Quote from: J N Winkler on December 16, 2009, 10:19:18 PM
I had a quick look at the Final Rule Notice to see how FHWA had addressed diagrammatic signs, which was the main burden of my own submission. They did pretty much as I had suggested in my letter, though they did not go into detail on the reasons. Stippled-arrow diagrammatics are still in the MUTCD, while arrow-per-lane diagrammatics are now an accepted design option.
It should be noted that the arrow-per-lane signs are now the preferred design option, with the diagrammatic signs retained as an option.
On a related topic, I don't agree with some of the new standards relating to multilane exits/splits. I noticed that many figures are now revised to show exit direction signs placed directly above the exit's theoretical gore, where previously such signs were placed slightly ahead of this point. With the revised designs, this sometimes results in signs that indicate two exit only lanes when there really is one exit only lane and one optional lane. This seems to me to have the potential to confuse drivers about the exit conditions in certain situations.
A specific problem I have is that the new standards prohibit the way Nevada DOT regularly marks exits multilane exits. Generally, an exit with a drop lane and an option lane will be marked with a green-on-white down arrow over the option lane a black-on-yellow down arrow over the drop lane on the advance sign, followed by an exit direction sign with appropriate up arrows. This signage would be used at any exit with an option lane, not just those where a route splits. Here's Google Street View images of a typical application on US 95 north in Las Vegas: Advance guide sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1140+N+Virginia+St,+Reno,+Washoe,+Nevada+89503&ll=36.174119,-115.212861&spn=0,359.988724&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.174113,-115.212727&panoid=d7LaZo3hiD2_oy9E0bLzNA&cbp=12,274.16,,0,5.26) and Exit direction sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1140+N+Virginia+St,+Reno,+Washoe,+Nevada+89503&ll=36.174251,-115.218226&spn=0,359.954896&z=15&layer=c&cbll=36.174251,-115.218354&panoid=MkFIDwrFSCxSD4sKx_TWHg&cbp=12,268.09,,0,-2.19)
However, FHWA believes that drivers misinterpret the green-on-white down arrow as a dedicated lane, prompting excessive/unwarranted lane changes. Thus, their solution is to prohibit this signing method in favor of this: replacing the advance guide sign with one that shows one arrow for the exit only lane, add at least two regulatory lane-use signs on the shoulder that point out the option lane, add lane control arrow pavement markings adjacent to each lane-use sign, and reposition the exit direction sign over the exit gore point and replace it with one that shows two exit only arrows. To me, this is a lot more signs/markings for the DOT to maintain, there is additional signs which could contribute to sign clutter, and the exit direction sign is now potentially misleading. In my view, none of the new MUTCD standards show adequate overhead signing for this common condition except arrow-per-lane signing, which would be an excessive amount of signing for how often this kind of exit configuration is used.
Quote from: roadfro on December 17, 2009, 02:37:37 AM
On a related topic, I don't agree with some of the new standards relating to multilane exits/splits. I noticed that many figures are now revised to show exit direction signs placed directly above the exit's theoretical gore, where previously such signs were placed slightly ahead of this point. With the revised designs, this sometimes results in signs that indicate two exit only lanes when there really is one exit only lane and one optional lane. This seems to me to have the potential to confuse drivers about the exit conditions in certain situations.
A specific problem I have is that the new standards prohibit the way Nevada DOT regularly marks exits multilane exits. Generally, an exit with a drop lane and an option lane will be marked with a green-on-white down arrow over the option lane a black-on-yellow down arrow over the drop lane on the advance sign, followed by an exit direction sign with appropriate up arrows. This signage would be used at any exit with an option lane, not just those where a route splits. Here's Google Street View images of a typical application on US 95 north in Las Vegas: Advance guide sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1140+N+Virginia+St,+Reno,+Washoe,+Nevada+89503&ll=36.174119,-115.212861&spn=0,359.988724&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.174113,-115.212727&panoid=d7LaZo3hiD2_oy9E0bLzNA&cbp=12,274.16,,0,5.26) and Exit direction sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1140+N+Virginia+St,+Reno,+Washoe,+Nevada+89503&ll=36.174251,-115.218226&spn=0,359.954896&z=15&layer=c&cbll=36.174251,-115.218354&panoid=MkFIDwrFSCxSD4sKx_TWHg&cbp=12,268.09,,0,-2.19)
However, FHWA believes that drivers misinterpret the green-on-white down arrow as a dedicated lane, prompting excessive/unwarranted lane changes. Thus, their solution is to prohibit this signing method in favor of this: replacing the advance guide sign with one that shows one arrow for the exit only lane, add at least two regulatory lane-use signs on the shoulder that point out the option lane, add lane control arrow pavement markings adjacent to each lane-use sign, and reposition the exit direction sign over the exit gore point and replace it with one that shows two exit only arrows. To me, this is a lot more signs/markings for the DOT to maintain, there is additional signs which could contribute to sign clutter, and the exit direction sign is now potentially misleading. In my view, none of the new MUTCD standards show adequate overhead signing for this common condition except arrow-per-lane signing, which would be an excessive amount of signing for how often this kind of exit configuration is used.
I am in complete agreement with Roadfro on this one. California also extensively uses the white-on-green down arrow to indicate an option exit lane on advance exit signs. To omit the green-on-white down arrow will invariably confuse drivers into thinking the upcoming exit has only one lane when in fact it has multiple lanes. IMO, pavement markings and small white roadside signs are not a suitable replacement. I can easily see Caltrans reinstating the use of the green-on-white down arrow in their supplement.
I also believe you will never see the "arrow-per-lane" diagrammatic signs in California. Taking one of the examples in the PowerPoint file I was able to estimate that these signs are at least 14 feet tall assuming the interstate shield is 36 inches high. If my estimation is correct, then all existing sign bridges in use by Caltrans cannot handle signs that large. In fact the largest guide sign in California's spec is 138 inches (11.5 feet) although most overhead guide signs are in the 8-10 foot range and that includes the exit number. I suspect that Caltrans will make the arrow-per-lane purely optional even on new construction.
Quote from: roadfro on December 17, 2009, 02:37:37 AM
[quote author=J
On a related topic, I don't agree with some of the new standards relating to multilane exits/splits. I noticed that many figures are now revised to show exit direction signs placed directly above the exit's theoretical gore, where previously such signs were placed slightly ahead of this point. With the revised designs, this sometimes results in signs that indicate two exit only lanes when there really is one exit only lane and one optional lane. This seems to me to have the potential to confuse drivers about the exit conditions in certain situations.
A specific problem I have is that the new standards prohibit the way Nevada DOT regularly marks exits multilane exits. Generally, an exit with a drop lane and an option lane will be marked with a green-on-white down arrow over the option lane a black-on-yellow down arrow over the drop lane on the advance sign, followed by an exit direction sign with appropriate up arrows. This signage would be used at any exit with an option lane, not just those where a route splits.
However, FHWA believes that drivers misinterpret the green-on-white down arrow as a dedicated lane, prompting excessive/unwarranted lane changes. Thus, their solution is to prohibit this signing method in favor of this: replacing the advance guide sign with one that shows one arrow for the exit only lane, add at least two regulatory lane-use signs on the shoulder that point out the option lane, add lane control arrow pavement markings adjacent to each lane-use sign, and reposition the exit direction sign over the exit gore point and replace it with one that shows two exit only arrows. To me, this is a lot more signs/markings for the DOT to maintain, there is additional signs which could contribute to sign clutter, and the exit direction sign is now potentially misleading.
I agree 100%. I liked the the white on green arrow for the optional lane and the black on yellow arrow for theexit only lane. The new way makes it look like both lanes are exit only when in reality there is an optional lane. This would seem to make drivers change lanes when they don't really have to.
I like this set-up the best: (actually the I-91 SB sign should have 4 down-facing arrows not three...but you get the idea!
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut050/i-091_sb_exit_040_01.jpg)
Also, the down facing arrows seem to be more exact leaving to less confusion.
I also don't like the striping for the multi-lane/optional lane exits in the MUTCD. When I see solid white lines I think it could be a shoulder. I don't see why the broken white lines can't just separate the wat CT has it striped!?!? Also, on the MUTCD manual, before the solid white line for the optional lane split, why are there a series of short white dashes before it.....what does that accomplish!?!
See page 22:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/part2e.pdf
I guess this issue with the double-lane exit signs comes out of them requiring all down-pointing arrows to point straight down, with no angled arrows allowed anymore. The arrow must also be over the center of the lane, so it's no longer possible to have two different signs pointing to the same lane. They seem to favor the use of diagrammatic signs to account for this.
Quote from: jjakucyk on December 18, 2009, 01:38:15 PM
I guess this issue with the double-lane exit signs comes out of them requiring all down-pointing arrows to point straight down, with no angled arrows allowed anymore. The arrow must also be over the center of the lane, so it's no longer possible to have two different signs pointing to the same lane. They seem to favor the use of diagrammatic signs to account for this.
