AARoads Forum

Similar to signage pet peeves, but what parts of the MUTCD do you disagree with?

I haven't really studied the relevant new stuff closely, but I really don't like what I've read and heard about signing optional exit lanes at multilane exits.

The fact that the federal government dictates so much detail to the states.

QuoteThe fact that the federal government dictates so much detail to the states.

Really? I get that argument in a lot of other arenas (and I can think of many other places within transportation where the feds are way too involved), but isn't it definitely in the best interests of the country to have uniform road signage? The interstate commerce clause is probably abused in a lot of cases (I assume the legality of the MUTCD is based on interstate commerce), but I'm curious as to why you think that in this instance.

Please, pretty please, can we not rehash the MUTCD states'-rights debate?  The last thread we had on it was quite long.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2686.0

Oh, cool. I didn't realize we'd already had it, and that answers my questions for HB- never mind then.

It may also be helpful to link back to the discussion thread that was opened when the 2009 MUTCD was released:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2117.0

Much of the handwringing caused in this forum by the new changes was first done in this thread.

Speaking for myself personally, I think the process leading up to the 2009 MUTCD was a mess.  When FHWA came up with the 2003 MUTCD, there was a promise at the time that the manual would be updated more frequently and in smaller chunks.  It took five years for a new rulemaking to start and it actually came in two volumes--one volume of changed text and another volume of changed figures.  (I would point you at the MUTCD website but those drafts have since been removed.)  The traffic engineering community rebelled and at the NCUTCD's instigation, a lot of state DOTs sent in a carbon-copy letter objecting to the format of the rulemaking instead of commenting specifically on the proposed changes to the MUTCD.  I think a lot of the heartbreak that has since ensued could have been avoided if the various practitioners had sat down and looked at the various proposals for change, and said "Yes," "No," "Maybe," "With qualification," etc. as appropriate (supplying the necessary justifications) instead of trying to stage a protest which was bound to fail.

The arguments for and against the treatment of lane drops and option lanes set out in the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD have been rehashed in considerable detail in the MUTCD introduction thread and also in the Road-Related Illustrations thread.  My concern is that the effectiveness of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics as specified in the MUTCD is unsupported by field research (it is supported by tachistoscope studies only).  As written, the diagrammatic requirement does a reasonable job of exempting service interchanges, but may be too inflexible to permit different approaches which might conserve sign panel area, such as arrow-block diagrammatics.  In the Road-Related Illustrations thread, Myosh_tino correctly pointed out that the arrows required for use on the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics seem excessively tall, and I am aware of no research that justifies the arrow height specifically.

I also have some limited access to construction plans sets at the review stage and I am seeing that a few practitioners are having problems composing effective signing with the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  One potentially disastrous error I have seen is to attempt to use a conventional lane-drop advance guide sign for the dropped lane next to an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic for the through lane and the option lane only.

Edit:  Found the "lying signs" thread (more properly known as "Multilane exit signage")--much useful info there:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2131.0

Edit II:  Had to correct my characterization of the diagrammatic requirement (I had thought it applied at all exits with option lanes, but the MUTCD says it applies only at "multilane" exits, the term "multilane" itself not being defined in the MUTCD).

Thanks for the links to other threads, JN.

While it seems there's a lot to gripe about in the '09 edition, older elements of the MUTCD are fair game for this thread too.

That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

Quote from: Quillz on November 06, 2011, 10:33:01 PM
That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

Oh yeah, it seems like that should be an option.  Except I'm not sure I like the idea of borderless cutouts.  Cutout shields should have borders, and if the borders are dark on light backgrounds, they should be inset slightly from the edge.  How long ago was that the standard, anyway?

Quote from: vtk on November 06, 2011, 10:40:06 PM

Quote from: Quillz on November 06, 2011, 10:33:01 PM
That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

Cutout shields should have borders

Agreed.

Quote from: corco on November 06, 2011, 08:47:44 PM
Oh, cool. I didn't realize we'd already had it, and that answers my questions for HB- never mind then.

That thread holds some pretty intense debates.

Here's one of my gripes about the MUTCD: why should it address such minutiae such as requiring states to mount their route markers on guide signs in non-New Jersey fashions? Why does it matter to the feds where the shield is a cutout on the green sign, or a black-and-white sign? Everyone is going to recognize it as a US route marker whether it's on a guide sign in New Jersey or in Pennsylvania.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2011, 02:31:37 PMHere's one of my gripes about the MUTCD: why should it address such minutiae such as requiring states to mount their route markers on guide signs in non-New Jersey fashions? Why does it matter to the feds where the shield is a cutout on the green sign, or a black-and-white sign? Everyone is going to recognize it as a US route marker whether it's on a guide sign in New Jersey or in Pennsylvania.

The MUTCD exists as a national manual because it is generally agreed that there is a national, thus interstate, interest in uniform traffic signing.

It is certainly true that some variations are more important than others.  Most traffic engineers would agree, for example, that having STOP signs in the shape of a half-moon (the early 1920's standard in Kansas, by the way) impairs the public interests served by uniformity far more than, say, using independent-mount shields on guide signs.

However, the MUTCD is not just a collection of technical prescriptions.  It spells out a more or less complete and self-contained system for traffic signing, some parts of which are compulsorily required while others are more or less optional.  This then puts the onus on the states to show that the variations they want to use (such as black surrounds in New Jersey, "BUSINESS" tab instead of word "BUSINESS" on guide signs in Missouri, etc.) do not impair uniformity to the point that they cannot be ruled "in substantial conformance" with the MUTCD.

I appreciate that recent changes to the MUTCD have given rise to the suspicion that the MUTCD authors are out to squelch regional variation by providing a standard design in the MUTCD for every single type of sign that is used anywhere--even including signs for things, such as turnouts, which are not used at all in many states.  There is genuine doubt in the minds of many practitioners as to whether the MUTCD revision team is seeking to roll out successful regional techniques nationally, as they claim, or are acting out of pure mania for standardization.  On the whole, however, I don't think this is an issue that has to be worried about except in the context of high-cost changes like arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  There are always going to be sui generis situations which cannot be addressed by the MUTCD or indeed any other traffic standard document.  States also have some options for pushing back on MUTCD changes outside the rulemaking process, such as pursuing "substantial conformance" determinations for local variations.

My own suspicion is that in view of the fact that new retroreflectivity requirements will force a lot of turnover in signs, the MUTCD revision team and wider FHWA may be trying to "drain the swamp" of unnecessary local variations by assuring that existing signs which do not follow the MUTCD very closely will be replaced by ones that do.

Dislike the "arrows up" diagrammatic signs. I liked the old ones and am glad they're still there as an option.
Dislike that HOV guide signs are mostly green. I think they should be black on white (CT standard) to be clearly differentiated from regular-lanes guide signs.
Dislike flashing yellow arrow, I think they allow too broad in application. It should be limited in use only to where you have a lagging left trap. Otherwise it does nothing beyond a standard green ball.
Dislike ever-increasing pedestrian crossing times and font sizes. I understand we're getting older, but you shouldn't be driving if you can't see clearly.
Dislike the severe restrictions on 8" signal lenses. The maximum speed limit should be increased and road types should be relaxed.

Quote from: Quillz on November 06, 2011, 10:33:01 PM
That the MUTCD does not allow for independently mounted cutout US/state shields.

Wait... what?  Can you tell me where exactly the MUTCD says cutout US and state shields are no longer allowed?  Wouldn't this requirement be a MAJOR problem in the state of California? Nevermind. forgot that California always crosses out the portions of Section 2D-11/Design of Route Signs that pertain to the design of the US and State Route shields... and yes, this was done in the current draft of the 2011 California MUTCD.

With regards to the arrow-per-lane signs, I was in Las Vegas this past week and on the way home, I saw a couple of installations of arrow-per-lane signs on the new collector-distributor ramps on southbound I-15 between Tropicana and Blue Diamond Road.  The arrows appeared to be full-size but were "crammed" into the sign to keep the sign height to a minimum.  I was driving so I was not able to take any pictures.  Perhaps someone who lives in Las Vegas can snap some photos.

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 12, 2011, 03:02:56 PM
With regards to the arrow-per-lane signs, I was in Las Vegas this past week and on the way home, I saw a couple of installations of arrow-per-lane signs on the new collector-distributor ramps on southbound I-15 between Tropicana and Blue Diamond Road.  The arrows appeared to be full-size but were "crammed" into the sign to keep the sign height to a minimum.  I was driving so I was not able to take any pictures.  Perhaps someone who lives in Las Vegas can snap some photos.

One of these has recently been installed in Portland on I-5 NB approaching the southern I-405 jct.  The jury is still out as to whether I like them or not, which means that it's probably something that I could grow into.

Quote from: myosh_tino on November 12, 2011, 03:02:56 PMWith regards to the arrow-per-lane signs, I was in Las Vegas this past week and on the way home, I saw a couple of installations of arrow-per-lane signs on the new collector-distributor ramps on southbound I-15 between Tropicana and Blue Diamond Road.  The arrows appeared to be full-size but were "crammed" into the sign to keep the sign height to a minimum.

I have been seeing many arrow-per-lane diagrammatics in signing plans.  It will not be too long before they are ubiquitous.  One thing I have noticed, however, is that some agencies are finessing the arrow height requirements.  I just pulled up a MoDOT plans set with the straight-ahead arrows at 72" height, as the MUTCD prescribes, but I have another plans set lying around where the straight-ahead arrows are only 42" tall.  Quite frankly, I wish the cost-benefit tradeoffs of using smaller arrows had been more thoroughly researched because the arrows are the biggest driver of sign panel height and thus of the overall cost of the sign.

The new black-on-yellow "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" requirement is, IMHO, not only asinine, but wasteful.

Wife and I took a trip into downtown Chicago on I-290, where all the signage from I-88 to I-90/94 is Clearview and using the newest specs (although I can't recall if there are the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics).

For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign. Not only that, but for whatever reason, they couldn't make the IL-43 BGS tall enough, resulting in the route shield, the "Harlem Ave" text, and the "x MILE" test are all compressed vertically together. It looks bad - very bad. The Austin Ave BGS isn't as bad, but is about twice as tall as it needs to be.

I have other gripes - but they are more I think against how IDOT (or whoever is contracted) does the signs and not the MUTCD spec.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 14, 2011, 08:29:27 PM
For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign.

Sounds like the problem is IDOT's full-width tabs.

Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2011, 08:38:50 PM

Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 14, 2011, 08:29:27 PM
For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign.

Sounds like the problem is IDOT's full-width tabs.

Perhaps, but if the MUTCD allowed "LEFT" to go to the left of "EXIT" rather than above it, then there would be less empty green space, particularly when the exit tab is full-width.

Agreed - the full width tabs don't help.

And I would agree - allow the LEFT to go to the left of EXIT.

Then again, the text or tabs on the left was a pretty simple way to indicate a left exit, along with the "NEXT LEFT" or "LEFT 1 MILE" at the bottom. But I digress.

The solution I would favor to the left exit problem is two-pronged:

1) left-align the tab, but have it otherwise be a normal tab
2) In text at the bottom, rather than just saying "1 MILE", or whatever distance, say "EXIT LEFT 1 MILE", with the word "LEFT" in black on yellow. The word "EXIT" can selectively be omitted from here.

Makes the fact that there is a left exit just as apparent, but in a way that's less obnoxious and not unsightly.

(here's a SM edit that illustrates this) (http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4172/3869.png)

Your idea for #2 has the potential to be mistaken for exit only panels. I'd just go with the "left" to the left of "exit" in a left-aligned tab--this puts the yellow in a better position to be interpreted at a glance as a left exit instead of an exit only situation.

Quote from: Steve on November 07, 2011, 08:57:24 PM
Dislike flashing yellow arrow, I think they allow too broad in application. It should be limited in use only to where you have a lagging left trap. Otherwise it does nothing beyond a standard green ball.

If you have a lagging left trap, then IMO permissive left-turn signals shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise someone may pull into the intersection and think that both approaches are getting a red signal when it is only their approach getting the red.

since I am used to driving on the coasts, I tend to assume that if I am getting yellow, then opposite traffic is likely getting yellow as well... and therefore are flooring the shit out of it.  east and west coast drivers have never met a yellow light they didn't want to roar through at twice the speed limit.

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 16, 2011, 08:01:53 AMIf you have a lagging left trap, then IMO permissive left-turn signals shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise someone may pull into the intersection and think that both approaches are getting a red signal when it is only their approach getting the red.

It has been suggested to FHWA that configurations which allow the lagging left trap should be banned.  I believe I may even have called for it myself at some point.  But FHWA has said that, no, it is not going to take that flexibility away from signal designers.

Quote from: roadfro on November 16, 2011, 04:49:19 AM
Your idea for #2 has the potential to be mistaken for exit only panels. I'd just go with the "left" to the left of "exit" in a left-aligned tab--this puts the yellow in a better position to be interpreted at a glance as a left exit instead of an exit only situation.

Hmm... interesting point. I'd never make that mistake since there is a clear difference to me between one patch of yellow and yellow stretching all the way across the bottom. But other drivers might not be so sharp.

Speaking of mistaking for exit only, somebody tell PennDOT to stop putting "THIS LANE" or whatever text other than "EXIT ONLY" into full width yellow on the bottom of the sign. It's confusing.

Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 14, 2011, 08:29:27 PM
The new black-on-yellow "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" requirement is, IMHO, not only asinine, but wasteful.

Wife and I took a trip into downtown Chicago on I-290, where all the signage from I-88 to I-90/94 is Clearview and using the newest specs (although I can't recall if there are the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics).

For the left exits of IL-43/Harlem Ave and Austin Avenue, the addition of the "LEFT" above the "EXIT xxx" results in a huge amount of open green space on the right-hand side of the sign. Not only that, but for whatever reason, they couldn't make the IL-43 BGS tall enough, resulting in the route shield, the "Harlem Ave" text, and the "x MILE" test are all compressed vertically together. It looks bad - very bad. The Austin Ave BGS isn't as bad, but is about twice as tall as it needs to be.

I have other gripes - but they are more I think against how IDOT (or whoever is contracted) does the signs and not the MUTCD spec.

NC loves to forget that little thing about the highlighted LEFT part.  It makes the sign look top heavy and serves no purpose.

In Greensboro, approaching the split of Business I-85 South from I-40 West (Exit 219), the big tab isn't even on the left side of the sign until you get to the actual junction.  Don't get me started on the barely-wider-than-the-wording tab sizes you see in Death Valley (I-40 between the US 29's). Especially when you consider the signs had been renumbered just a year prior to the upgrade, AND the shields on the advance guide sign for Exit 219 aren't even reflective. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 16, 2011, 08:11:01 AM
since I am used to driving on the coasts, I tend to assume that if I am getting yellow, then opposite traffic is likely getting yellow as well... and therefore are flooring the shit out of it.  east and west coast drivers have never met a yellow light they didn't want to roar through at twice the speed limit.

The coasts aren't the only places like that.  The Midwest is as well.  Now, Michigan will commonly (but not always) have a green arrow to clear out the left turn lane after the through lanes have turned to red.  The opposite of most signals in Illinois that have the left turn before the through lanes go.

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 16, 2011, 04:15:25 PM

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 16, 2011, 08:01:53 AMIf you have a lagging left trap, then IMO permissive left-turn signals shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise someone may pull into the intersection and think that both approaches are getting a red signal when it is only their approach getting the red.

It has been suggested to FHWA that configurations which allow the lagging left trap should be banned.  I believe I may even have called for it myself at some point.  But FHWA has said that, no, it is not going to take that flexibility away from signal designers.

It's for this reason why MUTCD went to FYA instead of the 5-section PPLT displays, as the FYA keeps the arrow flashing as the opposing through approach still has a green light.

Lead-lag PPLT would indeed take away flexibility from signal designers. The lagging left is a very crucial component to increasing bandwidth for two-way progression on arterials.

My biggest problem with the MUTCD is twofold:
1 is not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions.  I have put in more than one request to the FHWA for official changes on this subject.  Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.  Many of my Canadian friends who live on the same types of street or rural highways have the single solid line with the same results.  Canada even reverts to single yellow from double when a major highway goes from a rural to more built-up setting.  Canada even uses single yellow solid dividing lines on their urban multi-lane major streets.

2 The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.  By Congress making the MUTCD regulatory by statute not only can the Federal Government blackmail the states and others to using only that exact standard, but it is a Tort Lawyers dream in suing any municipality (and now even private property owners) for anything that even looks it might not be in compliance.  This takes away from states and other municipalities from trying out new traffic control devices, and the new design of traffic control devices.  Again, in Canada their MUTCD is "advisory".  And while most of the provinces follow the spirit of their MUTCD, you much distinction from province to province, allowing each to develop and experiment with devices which they feel best meet their local needs without fear of a law suit by some "slip and fall ambulance chaser"

Quote from: averill on December 27, 2011, 12:23:24 AM
Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.

If traffic is so low, why is a painted centerline necessary at all?

Quote from: averill on December 27, 2011, 12:23:24 AM
but it is a Tort Lawyers dream in suing any municipality (and now even private property owners) for anything that even looks it might not be in compliance. 

Wow, I didn't know that.  I assume that it's really for properties like shopping centers, office complexes, apartments, etc.

But, does that also mean I can get sued if I put up a sign on my property for the heck of it?  Now, I'm NOT talking about putting it out by the road where it could be confused for an official sign.

