They put these up a week or two ago along the 241, adding the yellow TOLL sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ne1KUXo.jpg)
Getting a bit cluttered.
From TCA.
https://thetollroads.com/news/newsroom/press-release/1879
Cluttered but yet conveys the point. I ended up on 73 once years ago and was completely unaware that it was a toll facility. I entered from a surface street and missed all the signage. I barely had enough cash on hand for the monster (and not worth it) toll rate, signage that would stood out to warn me would have greatly appreciated.
That 241 shield looks way too small and out of scale to the rest of the assembly, same with the TOLL banner. I agree that it looks very cluttered. I think maybe it would look cleaner if the TOLL and 241 shield were combined into a monosign OR modified shield like they do in other states. A great example would be Florida, where there is no mistaking whether a state highway is tolled or not.
Quote from: jdbx on March 06, 2020, 02:32:51 PM
That 241 shield looks way too small and out of scale to the rest of the assembly, same with the TOLL banner. I agree that it looks very cluttered. I think maybe it would look cleaner if the TOLL and 241 shield were combined into a monosign OR modified shield like they do in other states. A great example would be Florida, where there is no mistaking whether a state highway is tolled or not.
As a former Floridian I can attest to the different shields being pretty handy. That said, even Florida is starting to use the yellow toll placard now.
Seems a bit redundant.
Maybe a more elegant approach might be changing the color format of the "ENTRANCE" sign to either black-on-yellow or white-on-purple? I assume the former would be preferred if the 241 accepts pay-by-plate.
If it were my decision, the "spade" shields on toll facilities would be white-on-purple as well; this goes for the toll lanes on CA 91 -- delineate them with purple spades. The shape alone has defined state highways for about 90 years, so differentiation of toll vs. free by color shouldn't pose an issue. Obviously purple Interstate shields might not fly with FHWA (wouldn't hurt to ask, though!), so standard R/W/B I-shields on a purple background might suffice for those instances (such as the nascent toll lanes on I-15).
Quote from: jakeroot on March 06, 2020, 05:29:08 PM
Maybe a more elegant approach might be changing the color format of the "ENTRANCE" sign to either black-on-yellow or white-on-purple? I assume the former would be preferred if the 241 accepts pay-by-plate.
Except the current MUTCD doesn't allow purple for pay by plate systems - it would only allow purple for signs denoting a lane, road, and/or ramp only for FasTrak users.
Quote from: MUTCD 2F.03 Paragraphs 01 through 04Use of the color purple on any sign shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1A.12 and 2A.10. Except as provided in Sections 2F.12 and 2F.16, purple as a background color shall be used only when the information associated with the appropriate ETC account is displayed on that portion of the sign. The background color of the remaining portion of such signs shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1A.12 and 2A.10 as appropriate for a regulatory, warning, or guide sign. Purple shall not be used as a background color to display a destination, action message, or other legend that is not a display of the requirement for all vehicles to have a registered ETC account.
If only vehicles with registered ETC accounts are allowed to use a highway lane, a toll plaza lane, an open-road tolling lane, or all lanes of a toll highway or connection, the signs for such lanes or highways shall incorporate the pictograph (see Chapter 2A) adopted by the toll facility's ETC payment system and the regulatory message ONLY. Except for ETC pictographs whose predominant background color is purple, if incorporated within the green background of a guide sign, the ETC pictograph shall be on a white rectangular or square panel set on a purple underlay panel with a white border. For rectangular ETC pictographs whose predominant background color is purple, a white border shall be used at the outer edges of the purple rectangle to provide contrast between the pictograph and the sign background color.
If an ETC pictograph is used on a separate plaque with a guide sign or on a header panel within a guide sign, the plaque or the header panel shall have a purple background with a white border and the ETC pictograph shall have a white border to provide contrast between the pictograph and the background of the plaque or header panel.
Purple underlay panels for ETC pictographs or purple backgrounds for plaques and header panels shall only be used in the manner described in Paragraphs 1 through 3 to convey the requirement of a registered ETC account on signs for lanes reserved exclusively for vehicles with such an account and on directional signs to an ETC account-only facility from a non-toll facility or from a toll facility that accepts multiple payment forms.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 07, 2020, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 06, 2020, 05:29:08 PM
Maybe a more elegant approach might be changing the color format of the "ENTRANCE" sign to either black-on-yellow or white-on-purple? I assume the former would be preferred if the 241 accepts pay-by-plate.
Except the current MUTCD doesn't allow purple for pay by plate systems - it would only allow purple for signs denoting a lane, road, and/or ramp only for FasTrak users.
I'm well aware. I said as much in my post. But I was not sure if the 241 accepted pay-by-plate.
Quote from: sparker on March 07, 2020, 01:30:47 AM
If it were my decision, the "spade" shields on toll facilities would be white-on-purple as well; this goes for the toll lanes on CA 91 -- delineate them with purple spades. The shape alone has defined state highways for about 90 years, so differentiation of toll vs. free by color shouldn't pose an issue. Obviously purple Interstate shields might not fly with FHWA (wouldn't hurt to ask, though!), so standard R/W/B I-shields on a purple background might suffice for those instances (such as the nascent toll lanes on I-15).
I would be fine with this! Even if purple is ETC-only, I think it's a nice distinction that's worth exploring.