Technically it is possible to have two signs point to the same lane although the arrows won't be "over the center of the lane". Below is how California has been doing this for years...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images005/i-005_nb_exit_106_03.jpg)
There are a total of 6 lanes where this photo was taken. I-5 occupies lanes 1 thru 4 counting from the left. The ramp to CA-57 north uses lanes 4 and 5 which makes lane 4 an option lane (I-5 or CA-57). The ramp to CA-22 west uses lanes 5 and 6 which makes lane 5 an option lane (CA-57 or CA-22) and lane 6 an exit only lane.
Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 11:17:53 AM
I also don't like the striping for the multi-lane/optional lane exits in the MUTCD. When I see solid white lines I think it could be a shoulder. I don't see why the broken white lines can't just separate the wat CT has it striped!?!? Also, on the MUTCD manual, before the solid white line for the optional lane split, why are there a series of short white dashes before it.....what does that accomplish!?!
See page 22:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/part2e.pdf
Solid white lines are absolutely used to separate same-direction lanes that will be parting ways, I don't think that's going to be a matter of confusion. As for the short white dashes, they let you know that there is a decision point coming up and to make sure you're on the correct side of the line.
Quote from: roadfro on December 17, 2009, 02:37:37 AMOn a related topic, I don't agree with some of the new standards relating to multilane exits/splits. I noticed that many figures are now revised to show exit direction signs placed directly above the exit's theoretical gore, where previously such signs were placed slightly ahead of this point. With the revised designs, this sometimes results in signs that indicate two exit only lanes when there really is one exit only lane and one optional lane. This seems to me to have the potential to confuse drivers about the exit conditions in certain situations.
I have reservations about this change as well, but to be honest they were not strong enough to have prompted me to comment against it even if I had registered that it was in the offing. (I let this particular item pass me by because I was focused on the diagrammatics.) The motivation for this change is a study (NCHRP-funded, I think) which was performed by Jonathan Upchurch and others. Upchurch et al. found, apparently on the basis of tachistoscope testing, that the arrangement now shown in the
MUTCD is more likely to be understood correctly by drivers than the two most common of the existing solutions: (1) the classic "Lunenfeld and Alexander" treatment with two closely spaced arrows on separate sign panels to indicate an optional lane, and (2) the most popular "non-Lunenfeld & Alexander" solution used in states like California and Texas, with yellow "EXIT ONLY" overlays or bottom panels to set off the dropped lanes. Previous editions of the
MUTCD, up to and including the 2003 edition, had flexible language which allowed both solutions to be used, and also allowed the classic non-L&A approach to be used with pull-through signs without downward-pointing arrows.
Upchurch presented a report on this research at (IIRC) a 2005 meeting of the NCUTCD's Guide and Motorist Information Technical Committee, and they agreed to push for the
MUTCD to be revised to require that the "winner" of the tachistoscope study be used for multilane exits with optional lanes. In their place, I would not have been so quick to agree, for these reasons:
* Although the new arrangement "won" over the others, it did not win by a sufficiently large margin to justify throwing the others out. In general, I am highly doubtful that it is even possible to devise an efficient signing arrangement for optional lanes which uses downward-pointing arrows only.
* As noted upthread, the new arrangement does mislead drivers by hiding the existence of an optional lane until the exit. The counterargument, of course, is that the drivers who are likely to be misled in this way are outnumbered by those who would make an unnecessary lane change to get out of the optional lane because they interpret the signing to mean the optional lane is, in fact, a dropped lane. As I see it, the real issue here is that the new arrangement inconveniences drivers who are prepared to deal with optional lanes in favor of preventing unnecessary lane changes by those who aren't.
* Upchurch's study did not consider some other possible signing arrangements, e.g. one commonly used in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Texas with one downward-pointing arrow for the optional lane, and a vertical ruled line centered on it which separates the exit and straight-ahead destinations. This leaves the possibility that these might perform much better than Upchurch's winner, albeit at an added cost in sign panel area.
* Because Upchurch's winner calls for the exit direction sign to be past the theoretical gore point, in order to avoid its being confused with an exit direction sign for a double lane drop, this reduces the amount of advance notice motorists get of the exit and thus reduces agencies' flexibility with regard to sign size and letter height of legend.
The main reason I don't think it is worth putting up a fight over this particular change is that all of the other solutions using downward-pointing arrows are more or less equally bad, just for different reasons. I am increasingly of the opinion that the best solution to the optional lane problem uses upward-pointing arrows as now called for in the
MUTCD, with stippled-arrow diagrammatics as an useful complement for left exits and unusual geometry. As long as this is the dominant approach for signing optional lanes, I doubt it makes much difference whether Upchurch's winner is thrown into the mix for exit direction signs.
QuoteA specific problem I have is that the new standards prohibit the way Nevada DOT regularly marks exits multilane exits. Generally, an exit with a drop lane and an option lane will be marked with a green-on-white down arrow over the option lane a black-on-yellow down arrow over the drop lane on the advance sign, followed by an exit direction sign with appropriate up arrows. This signage would be used at any exit with an option lane, not just those where a route splits. Here's Google Street View images of a typical application on US 95 north in Las Vegas: Advance guide sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1140+N+Virginia+St,+Reno,+Washoe,+Nevada+89503&ll=36.174119,-115.212861&spn=0,359.988724&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.174113,-115.212727&panoid=d7LaZo3hiD2_oy9E0bLzNA&cbp=12,274.16,,0,5.26) and Exit direction sign (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1140+N+Virginia+St,+Reno,+Washoe,+Nevada+89503&ll=36.174251,-115.218226&spn=0,359.954896&z=15&layer=c&cbll=36.174251,-115.218354&panoid=MkFIDwrFSCxSD4sKx_TWHg&cbp=12,268.09,,0,-2.19)
Yup--this is the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach.
QuoteHowever, FHWA believes that drivers misinterpret the green-on-white down arrow as a dedicated lane, prompting excessive/unwarranted lane changes.
Yup, this is the standard critique. I agree with it, but I also think it is difficult to address this problem without creating others which are just as bad if not worse.
QuoteThus, their solution is to prohibit this signing method in favor of this: replacing the advance guide sign with one that shows one arrow for the exit only lane, add at least two regulatory lane-use signs on the shoulder that point out the option lane, add lane control arrow pavement markings adjacent to each lane-use sign, and reposition the exit direction sign over the exit gore point and replace it with one that shows two exit only arrows. To me, this is a lot more signs/markings for the DOT to maintain, there is additional signs which could contribute to sign clutter, and the exit direction sign is now potentially misleading. In my view, none of the new MUTCD standards show adequate overhead signing for this common condition except arrow-per-lane signing, which would be an excessive amount of signing for how often this kind of exit configuration is used.
Those are all valid criticisms of the new approach, especially the potential for sign clutter from the added regulatory & warning signing and the pavement markings. And it is certainly true that arrow-per-lane signing adds grossly both to message loading and to sign panel area at service interchanges, especially if you stick rigidly to the idea that each through lane (not just the optional lane) needs its arrow. My personal solution to this problem, which FHWA seems not to have taken up, would be to allow a separate pull-through sign to be used without arrows (either upward- or downward-pointing), and have just upward-pointing arrows for the optional lane and dropped lane on the advance guide and exit direction signs for the exit destination. The pull-through sign could even be optionally omitted, as California routinely does at service interchanges with the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander scheme.
This particular problem illustrates how a desire to provide positive guidance can often lead to excessive message loading.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 17, 2009, 03:54:58 AMI am in complete agreement with Roadfro on this one. California also extensively uses the white-on-green down arrow to indicate an option exit lane on advance exit signs. To omit the green-on-white down arrow will invariably confuse drivers into thinking the upcoming exit has only one lane when in fact it has multiple lanes. IMO, pavement markings and small white roadside signs are not a suitable replacement. I can easily see Caltrans reinstating the use of the green-on-white down arrow in their supplement.
It won't surprise me if that happens. (BTW, just thought of another problem with the small roadside signs--obscuration by large trucks.) There are a number of states, e.g. Kansas and Minnesota, which have their own approaches for dealing with optional lanes and I don't think they will rip these out just to comply with the 2009
MUTCD. Either they will put their own approaches into supplements, or they will put up signs which don't comply, which God knows happens often enough.
QuoteI also believe you will never see the "arrow-per-lane" diagrammatic signs in California. Taking one of the examples in the PowerPoint file I was able to estimate that these signs are at least 14 feet tall assuming the interstate shield is 36 inches high. If my estimation is correct, then all existing sign bridges in use by Caltrans cannot handle signs that large. In fact the largest guide sign in California's spec is 138 inches (11.5 feet) although most overhead guide signs are in the 8-10 foot range and that includes the exit number. I suspect that Caltrans will make the arrow-per-lane purely optional even on new construction.
Actually, Caltrans has at least one arrow-per-lane installation and more have been shown in construction plans for recent projects (e.g. US 50 median barrier job in Sacramento). I think what will happen is that these just won't be designed precisely as shown in the
MUTCD. Just ranging the shield to the left of the forward destination, instead of above it, would be enough to bring a 14' sign down below the 11' 6" maximum shown in Caltrans G-series specs.
