A few years back I went on a family vacation that took me on Rt. 81 though the state of Pennsylvania. I noticed that they had pre posted – color coded detour signs for most of the exits on Rt. 81. They had at least two different colors, so I assumed one was for primary detours, and the second was for secondary detours. The signs were small, about 12” x 24” in size. 
I work for the New York State Thruway Authority, Syracuse Division, and one of my main responsibilities is Traffic Incident Management. I know how confusing it can be when an incident forces travelers off a major highway, and onto detour routes on local roads that they are not familiar with. I really like the method that Pennsylvania had used to improve incident management, this signs a much easier to read than the ones we currently use (see picture left).
When I returned to work I started to pursue this idea with my agency. As with any new idea it took a while to get acceptance and approval. Once this was accomplished I began to work with other agencies such as FHWA and NYS DOT to develop a plan for our region.
We developed a sign design that was very much like that used in Pennsylvania, but we also added a route logo to the sign. The route logo was added after we realized that NYS DOT and the Thruway would be using the same detour routes in certain areas. For example in the Syracuse area, DOT uses Rt. 481 as one of their detour routes and the Thruway Authority also uses this same route as a detour. If both agencies decided to pre-sign their detour routes, there needed to be some manner to differentiate between the routes. The route logo seemed like the easiest way to accomplish this.
We finally progressed to the point that we could have our sign shop make up a sign that we could temporarily deploy in the field, photograph, and share with other agencies. The sign we designed was 2’ x 3’ and had a white background, with orange letters and border and an I-90 route logo. We decided to go with “Orange Detour” for our first sign. When we viewed the sign in the field we quickly realized that the “Orange Detour” might be a problem. Syracuse University sports teams are known as the “Orange”. We were afraid people might think these signs were directing them to a sporting event at the Carrier Dome. We also feared these signs might become a collector’s item to be hung in the local frat houses!
 We then shared the photographs of sample sign with DOT and FHWA. DOT quickly pointed out that these signs were not in compliance with the MUTCD. They advised that I would need 8” letters, a much larger logo and directional arrow. The other problem that quickly surfaced was that if we used a sign design that was not already in the MUTCD, I would need to do a “request to experiment” with FHWA. If our request was approved the signs could be deployed on a trial basis for a two year period. We would also have to solicit input from travelers that were forced onto these signed detours, to see if the signs were legible, easy to understand, and easy to follow. We requested our sign shop to make up a couple of new signs with the larger letters and logo. We made up one sign identical to the first sign, only larger. The second sign used a concept that Germany uses, route numbers with a dash 1 for primary; dash 2 for secondary etc. For example I-90 primary detour would be 90-1. For the background we used the new “coral” colored incident management color listed in part 6 of the MUTCD.
While these signs were being manufactured, we also put together a survey to use to query travelers that had used the signed detour routes. The survey would be posted on the Thruway website and travelers would be issued a handout when they exited the highway, directing them to the link. When the signs arrived, we again took them out into the field, and photographed them in close proximity to other highway signs. In order to meet the MUTCD requirements these signs were now 6’ tall by 4.5’ wide, much larger than I had original imagined. At the same time we also put together some concepts, with the help of DOT, using only existing approved signs. At this point everyone is in agreement that this is a good idea, but we are having trouble settling on a final design. In the near future we will be having some internal meetings to decide where we want to go with this.
During the process I did learn that other states had attempted to do something similar, but didn’t follow through after they learned all that was involved. Apparently Pennsylvania DOT did not seek approval from FHWA before deploying the signs currently in use. As they are that State’s authority on transportation, they also didn’t need to seek approval from any other state agencies to deploy the signs.
I have attached some pictures that show the various sign designs. If anyone has any ideas that would help I would welcome their input. Any ideas would have to fit within the objectives that we have outlined:
- Sign is clear, concise and easily understandable
- The sign design contains a method(such as color) to differentiate between primary and secondary detours
- The sign has some method to differentiate between different routes (such as an interstate route logo)
back to top | back to archive
|