I wonder when District 4 will start making this change around the Bay Area's toll bridges. Right now the entrance assemblies look identical to a typical freeway entrance assembly, aside from a "Toll Crossing Entrance" sign substituting for the standard "Freeway Entrance" sign. I have seen the yellow "TOLL" banner added at the 80/580 westbound split BGS in Emeryville.
I would've gone with making the TOLL ROAD ENTRANCE part black on yellow and skipping out on the TOLL sign.
I imagine the "Toll road entrance" sign being white on green is used, in part, to emulate the "freeway entrance" sign used in California's typical freeway entrance assembly package. Meanwhile, the yellow "toll" banner is a national MUTCD item for toll roads.
Quote from: roadfro on March 13, 2020, 12:26:03 PM
I imagine the "Toll road entrance" sign being white on green is used, in part, to emulate the "freeway entrance" sign used in California's typical freeway entrance assembly package. Meanwhile, the yellow "toll" banner is a national MUTCD item for toll roads.
That's definitely the intention. would be nice to somehow combine the two though since the setup shown seems a bit redundant with both "Toll Road Entrance" and a separate "Toll" banner. Maybe just put the "Toll Road" on the Toll Road Entrance sign on an inset yellow panel similar to what is done on signs like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/svU6kDTQFf6vus6j6) for the 520 toll bridge near Seattle?
On the 125 toll road in SD, the entrance signs say "South Bay Expressway Toll Road," no "entrance." They do have the black-on-yellow "Toll Road" above the signs pointing to where the entrance ramps are.
Quote from: stevashe on March 13, 2020, 03:02:28 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 13, 2020, 12:26:03 PM
I imagine the "Toll road entrance" sign being white on green is used, in part, to emulate the "freeway entrance" sign used in California's typical freeway entrance assembly package. Meanwhile, the yellow "toll" banner is a national MUTCD item for toll roads.
That's definitely the intention. would be nice to somehow combine the two though since the setup shown seems a bit redundant with both "Toll Road Entrance" and a separate "Toll" banner. Maybe just put the "Toll Road" on the Toll Road Entrance sign on an inset yellow panel similar to what is done on signs like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/svU6kDTQFf6vus6j6) for the 520 toll bridge near Seattle?
That's a clean install.
At the actual entrance, WSDOT also uses these giant signs to warn drivers that they'll pay a toll:
(https://i.imgur.com/Insyfcn.jpg)
While that sign is clear, there is definitely a lot to process there, probably too much at high speeds at a fwy enterance ramp.
Also, there is a mistaken notion that "freeway" refers to being free of money and tolls. As we know, "freeway" means free of cross-traffic, traffic signals, etc. not the cost, but not all of the general public is fully aware of that.
So I like the solution mentioned above of having the "TOLL" of the "TOLL ROAD ENTRANCE" be with a yellow highlight on black letters and removing the standalone "TOLL"
So as a general rule:
First line will indicate how tolls are paid, if cash is not accepted (So purple FASTRACK only OR the GOOD TO GO/ PAYBY MAIL on white backgrond line in WA)
Second line will be TOLL ROAD, with TOLL in YELLOW
Third line will be ENTRANCE.
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
Quote from: mrsman on March 16, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
While that sign is clear, there is definitely a lot to process there, probably too much at high speeds at a fwy enterance ramp.
Also, there is a mistaken notion that "freeway" refers to being free of money and tolls. As we know, "freeway" means free of cross-traffic, traffic signals, etc. not the cost, but not all of the general public is fully aware of that.
So I like the solution mentioned above of having the "TOLL" of the "TOLL ROAD ENTRANCE" be with a yellow highlight on black letters and removing the standalone "TOLL"
So as a general rule:
First line will indicate how tolls are paid, if cash is not accepted (So purple FASTRACK only OR the GOOD TO GO/ PAYBY MAIL on white backgrond line in WA)
Second line will be TOLL ROAD, with TOLL in YELLOW
Third line will be ENTRANCE.
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
The only downside to this is that you can put up all the signage you want, make it as visible as you want and everything, and yet still get complaints from people saying "I didn't know I was on a toll road."
Quote from: mrsman on March 16, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/p45tFaN.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2020, 12:52:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 16, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/p45tFaN.png)
I see those as a contradiction. To me, a toll road is NOT a freeway in that the word "freeway" implies there is no cost to drive on it. I suspect many non-road geeks would say the same thing.
Moved reply outside of quote code. –Roadfro
A -freeway- does not imply it's -free- of charge to drive on. It has to do with the design of the roadway.
QuoteThe Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (7) defines a freeway as a divided highway with full control of access and two or more lanes for the exclusive use of traffic in each direction. Freeways provide uninterrupted flow (Note: "Uninterrupted" is used to describe the type of facility, not the quality of the traffic flow at any given time. A freeway experiencing extreme congestion, for example, is still an uninterrupted-flow facility because the causes of congestion are internal.) Opposing directions of flow are continuously separated by a raised barrier, an at-grade median, or a continuous raised median (Figure 1-4). Operating conditions on a freeway primarily result from interactions among vehicles and drivers in the traffic stream and among vehicles, drivers, and the geometric characteristics of the freeway.
The AASHTO "Green Book" (13) defines freeways as "arterial highways with full control of access. They are intended to provide for high levels of safety and efficiency in the movement of large volumes of traffic at high speeds. With full control of access, preference is given to through traffic by providing access connections with selected public roads only and by prohibiting crossings at grade and private driveway connections".
