There are contract documents available online for the reconstruction of Utica's North-South Arterial (5,8,12).
Are these MUTCD compliant? This part of NY always seems to have it backward.
7. Sign Face Layouts.zip The preceding link opens a new browser window
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262512
Quote from: jtsteach on December 21, 2013, 09:50:13 AM
Are these MUTCD compliant? This part of NY always seems to have it backward.
Looking at each of the designs, yes they appear to be MUTCD complaint. Some of the signs have rather small arrows though (pg. 31, pg. 33) and I believe that some of the cardinal directions can be omitted because there is a similar one next to it. Here's a mockup I made of one of the signs in the sheet (from the specs), and then the next one contains my modifications:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNYUT-SP-Orig_zps828ed7c1.png&hash=0a1c2d7091cd967caa6dfb046e859e019ae43f47)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNYUT-SP-mod_zps291885b5.png&hash=3fc008a925deb5dcdb07b59ff880a3f9e545a23c)
Since NY 8 and NY 12 are not the same route (AFAIK), I kept them separated but made it so that the 'SOUTH' direction referred to both of them.
I noticed that at least one of those over-uses the word "to" like region 2 likes to do, and there's a down arrow sign that will probably confuse some motorists into thinking they have to move left when they don't, but otherwise, better than what they normally do.
Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2013, 10:51:21 AM
I noticed that at least one of those over-uses the word "to" like region 2 likes to do, and there's a down arrow sign that will probably confuse some motorists into thinking they have to move left when they don't, but otherwise, better than what they normally do.
They're not too bad, they've done worse in the past, but I'm going to write R2 and ask them to reverse the order of "TO 90" "To 49" "EAST 790" "EAST 5" to list the actual routes first. I would encourage others to do the same. I don't know that they'll actually do it but it can't hurt.
I'm surprised they used "Brewery District" and "Arts District". Where did they get that idea from? :)
http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signshop53.shtml
If that sign is going where I think it is, it should really be "49 WEST" rather than "TO 49".
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2013, 10:29:07 AM
Since NY 8 and NY 12 are not the same route (AFAIK)
They are concurrent at this point.
Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2013, 03:05:08 PM
If that sign is going where I think it is, it should really be "49 WEST" rather than "TO 49".
I agree, but R2 thinks not because the ramp leads To 49, whereas 790 follows the ramp. But yes, it should be 49 WEST. The original all text sign there used to say NY 49 WEST so apparently the "To" obsession goes back to '89 with the MUD Project.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2013, 10:29:07 AM
Quote from: jtsteach on December 21, 2013, 09:50:13 AM
Are these MUTCD compliant? This part of NY always seems to have it backward.
Looking at each of the designs, yes they appear to be MUTCD complaint.
With respect, somebody at NYSDOT may consider 12 inch uppercase/8 inch lowercase lettering to be MUTCD compliant, but I don't think either FHWA or the NCUTCD would agree. Not to mention the 12 inch/10 inch cardinal directions (should be 12/8) and the elongated "T" on the "TO" legends. And, as you've noted, the arrows are too small and short.
I would guess that these errors are likely the result of inexperience with using SignCAD (?)on the part of the designer/drafter, as some of the signs also have left and right margins that are much wider than necessary for the legend sizes.
Just my five cents here.
Quote from: roadman on December 26, 2013, 10:12:41 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2013, 10:29:07 AM
Quote from: jtsteach on December 21, 2013, 09:50:13 AM
Are these MUTCD compliant? This part of NY always seems to have it backward.
Looking at each of the designs, yes they appear to be MUTCD complaint.
With respect, somebody at NYSDOT may consider 12 inch uppercase/8 inch lowercase lettering to be MUTCD compliant, but I don't think either FHWA or the NCUTCD would agree. Not to mention the 12 inch/10 inch cardinal directions (should be 12/8) and the elongated "T" on the "TO" legends. And, as you've noted, the arrows are too small and short.
I would guess that these errors are likely the result of inexperience with using SignCAD (?)on the part of the designer/drafter, as some of the signs also have left and right margins that are much wider than necessary for the legend sizes.
Just my five cents here.
Driving around the Utica area one will notice many issues with the centering of route markers, etc. on newer panels. The marker is in the center with the cardinal direction off to the side (instead of centering the direction and marker as one unit), etc. Plus, replacement panels are made to the size of the original panel, even if the legend is different (arrows moved to the side, etc), which is backwards from what the MUTCD calls for (lay out the legend first, then determine the size of the panel). Margins are all over the place. I really think that someone in R2 is struggling with using GuidSIGN (last I knew they used that instead of SignCAD at NYSDOT).
@upstatenyroads - Ah yes. If Region 2 is still using GuidSIGN, that explains a lot about why the panels look so screwy. Also could be a case of "signing design is easy, so give it to the new (and likely lowest paid) engineer in the office."
I think the entire state is using GuidSIGN. At least, region 6 is as well.
It doesn't help that the region 2 sign designers have never traveled outside of region 2, though.
Quote from: vdeane on December 27, 2013, 12:51:47 PMI think the entire state is using GuidSIGN. At least, region 6 is as well.
NYSDOT started putting construction plans (as well as other materials specified on the CONR9 form for each contract, such as signface detail sheets) online in the summer of 2013. The signface detail sheets I have accumulated since then allow me to confirm that
GuidSIGN is being used for Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 as well as 2 and 6. I don't know what the story is with Region 10.
