Illuminated street name signs

[mjb2002]

That would be me, my friend. And here's a Clarendon street blade from here in Salinas:

I am most definitely not a fan of those. The Suffix of the street doesn't look right. Its as if below the suffix they should have added the block number

This design is used in most of Tempe and Goodyear, and parts of Gilbert and Tucson:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h31/minjas2006/Trainz%20METRO%20Light%20Rail/TempeTrafficLight1R.jpg

http://azbex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/estrellabuckeye540.jpg

The "ADOT" setup is used virtually everywhere else. Some cities incorporate a logo into the illuminated sign. Glendale has two styles that I've noticed. One is that small version seen just about everywhere in the city limits. There's another style near the Westgate complex that is larger, and incorporates Glendale's city logo next to the street name.

Are Glendale AZ and Glendale CA at all in talks with each other? They've got so much in common it makes me wonder. As I've shown in an earlier pic, they've got straight arm poles which are rare in California and signs unlike 99% of the other cities here. But not in the whole city, just in downtown.

There are fonts that just do not look good when proper-cased. Serif fonts like Clarendon are among those that I refer to.

Clarendon should only be reserved for uppercase parts of signs, such as the suffix of a Street Name sign.

[mjb2002]

ILL? They could shop off the 2nd L. Did you edit those to show just the signs? They look a little freaky with it being pitch black...

IDOT commonly shortens "Illinois" to "ILL", but "IL" is also seen.  What gets used often is the combination of "ILL RTE" for Illinois Route.

Yes, I took them at night to catch the signs while lit.

Ill. is the official abbreviation of Illinois, by the way. IL, like all other two letter abbreviations, is used for postage services but rarely anything else unless sites (AARoads is an example) require that the two letter state abbreviation be used.

[mjb2002]

Tahoma? Arial? Do these guys design their stuff in PowerPoint?

Better than Times New Roman or Comic Sans MS.

And speaking of Comic Sans MS, one of the my Google+ friends had hate mail (from a man) sent to her in the Comic Sans MS font.

[mjb2002]

Here's some more for the list....

Farmers Branch, TX:
(still red / red-orange happy about their street signage)



Highland Park, TX:
(originally the city installed these hanging down from the horizontal part of the mast, but lately they've attached them beside the sign onto the vertical part of the mast)

Someone please tell Farmers Branch that December 7, 2011 was 23 months ago. They can't use white lettering on red background for Street Name signs anymore, or for any sign other than regulatory.

[mrsman]

I decided to add a couple from Overland Park, Kansas:





These are now used at every signalized intersection along College Boulevard in the city, and on a couple of stretches of Metcalf Avenue.  Back-lit street name signs have actually started popping up in several cities in Northeast Kansas in the past few years.  I honestly don't consider these among the best executed examples.  I find them unnecessarily cluttered, especially from the pretentious use of the city logo.  I don't mind the use of Clearview, but give the letters room to breathe.  I used to like city logos on street name signs, when they were a new idea, but their abundance has made them absurd.  I would much rather see city limit signs on arterial roads at municipal boundary crossings.

What's very interesting to me at this intersection that you show (Antioch/College in Overland Park) is the use of a 4 section signal display on the right side.  I know that it's for a right turn arrow that is in conjunction with a corresponding and non-conflicting left turn (no u-turn so no conflicts at all).  But my question is why isn't there a 5th section for a yellow arrow?

[Big John]

What's very interesting to me at this intersection that you show (Antioch/College in Overland Park) is the use of a 4 section signal display on the right side.  I know that it's for a right turn arrow that is in conjunction with a corresponding and non-conflicting left turn (no u-turn so no conflicts at all).  But my question is why isn't there a 5th section for a yellow arrow?

2 possibilities I can think of without being at the intersection

1.  Does Kansas use bimodal arrows, meaning green and yellow on the same lens?

2. Does the signal always turn to solid green immediately after the arrow is displayed?  If so the yellow clearance arrow would not be needed at the right-turn movement would not need to be interrupted.

[Ned Weasel]

What's very interesting to me at this intersection that you show (Antioch/College in Overland Park) is the use of a 4 section signal display on the right side.  I know that it's for a right turn arrow that is in conjunction with a corresponding and non-conflicting left turn (no u-turn so no conflicts at all).  But my question is why isn't there a 5th section for a yellow arrow?

2 possibilities I can think of without being at the intersection

1.  Does Kansas use bimodal arrows, meaning green and yellow on the same lens?

2. Does the signal always turn to solid green immediately after the arrow is displayed?  If so the yellow clearance arrow would not be needed at the right-turn movement would not need to be interrupted.

They are bimodal arrows.  Many jurisdictions in Kansas actually use the five-lens configuration for protected/permissive left turn and right turn signals, but Overland Park and Lenexa both prefer the four-lens configuration for these, with the same arrow changing from green to yellow (and, to address the second question, the yellow right arrow is shown at exactly the same time as the yellow left arrow for the perpendicular direction).

