The Worst of Road Signs

[J N Winkler]

You made some very good points there.

It would appear the blame for bad signage originates with ODOT and their lack of a comprehensive signing manual.

Thank you for your kind words.

I should say, however, that I don't know for a fact that Oklahoma DOT doesn't have a signing manual.  They definitely don't have one online, and I have never heard anyone claim that they do have one, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that they have one and just haven't admitted to its existence in public.  KDOT doesn't put its Highway Sign Manual online and aside from cryptic mentions in bidding proposals, its existence is pretty well hidden.  MoDOT does admit to the existence of its Standard Sign Detail Manual (it is on a list of MoDOT manuals which can be asked for by name in a Sunshine Act request), but it is not online.  I think MoDOT does have basic design guidelines for guide signs online as part of its engineering wiki.

[texaskdog]

Oklahoma?  the state that insists the old highway keeps its number and the freeway be built one mile from it, then doesnt number the turnpike?

[NE2]

The best one there is the construction sign. A little small and hard to read, but I like it.

[agentsteel53]

Ironically, during the Age of Button Copy, Oklahoma's signage was generally very good (Turnpike Authority notwithstanding).

you can't stretch a button-copy element in Photoshop.

[agentsteel53]

I should say, however, that I don't know for a fact that Oklahoma DOT doesn't have a signing manual.  They definitely don't have one online, and I have never heard anyone claim that they do have one, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that they have one and just haven't admitted to its existence in public.  KDOT doesn't put its Highway Sign Manual online and aside from cryptic mentions in bidding proposals, its existence is pretty well hidden.  MoDOT does admit to the existence of its Standard Sign Detail Manual (it is on a list of MoDOT manuals which can be asked for by name in a Sunshine Act request), but it is not online.  I think MoDOT does have basic design guidelines for guide signs online as part of its engineering wiki.

couldn't other Sunshine/Freedom of Information Act/whatnot requests be made to the other DOTs? 

[Scott5114]

The closest thing I'm aware of to a sign manual for Oklahoma is the sheets linked from this, which provide a mish-mash of pattern accurate and non pattern accurate signs for things such as milemarkers, exit tabs, rest area signs, the 2006 state route marker, and so forth. I haven't seen anything resembling a generic template for freeway guide signs in there, but I haven't looked at every page.

Would it be worth the effort to contact Oklahoma DOT about this and register displeasure with the state of Oklahoma signage, or would I (and any other Oklahoma roadgeek who would be willing to team up on this) be waved off as a crazy? I think if presented with some of the pictures that have been posted here, an ODOT rep would be hard-pressed to defend their agency's handiwork, but then again they might be confused by the fact that someone wishes to hold them accountable for something more than the sign's presence and accuracy. What would be the chances that change could be affected?

OTA is a whole other kettle of fish, and of the two road agencies in Oklahoma, probably the worse when it comes to signs. What are their processes for signage? Would contacting them be any different?

[Ian]

Here is a cheap solution for a shield assembly in Aston, PA:

[agentsteel53]

not entirely without precedent...

[thenetwork]

That's the one thing I don't like about Oklahoma overhead gantrys:  They look like unfinished pedestrian bridges!   

[Ian]

Bubblicious I-495 shield:


Interesting curve sign:

[xonhulu]

It's been a few years since I took these, but weird signage abounded at the junction of US 191 and US 160 in AZ.  To begin with, the first northbound reassurance marker on 191 wasn't exactly the familiar US shield:



I'm assuming N12 was the roads BIA designation before US 191 was routed through here.

Approaching the junction from the north, I first encountered this sign that has probably seen better days:



This sign apparently had a circle for BIA 12.

Finally, my favorite was this shield at the junction itself for 191:



Nice of them to tell you what route you'd be on if you threw it in reverse!

These were taken in 2005.  I'd be a little surprised if these signs are still there.

[agentsteel53]

that 160/12 should go under the Best of Road Signs.  It may very well date back to 1970, when 160 got its routing through there.

when was 191 extended northward along Navajo 12?  I had thought it had been done by about 1982... so replacing those signs was about 23 years overdue.  I'm surprised; ADOT is usually on top of that sort of thing.

(and the signs are not there as of 2009... there was a double-fisted Junction but it looked to be modern, and if I recall correctly, it had an arrowhead shield)

[J N Winkler]

couldn't other Sunshine/Freedom of Information Act/whatnot requests be made to the other DOTs?

