The Worst of Road Signs

[JoePCool14]

Even though this is a temporary construction sign, it is still worthy of this thread IMO. Just south of downtown Orlando, I haven't been able to get a good picture of this so here's a GSV shot.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5182599,-81.3870197,3a,19y,38.59h,93.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srd2a68TFGugH7b0fPbIP1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh dear, oh dear...

This reminds me of the times when I would just sit in Excel and try and intentionally make a trash sign.

[formulanone]

Even though this is a temporary construction sign, it is still worthy of this thread IMO. Just south of downtown Orlando, I haven't been able to get a good picture of this so here's a GSV shot.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5182599,-81.3870197,3a,19y,38.59h,93.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srd2a68TFGugH7b0fPbIP1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Orlandohoma?

[kphoger]

It's almost worthy of Ala.nland.

[noelbotevera]

Hey, at least they got the shield right.

[Scott5114]

Orlandohoma? Well, we can't have Florida moving in on our turf. Looks like it's time for a genuine ODOT Special™...



Having trouble deciding between using an APL or a stippled-arrow diagrammatic? Why not just use both? Oh, and don't bother centering the arrows over the lanes, that's not a big deal or anything. After all, you have the tiny little lane lines on the option lane arrow, people will figure it out. And sure, let's just use Series E(M) on the shield too; we've been doing that so much lately people kind of expect it. May as well center the control cities to the arrows and the "40 East" between the edge lines, while we're at it. It creates artistic tension.

I kind of actually like the style of the straight-ahead and exit-only arrows, though.

[Rothman]

That's horrible and probably dangerous.

[Scott5114]

Oh, and if that's not enough? There's one going the other way, too!

[Ned Weasel]

Orlandohoma? Well, we can't have Florida moving in on our turf. Looks like it's time for a genuine ODOT Special™...

[(Image has been snipped, but it will never be un-seen.)]

Having trouble deciding between using an APL or a stippled-arrow diagrammatic? Why not just use both? Oh, and don't bother centering the arrows over the lanes, that's not a big deal or anything. After all, you have the tiny little lane lines on the option lane arrow, people will figure it out. And sure, let's just use Series E(M) on the shield too; we've been doing that so much lately people kind of expect it. May as well center the control cities to the arrows and the "40 East" between the edge lines, while we're at it. It creates artistic tension.

Wow!  Just when I thought ODOT was getting better--

I kind of actually like the style of the straight-ahead and exit-only arrows, though.

Hey, at least there's one redeeming quality!  The curved-right arrow kind of reminds me of the endangered non-MUTCD New Jersey Turnpike exit gore signs, except it's kind of the reverse: https://goo.gl/maps/ERbYS3vVcq2Dh3M29

[thenetwork]

Orlandohoma? Well, we can't have Florida moving in on our turf. Looks like it's time for a genuine ODOT Special™...



Having trouble deciding between using an APL or a stippled-arrow diagrammatic? Why not just use both? Oh, and don't bother centering the arrows over the lanes, that's not a big deal or anything. After all, you have the tiny little lane lines on the option lane arrow, people will figure it out. And sure, let's just use Series E(M) on the shield too; we've been doing that so much lately people kind of expect it. May as well center the control cities to the arrows and the "40 East" between the edge lines, while we're at it. It creates artistic tension.

I kind of actually like the style of the straight-ahead and exit-only arrows, though.

That specific Oklahoma City - Downtown grouping order grates on me as well, even though I know it's ODOT's way of life.

[US 89]

Orlandohoma? Well, we can't have Florida moving in on our turf. Looks like it's time for a genuine ODOT Special™...



Having trouble deciding between using an APL or a stippled-arrow diagrammatic? Why not just use both? Oh, and don't bother centering the arrows over the lanes, that's not a big deal or anything. After all, you have the tiny little lane lines on the option lane arrow, people will figure it out. And sure, let's just use Series E(M) on the shield too; we've been doing that so much lately people kind of expect it. May as well center the control cities to the arrows and the "40 East" between the edge lines, while we're at it. It creates artistic tension.

To add to everything else that's bad about this sign, it looks like the diagrammatic itself is wrong - it only shows 3 thru lanes, but it looks like there are 4 in real life.

[Scott5114]

That specific Oklahoma City - Downtown grouping order grates on me as well, even though I know it's ODOT's way of life.