Regarding down arrows for exits with option lanes:
Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 11:17:53 AM
I agree 100%. I liked the the white on green arrow for the optional lane and the black on yellow arrow for the exit only lane. The new way makes it look like both lanes are exit only when in reality there is an optional lane. This would seem to make drivers change lanes when they don't really have to.
I like this set-up the best: (actually the I-91 SB sign should have 4 down-facing arrows not three...but you get the idea!
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut050/i-091_sb_exit_040_01.jpg)
The way Nevada does it, the arrows on the Route 20/Airport exit direction sign should be right-upward facing arrows typical at an exit, to clearly indicate the decision point is there. An identical sign with the down arrows would be placed upstream of the exit.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 18, 2009, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: jjakucyk on December 18, 2009, 01:38:15 PM
I guess this issue with the double-lane exit signs comes out of them requiring all down-pointing arrows to point straight down, with no angled arrows allowed anymore. The arrow must also be over the center of the lane, so it's no longer possible to have two different signs pointing to the same lane. They seem to favor the use of diagrammatic signs to account for this.
Technically it is possible to have two signs point to the same lane although the arrows won't be "over the center of the lane". Below is how California has been doing this for years...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westcoastroads.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fimages005%2Fi-005_nb_exit_106_03.jpg&hash=d8c957aa19ff3a3c4b5fc8ead0723b7ee7f68747)
There are a total of 6 lanes where this photo was taken. I-5 occupies lanes 1 thru 4 counting from the left. The ramp to CA-57 north uses lanes 4 and 5 which makes lane 4 an option lane (I-5 or CA-57). The ramp to CA-22 west uses lanes 5 and 6 which makes lane 5 an option lane (CA-57 or CA-22) and lane 6 an exit only lane.
I definitely agree with the angled downward arrows rule, as that does get a bit confusing. But I also agree with the "one arrow per lane" rule, as multiple arrows over a lane can be tough to discern if not done properly. For the pictured example, the sign assembly can be modified such that the vertical lines separating the messages doesn't extend below the text, with the arrow centered below the vertical line. This way, there would be exactly six arrows in this instance to match the six lanes provided, and I believe the intent of the shared lane would be clear (although I've never seen a real example of this, so I can only speculate). I realize this method would probably result in one much larger sign panel instead of the three that appear to be used in this case, but it
For the above photo, Nevada DOT would omit the down arrows on the pull-through sign for I-5 north. I believe the way the MUTCD was written previously, down arrows were not required on pull-through signs unless the geometry contributed to confusion about which lanes were the through lanes.
Regarding the I-5 picture in the last post the arrows clearly make it confusing as to which lane goes where. How about adopting the British practice of using stacked overlapping signs like in this picture which makes it easier to get in the right lane.
In this example there are three routes ahead. To head to the M6 N West, B'ham you would use either of the two middle lanes. This is far clearer than placing signs side by side so the number of arrows don't necessarily coincide with the number of lanes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10917%2Fnormal_toll2.jpg&hash=cc858e9e5370a0484c4dd35e0ee692355a6ba824)
Quote from: roadfro on December 18, 2009, 04:08:45 PMFor the above photo, Nevada DOT would omit the down arrows on the pull-through sign for I-5 north. I believe the way the MUTCD was written previously, down arrows were not required on pull-through signs unless the geometry contributed to confusion about which lanes were the through lanes.
Actually, that was true
only if the exit involved is not a multilane exit. The
MUTCD never defined what a multilane exit was, so that was left to agency interpretation, within certain parameters. If you chose a straight Lunenfeld & Alexander approach, anything with optional lanes (i.e., all exits which are not simple exits or single lane drops) is a multilane exit. If you chose the classic non-Lunenfeld & Alexander approach, an exit with one dropped lane and one optional lane qualified as not being a multilane exit, which allowed you to omit arrows on the pull-through sign, or even to omit the pull-through sign altogether. Neat! (Bit sophistical though.)
In the case of the gantry Myosh_tino posted, there is advance guide signing (with downward-pointing arrows) for two upcoming exits at the same gantry, so even if one stretched the non-Lunenfeld & Alexander interpretation of multilane exit to the breaking point, it would still be prudent to provide a pull-through with downward-pointing arrows for I-5 for positive guidance.
Quote from: Truvelo on December 18, 2009, 04:22:25 PMRegarding the I-5 picture in the last post the arrows clearly make it confusing as to which lane goes where. How about adopting the British practice of using stacked overlapping signs like in this picture which makes it easier to get in the right lane.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10917%2Fnormal_toll2.jpg&hash=cc858e9e5370a0484c4dd35e0ee692355a6ba824)
That approach is a fail. It is hard to read, message loading is too heavy (admittedly this results partly from loose British limits on message loading), the signs plus backing board are very deep, and sign panel area is too large. This last point is a real killer in the American context with 36" shields.
Signs of this type are seen only on HA infrastructure and are not in TSRGD or even in the official list of nonprescribed drawings. The situation may have changed recently, but I understand that the DFT Traffic Signs Branch is not particularly keen on this approach and it is unlikely to make it into TSRGD or other official guidance with the possible exception of a series of signing IANs from the HA which are due to be issued at some indefinite future date.
I don't think I could parse "M 42 (S) The S. West (M5)" in the interval I have to approach the sign.
I am figuring M42 south goes that way, and it leads to M5, but then what is "The S. West" - the name of an expressway? Is that M42 or M5?
Quote from: Truvelo on December 18, 2009, 04:22:25 PM
Regarding the I-5 picture in the last post the arrows clearly make it confusing as to which lane goes where. How about adopting the British practice of using stacked overlapping signs like in this picture which makes it easier to get in the right lane.
In this example there are three routes ahead. To head to the M6 N West, B'ham you would use either of the two middle lanes. This is far clearer than placing signs side by side so the number of arrows don't necessarily coincide with the number of lanes.
I agree with JN Winkler on this one. That sign is very confusing and contains way too much information to process at 70mph, IMHO. Which way do I use to get to M6 since the lane stripings do no coincide with the sign message?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 18, 2009, 04:36:45 PM
I don't think I could parse "M 42 (S) The S. West (M5)" in the interval I have to approach the sign.
I am figuring M42 south goes that way, and it leads to M5, but then what is "The S. West" - the name of an expressway? Is that M42 or M5?
"The S. WEST" is an abbreviation for "The SOUTH WEST." The full phrase (including "The," and "SOUTH WEST" as a fully capitalized open compound) is what is known as a
regional destination. The function is somewhat similar to that of control cities in the US, except that they are intended to imply given regions of the country, and therefore directions of travel, rather than point destinations. Regional destinations used to appear in initial caps only but that changed with TSRGD 1994. There is a list of approved regional destinations which has changed from time to time--e.g., "The Lakes" is no longer a regional destination.
From Birmingham (where this sign is located) the M5 is the route to the South West, which includes Devon, Cornwall, etc. Another regional destination commonly seen on signs is "The NORTH WEST," which refers to the heavily industrialized part of England around Manchester and Liverpool (Cheshire, Lancashire, etc.) which has a particularly dense motorway network and is sometimes called "motorway country" as a result.
The signs may be cluttered and heavily abbreviated but what I was getting at is the positioning of them makes sense as to which lane you have to be in. The California example is flawed because it gives the impression of there being 8 lanes rather than 6.
The striping is like that because the two left lanes diverge.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 18, 2009, 04:50:13 PM
"The S. WEST" is an abbreviation for "The SOUTH WEST." The full phrase (including "The," and "SOUTH WEST" as a fully capitalized open compound) is what is known as a regional destination.
oh, gotcha. I figure seeing more signs like that I'd get the hang of it at motorway speeds after the third or fourth one!
knowing that, I think I could manage with that sign - also, I'd need to confirm that the M5 in parentheses means "to M5"
In a minute I will make a new topic for lane signing, which seems to have taken over a general discussion of the 2009 MUTCD
In all my reviews of the proposed MUTCD, I don't think I saw figures which depicted the changes I disagree with regarding the optional lanes. Had I seen them, I definitely would've made some citizen comments. Nevada adopts the newest MUTCD automatically without supplement,* so this will have wide-ranging effects on the numerous option-lane exits in the state.
Don't get me wrong here. I do think the "arrow-per-lane" signs are far superior to diagrammatics in many instances. I believe they would be much easier to interpret than trying to figure out what lane to be in based on the tiny stipples in the diagrammatic arrow. These work great for system interchanges, especially where an option lane is involved. They created a solution intended to solve problems relating to diagrammatic signs, but the implementation affects situations where diagrammatics aren't required--specifically at service/local interchanges where "arrow-per-lane" signs at service interchanges are overkill. And as JN mentioned, the changes to signing intermediate service interchanges provides some positive benefits for one type of driver but negatively impacts others (consider myself one of those negatively impacted).
