Signs With Design Errors

[Alps]

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

Theft doesn't offend me. You offend me.

[route56]

Another 20-petal K-shield + Clearview on the Turnpike. This one's a little closer to Johnathan


43963 by richiekennedy56, on Flickr

And, here's a blatant negative-contrast violation:

47309 by richiekennedy56, on Flickr

[formulanone]

In similar vein, here's a weird black-on-yellow county pentagon along Florida's Turnpike:



There's three of them, when going northbound.

[thenetwork]

Another 20-petal K-shield + Clearview on the Turnpike. This one's a little closer to Johnathan

And the "i"'s are taller than the W!   

[lordsutch]

Well, there is a Canada Road 10 miles east of here... but that's no excuse for Ontario lane arrows: http://goo.gl/maps/scD3n

[Zeffy]

Well, there is a Canada Road 10 miles east of here... but that's no excuse for Ontario lane arrows: http://goo.gl/maps/scD3n

That's not the only thing wrong - there is a small capital K in "Rock" instead of a lowercase one!

[Scott5114]

Another 20-petal K-shield + Clearview on the Turnpike. This one's a little closer to Johnathan

And the "i"'s are taller than the W!   

This is a standard feature of Clearview–and in fact, many other typefaces. All of the letters with ascenders (l, d, b, et al) are taller than the uppercase letters. This does make designing Clearview signs slightly more difficult.

[D-Dey65]

I saw this odd one while trying to do some research on New Hamburg Metro-North railroad station and the vicinity. This one is off of New Hamburg Road and Troy Avenue.

Holy MUTCD non-compliance!


http://imgur.com/xhW4Gb4?tags

[briantroutman]

And the "i"'s are taller than the W!   

This is a standard feature of Clearview...

Not only is it the way Clearview is supposed to look, but the error I see most often with Clearview is the opposite: Someone at a district sign shop assumes that the ascenders on lowercase letters, the dot on the I, etc. shouldn't be taller the cap line and scales the lowercase letters down to fit. So you end up with a noticeably bolder initial capital because the stroke width of the lowercase letters has also been scaled down with the size of the letters themselves. (Like this: http://bit.ly/15GtDur) This problem runs rampant in the Pittsburgh area.

Bear in mind that I hate Clearview...but if you're going to use that ugly typeface, use it correctly.

[Ned Weasel]

Not only is it the way Clearview is supposed to look, but the error I see most often with Clearview is the opposite: Someone at a district sign shop assumes that the ascenders on lowercase letters, the dot on the I, etc. shouldn't be taller the cap line and scales the lowercase letters down to fit. So you end up with a noticeably bolder initial capital because the stroke width of the lowercase letters has also been scaled down with the size of the letters themselves. (Like this: http://bit.ly/15GtDur) This problem runs rampant in the Pittsburgh area.

Bear in mind that I hate Clearview...but if you're going to use that ugly typeface, use it correctly.

I'm more bothered by APL being done very incorrectly in your I-376 example.

[vtk]

I think those signs predate MUTCD introducing APL.  Though I'm more concerned with the lack of a left side breakdown lane, and some resultant visibility issues on the curve.

[J N Winkler]

Not only is it the way Clearview is supposed to look, but the error I see most often with Clearview is the opposite: Someone at a district sign shop assumes that the ascenders on lowercase letters, the dot on the I, etc. shouldn't be taller the cap line and scales the lowercase letters down to fit. So you end up with a noticeably bolder initial capital because the stroke width of the lowercase letters has also been scaled down with the size of the letters themselves. (Like this: http://bit.ly/15GtDur)

Actually, that is not quite what is going on here.  First, the error is made on the signing plans, and the signs are fabricated and installed by contractors.  (Contractors generally have the option of pointing out any errors they spot in signing plans to the resident engineer, but under the terms of a typical construction contract, they can fabricate and install correctly designed signs only if the resident engineer issues a change order that specifies the correct designs.  Since change orders typically involve added cost and delay, inertia tends to favor the erection of signs to incorrect designs.)  Second, the error is actually to shrink the implied uppercase size that corresponds to the lowercase letters to three-quarters the actual height of the uppercase letters, which is a greater reduction in the size of the lowercase letters than occurs by shrinking them just enough to ensure that either the top of the dot of i, or the tops of the lowercase letters with ascenders, fall on the same baseline as the top of the capital letters.