Quote from: averill on December 27, 2011, 12:23:24 AM
1 is not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions.  I have put in more than one request to the FHWA for official changes on this subject.  Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.  Many of my Canadian friends who live on the same types of street or rural highways have the single solid line with the same results.  Canada even reverts to single yellow from double when a major highway goes from a rural to more built-up setting.  Canada even uses single yellow solid dividing lines on their urban multi-lane major streets.

Many municipalities in Connecticut use single yellow lines on narrow town-maintained streets (an example (http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.388225,-73.258457&spn=0.034773,0.084543&t=m&z=14&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.388225,-73.258457&panoid=enrJ3sQBdNwddmxneprHuQ&cbp=12,178.17,,0,-1.37)).

Quote from: averill on December 27, 2011, 12:23:24 AM
My biggest problem with the MUTCD is twofold:
1 is not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions.  I have put in more than one request to the FHWA for official changes on this subject.  Especially on secondary streets both rural and urban, the use of a double yellow line is nothing but a waste of marking material.  I live on a street that gets less than 200 AADT, but have a double yellow line on it.  Many of my Canadian friends who live on the same types of street or rural highways have the single solid line with the same results.  Canada even reverts to single yellow from double when a major highway goes from a rural to more built-up setting.  Canada even uses single yellow solid dividing lines on their urban multi-lane major streets.

What does a single yellow line mean though? It's

Quote
2 The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.  By Congress making the MUTCD regulatory by statute not only can the Federal Government blackmail the states and others to using only that exact standard, but it is a Tort Lawyers dream in suing any municipality (and now even private property owners) for anything that even looks it might not be in compliance.  This takes away from states and other municipalities from trying out new traffic control devices, and the new design of traffic control devices.  Again, in Canada their MUTCD is "advisory".  And while most of the provinces follow the spirit of their MUTCD, you much distinction from province to province, allowing each to develop and experiment with devices which they feel best meet their local needs without fear of a law suit by some "slip and fall ambulance chaser"

If some business has a 6" nonreflective stop sign in their parking lot, I can't see it, and am crashed into and break my clavicle, why shouldn't I be able to sue them? Because the MUTCD exists, the standard signs are easily obtainable, and the business is clearly negligent.

The FHWA does have an experimental device process that can be applied for by states with ideas. It allows governments the chance to try out new things in a controlled environment, and FHWA can look on and decide whether to roll it out nationally. Without the MUTCD if my town wanted to go crazy installing "experimental" lime green hexagonal stop signs there would be nothing keeping them from doing so.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2011, 08:24:14 PM
What does a single yellow line mean though?

I'd interpret it as "stay to the right of this unless passing". In other words, the same as a dashed yellow line, but presumably more expensive to paint.

I had always thought single yellow was the same as double yellow.

I have seen single yellow before, but they all appear to be in low-speed residential neighborhoods, in which suicide-passing seems to be an extraordinarily dumb maneuver: accelerating to such speeds that you're unlikely to react correctly to secondary hazards like crossing pedestrians and parked cars pulling out.

Quote from: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part3.htm#q4
   4. Q: Why can't a single solid yellow center line be used on a city street or narrow roadway?

    A: Section 3B.01 prohibits the use of this marking on a two-way roadway. Even though this specific language was first added to the MUTCD with the 2009 edition, a single solid yellow center line has never been allowed since the 1971 edition of the MUTCD. The reason is that there is no defined meaning of such a line in terms of whether passing is allowed or prohibited in one or both directions. Also, the two-line system for center line markings is well established and clearly understood by road users. Using a single yellow center line would only save 8 inches in width compared to a double line and, even on narrow roads, this savings is not considered to be significant enough to warrant compromising the well-understood double-line system.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2011, 08:24:14 PM
If some business has a 6" nonreflective stop sign in their parking lot, I can't see it, and am crashed into and break my clavicle, why shouldn't I be able to sue them? Because the MUTCD exists, the standard signs are easily obtainable, and the business is clearly negligent.

I think, in this case, a reasonable compromise would be to enforce the MUTCD more rigorously for higher-criticality applications.  STOP signs should always be standard (red octagon, 24" or larger, appropriate reflectivity, etc etc) ... but why are we preventing states from using cutout route markers with non white/black color schemes?

California seems to be doing quite well holding on to the 1961 MUTCD for its route markers, and adding a nonstandard color scheme for state routes.  Other states have colored markers as well (South Carolina's blue text on white background comes to mind) and I think it would enhance the local character to have shields and guide signs be varied to local flavor, as is done in Canada.  (yes, that includes using white/black, black/white, blue/white, etc for guide signs.)

If someone gets a bit confused between "blue US-66" and "brown US-66" (to refer to a 1950s-60s Arizona standard, as an example), then it is quite likely not nearly as much trouble as someone missing an inadequate STOP sign - in fact, it is in my opinion so little trouble that the benefits outweigh the detriments and it should be allowed.

Quote from: averill on December 27, 2011, 12:23:24 AM
The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.

A-MEN!!!!!

Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2011, 10:00:32 PM

Quote from: averill on December 27, 2011, 12:23:24 AM
The US MUTCD should be advisory, not mandatory.

A-MEN!!!!!

Just regular font here. Y'know, one advantage to being a geezer is some experience some of you might not have had. I guess I could cite the California road stripe markings I recall from my earliest years, all white, and, like its signage, differing from virtually every other state I visited with my family. The meaning was clear but there was no consistency.

But, I also think back to reading the venerable Readers Digest in the 1960s. Most of you probably don't know that it was a rabidly conservative magazine at that time. Nothing like what it is now. But, one of its uncharacteristic viewpoints was urging a strong consistency among states in road markings and signage. I remember several articles in this regard, with examples like one state that had flashing yellow lights that meant STOP, and another with its passing/no passing zones marked on the right shoulder rather than in the middle of the road. They might have mentioned the MUTCD but I don't remember.

Now, fast-forward to today and think about how much traffic control has evolved, even you guys in your 40s, while you've been driving. Roundabouts? Flashing yellow arrows? Now, what if Colorado was trying out this new-fangled flashing arrow but no other state was, and no entity was gathering data to determine if people could actually figure out what it means.

Sorry, but there's not much in the MUTCD that I could see as best being advisory. Like any federal rulemaking, it's subject to a notice and comment period, which at least gives the experts a chance to weigh in on proposals. We can gripe about the little stuff like requiring street signs with upper and lower case letters, but that's trivial compared to the importance of having consistent traffic markings and controls as you drive across this country.

Does the MUTCD explicitly prohibit nonuniform scaling of the standard alphabets? If not, it should.  There's a reason the font exists in a variety of widths, after all.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2011, 09:54:41 PM


I think, in this case, a reasonable compromise would be to enforce the MUTCD more rigorously for higher-criticality applications.  STOP signs should always be standard (red octagon, 24" or larger, appropriate reflectivity, etc etc) ... but why are we preventing states from using cutout route markers with non white/black color schemes?

In the case of US Highway shields, it's because you're talking about a Federally designated route system, so the shields need to look the same across the country. State route markers can be any design and aren't limited to white/black by any means. (It's just easy to manufacture and lasts a long time.)

Quote(yes, that includes using white/black, black/white, blue/white, etc for guide signs.)

Expectation. If I see a green sign, it's a guide sign. If I see blue, it's services. That's really damn convenient. If it varied state by state, I'd have to scan every sign for information until I picked up what all the colors mean. State borders would have noticeably higher accident rates.

Quote from: vtk on December 28, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
Does the MUTCD explicitly prohibit nonuniform scaling of the standard alphabets? If not, it should.  There's a reason the font exists in a variety of widths, after all.

You mean stretching? Yes, it does prohibit the use of any font besides the approved font. Font includes typeface, proportions, and sizes.

you do have a good point on the mnemonic meanings of the guide sign colors.  

how bad is the problem in Europe, where every country line requires a re-learning of the colors? - and, furthermore, has color-coded guide signs for various route classifications.  Denmark, for example, uses white signs with red legend for surface streets, and green signs with white legend for freeways.

in general, while I don't think the guide sign color-coding as done in Europe is particularly useful, I wouldn't mind color-coded shields for route classifications - at least, on a very coarse level: freeways a different color from surface streets.  

I definitely remember moving out to California in 2004, running low on gas, and thinking that if I got from I-5 to state route 4, I'd find a gas station at the corner.  Whoops, 4 is a freeway as well!  All right, how about state route 99?  ... goddamn it, yet another freeway.  If all the freeways were color-coded blue (with interstates remaining blue/red) we could add value for navigation effectiveness.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2011, 08:47:33 PM
you do have a good point on the mnemonic meanings of the guide sign colors. 

how bad is the problem in Europe, where every country line requires a re-learning of the colors? - and, furthermore, has color-coded guide signs for various route classifications.  Denmark, for example, uses white signs with red legend for surface streets, and green signs with white legend for freeways.

It is not quite true to say that every border introduces a color change.  GB-F-D, for example, is all motorway blue.  Looking at high-type non-motorway route colors only, GB-F is still one block while D entails a color transition.  Danish red on white is an outlier; other countries choose from a restricted menu of color combinations for non-motorways (black on yellow, white on green, white on blue, black on white), so the element of culture shock involved is not great.  I would also bet that transnational trips in Europe tend to be more thoroughly planned (with studies of maps, vagaries of signing and highway codes in foreign countries, etc.) than trips across state borders in the US, not just because there are different signing schemes and languages to consider, but also because fuel in Europe is generally so expensive that people try not to miss opportunities at arbitraging taxes (e.g., routing through Luxembourg so they can fill up there).

Quote from: averill on December 27, 2011, 12:23:24 AM
...not allowing the use of a single solid yellow line dividing traffic in opposite directions...

Back in the 90s (1998 I believe) the NYS Driver's Manual stated that a single solid yellow line meant "pass when it's safe to do so".  The only single solid yellow line I ever encountered was on Holmes Road north of Weedsport (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=43.087429,-76.560481&spn=0.008697,0.021136&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6).  I can't remember when it was changed to the proper layout, but I'd say it's been at least 10-12 years.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2011, 08:47:33 PMIf all the freeways were color-coded blue (with interstates remaining blue/red) we could add value for navigation effectiveness.

I've always thought it would be good to color code all non-interstate freeway route markers with red over blue like an interstate sign- whether a US or state shield I think it could be done- Minnesota might be a problem.

QuoteIf some business has a 6" nonreflective stop sign in their parking lot, I can't see it, and am crashed into and break my clavicle, why shouldn't I be able to sue them? Because the MUTCD exists, the standard signs are easily obtainable, and the business is clearly negligent.

I wish the cities would require proper basic traffic control in business parking lots. Nearby to me, one of them paints "STOP" on the pavement, but does not post stop signs.

Another huge shopping center parking lot does not have a STOP sign where it's main driveway intersects the street at a cross intersection.

The Golden Triangle Mall in Denton replaced it's fading eg reflective stop signs with new non-reflective models. Bloomin' idiots!

These property owners do not have the knowledge nessessary to implement and maintain proper traffic control on their properties. This is why the cities should enact ordinances requiring that when these larger parking lots are first built, the traffic control be designed by a quailfied engineer, and code enforcement should enforce proper maintenance. The cities bitch everytime somebody's grass is too high, yet they allow unsafe traffic conditions on private property. They only care about looks, not safety.

I dunno about this particular example. "STOP" or at least "YIELD" at the end of any driveway is pretty well implied even if it isn't explicitly posted, and it is perfectly expected behavior. The alternative is turning out onto the street without checking to see if anyone's coming first. If you do that and get your clavicle crushed, it's your own damn fault.

No metric. Yes, I went there.

Quote from: billpa on January 03, 2012, 08:17:37 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2011, 08:47:33 PMIf all the freeways were color-coded blue (with interstates remaining blue/red) we could add value for navigation effectiveness.

I've always thought it would be good to color code all non-interstate freeway route markers with red over blue like an interstate sign- whether a US or state shield I think it could be done- Minnesota might be a problem.

Not to mention South Dakota, or California, or South Carolina. Or Vermont! Really, I think a standard FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign does the job without reverting to a three-color guide sign scheme like Europe. Besides, there are many highways that have alternating freeway/expressway segments, with city bypasses that have interchanges, and at-grade intersections with rural roads in between.

Quote from: Duke87 on January 03, 2012, 08:17:04 PM
I dunno about this particular example. "STOP" or at least "YIELD" at the end of any driveway is pretty well implied even if it isn't explicitly posted, and it is perfectly expected behavior.

When it's a significant enough driveway (such as a divided, multilane mall entrance road) then it may not be so obvious that one has to yield to a crossroad (the public street) and some traffic control (stop sign or even a traffic light) is certainly called for.

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on January 03, 2012, 09:33:59 PM

Quote from: billpa on January 03, 2012, 08:17:37 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2011, 08:47:33 PMIf all the freeways were color-coded blue (with interstates remaining blue/red) we could add value for navigation effectiveness.

I've always thought it would be good to color code all non-interstate freeway route markers with red over blue like an interstate sign- whether a US or state shield I think it could be done- Minnesota might be a problem.

Not to mention South Dakota, or California, or South Carolina. Or Vermont! Really, I think a standard FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign does the job without reverting to a three-color guide sign scheme like Europe. Besides, there are many highways that have alternating freeway/expressway segments, with city bypasses that have interchanges, and at-grade intersections with rural roads in between.

Or Alabama with their blue APD US and state route signs.

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on January 03, 2012, 09:33:59 PMReally, I think a standard FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign does the job without reverting to a three-color guide sign scheme like Europe.

I do not believe that is sufficient.  I would like to know, before I take the exit, whether or not something is a freeway or a surface street.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 04, 2012, 12:32:10 PMI do not believe that ["FREEWAY ENTRANCE" sign] is sufficient.  I would like to know, before I take the exit, whether or not something is a freeway or a surface street.

You don't get that in Europe anyway--there are plenty of freeways (per AASHTO definition) which are not motorways and so do not have motorway signing.

Much in the same way that there are freeways which are not interstates and do not have interstate shields.


The issue is that in both cases, what gets what type of sign is decided by politicians, not engineers. If things were done logically, all freeways above a given quality would have an equally high level of classification. But, it's politics, so what gets what designation depends instead on who pays for it, how they pay for it, whether they consider it worth their while to bother applying for interstate designation, and whether FHWA feels like granting it. So we have a mishmosh where on the one hand we have freeways that are gorgeous but only classified as state highways, and on the other hand we have I-278.

QuoteNot to mention South Dakota, or California, or South Carolina. Or Vermont! Really, I think a standard FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign does the job without reverting to a three-color guide sign scheme like Europe. Besides, there are many highways that have alternating freeway/expressway segments, with city bypasses that have interchanges, and at-grade intersections with rural roads in between.

Well, SD doesn't have any state route freeways that I'm aware of but all the state's you mentioned could have a version of their state highway signage with red over blue.  California and Vermont are green so blue with red would certainly stand out.  South Carolina doesn't have red so that would be different as well.  I know there's no way this idea of mine would ever happen- I just don't get why we don't use 'something' to let motorists know that route X is a freeway as opposed to a surface street or highway.

Quote from: Duke87 on January 04, 2012, 08:42:41 PM
Much in the same way that there are freeways which are not interstates and do not have interstate shields.

The issue is that in both cases, what gets what type of sign is decided by politicians, not engineers. If things were done logically, all freeways above a given quality would have an equally high level of classification. But, it's politics, so what gets what designation depends instead on who pays for it, how they pay for it, whether they consider it worth their while to bother applying for interstate designation, and whether FHWA feels like granting it. So we have a mishmosh where on the one hand we have freeways that are gorgeous but only classified as state highways, and on the other hand we have I-278.

This situation confuses the difference between signed routes schemes and internal highway classifications... They are not the same.

Quote from: The Situation™ on December 28, 2011, 08:22:51 PM

Quote from: vtk on December 28, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
Does the MUTCD explicitly prohibit nonuniform scaling of the standard alphabets? If not, it should.  There's a reason the font exists in a variety of widths, after all.

You mean stretching? Yes, it does prohibit the use of any font besides the approved font. Font includes typeface, proportions, and sizes.

Then how does it allow ClearView[/yes - I also went there]

The yellow "TOLL" banner on route trailblazer assemblies.  It goes to show how much people HATE toll roads and want them abolished.  Granted I'm not a fan of them, but where are we going to get funding now that states are cutting budgets of publicly funded roadways?  It just pushes them to side roads which most DOTs don't like to begin with.  (Welcome to America - home of the double standard)

The same with the dictation of what street blade signs should look like.  Why should they be all uniform?  Pretty boring.

Quote from: Master son on January 09, 2012, 01:22:59 PM
The same with the dictation of what street blade signs should look like.  Why should they be all uniform?  Pretty boring.

So it's actually possible to see what street your turn is on.  Towns that get creative universally create signs that are impossible to see at night or at speeds greater than 10mph.

Quote from: deanej on January 09, 2012, 02:56:18 PM

Quote from: Master son on January 09, 2012, 01:22:59 PM
The same with the dictation of what street blade signs should look like.  Why should they be all uniform?  Pretty boring.

So it's actually possible to see what street your turn is on.  Towns that get creative universally create signs that are impossible to see at night or at speeds greater than 10mph.

That's funny - cause I didn't see any improvements.

Ever try to read a street sign at night which is mounted just below a fancy light? :banghead:

This is, in some places, more of a problem than signs that aren't reflective enough.  (Proper size and font is definitely important, though.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2F08202011002.jpg&hash=0bfe49cf90ed58a162ff2f20a0cfb3f2658e2dcd)
These are the original developer-installed signs in the Highland Shores nieghborhood of Highland Village, TX
Try reading these at more tahn 5 MPH or 5 ft. Luckily, there are only a few left.

