I'm looking for examples of overhead (or even ground-mounted) BGS's on surface streets.
Your examples of BGS's on surface streets don't have to be at freeway junctions - they can be anywhere.
EDIT: In fact, I'd prefer they weren't at freeway junctions, since not only are they very common, we now have this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22402.msg2310064#msg2310064) for that discussion.
There is one on CA 184 northbound at the Edison Highway east of Bakersfield directing traffic to Lake Isabella.
Very common.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4111/34934103704_45815f1d61_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ve1pWQ)Flagstaff, AZ: Route 66, I-17, I-40 (https://flic.kr/p/Ve1pWQ) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D600x300%26amp%3Blocation%3D42.7275008%2C-71.1395837%26amp%3Bheading%3D246%26amp%3Bpitch%3D10&hash=f891a685d5f49c3bdf91fc2006e019411a6051db)
EDIT: https → http so that the image shows again, although it isn't quite showing it at the same angle as before
MA 16 & 28 in Medford (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4049539,-71.0814622,3a,75y,278.83h,71.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUXl99qQJO6QjHeNRvgjYPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Although these BGS' are fairly new; this intersection has used BGS' since the 1980s
Same location with the 80s-vintage BGS' (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.404963,-71.0815196,3a,75y,266.86h,71.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIyTxCC2XR0g3syns62SSXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
________________________________________
Southbound PA 320 in Marple Twp. (Delaware County) approaching the Springfield Rd. fork/split (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9496652,-75.3504903,3a,75y,164.72h,89.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_8ADludqQl4lgf72jyt94g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Along Ridge Pike westbound approaching Alan Wood Rd. in Plymouth Twp. (Montgomery County), PA (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0996626,-75.3023178,3a,75y,305.66h,73.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbmK-WCh-yPuw8syhoPkdWQ!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
In addition to the ones at all the freeway interchanges in Carson City, there's this one (https://goo.gl/maps/8atwoV2mHGM2) downtown, a few blocks north of the State Capitol, at what used to be the north junction of US 50 and US 395.
Edit: Another Nevada example, in Fallon (https://goo.gl/maps/sQT9vGzJDLP2).
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5111/5915875134_861af7bb24_z_d.jpg)
Miami, OK
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2287/2259318078_28b12871f5_o_d.jpg)
Fayetteville, AR
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8221/8315734251_fd545b5639_z_d.jpg)
Neosho, MO
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8532/8589899394_c0336b01b6_z_d.jpg)
Natchez, MS
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 07, 2018, 02:33:36 PM
MA 16 & 28 in Medford (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4049539,-71.0814622,3a,75y,278.83h,71.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUXl99qQJO6QjHeNRvgjYPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Although these BGS' are fairly new; this intersection has used BGS' since the 1980s
Same location with the original BGS' (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.404963,-71.0815196,3a,75y,266.86h,71.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIyTxCC2XR0g3syns62SSXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The BGSes at Wellington Circle were originally installed in 1972. The replacement panels recently installed were mounted to the existing 1972 supports (ugh!).
Quote from: roadman on March 07, 2018, 02:54:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 07, 2018, 02:33:36 PMSame location with the 80s-vintage BGS' (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.404963,-71.0815196,3a,75y,266.86h,71.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIyTxCC2XR0g3syns62SSXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The BGSes at Wellington Circle were originally installed in 1972. The replacement panels recently installed were mounted to the existing 1972 supports (ugh!).
Those BGS panels in above-GSV link look way too new to be of 1972 vintage. The shade of green used on those panels look too pale to be 70s vintage... not to mention the panels being more reflective. I remember when the ones from the 80s were erected but I do not remember the original 70s vintage ones which would've used either button-copy lettering or beige lettering and route shields per the era.
This one just east of the intersection (& now since gone) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.403992,-71.0729871,3a,75y,283.83h,76.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSVFO1j8iMNyEit_hTKZLSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is from the 70s.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 02:23:04 PM
I'm looking for examples of overhead (or even ground-mounted) BGS's on surface streets.
Ohio does this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.42461,-81.8441333,3a,75y,357.51h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sauMcL9lrZDEpIqoRRKqoNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) quite frequently. I'm a major advocate of this practice, and I wish NY would start doing it. The state's current method of just posting shields is not substantial enough. Having BGS's like that (even if they were ground-mounted) would be a major improvement to guiding motorists.
With that said, your examples of BGS's on surface streets don't have to be at freeway junctions - they can be anywhere.
Extremely common in Florida. You can expect to see them at pretty much any freeway junction — sometimes ground-mounted (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.747653,-85.5519312,3a,75y,186.16h,87.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB8RcsEk5Aiq6zhCBhsjL7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), sometimes overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.2670388,-82.1928083,3a,75y,266.46h,90.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGbw-pQtx-DVtr9l7w7KJZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Some major surface highway junctions (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1961182,-82.1418811,3a,75y,1.62h,97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s31uqS5yoMhWOaGwaRvSqwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) have them too.
On the other hand, I can't think of one in Georgia off the top of my head. Well, I suppose US 29/78 is
technically a surface road where the Stone Mountain Freeway branches off from it, so I guess this counts:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Fsign_photos%2Fnames%2Fathens.jpg&hash=f187502c0ec030cdbb11e1b9d38bc29398b856c6)
EDIT: Oh duh, how could I forget this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7938047,-84.3877163,3a,75y,356.39h,87.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgX87_cMb-qesV2s6Eo9CWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on West Peachtree Street?
"Sign salads" are very rare in Washington (if not non-existent). Virtually all junctions between two or more state routes have guide signs (alongside many non-state route junctions). For example, here's (https://goo.gl/xoTwCY)a very rural T-junction with a guide sign. Most states might just sign this with roadside shields and arrows, but Washington uses guide signs for this purpose instead. For the most part, the only ground-mounted shields are reassurance shields (https://goo.gl/D2DpPH), and "TO" signs (https://goo.gl/8eCMea) (sometimes these have a green background (https://goo.gl/ii2wMb)). But state route junctions are always signed with guide signs. I believe this practice is different than neighboring Oregon and Idaho.
Here's some examples of state route junctions in Washington, three rural and and an urban example...
(https://i.imgur.com/qovKCYT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PvPZsYK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/G94Y8Ky.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Bc7lHyC.png)
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9905343,-77.1539313,3a,75y,301.55h,94.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKUkFL8vaZkljjVTXee4Ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9916901,-77.1602892,3a,75y,117.46h,90.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3cb1EJsnVdKtTCs2yfHH0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0151742,-77.1187766,3a,36.8y,334.63h,91.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soNubfwRYg6_-vYE2XFR2fg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0177914,-77.1011062,3a,60y,329.68h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQzuR6iwMeNBFqRp8iwd_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0150708,-77.0996707,3a,75y,335.94h,103.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR8WMi1d8JjrTwrSX-S6X7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I could go on all day, but I won't.
At least in Utah, there are way too many examples of this to even try counting. Here are just a few:
North Salt Lake, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4695/38517880540_22c9eecf58_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21FGcWC)
Salt Lake City, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4618/38895010204_8425080b32_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22g26sd)
Farmington, NM:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4720/38707214675_1a4d996a20_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21YqAog)
Craig, CO:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4695/25732820538_1699e627e0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FcVr2C)
West Valley City, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4640/25589069878_9c81e7dfec_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EZdEXY)
I used to see them at pretty much every freeway interchange in CT, though I've noticed as intersections get re-done for whatever reason, the BGSs go away in favor of shield signs. Some examples of interchanges that have lost BGSs on the surface streets are I-84 East exit 63 (Route 30/83/Tolland Tpke where the bridge on the ramp was replaced and the ramp widened) and I-84 exit 68, where CT-195 was widened to 4 lanes.
See US 9 at NY 2 and NY 7 at NY 5. We do have them in places in NY.
Wyoming has stuff like this here and there.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2Fsg4y2r.jpg&hash=477c60c486bcdcb823afb5717afdbd0386f4389e)
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8311454,-108.7239591,3a,90y,107.02h,81.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3HWxc21u4LiafzJny9lMnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180308/0b913f434710f829869c6022e1577fdc.jpg)
US 43 South in downtown Demopolis, AL. This had a vintage button copy sign until a few years ago if I remember correctly.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180308/6fcd493976b4e252157428f0f87a3b8f.jpg)
US 31 North in Bay Minette, AL
iPhone
pan around downtown indy, INDOT loves them down there
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2018, 07:11:35 PM
See US 9 at NY 2 and NY 7 at NY 5. We do have them in places in NY.