Several physical attributes of the freeway facility impact its capacity and operational characteristics as summarized in Table 1-3. Additional factors include level of enforcement, lighting conditions, pavement conditions, pavement markings and signing, and weather.
A tollway or toll road is similar to a freeway, except that tolls are collected at designated points along the facility, either electronically, manually, or some combination. Although the collection of tolls may involve interruptions of traffic flow (Figure 1-5), these facilities should generally be treated as "freeways", particularly with respect to strategies and technologies for management and operations. Special attention should be given to the unique characteristics, lane management opportunities, and constraints associated with toll collection facilities. Accordingly, the term "freeway" as used in this Handbook refers to any limited access facility, including the interstate system, expressways, toll roads, and connecting bridges and tunnels.
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/frwy_mgmt_handbook/chapter1_02.htm
Quote from: jakeroot on March 13, 2020, 05:49:20 PM
That's a clean install.
At the actual entrance, WSDOT also uses these giant signs to warn drivers that they'll pay a toll:
(https://i.imgur.com/Insyfcn.jpg)
Here on the East Coast, the same thing was done with the recently completed US-17 Dominion Blvd freeway project in Virginia that utilizes tolls to help repay bonds & loans, though obviously without the "Freeway Entrance" signage. It was not initially included, though was added later due to complaints of poor signage despite the umpteenth amount of "Toll" banners present.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7281178,-76.3042219,3a,19.2y,77.64h,90.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smRu-3JpfXamjLPioC87RMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: rte66man on March 17, 2020, 02:36:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2020, 12:52:42 AM
Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/p45tFaN.png)
I see those as a contradiction. To me, a toll road is NOT a freeway in that the word "freeway" implies there is no cost to drive on it. I suspect many non-road geeks would say the same thing.
Hope I'm getting this quote correct. Looks to have been screwed up.
"Free" (or "free of") is entirely contextual: "free of charge", "free of interruption", etc. All mean "without". Freeways are "without interruption" [by signals, left turns, etc] (as noted in the definition by
sprjus4 above).
Then again, it might be a geographic misunderstanding. "Freeway" is the absolute normal term for any grade-separated roadway along the entire west coast (regardless of route status), and certainly many other states. There's no expectation that freeways have a charge or not; they are simply roads without signals, turns, etc. I don't think people hear the "free" in "freeway" and immediately assume "no charge!". In fact, I might go so far as to assume that most people don't even recognize the word "free" in "freeway". There might be that one guy who's like "uhh it says 'free'", but they're the 1% here; most people aren't fools and do recognize the actual meaning of the word.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2020, 12:52:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 16, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/p45tFaN.png)
For use in California, I wonder if "Freeway Entrance" signage is required for freeway facilities based on California having a defined freeway & expressway system...
I like it your sign design Jake, but it also has a bit of wordplay dichotomy between "road" and "freeway". Perhaps "Tollway Entrance" (with "tollway" getting the black on yellow treatment) could work for these situations, assuming such meets any California legal requirements?
Quote from: roadfro on March 18, 2020, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2020, 12:52:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 16, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/p45tFaN.png)
For use in California, I wonder if "Freeway Entrance" signage is required for freeway facilities based on California having a defined freeway & expressway system...
I like it your sign design Jake, but it also has a bit of wordplay dichotomy between "road" and "freeway". Perhaps "Tollway Entrance" (with "tollway" getting the black on yellow treatment) could work for these situations, assuming such meets any California legal requirements?
I think that is exactly right. Back East, a lot of the first limited access highways opened as tolled facilities. Many of these were given the name "turnpike", which in the very name suggests that there is a barrier where a toll is collected. It wouldn't be too great of a stretch for them then to hear "freeway" and draw the conclusion that the route must be free, since it says so in the name, and it's not a "turnpike".
Out here, the only limited access highways where tolls were collected tended to be the toll bridges. I don't know of any example of a non-bridge freeway collecting a toll until the Orange County toll roads opened in the 1990's. I have never heard anybody refer to any of those roads as a turnpike either. Any 4+ lane road with no signals or cross traffic is a freeway to Californians.
Quote from: jdbx on March 18, 2020, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 18, 2020, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2020, 12:52:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 16, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/p45tFaN.png)
For use in California, I wonder if "Freeway Entrance" signage is required for freeway facilities based on California having a defined freeway & expressway system...
I like it your sign design Jake, but it also has a bit of wordplay dichotomy between "road" and "freeway". Perhaps "Tollway Entrance" (with "tollway" getting the black on yellow treatment) could work for these situations, assuming such meets any California legal requirements?
I think that is exactly right. Back East, a lot of the first limited access highways opened as tolled facilities. Many of these were given the name "turnpike", which in the very name suggests that there is a barrier where a toll is collected. It wouldn't be too great of a stretch for them then to hear "freeway" and draw the conclusion that the route must be free, since it says so in the name, and it's not a "turnpike".
Out here, the only limited access highways where tolls were collected tended to be the toll bridges. I don't know of any example of a non-bridge freeway collecting a toll until the Orange County toll roads opened in the 1990's. I have never heard anybody refer to any of those roads as a turnpike either. Any 4+ lane road with no signals or cross traffic is a freeway to Californians.