It's sort of awkward to have Okla. City there at all, since this is in Oklahoma City limits. But it's still in Canadian County, which is probably why they want Okla. City there. I would think just "Downtown" would suffice? But maybe people might not be clear on which city's Downtown that is, as they've just left Yukon.

To add to everything else that's bad about this sign, it looks like the diagrammatic itself is wrong - it only shows 3 thru lanes, but it looks like there are 4 in real life.

Oh, nice catch. The diagrammatic is wrong...but the APL part is right!

[kphoger]

the APL part is right

Don't say things like that about the sign.

[jakeroot]

the APL part is right

Don't say things like that about the sign.

Just in terms of the arrowheads vs diverging lanes.

There's actually a very similar sign at the Boeing Factory in Everett, WA, where the number of lanes is represented by very closely-spaced arrows.

The standard ground mounted exit sign in BC uses closely-spaced arrows. Having an equal number of arrows and lanes is the key part of an APL. Centering over the lanes is simply an FHWA thing (even South Africa doesn't give a shit, and they have great signage):



As well, the up arrow centered over the dividing line is a relatively common error. See here, WA's first APL on southbound 5 approaching the 205 north of Vancouver.

I also quite like the Series E(M) shield in that OKC sign. Very retro feel.

Overall, I give the sign -993/10. Normally 7/10 (-3 for the incorrect arrow placement), but -1000 for that stippled arrow diagrammatic. That shit is whack.

[JoePCool14]

Orlandohoma? Well, we can't have Florida moving in on our turf. Looks like it's time for a genuine ODOT Special™...



Having trouble deciding between using an APL or a stippled-arrow diagrammatic? Why not just use both? Oh, and don't bother centering the arrows over the lanes, that's not a big deal or anything. After all, you have the tiny little lane lines on the option lane arrow, people will figure it out. And sure, let's just use Series E(M) on the shield too; we've been doing that so much lately people kind of expect it. May as well center the control cities to the arrows and the "40 East" between the edge lines, while we're at it. It creates artistic tension.

I kind of actually like the style of the straight-ahead and exit-only arrows, though.

There are positives to this sign.

The exit tab looks nice.

There's no Clearview.

That's it.

[Scott5114]

I also quite like the Series E(M) shield in that OKC sign. Very retro feel.

You're in luck, then, because the signage contractor ODOT has been using lately has been changing the digits on every single interstate shield to these. This is the same contractor that uses Type D arrows for everything. All of these are despite the shields being specified using Series D (and Type A arrows) on the plan sheets. You can find a Series E(M) shield for every single Interstate in the OKC area. Weirdly, they leave the US and state highways alone and use Series D.

Have a 35:


And a 44:


And a 235:


And there's independent-mount ones too:

[mrsman]

the APL part is right

Don't say things like that about the sign.

Just in terms of the arrowheads vs diverging lanes.

There's actually a very similar sign at the Boeing Factory in Everett, WA, where the number of lanes is represented by very closely-spaced arrows.

The standard ground mounted exit sign in BC uses closely-spaced arrows. Having an equal number of arrows and lanes is the key part of an APL. Centering over the lanes is simply an FHWA thing (even South Africa doesn't give a shit, and they have great signage):



As well, the up arrow centered over the dividing line is a relatively common error. See here, WA's first APL on southbound 5 approaching the 205 north of Vancouver.

I also quite like the Series E(M) shield in that OKC sign. Very retro feel.

Overall, I give the sign -993/10. Normally 7/10 (-3 for the incorrect arrow placement), but -1000 for that stippled arrow diagrammatic. That shit is whack.

I think a side mounted APL sign can get away with just delineating where the lanes go, as the sign from British Columbia indicates.  But when an APL is mounted as a BGS, aligning it with the lanes is quite important.

[noelbotevera]

Oh, and if that's not enough? There's one going the other way, too!

So if I want to get to Amarillo, I take the centermost lane? But I'm in the leftmost lane! What shall I do!?!

P.S. This sign would be fine without the I-40 reassurance and if it was centered over the exit. But I guess accuracy or precision is overrated.

[Scott5114]

I think a side mounted APL sign can get away with just delineating where the lanes go, as the sign from British Columbia indicates.  But when an APL is mounted as a BGS, aligning it with the lanes is quite important.

