading (and requires more expense to implement, with the extra signs and pavement markings needed). This is the one part of the new MUTCD that Nevada DOT has not yet started implementing (but they have done APL signs).

[sp_redelectric]

Oregon is usually pretty good with consistency, but this is one place where that's been thrown out.  Several other fairly new signs on the same stretch of I-5 show the black-on-yellow arrow with Exit Only only for the mandatory drop lane, and the white on green arrow for the option lane:

See:  Oregon 217 northbound, Tualatin-Sherwood Road southbound, Wilsonville Road northbound.

So with the particular exit I noted above, while it might be consistent with the MUTCD it is not consistent with other signage within a few miles on I-5........?

[PurdueBill]

Traditional practice varies. In many places out west, it would've been a green on white arrow over the option lane (down arrow at the upstream sign, up/right arrow at the exit). New practice for a minor interchange as pictured, per MUTCD, uses upstream sign with exit only over the drop lane with supplemental lane markings and lane use signs to indicate the option. If this were a system interchange, then the huge arrow per lane signs come into play.

I think the traditional practice in advance of the interchange that you and I refer to is the same basic thing...(photos courtesy Steve's site)



At the gore itself, some states have used the current new standard for a while, such as Ohio (it's been around long enough to be button copy that got its underlighting removed a couple years ago but still stayed button copy):



At the gore, the option lane has become two and it seems OK to have two black arrows in the yellow field.  Upstream from there, of course you couldn't do that.  Then the dancing arrows begin if you have a pull-through as well as the exit advance.

[Some_Person]

Even in the Phillipsburg,NJ area NJDOT does sometimes use a US highway shield for RT-173 and RT-122 in my case I would treat them as signing error because both RT-173 and RT-122 are not US highway routes, but US-22 is the primary US highway and Southern Warren County, NJ

I've driven on US 22 in that area and those signs bother me. To any non roadgeek they really make no difference at all, but there really is a pretty big difference And I also noticed a Mile 0 sign right off the ramp from 78 west http://goo.gl/maps/uw3uc and I wonder if it means mile 0 for NJ 173, because it can't be Mile 0 for US 22. The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.

[Kacie Jane]

The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.

Nope. The SLD shows that 173 ends at the ramps, exactly where that Mile 0 is posted.

[myosh_tino]

Traditional practice varies. In many places out west, it would've been a green on white arrow over the option lane (down arrow at the upstream sign, up/right arrow at the exit). New practice for a minor interchange as pictured, per MUTCD, uses upstream sign with exit only over the drop lane with supplemental lane markings and lane use signs to indicate the option. If this were a system interchange, then the huge arrow per lane signs come into play.

Mark me as one that agrees that the new design is misleading (and requires more expense to implement, with the extra signs and pavement markings needed). This is the one part of the new MUTCD that Nevada DOT has not yet started implementing (but they have done APL signs).

Count me in as one that does not like how this type of exiting situation is signed in the 2009 MUTCD.  As far as I know, Caltrans has not installed any signs like the one sp_redelectric posted.  In California the advance guide sign would have looked like...


and the exit direction sign would have looked like...


Here's how I think Nevada would have signed this exit...


While I have seen California sign plans calling for a black-on-yellow up-right arrow within an "EXIT ONLY" plaque, I have yet to see one in the field.

[Some_Person]

The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.

Nope. The SLD shows that 173 ends at the ramps, exactly where that Mile 0 is posted.

My mistake, I didn't think of that. Like I knew where the end was I just meant that when on that ramp you're only going past the terminus and not near it. Which is why I was confused on the placing of the sign. So it does make logical sense as people travelling on 173 will see the milemarker as well.

[Interstatefan78]

The only thing wrong with it if it were for 173 is the fact that that's after the terminus of 173.

Nope. The SLD shows that 173 ends at the ramps, exactly where that Mile 0 is posted.

My mistake, I didn't think of that. Like I knew where the end was I just meant that when on that ramp you're only going past the terminus and not near it. Which is why I was confused on the placing of the sign. So it does make logical sense as people travelling on 173 will see the milemarker as well.

The right way to see the 0 mile marker on RT-173 is to drive on it from Bloomsbury, and it's located on the right close to the US-22 West Merge from I-78 West

[roadfro]

Count me in as one that does not like how this type of exiting situation is signed in the 2009 MUTCD.  As far as I know, Caltrans has not installed any signs like the one sp_redelectric posted.  In California the advance guide sign would have looked like...


and the exit direction sign would have looked like...


Here's how I think Nevada would have signed this exit...


While I have seen California sign plans calling for a black-on-yellow up-right arrow within an "EXIT ONLY" plaque, I have yet to see one in the field.

Wide exit tab not withstanding, that is an accurate depiction of NDOT signing practice (with many newer signs not extending the exit only field to the edge of the sign, but more plaque-like as the Caltrans sign.

I thought there were a few California signs that have implemented the black on yellow up arrow...

[myosh_tino]

I thought there were a few California signs that have implemented the black on yellow up arrow...

I have seen them only in signing plans for upcoming projects.  I have yet to see one "in the field" although many of these projects are located in southern California and I'm in the San Jose area.

[myosh_tino]

Wide exit tab not withstanding, that is an accurate depiction of NDOT signing practice (with many newer signs not extending the exit only field to the edge of the sign, but more plaque-like as the Caltrans sign.

You mean a like this...

Note: I also corrected the exit tabs.  I used the 2009-spec exit tabs in the original sign drawing.  These are based on the previous spec (2003?).

[roadfro]

Wide exit tab not withstanding, that is an accurate depiction of NDOT signing practice (with many newer signs not extending the exit only field to the edge of the sign, but more plaque-like as the Caltrans sign.

You mean a like this...

Note: I also corrected the exit tabs.  I used the 2009-spec exit tabs in the original sign drawing.  These are based on the previous spec (2003?).

Yup. All the new signs on I-80 in Reno/Sparks and some others have used this style of exit only plaque.

I can't recall seeing wider exit tabs used in Nevada, although tabs have gotten taller in recent years.

[Michael]

I saw this on Imgur a few days ago.  It isn't a "true" design error, but I didn't think it warranted its own thread:

Original Page: http://imgur.com/IumtE

IMO, the "design error" is the fact that the sign replacement crew didn't remove the old sign.  Based on the different shades of yellow, I'm thinking that it was replaced to meet the new retroreflectivity standards in the 2009 MUTCD.

[hbelkins]

Could be that the old one will be removed later. I saw this very same thing a few years ago on US 52 in West Virginia.

[agentsteel53]

I have seen that kind of duplication elsewhere.  I believe the policy is to have one work interval consist of putting up new signs, and another consist of taking down the old ones.  usually the two jobs are done at most several days apart.

this ensures that there isn't any sign that is entirely removed for any interval of time.

[Central Avenue]

Seems sensible enough. Better to have two of a sign for a short time than none of a sign.

[Alps]

I have seen that kind of duplication elsewhere.  I believe the policy is to have one work interval consist of putting up new signs, and another consist of taking down the old ones.  usually the two jobs are done at most several days apart.

this ensures that there isn't any sign that is entirely removed for any interval of time.

As long as they reuse the sign posts, which I'd imagine to be the case.

[bassoon1986]

Not totally sure if these would qualify for this thread or the damaged signs thread. The second and third pic you can really see the missing shields:


Northbound I-35 just north of the E-W split. Missing an FM 3163





between the 2 of these we can't get both 35E and 35W shields together