The revised interpretation of a down arrow over an optional lane is really the issue here. No mention was made of this in the earlier presentation notes regarding the proposed MUTCD changes, nor did I see it in the register notice. If the changes relating to down arrows was indeed prompted by a study, I wonder why FHWA didn't mention it at all with the changes--cause they cited several studies in relation to other changes in the manual. I would be genuinely interested in reviewing Upchurch's study, especially to review what signing arrangements were considered in the study. If this study's proposals didn't garner overwhelming support, I don't understand the justification for including this as the only allowable signing method for service interchanges.
* Nevada has had a standard sign supplement, but not a full MUTCD supplement. Many new MUTCD standard signs are from the Nevada sign supplement--these include several animal warning signs, signs relating to daytime headlight sections, and signs relating to slow vehicle turnouts.
Quote from: Truvelo on December 18, 2009, 04:55:11 PM
The signs may be cluttered and heavily abbreviated but what I was getting at is the positioning of them makes sense as to which lane you have to be in. The California example is flawed because it gives the impression of there being 8 lanes rather than 6.
The striping is like that because the two left lanes diverge.
I agree there is some merit to that, though the "double-decker" configuration may not be ideal, especially for US audiences who are absolutely not used to looking up like that to receive further information.
okay, topic has been split.
J N, I appreciate how you always have detailed and insightful posts relating to sign design. You often cite studies and guidelines pertaining to guide sign designs. Would you happen to know where one could find the "Lunenfeld and Alexander", the Upchurch study, or similar guides may be found (online or elsewhere)? I think this would be of interest to many of the folks here, myself included.
EDIT: I found a PowerPoint presentation about the Upchurch study http://cms.transportation.org/sites/scote/docs/2004meeting/presentations/Upchurch.pdf (http://cms.transportation.org/sites/scote/docs/2004meeting/presentations/Upchurch.pdf) (1 MB+), given at a ITE meeting. In the example pictures at the beginning, the Warm Springs Road and Sunset Road/McCarran Airport signs are Nevada installations on I-215 EB in Las Vegas. (The Warm Springs sign at the gore is atypical, and would normally have upward arrows; the Airport example uses an incorrect down-arrow type for the upward arrow.)
Without having full details, it seems some of the participants' verbal responses don't favor type 3 (the method Nevada uses), but the simulation results indicate they actually did adequately or better with it compared to some alternatives. I'm not convinced, but maybe I'd change my tune if I can actually read the full study.
Roadfro--thank you for the kind words and for bringing your own thorough approach to these threads.
In regard to citations:
* "Lunenfeld & Alexander" refers to a 1976 FHWA report, written by Harold Lunenfeld and Gerson Alexander, entitled Signing treatments for interchange lane drops. What I call the "Lunenfeld & Alexander treatment" is essentially what their report recommends for lane drops with optional lanes. It has been used as the basis for MUTCD figures from 1978 to 2003.
* It seems GMITC made the decision to push the Upchurch recommendations at their meeting on January 5, 2005:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/gmitc/010505_GMI_Mtg_Minutes.doc
The main GMITC meeting minutes and agenda papers page is here:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/gmitc/gmitc.htm
* Upchurch's findings were published by TRB, but unfortunately full text is not freely available:
http://trb.metapress.com/content/g630862h080726w1/
This PDF'd PowerPoint presentation from a FDOT design conference held in 2006 gives an idea of the findings:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/structures/DesignConf2006/Presentations/session57/Final-57Behzadi.pdf
The research was done under NCHRP project number 20-7(155) and I think at some point a précis of the findings was put online, but I am having no luck finding it.
Now that you mention it, I don't really remember anything like what Upchurch suggested being in the proposed MUTCD text or figures, so it may be worth searching the comments on Regulations.gov to see if GMITC weighed in on this particular issue.
P.S. If you hate Clearview and are looking for an opportunity to spit nails, this is for you:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/gmitc/Marty_Presentation_NCUTCD_6-09.pdf
Thanks for the info. I'll have to check some of this out later on...I've been on this forum for the last two hours when I should've been packing to drive down to Vegas for the holidays. :pan:
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 18, 2009, 05:46:39 PM
P.S. If you hate Clearview and are looking for an opportunity to spit nails, this is for you:
http://tcd.tamu.edu/documents/gmitc/Marty_Presentation_NCUTCD_6-09.pdf
I took a quick look at this. I'm not in the camp of roadgeeks that abhors Clearview. A lot of the non-guide signs in there that are redone in Clearview are quite awful looking though...
The principles of guide sign design in that presentation though actually make a lot of sense, and would seem to result in more aesthetically pleasing signs in several instances. Also, the bicycle symbol with the rider would seem to be simpler and convey the message a bit better.
It's easy to get distracted by these kinds of issues--I'm at home right now, so no packing to do, but I had meant to write a script to draw borders around signs with 20" lettering, and to get camera copies of some old documents I have sitting around. So much to do!
I don't actually disagree with the idea of having a fully scalable sign design system, since that is essentially what Britain has and it works very well. I don't agree with the specific proposals though. Ranging arrows to the right of the shield & cardinal direction word (above the text legend) just looks cludgy to me, and if they are so set on following British practice, they would have done well to use sentence case instead of Initial Caps for their reformed regulatory signs.
That presentation seems to have been created by someone more into visual design than highway signage. Note the recommendation of blue for bike guide signage...
Here's something else I don't like. These signs suggest that to stay on I-70 you should move over to the left lane as the middle lane is for PA-906. A better option would be for the middle sign to have NEXT RIGHT or similar.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_i70.jpg&hash=d000d6853a70801f723a6a09da6d6d8b553f355b)
Quote from: Truvelo on December 19, 2009, 12:04:08 PM
Here's something else I don't like. These signs suggest that to stay on I-70 you should move over to the left lane as the middle lane is for PA-906. A better option would be for the middle sign to have NEXT RIGHT or similar.
The Cross County Parkway tells a similar lie:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg121.imageshack.us%2Fimg121%2F6346%2Fdscn0104j.jpg&hash=da333d22099d6542615d372bb7fdfd0425c56b58)
In Reality, the Bronx River parkway is an exit to the right with no lane drop, either of the right two lanes will get you on the CD road for exits 5, 4N, and 4S (also, note the exit tab wider than the sign...), and either of the left two lanes will get you onto the inner through roadway towards the Saw Mill Parkway.
Quote from: Truvelo on December 19, 2009, 12:04:08 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_i70.jpg&hash=d000d6853a70801f723a6a09da6d6d8b553f355b)
PennDOT, I fixed your sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Ffixed-i-70-gantry-for-pa-88-and-pa-906.png&hash=78bfb8ff0ef8bd8adf8b77e797d7cc05fb73c5ca)
The original sign is actually a textbook example of abuse of downward-pointing arrows.
Isn't the Belle Vernon bridge scheduled for more work? If it is, these signs will probably be replaced (again).
Here is another example of the misuse that can occur with optional lane exits.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut095/i-095_nb_exit_085_03.jpg)
On I-95 in CT...The right lane for Exit 85 (Route 1) does exit...but what the sign doesn't tell you is that the 2nd to right lane is an option lane! This leads to drivers switching to the right lane when they don't have to.
Another annoyance is Exit 86 is a two lane left exit as CT-184 is a short expressway spur. However, the two lane left exit does not have an optional lane, but there is enough pavement to provide one. Ugh!
Quote from: Truvelo on December 19, 2009, 12:04:08 PM
Here's something else I don't like. These signs suggest that to stay on I-70 you should move over to the left lane as the middle lane is for PA-906. A better option would be for the middle sign to have NEXT RIGHT or similar.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_i70.jpg&hash=d000d6853a70801f723a6a09da6d6d8b553f355b)
The only real problem I have with those Pennsylvania signs is the down arrow on the pull through which really shouldn't be there. The other two signs are fine IMO. California used to do this pretty extensively and they still are on certain new installations. Here are a few signs near my home that kind of illustrate my point. The only difference though is the pull through signs in my examples do not have any down arrows on it...
Southbound CA-85 at Central Expwy (Exit 23)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fca85_south%2F85s_23.jpg&hash=039a70e4bd58242c421443f947df3822f14a6455)
This is an old "butterfly" sign bridge. By "butterfly" I mean a sign bridge with the support post in the gore point. California has started to make a concerted effort to remove these types of sign bridges in the name of safety.
Southbound CA-85 at El Camino Real/Grant Road/CA-237 (Exit 22B)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fca85_south%2F85s_22B.jpg&hash=bdc2ba92e42255a809ecfe5e6c25da3c7d58b849)
These are new signs that replaced an older "butteryfly" sign bridge. The pull through sign (not shown) does not have any down arrows.
