Signs With Design Errors

[hotdogPi]

Are these supposed to be all US routes, or are they state routes, with the sign in error?

[Ned Weasel]

Where is the design error in the first picture?  The "dancing" arrows?
I do like the way the EXIT 81 sign is designed.  If there was more room on the sign, I would have liked to see control cities on it.

Look at the arrow on the far right, under "Antioch Rd."

(It took me a while to notice it, too.)

[Ned Weasel]

The 435 gantry with dancing arrows could be made more compact, even adding destination legends.  Or it could maybe go APL for compliance with current standards.  Could be a good exercise for the Redesign This thread.

I don't consider any of those issues design errors, but rather, design choices that are no longer MUTCD-compliant.  See my previous reply for the actual error in that one.

The 24-59-40 has a few minor issues.  The fraction is done wrong.  The only thing that should be in Clearview is Lawrence.  And, is there a reason the US routes don't appear in order?  I'd say these are minor nitpicks, though.

The fraction is the big issue for me ("one slash two mile").  Is there a reason why the exit tab and a distance legend with a proper fraction shouldn't be in Clearview, though?

There is, sort of, a reason why the US routes appear out of order.  Normally, the Kansas Turnpike Authority would place shields for routes reached directly from the exit, before shields for routes reached indirectly from the exit (which should use the "TO" designation).  But that is not the case here, as US 40 and 59 are reached directly from the exit, and US 24 is accessed via US 40/59, about half a mile to the north.  I think the reason for this ordering can be found in this photo from OKRoads.com, which shows what the Exit 204 guide signs used to look like:

http://www.okroads.com/080903/i70ksexit204.JPG

I think the KTA simply doesn't consider US 40 an important piece of information, as it is essentially a frontage road for the I-70 portion of the Turnpike.  (In fact, it could even be considered a shunpike route for people who don't mind all the traffic signals, curves, lower speed limits, and lack of passing lanes.)  I can only speculate that, when the new signs were being designed, someone said, "you really ought to include US 40."  The Exit 202 guide signs have never included US 40 and still don't; they simply say "US 59 SOUTH," even though US 40 and 59 are equidistant from that exit.

[Ned Weasel]

Are these supposed to be all US routes, or are they state routes, with the sign in error?

They are all, in fact, US routes.

[vtk]

Is there a reason why the exit tab and a distance legend with a proper fraction shouldn't be in Clearview, though?

Clearview is approved ONLY for destination and street name legends – in other words, the things that are supposed to use lowercase letters – and only in a light color on a dark background. 

[J N Winkler]

Clearview is approved ONLY for destination and street name legends – in other words, the things that are supposed to use lowercase letters – and only in a light color on a dark background.

That is debatable:  that point regarding Clearview usage appears in the Clearview FAQ (an advisory document) but not the actual Clearview interim approval memorandum (a regulatory document).  However, the fraction is most definitely incorrectly composed.

I believe the Turnpike sign was erected as part of the Kansas River bridge replacement contract.  The construction plans called for Series E Modified to be used, with properly composed fraction rectangles, and the US 40 shield omitted on the East Lawrence Interchange signs.  However, the plans included sign layout sheets only, not sign panel detail sheets, which is rather unusual for Turnpike jobs (at least in recent years).  My guess is that it was KTA's intention from the beginning to design and fabricate the signs itself for later installation by the bridge contractor, but rushed through the design process (leading to genuinely awful results) when the time came to prepare signs for installation.

[route56]

I believe the Turnpike sign was erected as part of the Kansas River bridge replacement contract.

The new Clearveiw signs were indeed installed as part of the Kansas River Bridge project.

[Central Avenue]

That is debatable:  that point regarding Clearview usage appears in the Clearview FAQ (an advisory document) but not the actual Clearview interim approval memorandum (a regulatory document).

Also, the Clearview FAQ came along several years after the initial interim approval, so there are many signs that were simply made before the FHWA had given an official stance on the use of Clearview outside of street and destination names.