That's right. This is why most of the current entrance signs for the toll roads don't even have the word "freeway" anywhere near them. And that's why freeway does have a popular perception of being free of charge in California. And when highway names were popular, you can utilize Santa Ana Freeway or Long Beach Freeway on roads that were in fact free, but the names of the OC toll roads were "San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor" and "Foothill Transportation Corridor", etc.
I like Jake's sign. My only suggestion is to remove the middle line. So you have a green sign that says "TOLL ROAD / ENTRANCE", with ENTRANCE in white lettering and "TOLL ROAD" in black lettering with a yellow background.
Regardless of any confusion over the meaning of "free" in freeway, I do think Jake's sign would be better with the middle line of "freeway" cut out as it seems redundant to say "toll road" and "freeway". It's also also worth noting that Caltrans sometimes uses signs that simply say "Toll Crossing Entrance" for ramps that lead directly to toll bridges, again leaving out the term "freeway", so a sign simply stating "Toll Road Entrance" would follow that precedent.
To my surprise, while poking around in streetview for an example a toll bridge entrance sign, I found that the sign for the ramp just north of the Golden Gate Bridge has exactly what I proposed with the "Toll" on a yellow panel! https://goo.gl/maps/fNzfHh6dKhF2Fmc19
Here's an older example without the yellow banner as well: https://goo.gl/maps/PHbyszv4nsNjq44z9
Here in Washington, I believe the term "FREEWAY" would have to remain on the sign, as limited access highways are legally coined "freeways" under
WAC 468-34-110 (https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=468-34-110); "toll road" nor "toll crossings" are
not legal terms here, so they couldn't be used on signs exclusive from "freeway" IMO. But this may not be the case in California.
Personally, I don't consider using "toll road" and "freeway" on the same sign to be that confusing. They are not mutually exclusive; many (all?) of our nation's toll roads are also freeways; "toll road" is not unlike "Interstate": a designation given to the freeway in question, even if that designation is informal (as it is in those states where Interstates are simply the branding for a state route).
Here's two more alternatives (latter arising to contextually separate "freeway" from "toll road"):
(https://i.imgur.com/qKmxKWt.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/DAFSjYx.png)
Quote from: jdbx on March 18, 2020, 01:50:41 PM
It wouldn't be too great of a stretch [for East-coasters] to hear "freeway" and draw the conclusion that the route must be free, since it says so in the name, and it's not a "turnpike".
But it doesn't say so in the name. In the case of roads, "freeways" are roads that are "free of intersecting movements" (the adjective form of "free"). People potentially screw the pooch here by using "free" in its adverb form (word that modifies/qualifies an adjective, et al), by assuming that "freeway" means "way that is free of charge", which is incorrect.
Another related thing to think about is whether there should be special signage for on-ramps to a toll bridge in the opposite direction of a toll.
For instance, at the last on-ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge in SF. You are entering a freeway. There is no exit before the bridge. You don't have to pay the toll, but if this were a mistake and you have to turn back, you will pay the toll in the reverse direction.
Should there be a special sign for that?
-----
As an example of freeway last exit signs for this situation, see this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6060494,-74.0781243,3a,75y,99.65h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLagFI5Pe7G5xbb8xEzlMIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This is the last exit in Staten Island before hitting the Verrazzano Bridge. Currently, no toll is charged in this direction. But it is valuable to be warned that this is the last exit before the bridge, becuase if you want to return to Staten Island after crossing the bridge you will be paying a toll (and this is a very expensive toll).
Of course NY doesn't do freeway entrance signs. But if there were a sign at an entrance just downstream from this point, how should it be worded? maybe "freeway entrance" with a yellow background sign on the next line "No exit before bridge"
Quote from: mrsman on March 19, 2020, 08:47:22 AM
Another related thing to think about is whether there should be special signage for on-ramps to a toll bridge in the opposite direction of a toll.
For instance, at the last on-ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge in SF. You are entering a freeway. There is no exit before the bridge. You don't have to pay the toll, but if this were a mistake and you have to turn back, you will pay the toll in the reverse direction.
Should there be a special sign for that?
-----
As an example of freeway last exit signs for this situation, see this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6060494,-74.0781243,3a,75y,99.65h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLagFI5Pe7G5xbb8xEzlMIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This is the last exit in Staten Island before hitting the Verrazzano Bridge. Currently, no toll is charged in this direction. But it is valuable to be warned that this is the last exit before the bridge, becuase if you want to return to Staten Island after crossing the bridge you will be paying a toll (and this is a very expensive toll).
Of course NY doesn't do freeway entrance signs. But if there were a sign at an entrance just downstream from this point, how should it be worded? maybe "freeway entrance" with a yellow background sign on the next line "No exit before bridge"
The Golden Gate Bridge is "special" in a number of ways, including that it is operated by an independent district. However, for State operated toll bridges there usually is signage as you suggest. For example, approaching the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge from the west (no toll this direction) https://goo.gl/maps/CjMFWvzZsKxq2GVP7 there is a sign advising that a toll crossing entrance is approaching (and that it is the free direction). Further down there are signs for the upcoming exit that it is the last exit.
Quote from: heynow415 on March 19, 2020, 11:33:12 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 19, 2020, 08:47:22 AM
Another related thing to think about is whether there should be special signage for on-ramps to a toll bridge in the opposite direction of a toll.
For instance, at the last on-ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge in SF. You are entering a freeway. There is no exit before the bridge. You don't have to pay the toll, but if this were a mistake and you have to turn back, you will pay the toll in the reverse direction.