Westbound CA-237 at Mathilda Avenue/US 101 South (Exit 3B)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fca237_west%2F237w_3B.jpg&hash=53ca160a66f2cac3d8cf75563397e8cb8cdeaf76)
These are also new signs that replaced an old "butterfly" sign bridge. The pull through sign (not shown) does not have any down arrows.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 19, 2009, 10:45:16 PM
California has started to make a concerted effort to remove these types of sign bridges in the name of safety.
damn! those tend to be some of the oldest signs in California; I think they stopped putting up new butterflies in the 60s or 70s. Some of them have brand new signs, but a lot of them remain intact with the original 1960s porcelain.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 19, 2009, 10:50:37 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 19, 2009, 10:45:16 PM
California has started to make a concerted effort to remove these types of sign bridges in the name of safety.
damn! those tend to be some of the oldest signs in California; I think they stopped putting up new butterflies in the 60s or 70s. Some of them have brand new signs, but a lot of them remain intact with the original 1960s porcelain.
Not meaning to drift a little off-topic but here's a list of interchanges in Santa Clara County that had butterfly sign bridges replaced between 2006 and 2008 with standard ones...
Interstate 280 (Southbound ONLY)De Anza Blvd (Exit 11)
Wolfe Road (Exit 10)
Winchester Blvd (Exit 6)
California 237Evelyn Avenue (Exit 1C - Westbound)
Mathilda Avenue/US 101 North (Exit 3B)
US 101 North (Exit 3A - Westbound)
Lawrence Expwy (Exit 5 - Eastbound)
Interstate 880The Alameda/California 82 (Exit 2 - Northbound)
Coleman Avenue (Exit 3 - Northbound)
North First Street (Exit 4A - Northbound... this one had the outlined US 101 shield)
U.S. 101 (Northbound)Ellis Street (Exit 397)
Moffett Blvd (Exit 398)
Amphitheater Pkwy (Exit 400A)
Rengstorff Avenue (Exit 400B)
San Antonio Road (Exit 400C... this one had the outlined US 101 shield)
Oregon Expwy/Embarcadero Rd (Exit 402)
U.S. 101 (Southbound)San Antonio Road South (Exit 400C)
San Antonio Road North (Exit 400B)
Ellis Street (Exit 397)
This will probably break AgentSteel53's heart but Caltrans just completed a pretty major sign replacement project along I-580 between Oakland and I-238 (this is the old US 50 alignment right?) where all exit and advance signs were replaced with new reflective signs on tubular sign bridges.
one old outline shield left in the state ... the ones in Ventura County are all gone, too. (There are a few scattered ones from the late 1990s.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 19, 2009, 10:50:37 PMdamn! those tend to be some of the oldest signs in California; I think they stopped putting up new butterflies in the 60s or 70s. Some of them have brand new signs, but a lot of them remain intact with the original 1960s porcelain.
For Caltrans, butterfly removal = "gore cleanup project." It has been policy to clean up gores since the mid-1980's at least, but the number and frequency of gore cleanups may have increased as a result of the closer attention Caltrans gives to signing in general these days.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 20, 2009, 10:55:14 AM
For Caltrans, butterfly removal = "gore cleanup project." It has been policy to clean up gores since the mid-1980's at least, but the number and frequency of gore cleanups may have increased as a result of the closer attention Caltrans gives to signing in general these days.
of all the things to concentrate on. the East LA interchange needs more lanes, badly; taking down the old porcelains and replacing them with retro-reflective signs will not actually solve the problem.
Quote from: doofy103 on December 19, 2009, 07:14:31 PM
Here is another example of the misuse that can occur with optional lane exits.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut095/i-095_nb_exit_085_03.jpg)
On I-95 in CT...The right lane for Exit 85 (Route 1) does exit...but what the sign doesn't tell you is that the 2nd to right lane is an option lane! This leads to drivers switching to the right lane when they don't have to.
This "misuse" is now part of the MUTCD preferred signing method! All that would be missing are the lane-use signs on the shoulder and pavement arrows...
given that original-spec I-95 shield on that gantry, I will forgive them anything short of the pavement suddenly falling away into an abyss.
Here's an example of arrows that are actually correct...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2495%2F3897859771_7951d7b397_b.jpg&hash=251576e762b4c1c4f98e5c137b918c908e3fc08c)
Quote from: roadfro on December 18, 2009, 04:08:45 PM
Regarding down arrows for exits with option lanes:
I definitely agree with the angled downward arrows rule, as that does get a bit confusing. But I also agree with the "one arrow per lane" rule, as multiple arrows over a lane can be tough to discern if not done properly. For the pictured example, the sign assembly can be modified such that the vertical lines separating the messages doesn't extend below the text, with the arrow centered below the vertical line. This way, there would be exactly six arrows in this instance to match the six lanes provided, and I believe the intent of the shared lane would be clear (although I've never seen a real example of this, so I can only speculate). I realize this method would probably result in one much larger sign panel instead of the three that appear to be used in this case, but it
OK, I had a go at Roadfro's suggestion of using vertical lines to separate the sign panels with the option lane arrow centered below the vertical line. First the original sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22.png&hash=5ab2e9993fe91df1907b0645e3610f796956a93d)
Now with the modifications suggested by Roadfro...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22_roadfroAlt.png&hash=9466db591bfb73207324d75a65801f15efaa7a7e)
I'm kind of divided on the look of this sign and whether drivers would be confused on what lane they need to get in to make the transition to CA-22 or CA-57. I guess being from California, I'm used to two arrows pointing at the same lane.
Just for the heck of it, I tried the "Stacked Overheads" method used in Britain suggested by Truvelo...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22_truveloAlt.png&hash=4dcb80fce805c20beab37e56b3666ac9abdeb7b3)
out of those three options I actually prefer the British style the best, but that is because I have been alerted to it several days ago. I do not know if in general drivers would think to look for two rows of arrows, because that never happens in the US.
the second style... I would like it except to me the arrow kinda blends into the separator line. What about having two arrows like this? (Forgive my fast, crude photoshop edit!)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/5-57-22.png)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 24, 2009, 01:58:44 AM
out of those three options I actually prefer the British style the best, but that is because I have been alerted to it several days ago. I do not know if in general drivers would think to look for two rows of arrows, because that never happens in the US.
the second style... I would like it except to me the arrow kinda blends into the separator line. What about having two arrows like this? (Forgive my fast, crude photoshop edit!)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/5-57-22.png)
You mean like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22_agentsteelAlt.png&hash=09d770794e99a3b9176f8e6ddd5a501fea0e0528)
IMO, I don't see much benefit of this modification over the original sign with arrows pointing straight down. Regarding the British style, when I first saw it, I thought "yuck" but now that I created the sign in my last post, my thinking is now "hey it's not so bad". I do agree with you though that I don't think drivers here are ready for that type of sign layout yet.
yes, like that - dunno why I didn't think to just rotate the arrows.
I think the benefit is that without the divided line as in the very first original sign, people know that that lane is something that they can happily exist in without getting sliced in half. For some reason the fully divided signs to me imply a separate lane for each arrow, and given that that is not the case on the road itself, there is something incongruous about the sign.
How the hell would you represent this with up arrows like the MUTCD wants? You would have 3 up arrows, then one up/curved arrow, then....what treatment do the 22 lanes get??
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 24, 2009, 03:10:34 AM
How the hell would you represent this with up arrows like the MUTCD wants? You would have 3 up arrows, then one up/curved arrow, then....what treatment do the 22 lanes get??
Good question. I suspect Caltrans will get a waiver to not have to implement the up-arrow style exit signage. IIRC, these exits are pretty close to one another so using the new style is next to impossible without having to separate the exit signage on to two sign bridges. It will also be interesting to see what California puts in it's supplement.
Quote from: Truvelo on December 19, 2009, 12:04:08 PM
Here's something else I don't like. These signs suggest that to stay on I-70 you should move over to the left lane as the middle lane is for PA-906. A better option would be for the middle sign to have NEXT RIGHT or similar.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10163%2Fnormal_i70.jpg&hash=d000d6853a70801f723a6a09da6d6d8b553f355b)
I would agree...I've noticed this a lot on I-70/I-76 in PA. It's almost as frustrating as Ohio's wonderful practice of having "hidden" exit lanes, i.e., multi-lane exits not even marked on any of the signs that just magically have additional lanes, which seems to cause all sorts of last-minute mind-changes on the part of drivers. Wouldn't it be better to just let drivers know that there's an option? :banghead:
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 24, 2009, 01:48:38 AM
Just for the heck of it, I tried the "Stacked Overheads" method used in Britain suggested by Truvelo...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22_truveloAlt.png&hash=4dcb80fce805c20beab37e56b3666ac9abdeb7b3)
For the most part, I think that the Europeans tend to have some really great ideas when it comes to signage, but I just cannot bring myself to be a fan of this overhead stacking like the British are using. It doesn't seem intuitive at a glance...I'm more of a fan of this mock-up by myosh_tino.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22_agentsteelAlt.png&hash=09d770794e99a3b9176f8e6ddd5a501fea0e0528)
This makes sense and I think it is easily interpreted at a glance.
If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.
Quote from: froggie on December 24, 2009, 07:22:17 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.