[amroad17]

Where is the design error in the first picture?  The "dancing" arrows?
I do like the way the EXIT 81 sign is designed.  If there was more room on the sign, I would have liked to see control cities on it.

Look at the arrow on the far right, under "Antioch Rd."

(It took me a while to notice it, too.)

Same here.

[J N Winkler]

The Clearview FAQ also advocates interline spacing for Clearview legend that is based on the loop height of Clearview rather than the FHWA alphabet series--i.e., 84% rather than 75%.  I have not seen even one agency that has adopted that spacing, which defeats the purpose of inserting Clearview into the same footprints as the FHWA alphabet series.

I like the fact that the Clearview FAQ tries vigorously to stamp out negative-contrast Clearview, Clearview in route markers, and similar abominations, but much of its advice has to be taken with several grains of salt.

[Zeffy]

I like the fact that the Clearview FAQ tries vigorously to stamp out negative-contrast Clearview, Clearview in route markers, and similar abominations, but much of its advice has to be taken with several grains of salt.

This is something that should NEVER happen. The negative contrast Clearview isn't that bad, but I honestly hate route shields with Clearview numerals. YUCK.

[route56]

This sign does have a blatant negative-contrast violation:


46041 by richiekennedy56, on Flickr

There's also something else different about this sign. Let's see if anybody can pick it out without reading the caption.

[myosh_tino]

The only other thing I noticed was the "1" and "4" in the fraction are different heights.

[Big John]

No exit tab and no "EXIT" verbage before the distance?  Should have one of those.

[J N Winkler]

I am not sure if the final word in "LAST FREE EXIT" can be used to satisfy the MUTCD, whose requirement in this regard has traditionally been phrased as the word EXIT appearing at least once on each advance guide sign.

The fraction rectangle seems out of alignment with the adjacent whole number too.

[route56]

OOPS... didn't notice the missing exit tab, and I'm not sure about the fraction. There's still something else abnormal about this sign, and it's indicative of being a KTA knock-down replacement.

[Ned Weasel]

OOPS... didn't notice the missing exit tab, and I'm not sure about the fraction. There's still something else abnormal about this sign, and it's indicative of being a KTA knock-down replacement.

I just noticed it!  The order of the shields used to be K-7, US 73, US 24, and US 40.  The replacement sign put the US shields in the "correct" order (still ignoring that the state route should come after them), but not the same order that was originally intended (and not the same order that is on the other guide signs in that series).

Comparison: https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.098194,-94.874175&spn=0.008593,0.021136&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.098232,-94.874012&panoid=oU32hQRbXNz-449bzqU5-w&cbp=12,288.82,,0,0.91

Also, as a side note, the MUTCD prefers "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL" but hasn't made that a standard.

[route56]

I just noticed it!  The order of the shields used to be K-7, US 73, US 24, and US 40.  The replacement sign put the US shields in the "correct" order (still ignoring that the state route should come after them), but not the same order that was originally intended (and not the same order that is on the other guide signs in that series).

That's not it either.

K-7 has the superior position in part because it is the only highway that continues south from here. US 24-40 west depart to the north, and US 73 has its south end here.

The reason that US 24-40 is signed at the end instead of the beginning is related to the fact 24-40 joins I-70 here. The signs on eastbound I-70 have a directional modifier centered above the 24 and 40 shields.

As to what I find abnormal on this sign... take a close look at the K-7 shield.

[J N Winkler]

As to what I find abnormal on this sign... take a close look at the K-7 shield.

Crikey!  I missed that and I have a Kansas route shield avatar.  Four extra petals, and the petals in general seem irregularly formed:  did they borrow the old Wikipedia graphic?

[kphoger]

I just noticed it!  The order of the shields used to be K-7, US 73, US 24, and US 40.  The replacement sign put the US shields in the "correct" order (still ignoring that the state route should come after them), but not the same order that was originally intended (and not the same order that is on the other guide signs in that series).