Should there be a special sign for that?
-----
As an example of freeway last exit signs for this situation, see this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6060494,-74.0781243,3a,75y,99.65h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLagFI5Pe7G5xbb8xEzlMIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This is the last exit in Staten Island before hitting the Verrazzano Bridge. Currently, no toll is charged in this direction. But it is valuable to be warned that this is the last exit before the bridge, becuase if you want to return to Staten Island after crossing the bridge you will be paying a toll (and this is a very expensive toll).
Of course NY doesn't do freeway entrance signs. But if there were a sign at an entrance just downstream from this point, how should it be worded? maybe "freeway entrance" with a yellow background sign on the next line "No exit before bridge"
The Golden Gate Bridge is "special" in a number of ways, including that it is operated by an independent district. However, for State operated toll bridges there usually is signage as you suggest. For example, approaching the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge from the west (no toll this direction) https://goo.gl/maps/CjMFWvzZsKxq2GVP7 there is a sign advising that a toll crossing entrance is approaching (and that it is the free direction). Further down there are signs for the upcoming exit that it is the last exit.
Thank you for that. I am a big fan of the "free direction" panel that is listed there. It definitely tells a driver what he needs to know.
I see that some of the other exit signs say "last exit in Marin County" in yellow. But this sign gives it the proper context, when you leave Marin County you will do so on a bridge to Contra Costa County. That bridge is a toll bridge, that happens to be free in your direction of travel. But should you wish to return, you will pay.
I guess the follow up question should be whether there should be any special signage at the final entrance before the bridge, where you cannot exit once you enter. Yes, there is one sign saying "Richmond Bridge Only", but the unique toll aspects of the bridge are not mentioned. [Granted, this entrance is probably low traffic, and most people who pass through understand how the bridge is tolled, but the point of the thread's discussion is whether the freeway entrance signage should acknowledge the free direction of the toll bridge at the point of entrance.]
Here is GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9431491,-122.4805613,3a,75y,57.71h,78.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D293.8434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
^^^
I forgot to mention that in Tacoma, on westbound WA-16, there is a sign for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that says "NO TOLL THIS DIRECTION (https://goo.gl/maps/gMWj44UZG4geqyqN6)". To the best of my knowledge, all other toll facilities in Washington are in both directions, so this (so far) has been WSDOT's only opportunity to utilise this signage:
(https://i.imgur.com/xvHLibX.png)
Quote from: mrsman on March 19, 2020, 08:47:22 AM
Thank you for that. I am a big fan of the "free direction" panel that is listed there. It definitely tells a driver what he needs to know.
I see that some of the other exit signs say "last exit in Marin County" in yellow. But this sign gives it the proper context, when you leave Marin County you will do so on a bridge to Contra Costa County. That bridge is a toll bridge, that happens to be free in your direction of travel. But should you wish to return, you will pay.
I guess the follow up question should be whether there should be any special signage at the final entrance before the bridge, where you cannot exit once you enter. Yes, there is one sign saying "Richmond Bridge Only", but the unique toll aspects of the bridge are not mentioned. [Granted, this entrance is probably low traffic, and most people who pass through understand how the bridge is tolled, but the point of the thread's discussion is whether the freeway entrance signage should acknowledge the free direction of the toll bridge at the point of entrance.]
Here is GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9431491,-122.4805613,3a,75y,57.71h,78.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DGm4QVwfUSFWXKHYsDGA6pg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D293.8434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
The curiosity was killing me so I GSV'ed the last eastbound/no toll onramp before the San Mateo Bridge in Foster City and it does have advisory signage: https://goo.gl/maps/VWxRDj1rvLgKGD4G7 Same goes for the First St entrance to the Bay Bridge in SF: https://goo.gl/maps/F4XB987tsG9CJxJs5 These ramps obviously see a lot more traffic than the San Quentin/RSR ramp and the Foster City ramp is set back a ways from the SM bridge so it might not be apparent that you're immediately getting on the bridge like you are with the San Quentin onramp to the RSR bridge, hence the signage there and not at RSR. The Main St. ramp was recently reconstructed but even looking at historic GSV images there was no sign for the ramp before so it's not like it was forgotten with the reconstruction.
The Bay Bridge one is interesting but understandable because you can technically return westbound on the bridge for free as long as you only go as far as Treasure Island in between the two bridge spans, but unless you live on Treasure Island, there's no reason for that maneuver. And I suppose it can be debated as to why these are guidance/directional signage (white on green) instead of warning or regulatory color schemes.
Quote from: heynow415 on March 25, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
And I suppose it can be debated as to why these are guidance/directional signage (white on green) instead of warning or regulatory color schemes.
Well, the "toll crossing entrance" sign is meant to emulate the "freeway entrance" signs, which are white on green. That's not a regulatory or warning message, so the sign is green on white to give that guidance. One could argue that the "toll" part of the message could be black on yellow, but other than that these are fine.
Quote from: roadfro on March 26, 2020, 10:01:58 AM
Quote from: heynow415 on March 25, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
And I suppose it can be debated as to why these are guidance/directional signage (white on green) instead of warning or regulatory color schemes.
Well, the "toll crossing entrance" sign is meant to emulate the "freeway entrance" signs, which are white on green. That's not a regulatory or warning message, so the sign is green on white to give that guidance. One could argue that the "toll" part of the message could be black on yellow, but other than that these are fine.