Then how would you suggest Caltrans sign this particular example? Remember that these exits are close enough together that two separate sign bridges are not an option (wouldn't provide drivers with enough warning).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22.png&hash=5ab2e9993fe91df1907b0645e3610f796956a93d)
BTW, this is the original sign.
Quote from: froggie on December 24, 2009, 07:22:17 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.
discourages, or prohibits?
Quote from: froggie on December 24, 2009, 07:22:17 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the new MUTCD discourages the multiple-arrows-for-one-lane that you put into your revision.
The relevant part is § 2E.19: "On overhead signs where down arrows are used to indicate a lane to be followed, a down arrow shall be positioned approximately over the center of each lane and shall point vertically downward toward the approximate center of that lane. Down arrows shall be used only on overhead guide signs that restrict the use of specific lanes to traffic bound for the destination(s) and/or route(s) indicated by these arrows. Down arrows shall not be used unless an arrow can be located over and pointed to the approximate center of each lane that can be used to reach the destination displayed on the sign." This is a Standard statement.
So, the following are prohibited:
* "Dancing" arrows (i.e., arrows which do not point directly downward and are not centered over the lanes to which they apply)
* Multiple arrows (whether on one or more sign panels) for optional lanes
* Single arrows for optional lanes, unless the sign is designed so that the arrow refers to a group of options, as in Myosh_tino's example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22_roadfroAlt.png&hash=9466db591bfb73207324d75a65801f15efaa7a7e)
* British-style "stacked" overheads (they fail on the multiple arrows per lane criterion)
* Arrows pertaining to non-compulsory movements, such as the US 22 Business example Tim Reichard posted, the Belle Vernon Bridge example Truvelo posted, or the numerous instances of downward-pointing arrows on the left-hand sign in traditional Caltrans butterflies
§ 2E.19 is actually quite powerful when you look at it closely. I am really happy FHWA took a stand against dancing arrows (I hate them), but we'll get clobbered with the unintended consequences.
In regards to the I-5/SR 57/SR 22 example, Myosh_tino's solution with vertical ruled lines centered on optional-lane arrows would comply with the
MUTCD, since the centering makes it clear that the arrow refers to the destinations on either side of the vertical ruled line. (This approach is used by MnDOT at some locations in the Twin Cities.) Another solution which would comply, but would not be as effective, would be to have three separate signs for I-5, SR 57, and SR 22, and to provide a downward-pointing arrow just on the SR 22 sign (in effect to sign it per the 2003
MUTCD recommendation for a simple lane drop). Then, once past the SR 22 exit, the SR 57 exit would be signed as a simple lane drop.
Why do these solutions comply with the
MUTCD, as opposed to coming under § 2E.20, which requires a diagrammatic sign (either stippled-arrow or arrow-per-lane) for optional lanes at multi-lane exits? Because, once again, the
MUTCD does not define multi-lane exits. This means that because both the SR 57 and SR 22 exits are instances of a simple lane drop with an optional lane, they can be treated as not being multi-lane exits. The § 2E.20 requirement applies only to multi-lane exits. In fact, Figure 2E-11 shows an example of a dropped lane plus optional lane which is not signed using diagrammatics. The next figure, 2E-12, shows the same situation signed without "EXIT ONLY"!!!
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 24, 2009, 03:10:34 AM
How the hell would you represent this with up arrows like the MUTCD wants? You would have 3 up arrows, then one up/curved arrow, then....what treatment do the 22 lanes get??
As noted above, an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic is not compulsory, but this situation is messy indeed for both stippled-arrow and arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. A stippled-arrow diagrammatic could be designed for this situation, but it would be rather tall, with heavy message loading. An arrow-per-lane diagrammatic could also be designed but it would have to be a custom production, with the arrows referring to the SR 22 exit being more "bent" than those referring to the SR 57 exit.
In regards to Myosh_tino's comments on Caltrans getting a waiver for arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, I don't think they will. I don't think they can obtain a waiver from a Standard statement, and they are already using arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. What I think will happen is that they will find some way of not complying with the arrow height requirements. I think the
MUTCD's arrow height requirements are a bit excessive--for example, they require 72" arrows in some contexts, which is double the shield height. The arrows are also required to be centered over the lanes to which they apply, and I think this requirement is unnecessary for arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. I support this requirement for downward-pointing arrows on other signs, but not for upward-pointing arrows on diagrammatics, because I think the two are interpreted differently by motorists.
Here, I had a go at this assembly. I went a bit overboard and did signage for the next two interchanges as well. Blue squares indicate the lanes beneath the sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Fforum_img%2Fsigns%2Fi-5oc.png&hash=09cfe17155fcda4236178c3165f84e98011b9fdd)
There's no easy answers here. My approach is a bit simplistic in that it completely ignores the dropped lane for CA 57 until after the CA 22 ramp has departed. (Yes, there is room to wedge that assembly in ¼ mile from the ramps...there is currently a mileage sign on a cantilever at that point). Not perfect and might cause some unwarranted lane changes, but really, I think this is the best that could be done.
Here is one other option that's been used in California although it's not as common. Instead of the down arrows for the I-5 pull through, replace them with the text "LEFT 4 LANES". For the CA-57 advance sign, replace the arrows with "3/4 MILE" and rely on signs further up the road to provide lane guidance...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F5-57-22_txtAlt.png&hash=191664c72613ff5d6dcb1f13c1140c2f4844d027)
that might very well be doable, with the possible problem that counting to four while driving down the freeway may be a bit tricky. "am I in the fourth or fifth lane? do I need to change lanes?"
I think for three lanes or fewer that is a very viable solution, but at four it starts getting a bit computationally unwieldy. This is one difficult intersection to sign clearly!
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 24, 2009, 01:36:14 PMIn regards to Myosh_tino's comments on Caltrans getting a waiver for arrow-per-lane diagrammatics, I don't think they will. I don't think they can obtain a waiver from a Standard statement, and they are already using arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. What I think will happen is that they will find some way of not complying with the arrow height requirements. I think the MUTCD's arrow height requirements are a bit excessive--for example, they require 72" arrows in some contexts, which is double the shield height. The arrows are also required to be centered over the lanes to which they apply, and I think this requirement is unnecessary for arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. I support this requirement for downward-pointing arrows on other signs, but not for upward-pointing arrows on diagrammatics, because I think the two are interpreted differently by motorists.
I was perusing the current California MUTCD which is the 2003 MUTCD plus the California supplement and I did notice there were numerous crossed out sections marked "Standard:" in bold type and below it, was the California "replacement" for the crossed out section in blue. The sections that were crossed out included those related to HOV lane signage (sec 2B.26 and 2B.27), hazardous material signs (2B.52) and advisory exit speed signs (2C.36). It also looks like Caltrans had a habit of changing "shall" to "should" with in the "Standard" section and then including their own "Guidance" section.
Also, it looks like Caltrans has started the process of building their Supplement to the 2009 MUTCD. A note posted on their website says they have until 2012 to submit their supplement though they expect to have it done sooner. Until the new supplement is finished and approved, the 2009 MUTCD will not be in effect and California will continue to use the 2003 MUTCD + supplement.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 25, 2009, 02:38:32 AM
Here is one other option that's been used in California although it's not as common. Instead of the down arrows for the I-5 pull through, replace them with the text "LEFT 4 LANES". For the CA-57 advance sign, replace the arrows with "3/4 MILE" and rely on signs further up the road to provide lane guidance...
This setup actually resembles one of the signs on westbound I-80/eastbound I-580 approaching the Macarthur Maze. However, in the Oakland example I mention, it's the Right 3 Lanes that continue on for I-80 (while the rest feed into either 580 east or 880 south).
This is my attempt at a signing scheme which complies with the 2009 MUTCD:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fcalif-i-5-exit-106-ags.png&hash=290c2bd1bff6049fb0dea507e35e347b5729bca9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fcalif-i-5-exit-106-eds.png&hash=167323ba19674ddb74ca4007addef710a59a9299)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fcalif-i-5-exit-107a-eds.png&hash=d7a915ce5d3af32d964ceb92f5a87c38d0882a2c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fcalif-i-5-exit-107b-ags.png&hash=2eedad681f4787337055f000d0b72bdd95205492)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fcalif-i-5-exit-107b-eds.png&hash=c12c6de566393c95e45426ada09475a383a41ffb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fcalif-i-5-exit-107c-eds.png&hash=862bfa7caa8e651fc0d59375bf1f7aa11a84a0d2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fcalif-i-5-exit-109-ags.png&hash=9b16bcdf92ba5610884a21a1814bfd020ca4ebba)
Some observations:
* The optional lanes are "hidden" until the last minute. I personally do not consider this desirable, but it is what falls out of the requirement in § 2E.19 not to use downward-pointing arrows except over lanes which go exclusively to the destinations above the arrow.
* In each case, the "double exit" sign is placed downstream of the theoretical gore point (i.e., after the optional lane has already divided into two).
