Section 2E.42 forbids more than three destinations per sign.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/26513361299_cb987e70c1_k.jpg)
So this violates the MUTCD here not mentioning it's too wordy. Even two exits listed are the same exit as Buchman and Alexander are the same exit here.
Then again if NY and NJ can violate other sections of the manual, why can't FDOT.
I'm surprised you didn't complain about the word "Exits" not being set in all-caps.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2024, 08:35:54 AMI'm surprised you didn't complain about the word "Exits" not being set in all-caps.
I personally didn't notice nor do I even care about the grammar like NE 2 does.
It's more or less to discuss the imperfections than to rant.
If I wanted to rant I would have used more harsh wording. I would have came right out and complained about the sign going against MUTCD specs, but I didn't. I just pointed out that it's wrong in hopes for the others to calmly discuss the issue like with other MUTCD issues or infractions by road agencies we often discuss.
The I-10 exit in Los Angeles for Western and Normandie is similar to this exit above in that there is one exit from the main freeway to the C/D road to reach both Western and Normandie, and then there are two separate exits from the C/D road to reach Western or Normandie. The CA standard for such situation is to list both streets separately on the exit sequence sign, but to put the mileage for only one (and mid-way between both so that it's clear that the mileage refers to both). In this case, 1/4 mile to the combined exit onto the C/D road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0365339,-118.3183547,3a,16.6y,72.85h,95.63t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1syouB_2arXcWxBhDACrPLvQ!2e0!5s20231201T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyouB_2arXcWxBhDACrPLvQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D72.85013473262443%26pitch%3D-5.629703633389539%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Similar is done when there is one actual exit, but the street changes name at (or near) the freeway. Here is I-5 south referencing Lakewood Blvd and Rosemead Blvd. Both are the same street (Lakewood south of Telegraph, Rosemead north of Telegraph). Both were part of CA-19, before it was decomissioned (but the signage is still there). Telegraph closely parallels I-5 here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.975719,-118.1254065,3a,16.9y,134.38h,93.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLoCb4qM99gjcRfaYaLSESQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLoCb4qM99gjcRfaYaLSESQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D134.3806436902032%26pitch%3D-3.4576365592956932%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2024, 10:51:30 AM... I would have came right out and complained about the sign going against MUTCD specs, but I didn't. ...
That was essentially what I understood your comment to be doing.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2024, 08:30:57 AMSection 2E.42 forbids more than three destinations per sign.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/26513361299_cb987e70c1_k.jpg)
So this violates the MUTCD here not mentioning it's too wordy. Even two exits listed are the same exit as Buchman and Alexander are the same exit here.
Then again if NY and NJ can violate other sections of the manual, why can't FDOT.
Is the size of this sign also a violation?
^^ There are also those APL signs that are extra large. I am more concerned about wind loading, especially in Florida.
The sign from Florida at the start of this thread is a Community Interchange Identification sign (2E.52 in the 11th MUTCD Edition). I don't see anything in 2E.52 limiting the listing to three interchanges.
Quote from: mrsman on July 10, 2024, 01:12:56 PMThe I-10 exit in Los Angeles for Western and Normandie is similar to this exit above in that there is one exit from the main freeway to the C/D road to reach both Western and Normandie, and then there are two separate exits from the C/D road to reach Western or Normandie. The CA standard for such situation is to list both streets separately on the exit sequence sign, but to put the mileage for only one (and mid-way between both so that it's clear that the mileage refers to both). In this case, 1/4 mile to the combined exit onto the C/D road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0365339,-118.3183547,3a,16.6y,72.85h,95.63t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1syouB_2arXcWxBhDACrPLvQ!2e0!5s20231201T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyouB_2arXcWxBhDACrPLvQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D72.85013473262443%26pitch%3D-5.629703633389539%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Similar is done when there is one actual exit, but the street changes name at (or near) the freeway. Here is I-5 south referencing Lakewood Blvd and Rosemead Blvd. Both are the same street (Lakewood south of Telegraph, Rosemead north of Telegraph). Both were part of CA-19, before it was decomissioned (but the signage is still there). Telegraph closely parallels I-5 here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.975719,-118.1254065,3a,16.9y,134.38h,93.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLoCb4qM99gjcRfaYaLSESQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLoCb4qM99gjcRfaYaLSESQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D134.3806436902032%26pitch%3D-3.4576365592956932%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
I have a copy of the Caltrans MUTCD supplement from 2009, and four destinations are allowed, as long as two of them can be accessed from the same exit, ergo:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/24/5a/PYsICSru_o.png) (http://"https://imgbox.com/PYsICSru")
In the bottom left example, 51st Street and San Bernardino Avenue are considered the same exit, as the "2 1/4" distance between their lines will indicate. So technically, this is not a violation, and neither is the OP's example, although one "3" should cover both Buchman Highway and Alexander Street.
