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

[Tom958]

New APL, Georgian in its level of screwed-uppedness, though I think that even GDOT hasn't made this particular mistake.This is very recent- - it's a still from url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qgWNfnvjtU]the last of FreewayJim's new Birmingham videos[/url]. This APL replaces a fondly-regarded slatted installation with an outdated (but arguably easier to understand) design. The linked Streetview is from July 2016: the latest, from April 2017, shows no overhead at all. 

Okay, I'll bite -- what's technically "screwed up" with this?  It appears there's no option lane for the left exit, so why is it a mistake for it to be on a separate sign?  (Plans and readability aside.)

Indeed, with no option lane, the left exit should be on a separate sign-- and said sign should be of conventional design, with a standard black-on-yellow exit only placard with a downward-pointing arrow. There's no standalone sign with an APL-style arrow in the MUTCD. In fact, the only one I remember seeing is this one, created by splitting a badly-flawed APL in two because it was causing gore incursions and near misses on a nearly continuous basis. That's also part of why it put me in mind of of the kind of thing GDOT might do.

Interesting that the plan spec doesn't show the destination name letter heights correctly, but it was done correctly on the actual sign.

Yeah, but that's a side issue. 

What's really surprising to me is that neither of these puts the I-20 and I-59 shields on the same line, despite there being plenty of space to do so. It would have saved at least 120 square feet of unnecessary material area on the big panel.

Me, too. I guess it's an Alabama thing, because they do it consistently. I think it looks odd and wasteful with conventional signage, too.

The height is absurd, given that the 20/59 shields could be placed next to each other (as pointed out above by roadfro), but I think it's important to give ALDOT some credit here. The left exit could have been part of the sign, as the plan specs indicated. But ALDOT went a step further and made it into it's own sign, and I think that's actually a brilliant move. I wish that was standard practice.

But it is standard practice. They just need to do it correctly.

After all of that, I'm not at all convinced that they should've used APL's at all, even with the option lane for exit 124B, partly because of the unfavorable comparison in clarity between this and its slatted predecessor, partly because of the difficulty of addressing exit 124A and what may or may not be exit 124D to streets in the Civic Center area, which will be very close to the later I-65 exit.

[Max Rockatansky]

The multiplex of CA 166 East/CA 33 North towards Maricopa has some unusually exacting cautionary signs showing the current grade percentage on the downhill descent.  Generally you only get the standard down hill grade sign that "might" have the grade percentage and nothing this elaborate:

IMG_4666 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[MNHighwayMan]

What I find curious about that is, how much of a practical difference does that one percent make? Why not just say there's a seven percent grade ahead, thus simplifying the message? I don't think there's really a case for needing to be so specific.

[Max Rockatansky]

What I find curious about that is, how much of a practical difference does that one percent make? Why not just say there's a seven percent grade ahead, thus simplifying the message? I don't think there's really a case for needing to be so specific.

Usually that's all you get is the 7% grade and nothing more.  After that there are additional big signs like that one that even display a 4% grade for some reason.

[J N Winkler]

Each one-percent increment of grade matters far more for a fully loaded truck, with its low power-to-weight ratio, than it does for a car.  I suspect both 6% and 7% are signed to give trucks advance warning that they may need to downshift midway down the grade instead of choosing a gear at the top and riding in it all the way down.

At this hill, trucks are subject to a 35 limit and also required to use the brake check area off to the right in Max's photo.  At similar downgrades in other states, a hill descent map sign is often provided at the brake check area (or other convenient pullout) that shows the locations of runaway truck ramps and any curves that could pose danger if a truck gets going much faster than the truck limit.

The general rule of thumb is that both cars and trucks will take grades (up or down) of up to 3% in their stride.  Caltrans provides downgrade signing for long steady downgrades as low as 5% (I-80 going west out of the Sierras).  Caltrans is one of the few state DOTs that also provides A/C shutoff signing for long uphill grades, also as low as 5% (I-5 going north up the Grapevine), even though it is now pretty hard to force a modern car to overheat on a hill climb.

[odditude]

it's also incorrectly designed. note that the designer made the common mistake of misinterpreting the "lowercase characters have an x-height that is 75% of an uppercase letter" as "lowercase characters should be using a font size 25% smaller than the uppercase letters".

[Max Rockatansky]

Each one-percent increment of grade matters far more for a fully loaded truck, with its low power-to-weight ratio, than it does for a car.  I suspect both 6% and 7% are signed to give trucks advance warning that they may need to downshift midway down the grade instead of choosing a gear at the top and riding in it all the way down.