* For the closely spaced SR 22 and SR 57 exits, the "EXIT ONLY" condition for the following exit is not signed until the same gantry as the exit direction sign for the current exit. This is because "EXIT ONLY" is misleading when placed over an optional lane which will not become a lane drop until after the current exit is passed. This is not something that has changed between the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD.
I think Scott's scheme complies substantially with the 2003 edition, but not the 2009 edition. My only quibble is the use of one, rather than zero or two, downward-pointing arrows on the advance guide signs for SR 57/Pomona. If you are going to use a signing method which allows multiple downward-pointing arrows over a single lane (now banned in the 2009 edition) or over optional lanes, it has to be done on a consistent and easily understood basis, such as providing an arrow over every lane which can be used to reach the destination referred to by the arrow. The signing scheme as currently drawn does not show what happens if you take the "straight ahead" option for SR 22 until after you have passed the SR 22 exit, at which point it magically becomes the lane drop for the SR 57 exit. It could easily confuse a driver into making an unnecessary lane change to the left (i.e., the optional lane for the SR 57 exit) rather than staying in the optional lane that eventually becomes the SR 57 lane drop. The driver would feel he or she had to move into the lane which a gantry upstream of the SR 22 exit clearly indicated went to SR 57.
I personally think the best solution compliant with the 2003 edition (not that it is very good; in fact I think the close concatenation of exits for SR 57 and SR 22 is an apt illustration of the old engineer's adage, "If you can't sign it, don't build it") is what Caltrans has actually installed.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 25, 2009, 09:57:44 PM
in fact I think the close concatenation of exits for SR 57 and SR 22 is an apt illustration of the old engineer's adage, "If you can't sign it, don't build it"
Heh, that's along the lines of what I thought when I was doing all this, except I had no idea that was an actual engineer's phrase!
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2009, 11:26:07 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on December 25, 2009, 09:57:44 PMIn fact I think the close concatenation of exits for SR 57 and SR 22 is an apt illustration of the old engineer's adage, "If you can't sign it, don't build it"
Heh, that's along the lines of what I thought when I was doing all this, except I had no idea that was an actual engineer's phrase!
In fact, it is a paraphrase from a Caltrans internal publication on preparing signing plans which was co-produced by HQ Traffic and District 7 (Los Angeles) in the late 1980's/early 1990's. According to this book, one of the steps of the project development process is for the sponsoring District to contact HQ Traffic at an early stage to identify any design changes that may be necessary for the project to be signed correctly.
In practice, however, I think the roadway designers steal the traffic engineers' lunch money.
I like it most the German way, with arrows pointing up.
(which has also been introduced in my homecountry last year)
German example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autobahnatlas-online.de%2FBildergalerie%2FA1_brem_stuhr_514.jpg&hash=17409c02ddb3bd111b383400553e850b01c249af)
Dutch example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_6kbDmCpNdio%2FSj1JWZTYU0I%2FAAAAAAAAIZM%2FuSP1tL1BRUw%2Fs576%2FIMG_7429.JPG&hash=f685b869e185e4235c70cbed86087c261267c7a4)
QuoteI like it most the German way, with arrows pointing up.
(which has also been introduced in my homecountry last year)
Was also recently introduced here in the 2009 MUTCD. I've seen them on I-29 in Fargo, ND (only place I can think of offhand...)
The German arrow design also solves the problem of having more arrows than lanes as discussed earlier in this thread with the I-5 gantry.
The brand new signage eastbound at the US 50/Business 80/Route 99 split in Sacramento utilizes those German forked arrows as well...
as does one sign in Milwaukee at the McKinley Blvd exit.
Ontario also uses the forked arrow design for their multilane exits since the mid 90s when bilingual signs where introduced.
Here's a typical Ontario advance exit sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg10.imageshack.us%2Fimg10%2F4425%2Fdscn1907y.jpg&hash=2c6013f971776cf2254565c922f6b8e500f5661f)
There is also a ground mounted yellow lane assignment sign that also has the same arrows on them at each exit.
Before the current design our multilane exit signs used to look like this drawing:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg682.imageshack.us%2Fimg682%2F4634%2Fhighwaypre95advancecrop.png&hash=bc81792d8fde825a833a9383fe26d4650fd5b1be)
Houston has their own version as well.
U.S. 59 NB approaching Louisiana St (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Orleans,+Orleans,+Louisiana&ll=29.730871,-95.403069&spn=0,359.99716&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=29.730882,-95.402908&panoid=TkaB49pcoRFncjkTJdGg1g&cbp=12,100.89,,0,-11.91)
I-10 WB @ U.S. 59 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Orleans,+Orleans,+Louisiana&t=k&layer=c&cbll=29.769981,-95.334148&panoid=W5h5kAfAKvw-CN62-MTM0w&cbp=12,252.39,,0,-17.27&ll=29.76916,-95.336882&spn=0,359.994319&z=18)
Something I saw today on the way home - a nice older example (ca. 1982?) of a forked arrow out here in Sacramento, where Business 80 takes the ramp to continue west onto westbound US 50 (and northbound Route 99): http://bit.ly/7wqmed
Northbound Route 99 also has a similar sign, as it uses a ramp to enter the concurrency with US 50 and Business 80: http://bit.ly/92P95y
wait, what's the difference between this newfangled German "forked arrow" and a good old fashioned American diagrammatical?? Apparently one has been around for years, and the other is a product of the 2009 MUTCD...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
wait, what's the difference between this newfangled German "forked arrow" and a good old fashioned American diagrammatical?? Apparently one has been around for years, and the other is a product of the 2009 MUTCD...
Isn't the typical diagrammatical arrow (as far as I understand it) the ones with the lane dashes within them? Or is that a more specific variant of the whole type?
Ontario also posts similar diagrammatic signs along with the forked arrows at large and or unusual interchanges. The usual sequence for a diagrammatic is like this example at Highway 403 and 407:
The diagrammatic goes first:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg22.imageshack.us%2Fimg22%2F408%2Fresizeddscn1830.jpg&hash=d65ea79c9bd15599ef4303aff1140678b50a1d6f)
Then the forked arrows sign: (this one is a bit odd, since it's a 407 sign, regular ones are green)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg39.imageshack.us%2Fimg39%2F9686%2Fresizeddscn1833.jpg&hash=fd2addd759924559770ae2db6b13082e4c65a415)
And finally the sign at the gore with down arrows and pull through signage: The exit signage may have a yellow bar at the bottom similar to a "Exit Only" bar.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F608%2Fresizeddscn1835.jpg&hash=c29108b46f9c23b699cfb7466b7def6e745cc205)
good grief! does Express Toll Route really deserve a Compress 407 Shield?
There's a reason Series D (as seen in the photo you emailed me) was invented: so that Series EM doesn't have to be scaled horizontally to 85% width.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2009, 01:11:00 AM
Isn't the typical diagrammatical arrow (as far as I understand it) the ones with the lane dashes within them? Or is that a more specific variant of the whole type?
The diagrammatic arrow signs, which were a staple of previous versions of the MUTCD and retained as an option in the new manual, are the large arrows with 'stipples' or lane line dashes along the shaft of the arrow.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
wait, what's the difference between this newfangled German "forked arrow" and a good old fashioned American diagrammatical?? Apparently one has been around for years, and the other is a product of the 2009 MUTCD...
The "forked arrow" is now the preferred method of signing multi-lane splits in the 2009 MUTCD. The MUTCD refers to these as "arrow-per-lane" signs, with one upward pointing arrow positioned over each lane with 'forked' arrows where an option lane exists.
The MUTCD has not previously included the upward pointing arrows now found on "arrow per lane" signs, but some states (and obviously other countries) have used this method of signing splits and option lane exits for some time. The FHWA has decided to move in this direction for exit signing at certain splits instead of relying on down arrows and diagrammatics, as a study seems to indicate greater driver comprehension. Upward pointing arrows are preferred, as it is much easier to see individual arrows over each lane than counting the small dashed lines of a diagrammatic arrow. (See previous discussion relating to the study that examined multi-lane exit signing.)
Quote from: Truvelo on December 28, 2009, 03:16:25 PM
The German arrow design also solves the problem of having more arrows than lanes as discussed earlier in this thread with the I-5 gantry.
Actually it doesn't, as currently specified in the 2009
MUTCD--this is a point that emerged in discussion upthread. The problem has to do with design of the arrows so that they indicate
two exits, each of which has an optional lane, which occur in rapid succession. Possible fixes include manipulating the bends in the arrow shafts (doesn't make the sign easy to read at high speed), or using taller arrows to allow portrayal of the double exit (increases sign panel area).
One solution I would suggest, which I have not drawn yet but may be able to get to before the end of this week (I thought this was going to be vacation but it hasn't been working out that way), is an adaptation of the Houston-style diagrammatic.