But those signs are in the non-toll direction. So they really don't need to warn you of a toll with a yellow sign, instead they warn you that you are on a toll crossing that just happens to be free in your direction of travel. So the current signage is fine.
Just noticed this today.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5829966,-117.6095953,3a,74.2y,37.53h,90.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZpxNabNYBUBoTl02oPqPCQ!2e0!5s20200201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I made a sign several years ago similar to Caltrans for toll road entrances.
(https://i.imgur.com/iyzQIAB.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on March 19, 2020, 03:52:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/qKmxKWt.png)
I like this! It completely removes the ambiguity of the term "FREEWAY" but still accomplishes both goals: (1) alert everyone that there's a huge grade-separated highway down that ramp, (2) alert drivers that the highway isn't free of charge.
Quote from: kphoger on May 04, 2020, 06:01:31 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 19, 2020, 03:52:04 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/qKmxKWt.png)
I like this! It completely removes the ambiguity of the term "FREEWAY" but still accomplishes both goals: (1) alert everyone that there's a huge grade-separated highway down that ramp, (2) alert drivers that the highway isn't free of charge.
Thanks. This was my attempt to design a sign for states where "FREEWAY" isn't a requirement. Here in WA, "FREEWAY" is a
legally-coded term (https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=468-34-110) (see 3-D) and WSDOT requires "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs to be posted (WA traffic manual, section 2.19, #7). So this design wouldn't fly here, especially since current signage still shows "FREEWAY"
even when the route requires a toll payment (https://goo.gl/maps/ZtmapKo7a83BSwa9A), but my other alternative (the other sign in the same post) would probably work good for those states with similar rules (where the roads might be classified as "TOLL ROAD FREEWAYS", as weird as that may sound). Ultimately, it may be preferable to forgo any references to "ROAD" and simply use the term "TOLL FREEWAY".
I still stand by my earlier point that, in those states where "freeway" is used regularly to describe grade-separated roads, there is no association with "free of charge" (if you asked someone, they wouldn't say it's a "free road" that is also "free of intersections"). To me, it's like the difference between fastbacks and hatchbacks: both are hatchbacks, but not all hatchbacks are fastbacks. In the same way, "freeways" and "toll roads" are both freeways, but not all freeways are toll roads — the terms are not mutually exclusive.
As a possible alternative for those states where "FREEWAY" is a requirement, simply not using the term "TOLL ROAD" might be an option.
The term "TOLL FREEWAY" is technically not the same as "FREEWAY" as far as legalese is concerned, but at least the word "FREEWAY" is there:
(https://i.imgur.com/ak2EUo7.png)
"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.
Quote from: Verlanka on May 06, 2020, 05:51:30 AM
"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.
It's not an oxymoron. "Freeway" = "way that is not controlled by other roads", not "way that is free of charge". "Free" has multiple meanings.
Also, for the third (err, fourth?) time on this page alone: I have to keep the word "FREEWAY" on the sign because it is required by WSDOT to be used at on-ramps leading to a "fully controlled limited access highway of four or more traffic lanes with the opposing traffic lanes separated by a median strip of arbitrary width." (WAC 468-34-110 #3-D).
I can't get rid of "freeway" because it's still a freeway, it just requires a toll (perhaps
also making it a "toll road" or a "toll freeway"). I don't mind just saying "Tollway" but that's not a "thing". For those states where entrance signage is looser, "Tollway" (or similar) would be fine, hence my proposals up-thread. The ones that say "freeway" are for usage in Washington State.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 06, 2020, 02:11:03 PM
Quote from: Verlanka on May 06, 2020, 05:51:30 AM
"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.
It's not an oxymoron. "Freeway" = "way that is not controlled by other roads", not "way that is free of charge". "Free" has multiple meanings.
Toll freeway is an excellent example of an oxymoron, for precisely the reasoning you gave. Oxymorons are nothing more than phrases that sound contradictory but aren't, like jumbo shrimp (because shrimp has multiple meanings). I appreciate that readers here mostly do understand that freeway does not mean free of charge.
I think it would also be possible to amend the legal requirement to include either 'TOLLWAY' or 'FREEWAY'.
Quote from: skluth on May 07, 2020, 05:23:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 06, 2020, 02:11:03 PM
Quote from: Verlanka on May 06, 2020, 05:51:30 AM
"Toll Freeway" sounds like an oxymoron. "Toll Way" sounds much better.
It's not an oxymoron. "Freeway" = "way that is not controlled by other roads", not "way that is free of charge". "Free" has multiple meanings.
Toll freeway is an excellent example of an oxymoron, for precisely the reasoning you gave. Oxymorons are nothing more than phrases that sound contradictory but aren't, like jumbo shrimp (because shrimp has multiple meanings). I appreciate that readers here mostly do understand that freeway does not mean free of charge.
I guess I see your point. It's an oxymoron for those who incorrectly interpret the meaning of "free" in this context. It's not for us, since we know the correct meaning. It's unfortunate to me that so many people assume that "freeway" means "way that doesn't cost money", but it is what it is.
Quote from: kphoger on May 07, 2020, 06:25:25 PM
I think it would also be possible to amend the legal requirement to include either 'TOLLWAY' or 'FREEWAY'.
It definitely should. For as much as I understand the "true" meaning of "freeway", confusion could easily be avoided by allowing new wording on those signs.
