Construction zone signing

[Kacie Jane]

So, on this street by my house, they're doing God-knows-what under the sidewalk, which I suppose occasionally requires them to close the right lane so they can put equipment there and what not.  However, the past four times I've driven by, the lane has not been closed.

The signs they have posted in the block leading up to the zone are, in this order, "Right Lane Closed Ahead", the diagrammatic lane closure sign, and "Road Work Ahead".

So my two questions are thus...

1. Those signs are in the wrong order, right?  IMHO, the Road Work Ahead sign should be first, and probably more than a block in advance of the zone.

2. The signs I mentioned are posted — perfectly visible to traffic — 24/7, even when the lane is not closed.  I realize the answer to this may vary by area, but I seem to remember hearing once that this was illegal — that the construction company could be fined for posting signs for a lane closure that didn't exist.  Is this true around you?

(And feel free to rant about other issues related to orange signs.  )

[Truvelo]

Here's in the UK the road work ahead sign comes first followed by the lane closure sign. In our case both signs are diagrammatic with the road work sign showing a man holding a shovel.

It's often the case here on city streets that they place the signs in the wrong order. Sometimes they use a left side of the road narrowing when it's the right side that narrows. Some diagrammatics are removable so you can change a left closure to a right.

[J N Winkler]

I haven't checked Chapter 6 of the MUTCD, which is really the final authority for all construction signing questions, but I am pretty sure "ROAD WORK AHEAD" (or equivalent) does have to come first.  The reasoning for this is that construction is a change from the normal condition and drivers need to be primed to be alert for changes in the road layout rather than having said changes dumped on them as a surprise.

In both the US and the UK it is much more common for construction signing to be badly placed or just wrong on local roads than on state highways/trunk roads and other important roads which serve through traffic.

[hm insulators]

Here in Arizona, I've noticed that ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD signs are no longer used; it's now ROAD WORK AHEAD. Is this true of other states?

[Revive 755]

^ Some of them.  MoDOT has switched to road work ahead, but some counties and cities still use road construction.  Illinois still used road construction last time I checked.

[Truvelo]

Is this sign widely used in the US? I know it would be in a yellow diamond but here in Europe this is the standard sign used at the start of roadworks/construction.

[Brandon]

Is this sign widely used in the US? I know it would be in a yellow diamond but here in Europe this is the standard sign used at the start of roadworks/construction.

I have seen similar signs in the US.  They are on orange diamonds (not yellow) as they are construction signs.

[roadfro]

So my two questions are thus...

1. Those signs are in the wrong order, right?  IMHO, the Road Work Ahead sign should be first, and probably more than a block in advance of the zone.

2. The signs I mentioned are posted — perfectly visible to traffic — 24/7, even when the lane is not closed.  I realize the answer to this may vary by area, but I seem to remember hearing once that this was illegal — that the construction company could be fined for posting signs for a lane closure that didn't exist.  Is this true around you?

1) Yes. From the 2009 MUTCD (Section 6F.17, paragraph 2):

Where multiple advance warning signs are needed on the approach to a TTC zone, the ROAD WORK AHEAD (W20-1) sign should be the first advance warning sign encountered by road users.

Note that this is a guidance statement rather than a standard, so it does not need to be applied in every case. However, with a guidance statement, there should be a clear reason not to follow it. The situation you've described does not appear to have any good reason why the lane closure signs are in front of the road work sign.

2) Again from the 2009 MUTCD (Section 6F.17, paragraph 2):

All TTC devices shall be removed as soon as practical when they are no longer needed. When work is suspended for short periods of time, TTC devices that are no longer appropriate shall be removed or covered.

This is a standard, so it should be enforceable. When the lane is open during non-work hours, the signs should be turned away from traffic or otherwise removed or covered. When signs are not applicable and drivers see that they are not applicable on multiple occasions, motorists start to lose respect for the sign and may start to ignore similar warnings--this is especially problematic in construction zones. I'd suggest contacting the contractor or public entity about this issue.

As to fines incurred by the contractor for not covering/removing the signs when not applicable, that will likely vary depending on local laws and language in the contract. As far as laws in Nevada are concerned, I'm not aware of anything that specifically states contractors can be fined for not covering signs when not applicable. I would imagine, however, that there might be a possibility of assessing a fine or penalties if the contractor doesn't follow the traffic control plan...which would mean the plan would need to show the signs in the proper order to begin with.

[roadfro]

Is this sign widely used in the US? I know it would be in a yellow diamond but here in Europe this is the standard sign used at the start of roadworks/construction.

The equivalent sign in the MUTCD is the W21-1 sign below. It is used to indicate the presence of workers in or near the roadway in the absence of other warning devices.


It is not used to indicate the beginning of a road work zone. My guess is that using this as the "Road Work Ahead" sign would imply to drivers that workers are currently present near the road, when that is not always the case in road construction activities. I believe the FHWA folks must have determined some time ago that the word legend "Road Work Ahead" better conveys the presence of a work zone than any symbol that has been devised to date.

[Kacie Jane]

Thanks roadfro, that's pretty much exactly what I thought the answers would be.  Regarding the order of the signs, I gave it some more thought and realized why the signs were out of order — not that it's a good reason.  The "Road Work Ahead" sign was put up first, about a week or two before the project first necessitated lane closures, and was put up pretty much right at the work site (definitely less than 50 feet).  The lane closure signs were put up later, and the road work sign was never moved.

But I mean, we're talking about signs that are sitting on little tripod things inches above the sidewalk.  Very easy to move... or rotate.

[Scott5114]

If it's within walking distance of your house, you could do it yourself

[Kacie Jane]

  I'd thought about doing that, but yesterday the signs and most of the other evidence were all gone... just some cones blocking a parking lot entrance that's not yet repaved.

[Michael]

Roadfro, you beat me to it.  Oh, well.

Scott, I tried to do that with a street sign pointing the wrong way yesterday, but it wouldn't move far enough.  The chance of getting in trouble was another issue.

[hbelkins]

Roadfro, you beat me to it.  Oh, well.

Scott, I tried to do that with a street sign pointing the wrong way yesterday, but it wouldn't move far enough.  The chance of getting in trouble was another issue.

You mean you didn't have your pocket copy of the MUTCD with you to back you up when you say, "That's a violation and I was just trying to correct it." 

[Michael]

^^^ HA!

I was riding my bike, but I do have a copy on my laptop (which is currently broken )