New MassDOT traffic signs web page

[roadman]

MassDOT has just released a new web page containing their supplement to the Standard Highway Signs booklet, for those signs not contained in the Federal MUTCD but in standard use in Massachusetts.  It includes updated typicals for "paddle" guide signs.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/TrafficandSafetyEngineering/Signs.aspx

[RobbieL2415]

MA has crosswalk signals?  I've never seen any there before.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/Signs/MA-R10-23a.pdf

[roadman]

MA has crosswalk signals?  I've never seen any there before.
https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/Signs/MA-R10-23a.pdf

HAWK signals are not yet common in Massachusetts, but they're slowly being phased in.  Main Street in Kendall Square, Cambridge is an example of a recent HAWK installation.

[spooky]

MA has crosswalk signals?  I've never seen any there before.
https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/Signs/MA-R10-23a.pdf

HAWK signals are not yet common in Massachusetts, but they're slowly being phased in.  Main Street in Kendall Square, Cambridge is an example of a recent HAWK installation.

Quincy Center is another example.

[SidS1045]

Interesting that MassDOT is now specifying mixed-case legends on some signs where all-caps were used previously (for example, the bookleaf signs denoting city/town boundaries).

[roadman]

Interesting that MassDOT is now specifying mixed-case legends on some signs where all-caps were used previously (for example, the bookleaf signs denoting city/town boundaries).

That's to bring the signs into conformance with 2009 MUTCD requirements.

[PHLBOS]

MassDOT has just released a new web page containing their supplement to the Standard Highway Signs booklet, for those signs not contained in the Federal MUTCD but in standard use in Massachusetts.  It includes updated typicals for "paddle" guide signs.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/TrafficandSafetyEngineering/Signs.aspx

A few comments:

1.  It appears that MassDOT took my advice on its 3-digit route signs using Series C numerals for numbers/letters not containing a 1 in them (see MA M1-5); however, in its MA D1-7a example, the detail shows Series D numerals (but doesn't call them out) on the I-495 shields.  A clarification that the use of Series C for 3-digit routes not using a 1 is to be used for all route numbers (not just state routes) shields might be needed. 

2.  Additionally, some 4-digit routes (122A, 127A & 129A being three examples) exist in the field as well; but there's no mention nor spec detail of them.  A use Series C for 4-digit routes statement/spec. might be warranted as well.

3.  For some of the shorter-named town/city listings; could the use of Series E or E-Modified be an option?  Some of the lower-cased letters (like the s for example) in Series D look a little strange.

[vdeane]

1.  It appears that MassDOT took my advice on its 3-digit route signs using Series C numerals for numbers/letters not containing a 1 in them (see MA M1-5); however, in its MA D1-7a example, the detail shows Series D numerals (but doesn't call them out) on the I-495 shields.  A clarification that the use of Series C for 3-digit routes not using a 1 is to be used for all route numbers (not just state routes) shields might be needed.

What's the point of even having three digit wide shields if you're going to use smaller, uglier, less readable lettering?  At least it looks like they finally stopped using the ugly oversided numbering on interstate shields that many states seem to like (THANK GOD), so it would appear to not be needed (and yes, I know NY switched to series C for 3dis; it's a decision I curse every time I see one of those ugly things).

[PHLBOS]

1.  It appears that MassDOT took my advice on its 3-digit route signs using Series C numerals for numbers/letters not containing a 1 in them (see MA M1-5); however, in its MA D1-7a example, the detail shows Series D numerals (but doesn't call them out) on the I-495 shields.  A clarification that the use of Series C for 3-digit routes not using a 1 is to be used for all route numbers (not just state routes) shields might be needed.

What's the point of even having three digit wide shields if you're going to use smaller, uglier, less readable lettering?  At least it looks like they finally stopped using the ugly oversided numbering on interstate shields that many states seem to like (THANK GOD), so it would appear to not be needed (and yes, I know NY switched to series C for 3dis; it's a decision I curse every time I see one of those ugly things).

Not smaller, narrower (and IMHO, its the Series B font on 3-di shields that are flat out ugly and should not be used at all).  Plus, I'm only stating that such be used for 3-digit routes not containing a 1 in them.

In Massachusetts, the use of same-size Series D numerals for 3-digit numbers (as its 1/2-digit bretheren) not containing a 1 in them on its state-route shields caused some of the outer numerals to encroach on the black border outline.  Recently-erected examples in Lexington for MA 225; note: the outer 2 and 5 touching the black outline.

Had MassDOT continued with their past policy/standard of using borderless shields for its guidance signs (BGS/LGS); such wouldn't be an issue.  Fortunately, most of MA's 3-digit routes are of the 1XX variety; so the use of Series D numerals for the majority of its routes is fine & appropriate.

At least it looks like they finally stopped using the ugly oversided numbering on interstate shields that many states seem to like (THANK GOD), so it would appear to not be needed (and yes, I know NY switched to series C for 3dis; it's a decision I curse every time I see one of those ugly things).

I guess the supplemental question here is, "How large is too large?"

For the I-shields, the use of smaller numerals was fine for state-named shields.  Once the use of neutered became more dominant; upsizing the numerals to fill in the extra blue space seemed like a logical step (especially for visibility purposes).

My issue with using smaller (in terms of height) numerals is that, sometimes, the numerals tend to get lost... especially if a paler shade of blue is selected and/or other non-Interstate route shields (w/taller numerals) are present.  An example of this would be the newer (than the latest GSV) installation of the I-95 South pull-through BGS' at Exits 50 & 46 (shown below); the latter replaced the 90s-vintage top-hat BGS with Series E button-copy I-shields.


The 95 looks more muted (i.e. doesn't stand out as much) than the adjacent 128 and 1 numerals.

Compared to the size of the numerals used on this BGS assembly erected just a few years earlier.  Note the shade of blue of the I-95 shield is darker as well; allowing the white numerals to stand out more.

OTOH, here's an example of using numerals that are too large for the standard-sized 3-di shield.  I am in agreement w/you and likely others that such an approach is ugly and should be avoided.  Side bar, I don't know of a similar example in MA off-hand; so I'm using ones in PA.

In comparison, a similar-sized 3-di shield using Series C numerals of the same height.  A much better approach & application IMHO.

And I'll throw in this one (my guess is that you'll like this one the best based on your earlier comments) involving the use of shorter-height Series D numerals.  IMHO, this would be the proper approach for Series D numerals on 3-digit routes not involving a 1.

I believe that we're both in agreement that the use of Series B numerals for any 3-digit route shields (especially on I-shields like the one shown on the left BGS) is not a good idea and has readability issues from a distance.