Here is a community exits sign along I-270 in the DC area with four exits.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0419001,-77.1474932,3a,17.2y,343.51h,94.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREiKiCx53DSwXumhEzKvqw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DREiKiCx53DSwXumhEzKvqw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D343.51264400696846%26pitch%3D-4.757371999876625%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Quote from: mrsman on July 11, 2024, 07:27:15 AMHere is a community exits sign along I-270 in the DC area with four exits.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0419001,-77.1474932,3a,17.2y,343.51h,94.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREiKiCx53DSwXumhEzKvqw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DREiKiCx53DSwXumhEzKvqw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D343.51264400696846%26pitch%3D-4.757371999876625%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Don't go back there. :bigass:
Quote from: Henry on July 10, 2024, 10:13:17 PMQuote from: mrsman on July 10, 2024, 01:12:56 PMThe I-10 exit in Los Angeles for Western and Normandie is similar to this exit above in that there is one exit from the main freeway to the C/D road to reach both Western and Normandie, and then there are two separate exits from the C/D road to reach Western or Normandie. The CA standard for such situation is to list both streets separately on the exit sequence sign, but to put the mileage for only one (and mid-way between both so that it's clear that the mileage refers to both). In this case, 1/4 mile to the combined exit onto the C/D road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0365339,-118.3183547,3a,16.6y,72.85h,95.63t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1syouB_2arXcWxBhDACrPLvQ!2e0!5s20231201T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DyouB_2arXcWxBhDACrPLvQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D72.85013473262443%26pitch%3D-5.629703633389539%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Similar is done when there is one actual exit, but the street changes name at (or near) the freeway. Here is I-5 south referencing Lakewood Blvd and Rosemead Blvd. Both are the same street (Lakewood south of Telegraph, Rosemead north of Telegraph). Both were part of CA-19, before it was decomissioned (but the signage is still there). Telegraph closely parallels I-5 here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.975719,-118.1254065,3a,16.9y,134.38h,93.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLoCb4qM99gjcRfaYaLSESQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLoCb4qM99gjcRfaYaLSESQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D134.3806436902032%26pitch%3D-3.4576365592956932%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
I have a copy of the Caltrans MUTCD supplement from 2009, and four destinations are allowed, as long as two of them can be accessed from the same exit, ergo:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/24/5a/PYsICSru_o.png) (http://\"http//%5C"https://imgbox.com/PYsICSru%5C"%5C")
In the bottom left example, 51st Street and San Bernardino Avenue are considered the same exit, as the "2 1/4" distance between their lines will indicate. So technically, this is not a violation, and neither is the OP's example, although one "3" should cover both Buchman Highway and Alexander Street.
These signs do something I don't think I've seen in the real world, but wish they would do: decrease the line spacing between roads on the same exit, so there's another visual marker (in addition to the mileage being centered between them).
Also: "Bernadino" :-|
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2024, 08:30:57 AMSection 2E.42 forbids more than three destinations per sign.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/26513361299_cb987e70c1_k.jpg)
Is it just me or does "City" look like it's in brackets? (naturally causing me to ponder the possibilities of "Plant Exits")
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2024, 10:09:31 PMQuote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2024, 08:30:57 AMSection 2E.42 forbids more than three destinations per sign.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/26513361299_cb987e70c1_k.jpg)
Is it just me or does "City" look like it's in brackets? (naturally causing me to ponder the possibilities of "Plant Exits")
The reflection of the sun off the sign certainly gives off that vibe. It's possible that the sign is being reused, with the faded parts likely (and formerly) holding a banner or something to that effect.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 10, 2024, 09:57:45 PMThe sign from Florida at the start of this thread is a Community Interchange Identification sign (2E.52 in the 11th MUTCD Edition). I don't see anything in 2E.52 limiting the listing to three interchanges.