Multiple regions are using a version of the standard
GuidSIGN drawing collar which has been specially adapted to include the NYSDOT slant-T-in-globe logo and the region name in large type at the upper right-hand corner. I suspect Albany is pushing this collar out to the regions, but not all of them are using it. Region 1 occasionally uses a version of it with an added pane to the right for the engineer's seal and signature. I have also seen Region 11 use a generic
GuidSIGN collar with no agency or region identification.
My chronological sample is very small and essentially truncated by date since, before last summer, I had no access to NYSDOT plans unless I shelled out money for plans CDs which, aside from a steep discount NYSDOT applied in early 2013 in the run-up to full online publication, were $49 per project. It is my impression, however, that signface layouts used not to be provided routinely to bidders at all, and when they were provided for a given contract, they were generally available only for inspection in person at the offices of the NYSDOT Region supervising the contract in question. Now NYSDOT seems to be trying to transition to (1) complete publication of all contract supporting materials (including signface layouts for every contract that has designable signs), (2) publication on the Web whenever remotely possible (eliminates the need for contractor personnel to try to get into locked-down Region offices), and (3) completely paperless plans production (right now plans are a mixture of direct PDF plots from CAD and scans of hardcopy plots, but as time goes on the former should grow at the expense of the latter).
In regard to the legend size issues Roadman mentions, I wonder if NYSDOT is taking advantage of a relaxation of the usual
MUTCD requirements that is available on relatively low-speed facilities. Part of the purpose of the project is to convert a mixture of 55 MPH "expressway" (freeway?) and 40 MPH surface sections to an uniform 55 MPH "expressway" facility, but I get the impression the finished product will still be relatively light-duty.
Interesting thoughts JN Winkler. However, unless I'm mistaken, the only formal provisions in the MUTCD regarding permitting a smaller letter size on guide signs based on lower speeds is for street name signs.
Even if the local FHWA office has allowed NYSDOT some greater leeway in this regard, I fail to see any real advantage in smaller overall panel sizes gained by reducing a 13.33/10 legend to a 12/8. Typically, if roadway speed justifies use of a smaller legend size, it seems to me that the logical practice (from both a design and fabrication standpoint) would be to drop the legend to 10.67/8, which is the next lowest standard increment. (as an example of this, MassDOT has often used 13.33/10 instead of 16/12 on secondary road overhead signs with the approval of their local FHWA office)
Quote from: roadman on December 28, 2013, 11:02:11 AMInteresting thoughts JN Winkler. However, unless I'm mistaken, the only formal provisions in the MUTCD regarding permitting a smaller letter size on guide signs based on lower speeds is for street name signs.
There used to be, and may still be, a provision in Chapter 2A which allows designers to deviate from size guidelines when,
in the engineer's judgment, this is necessary to allow a sign to be fitted into a constrained location without incurring undue expense. In the comments I submitted as part of the rulemaking process that led to the 2003
MUTCD, I asked to have this section removed. FHWA said No.
QuoteEven if the local FHWA office has allowed NYSDOT some greater leeway in this regard, I fail to see any real advantage in smaller overall panel sizes gained by reducing a 13.33/10 legend to a 12/8. Typically, if roadway speed justifies use of a smaller legend size, it seems to me that the logical practice (from both a design and fabrication standpoint) would be to drop the legend to 10.67/8, which is the next lowest standard increment. (as an example of this, MassDOT has often used 13.33/10 instead of 16/12 on secondary road overhead signs with the approval of their local FHWA office)
I basically agree with this argument.
Close examination of the signface layouts and the sign elevations show multiple signs with primary destination legend in the 13.3"/10", 12"/9", and 10.7"/8" sizes, with a consistent pattern of using 13.3"/10" for mainline signs that form part of the primary guide signing, 12"/9" for mainline supplemental guide signs, and 10.7"/8" for ramp signs, so there seems to have been a decision to implement a one-step reduction in size across the board. I don't think it is necessarily driven by panel sizes, though, since I think several signs could be redesigned to use 36" shields, 16"/12" primary destination legend, and 15"/12" cardinal direction words as well as full-size downward-pointing arrows at full 144" (instead of 103") center-to-center spacing without large increases in overall size. (The provision of empty green space under downward-pointing arrows is especially wasteful.) In fact the use of 103" center-to-center spacing for downward-pointing arrows, instead of the 144" that the
MUTCD implicitly requires in order to center each arrow over the lane to which it applies, suggests to me that the controlling consideration is fitting all the signs onto the gantry at locations where the support post is close to the traveled way and the right-hand sign has wide legend. (This is only a possible explanation, not a justification--the "wide legend" problem could easily have been fixed by, e.g., abbreviating "District" to "Dist" on signs which reference the Arts District and Brewery District.)
In general the signs strike me as being designed according to consistent rules, even if those rules are bad, and in at least one case lead to message loading on a single gantry in excess of the maximum of 20 message units that is recommended in recent design guidance such as TxDOT's
Freeway Signing Handbook. It is evident careful attention has been paid to low-level composition at the expense of the high-level communication design.
From Section 2A.11 of the 2009 MUTCD:
Standard:
07 Where engineering judgment determines that sizes that are different than the prescribed dimensions are appropriate for use, standard shapes and colors shall be used and standard proportions shall be retained as much as practical.
So it can be argued that NYSDOT's "non-standard" design is still MUTCD compliant. This is because, as JN Winkler points out, the deviations from "normal" standards for the sign legends are consistently applied based on sign type and mounting.