They could.  This kind of information is public record.  The problem is being prepared to pay when they respond.  In the case of Missouri, for example, about eight years ago I tried to obtain their signing manual through a Sunshine Act request and was informed that since it was available in paper only, I would be liable for $0.25/page--about $80 for a 325-page manual.  For this reason I am unwilling to proceed with requests unless I know I can get the document I want in electronic format (in which case the costs generally revolve around supply of electronic media rather than photocopying), or I can see the document I want (either in scanned samples or in an actual in-person visit to the DOT offices) and determine to my satisfaction that it can "pay the freight."

The closest thing I'm aware of to a sign manual for Oklahoma is the sheets linked from this, which provide a mish-mash of pattern accurate and non pattern accurate signs for things such as milemarkers, exit tabs, rest area signs, the 2006 state route marker, and so forth. I haven't seen anything resembling a generic template for freeway guide signs in there, but I haven't looked at every page.

As a general rule, state DOTs don't park design guidelines for designable signs in traffic standard sheets.  If I had to guess, Oklahoma DOT's design advice for freeway guide signs is probably in a stapled handout which receives samizdat circulation among ODOT design staff and among consultants that know it exists and are able to ask for it by name.  It might even be a straight photocopy of the ten or so pages in Standard Highway Signs (1979 edition) which explains how to lay out freeway guide signs.

Would it be worth the effort to contact Oklahoma DOT about this and register displeasure with the state of Oklahoma signage, or would I (and any other Oklahoma roadgeek who would be willing to team up on this) be waved off as a crazy? I think if presented with some of the pictures that have been posted here, an ODOT rep would be hard-pressed to defend their agency's handiwork, but then again they might be confused by the fact that someone wishes to hold them accountable for something more than the sign's presence and accuracy. What would be the chances that change could be affected?

The only way is to try it and see.  I don't think the public-affairs people won't know what you are talking about, so I would bypass them completely.  My suggestion would be to find out who the state traffic engineer is (if necessary by calling ODOT by phone) and then to send him a paper letter rather than an email.  I would enclose photographic examples of the more egregious design errors.  If you are able to "clean up" these designs by redoing them more or less exactly to the accepted design rules in Inkscape, you could attempt a side-by-side comparison that shows precisely what is wrong with each sign.  It would help if you had a good distribution of "bad" signs from all of the Oklahoma DOT divisions so you can show this is a statewide problem.  You could also use sign designs extracted from plan sheets because the dimensioning will show up the problems clearly.

The points I would make would be as follows:

*  Generally, freeway sign design is based on the rule of three-quarters capital letter height vertically, full capital letter height horizontally, with a few inches added or taken away either horizontally or vertically to accommodate material constraints created by the substrate used (e.g. standard width of aluminum extrusions).  This rule is well followed in signing plans generated by ODOT design staff, but not by consultants.

*  Although the dimensions for sign elements on the "problem" signs usually comply with the MUTCD, they are laid out so poorly that the faults of layout attract more attention than the sign messages themselves.  Cleanly designed signs do their job more efficiently because layout does not distract attention from the messages.

*  Correctly laid out signs reinforce tourists' and other outsiders' favorable impressions of the professionalism of ODOT traffic engineering.

*  Flawed signs result from decisions made during design, not construction, since bad signs found in the field usually track bad designs shown in the corresponding plans.

I would finish by asking what can be done to assure consistently high quality in sign layout within the design process, whether the designs are produced in-house or by consultants.

If you find that the "bad" signs are consistently bigger than "good" signs, you could also try arguing that designing the signs well would save money in terms of first cost, but this is an argument I personally would not reach for first because I haven't seen much evidence that the bad signs are generally bigger than well-designed substitutes would be.

OTA is a whole other kettle of fish, and of the two road agencies in Oklahoma, probably the worse when it comes to signs. What are their processes for signage? Would contacting them be any different?

AFAIK, OTA has minimal in-house capacity for design and erection of signs.  OTA farms out nearly all of its design work to consultants, who act for them much as they do for ODOT--clean signs from Benham, not-too-bad signs from TEC, etc.  OTA standards are generally derivative of ODOT's:  a typical OTA contract includes ODOT standard sheets and a few OTA-specific standard sheets dealing with things like toll booth signing.  I have no information on any signing manuals OTA may have, but suspect that if they do have one, it is also in samizdat circulation.

You could try pursuing an approach with OTA similar to that outlined above for ODOT, but I would first check that recent OTA signing is bad.  My own impression is that they have cleaned up their act somewhat.  The signs on the Cimarron Turnpike I saw when I drove to Tulsa in January 2010 seemed reasonably clean to me.  (I think those were done by TEC.)

