I-35 reconstruction through Norman, OK

[texaskdog]

how about going around it so we don't have to go through it at all?

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma's new signage is a lot like Pennsylvania's. In Pennsylvania, they keep the exit tabs, route direction and mileage distance Highway Gothic while the actual destinations are Clearview. And the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission uses exclusively tube gantries now, though PennDOT has been slower to pick them up.

Good luck making an accurate general statement about Oklahoma signage practices. The signage put up on the south side of Norman follows that rule–which more or less is the federal guidelines for Clearview–but north of Main Street, the signage put up in 2010 has Clearview everything.

[Gnutella]

Oklahoma's new signage is a lot like Pennsylvania's. In Pennsylvania, they keep the exit tabs, route direction and mileage distance Highway Gothic while the actual destinations are Clearview. And the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission uses exclusively tube gantries now, though PennDOT has been slower to pick them up.

Good luck making an accurate general statement about Oklahoma signage practices. The signage put up on the south side of Norman follows that rule–which more or less is the federal guidelines for Clearview–but north of Main Street, the signage put up in 2010 has Clearview everything.

Well I was just going by what I saw.

[Bobby5280]

ODOT and the OK Turnpike Commission have a hit and miss execution in how they design and build highway signs. They'll do a good job on some signs and then do terrible work on another. Their use of Clearview is right in line with this inconsistency.

I think ODOT & OTC are trying to copy how Clearview is used in Texas, but apparently some of the people involved in creating the designs or fabricating the signs are missing key details or just not caring about the details.

Texas uses FHWA Series Gothic 2000 for the lettering and numerals on exit tabs, numerals on route markers and other negative contrast (black lettering) items -like "exit only" boxes on overhead signs. Usually they use the "D" weight. The primary sign message, white letters on green background, is supposed to be set in Clearview (usually 5-W-R).

It's a pretty simple model to follow, but there are Clearview signs across Oklahoma that don't follow the model.

I see a lot of exit tab lettering set in Clearview 4W rather than Series Gothic D. A bunch of signs around Lawton have this. Those new signs along I-35 in Norman seem more like an exception rather than the rule.

The OTC has put up white signs in a few places featuring black Clearview 3W copy. Clearview hasn't been approved for black lettering on yellow or white backgrounds and even if it was the OTC is using the thinner "W" weights rather than the slightly bolder "B" weights of Clearview meant for negative contrast use. I guess they didn't want to spend the extra couple hundred bucks for the full Clearview font set. BTW, Texas has done the same thing on some highways, but at least they're setting the type on properly sized signs and with the wider, more legible 5W & 5WR weights. A small sign panel with condensed Clearview 3W lettering isn't very legible when you're speeding by it at 75mph.

ODOT has made a mess with some of the Clearview based signs here in Lawton. There's one sign along I-44 Eastbound near Comanche Nation Casino that honestly looks like its lettering was squeezed in the computer to fit a more narrow, less expensive sign panel. It really looks like someone set the lettering in CV 5W or 4W and squeezed it to fit. I expect that terrible practice in graphic design from lots of commercial sign companies, but I'm surprised to see it on a highway sign. There's a couple signs that look like Clearview 6W, but stretched a little wider. There's another sign along I-44 Westbound just before the Cache Road exit that has some of the letters in its message set in different sizes. It's like the fabricators had a bunch of spare letters in different sizes and were just grabbing whatever was handy at the moment.

One of my biggest complaints with ODOT's use of Clearview: terrible letter spacing. Some of the signs here in Lawton look terrible because the fabricators obviously placed the lettering without proper use of the spacing tables or even a pattern. Clearview has the proper spacing built into the font files. Some of the signs around here just like the lettering was eye-balled onto the panel and drilled into place right then. Some of the legends aren't even properly aligned.

Texas, in general, does a much better job using Clearview. TXDOT has some other practices I can't stand though -like putting 3 digit interstates on 2 digit shields and 2 digit interstates on 3 digit shields. That's just backward.

I know plenty of road geeks cannot stand Clearview. I think it looks pretty good, but only if the type is properly placed and spaced. Bad line spacing and bad letter spacing will make just about any typeface look bad. Even Series Gothic looks downright terrible when mishandled. There's still a number of old Series Gothic-based signs on the H.E. Bailey Turnpike that have all sorts of design problems.