Someone posted this in another thread and it could work with multiple exits. In theory the arrow could be extended to show more than two exits.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2696%2F4133110821_7541e66236.jpg&hash=c4e7e908c526d915a09a0f02899dc354e9877722)
I was finally able to create reasonable copies of the new arrow-per-lane arrows that are specified in the new MUTCD. These are not exact duplicates because I cannot find the specs for these new arrows. Below are two versions of the I-15/I-40 one-half mile advance diagrammatic guide sign in Barstow, CA (one of the few diagrammatic signs in the state). The first uses the 72-inch arrows (2 x the Interstate shield height) and the result is a very tall sign (almost 14 feet). The second uses 54-inch arrows and it can fit in a standard 11 foot guide sign. To minimize height, I elected to put the route shield next to the control city while the 2009 MUTCD has the route shield above the control city.
72-inch Arrows...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Farrow-per-lane.png&hash=15150d0f5f3a5cc7767dbf0e20e63a7829015e29)
54-inch Arrows...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Farrow-per-lane_54in_Arrows.png&hash=5e28bf2b154995eab5f70c28bc67f70c4809ddec)
and for reference, the original sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images015/i-015_nb_exit_184a_01.jpg)
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 31, 2009, 02:38:04 AM
I was finally able to create reasonable copies of the new arrow-per-lane arrows that are specified in the new MUTCD. These are not exact duplicates because I cannot find the specs for these new arrows. Below are two versions of the I-15/I-40 one-half mile advance diagrammatic guide sign in Barstow, CA (one of the few diagrammatic signs in the state). The first uses the 72-inch arrows (2 x the Interstate shield height) and the result is a very tall sign (almost 14 feet). The second uses 54-inch arrows and it can fit in a standard 11 foot guide sign. To minimize height, I elected to put the route shield next to the control city while the 2009 MUTCD has the route shield above the control city.
It will be very interesting to see where this new suggested design is implemented first. Just a guess, but I am willing to bet it won't be California. :-D
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 31, 2009, 09:53:41 AM
It will be very interesting to see where this new suggested design is implemented first. Just a guess, but I am willing to bet it won't be California. :-D
You would be right. It was Milwaukee, actually.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Froadgeek%2Froad-photos%2Fmain.php%3Fcmd%3Dimage%26amp%3Bvar1%3Droadtrips%252Fwaukesha%252Fimg_3209.jpg%26amp%3Bvar2%3D700_85&hash=aa065ca958a09bd2dbdd2b121b26b798f6a59582)
The guys who designed this sign (in place during Summer 08!) just north of the Marquette Interchange must have been working off an advance copy of the 09 MUTCD...note that not only is it using the Canadian arrow treatment, but also the space between exit number and suffix that was added in the 09 MUTCD!
And to be perfectly honest, I find that sign hideous.
-The separated exit number and suffix make it seem like the "A" is part of something else, while not separating them made the "A" seem attached to the "73," as it's exit 73A--one complete exit.
-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?
-And now the arrows... they're thinner and appear to have smaller heads than the old-fashioned downward-pointing arrows, making them have a less profound impact in my opinion, and in this situation particularly, I think the message could be even better conveyed by removing the upward-pointing arrows altogether and just using a black-on-yellow diagonal arrow in between the "EXIT" and "ONLY," (to make the fact that that lane IS exit only more clear, as the diagonal arrow implies a simple exit with no lane drop, and the little exit only panel seems just a tad small and shoved-in-the-corner to me) and a white-on-green arrow to the left of that. Having the upward-pointing pull-through arrows creates an awful lot of blank sign space, and really does not seem to be necessary in this situation, with just the one single exit.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 31, 2009, 12:48:32 PM
-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?
While I can't answer whether the dual shielding is in the 09 MUTCD, I do recall that it came about as a byproduct of California's US route decomissioning - during the 1950s and early 1960s, many Interstates were co-signed with a US highway and post-1964, the old US shield would usually be replaced with a second shield for the same Interstate, the most notable examples being I-80/US 40 and I-5/US 101. Ultimately CalTrans continued the "doubling" for large pull-throughs...
...though I didn't know this had become a practice elsewhere!
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 31, 2009, 12:48:32 PM
-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?
The use of dual-shields on large pull-throughs is also seen in Michigan on I-75 and I-94 in the Detroit area. I think it's kind of cool, along with their underlining of cardinal directions.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 31, 2009, 12:48:32 PM
-The separated exit number and suffix make it seem like the "A" is part of something else, while not separating them made the "A" seem attached to the "73," as it's exit 73A--one complete exit.
Separating the letter from the number is new in the 2009 MUTCD manual. This was done primarily to avoid mistaking letters for numbers when the number and letter are adjacent (particularly the "B" can look like an "8", with halation at night). I believe the requirements state that the space should be at least one-half the letter height...the picture shows a full-width space.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 31, 2009, 12:48:32 PM
-I don't get the dual I-43 shields. Is this standard in the '09 MUTCD, and if so, does anyone know the intended benefit of using two identical shields with the cardinal direction in between?
This is not a MUTCD standard.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 31, 2009, 12:48:32 PM
-And now the arrows... they're thinner and appear to have smaller heads than the old-fashioned downward-pointing arrows, making them have a less profound impact in my opinion, and in this situation particularly, I think the message could be even better conveyed by removing the upward-pointing arrows altogether and just using a black-on-yellow diagonal arrow in between the "EXIT" and "ONLY," (to make the fact that that lane IS exit only more clear, as the diagonal arrow implies a simple exit with no lane drop, and the little exit only panel seems just a tad small and shoved-in-the-corner to me) and a white-on-green arrow to the left of that. Having the upward-pointing pull-through arrows creates an awful lot of blank sign space, and really does not seem to be necessary in this situation, with just the one single exit.
This is the way Nevada does it. I agree with this assessment.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 19, 2009, 11:22:10 PM
one old outline shield left in the state ... the ones in Ventura County are all gone, too. (There are a few scattered ones from the late 1990s.)
Make that two. I took this picture today...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Foutline101_750.jpg&hash=2b618cd3569a4a29f5405fb2f26fb830559c377e)
This sign is located on a bridge that spans the Caltrain tracks and links CA-82/El Camino Real to Coleman Ave/De La Cruz Blvd in Santa Clara, CA. I'm not sure who maintains the signs.
I had totally forgotten about that one! I used to pass by it a lot when I lived in the area, as it was on the way from work to the airport, avoiding rush hour on the 101.
Is that actually an old gantry? I know CA experimented with some retroreflective signs in 1966 or so, but I had thought those were all surface-mount, not overhead.
if it is from the 60s, there are is very likely to be date stamps on the backs of the signs.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 04, 2010, 07:00:46 PM
Is that actually an old gantry? I know CA experimented with some retroreflective signs in 1966 or so, but I had thought those were all surface-mount, not overhead.
if it is from the 60s, there are is very likely to be date stamps on the backs of the signs.
I suspect the gantry and signs are original to the construction of the overpass but I'm really not sure. Unfortunately, there is little to no shoulder and no sidewalk so getting a close-up look at the back of the signs (looking for a date stamp) is not something I am able to do.
De La Cruz, Coleman Ave and this connector roadway form a mini trumpet interchange and all the signs at the various separations are new ones installed about a year or so ago. They are reflective don't look like typical Caltrans signs.
Agentsteel53, I have a higher resolution photo of that sign if you're interested. Let me know.
yes, I see in the background what look like standard recent signs. can you please email the big version? shields@aaroads.com thanks!
Quote from: myosh_tino on January 04, 2010, 07:18:46 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 04, 2010, 07:00:46 PM
Is that actually an old gantry? I know CA experimented with some retroreflective signs in 1966 or so, but I had thought those were all surface-mount, not overhead.
if it is from the 60s, there are is very likely to be date stamps on the backs of the signs.
I suspect the gantry and signs are original to the construction of the overpass but I'm really not sure. Unfortunately, there is little to no shoulder and no sidewalk so getting a close-up look at the back of the signs (looking for a date stamp) is not something I am able to do.
Is there a sidewalk nearby on El Camino? Maybe with a longer lens, you'd be able to capture the datestamps while safely at the lower level of the junction.
El Camino is in the wrong direction to see the backs of the signs. Maybe stand on the railroad tracks? :-D
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 04, 2010, 07:59:11 PM
El Camino is in the wrong direction to see the backs of the signs. Maybe stand on the railroad tracks? :-D
Given the number of deaths on the Caltrain tracks in 2009... 19 (including 2 on New Years Eve), I don't think that's a good idea. :-(
Quote from: roadfro on January 01, 2010, 03:12:59 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on December 31, 2009, 12:48:32 PM
-The separated exit number and suffix make it seem like the "A" is part of something else, while not separating them made the "A" seem attached to the "73," as it's exit 73A--one complete exit.
Separating the letter from the number is new in the 2009 MUTCD manual. This was done primarily to avoid mistaking letters for numbers when the number and letter are adjacent (particularly the "B" can look like an "8", with halation at night). I believe the requirements state that the space should be at least one-half the letter height...the picture shows a full-width space.
Well that actually makes sense then! :nod: