Signs With Design Errors

[Scott5114]

I agree Scott. I think we're saying the same thing. The first letter of EAST should be the same size upper case as the rest of the word.

We are, in fact, saying opposite things. The purpose of larger initial upper capital is to help make the distinction more noticeable than it would be if it were merely all-caps. I think it is better the way it is now.

The reason that it got added to the MUTCD is probably because there were two different states, Kansas and Michigan, that felt there was a need to make a greater distinction between the two contexts than just having one in all caps. Michigan used to do this with underlining. The MUTCD  adopted Kansas's approach instead.

[JoePCool14]

I was previously not a fan of the bigger first letter, as evident in my old signs I created from several years ago. But I've now warmed to the idea and think it was a good decision. It's also consistent with the directional plaques on standalone assemblies (unless you're IDOT, where you still don't do this). I did like Michigan's underlining practice. I think that was an equally valid, if not more valid, way of making directions stand out.

Also, I don't think Illinois is the only state that puts directions above the street name. But then again, maybe they are. Illinois is one of the only states I've been to that has this many cloverleaf interchanges after all.

Here is one example in Wisconsin of placing the direction under the street name on I-41 in Wauwatosa. Seeing this, I prefer it to be above. I also think the sign on the right is poorly designed.

[machias]

I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.

This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.

But then the legend should say Brooks Ave East, with East having an upper case "E" and lower case "ast".  The MUTCD calls for it to have a bigger "E" with smaller "AST", which is doing the same thing as "East" but with all capital letters.

[J N Winkler]

Divider bar is the actual Michigan DOT phrase for the ruled line that used to be placed underneath the cardinal direction--underlining is the longstanding roadgeek term.  It was used only when the cardinal direction was ranged to the side of a shield, never when it was above or below, and there was more of a gap between the word and the line than is normally the case for underlining in most typographical contexts.

MDOT used to have a standard plan sheet that gave rules for the use and composition of the divider bar.  It is now long gone, though it can still be found in old as-builts.  The divider bar ceased to be used around the time the agency went to Clearview and started putting construction plans online in 2005; I am not aware of any old online editions of the state sign drawings book that show guide signs with it.

[Scott5114]

I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.

This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.

But then the legend should say Brooks Ave East, with East having an upper case "E" and lower case "ast".  The MUTCD calls for it to have a bigger "E" with smaller "AST", which is doing the same thing as "East" but with all capital letters.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

There are two different meanings of "East": part of a street name (like, for example, how Norman has a 24th Avenue East on the east side of town and a 24th Avenue West on the west side of town, both of which are north-south), and to indicate a direction of travel (going east on an east-west 24th Avenue).

MUTCD says these should be typographically different: direction of travel should be in small caps, and part of a street name should be in the usual mixed case.

It sounds like you're saying they should be typographically the same. I can't imagine a universe in which treating the two different meanings the same typographically is a functional benefit.

[webny99]

The exit is for Brooks Ave eastbound.  Exit 18B is for Brooks Ave westbound, which is also the beginning of NY 204 West.

Yep. Here is the existing sign. It's an odd situation, since EAST is specified here, yet for traffic using the loop to Brooks Ave westbound, WEST is not specified: it doesn't have to be, since west is the only direction you can go on NY 204, and the route designation takes precedence over the road name. Doubly odd is the fact that the ramp to Brooks Ave EAST actually meets at a right angle. There are signs prohibiting left turns but otherwise no physical barriers to stop traffic from turning left. There's also nothing prohibiting traffic from going straight to re-enter I-390, and I have no doubt that's been done before when I-390 is congested.

