MUTCD fun

[Alps]

Just playing around with some combinations of signs...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/6125007981/in/photostream

[Quillz]

You'd think the MUTCD would just move to vectors instead of "high resolution graphics."

Regardless, fun signs. I especially like the "100 mph" speed hump.

[mjb2002]

Just playing around with some combinations of signs...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/6125007981/in/photostream

How'd you do that?

[Quillz]

Just playing around with some combinations of signs...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/6125007981/in/photostream

How'd you do that?

Probably a fairly simple Photoshop job, or if you have vectors, can just put your own text on the signs in Illustrator.

[Duke87]

DEAD
END

STRICTLY
ENFORCED


Is it allowed to put regulatory panels under warning signs?

[NE2]

One lane bridge 35 mph is totally reasonable if it's on a four-lane divided highway and your side narrows to one lane.

[Alps]

DEAD
END

STRICTLY
ENFORCED


Is it allowed to put regulatory panels under warning signs?

MUTCD tends to not disallow these things explicitly, leaving it up to highway agencies' good judgment.

[vdeane]

One lane bridge 35 mph is totally reasonable if it's on a four-lane divided highway and your side narrows to one lane.

Doesn't "one lane bridge" mean one lane TOTAL, ie you're sharing it with traffic in the other direction?

[NE2]

One lane bridge 35 mph is totally reasonable if it's on a four-lane divided highway and your side narrows to one lane.

Doesn't "one lane bridge" mean one lane TOTAL, ie you're sharing it with traffic in the other direction?

You're right ("should be used on low-volume two-way roadways"). Though that doesn't mean a DOT wouldn't use it.

I could also see 35 mph on a one-lane bridge with excellent visibility and low traffic.

[US71]

One lane bridge 35 mph is totally reasonable if it's on a four-lane divided highway and your side narrows to one lane.

Doesn't "one lane bridge" mean one lane TOTAL, ie you're sharing it with traffic in the other direction?

Not always. Alt US 71 used to have a pair of one lane bridges in the SB lanes about a mile north of I-44. They were built circa 1926 and were/are 2 Lane bridges, but not wide enough for 2 lanes of high speed traffic, so were made into One Lane bridges.

After new bridges were built in 1990, the old bridges reverted back to 2 Lanes along an Outer Road.

http://bridgehunter.com/mo/jasper/bh39971/
http://bridgehunter.com/mo/jasper/bh39972/

[J N Winkler]

You'd think the MUTCD would just move to vectors instead of "high resolution graphics."

As far as I know, all of the MUTCD-related PDFs on FHWA's MUTCD website have used vectors since MUTCD 2003 at least.  If they are calling them "high-resolution graphics," I suspect that is because they don't want to confuse casual visitors with the distinction between raster versus vector.  The MUTCD has to be accessible to a wide range of practitioners, some of whom are not very smart.

[NE2]

One lane bridge 35 mph is totally reasonable if it's on a four-lane divided highway and your side narrows to one lane.

Doesn't "one lane bridge" mean one lane TOTAL, ie you're sharing it with traffic in the other direction?

Not always. Alt US 71 used to have a pair of one lane bridges in the SB lanes about a mile north of I-44. They were built circa 1926 and were/are 2 Lane bridges, but not wide enough for 2 lanes of high speed traffic, so were made into One Lane bridges.

Were they signed with 'one lane bridge' signs? That's what's being discussed here.

[US71]

One lane bridge 35 mph is totally reasonable if it's on a four-lane divided highway and your side narrows to one lane.

Doesn't "one lane bridge" mean one lane TOTAL, ie you're sharing it with traffic in the other direction?

Not always. Alt US 71 used to have a pair of one lane bridges in the SB lanes about a mile north of I-44. They were built circa 1926 and were/are 2 Lane bridges, but not wide enough for 2 lanes of high speed traffic, so were made into One Lane bridges.

Were they signed with 'one lane bridge' signs? That's what's being discussed here.

Actually, YES they were.   

[mtantillo]

You'd think the MUTCD would just move to vectors instead of "high resolution graphics."

As far as I know, all of the MUTCD-related PDFs on FHWA's MUTCD website have used vectors since MUTCD 2003 at least.  If they are calling them "high-resolution graphics," I suspect that is because they don't want to confuse casual visitors with the distinction between raster versus vector.  The MUTCD has to be accessible to a wide range of practitioners, some of whom are not very smart.

The original MUTCD graphics are all in *.eps format. 

Most practitioners who use the MUTCD (1/3 traffic professionals, and 2/3 lawyers according to ITE hard copy sales stats) do not care about how the graphics work, they just want to click on the file and have it open!