NY 96 has several, too. But they're certainly not the default. I can't think of any rural interchange that has ground-mounted green signs referencing the route and control city, as is the standard in other states.
https://goo.gl/maps/DoqFqPUQhes
https://goo.gl/maps/DzhPYZ3Be6Q2
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0188983,-77.0139325,3a,75y,27.7h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEf0pt7OS3oSjwKAe7iVPJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0393091,-76.6740764,3a,75y,24.9h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_8n58e48tgHnuCwMaDnvbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: jakeroot on March 07, 2018, 03:37:56 PM
"Sign salads" are very rare in Washington (if not non-existent). Virtually all junctions between two or more state routes have guide signs (alongside many non-state route junctions). For example, here's (https://goo.gl/xoTwCY)a very rural T-junction with a guide sign. Most states might just sign this with roadside shields and arrows, but Washington uses guide signs for this purpose instead. For the most part, the only ground-mounted shields are reassurance shields (https://goo.gl/D2DpPH), and "TO" signs (https://goo.gl/8eCMea) (sometimes these have a green background (https://goo.gl/ii2wMb)). But state route junctions are always signed with guide signs.
I did not even know this was a thing. I'm extremely impressed at how good-looking those are, and the fact that they are easy to read, convey the message very accurately, and even include the "control city", eliminating the need for separate signage of those.
Without question, this should be a nationwide standard. Do any other states sign state route junctions like this?
Quote from: vdeane on March 07, 2018, 08:02:48 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/DoqFqPUQhes
https://goo.gl/maps/DzhPYZ3Be6Q2
To qualify, those should
replace the shields posted at the intersection itself. The first example lacks an arrow, and the second lacks a control city.
Point stands that this is done very sparingly in NY, and should be done more often. The motoring public would be better served if standalone shields were
completely eliminated from freeway junctions in favor of the BGS's used elsewhere.
The ones on "I-70" in Breezewood. :bigass:
Madison has a bit of an odd one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0678661,-89.3852324,3a,30.4y,212.42h,94.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGuBa7pxzp8AtfdbdyNWfww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):
The "exit only" signage is probably to keep traffic turning off Broom Street from getting in the wrong lane, since the intersections are right next to each other, but it's not something I've seen at intersecting surface streets very often. What's more, US 151 turns right at that intersection, but that sign is pushed off to the side instead of being on the main BGS.
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on March 07, 2018, 11:04:15 PM
Madison has a bit of an odd one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0678661,-89.3852324,3a,30.4y,212.42h,94.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGuBa7pxzp8AtfdbdyNWfww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):
I'm not sure I've ever seen analog variation of the "lane closed" symbol. Guess they don't want anyone thinking that's a lane, and driving into the island!
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 08:09:28 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 07, 2018, 03:37:56 PM
"Sign salads" are very rare in Washington (if not non-existent). Virtually all junctions between two or more state routes have guide signs (alongside many non-state route junctions). For example, here's (https://goo.gl/xoTwCY)a very rural T-junction with a guide sign. Most states might just sign this with roadside shields and arrows, but Washington uses guide signs for this purpose instead. For the most part, the only ground-mounted shields are reassurance shields (https://goo.gl/D2DpPH), and "TO" signs (https://goo.gl/8eCMea) (sometimes these have a green background (https://goo.gl/ii2wMb)). But state route junctions are always signed with guide signs.
I did not even know this was a thing. I'm extremely impressed at how good-looking those are, and the fact that they are easy to read, convey the message very accurately, and even include the "control city", eliminating the need for separate signage of those.
Without question, this should be a nationwide standard. Do any other states sign state route junctions like this?
To the best of my knowledge, this has been standard WSDOT practice since at least the 70s. It is probably more expensive, but undoubtedly preferable to standard salads. Much harder to miss a turn-off using guide signs.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 07, 2018, 11:36:08 PM
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on March 07, 2018, 11:04:15 PM
Madison has a bit of an odd one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0678661,-89.3852324,3a,30.4y,212.42h,94.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGuBa7pxzp8AtfdbdyNWfww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):
I'm not sure I've ever seen analog variation of the "lane closed" symbol. Guess they don't want anyone thinking that's a lane, and driving into the island!
Something tells me that the layout is newer than the sign, and as such, the intersection originally had a third through lane, and this is WisDOT's creative solution to the sign problem.
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 08:09:28 PMI did not even know this was a thing. I'm extremely impressed at how good-looking those are, and the fact that they are easy to read, convey the message very accurately, and even include the "control city", eliminating the need for separate signage of those.
Without question, this should be a nationwide standard. Do any other states sign state route junctions like this?
Most states have an option for signing junctions that combines guide-sign shields, directions, and destinations on the same sign panel, but few use it as extensively as Washington state. Here are some examples: CA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9482606,-119.1138844,3a,17.3y,69.03h,85.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEor4ci_mba3uYAOU_z0LUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), OR (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0807292,-121.8253164,3a,75y,197.61h,82.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0fQJxWoatiephnaH4lMd5w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), TX (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8050336,-100.4065041,3a,75y,59.79h,88.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6_yUtq7AetX7pml9litk6A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6_yUtq7AetX7pml9litk6A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D82.0257%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), NM (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2859006,-104.4661766,3a,75y,354.13h,87.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbNnPoTb8PCuPIN-_GJW7Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), AZ (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3912092,-110.7641765,3a,34.4y,7.08h,91.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbEjofpWeYEf-RwOiwxEuSw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbEjofpWeYEf-RwOiwxEuSw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.2964%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), CO (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.985998,-103.5571665,3a,75y,268.67h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1K9wO2cqdO75MA9vKf5Czw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), KS (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.773009,-99.9461071,3a,17y,61.3h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss_YjzC1yuq6Pedyb1CMtFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), . . .
There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the
MUTCD. It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly. Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged. And finally, some state DOTs have their own rather strict systems for distributing information across multiple sign panels that are not compatible with the WA approach. For example, MN (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7777079,-93.3781775,3a,75y,1.26h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHtOAFHXNZpAnwcdLIoBKug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) uses directions, shields, and arrows on green background to form what is effectively single-panel "sign salad" and is often mounted to traffic signal mast arms, while NE (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9949812,-101.7308112,3a,16.9y,302.36h,85.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl4mNIVsilqeuB5oraaashw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has junction diagrammatics.
Unlike the case with freeway guide signs, FHWA's design advice for conventional-road guide signs is fairly high-level, and what is diagrammed in the
MUTCD is a minimum option that is considered to represent conservative design. Very few states actually try to provide vanilla signing exactly as shown in the
MUTCD figures. There is typically a state-specific design manual or collection of specification drawings for small guide signs that is in at least
samizdat circulation if it is not online and its existence is not acknowledged outside the state DOT offices.
I'm so glad you mention Minnesota, because I think what they do should be standard nationally. Maybe it's bias, but I also think it's actually useful.
Also, I haven't been on MN-13 since the intersection was reconstructed, and I didn't know MnDOT signed it as CR-101 from there. Technically, CR-101 doesn't start until west of US-169, and the road between 169 and 13 is an unsigned state highway.
Edit: What I'm really saying is that the sign in the median should technically have a "TO" above the route markers.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2018, 11:57:25 PM
There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD. It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly. Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged.
The first part of your response
really confuses me. What should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?). From skimming through Street View, it appears the standard practice in most states is for one sign to list several destinations, with arrows pointing in the correct direction for each destination, followed by a sign salad with the routes. I guess this is fine, but I don't find it to be superior to WSDOT's method. I've always found sign salads to be rather confusing and cluttered (in my head, it looks like one giant sign with a bunch of holes around the shields, the arrows, and the cardinal direction). Maybe I'm just not used to it.
For the second part of your response, WSDOT just uses some green-out when that happens: https://goo.gl/DNqJX9
Quote from: jakeroot on March 08, 2018, 02:25:15 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2018, 11:57:25 PM
There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD. It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly. Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged.
The first part of your response really confuses me. What should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?). From skimming through Street View, it appears the standard practice in most states is for one sign to list several destinations, with arrows pointing in the correct direction for each destination, followed by a sign salad with the routes. I guess this is fine, but I don't find it to be superior to WSDOT's method. I've always found sign salads to be rather confusing and cluttered (in my head, it looks like one giant sign with a bunch of holes around the shields, the arrows, and the cardinal direction). Maybe I'm just not used to it.