[agentsteel53]

They could.  This kind of information is public record.  The problem is being prepared to pay when they respond.  In the case of Missouri, for example, about eight years ago I tried to obtain their signing manual through a Sunshine Act request and was informed that since it was available in paper only, I would be liable for $0.25/page--about $80 for a 325-page manual.  For this reason I am unwilling to proceed with requests unless I know I can get the document I want in electronic format (in which case the costs generally revolve around supply of electronic media rather than photocopying), or I can see the document I want (either in scanned samples or in an actual in-person visit to the DOT offices) and determine to my satisfaction that it can "pay the freight."

gotcha.

what about actually going to the DOT's headquarters and asking to see, and make copies of, the document in person.

then again, if I came across an Oklahoma signing manual from, say, 1963, I may very well cough up 80 dollars for it.

[Alex]

Ugly U.S. highway shields are more the standard than the exception in the Miami area:



U.S. 27 north at U.S. 441 ugliness.



A two-digit example of the ugly-style U.S. highway markers in South Florida.



Not so much ugly, but completely bland shields are found along U.S. 27 leading northwest from the Miami area.

[hbelkins]

They could.  This kind of information is public record.  The problem is being prepared to pay when they respond.  In the case of Missouri, for example, about eight years ago I tried to obtain their signing manual through a Sunshine Act request and was informed that since it was available in paper only, I would be liable for $0.25/page--about $80 for a 325-page manual.  For this reason I am unwilling to proceed with requests unless I know I can get the document I want in electronic format (in which case the costs generally revolve around supply of electronic media rather than photocopying), or I can see the document I want (either in scanned samples or in an actual in-person visit to the DOT offices) and determine to my satisfaction that it can "pay the freight."

That's BS. Generally accepted rate in Kentucky is 10 cents per page. Anything else is usually deemed excessive by the courts or by the attorney general's office.

*  Correctly laid out signs reinforce tourists' and other outsiders' favorable impressions of the professionalism of ODOT traffic engineering.

I don't the average non-roadgeek person knows or cares whether a sign is correctly laid out or not.

[agentsteel53]

I don't the average non-roadgeek person knows or cares whether a sign is correctly laid out or not.

maybe not on a conscious level, but one will find themselves less fatigued from navigating a well-designed set of signage, as compared to a poor one.  "now what's this arrow mean?  well, the last sign with that arrow meant 'optional exit lane' but this one appears to be exiting no matter what ... GET OVER! GET OVER! GET OVER!"

that sort of shit builds up after several hours.

[Scott5114]

*  Correctly laid out signs reinforce tourists' and other outsiders' favorable impressions of the professionalism of ODOT traffic engineering.

I don't the average non-roadgeek person knows or cares whether a sign is correctly laid out or not.

I think some of Oklahoma's signs are to the point that the average non-roadgeek would notice (reusing an example from Page 1 of this thread):


Also, while I don't think many of the examples I would have would rise to the level of being noticeable, but sign after sign of unbalanced layout, mis-centered signs, etc., is likely to leave an overall impression of mediocrity in the subconscious even if the road user isn't aware of the finer points of sign design. (Private sector advertising signage is usually centered and contains proper margins; there's something wrong when a DOT can't master that...)

In another thread, someone was meeting with UDOT and the state signage engineer thanked the roadgeek contacting the agency and said something along the lines of it's the taxpayer's right to see to it that their tax dollars are going toward properly signage. I don't know if ODOT feels that way, but if they don't, they should, because it's wholly correct.

[J N Winkler]

That's BS. Generally accepted rate in Kentucky is 10 cents per page. Anything else is usually deemed excessive by the courts or by the attorney general's office.

That is Kentucky.  Different states have different laws and different "deemed reasonable" thresholds.

The real killer is staff time.  Most states tend to charge it only for unusually expansive or difficult requests, but there are a few states where it is charged as a matter of course, the meter is running whenever you are in communication with a state official (whether records are being furnished or not), and you must compulsorily accept supervision (again, with the meter running) when you are in state offices looking at records.

*  Correctly laid out signs reinforce tourists' and other outsiders' favorable impressions of the professionalism of ODOT traffic engineering.

I don't the average non-roadgeek person knows or cares whether a sign is correctly laid out or not.

The lay person can often tell when a sign is badly laid out even if he or she can't necessarily verbalize what is wrong with it.  Also, to add to Scott's point, it generally costs the same to put up a good sign as a bad one, and the good sign has a chance of lasting longer because bad design is less likely to be a reason for early replacement and it is also less likely to attract graffiti.  (The leading theory of graffiti prevention is that vandals will generally avoid objects which look clean and well-maintained.)

[Dr Frankenstein]

That's BS. Generally accepted rate in Kentucky is 10 cents per page. Anything else is usually deemed excessive by the courts or by the attorney general's office.