That's right. The signage is not for US, it is for the average driver. And people that aren't as focused on roads as we are would assume that freeway means free of charge. It's the wrong assumption, but it's a common assumption.
The previous discussion notwithstanding, I think that the best signage would be something along the lines of what I've put together below. While people might get a bit confused about the potential oxymoron here, I think the "Toll" bit and the "Freeway Entrance" bit taken together are clear enough. Plus this setup matches the general gist of the MUTCD with regard to toll routes.
(https://i.imgur.com/5dhwl3E.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on May 07, 2020, 06:37:42 PM
Quote from: skluth on May 07, 2020, 05:23:26 PM
Toll freeway is an excellent example of an oxymoron, for precisely the reasoning you gave. Oxymorons are nothing more than phrases that sound contradictory but aren't, like jumbo shrimp (because shrimp has multiple meanings). I appreciate that readers here mostly do understand that freeway does not mean free of charge.
I guess I see your point. It's an oxymoron for those who incorrectly interpret the meaning of "free" in this context. It's not for us, since we know the correct meaning. It's unfortunate to me that so many people assume that "freeway" means "way that doesn't cost money", but it is what it is.
I do get where you're coming from. I'm a vet and get irritated when people claim military intelligence is an oxymoron. It is from a certain viewpoint, mostly on the far left but a surprising number on the far right too.
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2020, 08:14:07 PM
That's right. The signage is not for US, it is for the average driver. And people that aren't as focused on roads as we are would assume that freeway means free of charge. It's the wrong assumption, but it's a common assumption.
Which was the point in my original post. The vast majority of readers of AARoads know the difference. The average driver does not.
Funny too because the trend lately has been a giant state route shield and smaller "Freeway Entrance" sign. The new Hinkley Freeway and the freeway portion of the Kramer Junction Bypass both have giant "CA-58" shields.
Quote from: jdbx on March 06, 2020, 02:32:51 PM
That 241 shield looks way too small and out of scale to the rest of the assembly, same with the TOLL banner. I agree that it looks very cluttered. I think maybe it would look cleaner if the TOLL and 241 shield were combined into a monosign OR modified shield like they do in other states. A great example would be Florida, where there is no mistaking whether a state highway is tolled or not.
Quote from: mrsman on March 18, 2020, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: jdbx on March 18, 2020, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 18, 2020, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2020, 12:52:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 16, 2020, 08:29:05 AM
Maybe the signage is a candidate for "Redesign This" in the Illustrations board and we can get some feedback from those who don't frequent this regional forum.
Without going into too much detail with shields and arrows, my first thought was something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/p45tFaN.png)
For use in California, I wonder if "Freeway Entrance" signage is required for freeway facilities based on California having a defined freeway & expressway system...
I like it your sign design Jake, but it also has a bit of wordplay dichotomy between "road" and "freeway". Perhaps "Tollway Entrance" (with "tollway" getting the black on yellow treatment) could work for these situations, assuming such meets any California legal requirements?
I think that is exactly right. Back East, a lot of the first limited access highways opened as tolled facilities. Many of these were given the name "turnpike", which in the very name suggests that there is a barrier where a toll is collected. It wouldn't be too great of a stretch for them then to hear "freeway" and draw the conclusion that the route must be free, since it says so in the name, and it's not a "turnpike".
Out here, the only limited access highways where tolls were collected tended to be the toll bridges. I don't know of any example of a non-bridge freeway collecting a toll until the Orange County toll roads opened in the 1990's. I have never heard anybody refer to any of those roads as a turnpike either. Any 4+ lane road with no signals or cross traffic is a freeway to Californians.
That's right. This is why most of the current entrance signs for the toll roads don't even have the word "freeway" anywhere near them. And that's why freeway does have a popular perception of being free of charge in California. And when highway names were popular, you can utilize Santa Ana Freeway or Long Beach Freeway on roads that were in fact free, but the names of the OC toll roads were "San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor" and "Foothill Transportation Corridor", etc.
I like Jake's sign. My only suggestion is to remove the middle line. So you have a green sign that says "TOLL ROAD / ENTRANCE", with ENTRANCE in white lettering and "TOLL ROAD" in black lettering with a yellow background.
I prefer the term "Toll Freeway". It would be good for people to understand that "freeway" means free of conventional access and traffic signals / stop signs, not free of tolls. I don't like "Toll Road" because "road" is a broader term that does not make clear that the road is a freeway. In California, a road becomes a freeway by a special act of the legislature. A roadway can be part of the "freeway and expressway" system but not be a freeway. The legislature designates a route as a freeway, though this can also allow an interim expressway or Super-2 to be built as well (for example, CA-178 in eastern Bakersfield for many years - there were roadside signs stating freeway control of access even though the route was really a 2-lane expressway). In order for the road to be built, Caltrans executes freeway agreements with local counties and cities.
For example, there was a new interchange built along CA-99 at CA-113. There is no "freeway entrance" sign added to the CA-99 shield at the entrance from CA-113 to CA-99. Same with the two interchanges along US-395 at CA-203 and Crowley Lake. There are a handful of other examples as well.
"Tollway" is common in a lot of states - including Texas.
New advance signing for the 241 toll road was put up recently:
(https://i.imgur.com/nk8b62L.jpg)
The old ones had no mention of the road being tolled.