Quote from: Master son on January 09, 2012, 01:22:59 PM

Quote from: The Situation™ on December 28, 2011, 08:22:51 PM

Quote from: vtk on December 28, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
Does the MUTCD explicitly prohibit nonuniform scaling of the standard alphabets? If not, it should.  There's a reason the font exists in a variety of widths, after all.

You mean stretching? Yes, it does prohibit the use of any font besides the approved font. Font includes typeface, proportions, and sizes.

Then how does it allow ClearView[/yes - I also went there]

The MUTCD doesn't allow Clearview. Clearview is technically still a pilot program being run by FHWA. To use Clearview, you still actually have to write a letter to FHWA and request that they allow you in the program.

QuoteThe same with the dictation of what street blade signs should look like.  Why should they be all uniform?  Pretty boring.

The 2009 MUTCD still allows plenty of variation of what blades can look like. You can still include artwork, like a seal or flag, representing your city at one end of the blade, and you can still choose between green, white, blue, and brown blades. (Red and yellow are now prohibited because of the meanings assigned to red and yellow elsewhere in the MUTCD. Yellow blades look atrocious anyway, and while red looks decent and plenty of cities use it now, we can do without it.) Most of what the MUTCD dictates is the sizing of blades and text, and that you can't put the text in all-caps anymore, WHICH IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE ALL CAPS TEXT IS HARDER TO READ AND MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE SOME FUCKTARD THAT IS SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.

The use of all caps on street signs never bothered me. The association with shouting only works with forums, chat, texting, etc. where there is a person "speaking". A sign does not have an implied speaker and is thus incapable of shouting. Plus, since it is normal for signs to be set in all caps (note that warning and regulatory signs still are), one does not bat an eye at it or get taken aback by it the way one would when someone types in all caps.

That said, there may be an argument for better legibility of mixed case, but my real gripe with the mandate is that they said "all signs must be mixed case by such and such date" rather than the more reasonable "all signs installed after such and such date shall be mixed case", and then let signs just get replaced in normal due course rather than forcing a rushed purge.

Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2012, 06:49:14 PM
The use of all caps on street signs never bothered me. The association with shouting only works with forums, chat, texting, etc. where there is a person "speaking". A sign does not have an implied speaker and is thus incapable of shouting. Plus, since it is normal for signs to be set in all caps (note that warning and regulatory signs still are), one does not bat an eye at it or get taken aback by it the way one would when someone types in all caps.

That said, there may be an argument for better legibility of mixed case, but my real gripe with the mandate is that they said "all signs must be mixed case by such and such date" rather than the more reasonable "all signs installed after such and such date shall be mixed case", and then let signs just get replaced in normal due course rather than forcing a rushed purge.

Names of places and roads are to be in mixed-case; everything else remains all capitals.  To me this is a good idea – strengthening, clarifying, and simplifying a previously informal rule which was riddled with exceptions in the past.

As far as sign replacement, it's my understanding that the capitalization issue never had its own hard deadline requiring the replacement of existing signs.  Size and reflectivity, on the other hand, had deadlines (which I don't think were actually in the MUTCD but separate orders from FHWA) with many years lead time.  A combination of procrastination and a souring economy led to the sudden perception that those deadlines imposed a hardship.  Now those deadlines have been lifted – can we all get on with our lives now?

Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2012, 06:49:14 PM
The use of all caps on street signs never bothered me. The association with shouting only works with forums, chat, texting, etc. where there is a person "speaking". A sign does not have an implied speaker and is thus incapable of shouting. Plus, since it is normal for signs to be set in all caps (note that warning and regulatory signs still are), one does not bat an eye at it or get taken aback by it the way one would when someone types in all caps.

That said, there may be an argument for better legibility of mixed case, but my real gripe with the mandate is that they said "all signs must be mixed case by such and such date" rather than the more reasonable "all signs installed after such and such date shall be mixed case", and then let signs just get replaced in normal due course rather than forcing a rushed purge.

I dunno. This is probably influenced by my being a roadgeek, but I always read the signs as being sort of a "message from the DOT" and thus a sign in all caps feels like the DOT is shouting at me. On a regulatory sign, that's appropriate. On a guide sign, not so much. Now that I take my girlfriend on roadtrips with me, we've taken to calling any sign inappropriately set in all-caps a "Diana sign" after a coworker of ours that tends to speak and type in all caps. (The girlfriend is not a true roadgeek yet but unnecessary use of caps is one part of the MUTCD she can instinctively spot.)

I certainly do buy the visibility argument. My city is transitioning from all-caps Series C to mixed-case C and the newer signs feel much easier on the eyes. I don't have the empirical data that FHWA has but my anecdotal evidence matches up with it. :P

Quote from: vtk on January 10, 2012, 09:24:29 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2012, 06:49:14 PM
The use of all caps on street signs never bothered me. The association with shouting only works with forums, chat, texting, etc. where there is a person "speaking". A sign does not have an implied speaker and is thus incapable of shouting. Plus, since it is normal for signs to be set in all caps (note that warning and regulatory signs still are), one does not bat an eye at it or get taken aback by it the way one would when someone types in all caps.

That said, there may be an argument for better legibility of mixed case, but my real gripe with the mandate is that they said "all signs must be mixed case by such and such date" rather than the more reasonable "all signs installed after such and such date shall be mixed case", and then let signs just get replaced in normal due course rather than forcing a rushed purge.

Names of places and roads are to be in mixed-case; everything else remains all capitals.  To me this is a good idea – strengthening, clarifying, and simplifying a previously informal rule which was riddled with exceptions in the past.

As far as sign replacement, it's my understanding that the capitalization issue never had its own hard deadline requiring the replacement of existing signs.  Size and reflectivity, on the other hand, had deadlines (which I don't think were actually in the MUTCD but separate orders from FHWA) with many years lead time.  A combination of procrastination and a souring economy led to the sudden perception that those deadlines imposed a hardship.  Now those deadlines have been lifted – can we all get on with our lives now?

BTW: The "infromal rule" was more of MUTCD guidance which has recently become standard. The overall issue that's been muddied and misinterpreted by media stories covering it. It's all explained in more detail in another thread...

If I remember correctly, an earlier MUTCD gave a target compliance date for either reflectivity requirements or sizes of street name signs. A later MUTCD required all street names and destinations in guide signing to use mixed case lettering--this mandate was not given a compliance date, but became effective for all new signs. Thus, any signs being replaced under the prior target compliance date requirements for size/reflectivity and after the newer mandate for mixed case signing had to use mixed case lettering. Many jurisdictions that waited to near the deadline on the first issue to bring their signs into compliance ended up having to address both issues at once due to the timing.

Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2012, 06:49:14 PM
The use of all caps on street signs never bothered me. The association with shouting only works with forums, chat, texting, etc. where there is a person "speaking". A sign does not have an implied speaker and is thus incapable of shouting. Plus, since it is normal for signs to be set in all caps (note that warning and regulatory signs still are), one does not bat an eye at it or get taken aback by it the way one would when someone types in all caps.

That said, there may be an argument for better legibility of mixed case, but my real gripe with the mandate is that they said "all signs must be mixed case by such and such date" rather than the more reasonable "all signs installed after such and such date shall be mixed case", and then let signs just get replaced in normal due course rather than forcing a rushed purge.

Some signs would never get replaced in that case.  There's a street sign in my neighborhood that dates to the 1950s when the streets were first built; all the similar ones were replaced within the last 20 years but this one survived.

There are some wooden pole signs (not kidding; just a street name painted vertically on a piece of wood sticking out of the ground) in Potsdam; these are impossible to read during the day, let alone at night!  The poles must have a maximum width of about three inches from my estimation.

I must be unusual, but I don't consider all-caps to be harder to read than mixed-case. And I like New York's practice of boxing street names in all-caps, somewhat like an all-text route marker, and then using the destination in mixed case.

And I don't consider all-caps to be shouting either. Never have and never will. Of course I don't buy into a lot of Internet memes. For example, I don't recognize Godwin's Law.  :-D

I encountered some mixed-case blade signs last Thursday morning at the corner of Roberts Road and Forest Avenue in Fairfax City. They were new–last time I had gone through there in early December they had all-caps signs, and the new ones still looked a little shiny as well. I found them harder to read than the all-caps signs in use at the next intersection after that one and I think it was because they appeared to be in a thicker typeface than the all-caps signs. I didn't get a very good chance to take a long look due to traffic and because I had to be at the courthouse by 8:30, but I have a dental appointment on Monday and maybe I'll get a better look and perhaps a picture. I'm assuming (with no evidence to support it) that someone in the sign shop felt that because the lowercase letters were smaller they needed a thicker typeface to help make them visible, but to me it just made them look more like black blobs of text on a white background (and I did have my glasses on, so that wasn't the problem).

Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2012, 01:33:30 PM
And I don't consider all-caps to be shouting either. Never have and never will. Of course I don't buy into a lot of Internet memes. For example, I don't recognize Godwin's Law.  :-D

This isn't an Internet meme, it's a fundamental difference in what's considered good etiquette between the older generations and the younger ones. The folks who used to use typewriters are used to all-caps, since that was used on a lot of typewritten documents back in the day (having never used a typewriter on a daily basis, I'm not sure why, maybe to prevent jamming or because all-caps typed documents were easier to OCR? Dunno). Younger folks, the sort that have always had computer keyboards, generally see all caps as used to emphasize certain words (e.g. "You have GOT to be kidding me! There's no way that SANDRA said that!") and when all-caps running text (i.e. not just for brief headings or titles) is used, thus interpret it as EVERY WORD BEING EMPHASIZED AND IT COMES OFF AS SHOUTING.

This has sort of become a point of contention at my workplace. About two-thirds of our shift is twenty-somethings, with the balance made mostly of women over 55 or so. The older workers tend to fill out forms and correspondence in all-caps, oblivious to the fact that the younger folks universally interpret it as them being shouted at. Someone makes a comment about it. The older folks refuse to see anything wrong with it. Hard feelings develop, and management now has to deal with two halves of a shift that want nothing to do with each other.

Quote from: Scott5114 on January 12, 2012, 10:15:56 AMThis isn't an Internet meme, it's a fundamental difference in what's considered good etiquette between the older generations and the younger ones. The folks who used to use typewriters are used to all-caps, since that was used on a lot of typewritten documents back in the day (having never used a typewriter on a daily basis, I'm not sure why, maybe to prevent jamming or because all-caps typed documents were easier to OCR? Dunno).

Options for style markup on typewriters were very limited.  Your choices were essentially all caps or underlining.  On all manual typewriters and all but the last generation of electric and electronic typewriters, the underlining had to be applied separately:  in other words, you had first to type the text to be underlined, and then navigate to the start of it, and hit the underline key repeatedly.  It was not until the mid-1980's when IBM, Smith-Corona, and other typewriter manufacturers started making electronic typewriters with some basic word-processing capability, including the ability to type documents into a memory buffer where they could be edited before they were printed out, and to turn on style attributes like underlining using deadkey combinations.  On the other hand, it has always been possible to produce all-caps letters by hitting Caps Lock, so all caps has long been an obvious quick and dirty way to add emphasis.

OCR would not have been a consideration since OCR of sufficient reliability for general office use has been available for only the last ten years or so, long after typewriters were generally abandoned.  The rule of thumb is that OCR has to be better than 99.9% accurate to avoid proofreading and other cleanup costs.

QuoteThis has sort of become a point of contention at my workplace. About two-thirds of our shift is twenty-somethings, with the balance made mostly of women over 55 or so. The older workers tend to fill out forms and correspondence in all-caps, oblivious to the fact that the younger folks universally interpret it as them being shouted at. Someone makes a comment about it. The older folks refuse to see anything wrong with it. Hard feelings develop, and management now has to deal with two halves of a shift that want nothing to do with each other.

Try to think of it from the older folks' point of view.  They use all caps not just because they remember typewriter conventions, but also because forms intended for filling out by hand have traditionally encouraged or required the use of block letters (i.e., all caps).  This is because the vast majority of people can produce readable handwritten capitals while their attempts to produce mixed-case hand printing tend to degrade into an unreadable cursive.  And, frankly, since more and more elementary schools are dropping penmanship from their curricula, you can expect to see a requirement for block printing becoming more common for forms that cannot be circulated in PDF--e.g., our Customs form 6059 (which you must fill out by hand when entering the US at an airport, and can be required to fill out at a land border at the inspector's discretion), or the landing card which non-British arrivals in Britain are required to fill out under the Immigration Act 1971.

Also, the older people in your office are surely old enough to remember the old type of public official, who would not work with you to mitigate any faults in the documentation you submitted, but would rather harshly tell you to do it all over again and go to the back of the queue.  (Think about the school superintendent played by Hume Cronyn in the film adaptation of Pat Conroy's memoir The Water is Wide--he perfectly exemplifies that type of official, and also shows why the South was able to get away with things like poll taxes and literacy tests for so long.  If you are a government official, you can get away with almost any kind of abuse if you can convincingly pretend that it is fair and impartial enforcement of the rules.)

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 12, 2012, 11:08:01 AMthe old type of public official, who would not work with you to mitigate any faults in the documentation you submitted, but would rather harshly tell you to do it all over again and go to the back of the queue.

old type?  that happened to me as recently as sometime last year, at the post office, because I forgot to fill in both the declared value and the insurance value on one of those "bear down, you're making 68 copies" international shipment forms.

there's a damn good reason why I go to the UPS store, and not the post office, even if it costs $80 as opposed to $48 to mail something to europe.  the UPS store actually has to be reasonable with customers if they want to stay in business.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 12, 2012, 11:20:03 AM

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 12, 2012, 11:08:01 AMthe old type of public official, who would not work with you to mitigate any faults in the documentation you submitted, but would rather harshly tell you to do it all over again and go to the back of the queue.

old type?  that happened to me as recently as sometime last year, at the post office, because I forgot to fill in both the declared value and the insurance value on one of those "bear down, you're making 68 copies" international shipment forms.

Yes, old type.  You know--with celluloid collar, thin tie, pince-nez, wrinkled-prune expression, and "My word is law" attitude.  This is not to say that there aren't throwbacks still working behind customer-service counters.

(I don't like the USPS' procedures with regard to the internationally harmonized CN22 form.  The typical European postal service will give you just a sticker or a mucilage-backed paper which you fill out on your own and affix to the package yourself unless you choose to draw your own CN22 label in pen and ink, which I have done many times.  On the other hand, the USPS mandates the use of their own form, which has to be filled out in triplicate with both sender and recipient's names and addresses appearing both on the tear-off form and on a counterpart.  Very logically, the copy that is actually affixed to the package is the bottom paper in the triplicate, which is so faint it might as well be blank, and virtually guarantees that your package will be opened by the foreign postal service to verify the contents before it is sent on.  But I just go ahead and grab the CN22 mess before I show up at the window--I know when I'm whipped.)

From the 2003 edition......

How the recommended lane marking changes from dotted to broken between mainline and decelaration lanes at a highway exit.  IMO, there is no good reason the broken line portion shouldn't be dotted or solid instead.  Both dotted and solid imply 'this is a special lane, get out unless you intend to exit'; broken, OTOH, implies 'you're cool, this lane keeps going'.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Flanes.png&hash=03d7009f29179280288884f8362437f82ae777d1)

This seems to have been corrected in the 2009 edition.

I just don't like the dots.  I understand why they're there, but since NY has never used them until recently, they just look weird.

The Thruway can't even be bothered to do them properly.  They replaced the lane stripings with dots, but they end them like a lane striping would end.

Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2012, 12:23:08 PM
From the 2003 edition......

How the recommended lane marking changes from dotted to broken between mainline and decelaration lanes at a highway exit.  IMO, there is no good reason the broken line portion shouldn't be dotted or solid instead.  Both dotted and solid imply 'this is a special lane, get out unless you intend to exit'; broken, OTOH, implies 'you're cool, this lane keeps going'.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Flanes.png&hash=03d7009f29179280288884f8362437f82ae777d1)

I think this setup is meant for use with a short deceleration lane, with the assumption that drivers can see the gore before the line changes from dotted to broken. Otherwise, that is indeed flawed.  Actually, without the dotted line, this is how ODOT has done simple exits for as long as I can remember – but the deceleration lanes are so short, that diagram would actually be to scale!

I was going to gripe about MUTCD not being spefic enough that gore crosshatches must be chevron-shaped, but then I reread chapter 3B and near the end it gets quite specific on that point.  ODOT seems to always do simple diagonal crosshatches in exit and entrance gores, as if the neutral area is a paved shoulder.  (In the last few years, however, ODOT has been doing chevron crosshatches more often.  Was this a recent improvement with the MUTCD, or did ODOT just recently get with the program?)

Simple diagonals are common in Texas, and they like to paint the exit number between the diagonal lines.  Please don't take that away, it's SO cool!

I was looking at the concept for the Kellogg/Webb interchange, and thought I had found an error in signing at the Greenwich/Zelta exit.  This would be a two-lane exit, one of which would be an option lane.  The final exit sign (at theoretical gore), however, has a yellow EXIT ONLY tab spanning both lanes, with two arrows (type E11-1e).  Well, thought I, both of those lanes are NOT exit only.

Much to my dismay, the signing complies with 2009 MUTCD standards.  Apparently 2009 MUTCD has decided that, for minor interchanges not warranting arrow-per-lane signing, it is best to lie about one of the lanes.  Grrrrr......