At this hill, trucks are subject to a 35 limit and also required to use the brake check area off to the right in Max's photo.  At similar downgrades in other states, a hill descent map sign is often provided at the brake check area (or other convenient pullout) that shows the locations of runaway truck ramps and any curves that could pose danger if a truck gets going much faster than the truck limit.

The general rule of thumb is that both cars and trucks will take grades (up or down) of up to 3% in their stride.  Caltrans provides downgrade signing for long steady downgrades as low as 5% (I-80 going west out of the Sierras).  Caltrans is one of the few state DOTs that also provides A/C shutoff signing for long uphill grades, also as low as 5% (I-5 going north up the Grapevine), even though it is now pretty hard to force a modern car to overheat on a hill climb.

Oddly there is even a sign for 4% grade downhill which is the most shallow I can recall seeing signed in California, unfortunately I didn't capture it.  The strange thing to me is, why over sign CA 166 out of all routes?  This is what is signed at the top of Polonio Pass on CA 46 westbound which is an infinitely more traveled road:

IMG_4297 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

In regards to the brake check area and 35 MPH zone, none of the truckers were paying attention to either of them.  I was in that brake check area for a solid 15 minutes eating a lunch and no other vehicles bothered to stopped.

[theline]

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6686187,-82.1386719,3a,15y,132.32h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc2kepJ4ImPA0cAj4jX7fTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I don't know why but I love this.

I've seen this posted here before, but I can't remember when or where. I think we came to the conclusion that it wasn't enforceable. Or at least I did, since the colors are incorrect for a speed limit sign, and the design is incorrect for an advisory limit sign.

Post Edit: Here's another one that I found at the very, very end of the Dalton Highway in Northern Alaska https://www.google.com/maps/@70.2066984,-148.4396998,3a,15y,58.77h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYoTK7kqAdoMyeJ-Wois-Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's taking the optional flourescent-yellow/green color to a new level (a non-permitted level, that is).

Here's another example of a yellow speed limit sign on the Indiana Toll Road, though these have the capability to display variable speeds. Several of these gantries went up in the last few months along the lake effect snow corridor, presumably to display lower speed limits and other storm related information. I've spotted weather messages at times (not pictured) but I've not seen the signs display any speeds. I may have missed that event, since I avoid the ITR during the worst weather.



I figured that the signs are yellow since any speed below the statutory 70 would be advisory only. Perhaps someone more familiar with the law can advise me of the applicable Indiana law.

[jakeroot]

That APL sign appears to be in Alabama by Birmingham. Can't blame GDOT for that one.

I think he meant it was just similar to a lot of mistakes that GDOT has made on its signs, and that he was surprised Georgia had not made that particular mistake, but not that those actual signs in the picture were in Georgia.

I think he was referring to my post above his, which originally said "GDOT" in all instances where "ALDOT" is currently used.

The height is absurd, given that the 20/59 shields could be placed next to each other (as pointed out above by roadfro), but I think it's important to give ALDOT some credit here. The left exit could have been part of the sign, as the plan specs indicated. But ALDOT went a step further and made it into it's own sign, and I think that's actually a brilliant move. I wish that was standard practice.

But it is standard practice. They just need to do it correctly.

As far as I know, standard practice in this rare instance is to use one giant sign panel, with a vertical divider between the up arrow and the left arrow (from the bottom to the top of the sign), not for the left exit message to be on an entirely different sign panel.

[Tom958]

As far as I know, standard practice in this rare instance is to use one giant sign panel, with a vertical divider between the up arrow and the left arrow (from the bottom to the top of the sign), not for the left exit message to be on an entirely different sign panel.

Yes, you're right. I think it's fairer to say that either way is a standard practice, not the standard practice. That leads us to the more fundamental problem of lack of specific direction in the MUTCD and, apparently, lack of sufficient effort to catalog the approaches taken to various not-uncommon situations in the interest of promoting uniformity. This was a problem long before APL's were introduced.

I'll defer to you in offering that the separate-sign method seems to be more common when the exit in question is a service offramp, while the single-sign method is used for system ramps. That's presumably why the scheme on the plan sheet used a single sign. Hmm...

[Scott5114]

Keep in mind that APLs are still fairly new and we're still running into situations that nobody has tried to use an APL for. I know of one APL in my entire state. Once NCUTCD identifies inconsistencies in usage like this, they're likely to offer more specific guidance in later MUTCDs.

