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

[vdeane]

Isn't the use of doghouse signal-heads more or less discouraged nowadays?

I sure hope not, IMO they're the best kind of signal because turning traffic gets the protected phase but never has a red when straight traffic has a green.

[roadman]

I'm confused, does the one you posted have some kind of error? This is a fairly common sign in Massachusetts. Assuming its an old standard.

"Lane Ends Merge Left (Right)" is an MUTCD standard sign (W9-2).  Unless there's a spelling error (can't tell due to Google Street View's capitulation to the tinhat brigade privacy algorithims), I don't see a problem here (if you scroll further, you do see that the right lane drops).

[cl94]

I'm confused, does the one you posted have some kind of error? This is a fairly common sign in Massachusetts. Assuming its an old standard.

"Lane Ends Merge Left (Right)" is an MUTCD standard sign (W9-2).  Unless there's a spelling error (can't tell due to Google Street View's capitulation to the tinhat brigade privacy algorithims), I don't see a problem here (if you scroll further, you do see that the right lane drops).

It's certainly standard, but several states do explicitly prohibit it in their state supplements/MUTCDs, New York being one example. Confused me when I was a young roadgeek and moved from the Albany area to central Ohio. Almost as strange as the non-MUTCD compliant slanted arrows they use to show option lanes.

[cl94]

Isn't the use of doghouse signal-heads more or less discouraged nowadays?

I sure hope not, IMO they're the best kind of signal because turning traffic gets the protected phase but never has a red when straight traffic has a green.

Nothing in the MUTCD to suggest otherwise. Section 4D-20 provides the standard and, a couple pages earlier, the shared signal face (doghouse) is listed first in the list of signal options for a permissive/protected turn movement. States that don't use the FYA or flashing red extensively continue to install them en masse. Everyone knows what the indications on a doghouse mean and it's not that hard for the average driver to tell the difference between protected and permissive movements.

[roadfro]

Isn't the use of doghouse signal-heads more or less discouraged nowadays?

I sure hope not, IMO they're the best kind of signal because turning traffic gets the protected phase but never has a red when straight traffic has a green.

Nothing in the MUTCD to suggest otherwise. Section 4D-20 provides the standard and, a couple pages earlier, the shared signal face (doghouse) is listed first in the list of signal options for a permissive/protected turn movement. States that don't use the FYA or flashing red extensively continue to install them en masse. Everyone knows what the indications on a doghouse mean and it's not that hard for the average driver to tell the difference between protected and permissive movements.

The difference is the application of whether the doghouse is a shared signal face or an exclusive signal face solely for the left turn lane. Doghouses can still be installed where they control left and through movements (although the circular indications on a doghouse now must always match what is displayed on the adjacent through signals). A doghouse can no longer be used for Dallas Phasing.

Although it may not be explicitly stated as a standard, guidance in 4D-13 p09 states that new or reconstructed signals should not have circular green displays mounted above or in the median where exclusive left turn lanes are provided. Indeed, all the figures under this section support this concept, with permitted phasing (doghouse or standard) signals being shown mounted over the lane lines between left turn and thru lanes.

[jakeroot]

Saw THESE on a roadtrip through Southwest Washington the other day. There are quite a few of them.

[Kacie Jane]

Washington is a big fan of unisigns, and the bottom half of that sign resembles something you'd find elsewhere in the state as a reassurance marker (though the side margins are a bit wide).

But when they use a unisign for an interstate, it usually looks like a mini-BGS (green background, white direction text, and the shield).  As far as I know, the blow banner for the unisign is unique to this area, with extra points for the concurrency of course.

(Side note: this is the same region that tends to use "normal" exit tabs, as opposed to the rest of the state.)

[TEG24601]

I for one like, WSDOT's attempt at unified signs.  They prevent bent direction blades, they are likely easier to install and maintain, and ever since they dropped the SGS (Small Green Sign) format, they actually look correct to what we would be expecting, color wise.

Saw THESE on a roadtrip through Southwest Washington the other day. There are quite a few of them.

[Arkansastravelguy]

Virginia uses unisigns in a few places. I much rather have the cutouts

[Kacie Jane]

I for one like, WSDOT's attempt at unified signs.  They prevent bent direction blades, they are likely easier to install and maintain, and ever since they dropped the SGS (Small Green Sign) format, they actually look correct to what we would be expecting, color wise.

They dropped the SGS format??  I had associated green with the Interstates and black and white with state/US routes, but I suppose now that I think about it, I may be incorrect and it's an old vs. new thing instead.  Please ignore most of my previous post then, I guess.

