Question about tollways/turnpikes and MUTCD compliance

[MisterSG1]

I know this may seem like a silly and obvious question but I'm not sure of this myself:

On the train today, I for some reason or another looked at some GSV pics of the Ohio Turnpike, and I noticed that some guide signs there lack the rounded border that is required for all MUTCD signage except stop signs (Or that's what I thought).

https://goo.gl/maps/RGxd9nj1CfE2

For instance, the above signs remind me of what I see in my home province in Ontario where we don't use rounded borders on guide signs (well the City of Toronto's expressways generally do however).

Is this allowed because the Ohio Turnpike is part of some sort of grandfather clause? Because if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Ohio Turnpike predate the IHS and MUTCD, as I'm not entirely sure off the bat which came first. Can someone answer this for me?

[jeffandnicole]

I know this may seem like a silly and obvious question but I'm not sure of this myself:

On the train today, I for some reason or another looked at some GSV pics of the Ohio Turnpike, and I noticed that some guide signs there lack the rounded border that is required for all MUTCD signage except stop signs (Or that's what I thought).

https://goo.gl/maps/RGxd9nj1CfE2

For instance, the above signs remind me of what I see in my home province in Ontario where we don't use rounded borders on guide signs (well the City of Toronto's expressways generally do however).

Is this allowed because the Ohio Turnpike is part of some sort of grandfather clause? Because if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Ohio Turnpike predate the IHS and MUTCD, as I'm not entirely sure off the bat which came first. Can someone answer this for me?

While technically the MUTCD does require a border and curved corners (see below), I guess comparatively speaking it's not the worst thing we've seen in signage.  It is a bit distinctive though.  As long as it's fairly uniform across the entire Turnpike, it's acceptable in my opinion.

Section 2E.16 Sign Borders

Standard:
01 Signs shall have a border of the same color as the legend in order to outline their distinctive shape and thereby give them easy recognition and a finished appearance.

Guidance:
02 For guide signs larger than 120 x 72 inches, the border should have a width of 2 inches. For smaller guide signs, a border width of 1.25 inches should be used, but the width should not exceed the stroke width of the lettering of the principal legend on the sign.

03 Corner radii of sign borders should be 1/8 of the minimum sign dimension on guide signs, except that the radii should not exceed 12 inches on any sign.

Option:
04 The sign material in the area outside of the corner radius may be trimmed.

[MisterSG1]

While technically the MUTCD does require a border and curved corners (see below), I guess comparatively speaking it's not the worst thing we've seen in signage.  It is a bit distinctive though.  As long as it's fairly uniform across the entire Turnpike, it's acceptable in my opinion.

Section 2E.16 Sign Borders

Standard:
01 Signs shall have a border of the same color as the legend in order to outline their distinctive shape and thereby give them easy recognition and a finished appearance.

Guidance:
02 For guide signs larger than 120 x 72 inches, the border should have a width of 2 inches. For smaller guide signs, a border width of 1.25 inches should be used, but the width should not exceed the stroke width of the lettering of the principal legend on the sign.

03 Corner radii of sign borders should be 1/8 of the minimum sign dimension on guide signs, except that the radii should not exceed 12 inches on any sign.

Option:
04 The sign material in the area outside of the corner radius may be trimmed.

The option on 04 has always been puzzling to me when I think about it. I know in the state of New York, they do trim the area outside the corner radius, but most states with my experience leave the square corners intact.

I understand the basic idea why road signs should have rounded corners, as they say it's how the brain reacts to a circle rather than a rectangle (if you don't believe me look it up). But why in the case of guide signs, or practically any large road sign for that matter, is it acceptable to leave the corners intact but only have the border rounded. Wouldn't that cause the same the effect on the brain as a sign with complete square white corners like you see in this Ohio Turnpike example and throughout Ontario?

BUT.....if that's the case, playing on the concept that rounded corners are easier for the eyes and brain, why does Ontario then, which constantly gloats that they have the safest roads in North America, choose not to use rounded borders or rounded corners for BGS and all other large signs seen on freeways?