See below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhtm%2F2009%2Fimages%2Ffig2e_11.gif&hash=a0176dda72a63d5e6bcd451f192efe2173fa04df)

Evidently their reasoning is that if the sign in question is at the exit itself, possibly even past where the option lane splits, that it's reasonable to make sure people are aware that there are indeed two lanes exiting.

Steve's I-77 page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-77/s2.html) has a couple examples pictured (exits 118 and 120) of something similar under the old paradigm of advance option lane signage with the same two-lane EXIT ONLY treatment at the gore.  The difference here, which is good compared to the MUTCD cartoon, is the pull-through which clarifies how many lanes go straight through as well as exit.

The combination of overhead with only one lane shown for the exit and the lane assignment signs and markings showing the option lane is just too confusing in my opinion, but what do I know.  They must have data to back up the new way, right?

Quote from: PurdueBill on March 14, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
Evidently their reasoning is that if the sign in question is at the exit itself, possibly even past where the option lane splits, that it's reasonable to make sure people are aware that there are indeed two lanes exiting.

This.  If you look carefully at where that final sign is posted, it is in fact after the optional lane has split into two.  Ergo, it is technically correct.

Quote from: PurdueBill on March 14, 2012, 11:08:16 AMThe combination of overhead with only one lane shown for the exit and the lane assignment signs and markings showing the option lane is just too confusing in my opinion, but what do I know.  They must have data to back up the new way, right?

It is the approach recommended by the Upchurch study of 2003.  Of several different layouts tried, it was found to be correctly understood the most frequently.

The old arrangement had a tendency to fool drivers into making unnecessary lane changes to the left to avoid an option lane that they incorrectly thought was a dropped lane.  In comparison, the new arrangement will, at worst, fool exiting drivers into making an unnecessary lane change to the right to get into the dropped lane when they can use the option lane.  The population of drivers likely to be fooled by the new approach is thus smaller (exiting traffic is usually less than traffic staying on the freeway) and the result is usually more benign (lane changes to the right do not usually involve a possibility of cutting off traffic overtaking at high speed).

The layout Kphoger was examining is here:

http://www.wichita.gov/NR/rdonlyres/163329A7-8B99-41BE-A45F-ACE98B312C58/0/20111206WebbConcept.pdf

The signing is pretty plain-vanilla MUTCD 2009, although there is a small glitch--"FREEWAY ENDS" signs on almost the same overhead sign bridge as "FREEWAY ENDS 1 1/2 MILE."

Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2012, 10:47:57 AM
See below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhtm%2F2009%2Fimages%2Ffig2e_11.gif&hash=a0176dda72a63d5e6bcd451f192efe2173fa04df)

This arrangement is flawed as it assumes the ground mounted signs will not be obscured by traffic in the right lane.  It also assumes perfect placement of the final overhead sign near the gore.  For new construction, the sign structure could end up being shifted farther ahead of the gore due to a conflict with an unknown or poorly located utlity.  For replacement of an existing sign, it is assuming the sign crew gets the panel lined up far enough to the right and does not accidentally put it somewhat over the farthest right through lane.

As for the alternate overhead design shown on Page 195 of the 2009 MUTCD, it could get rather wasteful if the facility has more than three through lanes.  IMHO the white arrow for optional lanes was better, or a some other arrangement should be tried.

The way you avoid people changing lanes is pull-through signs with arrows for all the through lanes.  But the idiots in the FHWA banned them.  As much as I like arrow-per-lane over diagramic signs, the pull-through and exit signs with down arrows are even better.

I agree with Deanej. I've said from the start that I think the FHWA addressed a problem that I just don't see. The conventional overhead sign showing one down arrow enclosed by the "exit only" wording with the second arrow not so designated was perfectly clear to me and I just don't understand how any driver could find this confusing.

On the other hand a recent episode at a civic association meeting was an eye opener re: the mentality of half the people out there. When you hear some of your neighbors seriously telling local police and traffic officials to put stop signs and speed bumps on thru county roads in the area to combat speeding, you get a realistic picture of the mentality of many people. A very sad commentary.

Deanej also has a point about the alignment of the overhead sign at the theoretical gore. At two locations in my area NYSDOT's contractor made errors in this regard. In one case, the sign for an approaching optional lane exit has the left arrow over the lane-line separating the dropped lane from the second lane, making it almost look like both arrows are over the dropped lane. In another case the 1/2 mile sign for another lane-drop has the single arrow positioned over the lane-line instead over centered over the exiting lane. Very sloppy.  

Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2012, 10:47:57 AM
Apparently 2009 MUTCD has decided that, for minor interchanges not warranting arrow-per-lane signing, it is best to lie about one of the lanes.  Grrrrr......

See below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fhtm%2F2009%2Fimages%2Ffig2e_11.gif&hash=a0176dda72a63d5e6bcd451f192efe2173fa04df)

This is one of the major gripes I had with the revisions to signing option lanes at multilane exits. In my opinion, this new scheme would've worked just fine if the arrow over the option lane was white on green (like it used to be) and everything else new remained the same. No white-on-green down arrow on advance signage, no "lie" about the exit only status. This arrangement would've also allowed the exit direction sign to remain at the theoretical gore like it used to be instead of being moved downstream of the theoretical gore (keeping sight lines of the arrows above proper lanes from a distance).

Roadfro, I don't understand what you're saying. The E/D sign shown in the diagram is at the theoretical gore, not downstream of it, like you seem to be saying.

^ Hmm... must've been interpreting incorrectly. To correct myself: older arrangements appear to have had the exit direction sign slightly more upstream from the theoretical gore, more towards the beginning of the ramp taper. Using everything else I mentioned, keeping this placement would've allowed the arrows to line up above the proper lanes from a distance on straight sections.

Quote from: roadfro on March 18, 2012, 06:36:15 AMHmm... must've been interpreting incorrectly. To correct myself: older arrangements appear to have had the exit direction sign slightly more upstream from the theoretical gore, more towards the beginning of the ramp taper. Using everything else I mentioned, keeping this placement would've allowed the arrows to line up above the proper lanes from a distance on straight sections.

One of the findings of the Upchurch study was that under the old non-Lunenfeld & Alexander arrangement that was permitted under MUTCD 2003 (though not recommended by it), a significant proportion of motorists did not realize that they had the option of not exiting from the option lane.  This arrangement called for the exit direction sign to be placed at or upstream of the theoretical gore point.  The new arrangement attempts to fix the problem by not having multiple downward-pointing arrows assigning the same lane and by positioning the exit direction sign at or downstream of the theoretical gore point, so that the exit direction sign does not appear either to "lie" about lane count or to imply that the option lane is a dropped lane.

From a practical perspective, my concern about the change from the old to the new arrangement is the potential to place a burden on agencies either to move sign structures or to restripe (and, depending on the state, regrade and repave) gore areas to ensure that signs are placed correctly with regard to the theoretical gore point.  The only positioning that is acceptable under both the old and new arrangements is right at the theoretical gore point.

Agencies which followed the vanilla MUTCD recommendation, which was introduced at some point in the late 1970's--after Lunenfeld & Alexander's report came out--and stayed in the manual through the 2003 edition, are not affected because they can easily upgrade to arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.  These are not universally required for exits with option lanes but can be used at service interchanges which have option lanes, regardless of MUTCD interchange classification.

The problem is that these agencies are very few in number, because the old non-Lunenfeld & Alexander arrangement was very economical.  It exploited the fact that a one-lane drop with an option lane was not classified as a multilane exit, and so did not require a pull-through with downward-pointing arrows.  In comparison, the Lunenfeld & Alexander approach (as diagrammed in the MUTCD) did require such a pull-through sign in this context.  This means that agencies which already had a full-width sign bridge to accommodate the vanilla MUTCD arrangement can just reuse it for an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic, whereas agencies which used cantilevers with the traditional non-L&A approach may now have to do some gore-point shuffling.

It's simple: option lanes exist, so advance signage should indicate their existence.  Arrow-per-lane signs are not economical or aesthetically pleasing, so the older style signage should be allowed.  If drivers don't understand the signage style that has been around for decades, then driver's education should include this in a unit on reading guide signs.

Seriously though, how are people confused by this? Shouldn't the meaning of a white downward-pointing arrow on an exit sign be obvious after driving past a few of them, and seeing what the road actually does downstream?  This is how I learned to read guide signs, and as far as I can tell, anybody who misses this concept isn't paying attention.

JNW, I'm curious where you're getting your info on the placement rule for the E/D sign. I've checked the standard for the overhead exit direction sign in the 1988, 2003 and 2009 Manuals, and they all read the same: the Exit Direction sign should be installed overhead over the exiting lane in the vicinity  of the theoretical gore.  So the installing agency always had some leeway in this regard. Any slight deviation upstream or downstream apparently was always at the engineers' discretion and judgement. Most of the Manual diagrams show them right at the gore point, but the written rule is what actually applies.

And as I've said earlier, I am in complete agreement with VTK re: understanding conventional down-arrow signing. 

Quote from: SignBridge on March 18, 2012, 04:42:14 PMJNW, I'm curious where you're getting your info on the placement rule for the E/D sign. I've checked the standard for the overhead exit direction sign in the 1988, 2003 and 2009 Manuals, and they all read the same: the Exit Direction sign should be installed overhead over the exiting lane in the vicinity of the theoretical gore.  So the installing agency always had some leeway in this regard. Any slight deviation upstream or downstream apparently was always at the engineers' discretion and judgement. Most of the Manual diagrams show them right at the gore point, but the written rule is what actually applies.

It comes from the Upchurch study.  Part of the solution to the option-lane problem it recommends is to position the exit direction sign downstream of the theoretical gore point, where it is evident that the option lane has already divided into two.

QuoteAnd as I've said earlier, I am in complete agreement with VTK re: understanding conventional down-arrow signing.

I liked the old non-L&A arrangement just fine, but:

*  Many agencies failed to implement it consistently, even within their own jurisdictions, which makes it very difficult for drivers to "learn by doing" as Vtk suggests.

*  It performed poorly in comparison with other alternatives in the Upchurch study--the option corresponding to the least frequency of driver error is that now diagrammed in the 2009 MUTCD.

Upchurch presented his findings to GMITC (the NCUTCD subcommittee which handles guide signs) around 2005 and apparently the experts present were sufficiently convinced that they ratified his suggested layout, which is now in the 2009 edition of the MUTCD.

Now, do I agree with it?  If I am pressed to give a categorical answer, I would have to say No, but the reality is that I am willing to acquiesce in a change of this standard because I do not believe any of the alternatives are unqualifiedly successful.  I have been following the technical literature on this issue for years and I have never seen an effective solution that did not require considerably more sign panel area than any of the only somewhat effective solutions currently in use.  I also used to collect traffic signing manuals before sign design sheets became my main preoccupation.  While it has some large gaps, the sun never sets on my collection, and I have yet to see a manual which lays out a method for dealing with the option-lane problem that is both economical and effective.  Collecting sign design sheets now gives me a chance to examine solutions that have been tried but not written into standards documents and I haven't seen any out-and-out winners there either.  I like the arrow-block diagrammatics used for system interchanges in TxDOT's Houston district, but those don't work well for service interchanges where text legend has to be provided.  I have seen efforts in Kansas and Alabama which are wasteful when they are not out-and-out weird.  I like MnDOT's artful use of vertical ruled lines (notably in the main "Unweave the Weave" contract), but that uses a lot of sign panel area.  And so on and so forth.

In the US we have traditionally preferred downward-pointing arrows because these provide positive guidance at no more than moderate cost, and even so we have fallen into a quagmire.  Classic L&A (as diagrammed in the MUTCD through 2003) is expensive.  Classic non-L&A is cheap, but confuses.  The Upchurch layout is somewhat cheaper than classic non-L&A, and may confuse somewhat less.  Arrow-per-lane diagrammatics would confuse even less still, at some cost in sign panel area, but the current MUTCD writes us into a high cost basis because we are not (as far as I can tell) allowed to use arrow-per-lane diagrammatics without arrows for the through lanes, which is what we need to replace the classic non-L&A approach.  (WisDOT has done this for some US 41 contracts, and IMO this practice should be legalized for the entire country.) 

Don't forget either that the preferred approach, whatever it is, has to be able to accommodate exits on curves.  In addition to Upchurch's presentation to GMITC, which I think is still available on the Web somewhere, Gene Hawkins' group at TTI did a study some years ago on the problems involved in signing option lanes at exits on curves.  This is well worth reading to get an idea of the motivations underlying current arrangements.

(Chuckle!) Okay, J.N..........Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Who would have thought the placement of an exit-direction sign would become such an interesting subject?

Any chance any of these studies/reports (Upchurch, Lunenfeld & Alexander, etc.) are online or in an electronic form available from a library? I'd be very interested to read some of these and look at some of the alternatives.

For the Upchurch study and the GMITC reaction to it, I suggest Googling {NCHRP Project 20-7 (155)} (no braces).  The relevant hits, including the 72-page final report, will be in the top ten.  (I prefer to paste links, but since Google now provides redirect URLs instead of direct links and I don't yet have a batch script to parse the redirect URLs, that is very awkward.)

Lunenfeld and Alexander's study (Signing treatments for interchange lane drops, June 1976) is unfortunately not online, to the best of my knowledge.  I found and photographed a copy in the government documents section at the Wichita State University library.  Similar facilities at other university libraries may have it; otherwise, I would expect most state DOT libraries to have a copy.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 18, 2012, 07:47:01 AM

From a practical perspective, my concern about the change from the old to the new arrangement is the potential to place a burden on agencies either to move sign structures or to restripe (and, depending on the state, regrade and repave) gore areas to ensure that signs are placed correctly with regard to the theoretical gore point.

Actually, I tend to think we should focus on striping more.  Signage can be imperfect as long as striping is accurate.  I am a big fan of the way Texas treated the I-35 South / I-410 South split on the north side of San Antonio.

Advance signage:  http://g.co/maps/m7yq8 (http://g.co/maps/m7yq8)
Pavement arrows & shields:  http://g.co/maps/vrnvz (http://g.co/maps/vrnvz)
Further pavement markings:  http://g.co/maps/7h49z (http://g.co/maps/7h49z)
Diagram (take 'em or leave 'em, I'm neutral):  http://g.co/maps/h29h6 (http://g.co/maps/h29h6)
And here's what is, to me, the most important part:  a solid white line between exit-only lane and option lane.  The final BGS uses a black-on-gold exit only arrow next to a white-on-green option arrow–as I would prefer.  But, with all the pavement marking leading up to the exit, and the combination of solid line and dual arrows, I think motorists would understand the configuration even if that last BGS weren't there.
http://g.co/maps/j99e9 (http://g.co/maps/j99e9)

This is in contrast to the way Wichita treated the I-135 / US-54 interchange when they redid the ramps.  Here, they used a confusing combination of broken and dotted lines; even where signage should be obvious and straightforward to anyone (including the exit shown in the satellite image below), I still see drivers move into the exit-only lane, then back into the other lane, often without signalling–and I see it probably every other day.  This is dangerous, as I am often on their left at the time, and get pushed onto the shoulder to avoid an accident.  However, it clearly shows that drivers think they must get far right for both movements.  I haven't seen drivers make this kind of mistake at the San Antonio example, though I've only driven it three times.
http://g.co/maps/mbyvx (http://g.co/maps/mbyvx)

Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
Actually, I tend to think we should focus on striping more.  Signage can be imperfect as long as striping is accurate.  I am a big fan of the way Texas treated the I-35 South / I-410 South split on the north side of San Antonio.

Advance signage:  http://g.co/maps/m7yq8 (http://g.co/maps/m7yq8)
Pavement arrows & shields:  http://g.co/maps/vrnvz (http://g.co/maps/vrnvz)
Further pavement markings:  http://g.co/maps/7h49z (http://g.co/maps/7h49z)
Diagram (take 'em or leave 'em, I'm neutral):  http://g.co/maps/h29h6 (http://g.co/maps/h29h6)
And here's what is, to me, the most important part:  a solid white line between exit-only lane and option lane.  The final BGS uses a black-on-gold exit only arrow next to a white-on-green option arrow–as I would prefer.  But, with all the pavement marking leading up to the exit, and the combination of solid line and dual arrows, I think motorists would understand the configuration even if that last BGS weren't there.
http://g.co/maps/j99e9 (http://g.co/maps/j99e9)

What you've shown here is a pretty decent application of the 2009 MUTCD pavement marking practice as it relates to intermediate exits with a dropped lane and an option lane. I didn't look too hard for the post-mounted regulatory signs, but the pavement marking arrows were there in plentiful order (possibly more so than recommended). The exit direction sign uses one exit only arrow and one standard arrow (instead of two exit only arrows), which departs from the MUTCD guideline but intuitively makes more sense to me.

Although I would note that this can be considered a system interchange. The diagrammatic arrow sign, as well as the final exit direction sign, would be an "arrow per lane" sign per current guidelines--for an intermediate interchange, the diagrammatic arrow sign could've had the single exit only down arrow and been in compliance.

The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

Also, the fact that Advanced Street Name warning plaques must be yellow instead of fluorescent yellow-green.

The fact that the updated version of the manual does not have 6 inch lettering on Street Name signs as the new standard - that deadline passed on January 10, more than 4 months before revisions were made.

This used to be a gripe of mine, but not anymore since mixed-case is now mandated: the sign every street mandate that was implemented in 1988.

The lack of drop down arrows on the BYS "This Lane Ends" or "Right Lane Ends" signs. 

If we're going to split hairs and add three dots on the "road narrows" signs, why can't we add down arrows for the BYS signs!?!?


Sometimes, the way the signs are mounted, it's hard to tell which lane they're actually talking about.  A drop down arrow, as seen in the link below, makes it that much easier to understand traveling at highway speeds.

http://www.google.com/maps?q=old+lyme,+ct&hl=en&ll=41.372123,-72.199101&spn=0.012254,0.01929&sll=41.312291,-73.088537&sspn=0.02466,0.038581&hnear=Old+Lyme,+New+London,+Connecticut&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.372194,-72.199007&panoid=w3JFzbFQuTE37BvjTFZs2g&cbp=12,228.85,,0,0.7

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

Quote from: vtk on June 09, 2012, 07:41:54 PM

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

I prefer to stay confused. Those of us who have lives outside this forum realize that a petition makes no sense in this context.

Quote from: vtk on June 09, 2012, 07:41:54 PM

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

Local agencies are ignoring it. "City Limit" is part of the place name.

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 09:09:26 PM

Quote from: vtk on June 09, 2012, 07:41:54 PM

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

Local agencies are ignoring it. "City Limit" is part of the place name.

Sorry, I don't buy that claim that the words "city limit" are part of the place name.  Can you provide a section number from the MUTCD that requires mixed case for "City Limit"?  In California, "CITY LIMIT" has always been all-caps and making it mixed case doesn't make any sense to me.  Of course a lot of other things in the 2009 MUTCD don't make sense to me either... arrow-per-lane signs, banning all-caps street blades, restricting/eliminating the use of the white-on-green down arrow, etc.

The MUTCD has an example of a state line sign with all caps. Busted.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2h_01_longdesc.htm

Quote from: myosh_tino on June 09, 2012, 11:59:55 PM

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 09:09:26 PM

Quote from: vtk on June 09, 2012, 07:41:54 PM

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

I'm confused.  Are you upset that the MUTCD now specifies mixed-case for "City Limit" (wait, where does it say that?), or that local agencies are ignoring that new specification?

Local agencies are ignoring it. "City Limit" is part of the place name.

Sorry, I don't buy that claim that the words "city limit" are part of the place name.  Can you provide a section number from the MUTCD that requires mixed case for "City Limit"?  In California, "CITY LIMIT" has always been all-caps and making it mixed case doesn't make any sense to me.  Of course a lot of other things in the 2009 MUTCD don't make sense to me either... arrow-per-lane signs, banning all-caps street blades, restricting/eliminating the use of the white-on-green down arrow, etc.

mjb2002, you're wrong on this one. The only part of guide signs that is required to be mixed-case is place names or street/highway names.

From: 2009 MUTCD Revision 1 & 2, Section 2A.13 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2a.htm#section2A13)

Quote
Section 2A.13 Word Messages
<...>
Standard:
10 All sign lettering shall be in upper-case letters as provided in the "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book (see Section 1A.11), unless otherwise provided in this Manual for a particular sign or type of message.

11 The sign lettering for names of places, streets, and highways shall be composed of a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.

"City limit" is not the name of a place or a street, thus that would remain all-caps.

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
Also, the fact that Advanced Street Name warning plaques must be yellow instead of fluorescent yellow-green.

Advanced Street Name plaques are an alignment issue, which goes with intersection warning signs and would be yellow. Fluorescent yellow green is reserved specifically for schools and optionally for items that are non-vehicular in nature (pedestrian & bike crossings, etc.), so the FYG color would not be appropriate.

I take issue with the fact that the advance street name plaque is not a white-on-green guide sign. This has been Nevada DOT standard practice for years (albeit with all-caps legend, which is slowly changing with new signs) and I have always thought it looked better.

Quote
The fact that the updated version of the manual does not have 6 inch lettering on Street Name signs as the new standard - that deadline passed on January 10, more than 4 months before revisions were made.

It is MUTCD guidance that street name signs use minimum 6-inch lettering for initial capitals and 4.5-inch lettering for lower case lettering on new street name signs. The option to decrease to 4"/3" is only mentioned for two-lane roads with speeds of 25mph or less. Note there is no standard statement on the size of lettering, but many treat guidance as "standard unless there's a good reason not to".

Quote from: roadfro on June 10, 2012, 02:19:56 AM
mjb2002, you're wrong on this one. The only part of guide signs that is required to be mixed-case is place names or street/highway names.

+1

Unless it's a proper name, it's supposed to remain all caps.

Quote from: roadfro on March 20, 2012, 07:08:23 AM

Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
Actually, I tend to think we should focus on striping more.  Signage can be imperfect as long as striping is accurate.  I am a big fan of the way Texas treated the I-35 South / I-410 South split on the north side of San Antonio.

Advance signage:  http://g.co/maps/m7yq8 (http://g.co/maps/m7yq8)
Pavement arrows & shields:  http://g.co/maps/vrnvz (http://g.co/maps/vrnvz)
Further pavement markings:  http://g.co/maps/7h49z (http://g.co/maps/7h49z)
Diagram (take 'em or leave 'em, I'm neutral):  http://g.co/maps/h29h6 (http://g.co/maps/h29h6)
And here's what is, to me, the most important part:  a solid white line between exit-only lane and option lane.  The final BGS uses a black-on-gold exit only arrow next to a white-on-green option arrow–as I would prefer.  But, with all the pavement marking leading up to the exit, and the combination of solid line and dual arrows, I think motorists would understand the configuration even if that last BGS weren't there.
http://g.co/maps/j99e9 (http://g.co/maps/j99e9)

What you've shown here is a pretty decent application of the 2009 MUTCD pavement marking practice as it relates to intermediate exits with a dropped lane and an option lane. I didn't look too hard for the post-mounted regulatory signs, but the pavement marking arrows were there in plentiful order (possibly more so than recommended). The exit direction sign uses one exit only arrow and one standard arrow (instead of two exit only arrows), which departs from the MUTCD guideline but intuitively makes more sense to me.

Although I would note that this can be considered a system interchange. The diagrammatic arrow sign, as well as the final exit direction sign, would be an "arrow per lane" sign per current guidelines--for an intermediate interchange, the diagrammatic arrow sign could've had the single exit only down arrow and been in compliance.

I think left/right-turn-only pavement markings are misleading when on a freeway. They imply the turn is way sharper than it usually is. It should say:

EXITS

LANE

THIS

or something to that effect.

Quote from: blawp on June 10, 2012, 08:58:59 PM
I think left/right-turn-only pavement markings are misleading when on a freeway. They imply the turn is way sharper than it usually is. It should say:

EXITS

LANE

THIS

or something to that effect.

Nevada DOT tends to use the following to convey the lane drop on a freeway:


  ↑

ONLY

EXIT


It seems to get the message across, in addition to the standard overhead signage.


Had I been involved with the MUTCD, I would have modified the lane control arrows for pavement and signage to look more diagonal as is more common with arrows on freeways and expressways.

I don't really think the "right turn only" arrow needs to be modified for freeway use... you're collecting the information as it flits by at 70 MPH, and if exaggerating the sharpness of the turn makes you more likely to pick up the message, then that's a legitimate tradeoff, in my mind.

Oklahoma DOT (and other DOTs) does use diagonal arrows to denote lanes that are ending, with the text "MERGE".

Lets agree that the right turn/left turn only arrow should be modified to California's version at least, which is far easier to read at pavement level.

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

Like that will accomplish anything. What a waste of time, energy and effort.

The fact that the federal government would deign to dictate to states and localities what size or case the lettering on their signs should be in continues to be one of my big gripes with the MUTCD.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2012, 10:02:55 AM

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

Like that will accomplish anything. What a waste of time, energy and effort.

The fact that the federal government would deign to dictate to states and localities what size or case the lettering on their signs should be in continues to be one of my big gripes with the MUTCD.

Not a fan of consistency in signage?

Not a fan of an onerous federal government.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2012, 10:14:25 AM
Not a fan of an onerous federal government.

So noted. 

So, how do we achieve consistent signing standards nationally without a federal agency to oversee such an endeavor?

You might want to read this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2686.msg58977

H.B., maybe we should make you put that link in your sig for all the newbies curious about your unorthodox view of the MUTCD :P

How about letting the states handle it, and worry about consistency on a statewide basis instead of a nationwide basis?

There are subtle differences between the states' signage practices, anyway, MUTCD or no MUTCD.

Is it really going to cause that much of a problem if I am driving east on US 33 and see a sign in West Virginia that says "Harrisonburg 35" and then see a sign in Virginia that says "HARRISONBURG 22?" I think not.

I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

Quote from: blawp on June 11, 2012, 10:43:43 AM
I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

While CA has some neat things I wouldn't mind seeing out here (cutout shields), there are also a lot of things in that document that really need to stay confined to California.

If we were to look to any one state to set the standard, Kansas and Tennessee would be at the top of my list.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 11, 2012, 11:44:17 AM

Quote from: blawp on June 11, 2012, 10:43:43 AM
I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

While CA has some neat things I wouldn't mind seeing out here (cutout shields), there are also a lot of things in that document that really need to stay confined to California.

If we were to look to any one state to set the standard, Kansas and Tennessee would be at the top of my list.

Agreed.  I would also add elements from Wisconsin (surprised? :biggrin:), Texas, and Minnesota.  California probably wins for the greatest coverage of scenarios (snow, heat, rain, quakes, etc.), but that's about it.  I have yet to see a DOT guide that would be the end-all-be-all of manuals.

I personally feel the MUTCD has a place, but as a guide to limitations rather than dictating every minute little detail.  Anytime you try to achieve a one-size-fits-all approach, you end up with more problems than you started with.

Quote from: mjb2002 on June 09, 2012, 04:14:09 PM
The fact that counties are still using upper-case letters for the word "Town Limit"/"City Limit" on their signs, knowing full well that is not allowed anymore. I am in the process of creating a change.org petition that would address this issue.

But "city/town limit" are not destination names and thus should be all caps. (And whether someone uses Clearview or the FHWA series doesn't affect the case rules. Mixed case has always been only for destination messaging.

Quote
Also, the fact that Advanced Street Name warning plaques must be yellow instead of fluorescent yellow-green.

FYG is only supposed to be used to warn of other human users that might cross in a non-motorized manner, such as pedestrians and bicycles. There should be no reason an advanced street name sign supplements one of the warning signs allowed to be FYG.

ETA: Yeah, leave it to me to not realize there was another page until after I posted.

I see that there are various threads on the same subject, but this is the one I spotted first. So unless they're all merged into one, I'm going to respond to this one.

1)The refusal to allow state and regional variations of signs such as Florida's multi-colored U.S. shields, and New York's brown & yellow destination signs in the Adirondacks and Catskills.

2)The trashing of symbol signs such as college and ferry destination signs.

3)I forgot what else bugged me about them.


While we're at it, I suspect the MTA wouldn't be allowed to add the unique kinds of Bus Stop Signs they have in New York City if USDOT had their way.

Quote from: blawp on June 11, 2012, 10:43:43 AM
I disagree. The signage should be best practice thru the nation. California's MUTCD should be the governing text.

blawp, please stop with the "California's signage is the bestest most wonderful style in the U.S. and all states should be like California" comments.  I get a little embarrassed when I read comments like the one I quoted and I'm a native Californian.

I'm dusting off this thread because I have developed a few new gripes over the past couple of months.

* Section 2E.37, Paragraph 07 should be removed.  I see nothing wrong with allowing states to choose where the number is on exit gore signs.

* Lately I have been wondering if there could be problems with having both the left exit tab and the toll plaque the same color.  Seems there is the chance the toll plaque could get confused with a left tab and vice versa if the banner or plaque is not located correctly on the sign.

* Dislike the language and interpretation that seems to imply only the turn (W1-1, W1-3) types signs can be used where the speed limit is 30 mph or less.  This does not allow for using the W1-4 for minor lane shifts where the turn type sign (W1-3) is overkill.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 27, 2011, 09:54:41 PM
California seems to be doing quite well holding on to the 1961 MUTCD for its route markers, and adding a nonstandard color scheme for state routes.  Other states have colored markers as well (South Carolina's blue text on white background comes to mind) and I think it would enhance the local character to have shields and guide signs be varied to local flavor, as is done in Canada.  (yes, that includes using white/black, black/white, blue/white, etc for guide signs.)

It just occurred to me that Wyoming uses black-on-yellow route shields. Isn't black-on-yellow generally reserved for cautionary signs? I'm not sure if Wyoming has been using that color scheme since the beginning or if they switched from black-on-white, like some other states have.

Quote from: Quillz on July 26, 2013, 02:48:36 AMIt just occurred to me that Wyoming uses black-on-yellow route shields. Isn't black-on-yellow generally reserved for cautionary signs? I'm not sure if Wyoming has been using that color scheme since the beginning or if they switched from black-on-white, like some other states have.

Wyoming actually uses brown on yellow, which is pretty easy to distinguish from warning signs.  Black-on-yellow shields are generally errors.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 26, 2013, 10:54:45 AM

Quote from: Quillz on July 26, 2013, 02:48:36 AMIt just occurred to me that Wyoming uses black-on-yellow route shields. Isn't black-on-yellow generally reserved for cautionary signs? I'm not sure if Wyoming has been using that color scheme since the beginning or if they switched from black-on-white, like some other states have.

Wyoming actually uses brown on yellow, which is pretty easy to distinguish from warning signs.  Black-on-yellow shields are generally errors.

I find it tougher to spot route shields in California. Kansas, actually, no trouble at all - much different black/yellow ratio than a warning sign.

A few little changes that I would make:

-Replace the standard 'ONE WAY' signs that are directly under the 'YIELD' signs at roundabout entrances with black-on-white roundabout arrow-circle signs, similar to what is done in Europe.

-Require that there be blade signs identifying every street at all intersections.

-Replace the 'keep right/left' signs at median or other dividers with lower-mounted down-pointing arrow signs ('drive on this side of the sign'), also as is normally done in Europe and elsewhere.  The current signs are too 'busy' looking to me.

-Adopt a symbol similar to my avatar to denote freeways, both at the entrances ('begin freeway driving rules') and for navigation.  Also look into using the same symbol with a red diagonal slash to denote 'end of freeway' and look into the use of the European front car profile sign image to denote non-freeway expressways.

-Look into transitioning to the 'red circle' style of speed limit signs that are used everywhere else Worldwide outside of Canada and the USA.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on July 31, 2013, 11:44:23 AM
A few little changes that I would make:

-Replace the standard 'ONE WAY' signs that are directly under the 'YIELD' signs at roundabout entrances with black-on-white roundabout arrow-circle signs, similar to what is done in Europe

For the record, Wisconsin is one of the only states/the only state to mount ONE WAY signs like that at a roundabout. Nearly every other location I've worked with places them above the YIELD sign, instead using the horizontally-oriented version (like in Figures 2B-16 & 2B-17 in the MUTCD)

Quote from: DaBigE on July 31, 2013, 01:43:08 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on July 31, 2013, 11:44:23 AM
A few little changes that I would make:

-Replace the standard 'ONE WAY' signs that are directly under the 'YIELD' signs at roundabout entrances with black-on-white roundabout arrow-circle signs, similar to what is done in Europe

For the record, Wisconsin is one of the only states/the only state to mount ONE WAY signs like that at a roundabout. Nearly every other location I've worked with places them above the YIELD sign, instead using the horizontally-oriented version (like in Figures 2B-16 & 2B-17 in the MUTCD)

An example, at I-94 and Exit 66, Mattawan, Michigan: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.223459,-85.78537&spn=0.008501,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.223459,-85.78537&panoid=LuaLQ7PWiADIKoRkxog50g&cbp=12,39.11,,0,10.87

Quote from: mgk920 on July 31, 2013, 11:44:23 AM
A few little changes that I would make:

-Replace the standard 'ONE WAY' signs that are directly under the 'YIELD' signs at roundabout entrances with black-on-white roundabout arrow-circle signs, similar to what is done in Europe.

-Require that there be blade signs identifying every street at all intersections.

-Replace the 'keep right/left' signs at median or other dividers with lower-mounted down-pointing arrow signs ('drive on this side of the sign'), also as is normally done in Europe and elsewhere.  The current signs are too 'busy' looking to me.

-Adopt a symbol similar to my avatar to denote freeways, both at the entrances ('begin freeway driving rules') and for navigation.  Also look into using the same symbol with a red diagonal slash to denote 'end of freeway' and look into the use of the European front car profile sign image to denote non-freeway expressways.

-Look into transitioning to the 'red circle' style of speed limit signs that are used everywhere else Worldwide outside of Canada and the USA.

Mike

And replace the "green circle" with the European white on blue.  Consider other European-style signs that make more sense than what we use.

Quote from: elsmere241 on July 31, 2013, 02:12:29 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on July 31, 2013, 11:44:23 AM
A few little changes that I would make:

-Replace the standard 'ONE WAY' signs that are directly under the 'YIELD' signs at roundabout entrances with black-on-white roundabout arrow-circle signs, similar to what is done in Europe.

-Require that there be blade signs identifying every street at all intersections.

-Replace the 'keep right/left' signs at median or other dividers with lower-mounted down-pointing arrow signs ('drive on this side of the sign'), also as is normally done in Europe and elsewhere.  The current signs are too 'busy' looking to me.

-Adopt a symbol similar to my avatar to denote freeways, both at the entrances ('begin freeway driving rules') and for navigation.  Also look into using the same symbol with a red diagonal slash to denote 'end of freeway' and look into the use of the European front car profile sign image to denote non-freeway expressways.

-Look into transitioning to the 'red circle' style of speed limit signs that are used everywhere else Worldwide outside of Canada and the USA.

Mike

And replace the "green circle" with the European white on blue.  Consider other European-style signs that make more sense than what we use.

They do?  I don't think that most of them make more sense.  In fact, I think they could stand to adopt some of our standards: black-on-yellow diamonds for warning signs (black and yellow are natural warning colors), yellow paint to divide directions of traffic flow, a proper railroad advance warning sign like our yellow circle with a black X on it, etc, etc.  They did adopt our stop sign to replace their stop sign that looked like any other circle sign they had.

Quote from: elsmere241 on July 31, 2013, 02:12:29 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on July 31, 2013, 11:44:23 AM
A few little changes that I would make:

-Replace the standard 'ONE WAY' signs that are directly under the 'YIELD' signs at roundabout entrances with black-on-white roundabout arrow-circle signs, similar to what is done in Europe.

-Require that there be blade signs identifying every street at all intersections.

-Replace the 'keep right/left' signs at median or other dividers with lower-mounted down-pointing arrow signs ('drive on this side of the sign'), also as is normally done in Europe and elsewhere.  The current signs are too 'busy' looking to me.

-Adopt a symbol similar to my avatar to denote freeways, both at the entrances ('begin freeway driving rules') and for navigation.  Also look into using the same symbol with a red diagonal slash to denote 'end of freeway' and look into the use of the European front car profile sign image to denote non-freeway expressways.

-Look into transitioning to the 'red circle' style of speed limit signs that are used everywhere else Worldwide outside of Canada and the USA.

Mike

And replace the "green circle" with the European white on blue.  Consider other European-style signs that make more sense than what we use.

White on blue is already in use in the US to denote motorist services. A green circle saying "you must do X" is a lot more natural of a counterpart to a red circle with a line through it denoting "you must not do X" anyway.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
White on blue is already in use in the US to denote motorist services. A green circle saying "you must do X" is a lot more natural of a counterpart to a red circle with a line through it denoting "you must not do X" anyway.

Not to someone who's colorblind.

Quote from: elsmere241 on July 31, 2013, 10:44:32 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
White on blue is already in use in the US to denote motorist services. A green circle saying "you must do X" is a lot more natural of a counterpart to a red circle with a line through it denoting "you must not do X" anyway.

Not to someone who's colorblind.

That's what the slash is for.

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
A green circle saying "you must do X"

Must, or may?  Does this mean that, in order to drive on I-270, I must carry hazardous materials?

(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/ohio070/i-070_wb_exit_108b_02.jpg)

PS – this is how borders should be done with exit tabs.  I don't think the MUTCD explicitly prohibits this style, but it certainly doesn't promote it.  And it's quite possible I've already mentioned this at or near the top of the thread.

Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2013, 11:55:14 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
A green circle saying "you must do X"

Must, or may?  Does this mean that, in order to drive on I-270, I must carry hazardous materials?

(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/ohio070/i-070_wb_exit_108b_02.jpg)

PS – this is how borders should be done with exit tabs.  I don't think the MUTCD explicitly prohibits this style, but it certainly doesn't promote it.  And it's quite possible I've already mentioned this at or near the top of the thread.

Agree with the borders, disagree with the lack of sign cutout.

Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 12:18:58 AM

Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2013, 11:55:14 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
A green circle saying "you must do X"

Must, or may?  Does this mean that, in order to drive on I-270, I must carry hazardous materials?

(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/ohio070/i-070_wb_exit_108b_02.jpg)

PS – this is how borders should be done with exit tabs.  I don't think the MUTCD explicitly prohibits this style, but it certainly doesn't promote it.  And it's quite possible I've already mentioned this at or near the top of the thread.

Agree with the borders, disagree with the lack of sign cutout.

Agreed. IMO, not cutting it out is a waste of money/material.

Quote from: DaBigE on August 01, 2013, 02:05:36 PM

Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 12:18:58 AM

Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2013, 11:55:14 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
A green circle saying "you must do X"

Must, or may?  Does this mean that, in order to drive on I-270, I must carry hazardous materials?

(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/ohio070/i-070_wb_exit_108b_02.jpg)

PS – this is how borders should be done with exit tabs.  I don't think the MUTCD explicitly prohibits this style, but it certainly doesn't promote it.  And it's quite possible I've already mentioned this at or near the top of the thread.

Agree with the borders, disagree with the lack of sign cutout.

Agreed. IMO, not cutting it out is a waste of money/material.

It's probably waste material anyway, and the cost may be slightly higher to cut it out. (Depends if the tabs are integral or machined separately, which varies by state.) My concern is with the aesthetics of a large blank field outside the sign borders.

The logic in Europe is red circle = 'prohibition, restriction or limit' (ie, speed or dimensional limit or a prohibited action or use); green circle = 'permitted but NOT mandatory' and blue disk with white legend = 'mandatory action' (ie, required turn, keep right/left 'drive on this side of the sign', minimum speed in clear traffic, etc).

I like it - and I seriously doubt that anyone 'across the pond' ever mistakes those regulatory signs for motorway Big Blue Signs.

:nod:

BTW, under that logic, those Ohio BGSes would be interpreted as 'hazmats CAN use that route'.

Mike

Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 08:14:01 PMIt's probably waste material anyway, and the cost may be slightly higher to cut it out. (Depends if the tabs are integral or machined separately, which varies by state.) My concern is with the aesthetics of a large blank field outside the sign borders.

If this were an ordinary Ohio DOT extrusheet sign, then the material would definitely be wasted, as there is provision in Ohio DOT's extrusheet sign standards for separate fabrication and mounting of exit tabs.  However, these signs rather unusually have sign lighting fixtures secured to the top edge of the main sign panel, which makes me wonder if Ohio DOT recycled sign substrates (probably dating from the 1960's before exit numbering became prevalent) that don't allow inclusion of separately mounted exit tabs.

Arizona DOT similarly lights freeway guide signs from above, but uses a different mounting standard for the luminaires, which allows the use of extruded aluminum panel signs of conventional design.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 02, 2013, 11:18:56 AM

Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 08:14:01 PMIt's probably waste material anyway, and the cost may be slightly higher to cut it out. (Depends if the tabs are integral or machined separately, which varies by state.) My concern is with the aesthetics of a large blank field outside the sign borders.

If this were an ordinary Ohio DOT extrusheet sign, then the material would definitely be wasted, as there is provision in Ohio DOT's extrusheet sign standards for separate fabrication and mounting of exit tabs.  However, these signs rather unusually have sign lighting fixtures secured to the top edge of the main sign panel, which makes me wonder if Ohio DOT recycled sign substrates (probably dating from the 1960's before exit numbering became prevalent) that don't allow inclusion of separately mounted exit tabs.

That would explain the slightly darker shade of green in that area, which I suspect is not retroreflective.

Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2013, 11:55:14 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
A green circle saying "you must do X"

Must, or may?  Does this mean that, in order to drive on I-270, I must carry hazardous materials?

No, but it does mean that, if you're carrying hazardous materials, you must drive on I-270.

(Yes, I realize that, taken at its literal meaning, it only means that hazmat carriers may use I-270, but in context with other signs more explicitly spelling out the restrictions (http://goo.gl/maps/CWeXK) it's clear the intended message is a compulsory one. Also, I just thought it would be amusing to phrase it that way.)

Quote
PS – this is how borders should be done with exit tabs.  I don't think the MUTCD explicitly prohibits this style, but it certainly doesn't promote it.  And it's quite possible I've already mentioned this at or near the top of the thread.

Definitely agreed. That's my preferred style of border for "exit only" panels too--I like the look of one continuous border that just happens to change color.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 02, 2013, 11:18:56 AM

Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 08:14:01 PMIt's probably waste material anyway, and the cost may be slightly higher to cut it out. (Depends if the tabs are integral or machined separately, which varies by state.) My concern is with the aesthetics of a large blank field outside the sign borders.

If this were an ordinary Ohio DOT extrusheet sign, then the material would definitely be wasted, as there is provision in Ohio DOT's extrusheet sign standards for separate fabrication and mounting of exit tabs.  However, these signs rather unusually have sign lighting fixtures secured to the top edge of the main sign panel, which makes me wonder if Ohio DOT recycled sign substrates (probably dating from the 1960's before exit numbering became prevalent) that don't allow inclusion of separately mounted exit tabs.

Arizona DOT similarly lights freeway guide signs from above, but uses a different mounting standard for the luminaires, which allows the use of extruded aluminum panel signs of conventional design.

FWIW, in the Columbus area at least, those signs with the lights mounted overhead seem restricted largely (though not exclusively) to the eastern stretch of I-70, from downtown out to Reynoldsburg or so. They came about at an odd time (ODOT had evidently discontinued button copy but was still including lighting with new signs), so I had always assumed they represented some strange one-off signing project.

Quote from: Central Avenue on August 06, 2013, 08:50:59 AM
FWIW, in the Columbus area at least, those signs with the lights mounted overhead seem restricted largely (though not exclusively) to the eastern stretch of I-70, from downtown out to Reynoldsburg or so. They came about at an odd time (ODOT had evidently discontinued button copy but was still including lighting with new signs), so I had always assumed they represented some strange one-off signing project.

They're also on I-670 east of I-71 and a decent portion of I-270.  But I'm pretty sure the lights were there when those signs were still button copy.  I assume the sign support structure and lighting were left in place when the new signs were installed.

Quote from: vtk on August 06, 2013, 02:32:51 PM

Quote from: Central Avenue on August 06, 2013, 08:50:59 AM
FWIW, in the Columbus area at least, those signs with the lights mounted overhead seem restricted largely (though not exclusively) to the eastern stretch of I-70, from downtown out to Reynoldsburg or so. They came about at an odd time (ODOT had evidently discontinued button copy but was still including lighting with new signs), so I had always assumed they represented some strange one-off signing project.

They're also on I-670 east of I-71 and a decent portion of I-270.  But I'm pretty sure the lights were there when those signs were still button copy.  I assume the sign support structure and lighting were left in place when the new signs were installed.

My bad, I meant to specify retroreflective signs with lights overhead. I think most of the ones on I-670 east of I-71 are (or at least were at one point) button copy.

Quote from: vtk on August 06, 2013, 02:32:51 PM

Quote from: Central Avenue on August 06, 2013, 08:50:59 AM
FWIW, in the Columbus area at least, those signs with the lights mounted overhead seem restricted largely (though not exclusively) to the eastern stretch of I-70, from downtown out to Reynoldsburg or so. They came about at an odd time (ODOT had evidently discontinued button copy but was still including lighting with new signs), so I had always assumed they represented some strange one-off signing project.

They're also on I-670 east of I-71 and a decent portion of I-270.  But I'm pretty sure the lights were there when those signs were still button copy.  I assume the sign support structure and lighting were left in place when the new signs were installed.

Around Pittsburgh, a lot of lit overhead signs have the lights above in the airport area.  I've always assumed the airport was the reasoning behind it here.  Not 100% sure that's why, or if it could possibly have anything to do with those Columbus signs.

Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 08:14:01 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on August 01, 2013, 02:05:36 PM

Quote from: Steve on August 01, 2013, 12:18:58 AM

Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2013, 11:55:14 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 31, 2013, 09:36:02 PM
A green circle saying "you must do X"

Must, or may?  Does this mean that, in order to drive on I-270, I must carry hazardous materials?

(https://www.aaroads.com/midwest/ohio070/i-070_wb_exit_108b_02.jpg)

PS — this is how borders should be done with exit tabs.  I don't think the MUTCD explicitly prohibits this style, but it certainly doesn't promote it.  And it's quite possible I've already mentioned this at or near the top of the thread.

Agree with the borders, disagree with the lack of sign cutout.

Agreed. IMO, not cutting it out is a waste of money/material.

It's probably waste material anyway, and the cost may be slightly higher to cut it out. (Depends if the tabs are integral or machined separately, which varies by state.) My concern is with the aesthetics of a large blank field outside the sign borders.

Note that this sign assembly is top lit, something I do not recall as being common in Ohio.  Usually when top lit, you would expect this to be near an airport or some background light sensitive facility, hence cutting out the non tab area would be counterproductive.

Given modern reflectivity standards, I'm surprised that anyone lights their overhead signs anymore. None that I know of in Kentucky are lit, although there are still some lighting brackets existing on some of the overheads in Louisville.

On Long Island, NYS DOT has recently replaced many overhead signs and taken down all the light fixtures. I'm not sure if the new signs are any more reflective than the old ones were.

With all the over-reach in the MUTCD as late, I have one gripe:

Why isn't it mandating one BGS font nationally, with a must-comply-by date?  If there's anything I hate, it's inconsistency in things like this.  Clearview on this sign, FHWA on this sign right next to it, Clearview on the next two signs, then FHWA on the one after that. GAAAAHHHHH!!!!

The states need to be told to either replace all signs with Clearview signs or go back to FHWA entirely, by a certain date.  And given that it seems the FHWA has not been terribly impressed with Clearview, I'm thinking if such a thing did happen, they'd probably say go back to FHWA.

Meh. I could understand the logic to mandating one typeface or the other moving forward, but requiring that all existing signs be changed solely so the typeface matches those around it would be a MASSIVE waste of money.

I agree that mandated a single font (definitely NOT Clearview) would be for the better.

Another area where the 2009 Manual is over-engineered is re: signing of left-hand exits. I agree that left exits did need better signing at a greater distance than was usually done in years past. And the idea of the word LEFT in the yellow box on the exit number tab is very clear and eye-catching.

But, I don't think that word LEFT needed to be shown on every sign in the sequence.  It should be on the advance signs showing mileage to the exit. But on the exit direction sign it's redundant. You already have an arrow on the left side of the sign pointing to the left. So why do we need the word LEFT?   I guess the idea was to maintain a standard message thru the sign sequence, which normally I would agree with. But in this case it results in unnecessary clutter in our already increasingly complex sign displays.

Quote from: Central Avenue on August 09, 2013, 04:58:57 PM
Meh. I could understand the logic to mandating one typeface or the other moving forward, but requiring that all existing signs be changed solely so the typeface matches those around it would be a MASSIVE waste of money.

Just like it would be a massive waste of money requiring the use of a font that has time and time again been pointed out to have minimal sight improvements in arguably questionable/skewed studies over the current FHWA specs.

Quote from: DaBigE on August 09, 2013, 07:06:38 PM

Quote from: Central Avenue on August 09, 2013, 04:58:57 PM
Meh. I could understand the logic to mandating one typeface or the other moving forward, but requiring that all existing signs be changed solely so the typeface matches those around it would be a MASSIVE waste of money.

Just like it would be a massive waste of money requiring the use of a font that has time and time again been pointed out to have minimal sight improvements in arguably questionable/skewed studies over the current FHWA specs.

That's not what I'm saying, though. As it is, nobody is mandating that perfectly good signage be replaced solely to change typefaces.

I wouldn't object if the FHWA were to pull the plug on Clearview and mandate the use of FHWA Series on all new signage. But I certainly would object if the FHWA were to mandate that all existing Clearview signage be replaced with FHWA typeface, as the majority of Clearview signs are perfectly functional and have many years of service life left.

Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 09, 2013, 04:17:23 PM

The states need to be told to either replace all signs with Clearview signs or go back to FHWA entirely, by a certain date.

Why?

(Of course, I think that states should be able to use whatever font they want on their signs, so having Clearview and FHWA in succession doesn't bother me. Neither would a state using Helvetica or Franklin Gothic on its guide signs.)

"Oops, I printed a sign in Wingdings."
"Install it - HB says it's OK."

You just know many smaller communities would jump at the chance to post speed limits in Wingdings. :P

On a serious note, removing standardization from typefaces would quickly turn into a disaster, IMO, because you'd immediately get people favoring form over function. Any community that wanted to look "upscale" would immediately start posting signs in some intricate serif typeface that's illegible at highway speeds...

While I agree that guide, warning and regulatory signs should all be in a standardized typeface, I think there should be some flexibility when it comes to street blades.  In and around where I live, there is a broad mix of typefaces for street blade signs.  While some cities use FHWA Series (San Jose, Mountain View, Sunnyvale) or Clearview (Santa Clara) either in all-caps or mixed case, others have chosen to use a different font.  The city of Cupertino uses Bookman on it's blades while Saratoga and Los Altos use a "non-standard" font that I have not been able to identify.

Street blades are guide signs too, aren't they? Personally, I think they should be subject to the same font set as other guide signs.  Also, MUTCD should contain more guidance on placement: not too far from the actual street, not obscured by trees, and not just below the light fixture on a lamp post.

As I recently mentioned in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9486.0), I don't think exit numbering schemes on muitiplexes should be required to follow an Interstate route.  If this were enforced, the Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey Turnpikes, and the New York State Thruway, would have nonsensical exit numbering sequences when looking at each toll road as a through route, and their exit numbers would be useless when calculating tolls.  I think a toll road should be allowed to retain its own exit numbers throughout its entire length.

You make a good point. The New York Thruway is an especially good example of this problem as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. The FWHA in trying to create a generic, standardized numbering system, will cause havoc with the existing tolls roads' exit numbering.

At least on the New Jersey Turnpike, they could make it mile-based on both I-95 and the Turnpike by simply continuing the numbering from Pennsylvania. Nothing says they have to start at zero.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744

As for the Thruway, that kind of makes sense with separate numbering on I-87 and I-90, given the major change in direction.