[kkt]

Post Edit: Here's another one that I found at the very, very end of the Dalton Highway in Northern Alaska https://www.google.com/maps/@70.2066984,-148.4396998,3a,15y,58.77h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYoTK7kqAdoMyeJ-Wois-Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's taking the optional flourescent-yellow/green color to a new level (a non-permitted level, that is).

I imagine it's that color for the purpose of standing out against snow.

Could be. I've proposed highway shields for Washington State with a similar color scheme for just that purpose:

Warning: Shameless Self Promotion ahead...

Made some additional modifications. Tightened up the top-side radii to make the cardinal direction and arrows look less ridiculous...

The geometry's good but the puke green background color scheme needs work...

[jakeroot]

The geometry's good but the puke green background color scheme needs work...

It was originally orange, but someone suggested I use the new flourescent yellow green MUTCD color, which is what that is. It looks dark due to the black numbers and background, I think.

[kkt]

The geometry's good but the puke green background color scheme needs work...

It was originally orange, but someone suggested I use the new flourescent yellow green MUTCD color, which is what that is. It looks dark due to the black numbers and background, I think.

Maybe just the dark green with a white background and a slightly thicker green border for the sign?  Maybe with the cardinal direction and arrow signs in the dark green with white lettering or arrow?

[MNHighwayMan]

That fluorescent color probably doesn't come out well on a computer monitor. It would probably look quite a bit better in person.

[TBKS1]

I saw these two signs in Jacksonville earlier today.



Strange Arrows by TheInstrumentalist, on Flickr



Overhead Powerline by TheInstrumentalist, on Flickr



AR-5 + AR-321 + AR-367 by TheInstrumentalist, on Flickr

[D-Dey65]

Question for Canadians; Is there a French version of this sign?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canada.no_stopping_(fire_lane).svg

[jakeroot]

Question for Canadians; Is there a French version of this sign?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canada.no_stopping_(fire_lane).svg

I don't think I've ever seen that sign posted before. Is it an actual road sign? I would guess that the most common variation of it has a blacked out stop sign (as is typical for 'no stopping' signs in Canada); that would probably be the variation used in Eastern Canada.

[Max Rockatansky]

Weird oversized CA 99 and CA 41 shields with strange font on old US 99 on Broadway Street in downtown Fresno.  These are a common sight in downtown Fresno and I believe are sourced by the city:

99CAa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[MNHighwayMan]

Weird oversized CA 99 and CA 41 shields with strange font on old US 99 on Broadway Street in downtown Fresno.  These are a common sight in downtown Fresno and I believe are sourced by the city:

"Let's use a wide shield, even though it's only two digits, and to make it perfect, let's use Series C for the digits!" (At least for the 99 shield, can't tell with the other because of the tree.)

I love that logic.

[Max Rockatansky]

Weird oversized CA 99 and CA 41 shields with strange font on old US 99 on Broadway Street in downtown Fresno.  These are a common sight in downtown Fresno and I believe are sourced by the city:

"Let's use a wide shield, even though it's only two digits, and to make it perfect, let's use Series C for the digits!" (At least for the 99 shield, can't tell with the other because of the tree.)

I love that logic.

The 41 shields are all the same as the 99s:

41CAb by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Looking at that older photo I'm kind of intrigued to find out what surfacing was used for those shields.  It kind of looks like substandard highway vinyl that's badly cracking from a distance.  I would venture a guess that those shields come from an era when reflective paint was still being used on the Caltrans green highway spades.

[jakeroot]

"Right turn yield". I like stuff like this.

Richmond, BC: https://goo.gl/j2o752

[Scott5114]

So does a left turn not have to yield?

[MNHighwayMan]

So does a left turn not have to yield?

I think it's trying to indicate that it's right-turn-only, and that you have to yield. I don't think this sign does it that well (does it unambiguously), though.

[jakeroot]

"Right turn yield". I like stuff like this.

Richmond, BC: https://goo.gl/j2o752

So does a left turn not have to yield?

I think it's trying to indicate that it's right-turn-only, and that you have to yield. I don't think this sign does it that well (does it unambiguously), though.

As you can see from the Google Maps link, the intersection is a "Y", with this section of roadway being the rightmost ascender of the "Y". It's pretty obvious in person that the movement is right-only. Having an additional right only sign, or a no left turn sign, would just be redundant, since it acts more like a right turn slip lane, and those are never signed with no left turn, or right turn only.