For the second part of your response, WSDOT just uses some green-out when that happens: https://goo.gl/DNqJX9
What J.N. Winkler is getting at is that the non-Washington approach limits message loading, i.e. the amount of messages presented to the driver at one time, by breaking the messages up across successive assemblies. Thus a driver who is looking for a particular highway number can safely ignore the control-city panel, someone looking for a control city can ignore the route number assembly, and someone who's interested in both can look over both assemblies as they pass them without having to speed-read.
I don't think the Washington approach presents too much information (it doesn't appear to be too much more than what you'd see on the average overhead gantry), but I can see how the argument could be made that it's better to break it up.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2018, 11:57:25 PM
There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD.
Perhaps I came across as a bit naive in inferring that Washington's practice should be adopted nationwide. While I would certainly advocate it, it would be quite expensive and presents some practical challenges in addition to the concerns you've listed below.
QuoteIt combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly. Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged.
I don't see the issue with message loading, since my personal preference is to associate the route with the destination, and Washington's approach makes it more convenient to do this. I'd rather see a single sign than multiple, since it prevents me from having to make the connection myself - i.e. I
automatically know that Route 24 goes to Pullyap with WA's approach. I agree that having multiple signs improves flexibility, but by the same token, I don't think this is a problem that frequently comes into play - perhaps a rare one-off case that is sufficiently addressed by green-out as
jakeroot mentioned.
QuoteAnd finally, some state DOTs have their own rather strict systems for distributing information across multiple sign panels that are not compatible with the WA approach. For example, MN (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7777079,-93.3781775,3a,75y,1.26h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHtOAFHXNZpAnwcdLIoBKug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) uses directions, shields, and arrows on green background to form what is effectively single-panel "sign salad" and is often mounted to traffic signal mast arms, while NE (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9949812,-101.7308112,3a,16.9y,302.36h,85.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl4mNIVsilqeuB5oraaashw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has junction diagrammatics.
The approaches used by MN and NE are both superior to sign salads, but still lack the control city. As such, this approach requires two green signs
anyways. I view two green signs as more excessive than a green sign and a sign salad; therefore, I see the Washington approach as a well-organized and well-executed consolidation of the two.
If the signs used in WA were to be adopted in NY, they could simply
replace the existing sign salads. In MN and NE, it would be inefficient to replace existing green signs for the sole purpose of adding the control city, though it would still have the positive impact of reducing total signage volume (regardless of where it was implemented).
MA's paddle signs seem to be at least somewhat similar to WA's surface BGSes.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4559/38446558236_d2cd899114_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21zoEiJ)East end of MA 40 (https://flic.kr/p/21zoEiJ) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4281/34934129424_5e4ffe67c2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ve1xAh)MA 110 and 113 in Methuen, MA (https://flic.kr/p/Ve1xAh) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 08, 2018, 12:14:05 AM
I'm so glad you mention Minnesota, because I think what they do should be standard nationally. Maybe it's bias, but I also think it's actually useful.
Assuming you're referencing this (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7777079,-93.3781775,3a,75y,1.26h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHtOAFHXNZpAnwcdLIoBKug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), I appreciate this approach, but it's still inferior to the WA approach because it requires another green sign for the control cities, as I mentioned above.
Something MN does that I do think should be a nationwide standard is the posting of route shields/arrows on signal mast arms. I've found this very useful in my visits there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2018, 03:42:41 AM
What J.N. Winkler is getting at is that the non-Washington approach limits message loading, i.e. the amount of messages presented to the driver at one time, by breaking the messages up across successive assemblies. Thus a driver who is looking for a particular highway number can safely ignore the control-city panel, someone looking for a control city can ignore the route number assembly, and someone who's interested in both can look over both assemblies as they pass them without having to speed-read.
I'm struggling to think of a circumstance where a motorist would be interested in one and not the other. Even if this is the case, it can't hurt to have that information right there on a single sign - if they know what they're looking for, they should have no trouble reading the route number first or vice versa. I see having enough time to read as
less of an issue on surface streets due to the typically lower traveling speeds.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 08, 2018, 02:25:15 AM
What should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?).
This is a pretty good summary of my position. I also fail to see the issue with sign clutter.
Caltrans has this one after a small ferry:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.236533,-121.6036244,3a,17.6y,72.62h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEU0qk2jshKLSPbrrlDMcyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It directs drivers to a small unincorporated community. It's on the small side for a BGS, and I like those. Pullman, WA has tons of mini-BGSes on surface streets, I can get GSV links of those later.
Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2018, 02:32:06 PM
Very common.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4111/34934103704_45815f1d61_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ve1pWQ)Flagstaff, AZ: Route 66, I-17, I-40 (https://flic.kr/p/Ve1pWQ) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
(https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/streetview?size=600x300&location=42.7275008,-71.1395837&heading=246&pitch=10)
The cutout HISTORIC 66 sign on the overhead is cool. The ground mount 66 signage is overdone, though
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 07, 2018, 06:34:43 PM
At least in Utah, there are way too many examples of this to even try counting. Here are just a few:
North Salt Lake, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4695/38517880540_22c9eecf58_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21FGcWC)
Salt Lake City, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4618/38895010204_8425080b32_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22g26sd)
This highlights the need for a sign to be added to the MUTCD that tells drivers that they have the right-of-way in situations when they ordinarily wouldn't
Farmington, NM:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4720/38707214675_1a4d996a20_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21YqAog)
Craig, CO:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4695/25732820538_1699e627e0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FcVr2C)
West Valley City, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4640/25589069878_9c81e7dfec_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EZdEXY)
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 07, 2018, 06:34:43 PM
Salt Lake City, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4618/38895010204_8425080b32_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22g26sd)
A large sign basically says it's OK to mow down pedestrians in a marked crosswalk outside the Utah Capitol building, then a few hundred feet later, a very tiny sign says maybe not...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7756776,-111.8882474,3a,19.9y,30.68h,80.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGbli_oSsQdRbXBSiqBedTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: davewiecking on March 07, 2018, 04:27:29 PMI could go on all day, but I won't.
That's just it. While the OP doesn't outright prohibit BGS examples at freeway ramp entrances/interchanges (there's tons of those) per say; I believe (& I could be wrong) the OP's more interested in ones that are
not near/at freeway interchanges/ramps. The latter's more of a challenge.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2018, 08:46:48 AMI don't see the issue with message loading, since my personal preference is to associate the route with the destination, and Washington's approach makes it more convenient to do this. I'd rather see a single sign than multiple, since it prevents me from having to make the connection myself - i.e. I automatically know that Route 24 goes to Puyallup with WA's approach.
The issue with message loading is that the driver needs to be able to read the sign twice in the time it is visible. For this reason WSDOT not only typically uses Series E Modified (for higher unit legibility than Series D, which is used in
MUTCD diagrams) but also uses 8 in uppercase versus the
MUTCD minimum of 6 in uppercase.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2018, 08:59:35 AMI'm struggling to think of a circumstance where a motorist would be interested in one and not the other [route and destination]. Even if this is the case, it can't hurt to have that information right there on a single sign - if they know what they're looking for, they should have no trouble reading the route number first or vice versa. I see having enough time to read as less of an issue on surface streets due to the typically lower traveling speeds.
In cases where a driver sets out on a trip that crosses multiple counties and knows his destination is on a given route, the intermediate cities (which, on conventional-road state highways, are typically county seats) are often useless information. For the same driver the city may be more important when he or she is within a county of his or her destination. The guide signing has to cater to drivers in both situations; it does not necessarily have to do so on a single sign panel.
Lower travel speeds do allow smaller font sizes to be used, to a point. But urban areas have far more visual clutter and more demands on the driver's attention. This too is part of the reason it can make more sense to spread directional information across multiple signs.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 08, 2018, 02:25:15 AMWhat should be on a guide sign, if not the route, its cardinal direction, and a control city? That seems like a bare minimum (and if clutter is an issue, what should be taken away?).
The underlying issue is that the signing at a junction represents an opportunity to inform drivers of the following:
* Destinations on each arm
* Route numbers associated with each arm
* Cardinal directions associated with each route on each arm
* Distances to the destinations signed for each arm
* Orientation of each arm (typically indicated using arrows)
The value of each piece of information varies from driver to driver, as does the value of giving the information at a given point in the approach to the junction. It is not a question of starting with the premise that a guide sign will be provided with route, cardinal direction, destination and arrow, and then deciding which elements can safely be omitted at a given junction. It is more one of maximizing the proportion of the total driving population that receives a certain minimum level of service from the guide signing, by ensuring that drivers are able to access all the information they need to decide to turn in time to turn safely and smoothly, and then to confirm in a timely manner that they have chosen the correct leg of the intersection. There are multiple ways of solving this problem that are sufficiently hard to distinguish from each other in terms of costs and benefits that the
MUTCD offers an out-of-the-box solution that is guaranteed to comply, but does not mandate it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2018, 11:40:53 AMWhile the OP doesn't outright prohibit BGS examples at freeway ramp entrances/interchanges (there's tons of those) per say; I believe (& I could be wrong) the OP's more interested in ones that are not near/at freeway interchanges/ramps. The latter's more of a challenge.