On a side note, Overland Park and Lenexa are also using three-lens flashing yellow arrow signals for protected/permissive left turns, which of course requires a bimodal arrow, although examples of both the three-lens and four-lens configurations exist in Overland Park.

[mrsman]

What's very interesting to me at this intersection that you show (Antioch/College in Overland Park) is the use of a 4 section signal display on the right side.  I know that it's for a right turn arrow that is in conjunction with a corresponding and non-conflicting left turn (no u-turn so no conflicts at all).  But my question is why isn't there a 5th section for a yellow arrow?

2 possibilities I can think of without being at the intersection

1.  Does Kansas use bimodal arrows, meaning green and yellow on the same lens?

2. Does the signal always turn to solid green immediately after the arrow is displayed?  If so the yellow clearance arrow would not be needed at the right-turn movement would not need to be interrupted.

I see that stridentweasel has already answered my questions, but to address your response #2, I would think that the yellow clearance arrow would still be necessary.  If the left turn arrow of Antioch to College went a)green arrow, b)yellow arrow, then c)red arrow and then College got the green, you are saying that the light facing College with a right turn to Antioch would show red light and green arrow during a) and b), and then go directly to green light during the c) phase.  The problem with that approach is that you would need a yellow arrow to slow the right turn traffic, because during phase c), the right turners will have a green light, but they would still need to yield to pedestrians.  (If pedestrian crossing were prohibited, then you can go directly from green right arrow to green light.)

But fortunately, as stridentweasel has explained, "They are bimodal arrows.  Many jurisdictions in Kansas actually use the five-lens configuration for protected/permissive left turn and right turn signals, but Overland Park and Lenexa both prefer the four-lens configuration for these, with the same arrow changing from green to yellow."

[Lytton]

Here is an international example. For some reason, the Philippines likes to copy the American traffic lights (or at least mimic).

Here's one in Manila on Espana Boulevard:



One in Batangas City:



There is also one city that mimics California traffic lights: Davao City, but they aren't illuminated like Manila.

[sammi]

Here is an international example. For some reason, the Philippines likes to copy the American traffic lights (or at least mimic).

Philippine traffic control devices in general tend to mimic American. What I don't like is how they don't always use the FHWA fonts I'm pretty sure they have. (They've also started using Clearview. )

And while I'm here...



This is an illuminated pedestrian crossing sign near Rizal Park in the city of Manila. People were confused as to who this 'Ped Xing' person was, if he was some sort of Filipino-Chinese hero no one's ever heard of, etc.

[Lytton]

Here is an international example. For some reason, the Philippines likes to copy the American traffic lights (or at least mimic).

Philippine traffic control devices in general tend to mimic American. What I don't like is how they don't always use the FHWA fonts I'm pretty sure they have. (They've also started using Clearview. )

And while I'm here...



This is an illuminated pedestrian crossing sign near Rizal Park in the city of Manila. People were confused as to who this 'Ped Xing' person was, if he was some sort of Filipino-Chinese hero no one's ever heard of, etc.

I always like the Philippines for their traffic control. It just seems so interesting to see American-like traffic lights in Asia.

I wonder if I should start a thread based around this.

[sammi]

I wonder if I should start a thread based around this.

Please do.

[Lytton]

I wonder if I should start a thread based around this.

Please do.

I will, but I am trying to decide on a title.

[vtk]

For some reason I thought maybe the Phillipines was a US posession. If that were true, I'd expect even more similarity to the rest of the US, like Puerto Rico.  But apparently that hasn't been true in 70 years or so, and I don't think our MUTCD was very far along at that time.  I guess we've had some parallel evolution since then...

[sammi]

For some reason I thought maybe the Phillipines was a US posession. If that were true, I'd expect even more similarity to the rest of the US, like Puerto Rico.  But apparently that hasn't been true in 70 years or so, and I don't think our MUTCD was very far along at that time.  I guess we've had some parallel evolution since then...

Not parallel evolution, the Philippines borrows a lot from the US. But apparently, consistency is not one of them. Looking through the SHSM again, they actually have some MUTCD standard signs in both English and Tagalog, and some of them FHWA, some in Clearview.

[Alps]

For some reason I thought maybe the Phillipines was a US posession. If that were true, I'd expect even more similarity to the rest of the US, like Puerto Rico.  But apparently that hasn't been true in 70 years or so, and I don't think our MUTCD was very far along at that time.  I guess we've had some parallel evolution since then...

Not parallel evolution, the Philippines borrows a lot from the US. But apparently, consistency is not one of them. Looking through the SHSM again, they actually have some MUTCD standard signs in both English and Tagalog, and some of them FHWA, some in Clearview.

I think you should continue this discussion in the other thread, including their process of sign evolution - e.g. do they peruse the latest editions and changes to our MUTCD?