That's not it either.

Dude.  I don't care if that was the intended correct answer or not.  He deserves to win an award for his answer.  Somebody give that man a Klondike bar!

[route56]

Crikey!  I missed that and I have a Kansas route shield avatar.  Four extra petals, and the petals in general seem irregularly formed:  did they borrow the old Wikipedia graphic?

I think that, somewhere along the line, the petals on the 20-petal variant got "streamlined." Of course, since the KTA uses the "streamlined" 20-petal sign for its KTA signs, it's only natural that they would use it for signing K- numbered routes as well (whereas a KDOT or contractor-fabricated sign would use the standard 16 petal variant)

One thing I did specifically see on this sign that I hadn't on other KTA fabricated signs is that the K-7 shield is oriented so that a "straight" petal is at the 12-o'clock position, as is the norm with the 16 petal signs. All other 20-petal signs that I know of have a "curved" petal at the top.

Dude.  I don't care if that was the intended correct answer or not.  He deserves to win an award for his answer.  Somebody give that man a Klondike bar!

Seeing as how I could justify the use of the "wrong" order, this Klondike Nazi says "No Klondike for you!"


Also, as to the missing exit tab: Apparently, KDOT will be fabricating a new exit tab for this assembly as part of the reconstruction of the Bonner Springs exit. Although the plans show a sign with the "wrong" order of highway signs and Series E(M) lettering, the plans also indicate that the existing sign is to be used in place. The new exit tab will be necessary because the exit numbers will be changed from 224 to 224 A-B.

[Ned Weasel]

Dude.  I don't care if that was the intended correct answer or not.  He deserves to win an award for his answer.  Somebody give that man a Klondike bar!

Seeing as how I could justify the use of the "wrong" order, this Klondike Nazi says "No Klondike for you!"

But the issue I observed wasn't that the shields are in the "wrong" order; it was that the shields are in a different order from what they used to be and from what's on the other Exit 224 signs!  It's okay, though; I'm actually lactose-intolerant.  But I appreciate the sentiment!

Also, as to the missing exit tab: Apparently, KDOT will be fabricating a new exit tab for this assembly as part of the reconstruction of the Bonner Springs exit. Although the plans show a sign with the "wrong" order of highway signs and Series E(M) lettering, the plans also indicate that the existing sign is to be used in place. The new exit tab will be necessary because the exit numbers will be changed from 224 to 224 A-B.

I'm mildly surprised they aren't using this opportunity to change it to Exits 408 A-B, considering the Eastern Terminal was relocated several miles west of this interchange long ago.  Mile marker 226/410 seems like an arbitrary place to change the mileage, considering KTA maintenance continues to MM 236/420, but something tells me this has already been discussed to death.

[Alps]

Seeing as how I could justify the use of the "wrong" order, this Klondike Nazi says "No Klondike for you!"

As a Klondike Jew, I take offense.

[route56]

did they borrow the old Wikipedia graphic?

Speaking of which, I used the KTA signing plans that you had sent me as a basis for the new version of the Wiki graphic. For some reason, I didn't think I could create a new version on top of the old one... fortunately, I was able to get someone to notice and straighten things out.

Needless to say, I don't think there is a 'definitive' version of the KTA emblem, but I figure that the new wiki version is more true to the concept.

I'm mildly surprised they aren't using this opportunity to change it to Exits 408 A-B, considering the Eastern Terminal was relocated several miles west of this interchange long ago.  Mile marker 226/410 seems like an arbitrary place to change the mileage, considering KTA maintenance continues to MM 236/420, but something tells me this has already been discussed to death.

If it has on this forum, I think it will take a deep search to exhume it

As a Klondike Jew, I take offense.

If my theft of Seinfeld material offends you, you're wrong.

[kphoger]

As a Klondike Jew, I take offense.

If my theft of Seinfeld material offends you, you're wrong.

Moral absolutist!  [shriek!]