The problem with APLs like this one and the ones in South Africa and BC is that they rely on the user counting lanes to determine their relative position on the road. If one is, say, driving alongside a big truck, or in wet or snowy conditions that obscure the lane lines, this can be nearly impossible. Even in clear conditions, the skewed perspective when looking across a wide roadway at speed can make it difficult. (This, by the way, is also a concern with the "LEFT 3 LANES" signage that ODOT has adopted to get around the ban on dancing arrows.)

So if I want to get to Amarillo, I take the centermost lane? But I'm in the leftmost lane! What shall I do!?!

Wise up and realize that no rational human being should ever want to be in Amarillo?

[jakeroot]

I think a side mounted APL sign can get away with just delineating where the lanes go, as the sign from British Columbia indicates.  But when an APL is mounted as a BGS, aligning it with the lanes is quite important.

The problem with APLs like this one and the ones in South Africa and BC is that they rely on the user counting lanes to determine their relative position on the road. If one is, say, driving alongside a big truck, or in wet or snowy conditions that obscure the lane lines, this can be nearly impossible. Even in clear conditions, the skewed perspective when looking across a wide roadway at speed can make it difficult. (This, by the way, is also a concern with the "LEFT 3 LANES" signage that ODOT has adopted to get around the ban on dancing arrows.)

That misses the point a bit. APLs can more clearly indicate "of X-number of lanes, these lanes [on the right/left] diverge from the road". You're not meant to count lanes at every single sign, so much as you are meant to be made aware of the existence of an exit, and how many lanes go towards that exit. In the above I-40 sign, we can clearly see that the right and second-to-right lanes are part of Exit 139A. Thus, as a driver, you simply need to make your way right. Once there's only a single lane to your right, you know you're good to go. This is no different from down arrows, apart from APLs more clearly indicating what the other lanes do, and whether a lane contains an optional split. It still helps to have some idea of how many lanes are to your right or left (to determine your relative position -- I don't think most drivers aren't aware of which lane they're in, even on our widest freeways), but this is also true for down arrow signage.

My issue with down arrows is that the lanes they point to are far too often not very clear. In simple interchanges or along straight stretches of freeway, they're good. But along curves or when lane markings aren't very clear, they seem to be a bit more vague in terms of the lanes they are meant to be pointing to. I find APLs a hair less vague in this sense, since although they are more often than not mounted over the correct lanes, you can still "count lanes" if possible to see if you're good or not.

That said, I prefer full-width APLs. Just shorter variants than what the FHWA requires.

I also quite like the Series E(M) shield in that OKC sign. Very retro feel.

You're in luck, then, because the signage contractor ODOT has been using lately has been changing the digits on every single interstate shield to these. This is the same contractor that uses Type D arrows for everything. All of these are despite the shields being specified using Series D (and Type A arrows) on the plan sheets. You can find a Series E(M) shield for every single Interstate in the OKC area. Weirdly, they leave the US and state highways alone and use Series D.

Have a 35:


And a 44:


And a 235:


And there's independent-mount ones too:

I hate non-adherence to plan sheets. Still, I guess it's something I would let slide, since I prefer Series E(M) when possible.

[kphoger]

Wise up and realize that no rational human being should ever want to be in Amarillo?

The best barbecue I've ever had was with my dad at Dyer's in Amarillo, back in the 1990s.  When my parents traveled through there on a vacation a few years ago, he made a point to stop and eat there, and they brought me back a T-shirt. 

You're ... meant to be made aware of the existence of an exit, and how many lanes go towards that exit. In the above I-40 sign, we can clearly see that the right and second-to-right lanes are part of Exit 139A. Thus, as a driver, you simply need to make your way right. Once there's only a single lane to your right, you know you're good to go.

Excellent point.

↓  Nobody would be complaining about having to count lanes if the sign looked like this, for example.  ↓



Yet it's basically the same thing.

[Ned Weasel]

The best barbecue I've ever had was with my dad at Dyer's in Amarillo, back in the 1990s.  When my parents traveled through there on a vacation a few years ago, he made a point to stop and eat there, and they brought me back a T-shirt. 

I'll have to try that the next time I take a trip out west.

Excellent point.