That is Kentucky.  Different states have different laws and different "deemed reasonable" thresholds.

The real killer is staff time.  Most states tend to charge it only for unusually expansive or difficult requests, but there are a few states where it is charged as a matter of course, the meter is running whenever you are in communication with a state official (whether records are being furnished or not), and you must compulsorily accept supervision (again, with the meter running) when you are in state offices looking at records.

While charging for paper and media is reasonable, I think that charging for time is a bit far fetched (they would be paid if you weren't there anyway).

The documents themselves (apart from the media) should be free, though.

Québec's MUTCD costs C$180, even for the online version (slightly worse at $180/year).

The Canadian MUTCD is probably the worst offender, at between C$300 and C$450 (depending whether you're member of their bookstore or not), paper only, not including the sign designs (available on a separate CD at C$150 to 225).

And people wonder why signage standards aren't always respected here...

[okroads]

[J N Winkler]

While charging for paper and media is reasonable, I think that charging for time is a bit far fetched (they would be paid if you weren't there anyway).

The justification for charging staff time is that if the state employee is helping you, then he or she is taking time which then becomes unavailable for work on the tasks for which he or she has been hired by the state.  The general rule (in the states which do charge for staff time as a matter of routine) is that you are charged at marginal cost, generally as the employee's hourly rate times the number of hours or designated fraction thereof.  You are not expected to contribute to the state employee's health insurance or pension--the state takes care of that for you.  Similarly, when you are billed for copies, the amount you are asked to pay is supposed to be just enough to cover the cost of paper and toner, not to amortize the copier as well.  A few state legislatures have inserted "first X hours free" provisions in their open records laws to discourage state employees from using hourly charges to punish requestors, which does happen.

I personally don't agree with charges for staff time for two reasons.  First, a member of the general public is by definition outside the department, so he or she cannot be expected to know how the records are organized and therefore how to ask for them in a way which allows quick retrieval.  If the meter is set running with the first contact with a state employee, this greatly complicates the process of figuring out how to ask for records in a way that maximizes reward and minimizes effort.  Second, it makes it much more difficult and costly to use government records to expose fraud and abuse, research history, etc.

However, it is very difficult to argue against cost-recovery provisions in open records laws because agencies generally feel they need a tool to restrain nuisance requests, such as "All documentation relating to I-70 from its inception to the present."

The documents themselves (apart from the media) should be free, though.

Certainly.

Québec's MUTCD costs C$180, even for the online version (slightly worse at $180/year).

The Canadian MUTCD is probably the worst offender, at between C$300 and C$450 (depending whether you're member of their bookstore or not), paper only, not including the sign designs (available on a separate CD at C$150 to 225).

I have been following traffic signing in Canada for almost as long as I have been in the US and Britain, and it has always bothered me that the culture of making the documentation available for free is so weak in Canada.  Alberta is the only province I have found which is completely open where this is concerned.  BC used to have its Sign Pattern Manual online, in vector PDF, but then they got paranoid about content theft and rasterized it, and now it has disappeared altogether.  Ontario has put the OTM online but it took them quite long enough to get around to that.  And MTQ is exactly where it was 10 years ago, except that they now put repurposable images and the devis online (before that they used to charge more than C$1000 for the complete set).  Much of the little that is made available for free download is in encrypted PDF (which can be broken with cheap software or evaded altogether using GhostScript, which prompts one to ask why they are so mean-minded).

And people wonder why signage standards aren't always respected here...

To be fair, the MUTCDC is and has always been a consensus document and has never had the firm backing of a federal agency the way the MUTCD gets from FHWA.  I also kind of doubt that the Canadian feds operate a plans review system in connection with federal aid disbursements.  Down here that means state DOTs have to draw up the plans in accordance with FAPG 630(b) Supplement and forward them to the FHWA division office for review before letting; I have never heard of Canadian engineers having to go outside the provincial transportation ministry for engineering review and approvals.

[Dr Frankenstein]

Indeed, I don't think that the MUTCDC is actually enforced, but it does set a basic standard for provinces to follow (although I have no idea of what is actually in that book because, well, it is inaccessible.)

I wouldn't be surprised that some municipal governments actually don't buy their provincial book.

[hobsini2]

That's the one thing I don't like about Oklahoma overhead gantrys:  They look like unfinished pedestrian bridges!   

Actually what i find repulsive is how small the type is for Joplin in the middle sign as well as the two different sizes for the words Creek Turnpike.

[vtk]

...as well as the two different sizes for the words Creek Turnpike.

At least the "Tu" pair is properly kerned!