New Jersey

[Alps]

I would like to see if NJDOT complies with adding the yellow stripe on new signals.  I cannot picture them doing it, just like I cannot picture them removing the jughandles.

Please point to the section of the MUTCD where that is required.

[roadman65]

http://www.ite.org/bookstore/MUTCDoutreach.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 4 on Page 10.

[Mr. Matté]

http://www.ite.org/bookstore/MUTCDoutreach.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 4 on Page 10.

Backplate borders — The optional use of a yellow retroreflective strip along the perimeter of a signal backplate to increase the conspicuity of the signal face at night has been added.

And from the actual MUTCD:

18. If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on an approach to a signalized location is 45 mph or higher, signal backplates should be used on all of the signal faces that face the approach. Signal backplates should also be considered for use on signal faces on approaches with posted or statutory speed limits or 85th-percentile speeds of less than 45 mph where sun glare, bright sky, and/or complex or confusing backgrounds indicate a need for enhanced signal face target value.

[jeffandnicole]

I would like to see if NJDOT complies with adding the yellow stripe on new signals.  I cannot picture them doing it, just like I cannot picture them removing the jughandles.

Why would they remove jughandles?

[roadman65]

I would like to see if NJDOT complies with adding the yellow stripe on new signals.  I cannot picture them doing it, just like I cannot picture them removing the jughandles.

Why would they remove jughandles?

They would not.  That is my point.  I do not think that NJ will go along with the yellow stripe deal either.

[jeffandnicole]

In a North Jersey Regional Planning Commission publication, the yellow strip backplate was discussed.  The publication also discussed other traffic safety features, such as road dieting, roundabouts (both of which NJ has implemented) and center line rumble strips (which NJ is preparing to implement).

So these backplates are at least on NJDOT's radar.

[vdeane]

It not only stands out much better with the border, it maintains consistency with the roadside markers.  Consistency fosters clarity.  Keep the damn border and tell FHWA to find something useful to do.

I personally find it easier to read guide signs where the shields don't have the borders.  Plus having the border is just plain ugly.  If you want consistency, I have two things for you:
1. Every other state doesn't have the border
2. If someone is honestly confused because reassurance markers have borders but shields on guide signs don't, they need their head examined.

I believe the federal standard is that shields as depicted on guide signage are not supposed to have any sort of black border. NJ therefore is required to design their shields accordingly, and cannot weasel out of the requirement by saying "the black border is part of the shield".

It would be pretty hard to justify that argument anyways in the face of the borders being their for US route and county route shields too.

[Pete from Boston]

It not only stands out much better with the border, it maintains consistency with the roadside markers.  Consistency fosters clarity.  Keep the damn border and tell FHWA to find something useful to do.

I personally find it easier to read guide signs where the shields don't have the borders.  Plus having the border is just plain ugly.  If you want consistency, I have two things for you:
1. Every other state doesn't have the border

Most viewers of the signs are likely from New Jersey, even accounting for New Jersey's high pass-through volume.

2. If someone is honestly confused because reassurance markers have borders but shields on guide signs don't, they need their head examined.

Visual recognition happens in a split second.  Every split second sooner is safer.  Consistent shapes and representations are contributors to fewer split seconds of thinking on the way to processing information.  Nothing trumps consistency and clarity because nothing trumps safety (most definitely not "it's ugly"). 

It's typical of state and federal highway agencies to impose their particular logic rather than conform to public understanding, but it's well known that said agencies can stand to have their own collective heads examined.

Classic "ain't broke, let's fix it" situation.

I believe the federal standard is that shields as depicted on guide signage are not supposed to have any sort of black border. NJ therefore is required to design their shields accordingly, and cannot weasel out of the requirement by saying "the black border is part of the shield".

It would be pretty hard to justify that argument anyways in the face of the borders being their for US route and county route shields too.

It would actually be pretty easy to say "that's our shield" and be done with it.

[Alps]

http://www.ite.org/bookstore/MUTCDoutreach.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 4 on Page 10.

Backplate borders — The optional use of a yellow retroreflective strip along the perimeter of a signal backplate to increase the conspicuity of the signal face at night has been added.

[hbelkins]

I've never had any issues with seeing or comprehending a guide sign with a normal route marker (black background) vs. a guide sign with a cutout route marker.

1. Every other state doesn't have the border

If every other state jumped off a cliff, should New Jersey do it too? 

[Zeffy]

Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

[vdeane]

Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.  Plus, road signs should be beautiful; the yellow background CR shields in particular make me want to gouge my eyes out.  The borders look VERY sloppy.

[Pete from Boston]

Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.  Plus, road signs should be beautiful; the yellow background CR shields in particular make me want to gouge my eyes out.  The borders look VERY sloppy.