[J N Winkler]

Texas uses FHWA Series Gothic 2000 for the lettering and numerals on exit tabs, numerals on route markers and other negative contrast (black lettering) items -like "exit only" boxes on overhead signs. Usually they use the "D" weight.

My experience with recent TxDOT freeway signing plans has differed in a few regards.  Usually all positive-contrast legend other than shields is in Clearview (normally 5-W-R, as you note), including the exit tab, while negative-contrast legend is in Series E or E Modified.

I see a lot of exit tab lettering set in Clearview 4W rather than Series Gothic D. A bunch of signs around Lawton have this. Those new signs along I-35 in Norman seem more like an exception rather than the rule.

Oklahoma DOT's contractors also seem not to be fabricating signs exactly as shown in the plans.  Some errors in the plans have been cleaned up.  The plans also call for Clearview 6-W for primary destination legend (Oklahoma is the only Clearview-using state I know of that does this), but aside from the examples you mention near Lawton, I am not sure signs have actually been fabricated with it rather than 5-W.

TxDOT has some other practices I can't stand though -like putting 3 digit interstates on 2 digit shields and 2 digit interstates on 3 digit shields. That's just backward.

That practice is being phased out, actually.

In general, my impression is that with Texas, WYSIWYG--the signs as installed tend to match the plans fairly closely.  With Oklahoma, on the other hand, there are apparently quality assurance failures at multiple levels, so what gets installed in the field is often the result of an abortive attempt to fix a bad design in the plans.

[Scott5114]

What I would do is clean house at ODOT, then establish a consistent set of signage design guidelines, and require a specialist QA engineer to sign off on the plans before contracts are let. Eliminate OTA's signage design offices and have them contract design work out to ODOT. That should take care of most problems, since the contractors would no longer have any reason to muddle around with the plans. If problems persist, make a sign QA engineer (maybe the same one that signed off on the plans, if practicable) inspect all signage prior to its installation to verify that it matches the spec. If it doesn't, require the contractor to redo the work at their own expense.

As for the SPUI...I used the new Exit 109 for the first time this evening. The third northbound lane begins where Lindsey/SH-9 traffic merges into I-35, then there is a long decel lane for the exit, probably long enough to be signed as an Exit Only. The only signage up on northbound I-35 is the gore sign. On the exit ramp, there are signs for Main St westbound (Left 2 Lanes) and eastbound (Right Lane). At the split, there is a ground-mounted sign in the physical gore with a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (rare in Oklahoma!). The eastbound ramp has a yield line on it (maybe a first for Oklahoma?), but one wonders why they bothered, since the ramp resolves in an accel lane. I didn't pass under the signal but from what I saw the signal heads are angled properly. Lighting has yet to be installed, and it will definitely improve the interchange when it comes. Overall I would give the project an A–it is really nice seeing something like this in Oklahoma, and Manhattan Bridge did a great job on the project.

[Bobby5280]

I don't even understand why they have so many deviations.

Let me stress this: I work at a commercial sign manufacturing company. I design signs for a living. Getting specs like this straight is not difficult at all. Actually my job designing commercial work is arguably more difficult since I'm having to do all sorts of reinventing of the wheel. Highway sign designers do not have to do that. They have a very limited formula to follow.

OTOH, I'm not going to leave it at the grunt level positions. Honestly, especially looking at it with my more than 20 years doing this kind of work, this problem smells like something happening higher up. Some "boss" somewhere dictates some odd order on how a sign has to look. Or rather he wants a certain friend's company contracted to do the job, and that company couldn't give the first damn about following the specs of anything in the latest MUTCD manual or even making the sign look proper. There is more than a few large highway sign displays here in Oklahoma that definitely fall in that latter area. Or maybe they say "we don't need a sign panel that big (and expensive). Let's do what we can to make it cost less." And that's where the practice of setting high speed freeway sign legends in something other than Clearview 5W or 5WR comes into play (not to mention making the 4W or 3W lettering even smaller to fit the cheaper panels).

Let me frame this talk by saying I legally own font licenses to the full Clearview font set and Series 2000. I know how this stuff is supposed to look and fit. Somebody somewhere is making calls on doing the job on the cheap. And a bunch of the signs around Lawton just plain look like the fabricators didn't give the first popcorn fart on how the end result would look.