In the case of Kansas, there wouldn't be much of a problem, since most people tend to follow the numbers rather than the Turnpike as a whole. I-335 is practically empty.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 18, 2013, 02:06:37 PM
In the case of Kansas, there wouldn't be much of a problem, since most people tend to follow the numbers rather than the Turnpike as a whole. I-335 is practically empty.

I have a problem with Exit 182 becoming Exit 11.*  The Turnpike is still the most efficient route between Wichita and Lawrence, which takes you through all of the Interstate changes.

I could see switching to I-70's exit numbers as being justified, but only for I-70.  I would hope that I-335 would still continue the I-35 exit numbering.  Exit 147 should not be Exit 20, and Exit 177 should not be Exit 50.

My preference is still to use Turnpike numbering for the whole Turnpike, though.

*You could easily fix this by truncating I-470 at the Turnpike and extending I-335 to Exit 182, assuming I-335 keeps I-35's exit numbering.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 17, 2013, 10:59:48 PM
As I recently mentioned in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9486.0), I don't think exit numbering schemes on muitiplexes should be required to follow an Interstate route.  If this were enforced, the Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey Turnpikes, and the New York State Thruway, would have nonsensical exit numbering sequences when looking at each toll road as a through route, and their exit numbers would be useless when calculating tolls.  I think a toll road should be allowed to retain its own exit numbers throughout its entire length.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike numbering already follows the interstates.  I-276 simply picks up from I-76 instead of starting at 0.  Back when PA was sequential, PA 9's exit numbers were a continuation of the Turnpike mainline's.

It's worth noting that the Massachusetts Turnpike doesn't have this problem.

The Connecticut Turnpike is an interesting example, with I-95 skipping a bunch of numbers when it leaves the Turnpike.  The Maine Turnpike also had some... interesting stuff happen with Bypass US 1 and I-495 back when Maine was sequential.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 18, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
You make a good point. The New York Thruway is an especially good example of this problem as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. The FWHA in trying to create a generic, standardized numbering system, will cause havoc with the existing tolls roads' exit numbering.

NYSDOT and NYSTA plan to re-milepost the Thruway so that it starts at the PA line near Ripley should NY go mileage based.  I-90 would have one set of numbers.  I-87 would be bizarre, starting at 0 and counting up on the Deegan, counting down on the Thruway, and then resuming its own numbering on the Northway.

Quote from: NE2 on August 18, 2013, 11:41:54 AM
At least on the New Jersey Turnpike, they could make it mile-based on both I-95 and the Turnpike by simply continuing the numbering from Pennsylvania. Nothing says they have to start at zero.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744

As for the Thruway, that kind of makes sense with separate numbering on I-87 and I-90, given the major change in direction.

NJ has a plan for this, but I don't remember what it is.  Steve?

Oh geez, Vdeane........ What a "treat" that'll be if NYSTA reverses the order of mileposting. I've spent many years getting straight with the old mileposts from NYC to Newburgh (1-76) while sometimes listening to the Thruway Authority's radio system. Reversing the order will be a disaster for me.........

I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that I'll continue using the old sequential numbers until I die, which would be very weird with a re-mileposted Thruway (I have the mileposts for 33-34A and 39-48A practically memorized, though I have to start adding numbers past 42 or 43... no need to learn 35-38 since they're so close together).  Plus how would I find the silo with a smiley face (and Snoopy right next to it) without the current mileposts?

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 18, 2013, 02:20:15 PMThe Turnpike is still the most efficient route between Wichita and Lawrence, which takes you through all of the Interstate changes.

The completion of the US 59 freeway changes that. I had the opportunity to drive both routes last month (only reason I did the Turnpike was to clinch interstates) and I see no reason to prefer the toll road over the free route, especially if your destination is the south side of Lawrence where the development is and the university as well.

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2013, 07:47:52 PM
The Pennsylvania Turnpike numbering already follows the interstates.  I-276 simply picks up from I-76 instead of starting at 0.  Back when PA was sequential, PA 9's exit numbers were a continuation of the Turnpike mainline's.

You're right; I was making the assumption that numbering had to start at 0.  Thanks to you and NE2 for pointing out that it doesn't.  I still wish the MUTCD was more permissive in this, rather than forcing toll road authorities to find a loophole in order to use their own exit numbering systems, which only works in a few specific examples.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 18, 2013, 09:49:39 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 18, 2013, 02:20:15 PMThe Turnpike is still the most efficient route between Wichita and Lawrence, which takes you through all of the Interstate changes.

The completion of the US 59 freeway changes that. I had the opportunity to drive both routes last month (only reason I did the Turnpike was to clinch interstates) and I see no reason to prefer the toll road over the free route, especially if your destination is the south side of Lawrence where the development is and the university as well.

Measuring from city hall to city hall, Google shows the Turnpike as having a 9-mile or 14-minute (in current traffic as of this posting) advantage.

I will admit, however, that the US 59 freeway seems to be a case where a non-tolled freeway disincentivizes the use of a toll road (just as the non-tolled I-35 freeway has done for a long time).  As troubling as this is, it's hardly a fault of the MUTCD.

There's no such thing as a "free route."

At the 76/80 bump in Ohio, the Turnpike uses its own numbering, while free I-76 and free I-80 use their own numbering.  However, the Turnpike's mileage and I-80's mileage are identical at this point, so the only noticeable discontinuity is if you're following I-76. 

On the other hand, I think I'd actually prefer if free I-80 were to continue free I-76's exit numbers.  But I suppose that only makes sense if the 76—80 free movement is considered much more significant than I-80 itself.  And that conclusion only makes sense if you ignore Cleveland and Chicago.

Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2013, 07:47:52 PM

Quote from: NE2 on August 18, 2013, 11:41:54 AM
At least on the New Jersey Turnpike, they could make it mile-based on both I-95 and the Turnpike by simply continuing the numbering from Pennsylvania. Nothing says they have to start at zero.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744

As for the Thruway, that kind of makes sense with separate numbering on I-87 and I-90, given the major change in direction.

NJ has a plan for this, but I don't remember what it is.  Steve?

O hai. Well, I did develop a scheme for the NJTA, but I would hesitate to say "they have a plan for this." They have a few ideas of what they might do, but it won't be decided until the changeover's time comes. I would imagine, though, that I-78 would remain separately numbered, and I-95 will have continuous numbering from what's now I-276, whatever those numbers may be.

Part of my reasoning behind the "gripe" about exit numbers being required to follow an Interstate route in multiplexes is that, in many cases, I consider toll roads to be higher on the hierarchy than non-tolled interstates, as toll roads often have interchanges spaced more widely apart, and they sometimes have higher speed limits.  In a rational system, the highest road in the hierarchy would be the one with the toll, and the highest-level road would be the one whose exit numbers are dominant in multiplexes where the numbered routes change.  Perhaps this is a mere perception, though, and it's conceivable that toll road authorities will build more-frequent interchanges after conversion to AET (the Pennsylvania Turnpike implicitly states this; see http://www.paturnpike.com/aet_public/pdfs/AET_Feasibility_Report_printable.pdf pages 25-26).  I also speculate that the FHWA considers Interstates dominant among all forms or roads, regardless of their design.

Changing toll roads' exit numbers, however, still affects the way tickets (for ticket-based systems) and online toll calculators are designed for users of said roads.  Rather than showing a non-sequential series of exit numbers, they should either separate the different Interstate routes as "legs" of the system, the way the Pennsylvania Turnpike tickets separate the mainline from the Northeast Extension, or they should adopt a special numbering format such as "[route number]:[exit number]."

I would also like to see the MUTCD give more guidance on the signing of TOTSOs, which, of course, are common on toll roads.  The fundamental question is whether to sign the continuing Interstate route or the highway mainline as the exit, and examples of both exist in the field, although I believe the former is more prevalent.  It seems intuitive that, if exit numbers follow an Interstate route, then the mainline from which the Interstate departs should be signed as the exit, although this should also be taken into consideration when designing toll tickets and online calculators.

I think the FHWA is currently trying to pretend that TOTSOs don't exist on freeways.

Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
I think the FHWA is currently trying to pretend that TOTSOs don't exist on freeways.

Every Interstate overlap necessarily has a TOTSO at either end. FHWA should address this better than they currently do.

Okay, I have to admit to being naïve and ignorant here. What does TOTSO mean?

Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2013, 05:04:57 PM
Okay, I have to admit to being naïve and ignorant here. What does TOTSO mean?

Learn to fish: http://www.google.com/search?q=totso

Thank you!  Ya' know I don't friggin' believe this. I had tried a Google search before posting my question, using UPPER CASE letters and it does not get the same results as using lower case. Ya' just can't miss a friggin' trick with anything. My whole day today has been full of frustrating crap like this......... 

Sorry for the venting. The official term for totso used in MUTCD used to be route discontinuity in the older editions but I don't see it used in the 2009 edition.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2013, 05:33:20 PM
The official term for totso used in MUTCD used to be route discontinuity in the older editions but I don't see it used in the 2009 edition.

I would have thought a "route discontinuity" was something completely different.  like I-710 between Valley Boulevard and Pasadena is a route discontinuity.

(Chuckle!) Yes, I've been to L.A. and I'm familiar with that location.  I guess that's a different kind of route discontinuity. The Manual used to describe the situation where at a split with an option-lane or a lane-drop, the exit would be straight ahead and the dominant signed route would curve off left or right. But again, they do not use that term anymore in the current Manual. I always thought it was a nice crisp sounding term to use though!

Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2013, 05:33:20 PM
The official term for totso used in MUTCD used to be route discontinuity in the older editions but I don't see it used in the 2009 edition.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/millennium/06.14.01/errata.pdf has a bunch of 'delete "and Route Discontinuity." ' instructions. But even before that, it seems to be only used in reference to that one figure.

Well, I'm dating myself here; I still have my 2 previous Manuals. It appeared in the 1988 edition on page 2F-19, figure 2-31, signing illustration for a 2-lane exit with optional lane and route discontinuity. In the 2000 Manual, the same diagram appears on page 2E-25, figure 2E-6, and omits the words route discontinuity from the description as does the 2009 Manual's similar diagram on page-196, figure 2E-5. However this time the words Through Lanes Curve to the Left have been added.   

Quote from: vtk on August 21, 2013, 11:25:43 PM

Quote from: vdeane on August 21, 2013, 09:41:49 PM
I think the FHWA is currently trying to pretend that TOTSOs don't exist on freeways.

Every Interstate overlap necessarily has a TOTSO at either end. FHWA should address this better than they currently do.

Not necessarily.
http://goo.gl/maps/vaPKY

Vdeane and vtk, I couldn't read the blurry signs in that link you posted. In what way do you feel that TOTSO's are not well addressed in the MUTCD? And what improvements would you like to see?

Hmmm...........my wheels are turning slowly tonight. I think the route discontinuity issue I referred to in the MUTCD only relates to the exit being the straight route and the thru route curving away.

But the TOTSO issue that some of you brought up is where you have to exit the road you're on to stay on the Interstate route. Have I got that right?

And an example would be southbound on the NJ Turnpike taking Exit-6 to the Pennsy Pike to stay on I-95, eventually when it's finally all built.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2013, 09:44:24 PM
But the TOTSO issue that some of you brought up is where you have to exit the road you're on to stay on the Interstate route. Have I got that right?

And an example would be southbound on the NJ Turnpike taking Exit-6 to the Pennsy Pike to stay on I-95, eventually when it's finally all built.

Yes. Although that's a gentle enough split that you could easily call staying on the Turnpike the exit. A better example is the Ohio Turnpike near Youngstown, where I-76 and I-80 both "TOTSO" twice.

I'm wondering whether this method of TOTSO signing is MUTCD-compliant (pretend the I-49 shields were up by the time the Google car came by):

https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.049281,-94.426951&spn=0.000394,0.00066&t=k&z=21&layer=c&cbll=37.049281,-94.426951&panoid=g9QES5-NCL1slxp-bqILjA&cbp=12,7.21,,0,6.58

https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.056601,-94.42642&spn=0.001574,0.002642&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.056514,-94.426415&panoid=RMRveB-3Vjrr1_wVlkBGgQ&cbp=12,349.97,,0,3.84

If the mainline is being signed as the exit (Exit 39B, in this case), then isn't it, according to the MUTCD, supposed to be signed as a two-lane lane drop, with the black-on-yellow "LEFT" exit plaque?  And shouldn't the exit gore sign in the second image have an up arrow on the left side, instead of the diagonal right arrow?

This is why the MUTCD is unclear about signing TOTSOs.  It gives no guidance in situations where a through-route Interstate takes a single-lane departure that is not a lane drop.

Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Keep in mind that all of the above examples are very recent in terms of the lifespan of overhead guide signs.

So a TOTSO is what we roadgeeks often refer to as "Exit to Self" then...gotcha.

Quote from: OracleUsr on August 22, 2013, 11:10:18 PM
So a TOTSO is what we roadgeeks often refer to as "Exit to Self" then...gotcha.

"TOTSO" is just another roadgeek term.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 22, 2013, 10:52:03 PM
Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Couldn't one argue that the through route is the Kansas Turnpike?

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 23, 2013, 01:19:39 AM

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 22, 2013, 10:52:03 PM
Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Couldn't one argue that the through route is the Kansas Turnpike?

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31

QuoteWhere numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes (see Figure 2E-21). If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering.

Technically this doesn't apply, since KTA is not a number, but it's definitely intended to. However, nothing prevents them from beginning I-335 at mile 127.

Quote from: NE2 on August 23, 2013, 01:33:54 AM

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 23, 2013, 01:19:39 AM

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 22, 2013, 10:52:03 PM
Here's another MUTCD headache:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.413206,-96.238711&spn=0.004338,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.413477,-96.238524&panoid=8OO1yCje8QqnbZUO79MTfg&cbp=12,37.28,,0,-1.19

Couldn't one argue that the through route is the Kansas Turnpike?

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E31

QuoteWhere numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes (see Figure 2E-21). If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering.

Technically this doesn't apply, since KTA is not a number, but it's definitely intended to. However, nothing prevents them from beginning I-335 at mile 127.

Also, there's technically nothing in the MUTCD that prohibits an Interstate through route from existing on its own exit, so signing NB I-35 as the exit here is technically okay.  If you wanted to sign I-335/The Kansas Turnpike as the exit, though, then you would have to use lane drop and left exit signage, according to my understanding of the MUTCD.  As counter-intuitive as it may be to sign an Interstate through route as its own exit, it is probably the only MUTCD-sanctioned method of signing a single-lane TOTSO that is not a lane drop (and I say "only" by interpreting this through process of elimination), unless you sign all mainline lanes as a left-exit lane drop.  The MUTCD doesn't even specifically address any form of TOTSO; it only addresses "a multi-lane exit having an optional exit lane that also carries the through route..." (all over Chapter 2E).

There are three problems with the Kansas Turnpike Exit 127 signage, though: (1) in accordance with MUTCD rules on exit numbering, it is supposed to be Exit 127A, and I-35 Exit 127A (US 50/6th Ave) should then be Exit 127B; (2) only one route is supposed to be signed for Kansas City ("At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route," Section 2E.13) (this is a tough issue to address, as some parts of Kansas City, MO and most of Kansas City, KS are better served by the Turnpike, while other parts of Kansas City, MO are better served by I-35, but I think the MUTCD's preference is to leave I-35 signed for Kansas City, since it is the official control city for I-35 at this point, and only sign I-335/The Kansas Turnpike for Topeka, since Kansas City is only a control city for I-70 and not I-335); (3) the exit direction sign is supposed to include the cardinal direction (North, for I-35).  Also, I'm pretty sure the I-335 shield is supposed to be placed to the left of the KTA shield, as Interstates are always primary, and toll routes, by process of elimination, are subordinate to all other numbered routes.

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 23, 2013, 07:48:39 PM
Kansas City is only a control city for I-70 and not I-335

[citation needed]

Quote from: NE2 on August 23, 2013, 07:59:04 PM

Quote from: stridentweasel on August 23, 2013, 07:48:39 PM
Kansas City is only a control city for I-70 and not I-335

[citation needed]

All right; I can't find the AASHTO's full list of control cities right now, so I'll have to save that for later Googling.  Even if I'm wrong, though, that doesn't get over the MUTCD requirement of only having one route indicate a given destination.

Now that I think of it, I wonder if an outside lane can be considered an optional exit lane.  If so, then this would technically allow APL or diagrammatic signage for single-lane TOTSOs that aren't lane drops.  The "Support" in Section 2E.20, though, indicates that the intent of the MUTCD is only to treat an interior lane as an option lane.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2818%2F9413393407_11a063b29a.jpg&hash=feb744e5d039ff452fd8f9548bfeec0ddbcef52e)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7331%2F9413393673_d3fa40357f.jpg&hash=66e77a928c7f1b9e218c3901c13801ad5e223e6b)

Schneider staying on 335?  Oh the calamity.  Must be going to Topeka.

(All of the mega-carriers LOVE to shunpike whenever possible, mine included.)

Quote from: hbelkins on August 23, 2013, 11:23:50 PM

Nice photos!  Neither of those examples is fully MUTCD-compliant, but that doesn't necessarily bother me.  A couple of things that bother me, though, are that the diagrammatic sign implies a northbound US 50, and that it depicts a number 3 lane that doesn't exist.  ;-)

Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2013, 09:32:04 PM
Vdeane and vtk, I couldn't read the blurry signs in that link you posted. In what way do you feel that TOTSO's are not well addressed in the MUTCD? And what improvements would you like to see?