↓  Nobody would be complaining about having to count lanes if the sign looked like this, for example.  ↓



Yet it's basically the same thing.

Nice!!!  It's like Caltrans, but taller, with curved arrows, and a separated exit tab, and without any of the haphazard sign design atrocities that plague both Caltrans and ODOT!  You could even add a separate panel for an "I-40 WEST/Amarillo/AHEAD" pull-through sign if you wanted.

I'm starting to wish the MUTCD would just give up on both diagrammatics and OAPL.  Because DOTs all over the place routinely get them wrong, although I'd argue they've long been worse at doing diagrammatics (the usual error being the wrong number of lanes).  But the way the MUTCD dictates the use both only makes them workable in the simplest of situations (although, frankly, this ODOT example is a simple case without reason for departure from standards).  My honest preference would be to use a single down arrow for each lane, and allow a vertical line over an option lane to indicate its use as an option lane.  Has that ever confused anyone when used in the real world?  It's much more legible than diagrammatics, and it's quite a bit easier and probably a little bit less costly to implement than OAPL.  I really don't understand why the MUTCD felt the need to do away with it, and I wish they'd bring it back.

I think a side mounted APL sign can get away with just delineating where the lanes go, as the sign from British Columbia indicates.  But when an APL is mounted as a BGS, aligning it with the lanes is quite important.

I came up an idea like that for this split in Kansas City that's never been signed well, to my knowledge: https://goo.gl/maps/AB5geDFzeK1RdP9Z9



It's less ideal than an overhead, but I think it conveys the message quite adequately, and is perhaps more legible than using a an assembly consisting of separate guide-sign and lane-usage regulatory panels.

[jakeroot]

I'm starting to wish the MUTCD would just give up on both diagrammatics and OAPL.  Because DOTs all over the place routinely get them wrong, although I'd argue they've long been worse at doing diagrammatics (the usual error being the wrong number of lanes).  But the way the MUTCD dictates the use both only makes them workable in the simplest of situations (although, frankly, this ODOT example is a simple case without reason for departure from standards).  My honest preference would be to use a single down arrow for each lane, and allow a vertical line over an option lane to indicate its use as an option lane.  Has that ever confused anyone when used in the real world?  It's much more legible than diagrammatics, and it's quite a bit easier and probably a little bit less costly to implement than OAPL.  I really don't understand why the MUTCD felt the need to do away with it, and I wish they'd bring it back.

My understanding with APLs is that they were introduced to clear up confusion related to the meaning of a white-on-green arrow above an option lane. Even with a dividing line, it seemed like drivers weren't quite getting the message that white-on-green does not necessarily mean "mandatory exit" (although a pull through with white-on-green arrows is technically mandatory ... see what I mean?).

I would be fine with getting rid of stippled-arrow diagrammatics because I've always found them hard to read from a distance. Functionally, they are identical to the standard overhead sign used in South Africa (lanes grouped into a graphic, with arrows pointing towards destinations or routes), just much harder to read. But replacing them with APLs or down arrows may not be necessary. Here's a middle ground proposal (102" by 432" (aka three lanes exactly)) based on those South African signs:

[CoreySamson]

Hey, at least there's one redeeming quality!  The curved-right arrow kind of reminds me of the endangered non-MUTCD New Jersey Turnpike exit gore signs, except it's kind of the reverse: https://goo.gl/maps/ERbYS3vVcq2Dh3M29

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't really like the look of that arrow at all.

I think diagrammatic signs work well when properly done (i.e, the old signs at the 10/12 split in Baton Rouge), but to me, APLs work and look better. The problem is, if there's construction (or if the sign is erroneous or poorly done) then the sign becomes confusing. As a driver, figuring out where I'm going via APL is easier than squinting at a diagram, especially if there's lots of lanes involved.

[STLmapboy]

Hey, at least there's one redeeming quality!  The curved-right arrow kind of reminds me of the endangered non-MUTCD New Jersey Turnpike exit gore signs, except it's kind of the reverse: https://goo.gl/maps/ERbYS3vVcq2Dh3M29

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't really like the look of that arrow at all.

I don't like it either. Weird bulge.

[kphoger]

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't really like the look of that arrow at all.

I don't like it either. Weird bulge.

I'm most bothered by the option lane arrowheads not being the same size as the other four.