No, there's not. But the support statement in that section says "For suburban or rural communities served by two or three interchanges, Community Interchanges Identification (E9-4 and E9-5) signs (see Figure 2E-55) reduce the amount of information displayed on the Interchange Advance guide and Exit Direction signs by eliminating repetition of the same destinations for separate interchanges." So that implies that the Community Interchange Identification sign should not have more than three interchanges listed.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 11, 2024, 10:25:31 AMQuote from: Henry on July 10, 2024, 10:13:17 PMI have a copy of the Caltrans MUTCD supplement from 2009, and four destinations are allowed, as long as two of them can be accessed from the same exit, ergo:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/24/5a/PYsICSru_o.png) (http://\"http//%5C"https://imgbox.com/PYsICSru%5C"%5C")
In the bottom left example, 51st Street and San Bernardino Avenue are considered the same exit, as the "2 1/4" distance between their lines will indicate. So technically, this is not a violation, and neither is the OP's example, although one "3" should cover both Buchman Highway and Alexander Street.
These signs do something I don't think I've seen in the real world, but wish they would do: decrease the line spacing between roads on the same exit, so there's another visual marker (in addition to the mileage being centered between them).
Also: "Bernadino" :-|
Can't tell from the image if that's an intentional standard, or just something unique to this image. But that is a nice visual cue. I've also never seen it, and agree it should be used.
I have seen in some cases (possibly even in California) interchange sequence signs that use partial horizontal lines (attached to the left and right side of the sign and open in the middle half) to set off the two street names using one exit. I thought this was a national MUTCD option, but don't see that in the current manual text.
The real sign in question from the Caltrans manual on the 110 freeway is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0206272,-118.2786488,3a,15y,214.05h,89.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7qZ9Dv0uyBU9UbFqJEL9sw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D7qZ9Dv0uyBU9UbFqJEL9sw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D214.0460319927096%26pitch%3D0.09353007291008453%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
For the final example, I don't know why they picked "San Bernadino Ave" when they could have just used "Slauson Ave" the actual next exit.
Quote from: roadfro on July 13, 2024, 10:10:04 PMI have seen in some cases (possibly even in California) interchange sequence signs that use partial horizontal lines (attached to the left and right side of the sign and open in the middle half) to set off the two street names using one exit. I thought this was a national MUTCD option, but don't see that in the current manual text.
That's TxDOT standard for signs like this.
Quote from: mrsman on July 14, 2024, 08:58:24 AMThe real sign in question from the Caltrans manual on the 110 freeway is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0206272,-118.2786488,3a,15y,214.05h,89.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7qZ9Dv0uyBU9UbFqJEL9sw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D7qZ9Dv0uyBU9UbFqJEL9sw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D214.0460319927096%26pitch%3D0.09353007291008453%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
For the final example, I don't know why they picked "San Bernadino Ave" when they could have just used "Slauson Ave" the actual next exit.
The goal was to illustrate two road names or destinations from one exit. Using the next exit after 51st St defeats that purpose—and since there isn't another destination/street name at the 51st exit, something made up makes sense. (Although, there's no compelling reason that real-life examples be used for any of these figures to begin with.)
Looks like California MUTCD misspelled "San Bernardino" in the sample sign :-D
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2024, 08:30:57 AMSection 2E.42 forbids more than three destinations per sign.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/26513361299_cb987e70c1_k.jpg)
So this violates the MUTCD here not mentioning it's too wordy. Even two exits listed are the same exit as Buchman and Alexander are the same exit here.
Then again if NY and NJ can violate other sections of the manual, why can't FDOT.
Sorry , I'm just coming onto this thread now.
Section 2E.42 is about
overhead partial OAPL signs and says nothing about number of destinations. Section 2E-24.05 talking about Interchange Sequence Signs says:
shall display the next two or three interchanges by name or route number. That effectively rules out a fourth destination on that category of signs.
But as an above poster pointed out the sign in your photo is a
Community Interchanges Identification Sign (Sec. 2E-52.01) and the closest it comes to what you said is that it states this type of sign is applicable to communities
served by two or three interchanges, and is shown as support, not as a mandatory standard.