It's where NY 17 (future I-86) splits off from I-81 east of Binghamton.  Note the lack of an exit number and how the pavement splits so evenly that there really isn't a mainline (at least in terms of lanes; traffic counts are another story).  The other end of the split is similar but complicated by Kamikaze Curve (plus the Southern Tier Expressway has much more traffic than the Quickway).

Hbelkins and Strident, "what were they thinkin"? Kansas City shouldn't appear  on the I-335 sign, just Topeka. And why isn't the direction north shown for I-35 on the overhead sign? Inconsistent messages again...........

However there are some places where it is reasonable to show the same destinations for 2 parallel routes, even though the Manual discourages it in most cases. We have a situation on Long Island where I-495, (the L.I. Expwy), and Northern State Pkwy. run parallel a short distance apart and both are signed for New York as they are equally good routes.

You might as well disallow putting the same control city on local and express lanes. If two routes are roughly equal, they should have the same control city.

And one of the signs says "Kans City" instead.

Well, for the record the MUTCD section on designation of destinations (Sec. 2E-13) reads: Successive freeway guide signs shall provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information.

And: At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.

So these are mandatory standards and I assume that the split for local and express lanes meets the definition of a decision point. And that the signing at some splits for those parallel Long Island routes to New York is not in compliance. Oh well.........

Quote from: SignBridge on August 24, 2013, 08:51:57 PM
Well, for the record the MUTCD section on designation of destinations (Sec. 2E-13) reads: Successive freeway guide signs shall provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information.

And: At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.

So these are mandatory standards and I assume that the split for local and express lanes meets the definition of a decision point. And that the signing at some splits for those parallel Long Island routes to New York is not in compliance. Oh well.........

Sort of like this in Indiana fro Chicago: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.599351,-87.198372&spn=0.006138,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.599351,-87.198372&panoid=Q56qf2uQsuCqWw9NkwrvOA&cbp=12,254.18,,0,2.2 ?

Yes, very similar.

I see no problem with providing and option as in the I-94 example I linked to or the I-35/I-335 example above.  Both lead to the destination, and both routes are about equal in length.  Even more so, in the I-94 example, there is no intervening control city between the sign and Chicago as there is in the I-35/I-335 example, that being Topeka and Emporia.

Assuming that we accept the idea of signing both routes to Kansas City (non-compliance with MUTCD) then K.C. should have also been shown on the diagrammatic sign, instead of them throwing it into the mix at the gore point which could confuse a driver into making a dangerous move.

Remember too that the Manual requires consistent destination legend thru each exit sign sequence to avoid that problem. Interestingly, we just had a big discussion about this on the New Jersey Turnpike/Garden State Pkwy. thread in the Northeast Section of the forum.

Quote from: Brandon on August 24, 2013, 09:42:06 PM
I see no problem with providing and option as in the I-94 example I linked to or the I-35/I-335 example above.  Both lead to the destination, and both routes are about equal in length.  Even more so, in the I-94 example, there is no intervening control city between the sign and Chicago as there is in the I-35/I-335 example, that being Topeka and Emporia.

I don't have a problem with signing the same destination for two routes at a decision point.  It makes perfect sense, in both examples, and I don't think the concept that two roads go to a single large city should be too confusing for motorists to comprehend.  Honestly, I think this is another area where the MUTCD is overly restrictive.  In fact, it creates situations where it's impossible to apply control cities in a consistent fashion, which I think is something the MUTCD encourages.

Quote from: SignBridge on August 24, 2013, 08:14:34 PM
Hbelkins and Strident, "what were they thinkin"? Kansas City shouldn't appear  on the I-335 sign, just Topeka. And why isn't the direction north shown for I-35 on the overhead sign? Inconsistent messages again...........

Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2013, 08:34:00 PM
And one of the signs says "Kans City" instead.

This is because the sign at the actual split is much newer than the 90s-vintage diagrammatic. It was replaced when the exit was reconfigured in the late 2000s. Prior to that, we had this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Kta_127.jpg/800px-Kta_127.jpg)

Kansas City makes sense being on both panels because I-35 and the Turnpike are both equally valid methods of reaching Kansas City. One does not really incur much of a delay through Topeka. In fact, if you are headed for certain parts of the Kansas City metro, like the Legends/racetrack area, the Turnpike seems a lot faster because you don't have to go through Johnson County, and there is much less suburban development along I-70 outside of I-435.

Sorry for bumping the thread, but a similar situation exists in Sun Valley, CA:

CA-170 splits off from I-5.  I-5 is signed for Los Angeles and CA-170 is signed for Hollywood.  (The control city for southbound 170 at every local street Roscoe, Victory, etc. is Los Angeles, we only see Hollywood at the freeway junction.)  I-5 to 110 and 170 to 101 are almost equally good routes to reach Downtown LA.  I-5 tends to be slightly less crowded, but 170 is more direct to the Four Level Interchange, especially considering that trucks are not allowed on the 110.

If I had the authority, I would change the signs to read:

I-5 Los Angeles via Burbank
170 Los Angeles via Hollywood

That's actually the original state from 1962:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scvresources.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2F62-7V13C24_170-5_detail.jpg&hash=fa12068d64149eabc6eb9ef1939219469abc93b3)
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9308

I guess the Hollywood Freeway was seen as the through-Hollywood route, while the Golden State was a bit of a bypass.

Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2013, 10:12:25 AM
I guess the Hollywood Freeway was seen as the through-Hollywood route, while the Golden State was a bit of a bypass.

well, it is.  the Hollywood Freeway cuts through much more of urban LA, especially 1962 urban LA. 

Counties should be told that Clearview is forbidden on Street Name signs. Really...it makes the sign feel out of line.

Also, counties should be encouraged to use exact block numbering if they use such numbering on their signs.

Quote from: mjb2002 on October 25, 2013, 02:35:07 PM
Counties should be told that Clearview is forbidden on Street Name signs. Really...it makes the sign feel out of line.

Also, counties should be encouraged to use exact block numbering if they use such numbering on their signs.

Franklin County's CV signs are passable.

"Block numbering" itself should not be used except where convenient address number ranges literally and without exception align with the physical blocks formed by numbered streets.  I don't have a problem with address numbers appearing on street signs, but authorities shouldn't be able to use the phrase "the 2300 block" of a street unless it literally refers to a section between two intersections, ideally with cross streets called 23rd and 24th.  In most places, this doesn't hold up; you can't just replace the last two digits of a house number with zeroes and call it a "block number".

I'm not sure where this would go, so I'll just post it here since it relates to the MUTCD.

So, I was browsing the 2003 MUTCD just for funsies when I came to the guide sign section. Then I saw all of these monstrosities:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2F03MUTCD_WTF_1_zpsf7bc3354.png&hash=c15f9cc1880a89ad3b26ca0fa509f9614cc7310e)
(US 22 WB extended to Trenton, nice, but what the hell is with the size of everything)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2F03MUTCD_WTF_2_zpsbfe9ddee.png&hash=99dfcae2d79cc328ae4996125fb9fe37902afae2)
(Those are some huge shields and arrows, and what the holy fuck is that US 40-looking shield??)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2F03MUTCD_WTF_3_zps32cfcfbf.png&hash=15ba59ff9ade2a6b16d320c711ac9f9e7cc38c46)
(Once again huge shields and arrows, and the I-42 EAST legend is off-centered from the destination legend...)

So, what the hell? Is there a particular reason the signs look disproportionate and generally ugly? Because the 2009 edition doesn't have super fugly looking BGS like these.

Some of the artists and CAD designers who made the '03 edition were too damn lazy to follow their own specs!  :happy: Look at how ugly those examples are. I mean, take the Trenton example. Why is it showing a white-on-green LEFT panel when they should have put a black-on-yellow LEFT panel? What could have the designers gone wrong with the disproportionate APL arrows, and oversized shields? Um, yeah, so much for practicing what you preach?

I too noticed that the graphics in the 2003 Manual were poorly done and did not reflect the written standards. I even contacted the FHWA about it and they did acknowledge that there were "issues" with some of the graphics, but reminded me that the written standard is the rule, not the graphics. It looks like the problems were corrected in the 2009 Manual. To put it another way, I think they realized how badly they'd screwed up, (especially compared to the 1988 Manual which was much better) and made sure to correct it in 2009.

It amuses me to see people heaping criticism on the illustrations in the 2003 edition when those were light-years better than the ones in the Millennium edition, which were unspeakably awful--wrong typefaces, mismatched colors, etc.

Quote from: J N Winkler on October 25, 2013, 11:36:19 PM
It amuses me to see people heaping criticism on the illustrations in the 2003 edition when those were light-years better than the ones in the Millennium edition, which were unspeakably awful--wrong typefaces, mismatched colors, etc.

I didn't believe you at first. But then I saw these:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2F00MUTCD_WTF_1_zps6deda71b.png&hash=1b60e7165684fc694b6c84524be6d6fdd5246c66)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2F00MUTCD_WTF_2_zpsd495d8ec.png&hash=b624f1e6714d27eade48691a86ff5cf087ed89f4)

What.The.Hell. Even my first road signs I've ever made look better than THAT.

Gentlemen I stand corrected. My reference should have been to the 2000 Manual, when I contacted FHWA, not the 2003 edition. Mr. Winkler's post is correct. I still have that book, but had forgotten which year it was, when I read Zeffy's comments. The 2009 edition is a definite improvement, more like the 1988 Manual.

I probably heaved too much criticism on the '03 edition. I just took a peak at the '00 edition and it's the lamest MUTCD manual to print, like some have already mentioned. The "acorn" style US shield was so horrible, even worse with the 3di. They had a bubble I-495 shield and they were using too bright of a federal MUTCD green Scratch that. I guess the '00 edition didn't use a brighter green. I thought for a second they were, but they're not. The '09 edition goes lightyears ahead of '00 and '03. '03 wasn't the best, but not the worst unlike '00. '09 is pretty similar to the '88 manual other than a few corrections in the two revisions the FHWA made in the '09 MUTCD manual. If it were me to choose the best and worse, worse definitely goes to '00, best goes to '88 and '09 Rev's 1 and 2.

When we last left my "LEFT" exit tab gripe (way back on page 1), several suggested to allow putting the "LEFT" on the same line as the "EXIT #" text, thus resulting in a "single line height tab."

Like this, which I came across in the wild today...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modernmopars.com%2Froadgeek%2FLEFTEXIT7.jpg&hash=7470b3e4e99f20a0f058cfc3345075411f3aa4d0)

Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 03, 2013, 07:35:01 PM
When we last left my "LEFT" exit tab gripe (way back on page 1), several suggested to allow putting the "LEFT" on the same line as the "EXIT #" text, thus resulting in a "single line height tab."

Like this, which I came across in the wild today...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modernmopars.com%2Froadgeek%2FLEFTEXIT7.jpg&hash=7470b3e4e99f20a0f058cfc3345075411f3aa4d0)

I actually like that look. That and the Mass variant make the most sense to me.

I agree that the Illinois approach is more sensible and aesthetically pleasing. The Manual requirement in Sec. 2E-31-08 that the word left be displayed above the word exit makes for an unreasonably tall exit number tag. I guess the FHWA's idea was to make it very eye-catching, but it looks ungainly.

For many years left exits were often NOT sufficiently indicated in advance, requiring unfamiliar drivers to do some last-minute lane-changing. It seems like now the FHWA is trying to make up for lost time by over-signing left exits.

Has anyone noted how Caltrans is approaching this particular issue?  I can't wait to see what wacko arrangement they come up with.

Quote from: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 08:29:31 PM

Has anyone noted how Caltrans is approaching this particular issue?  I can't wait to see what wacko arrangement they come up with.

To them, "above" will mean "30 feet above on a separate sign".

Quote from: 1 on November 05, 2013, 09:42:12 PM
To them, "above" will mean "30 feet above on a separate sign".

If Caltrans won't even adapt external exit tabs I doubt they would put a LEFT banner anywhere but in the exit tab itself.

Quote from: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 08:29:31 PM
Has anyone noted how Caltrans is approaching this particular issue?  I can't wait to see what wacko arrangement they come up with.

Caltrans has actually gotten close to FHWA requirements with some left exits. They have spec'd out a left exit with internal tab, using a yellow left banner above the exit and number text. See this thread in the Pacific Southwest board (2 examples): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9700.0

Also, on the new Bay Bridge, Caltrans did something more like what is suggested in this thread, they put the yellow "left" message to the left of the exit text (although in separate 'tabs'). See this post: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8865.msg240157#msg240157

To expand on roadfro's post, here are drawings from the two linked-to topics that I made based on either a Caltrans signing plan (CA-55) or a photo (Treasure Island)...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2F91-55_LeftExit.png&hash=a42702e2f6e4e71e47be1d5e62d33e68d51b3ad1)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F80w_Exit4_NBB.png&hash=689563544c98d6af9197e91340ff7a8a219d6a0d)

While the first exit sign attempts to mimic the left exit tab mandated by the 2009 MUTCD, I find the second sign to me more visibly appealing.

I'd apparently been on that Calif. thread, but I'd forgotten. LOL Anyway, those signs are better than I expected for Caltrans, though the Newport Beach sign is kind of crowded, in true California style. Myosh, how about being a sport and adding the word "exit" to the "only" panel? (chuckle!)

Quote from: SignBridge on November 06, 2013, 08:06:25 PM
I'd apparently been on that Calif. thread, but I'd forgotten. LOL Anyway, those signs are better than I expected for Caltrans, though the Newport Beach sign is kind of crowded, in true California style. Myosh, how about being a sport and adding the word "exit" to the "only" panel? (chuckle!)

There are a lot of issues with that CA-55 sign including the oversized "SOUTH" (20-inch "S", 16-inch "OUTH") and the 26-inch "ONLY" panel.  The 26-inch panel is a new spec that came out around 2009 and, in theory, should accommodate a 45-degree up-and-right arrow within the panel.  The problem is, on a 120-inch tall guide sign, it tends to crowd the sign.

New gripe:  If I'm doing a signing plan for an intersection improvement which involves adding a second dedicated left turn lane to the stem of a T intersection and want an advanced lane usage sign, there is not a nationally defined code for that sign.  So if I'm designing for a state that doesn't have a good sign manual and need to use the code for a table or a backup in case a scan comes outs badly, I am out of luck.  I could borrow the code for a similar sign in another state, but the coding isn't consistent from state to state; the applicable code is R3-30ABLA in Minnesota, R61-13 for California, and probably something else in a few other states.  It would be really helpful for the next version of the national MUTCD to have more signs with codes for the various possibly lane configurations.

Alternatively, the next MUTCD could adopt a way of coding such signs in which the code indicates the lane configuration the sign is showing. A couple possibilities:
* For the stem of a T-intersection with one dedicated left turn lane and a single dedicated right turn lane, use Rx-1L1R
* For the current R3-8b (left turn, straight, and right turn lane) - Rx-1L1T1R
* For an approach with a left turn lane, a shared through-right and a dedicated right turn lane - Rx-1L1TR1R
* For an approach with a double left turn lane (also showing a U-turn), three through lanes, and a right turn lane - Rx-1LU1L3T1R

Myosh, I just looked at your last post again. Re: the 45-degree arrow in the yellow panel, New York State DOT is using the Type-B (short-stem) arrow for that. It fits nicely in the panel, better than the arrow used in the illustrations in the Manual.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 19, 2013, 09:52:13 PM
New gripe:  If I'm doing a signing plan for an intersection improvement which involves adding a second dedicated left turn lane to the stem of a T intersection and want an advanced lane usage sign, there is not a nationally defined code for that sign.  So if I'm designing for a state that doesn't have a good sign manual and need to use the code for a table or a backup in case a scan comes outs badly, I am out of luck.  I could borrow the code for a similar sign in another state, but the coding isn't consistent from state to state; the applicable code is R3-30ABLA in Minnesota, R61-13 for California, and probably something else in a few other states.  It would be really helpful for the next version of the national MUTCD to have more signs with codes for the various possibly lane configurations.

Alternatively, the next MUTCD could adopt a way of coding such signs in which the code indicates the lane configuration the sign is showing. A couple possibilities:
* For the stem of a T-intersection with one dedicated left turn lane and a single dedicated right turn lane, use Rx-1L1R
* For the current R3-8b (left turn, straight, and right turn lane) - Rx-1L1T1R
* For an approach with a left turn lane, a shared through-right and a dedicated right turn lane - Rx-1L1TR1R
* For an approach with a double left turn lane (also showing a U-turn), three through lanes, and a right turn lane - Rx-1LU1L3T1R

I've run into that issue as well, so I know where you're coming from. But you also have to remember how many possible combinations there are especially when you throw roundabouts into the mix. At the rate the feds are working, it would probably take two editions of the MUTCD for them to have a complete list. You would also have to have some kind of prefix for signs that use fishhook-style arrows. And even then, you would always end up with some unique situation that still requires a custom sign (an odd skew, skew on a five+ legged intersection, etc.).

I think you would be better off having a single letter for each type of movement, to avoid 4-lane+ signs having a code a mile long. Attach a letter to the end of the R3 prefix to denote a roundabout (with the dot), R, or a fishhook arrow, F. For the suffix, something like:
A=left, B=thru, C=right, D=U-turn, then use lower-case letters to denote shared movement lanes. The capital letter of the suffix would always indicate the new lane. For example, a roundabout with the "dotted" arrows, 2-lane approach, left+thru and thru+right would be: R3R-AbBc. With traditional arrows: R3-AbBc. A roundabout, 2-lane approach, left and left+thru+right would be: R3R-AAbc