[J N Winkler]

OTOH, I'm not going to leave it at the grunt level positions. Honestly, especially looking at it with my more than 20 years doing this kind of work, this problem smells like something happening higher up. Some "boss" somewhere dictates some odd order on how a sign has to look. Or rather he wants a certain friend's company contracted to do the job, and that company couldn't give the first damn about following the specs of anything in the latest MUTCD manual or even making the sign look proper. There is more than a few large highway sign displays here in Oklahoma that definitely fall in that latter area. Or maybe they say "we don't need a sign panel that big (and expensive). Let's do what we can to make it cost less." And that's where the practice of setting high speed freeway sign legends in something other than Clearview 5W or 5WR comes into play (not to mention making the 4W or 3W lettering even smaller to fit the cheaper panels).

Oklahoma DOT construction contracts are competitively bid, so I really don't see an opportunity for corruption to come into the picture unless some signing is done through a statewide contract awarded by RFP where unit prices are not the primary consideration for contract award.

You could argue that someone along the food chain is receiving kickbacks, but where does the money to pay them come from?  Even if a corrupt individual at Oklahoma DOT assures company X that shoddy work will not be rejected in exchange for an under-the-table payment, company X still has to submit a bid, still has to win on price, and still has to supply the items specified in the contract, otherwise the contract won't survive an audit and whistleblowers will come out of the woodwork.

It costs almost as much in materials and labor to do signing work shoddily as it does to do it properly--the main difference in final cost to the contractor is the risk of the shoddy work being rejected and having to be re-done at his sole expense.  That is not enough of a margin to make it worthwhile for someone to risk fines, jail, restitution, and indefinite professional blacklisting.  The foregone income from blacklisting alone over a working lifetime is more than the total value of a signing contract, let alone the profit a contractor typically makes on it.

My personal theory as to Oklahoma DOT's signing QA failures (which was originally Randy Hersh's) has more to do with the reason the DOT tends to do small construction contracts in general:  maintaining capacity in the construction industry.  There is probably a quite conscious decision (ratified by multiple stakeholders within the DOT) to go easy on signing plans and fabricated signs that are defective and ugly but in ways that do not compromise safety, rather than to raise costs for consultants and contractors by requiring do-overs and thus risk them dropping out of bidding for the DOT altogether.

Let me frame this talk by saying I legally own font licenses to the full Clearview font set and Series 2000. I know how this stuff is supposed to look and fit. Somebody somewhere is making calls on doing the job on the cheap. And a bunch of the signs around Lawton just plain look like the fabricators didn't give the first popcorn fart on how the end result would look.

Let me ask you this:  why don't you bid on Oklahoma DOT signing contracts yourself?

[Bobby5280]

Why don't we bid on the jobs? The short answer is governmental red tape. There's too much of it to make the jobs worth doing. We would have to hire more people just to deal with that part of the work. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's only so long as the work is coming in dependably. Our company considered it back in the 1990s, but hasn't bothered with it since, even with the switch to Clearview based legends.

Most traffic signs are made by city/state run departments, prisons or sign companies that specialize only in that type of work. It's not very accessible to commercial custom sign companies that concentrate on manufacturing signs for businesses.

Corruption is a pretty strong word. I don't think anything criminal is happening. The problem is the sign industry is filled with too many people who really don't care all that much about getting details right. They want to take short cuts. Or cut corners to increase a profit margin, even if it means violating the standards for design and material specifications. That sort of careless attitude is common across many industries.

It costs almost as much in materials and labor to do signing work shoddily as it does to do it properly--the main difference in final cost to the contractor is the risk of the shoddy work being rejected and having to be re-done at his sole expense.

Too many pursue their easier, faster & cheaper short cuts with the following gamble: no one is going to notice.

It's faster and easier to eye-ball place routed aluminum letters on a highway sign panel without using a large paper pattern or the letter spacing table chart. Unfortunately the end results aren't going to look very good.

The errors stand out to me like puke on a white shirt. But I'm a graphic designer who specializes in outdoor design. The average motorist probably wouldn't notice the worst problems and even if he did chances are slim he would complain to ODOT or anybody else about it. In the end the signs get designed/built wrong and stay that way until a storm, car, etc. damages it enough to need replacement.