[paulthemapguy]

I've found that MUTCD compliance still isn't universal at this point.  I used to work in highway design (Phase II), contributing plans to roadways and whatnot.  Often, an engineering firm will hand the sign warrants to the fledglings in their company, because signs are low-liability compared to structures and physical aspects of the road.  If a young upstart messes up the lettering on a sign, it isn't as dangerous a failure as say, failing to design a strong enough bridge pier.  So the people designing the signs are often a bunch of n00bs who might not even know that the MUTCD even exists.  This applies to freeways and tollways; another section of woefully inadequate signage is the Plainfield/Joliet section of I-55 in Illinois.  This might help explain it but this is only a theory.

[MisterSG1]

I've found that MUTCD compliance still isn't universal at this point.  I used to work in highway design (Phase II), contributing plans to roadways and whatnot.  Often, an engineering firm will hand the sign warrants to the fledglings in their company, because signs are low-liability compared to structures and physical aspects of the road.  If a young upstart messes up the lettering on a sign, it isn't as dangerous a failure as say, failing to design a strong enough bridge pier.  So the people designing the signs are often a bunch of n00bs who might not even know that the MUTCD even exists.  This applies to freeways and tollways; another section of woefully inadequate signage is the Plainfield/Joliet section of I-55 in Illinois.  This might help explain it but this is only a theory.

Yes, I could understand if say one or two signs on the Ohio Tpke had these design errors, but practically every sign on the Ohio Tpke has square corners and borders, and that goes from guide signs, distance signs, services signs, you name it. Obviously, this seems to be a standard on the Ohio turnpike, just as I remember someone saying that the NJ Turnpike does not have to abide by the same standards.

[Pink Jazz]

I know that many tollways still use circular red/green signals to indicate the open/closed status of toll plaza lanes, however, the 2009 MUTCD now requires the use of lane control signals (green down arrow/red X).  However, this is understandable since the 2009 MUTCD did not set a fixed compliance date.

[PurdueBill]

I've found that MUTCD compliance still isn't universal at this point.  I used to work in highway design (Phase II), contributing plans to roadways and whatnot.  Often, an engineering firm will hand the sign warrants to the fledglings in their company, because signs are low-liability compared to structures and physical aspects of the road.  If a young upstart messes up the lettering on a sign, it isn't as dangerous a failure as say, failing to design a strong enough bridge pier.  So the people designing the signs are often a bunch of n00bs who might not even know that the MUTCD even exists.  This applies to freeways and tollways; another section of woefully inadequate signage is the Plainfield/Joliet section of I-55 in Illinois.  This might help explain it but this is only a theory.

Yes, I could understand if say one or two signs on the Ohio Tpke had these design errors, but practically every sign on the Ohio Tpke has square corners and borders, and that goes from guide signs, distance signs, services signs, you name it. Obviously, this seems to be a standard on the Ohio turnpike, just as I remember someone saying that the NJ Turnpike does not have to abide by the same standards.

Ohio Turnpike style going back to old sign designs has had square corners for the border, as seen in this photo from Steve's I-90 page:



Light signs with a dark background follow the pattern, with the border inset so the light color is at the outside, but still with right-angle corners for the dark border.

[cl94]

I know that many tollways still use circular red/green signals to indicate the open/closed status of toll plaza lanes, however, the 2009 MUTCD now requires the use of lane control signals (green down arrow/red X).  However, this is understandable since the 2009 MUTCD did not set a fixed compliance date.

And then you get NYSTA, which has been using lane control signals for as long as I can remember. Then again, other than the Clearview, they've been pretty good at following the State Supplement religiously and adding signs (Begin Speed Limit XX) that make a lot of sense.

[Pink Jazz]

And then you get NYSTA, which has been using lane control signals for as long as I can remember. Then again, other than the Clearview, they've been pretty good at following the State Supplement religiously and adding signs (Begin Speed Limit XX) that make a lot of sense.

DTOP/ACT in Puerto Rico I believe started using lane control signals on its toll plazas in 1996.  Interestingly, they were neon instead of incandescent or fiber optic; Puerto Rico is the only place I have ever seen neon tubing used for lane control signals.  They have since been replaced by LED signals.