Boy, it's got to be hard leaving the house with such sensibilities.  I don't feel it's the sign's job to be anything but clear and informative and thus safe.  When the TTF is healthy again (stop laughing) maybe beautiful can be discussed.

[hbelkins]

Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.

Again, I have never found this to be the case.

[jeffandnicole]

Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.

[SSOWorld]

Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.  Plus, road signs should be beautiful; the yellow background CR shields in particular make me want to gouge my eyes out.  The borders look VERY sloppy.

Please provide proof that they are prohibited by the MUTCD - if there is no such... FWHA has no leg to stand on.

Beautiful. *scoff*

Things like this make states unique - if NJ has to change, then I would argue California must change their ways.

[Zeffy]

There is nothing prohibiting them in the MUTCD - the only thing the MUTCD says is (Section 2D.11):

¹² Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of guide signs, only the distinctive shape of
the shield itself and the route numerals within should be used. The rectangular background upon which the
distinctive shape of the shield is mounted, such as the black area around the outside of the shields on the M1-4
and standard M1-5 signs, should not be included on the guide sign. Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as
components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to
so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained.

Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?

[SSOWorld]

There is nothing prohibiting them in the MUTCD - the only thing the MUTCD says is (Section 2D.11):

¹² Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of guide signs, only the distinctive shape of
the shield itself and the route numerals within should be used. The rectangular background upon which the
distinctive shape of the shield is mounted, such as the black area around the outside of the shields on the M1-4
and standard M1-5 signs, should not be included on the guide sign. Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as
components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to
so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained.

Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?

There you go.

[hbelkins]

I think in instances such as these, the black background would be an improvement:




2013 Chattanooga meet trip - 190 by hbelkins, on Flickr


2013 Chattanooga meet trip - 194 by hbelkins, on Flickr

--link fix -- SSO

[Zeffy]

I didn't even see the US 127 shield on that third photo until I looked a second time.

[Alps]

There is nothing prohibiting them in the MUTCD - the only thing the MUTCD says is (Section 2D.11):

¹² Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of guide signs, only the distinctive shape of
the shield itself and the route numerals within should be used. The rectangular background upon which the
distinctive shape of the shield is mounted, such as the black area around the outside of the shields on the M1-4
and standard M1-5 signs, should not be included on the guide sign. Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as
components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to
so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained.

Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?

"Should" is not defined in the MUTCD the same as in the English language. "Should" doesn't mean "we recommend this, but do as you will." "Should" means, "You have to do this unless you have a sound engineering reason not to." In contrast, "shall" means, "You can't have a policy in place that goes against this, but you can contravene in individual cases where it's impossible to comply." Is there a sound engineering reason to keep the black border, or is it just an aesthetic choice? I'd argue the latter, unless someone can demonstrate the added cost of cutting out a US shield (or printing it directly on the sign, with today's technology) versus attaching a separate black-background shield.

[Alps]

I think in instances such as these, the black background would be an improvement:

Well, what most states do is a black outline of the shield shape. I'd accept anything that defines the shield shape, but I think this goes against an MUTCD Standard regarding the shape of the shield.

[maplestar]

Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?

"Should" is not defined in the MUTCD the same as in the English language. "Should" doesn't mean "we recommend this, but do as you will." "Should" means, "You have to do this unless you have a sound engineering reason not to." In contrast, "shall" means, "You can't have a policy in place that goes against this, but you can contravene in individual cases where it's impossible to comply." Is there a sound engineering reason to keep the black border, or is it just an aesthetic choice? I'd argue the latter, unless someone can demonstrate the added cost of cutting out a US shield (or printing it directly on the sign, with today's technology) versus attaching a separate black-background shield.

I wanted to quibble with this, but looked back to 1A.13.01. and you're right:

Guidance–a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements. Guidance statements are sometimes modified by Options.

[maplestar]

Well, what most states do is a black outline of the shield shape. I'd accept anything that defines the shield shape, but I think this goes against an MUTCD Standard regarding the shape of the shield.

I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting is against standard, but note 2D.11.12, which says "Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained." This seems to suggest that on the green guide signs, rectangles aren't to be used absent engineering reasons; but on white regulatory signs, rectangles are supposed to be used. (Which may be agreeing with you. I just wasn't clear whether you were disagreeing with rectangles, shield outlines, or the pictured sign.)

[hbelkins]

My examples were from Tennessee, which is notorious for doing this. There's something similar along I-65 northbound nearing the Kentucky state line, where a weigh station serves both I-65 and US 31W. There's a "No access to US 31W" sign on I-65 that uses the same white-on-white setup for a 31W marker.