[webny99]

I think it would look a lot better with the cardinal direction on a separate line under Brooks Ave. That would essentially flip the word EAST and the arrow (since the arrow should be on the right anyways) and narrow the sign up a bit. I get that putting it underneath is not consistent with how you'd place it for a route shield, but I don't see why it has to be. You have (1) the all caps text and (2) the fact that it's on a separate line, distinguishing it from part of the street name. I also updated "NEXT RIGHT" on the other panel to "1/4 MILE" and here's how it turned out:

[JoePCool14]

I think it would look a lot better with the cardinal direction on a separate line under Brooks Ave. That would essentially flip the word EAST and the arrow (since the arrow should be on the right anyways) and narrow the sign up a bit. I get that putting it underneath is not consistent with how you'd place it for a route shield, but I don't see why it has to be. You have (1) the all caps text and (2) the fact that it's on a separate line, distinguishing it from part of the street name. I also updated "NEXT RIGHT" on the other panel to "1/4 MILE" and here's how it turned out:

Looks good, but I would also add WEST to the left sign. And also an airport logo next to the word Airport. Maybe replace Airport with the actual name of the airport.

[webny99]

Looks good, but I would also add WEST to the left sign. And also an airport logo next to the word Airport. Maybe replace Airport with the actual name of the airport.

See my earlier comment: WEST is technically not needed here, since this is the western terminus of NY 204, and the numbered route takes precedence over the road name.

However, I do like the airport suggestion, although I can't decided on the description to use. The full name is Greater Rochester International Airport (obviously too long), and the airport code is ROC (fine, but not very descriptive).

[JoePCool14]

Looks good, but I would also add WEST to the left sign. And also an airport logo next to the word Airport. Maybe replace Airport with the actual name of the airport.

See my earlier comment: WEST is technically not needed here, since this is the western terminus of NY 204, and the numbered route takes precedence over the road name.

However, I do like the airport suggestion, although I can't decided on the description to use. The full name is Greater Rochester International Airport (obviously too long), and the airport code is ROC (fine, but not very descriptive).

Rochester Int'l perhaps?

Also, I still think there's reason to add WEST. IDOT still does this, even at interchanges where the state route ends. See here and here. The Cumberland example is harder to tell because of the way the north and south exits are split.

[kirbykart]

Here is one example in Wisconsin of placing the direction under the street name on I-41 in Wauwatosa. Seeing this, I prefer it to be above. I also think the sign on the right is poorly designed.

Unrelated, but that's actually a really neat interchange. Reminds me of a similar interchange in Alexandria, VA.

[wanderer2575]

I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.

This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary–Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.

Here's a perfect example on I-75 in Woodhaven MI.  (I thought I had a photo of this but I can't find it, so I took this screenshot from GSV.)

[Scott5114]

West Road east... Oh...

[JoePCool14]

I also disagree with the first letter of the cardinal direction being larger than the rest. It adds more visual confusion to the sign legend and in my opinion, is not necessary. Another example of the people who write the MUTCD creating a problem where there wasn't one.

This sign is an excellent object lesson in why it's necessary—Brooks Avenue East would be a street named Brooks Avenue on the east side of town, while Brooks Avenue EAST is the eastbound direction of Brooks Avenue.

Here's a perfect example on I-75 in Woodhaven MI.  (I thought I had a photo of this but I can't find it, so I took this screenshot from GSV.)

Aside from this...

West Road east... Oh...

I don't like it. For one, it's non-compliant with the 2009 MUTCD (you can't include a road name and control points on the same exit, nor should you have three streets/destinations listed on the same exit). I also think the direction doesn't stand out enough. It really needs to be on a separate line in my opinion. You could argue the New York example that sparked this discussion is actually better, since it emphasizes that the direction isn't just a part of the street name.

I still think the IDOT method is actually superior in this case.

Also, typical MDOT with the mixed exit tab styles on one gantry.

[SignBridge]

JoePCool14: The 2009 Manual does not strictly forbid the displaying of a street name and control point on the same sign. It's a recommendation, not a standard.

Sec. 2E.10 states: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. And BTW this has been in every edition of the MUTCD for the last fifty years. Fortunately at least some state DOT's like New York's Region-10 on Long Island have ignored that dumb suggestion for at least that long. We have numerous locations here with signs displaying road name and city together and in my opinion it's good quality signage.