Here in Lawton a couple or so months ago a vehicle accident took out a fairly large green panel sign next to Gore Blvd in front of the entrance to I-44 westbound. That panel was probably around 8' X 8,' mounted on two breakaway posts (which broke away when the car hit it). ODOT just replaced it with a tiny sign with Clearview 2W lettering (actually it could be 1W). It's barely any bigger than a street name sign. I hope that cheap sign is a temporary solution.

Funding issues could be a source for some of these sign goofs. The companies building these signs may have stock parts & materials laying around that need to be used. An order comes in for a new sign, but the design of the sign panel is longer than a bunch of the 12" aluminum extrusion bars they have in stock. So they modify the design, even if it violates MUTCD specs, in order to avoid ordering more materials.

I guess the thing I can't understand is the companies building these signs are handling all that PITA governmental red tape yet they can't manage to get the look of these signs right. It's not difficult at all to design these signs. They just have to follow through properly.

[Scott5114]

I would complain about it but I haven't the foggiest idea who I should contact, and I get the impression from my limited interaction with ODOT that I wouldn't be heard, anyway.

[J N Winkler]

I would complain about it but I haven't the foggiest idea who I should contact, and I get the impression from my limited interaction with ODOT that I wouldn't be heard, anyway.

You have to start somewhere.  You might not see tangible results until after the fifth letter that is followed up with a phone call, or until you get a major daily newspaper or TV station involved, but eventually the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Look at it this way:  a badly fabricated sign is something tangible that people will notice when it is pointed out to them ("Our state DOT has a nice sideline in ransom notes" is a nice lead-in).  It is not like you are campaigning for construction plans to be put online (I wrote a letter on this once to the Colorado DOT executive director--ignored), or for as-builts to be put in a publicly accessible EDMS (I wrote to the KDOT secretary about this--also ignored), or even for a clear statement that highway construction plans aren't covered by exemptions in the state open-records law (Randy Hersh and I made separate attempts at this in Pennsylvania, with mixed results).

[Bobby5280]

I'm trying to remember who I wrote at ODOT years ago about two outdated ground-mounted green signs along I-44 in Lawton. The signs listed the Percussive Arts Society HQ and McMahon Auditorium, but the Percussive Arts Society relocated their HQ to Indianapolis. I did get a response from someone at ODOT about the matter. He did say the signs eventually would be replaced and that such signs often involve collecting some money from the listed attraction to help fund the replacement.

Both outdated signs were replaced, but both have some graphic design issues.

[rte66man]

I'm trying to remember who I wrote at ODOT years ago about two outdated ground-mounted green signs along I-44 in Lawton. The signs listed the Percussive Arts Society HQ and McMahon Auditorium, but the Percussive Arts Society relocated their HQ to Indianapolis. I did get a response from someone at ODOT about the matter. He did say the signs eventually would be replaced and that such signs often involve collecting some money from the listed attraction to help fund the replacement.

Both outdated signs were replaced, but both have some graphic design issues.

I worked for the OK Legislature back in the 90's.  My chairman wanted BGS's for the Gene Autry Museum placed on I35 at the Springer exit.  It cost him $5,000 in earmarks to get them.

I got to work with the ODOT sign shop to design them:
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traffic/index.htm

[rte66man]

09031(05) 3 IS035 0.340 $30,212,200
GRADE,DRAINING,BRIDGE & SURFACE
CLEVELAND I-35: 6 LANE FROM RIVER, NORTH 0.34 MI IN NORMAN (SH-9 INTERCHANGE)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09031(09) 3 IS035 0.780 0 $27,587,500
GRADE,DRAINING,BRIDGE & SURFACE
CLEVELAND I-35: 6 LANE FROM 0.34 MI NORTH OF RIVER, NORTH 0.78 MI IN NORMAN
(LINDSEY STREET INTERCHANGE)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you thought the Main Street rebuild was messy, just wait until these 2 start.  They are listed on the tentative September bid opening list.  As they will have to CLOSE Lindsey to take down the old bridge, the traffic on the Main St bridge will only triple or more.  There is no practical way for Normanites to get to the development on Ed Noble.   

[algorerhythms]

There is no practical way for Normanites to get to the development on Ed Noble.   

Oh, I can't go to Red Lobster or OfficeMax? I think I'll be okay.

[Scott5114]

I am just hoping that the SH-9 interchange will not be closed or given a ridiculously short merge this time. If I have to cross the river on I-44, I'll do it.

[rte66man]

I am just hoping that the SH-9 interchange will not be closed or given a ridiculously short merge this time. If I have to cross the river on I-44, I'll do it.