I have been assuming that freeway on-ramp guide signs are not being asked for. They are really part of the total signing package for the freeway, not for the intersecting surface road, even though they are posted on the surface road. If we are to have a productive discussion about them, it might help to do so
in a separate thread with the following elements:
* Catalogue of states that use panel signs instead of "sign salad" for freeway ramps (
MUTCD allows both)
* Catalogue of states that use interchange approach signs on the surface road and the extent to which they attempt to steer drivers to the correct side of the roadway for a given direction of the freeway
We can then have a discussion about, e.g., whether Zwahlen signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6835174,-83.6228301,3a,75y,351.04h,83.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQtrQK1f13thyz0_41ExUiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) should be a national standard.
There's also a difference between *freeway* ramps, and simple interchanges between 2 roads that are otherwise not freeways.
Here's one of the latter. One of many examples in NJ is here on NJ 70 at NJ 73: https://goo.gl/maps/mPzWkUxxomu
An example at a traditional intersection (NJ 129 at Cass St, with a 1/2 Mile advanced sign for the next intersection): https://goo.gl/maps/pRpvVQVrbpn
And, a slightly odd case of absolutely no notice you'll be getting on a highway whatsoever. You can see where the I-295 shield should be placed on the signpost in this shot, but otherwise, if you're on this particular road in this direction, there is absolutely nothing to indicate by continuing straight you're getting on a highway here! https://goo.gl/maps/jjAsZxDHJiq
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2018, 12:38:10 PM
There's also a difference between *freeway* ramps, and simple interchanges between 2 roads that are otherwise not freeways.
Here's one of the latter. One of many examples in NJ is here on NJ 70 at NJ 73: https://goo.gl/maps/mPzWkUxxomu
An example at a traditional intersection (NJ 129 at Cass St, with a 1/2 Mile advanced sign for the next intersection): https://goo.gl/maps/pRpvVQVrbpn
And, a slightly odd case of absolutely no notice you'll be getting on a highway whatsoever. You can see where the I-295 shield should be placed on the signpost in this shot, but otherwise, if you're on this particular road in this direction, there is absolutely nothing to indicate by continuing straight you're getting on a highway here! https://goo.gl/maps/jjAsZxDHJiq
Here's some from Tulsa. Two on Cincinnati Ave. downtown approaching the Broken Arrow Expressway, and two on 71st Street at US 169.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180308/ba54ee52c77a30bdc6487855e9e59b88.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180308/33b0f97e7eb7ce5702df281fc6523af2.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180308/122a86b7de18b21d2db95ef4cb96304e.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180308/fc5d07e761795bf09fc7016b553b3581.jpg)
SM-G892A
A couple of examples from Marion, Ohio:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/6431690649_4cd1072ef7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6y6)034 Marion Sign gantry I (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6y6) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6431691303_bbb90c05ef_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6Kn)036 Marion Sign gantry II (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6Kn) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/), on Flickr
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 08, 2018, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on March 07, 2018, 04:27:29 PMI could go on all day, but I won't.
That's just it. While the OP doesn't outright prohibit BGS examples at freeway ramp entrances/interchanges (there's tons of those) per say; I believe (& I could be wrong) the OP's more interested in ones that are not near/at freeway interchanges/ramps. The latter's more of a challenge.
I said they didn't
have to be at freeway interchanges, since they're more interesting (to the user base as a whole) when they're at random locations, such as the ones in WA at the junction of two state routes. I personally am interested in BGS's at freeway intersections, because they're so rare in NY, but see below:
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2018, 12:20:44 PM
I have been assuming that freeway on-ramp guide signs are not being asked for. They are really part of the total signing package for the freeway, not for the intersecting surface road, even though they are posted on the surface road. If we are to have a productive discussion about them, it might help to do so in a separate thread with the following elements:
* Catalogue of states that use panel signs instead of "sign salad" for freeway ramps (MUTCD allows both)
* Catalogue of states that use interchange approach signs on the surface road and the extent to which they attempt to steer drivers to the correct side of the roadway for a given direction of the freeway
We can then have a discussion about, e.g., whether Zwahlen signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6835174,-83.6228301,3a,75y,351.04h,83.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQtrQK1f13thyz0_41ExUiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) should be a national standard.
Consider it done (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22402.msg2310064#msg2310064) ;-)
I've updated the OP of this thread to reflect that it is meant for discussion and pictures of BGS's
unrelated to freeway interchanges.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2018, 03:05:54 PM
I've updated the OP of this thread to reflect that it is meant for discussion and pictures of BGS's unrelated to freeway interchanges.
(I believe that good forum etiquette would dictate that if you make that significant a change in an OP that has already attracted 40 comments, that you make clear in the edited OP exactly how you edited such.)
Having nothing to do with what the OP
believes is interesting to the user base as a whole, I was intrigued a few weeks ago when came across this B(g/p/y/e)S at the edge of a school in what is essentially a residential neighborhood:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8516144,-77.2145545,3a,75y,319.52h,87.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snYkh95ZYf9ZbKMMcJOGI0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(Edited to reflect the numerous colors on the B_S.)
Quote from: busman_49 on March 08, 2018, 03:02:32 PM
A couple of examples from Marion, Ohio:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/6431690649_4cd1072ef7_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6y6)034 Marion Sign gantry I (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6y6) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6431691303_bbb90c05ef_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6Kn)036 Marion Sign gantry II (https://flic.kr/p/aNm6Kn) by Ryan busman_49 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/busman_49/), on Flickr
Ooooh, Classic overheads old enough to qualify for AARP membership! My favorite type from Ohio.
----------
Here is the Biggest BGS in my town: https://goo.gl/maps/JB9HKoWqn8M2
Unfortunately, this overhead was replaced last fall with a more modern APL as they reconstructed this intersection -- now 5 lanes approaching the split.
Quote from: davewiecking
(I believe that good forum etiquette would dictate that if you make that significant a change in an OP that has already attracted 40 comments, that you make clear in the edited OP exactly how you edited such.)
Which I did, did I not? Looks very clear to me.
QuoteHaving nothing to do with what the OP believes is interesting to the user base as a whole...
Actually, it confirms my belief, because it's both very interesting and not at a freeway interchange. I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouth, just stating what I thought was obvious; things seen less frequently are more interesting. The subsidiary discussion about freeway interchanges is interesting to
me - but perhaps not to everyone.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2018, 04:53:37 PM
Quote from: davewiecking
(I believe that good forum etiquette would dictate that if you make that significant a change in an OP that has already attracted 40 comments, that you make clear in the edited OP exactly how you edited such.)
Which I did, did I not? Looks very clear to me.
Your OP doesn't say that the extra sentence was added after 40 posts; it looks like it was there from the beginning, with no obvious reason for the "last edit: today" message.
Quote from: davewiecking on March 08, 2018, 11:13:49 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 07, 2018, 06:34:43 PM
Salt Lake City, UT:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4618/38895010204_8425080b32_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22g26sd)
A large sign basically says it's OK to mow down pedestrians in a marked crosswalk outside the Utah Capitol building, then a few hundred feet later, a very tiny sign says maybe not...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7756776,-111.8882474,3a,19.9y,30.68h,80.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGbli_oSsQdRbXBSiqBedTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I'll give you that the crosswalk could be marked better. However, you would be surprised how many people stop there when there aren't any pedestrians, just because the road ends at a T intersection. That's the reason for the large white "No Stop Required" sign.
The intersection is set up so that traffic heading northbound has the right of way. This allows cars and traffic to get out of downtown Salt Lake City faster. Congestion on that part of State Street is already bad during rush hour, so imagine how bad that would be if it were a traditional intersection or 3-way stop.
Front St (US-20/26) in Boise, ID:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA4iEcAm.png&hash=a925945b96e94021823506a714b841bc630c573a)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6165026,-116.209555,3a,75y,297.25h,88.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sicFalkh3AZtUT2SFxusUMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Capitol Blvd at Front St (US-20/26):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZjz5Qaq.png&hash=c1288aecf797382e4ffb475e59bee5c70d104641)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6129866,-116.2043282,3a,75y,40.48h,82.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0ieqxGY1OOhZ2HCOJ2fG6A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This one's pretty small, probably counts though. Broadway Ave. at Park Blvd (both US-20/26):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fmi202LP.png&hash=8f87a5c525bef685076e39dbf554e8a66542d5f2)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6057976,-116.1932611,3a,29.2y,2.05h,94.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOA4MH-Uv5mz-PonWDYJuZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Here's some on Main St/Fairview Ave. The one in the distance in the second picture is for a freeway ramp, the rest I'd say aren't.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiJPfuzu.png&hash=e5d6125ce40d094769fbc5337c2992d86d225be6)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6211454,-116.229479,3a,75y,243.94h,90.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9TimbbNNNZ-8qyhpdaj9nA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FF72T52C.png&hash=aa1750e6ea2b276aef600321e3c6b30d4e2c9df2)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6199855,-116.2323119,3a,51.5y,239.1h,89.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKQqtL3JsbNIV3XY8r_QctQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
In the other direction. It's under the freeway but after all freeway ramps (Fairview and US-20/26 West are surface streets):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FK4GoPeJ.png&hash=6bc001aaf8b1ebb082c7ef5fb0d104d6ec0bdc10)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.618188,-116.2330067,3a,85.1y,63.08h,83.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKQId7UH6OIq2GrKcq7pspQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I'm a fan of the ones near BSU on Capitol Blvd:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F95wADVe.png&hash=18239f6ea6cde821d13066d48fc0976219f4ea7c)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6044485,-116.2126298,3a,76.1y,209.66h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMxyvV9xemG5aHgk0H6nKQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmW8kxci.png&hash=c9356d4ce18bd75520e4277e3d9efab625c403a9)
GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.604615,-116.2124786,3a,15y,56.03h,89.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfC0_OzEnYnU8BUD93msfHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
There's certainly more outside of downtown areas, but that's where the majority seem to be clustered and the ones that come to mind for me. Got kind of carried away, only planned on grabbing a couple :P
They're all over the place if we wanted to post ones at freeway on-ramps, but that's low hanging fruit.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 08, 2018, 12:20:44 PM
In cases where a driver sets out on a trip that crosses multiple counties and knows his destination is on a given route, the intermediate cities (which, on conventional-road state highways, are typically county seats) are often useless information.
I agree with that premise. As a roadgeek, I tend to be interested in control cities for reasons other than strict navigational purposes.
QuoteFor the same driver the city may be more important when he or she is within a county of his or her destination. The guide signing has to cater to drivers in both situations; it does not necessarily have to do so on a single sign panel.
Of course, it doesn't have to be on a single panel, but I still don't see why it shouldn't be. In most cases, it's the route number that's being looked for, the destination is simply extra information that may prove helpful, especially if the signage establishes a connection between route and destination, as is done on freeways. That is to say, the destination becomes
more helpful/usable information when associated with a route number.
QuoteBut urban areas have far more visual clutter and more demands on the driver's attention. This too is part of the reason it can make more sense to spread directional information across multiple panels.
I don't see adding signs (or simply not removing them, as the case may be) as a solution to signage clutter. Were I in a position to influence signage design and placement, I'd seek to minimize the total number of signs, even if it meant a few existing signs got bigger. Place "H" hospital signs on or above existing assemblies, for example. Same for airport and area attraction signage.
QuoteThere are multiple ways of solving this problem that are sufficiently hard to distinguish from each other in terms of costs and benefits that the MUTCD offers an out-of-the-box solution that is guaranteed to comply, but does not mandate it.
I've read this sentence several times and I don't think I fully understand. What is the out-of-the-box solution you're alluding to?
Florida has plenty of these.
Ocala:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8120/29327517314_95de3d3c3c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LFzc9f)
Wellington:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5593/30813133636_06383587b5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NWRn7L)
Port Myacca:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5341/30761847251_95a9418a35_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NSjvsK)
Pembroke Pines:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2907/33287595324_f76c9609ab_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SHvCnj)
West Palm Beach:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2947/33972675312_21844666e3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TL3QMf)
North Miami:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7514/28376937912_b873fe85b3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Keze1d)
This one from Michigan: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.013005,-85.6888832,3a,75y,35.49h,94.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stzX2cGirzv3t3qLaEaOmMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Common in CT near an interchange, but rare in other places.
The only one that comes to mind more than 1 mile from a freeway is CT 2/32/82 in Norwich: https://goo.gl/maps/X559StKTrMU2
In Illinois, IDOT district 1 is not a fan. IDOT district 2, which is anywhere from Rockton to Rockford to Rock Falls to Rock Island :pan:, likes them a bit more at urban junctions of state highways. District 5 has a lot of these too (that's Bloomington, Champaign, Paris, Danville, and the surrounding area).
Here's one from District 5, in Paris:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4296/35839360521_fa74b1187d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WB16fZ)
IL-001-016N (https://flic.kr/p/WB16fZ) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
One of the plethora from District 2:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4232/35459264085_7925279617_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/W2pZQa)
IL-002-040EE (https://flic.kr/p/W2pZQa) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
This one I've always considered to be an oddity. It's in Kankakee County, which is in District 3, but I haven't found District 3 to use urban BGS's anywhere other than freeway interchanges.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1667/25951111201_df1224b95a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FxdeeK)
IL-001-114S (https://flic.kr/p/FxdeeK) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
The Carbondale District has them at the US 51 and IL 13 interchange of One Way Pairs in Downtown Carbondale. I can grab a few pics and post later.
IL 13 West: Main St
IL 13 East: Walnut St
US 51 North: Illinois Ave
US 51 South: University Ave
Regarding District 1, what about the huge BGS on Highland Ave near the I-88, I-355, and IL 56 intersections, in addition to the plentiful Retail and Office Buildings there in Downers Grove?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2018, 12:38:10 PM
Here's one of the latter. One of many examples in NJ is here on NJ 70 at NJ 73: https://goo.gl/maps/mPzWkUxxomu
Is Pt Pleasant the control city all along route 70?.. it used to be Lakehurst
Z981
Aha, here we go. Pullman, WA has a bunch of these. Here are a few.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7302204,-117.1814694,3a,33.8y,42.94h,97.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7Eblsqp210eCJJtLzJkMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7302204,-117.1814694,3a,57.5y,207.92h,98.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7Eblsqp210eCJJtLzJkMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7292125,-117.1824184,3a,34.4y,202.44h,91.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7oLdgNkcw7wEVMvWdX8l9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7297403,-117.1799687,3a,27.8y,226.23h,111.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgsgcwCrA81CJmOc3-_f3cA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.729638,-117.1798632,3a,15y,241.35h,96.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN57dgyNBhXv7Abo6sqfszw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
In terms of roads, Pullman is a very interesting city. It has plenty signals that are an 8/12 inch combo, mini BGSes and even a wigwag. The roads around it in the Palouse region are also pretty scenic.
Newark, DE has a couple at the intersection of DE-273 and DE-896:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6830539,-75.753089,3a,75y,268.52h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0mzGJRu2Cpioc2EumbpOmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I found another one (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2059157,-77.6706741,3a,75y,290.53h,87.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGWjrT5WbgpabqHKZQq9aQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on NY 104 in Greece.
Everywhere in New Jersey.
There are a whole bunch on NJ 70 for jughandles and other signalised intersections.
The one closest to me that has nothing to do with a freeway (including the Brigantine Connector) would probably be at US 40 and US 322 near the Hamilton Mall in Hamilton Township.
(https://i.imgur.com/dvYYkpP.png)
Atlantic County mounted a rather small and pathetic one on CR 646:
(https://i.imgur.com/VgPPMCv.png)
There are several on US 6 in Sandusky, OH between Cedar Point Dr and Butler Ave, here's one example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4418171,-82.6815331,3a,66.8y,307.61h,86.1t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1skmGXFwFxYhRfobyKIOZjiw!2e0
I can think of a lot of BGSs on surface streets in the DC area. Here are a few of them.
Here's a fairly new one in the District of Columbia for the new ramp to the Third Street Tunnel:
https://goo.gl/maps/mPEnUWxFDyL2
This assembly is in Springfield, Virginia; I suppose you might consider these LGSs. The Springfield area is replete with assemblies of this sort because if there's anywhere where it's important to get into the correct lane, Springfield is that place:
https://goo.gl/maps/h4bpn4zDy8k
A short distance east of that, you'll find what I think may be one of the biggest BGSs I've ever seen on a surface street. The street looks a little like a freeway there due to the massive interchange, but it's still just an arterial with a 35-mph speed limit:
https://goo.gl/maps/hhfsPHvDk4J2
This one on US-1 just south of Alexandria is also pretty darn big; as far as I can recall, it's the biggest pull-through BGS I've ever seen on a surface street:
https://goo.gl/maps/Rx4WYfEBtZK2
If you don't think the APL sign above in Springfield is enough of a surface street, here's one in Alexandria:
https://goo.gl/maps/JmYYiGMAfxL2
Common by my hometown:
95th Street westbound approaching Harlem/294 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7194464,-87.7932461,3a,75y,251.77h,91.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEr8gth6Aveqdn5756I0puQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7194464,-87.7932461,3a,75y,251.77h,91.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEr8gth6Aveqdn5756I0puQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Same interchange, but from Harlem Ave Northbound
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7138458,-87.7982853,3a,75y,3.31h,91.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFaeoU0B3lSI5vlpyh0muKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7138458,-87.7982853,3a,75y,3.31h,91.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFaeoU0B3lSI5vlpyh0muKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
There's so many others around Chicagoland this thread could on for awhile
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 07:58:36 PM
I can't think of any rural interchange that has ground-mounted green signs referencing the route and control city, as is the standard in other states.
NY 14 / NY 14A has one.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180318/5648fd04a786323f88d424dcbc2d7b66.jpg)
Wilmington, NC. 'Nuff said.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9050062,-75.6736111,3a,47.7y,340.58h,94.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjthCai0Zoc5teTIvfww6pw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Here's one in Manteo, NC. Full-sized gantry for a three lane center turn lane road.
I don't believe I've seen Nebraska mentioned yet. Almost every, if not all state highway junctions have a BGS with a partial diagram: Example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4372837,-98.4112018,3a,49.2y,114.55h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssUufD96PEDR5KuPNKOfAnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Then there's this one on Highway 2 in Lincoln. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7826777,-96.7062769,3a,75y,318.41h,92.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sugUN0TdjPvTTpP_AjjJMoQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Another one for Rosa Parks Way in Downtown Lincoln: Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8108139,-96.7085576,3a,75y,180.56h,107.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss-Z9ozF-sp7O6kPJNSw_sQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Missouri has some around the south end of MO 267: Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5050045,-90.3269499,3a,41.2y,41.39h,98.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGtPWGhOkgMgDnbJTrWsfQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Also a few on MO 100 for the jughandle with Barrett Station Road: Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5976585,-90.4703278,3a,50.8y,234h,90.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8gQned67ehuVvBilQQSlEQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8gQned67ehuVvBilQQSlEQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D248.59381%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 18, 2018, 12:07:00 PM
I don't believe I've seen Nebraska mentioned yet. Almost every, if not all state highway junctions have a BGS with a partial diagram:
JN Winkler
very briefly mentioned NE's diagrams on page 2:
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2018, 11:57:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 07, 2018, 08:09:28 PMI did not even know this was a thing. I'm extremely impressed at how good-looking those are, and the fact that they are easy to read, convey the message very accurately, and even include the "control city", eliminating the need for separate signage of those.
Without question, this should be a nationwide standard. Do any other states sign state route junctions like this?
Most states have an option for signing junctions that combines guide-sign shields, directions, and destinations on the same sign panel, but few use it as extensively as Washington state. Here are some examples: CA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9482606,-119.1138844,3a,17.3y,69.03h,85.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEor4ci_mba3uYAOU_z0LUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), OR (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0807292,-121.8253164,3a,75y,197.61h,82.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0fQJxWoatiephnaH4lMd5w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), TX (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8050336,-100.4065041,3a,75y,59.79h,88.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6_yUtq7AetX7pml9litk6A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6_yUtq7AetX7pml9litk6A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D82.0257%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), NM (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2859006,-104.4661766,3a,75y,354.13h,87.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbNnPoTb8PCuPIN-_GJW7Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), AZ (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3912092,-110.7641765,3a,34.4y,7.08h,91.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbEjofpWeYEf-RwOiwxEuSw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DbEjofpWeYEf-RwOiwxEuSw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.2964%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), CO (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.985998,-103.5571665,3a,75y,268.67h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1K9wO2cqdO75MA9vKf5Czw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), KS (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.773009,-99.9461071,3a,17y,61.3h,87.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss_YjzC1yuq6Pedyb1CMtFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), . . .
There are several reasons the Washington way of doing things might attract resistance if it were proposed to be added to the MUTCD. It combines routes, directions, and destinations on a single sign, which increases message loading above having just routes and directions on one assembly and destinations and directions on another assembly. Having the shield and destination on the same panel also takes away flexibility if the state DOT wishes to remove one or more of the state routes but otherwise leave the signing unchanged. And finally, some state DOTs have their own rather strict systems for distributing information across multiple sign panels that are not compatible with the WA approach. For example, MN (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7777079,-93.3781775,3a,75y,1.26h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHtOAFHXNZpAnwcdLIoBKug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) uses directions, shields, and arrows on green background to form what is effectively single-panel "sign salad" and is often mounted to traffic signal mast arms, while NE (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9949812,-101.7308112,3a,16.9y,302.36h,85.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl4mNIVsilqeuB5oraaashw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has junction diagrammatics.
Quote from: index on March 11, 2018, 03:00:48 AM
Aha, here we go. Pullman, WA has a bunch of these. Here are a few.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7302204,-117.1814694,3a,33.8y,42.94h,97.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7Eblsqp210eCJJtLzJkMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7302204,-117.1814694,3a,57.5y,207.92h,98.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7Eblsqp210eCJJtLzJkMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7292125,-117.1824184,3a,34.4y,202.44h,91.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7oLdgNkcw7wEVMvWdX8l9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.7297403,-117.1799687,3a,27.8y,226.23h,111.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgsgcwCrA81CJmOc3-_f3cA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.729638,-117.1798632,3a,15y,241.35h,96.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN57dgyNBhXv7Abo6sqfszw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
In terms of roads, Pullman is a very interesting city. It has plenty signals that are an 8/12 inch combo, mini BGSes and even a wigwag. The roads around it in the Palouse region are also pretty scenic.
Many of the signals in downtown Pullman have these 12-inch arrows, but I can't figure out what half of them would ever do. Many of them appear to be for turn filters (for when the parallel movement has a green arrow), but at some left turns, the parallel movement has no protected movement. (https://goo.gl/svM5F5) At others, there's a signal even when there's no right turn (https://goo.gl/vXvHjc) (not sure what it would display). At others, there's a signal even when there is no parallel movement (https://goo.gl/367svX) (because it's prohibited) (note that this arrow is missing a visor). Both post-mounted signals on this approach (https://goo.gl/ccMFzi) (on a one-way street) have 12-inch arrows on the bottom, despite the fact that no right turn is permitted at this approach (no idea what would be displayed o the 12-inch face on the right), and the left turn is only across a crosswalk (so no need for an arrow). All of the signals are the same age. My initial thought was that these were put in for future use, but I can't fathom what that use would be in many of these cases.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 07, 2018, 03:37:56 PM
"Sign salads" are very rare in Washington (if not non-existent). Virtually all junctions between two or more state routes have guide signs (alongside many non-state route junctions). For example, here's (https://goo.gl/xoTwCY)a very rural T-junction with a guide sign. Most states might just sign this with roadside shields and arrows, but Washington uses guide signs for this purpose instead. For the most part, the only ground-mounted shields are reassurance shields (https://goo.gl/D2DpPH), and "TO" signs (https://goo.gl/8eCMea) (sometimes these have a green background (https://goo.gl/ii2wMb)). But state route junctions are always signed with guide signs. I believe this practice is different than neighboring Oregon and Idaho.
Here's some examples of state route junctions in Washington, three rural and and an urban example...
(https://i.imgur.com/qovKCYT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/PvPZsYK.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/G94Y8Ky.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Bc7lHyC.png)
So much easier to see than a sine salad. I wish more states would follow this approach.
Here's a great sign approaching a major street from a minor street. Neither route is a numbered highway, but the sign does an excellent job of telling you how to reach certain nearby cities and how far away they are. (Fairfax Ave approaching Slauson in the Ladera Heights neighborhood of LA County.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9871405,-118.3624989,3a,75y,29.63h,93.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7iKiGb_n2l1-PsxwLSHvNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Something like this should be at every major surface street intersection.
My quibbles deal with some of the inaccuracies of this sign.
Slauson will lead you to Culver City and Downtown LA. You do have to turn north from Slauson to reach the hearts of both LA and Culver City. 5 miles is a good approximation to Downtown Culver City via Slauson, Sepulveda, Jefferson, Duquesne. 9 miles is a good approximation for LA via Slauson and Figueroa.
Hollywood is also 9 miles away take Fairfax to Stocker to La Brea.
West Los Angeles is not a good destination from this corner. First, it is not precise. It usually refers to the area between Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. It would generally be better to go on Slauson and then to Sepulveda to reach this area. I believe they were probably trying to refer to West Hollywood which is about 8 miles due north.
THe problem is that there aren't many good signs at the places where you have to turn to tell you how to reach those destinations. Fairfax will end at Stocker adn there is no sign there directing you to reach Hollywood.
So the sign is good, but it needs companion signs to actually guide people to their destination.
My first thought when I read the topic:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.retro-daze.org%2Fimages%2FpostImages%2F1481520648hotwheelsstarterset2.jpg&hash=7de59c2f9c6c3f08d276148b05c0de56eb0acdef)
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 12, 2018, 01:42:49 AM
My first thought when I read the topic:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.retro-daze.org%2Fimages%2FpostImages%2F1481520648hotwheelsstarterset2.jpg&hash=7de59c2f9c6c3f08d276148b05c0de56eb0acdef)
Man, I loved those sets when I was a kid.
Quote from: mrsman on April 11, 2018, 11:14:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 07, 2018, 03:37:56 PM
"Sign salads" are very rare in Washington (if not non-existent). Virtually all junctions between two or more state routes have guide signs (alongside many non-state route junctions). For example, here's (https://goo.gl/xoTwCY)a very rural T-junction with a guide sign. Most states might just sign this with roadside shields and arrows, but Washington uses guide signs for this purpose instead. For the most part, the only ground-mounted shields are reassurance shields (https://goo.gl/D2DpPH), and "TO" signs (https://goo.gl/8eCMea) (sometimes these have a green background (https://goo.gl/ii2wMb)). But state route junctions are always signed with guide signs. I believe this practice is different than neighboring Oregon and Idaho.
Here's some examples of state route junctions in Washington, three rural and and an urban example...
https://i.imgur.com/qovKCYT.png
https://i.imgur.com/PvPZsYK.png
https://i.imgur.com/G94Y8Ky.png
https://i.imgur.com/Bc7lHyC.png
So much easier to see than a sine salad. I wish more states would follow this approach.
I agree. But according to Mr Winkler, this method increases "message loading" (in addition to a couple other minor issues), so other states aren't too keen on using this method. What I don't understand is why the 'sign salad + control city sign' method isn't used on freeways, if that style is easier to take in at-speed? In my humble opinion, junctions should all be signed the same way. There are plenty of surface streets all across this country with a speed limit not much (if not at all) slower than freeway speeds, yet we're happy to throw sign salads at you like you're going 25 or 30.
FWIW, sign salads are impossible to
not have if there's just that many routes going through a junction. But I would argue that placing the routes on a guide sign makes them easier to read. You could have one or two destinations, followed by all the proper route shields for that direction, on the top half of the sign, with the lower half of the sign dedicated to the opposite.
I find it hard to believe that simply putting everything on a green background makes it harder to comprehend.
The issue is that shields + directions + destinations packs in more information in the same reading time than just shields + directions on one sign and destinations on another sign down the road. If you are set on getting rid of sign salads, putting shields + directions against a green background is one way to do it.
Freeway signs do combine shields, directions, and destinations, but are larger (primary destination legend is more than twice as high as on conventional-road guide signs) and appear in less visually clustered environments. At the vast majority of exits, a sign with shield, direction, and destination is part of a sequence that repeats the same information at least once.
Not mentioned yet, close to the foot (southern end) of Spadina Avenue in downtown Toronto.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/797/27549107988_030d0afba5_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HYqo1u)
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 12, 2018, 09:04:51 PM
The issue is that shields + directions + destinations packs in more information in the same reading time than just shields + directions on one sign and destinations on another sign down the road. If you are set on getting rid of sign salads, putting shields + directions against a green background is one way to do it.
Freeway signs do combine shields, directions, and destinations, but are larger (primary destination legend is more than twice as high as on conventional-road guide signs) and appear in less visually clustered environments. At the vast majority of exits, a sign with shield, direction, and destination is part of a sequence that repeats the same information at least once.
Here's my solution, which has sort of been tried in Washington. Have two identical guide signs approaching a junction, with the only difference between the two being the distance message. With the traditional (MUTCD) method, you have one sign salad and one destination sign approaching a junction. If you happen to miss one or both of these signs, you could be screwed. Giving the signs a recognizable shape and layout could improve visibility on surface streets, and duplicating the message across more than one sign would reduce the chance that someone would miss the information that they were looking for.
I believe the traditional MUTCD method of signing surface street junctions does indeed dictate rather small signage (at least half the size of freeway guide signs), which I personally believe adds to visual clutter on the side of the road. Most roadside signs are actually quite small, nothing like the size of a guide sign. This is why I personally advocate for guide signs like what WSDOT uses, because they stand out from virtually everything else on the side of the road. They are also much larger than traditional roadside destination signs. They are smaller than guide signs used on freeways, but not significantly so.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 12, 2018, 07:42:26 PM
I find it hard to believe that simply putting everything on a green background makes it harder to comprehend.
The way I see it, it's like adding a back plate to a traffic signal. Less visual conflict with other roadside crap (and the sun).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-bO3YEGRnHx8%2FUYBgek3h0tI%2FAAAAAAAABcc%2FzfWeEYxIJB0%2Fs640%2FDSC_0005.JPG&hash=a1aaa31e288c32b409d5b5d4b8a423dab0bd45ca)
Not sure if these have been mentioned yet but several major intersections along U.S. 58 (Virginia Beach Boulevard) are signed this way.
From Interesting Hill Signage thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22593.0), one of a handful of BGS in western MA approaching steep hills:
Quote from: formulanone on April 11, 2018, 09:06:12 PM
MA 57 has one near MA 8:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2658/32217106844_a1ee8f8808_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/R5V6ro)\
What if we made this thread more interesting (or started a separate thread). BGS's on surface roads that are not state routes. Therefore, BGS's on county roads, city streets, USFS roads, NPS roads, etc. I would not include airport access roads, but I would include former state routes.
In terms of former state routes, I offer a few examples (both in the Longview/ Kelso, WA area):
Nichols Blvd in Longview. It was an alignment of SR 432 until 1992, and the greenout in the center sign is covering a SR 432 shield.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1326761,-122.9524852,3a,75y,348.37h,100.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYBmhMSWMzcwe00Nw23U29A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
N Pacific Ave in Kelso, formerly SR 431 until 1992.
https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1477467,-122.9102471,3a,75y,218.05h,82.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spLEVtnFnB5oPVQZpGEUDrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on April 13, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
What if we made this thread more interesting (or started a separate thread). BGS's on surface roads that are not state routes. Therefore, BGS's on county roads, city streets, USFS roads, NPS roads, etc. I would not include airport access roads, but I would include former state routes.
Puyallup (WA, for everyone else) has many overhead BGS signs, almost all quite small. Until a few years ago, most were all in Helvetica. None are on state highways (all locally maintained):
Pioneer Ave approaching 3rd St: https://goo.gl/qjBhv7 (since replaced with all caps FHWA X-()
3rd St SE approaching Pioneer Ave: https://goo.gl/PLRAHs
2nd St NE approaching Stewart: https://goo.gl/kj2rBi (older sign with FHWA)
Stewart approaching 2nd St NE: https://goo.gl/k6zg3a
Meridian Ave (not part of WA-161) approaching Stewart: https://goo.gl/iAVTTH (since replaced with more informative signage -- note "CITY OFFICES" destination...wtf?)
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2018, 03:20:50 PM
From Interesting Hill Signage thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22593.0), one of a handful of BGS in western MA approaching steep hills:
Quote from: formulanone on April 11, 2018, 09:06:12 PM
MA 57 has one near MA 8:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2658/32217106844_a1ee8f8808_b.jpg
I love that custom "windy road" warning sign. I wish more placed used custom warning signs like that.
Highland Ave might fall underneath that new "not state road" classification, here's one in Downers Grove IL. It might be a county route though for DuPage
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Fimages%2Fil56i88355bgshighland.jpg&hash=2e246ccac2932d1aa89f19ee6bb644a475a3c4af)
On NB Gratiot in Roseville MI. the BGS is for SB Gratiot and WB Masonic Blvd: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5326843,-82.9133816,3a,47.8y,19.96h,93.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYC3mrafrVo2dW_G5WQ0hLw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYC3mrafrVo2dW_G5WQ0hLw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D162.1202%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Somebody already posted these, but here are my pictures of the same signs. SB Cincinnati Avenue in downtown Tulsa.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4043/4185246117_13e85c7ca8_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4007/4186007432_ee31305ef4_b.jpg)
Minot, North Dakota.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2449/3753378312_d506f9bae2_b.jpg)
It would have been so cool if they made a button-copy cleaver 51 shield to match.