I think I also recall seeing lane control signals on toll plazas when we drove across country from California to Virginia in 1994, however, I can't remember which highway or state were these toll plazas located.

I wonder which edition of the MUTCD did lane control signals become an option for toll plazas.

[roadman]

I wonder which edition of the MUTCD did lane control signals become an option for toll plazas.

The 2009 edition is the first mention of lane control signals at toll plazas.  Prior to 2009, the MUTCD didn't have any standards for signs or signals on toll roads.  The 2009 MUTCD toll road standards were largely based on a 2005 FHWA "Recommended Practices" report that was commissioned at the urging of the NTSB as a result of the 2003 Illinois Tollway multi-vehicle crash at the Hampshire-Marengo toll plaza.

[jakeroot]

While technically the MUTCD does require a border and curved corners (see below), I guess comparatively speaking it's not the worst thing we've seen in signage.  It is a bit distinctive though.  As long as it's fairly uniform across the entire Turnpike, it's acceptable in my opinion.

...

Option:
04 The sign material in the area outside of the corner radius may be trimmed.

The option on 04 has always been puzzling to me when I think about it. I know in the state of New York, they do trim the area outside the corner radius, but most states with my experience leave the square corners intact.

I understand the basic idea why road signs should have rounded corners, as they say it's how the brain reacts to a circle rather than a rectangle (if you don't believe me look it up). But why in the case of guide signs, or practically any large road sign for that matter, is it acceptable to leave the corners intact but only have the border rounded. Wouldn't that cause the same the effect on the brain as a sign with complete square white corners like you see in this Ohio Turnpike example and throughout Ontario?

BUT.....if that's the case, playing on the concept that rounded corners are easier for the eyes and brain, why does Ontario then, which constantly gloats that they have the safest roads in North America, choose not to use rounded borders or rounded corners for BGS and all other large signs seen on freeways?

Trimmed corners are only utilized in jurisdictions that also utilize increment panel signs (instead of the more often used extruded panel signs). Extruded panels are difficult to trim because (as far as I can work out) each "strip" of the sign has a mounting bracket on the rear, which is exceedingly difficult to trim around. Increment panel signs utilize bracket technology akin to a grid: dozens of different panels are stitched together along the grids of the mounting bracket, ultimately forming one whole sign. Because the mounting bracket doesn't extend to the corners, the corners can be easily trimmed. Because increment panel signs are used far less often than extruded panel signs, trimmed corners are less common across North America as a whole.

To answer your question in the simplest way possible, Ontario does not utilize trimmed corners because they do not utilize increment panel signs.

Example of extruded panel sign bracket: https://goo.gl/eDksfu
Example of increment panel sign bracket: https://goo.gl/jAET3M (note front of sign -- panels appear to be stitched together in a grid pattern)

[MisterSG1]

While technically the MUTCD does require a border and curved corners (see below), I guess comparatively speaking it's not the worst thing we've seen in signage.  It is a bit distinctive though.  As long as it's fairly uniform across the entire Turnpike, it's acceptable in my opinion.

...

Option:
04 The sign material in the area outside of the corner radius may be trimmed.

The option on 04 has always been puzzling to me when I think about it. I know in the state of New York, they do trim the area outside the corner radius, but most states with my experience leave the square corners intact.

I understand the basic idea why road signs should have rounded corners, as they say it's how the brain reacts to a circle rather than a rectangle (if you don't believe me look it up). But why in the case of guide signs, or practically any large road sign for that matter, is it acceptable to leave the corners intact but only have the border rounded. Wouldn't that cause the same the effect on the brain as a sign with complete square white corners like you see in this Ohio Turnpike example and throughout Ontario?

BUT.....if that's the case, playing on the concept that rounded corners are easier for the eyes and brain, why does Ontario then, which constantly gloats that they have the safest roads in North America, choose not to use rounded borders or rounded corners for BGS and all other large signs seen on freeways?

