CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Brackett Q, Huchingson RD, Trout ND, Womack K. Transp. Res. Rec. 1992; 1368: 1-9. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 1992, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publisher SAGE Publishing) |
|
DOI |
unavailable |
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
A survey administered to a sample of 662 volunteers at the 1990 Houston Auto Show compared alternative methods for providing lane assignment information on urban guide signs. Signing elements that were studied included the white down-arrow used for optional lane usage; the black down-arrow used in the Exit Only lane; the organization of route numbers and destinations; a comparison of the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" diagrammatic guide sign and modified diagrammatics with separate arrows for each lane and with arrow shafts exceeding the number of lanes; and the use of Next Left and Next Right on conventional guide signs. The conventional diagrammatic guide sign was found to be less effective in communicating lane assignment than the modified diagrammatic signs tested. Downward arrows failed to communicate the intended optional usage message. The communication of optional exit lanes was confused by the number and position of arrow shafts displayed. Common routes displayed on an exit guide sign were less effectively displayed side by side than vertically arrayed. The array of information on diagrammatic signs was determined to equal in importance the information on the diagrammatic. Next Right and Next Left were interpreted as mandatory exits by a significant portion of the respondents. Language: en |