Quote from: ET21 on April 13, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Highland Ave might fall underneath that new "not state road" classification, here's one in Downers Grove IL. It might be a county route though for DuPage
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Fimages%2Fil56i88355bgshighland.jpg&hash=2e246ccac2932d1aa89f19ee6bb644a475a3c4af)
Can confirm, it's DuPage County Highway 9.
That intersection is at a SPUI, and there's a ton of information that needs to be made available to the drivers, in order for them to figure out how to navigate through. That's because people aren't just trying to figure out how to get to IL-56; people are trying to find their way to a mall, two nearby interstates, and a series of Frontage Roads that have a lot of the vicinity's shops and restaurants. That's a lot of chaos...it's hard to find your way around to all the commercial establishments in that area. Definitely warrants a BGS
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 15, 2018, 12:13:08 PM
Quote from: ET21 on April 13, 2018, 04:57:32 PM
Highland Ave might fall underneath that new "not state road" classification, here's one in Downers Grove IL. It might be a county route though for DuPage
http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/illinois/images/il56i88355bgshighland.jpg
Can confirm, it's DuPage County Highway 9.
That intersection is at a SPUI, and there's a ton of information that needs to be made available to the drivers, in order for them to figure out how to navigate through. That's because people aren't just trying to figure out how to get to IL-56; people are trying to find their way to a mall, two nearby interstates, and a series of Frontage Roads that have a lot of the vicinity's shops and restaurants. That's a lot of chaos...it's hard to find your way around to all the commercial establishments in that area. Definitely warrants a BGS
I'm surprised more "compact APL" signs like this aren't common. I find them incredibly useful, and they save on space. Particularly helpful when one or more lanes don't actually exist yet. I see them around Seattle, but they're usually quite small.
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on April 13, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
What if we made this thread more interesting (or started a separate thread). BGS's on surface roads that are not state routes. Therefore, BGS's on county roads, city streets, USFS roads, NPS roads, etc. I would not include airport access roads, but I would include former state routes.
....
This one I posted further up this page of the thread might qualify as to city streets:
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2018, 09:21:22 PM
Here's a fairly new one in the District of Columbia for the new ramp to the Third Street Tunnel:
https://goo.gl/maps/mPEnUWxFDyL2
I haven't driven through that area in the other direction via H Street this year, so I don't know what sort of signage there might be on that side.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 15, 2018, 06:06:40 AM
It would have been so cool if they made a button-copy cleaver 51 shield to match.
Neo-retro button copy, so to speakânow that would be a sight to see! Perfect for sign hipsters everywhere! :-D
Edit: I actually need to see this now. Someone with more Photoshop/Illustrator skills than me should make one. ;-)
Quote from: jakeroot on April 15, 2018, 01:51:05 PM
I'm surprised more "compact APL" signs like this aren't common. I find them incredibly useful, and they save on space. Particularly helpful when one or more lanes don't actually exist yet. I see them around Seattle, but they're usually quite small.
I'm a big fan of these too. They're very efficient and very effective. Any other choice of signage style would have yielded a messier result.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 16, 2018, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 15, 2018, 01:51:05 PM
I'm surprised more "compact APL" signs like this aren't common. I find them incredibly useful, and they save on space. Particularly helpful when one or more lanes don't actually exist yet. I see them around Seattle, but they're usually quite small.
I'm a big fan of these too. They're very efficient and very effective. Any other choice of signage style would have yielded a messier result.
And almost certainly a liberal use of the "LEFT XX LANES" or "RIGHT XX LANES" message, one of my least favorite guide sign messages.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0392688,-84.3511552,3a,75y,153.44h,85.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soPk1QfDLv6ins5z93dT_kw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
US-127 at US-223 in Somerset, MI
This sign is located on US 224 (at its intersection with Business 422) in New Castle, PA.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/789/40434524555_ff2fb9297a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24B4vr6)
Intersection of US 224 and US 422 Business - New Castle, PA (https://flic.kr/p/24B4vr6) by Jon Dawson (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmd41280/), on Flickr
Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2018, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 16, 2018, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 15, 2018, 01:51:05 PM
I'm surprised more "compact APL" signs like this aren't common. I find them incredibly useful, and they save on space. Particularly helpful when one or more lanes don't actually exist yet. I see them around Seattle, but they're usually quite small.
I'm a big fan of these too. They're very efficient and very effective. Any other choice of signage style would have yielded a messier result.
And almost certainly a liberal use of the "LEFT XX LANES" or "RIGHT XX LANES" message, one of my least favorite guide sign messages.
Generally I agree about APL, but I'm not convinced when the arrows arent over the lanes. Look how "scrunched" the example actually is: https://goo.gl/maps/ouNYDGjcxoN2
It would be difficult to interpret quickly. IMO. Also, I'm not a fan of fewer lanes than arrows. Ho is a driver to know where the extra lane is going to be created from?
College Blvd. (https://goo.gl/maps/Xu3QfVhfKZB2) has a few BGS's as it approaches US-69 from the east in Overland Park, KS.
Finding the GSV for this got me thinking about VMS. Overland Park has VMS along it's major arterials south of I-435. Are there other areas that do this?
Quote
Finding the GSV for this got me thinking about VMS. Overland Park has VMS along it's major arterials south of I-435. Are there other areas that do this?
I can't say I've ever seen a VMS on a surface street. NY 104 would have potential for VMS's, but there aren't any on the non-freeway portions.
Quote from: jflick99 on May 06, 2018, 12:42:43 PM
Finding the GSV for this got me thinking about VMS. Overland Park has VMS along it's major arterials south of I-435. Are there other areas that do this?
The Salt Lake City area has some VMSs on some arterials leading up to freeways, although they're smaller than typical freeway VMSs. Utah also puts smaller VMSs at the bottom of most major mountain roads, which are used to warn of winter driving conditions, possible chain restrictions, and/or road closures.
Quote from: jflick99 on May 06, 2018, 12:42:43 PM
Finding the GSV for this got me thinking about VMS. Overland Park has VMS along it's major arterials south of I-435. Are there other areas that do this?
Fairly common in CO, I can think of several locations on Powers Blvd.
Quote from: MCRoads on May 08, 2018, 12:22:44 AM
Quote from: jflick99 on May 06, 2018, 12:42:43 PM
Finding the GSV for this got me thinking about VMS. Overland Park has VMS along it's major arterials south of I-435. Are there other areas that do this?
Fairly common in CO, I can think of several locations on Powers Blvd.
not uncommon in South Jersey, either (NJ 38 in Cherry Hill (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9397981,-75.0159851,3a,75y,256.63h,85.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVkqXiNIJJwBBPijnLf2F6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656))
Quote from: johndoe on May 06, 2018, 07:32:57 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2018, 02:54:50 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 16, 2018, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 15, 2018, 01:51:05 PM
I'm surprised more "compact APL" signs like this aren't common. I find them incredibly useful, and they save on space. Particularly helpful when one or more lanes don't actually exist yet. I see them around Seattle, but they're usually quite small.
I'm a big fan of these too. They're very efficient and very effective. Any other choice of signage style would have yielded a messier result.
And almost certainly a liberal use of the "LEFT XX LANES" or "RIGHT XX LANES" message, one of my least favorite guide sign messages.
Generally I agree about APL, but I'm not convinced when the arrows arent over the lanes. Look how "scrunched" the example actually is: https://goo.gl/maps/ouNYDGjcxoN2
It would be difficult to interpret quickly. IMO. Also, I'm not a fan of fewer lanes than arrows. How is a driver to know where the extra lane is going to be created from?
The "more arrows than lanes" thing is definitely an issue, but it doesn't bother me too much. I don't think the sign is particularly confusing. You just have to be able to count from the outside-in to know which lane you need to be in. Probably easier to interpret than "LEFT XX LANES" or "RIGHT XX LANES" or "MIDDLE LANES", since those signs would be ginormous compared to what already exists.
It's pretty similar to some of the arrow signs used in South Africa, with the destinations to the left and right, and the configuration in the middle (closely spaced arrows).
There are some on Lawrence Avenue in Harwood Heights, IL at the intersection with Harlem Avenue: Streetview. (https://goo.gl/maps/uei62ECZPSy)
There's a similar setup for westbound Gunnison Street at Harlem as well. Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/zHqsff1trxx)