Trimmed corners are only utilized in jurisdictions that also utilize increment panel signs (instead of the more often used extruded panel signs). Extruded panels are difficult to trim because (as far as I can work out) each "strip" of the sign has a mounting bracket on the rear, which is exceedingly difficult to trim around. Increment panel signs utilize bracket technology akin to a grid: dozens of different panels are stitched together along the grids of the mounting bracket, ultimately forming one whole sign. Because the mounting bracket doesn't extend to the corners, the corners can be easily trimmed. Because increment panel signs are used far less often than extruded panel signs, trimmed corners are less common across North America as a whole.

To answer your question in the simplest way possible, Ontario does not utilize trimmed corners because they do not utilize increment panel signs.

Example of extruded panel sign bracket: https://goo.gl/eDksfu
Example of increment panel sign bracket: https://goo.gl/jAET3M (note front of sign -- panels appear to be stitched together in a grid pattern)

You showed me an example of a 401 Collectors diagrammatical sign. How can there be trimmed corners in Ontario when the actual sign border is completely square? I think you misunderstood what I meant. The question I'm more asking is why do the signs in Ontario have completely square white borders. While everywhere else, and even on City of Toronto roads, you'll have a rounded border, such as in this example:



The question I'm asking is why does the MTO use a completely "square" white border around the signs, while everyone else uses these rounded borders, this has nothing to do with trimming.

The Ohio Pike signs I showed also have a completely square white border, and that's how my question originated, because the requirements for borders on guide signs were clearly posted by jeffandnicole, I was asking why the Ohio Tpke is not following this, and it sort of got me asking as to why Ontario doesn't have rounded borders either.

[Bitmapped]

There tends to be a lot of variation between different states on how they handle the borders, particularly with treatment of exit tabs. For example, compare Ohio DOT (https://goo.gl/maps/KjqDY8Kf8Xn), PennDOT (https://goo.gl/maps/GQrJAUYwTpT2), and WVDOH (https://goo.gl/maps/4EXnT1FBNi12).

[Pete from Boston]

I always guessed that toll roads being, in theory, more financially  independent from federal funding than other roads, and it was less worth everyone's trouble to negotiate that whole compliance mess.

[roadfro]

I know this may seem like a silly and obvious question but I'm not sure of this myself:

On the train today, I for some reason or another looked at some GSV pics of the Ohio Turnpike, and I noticed that some guide signs there lack the rounded border that is required for all MUTCD signage except stop signs (Or that's what I thought).

https://goo.gl/maps/RGxd9nj1CfE2

For instance, the above signs remind me of what I see in my home province in Ontario where we don't use rounded borders on guide signs (well the City of Toronto's expressways generally do however).

Is this allowed because the Ohio Turnpike is part of some sort of grandfather clause? Because if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Ohio Turnpike predate the IHS and MUTCD, as I'm not entirely sure off the bat which came first. Can someone answer this for me?

While technically the MUTCD does require a border and curved corners (see below), I guess comparatively speaking it's not the worst thing we've seen in signage.  It is a bit distinctive though.  As long as it's fairly uniform across the entire Turnpike, it's acceptable in my opinion.

Section 2E.16 Sign Borders

Standard:
01 Signs shall have a border of the same color as the legend in order to outline their distinctive shape and thereby give them easy recognition and a finished appearance.

Guidance:
02 For guide signs larger than 120 x 72 inches, the border should have a width of 2 inches. For smaller guide signs, a border width of 1.25 inches should be used, but the width should not exceed the stroke width of the lettering of the principal legend on the sign.

03 Corner radii of sign borders should be 1/8 of the minimum sign dimension on guide signs, except that the radii should not exceed 12 inches on any sign.

Option:
04 The sign material in the area outside of the corner radius may be trimmed.

I'm a little late in pointing out that according to this quoted material, the MUTCD encourages but does not require rounded corners on guide signs–the corner radius information is given in a guidance statement.

A 'standard' statement indicates a requirement or prohibition, while a 'guidance' statement indicates recommended, but not mandatory, best practices for most typical situations which can be deviated from with engineering judgement or study.