[Scott5114]

For the "ugly" category:

James River Freeway in Springfield, MO. Who thought up that color scheme for the borders???

[Billy F 1988]

Uh, local contractors?

[vtk]

That wasn't the contractor. That design smacks of chamber of commerce.

[jakeroot]

This is basically all chambers of commerce across the nation, in regards to the MUTCD:

[formulanone]

For the "ugly" category:

James River Freeway in Springfield, MO. Who thought up that color scheme for the borders???

Don't really mind it, actually. If it's off some minor road or within a maze of parking lots...although it smacks of bidding for favoritism.

At least it adheres to some sort of design philosophy, unlike Walt Disney World's unreadable purple and red with white Futura.

[jakeroot]

Still unsure as to the purpose of these, but WSDOT installed blue "Freeway Entrance" signs along WA-520 between the 405 and the bridge:

[hotdogPi]

Still unsure as to the purpose of these, but WSDOT installed blue "Freeway Entrance" signs along WA-520 between the 405 and the bridge:

Why are the colors reversed?

[Scott5114]

Don't really mind it, actually. If it's off some minor road or within a maze of parking lots...although it smacks of bidding for favoritism.

At least it adheres to some sort of design philosophy, unlike Walt Disney World's unreadable purple and red with white Futura.

It's not, though. It's off a major freeway, and not even a local or county one–at this point, I believe it's US-60/160/MO-13.

[cl94]

Still unsure as to the purpose of these, but WSDOT installed blue "Freeway Entrance" signs along WA-520 between the 405 and the bridge:

Why are the colors reversed?

Most "entrance"/ramp signs I've seen use that color scheme, especially in Ohio. NY (Region 10) and CA use an entrance banner that corresponds to the type of route being entered. Blue on white isn't particularly readable.

[roadfro]

Most "entrance"/ramp signs I've seen use that color scheme, especially in Ohio. NY (Region 10) and CA use an entrance banner that corresponds to the type of route being entered. Blue on white isn't particularly readable.

California and Nevada use white on green "Freeway Entrance" signs. I've never seen different wording. However, the freeway entrance sign, if used, is always accompanied below by route shields (for Nevada, the only place I know of a freeway not having freeway entrance signs is Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas--it is not a numbered highway).

[cl94]

Most "entrance"/ramp signs I've seen use that color scheme, especially in Ohio. NY (Region 10) and CA use an entrance banner that corresponds to the type of route being entered. Blue on white isn't particularly readable.

California and Nevada use white on green "Freeway Entrance" signs. I've never seen different wording. However, the freeway entrance sign, if used, is always accompanied below by route shields (for Nevada, the only place I know of a freeway not having freeway entrance signs is Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas--it is not a numbered highway).

My apologies. Could have sworn that I saw a pic showing I-5 with a white on blue. Everything about that state confuses me.

[hotdogPi]

Still unsure as to the purpose of these, but WSDOT installed blue "Freeway Entrance" signs along WA-520 between the 405 and the bridge:

Why are the colors reversed?

Most "entrance"/ramp signs I've seen use that color scheme, especially in Ohio. NY (Region 10) and CA use an entrance banner that corresponds to the type of route being entered. Blue on white isn't particularly readable.

You're missing it. The trees are purple. The traffic cone is blue. The image has the reversed colors, not the signs.

[jakeroot]

Still unsure as to the purpose of these, but WSDOT installed blue "Freeway Entrance" signs along WA-520 between the 405 and the bridge:

Why are the colors reversed?

Most "entrance"/ramp signs I've seen use that color scheme, especially in Ohio. NY (Region 10) and CA use an entrance banner that corresponds to the type of route being entered. Blue on white isn't particularly readable.

You're missing it. The trees are purple. The traffic cone is blue. The image has the reversed colors, not the signs.

Here, I'll zoom in on the problem:



After inspecting the WSDOT Sign Fabrication Manual (available here), the "Freeway Entrance" sign (E12-201) has the colors listed as "legend - white (refl)" and "background - green (refl)". I assume these signs will be tossed on final inspection, if there is even a thing.

[Billy F 1988]

Even though this is perceived to be a pile of fail because of the color, I'd actually like that better than green because it closely identifies with the interstate than green does. That's just me thinking outside of the MUTCD's tightening box.

[jakeroot]

Even though this is perceived to be a pile of fail because of the color, I'd actually like that better than green because it closely identifies with the interstate than green does. That's just me thinking outside of the MUTCD's tightening box.

I like your thinking, but this sign is used for a state route, not an interstate (not that you were directly implying that it was).