Quote from: MarkF on June 23, 2020, 12:25:01 AM
New advance signing for the 241 toll road was put up recently:
(https://i.imgur.com/nk8b62L.jpg)
The old ones had no mention of the road being tolled.
I like that sign. Simple and to the point.
Quote from: MarkF on March 05, 2020, 12:48:27 AM
They put these up a week or two ago along the 241, adding the yellow TOLL sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ne1KUXo.jpg)
Getting a bit cluttered.
Holy mother of pearl! The way how they put these up is very, very absurd! That is not how Caltrans used to do back in the good old glory days. I also saw that the directional auxiliary sign should be underneath the route shield, not on top like Nevada does. I've recreated the ones that were originally as from the Caltrans technical guide or those that were destroyed by traffic / vandalized if were placed near a busy sidewalk (i.e. Interstate 280 southbound entrance in Daly City).
Version I've recreated, but with a clean look than the original with FHWA D and D(M) or oversized text:
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/488/MG43Jo.png)
As what's supposed to be on Interstate 280 in both directions:
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/1078/o2LmD7.png)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/2391/pUiPI4.png)
On Interstate 380 in San Bruno:
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/1326/5gsdGn.png)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/1010/a42Vgj.png)
On CA 1:
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/1485/Yj0daR.png)
On U.S. 101:
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8481/XD5LrW.png)
P.S. I've also created the one if it were to be in the Philippines (to be discussed in International Highways section)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5176/jvOG27.png)
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 25, 2020, 01:07:44 AM
Holy mother of pearl! The way how they put these up is very, very absurd! That is not how Caltrans used to do back in the good old glory days. I also saw that the directional auxiliary sign should be underneath the route shield, not on top like Nevada does.
I don't know whether the placement of the directional banner is specified in a Caltrans spec somewhere... But the national MUTCD standard places the directional banner above the route shield (and above any other banners, such as "ALT", "BUSINESS", "TOLL", etc.).
There are a few one-offs in Nevada of the directional banner below the shield. If I come across one, I'll edit with an example.
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2020, 11:40:04 AM
Quote from: JUHSD-rvalencia on June 25, 2020, 01:07:44 AM
Holy mother of pearl! The way how they put these up is very, very absurd! That is not how Caltrans used to do back in the good old glory days. I also saw that the directional auxiliary sign should be underneath the route shield, not on top like Nevada does.
I don't know whether the placement of the directional banner is specified in a Caltrans spec somewhere... But the national MUTCD standard places the directional banner above the route shield (and above any other banners, such as "ALT", "BUSINESS", "TOLL", etc.).
There are a few one-offs in Nevada of the directional banner below the shield. If I come across one, I'll edit with an example.
JUHSD, by the way, please limit discussion to the topic at hand. Additional graphics should be in the "Road Related Illustrations" board. I moved one of your posts there.
The resigning along the CA133/CA 241 toll roads continues. The overhead exit sign on I-5 at CA 133 was replaced recently. It now notes Fastrack:
(https://i.imgur.com/dV0sL59.jpg)
compared to the old signage:
https://goo.gl/maps/XW7xrjVgFAwhEs4A9 (https://goo.gl/maps/XW7xrjVgFAwhEs4A9)
Also, at the pay points, there is no longer any reference to ExpressAccount:
(https://i.imgur.com/T6OWzNt.jpg)
old:
https://goo.gl/maps/er4TX7BzEowjRCsz9
And the stoplights at some interchanges are getting the yellow borders added.
Quote from: MarkF on September 06, 2020, 12:37:52 AM
The resigning along CA 241 continues. The overhead exit sign on I-5 at CA 241 was replaced recently. It now notes Fastrack:
(https://i.imgur.com/dV0sL59.jpg)
That layout looks absolutely horrible! They probably should have gone with a 120" panel instead of a 110" but I'm not sure if 10 inches would make much of a difference. There's too much information crammed into that sign.
Quote from: MarkF on September 06, 2020, 12:37:52 AM
And the stoplights at some interchanges are getting the yellow borders added.
That's also being done up here in Northern California.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 07, 2020, 02:18:54 AM
Quote from: MarkF on September 06, 2020, 12:37:52 AM
The resigning along CA 241 continues. The overhead exit sign on I-5 at CA 241 was replaced recently. It now notes Fastrack:
(https://i.imgur.com/dV0sL59.jpg)
That layout looks absolutely horrible! They probably should have gone with a 120" panel instead of a 110" but I'm not sure if 10 inches would make much of a difference. There's too much information crammed into that sign.
Quote from: MarkF on September 06, 2020, 12:37:52 AM
And the stoplights at some interchanges are getting the yellow borders added.
That's also being done up here in Northern California.
A wider sign would also work to fit the information without feeling cramped.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 07, 2020, 02:18:54 AM
Quote from: MarkF on September 06, 2020, 12:37:52 AM
The resigning along CA 241 continues. The overhead exit sign on I-5 at CA 241 was replaced recently. It now notes Fastrack:
(https://i.imgur.com/dV0sL59.jpg)
That layout looks absolutely horrible! They probably should have gone with a 120" panel instead of a 110" but I'm not sure if 10 inches would make much of a difference. There's too much information crammed into that sign.
Rubbing raw capsaicin into your eyes is less unpleasant on them, even if just moderately, than looking at that.
Mod note: Fixed quoting –Roadfro