I can't see how they could do that with Lindsey being closed.  There is no practical detour for OK9 traffic.

[Scott5114]

24th W up to Main, or else Robinson, depending on how far east you're coming from. I doubt it will be closed entirely. I'm just afraid of some boneheaded configuration like we got last time that makes it impossible to use the ramp without dying several times per week.

[jaysmc]

There is no practical way for Normanites to get to the development on Ed Noble.   

It looks like early in the project they will connect 28th St/Ed Noble Parkway to the new Hwy 9 overpass, so at least we'll have some access to west Lindsey from Hwy 9.

[Scott5114]

If I'm not mistaken, that ramp is one way from Lindsey to SH-9. From SH-9 one will have to take 24th Avenue SW north to Lindsey. (Not that the development along Ed Noble is much of a hot spot anymore...there's a lot of vacancies as businesses pack up and move to the University North Park development up at 24th and Robinson.)

[jaysmc]

Looking at the plans, it appears to be two-way, so you will be able to travel to Lindsey from Hwy 9 as well. However, I don't see any direct access to I-35 coming from 28th Ave SW, you would have to go east to 24th Ave SW and make a U-turn.

[Scott5114]

Do you have a link to the plan you're looking at? I'm having a heck of a time figuring out how a two-way ramp there is going to work...

[jaysmc]

The list of plans is here: http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/contracts/index-list.php?year=14&month=11&day=0

It's J/P#: 09031(05)
Sheet #157 shows the phase where the 28th Ave SW ramp is fully open.

J/P#: 09031(09) is the Lindsey St. project

[Scott5114]

Oh, cool, thanks. I guess I was looking at a preliminary planning document that didn't have two-way access to Lindsey.

Signing information begins at sheet 142 and for the most part is not pattern accurate, with Arial substituting for Clearview. When FHWA is shown, it is pattern accurate, and Clearview makes an appearance on a few panels. Notably, the diverge just west of 24th Avenue SE is signed only for I-35 NB/I-35 SB and SH-9 WB, with no mention of access to Lindsey Street until you are on the loop ramp. Likewise, only Lindsey Street is mentioned, not Ed Noble Parkway, which I would like to see because that is probably going to be the destination for most of the cars using this ramp.

Unfortunately, I think ODOT biffed the signing here, since there is no way to know that the new ramp to Lindsey exists until after you get on the ramp for south I-35, which is an entirely unintuitive movement to make if you're trying to go north to Lindsey.

"Univ of Okla" is shown as a destination for eastbound Lindsey St. This was one of the control cities for eastbound SH-9 until the late 1990s, when it was removed in favor of leaving Tecumseh to stand alone. "Univ of Okla" does not appear until you have already exited I-35, however.

I think I hate the I-35 NB to SH-9 EB ramp, since it involves two lane changes to continue east on SH-9 rather than being forced to turn right at 24th Ave SW or drive in the grass. Traffic volumes can be heavy on this stretch of SH-9 and this just unduly favors traffic from the north over that from the south.

Oh, and then there's this in the temporary traffic control section:

[Bobby5280]

With whatever typeface ODOT uses on the finished signs, be it FHWA Series Gothic or Clearview, I just hope they don't screw around with the lowercase letters. I recently saw a couple newer signs along I-244 in Tulsa using Series Gothic, with the lowercase letters reduced to 75% of their normal size.


The City of Lawton has been repeating the same stupid mistake on all its newer street name sign panels. The only logical reason for shrinking lowercase characters in a legend: saving money by not having to use taller street name sign panels. They just keep using the skinny, less expensive ones made strictly for uppercase only legends.

Honestly, the FHWA needs to completely delete that verbiage from the MUTCD regarding approved typefaces and the size of the lowercase characters (the requirement of lowercase letters having an X-height at least 75% the M-height of the uppercase characters). Too many sign shops misunderstand this rule, thinking they have to modify the lowercase characters, shrinking them to 75% of their normal size. The FHWA should have either worded this rule more clearly or just dictated a specific type family. That would have been easier.

The Series Gothic lowercase letters don't quite have that X-height equal to 75% of the capital letter height in their native form (it's really 73%). Reduced to 75% of the normal size the lowercase letters have an X-height equal to only 54% of the cap height, not to mention the letter strokes are no longer uniform.