Funny thing is that on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale

[jakeroot]

I swear I've seen EASTBOUND, NORTHBOUND, etc on some signs in Washington State, but I could be misremembering. I remember it being more common than just the cardinal direction, but most of the examples I've checked only show the cardinal direction.

[JoePCool14]

JoePCool14: The 2009 Manual does not strictly forbid the displaying of a street name and control point on the same sign. It's a recommendation, not a standard.

Sec. 2E.10 states: A city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided. And BTW this has been in every edition of the MUTCD for the last fifty years. Fortunately at least some state DOT's like New York's Region-10 on Long Island have ignored that dumb suggestion for at least that long. We have numerous locations here with signs displaying road name and city together and in my opinion it's good quality signage.

Funny thing is that on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale

My apologies, I should've checked that. I always assumed it was a mandate.

I actually agree with the recommendation though, with exceptions to major streets that are used for long-distance travel that don't also have a route number or some kind of shield attached.

[kphoger]

on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale

Yep.  And, in real life, it should also have a NY-25A shield, shouldn't it?

[hbelkins]

This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.

[SignBridge]

on page-205 of the 2009 Manual there is actually a graphic of an exit sign with street name and city displayed. Northern Blvd. Greenvale

Yep.  And, in real life, it should also have a NY-25A shield, shouldn't it?

kphoger: Right you are, about the 25A logo if there actually was such an exit on any actual freeway, which there is not. It's a fictional exit in the Manual. LOL And NYSDOT wouldn't even display the street name. It would just be: 25A Greenvale.

[SignBridge]

This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.

As I understand it the boxed street names used by some regions of NYSDOT are actually intended to simulate the appearance of street signs found on urban corners.

[machias]

This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.

As I understand it the boxed street names used by some regions of NYSDOT are actually intended to simulate the appearance of street signs found on urban corners.

They stopped the practice in 2009, thank god.  When reflecting headlights the road name inside of a box was illegible. Plus, Region 2 had the habit of putting the fake street blade by itself so you had a box within a box with maybe an arrow in just the outside box.  Plus, the use of all capital letters negated word recognition and went against the MUTCD recommendation of mixed case for these things.  Region 2 (Utica) was notorious for using this street name convention on badly designed signs. Region 3 (Syracuse) was a little better about it but overall good riddance.

[SignBridge]

This is the point where I once again state that I liked the former New York practice of putting the street or road name inside a white-outlined box that made it appear to be a route number marker.

As I understand it the boxed street names used by some regions of NYSDOT are actually intended to simulate the appearance of street signs found on urban corners.

They stopped the practice in 2009, thank god.  When reflecting headlights the road name inside of a box was illegible. Plus, Region 2 had the habit of putting the fake street blade by itself so you had a box within a box with maybe an arrow in just the outside box.  Plus, the use of all capital letters negated word recognition and went against the MUTCD recommendation of mixed case for these things.  Region 2 (Utica) was notorious for using this street name convention on badly designed signs. Region 3 (Syracuse) was a little better about it but overall good riddance.

I agree! I always thought the boxed street names were a dumb idea. I grew up with and have always approved of NYSDOT Region-10's approach. They put both the road name and city/town name together on their signs, both in mixed case lettering and it looks just right. Like in that Northern Blvd, Greenvale sign shown above in kphoger's earlier post.

[jakeroot]

^^^
What do you guys make of the Australian practice of using road names within an inverted box?

Image from ABC News.

[JoePCool14]

^^^
What do you guys make of the Australian practice of using road names within an inverted box?

Image from ABC News.

It looks nice from an aesthetic point of view, but it feels inconsistent. Like in your image below, you have the freeway name at the exit in black on white, but then that leads to another freeway that's listed white on green.

I like Illinois' styling with the expressway names instead.