This problem runs rampant in the Pittsburgh area.

It is not just Pittsburgh, which is PennDOT District 11.  This is also rife in the Erie area, which is PennDOT District 1 (neighboring District 11 on the north, if memory serves).  Other PennDOT districts don't have nearly as much trouble with this particular aspect of design.  District 7 certainly doesn't!

I think those signs predate MUTCD introducing APL.

These signs were erected under PennDOT ECMS 65122, which had a letting date of April 30, 2009.  So, yes, it does pre-date release of the 2009 edition of MUTCD, which (if memory serves) was in late December of that year.

However, as part of the rulemaking process that led to this MUTCD edition, FHWA released two PDF files containing the proposed text and figures.  I did not retain copies of these files and FHWA has taken them down from the MUTCD website (grrr), but I recall that the figures file showed sample APL diagrammatics very similar if not identical to those incorporated in the finished product.  Several state DOTs, including MoDOT, advertised construction contracts with almost-vanilla APLs in the year before release of the 2009 MUTCD (example:  US 60/US 65 near Springfield, Mo., erected under a contract advertised in February 2009).

My guess is that PennDOT in this case was not really aiming for a vanilla APL.  The arrow designs are pretty close to those used for lane-assignment signs on freeways in the Sacramento area that are very distant (probably 1970's) forerunners of the modern APL diagrammatic.

[sammi]

Don't worry people; it's only been three days.

I was walking around my university this morning to get to an interview, then I see this sign.



Transport? Not in my country. (Bonus points to anyone who can guess where this sign is.)

[agentsteel53]

(Bonus points to anyone who can guess where this sign is.)

the bonus being dollar tequila?

[sammi]

(Bonus points to anyone who can guess where this sign is.)

the bonus being dollar tequila?

That's weird. I didn't see that there.

[mjb2002]

I saw this odd one while trying to do some research on New Hamburg Metro-North railroad station and the vicinity. This one is off of New Hamburg Road and Troy Avenue.

Holy MUTCD non-compliance!


http://imgur.com/xhW4Gb4?tags

rofl...did NYSDOT forget to cut the outer edges diagonally?

[D-Dey65]

rofl...did NYSDOT forget to cut the outer edges diagonally?

Maybe they tried to imitate South Carolina with their square stop signs at blinker-light intersections. Or maybe they thought that because it was for a local road, nobody would give a shit.   

[PHLBOS]

Not sure if anyone commented on such but on recent 3di signage (whether stand-alone or in a BGS), both NJDOT and NJTA have been using asymetrical shields.

Example of one along I-287 northbound near I-80:

http://goo.gl/maps/KJ9YX

If one looks at the shape of the shield, the right-hand side of the shield has more of a bulge to it.

Note: I've seen asymetrical 3di shields for I-195 (on NJTP BGS), I-276 (NJTP BGS) and I-295 (free-standing).

[Signal]

I'm no expert, but I'd say that's just how the number placement makes it look...

[PHLBOS]

I'm no expert, but I'd say that's just how the number placement makes it look...

I think you missed my last statement regarding asymetrical-shaped 3di shields for other routes as well (195, 276, 295). 

Unfortunately, the majority of the Google Earth & Map Images for the areas involved predate the existence & erection of the new shields for the other routes; so I can't post a known (to me) link to prove that is indeed those particular shields are asymetrical regardless what & how the numbers are placed.

To be fair, I thought it was an optical illusion when I first saw them; but after seeing them several times, they're definitely shaped a tad different than the standard 3di shield.

[roadman]

[Actually, that is not quite what is going on here.  First, the error is made on the signing plans, and the signs are fabricated and installed by contractors.  Contractors generally have the option of pointing out any errors they spot in signing plans to the resident engineer, but under the terms of a typical construction contract, they can fabricate and install correctly designed signs only if the resident engineer issues a change order that specifies the correct designs.  Since change orders typically involve added cost and delay, inertia tends to favor the erection of signs to incorrect designs.

Not quite.  The specific action taken by a resident engineer regarding correcting sign errors depends largely on what a particular state's policies and procedures are concerning the review (if any) of the fabricator's sign face drawings once a project is in construction, and whether or not correcting the errors will affect the panel size and (for overhead signs) the structural design of the support structure.

For several years now, Massachusetts has included specific language in their sign replacement contracts, as well as other construction projects with guide signs, requiring the sign fabricator to submit sign face drawings for each proposed guide sign panel on the project for final review and approval before fabrication.  In addition, Massachusetts policy is that the fabricator must submit copies of the stamped drawings with the fabricated sign panels - this is part of a final cross-check to catch shop errors.

Unlike some state DOTs with similar approval requirements, which call for the project's designer of record to conduct these reviews and issue the approvals, MassDOT currently requires that the drawings go to the State Traffic Engineer's office for review and approval by the State Sign Engineer or their staff.  Additionally, once the signs are fabricated, they are inspected by the resident engineer (or their staff) for correctness before the Contractor can install them.

Inaccurate guide sign fabrication only results in a change order if the problem a) was on the design plans and went unnoticed during review, b) cannot be corrected without altering the panel dimensions and/or the sign support structure, and c) the State Traffic Engineer's office has determined that there is no practical alternative to making alterations to the signs without changing the panel dimensions or the support design.

I posted this in a different thread some time back, but MassDOT's current sign field QC/QA policy can be found at

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/engineeringDirectives/2008/e-08-002.pdf

[hbelkins]

There used to be more than a few I-279 markers in the Pittsburgh area that had an odd look to them.

When I-287 was mentioned, I thought this was the sign being referenced:



Or this one:

[roadman]

For a short while, Massachusetts had an issue with a particular fabricator that would make Interstate shields that had 2di numbers but were fabricated on 3di blanks.  Interstate 95 between Canton and Attleboro still has a number of these elongated shields in place.

An example of this erroneous design can be found in the AARoads Shield Gallery-

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MA19880951&search=95

[Alps]

For a short while, Massachusetts had an issue with a particular fabricator that would make Interstate shields that had 2di numbers but were fabricated on 3di blanks.  Interstate 95 between Canton and Attleboro still has a number of these elongated shields in place.

An example of this erroneous design can be found in the AARoads Shield Gallery-

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MA19880951&search=95

Was that done on any other road? Only ever seen them on I-95. Conversely, RI had a number of 2-digit I-295s around Providence - not sure what's there now.

[J N Winkler]

Not quite.  The specific action taken by a resident engineer regarding correcting sign errors depends largely on what a particular state's policies and procedures are concerning the review (if any) of the fabricator's sign face drawings once a project is in construction, and whether or not correcting the errors will affect the panel size and (for overhead signs) the structural design of the support structure.

Thanks for this explanation--I probably should have noted that my analysis does not necessarily apply to state DOTs where there is an intermediate process (production and review of shop drawings) that allows the contractor, if so inclined, to propose corrections for acceptance by the state DOT.  The worst problems with uppercase/lowercase Clearview size mismatches that have been reported on this board are in PennDOT District 1 (Erie and vicinity); I am not aware that contractors working on sign replacement projects in that district are required to submit shop drawings.  For each incorrect sign that has a photo taken of it and posted on this forum, the as-erected signface is a more or less exact match to the sign panel detail sheet in the plans set.  This implies that if there is a mechanism to fix design errors prior to fabrication (whether it involves a contract change order or not), it is not being used.