New big blue signs in SoWal

What is more funn to do on a Friday night than to read through the FL DOT (Dept of Transportation) rules for wayfinding signs on State Highways?
Here are a few design rules from the FL DOT:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana]14-51.052 Design.

(1) Red, yellow, orange, fluorescent yellow-green or fluorescent pink shall not be used as background colors for Wayfinding Signs, in order to minimize confusion with regulatory, warning, construction, or incident management signs.

(2) Background colors, other than those stated in Subsection 14-51.052(1), F.A.C., shall be allowed on Wayfinding Signs.

(3) A minimum contrast value of legend color to background color of 70 percent is required for Wayfinding Signs (ADA minimum contrast value).

(4) Enhancement markers may be used, at the option of the applicant, as a means of aesthetically identifying the Wayfinding Signs. The size and shape of an enhancement marker shall be smaller than the Wayfinding Signs in order to avoid confusion with traffic control devices.

(5) A pictograph may be incorporated into the overall design of a Wayfinding Sign.

(6) There shall be a maximum of three destinations shown on each Wayfinding Sign....


**********

At the meeting the other night, the interim Director of the TDC pulled out a display board, saying that the signs were designed to FL DOT standards. He was defending the blue color of the background on the signs, saying that the FL DOT's guidelines required the background color to be blue. Reading item #1, above, I fail to see that.

Also, regarding item #6, above, If there is a max of only three destinations to be shown on each wayfinding sign, what the hell were they thinking making the signs that big? I thought maybe they were saving room for future developments to be added, but if they follow the FL DOT guidelines, they won't add any more destinations.

CR 30A is a County Road, hence the "CR" in the name. My point of the above, is that the interim Director of the TDC was giving us false information, trying to steer the 200 ppl in attendance into working around the blue color of the signs.
[/FONT]

As usual JOe, terrific research and interpretation.

As usual JOe, terrific research and interpretation.

What does the color BLUE..have to do with paragraph #1? I am against the signs....just don't understand. Thanks......

What does the color BLUE..have to do with paragraph #1? I am against the signs....just don't understand. Thanks......

The TDC at the meeting said that they HAD to be blue under state guidelines.

Paragraph #1 states otherwise.;-)

The TDC at the meeting said that they HAD to be blue under state guidelines.

Paragraph #1 states otherwise.;-)

It states that they shall not be certain colors, blue is not included. So, I am reading it as it's okay to be blue.

It states that they shall not be certain colors, blue is not included. So, I am reading it as it's okay to be blue.

The TDC at the meeting said that it could be only be blue. No other color was allowed for a way finding sign.

The regulations that SJ so kindly posted show that it can be any color other than the few listed.

In short the TDC at a minimum were seriously lacking in their understanding of the regulations at worst they bold faced lied to the citizenry attending the meeting.

The TDC at the meeting said that it could be only be blue. No other color was allowed for a way finding sign.

The regulations that SJ so kindly posted show that it can be any color other than the few listed.

In short the TDC at a minimum were seriously lacking in their understanding of the regulations at worst they bold faced lied to the citizenry attending the meeting.

Thank you for clearing that up......

if the signs somehow were just gone one day do you think they would be replaced ? remember there used to be one on 331 just south of the bay it hasn't reappeared yet .

Ya... what if they were just one day... "Gone".

Thinking Boston Tea Party here.

a dozen residents dressed as indians... no wait. Snowbirds. Sneak them down, throw them into the sea. No wait... mount them in the yards of the TDC. How attractive would they find them now ?

Ya... what if they were just one day... "Gone".

Thinking Boston Tea Party here.

a dozen residents dressed as indians... no wait. Snowbirds. Sneak them down, throw them into the sea. No wait... mount them in the yards of the TDC. How attractive would they find them now ?

Hey Booger...your on to something here......I say dressed as tourists and the TDC yard is brilliant!You get rep for that one.

I grew up in Panama City and was going to retire at PCB. However, because of the Bay County Commissioners and the Bay TDC the appeal of PCB is gone. I retired at Grayton Beach due to the attractiveness and lack of a tacky environment.
With these gross terrible signs I am concerned that the TDC here as in Bay County is going to do what it wants regardless of what the people desire.

I thought the Bay County TDC had pulled in the reins on its top gestapo (sp) leader? Didn't they have a big blow up last year and the public took a stand?

I thought the Bay County TDC had pulled in the reins on its top gestapo (sp) leader? Didn't they have a big blow up last year and the public took a stand?

We need one here.....although I know some of the board members, they are fine people, I think they need to step aside or admit they have lost touch with the most popular asset the TDC has......the 30A area.

What is more funn to do on a Friday night than to read through the FL DOT (Dept of Transportation) rules for wayfinding signs on State Highways?
Here are a few design rules from the FL DOT:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana]14-51.052 Design.

(1) Red, yellow, orange, fluorescent yellow-green or fluorescent pink shall not be used as background colors for Wayfinding Signs, in order to minimize confusion with regulatory, warning, construction, or incident management signs.

(2) Background colors, other than those stated in Subsection 14-51.052(1), F.A.C., shall be allowed on Wayfinding Signs.

(3) A minimum contrast value of legend color to background color of 70 percent is required for Wayfinding Signs (ADA minimum contrast value).

(4) Enhancement markers may be used, at the option of the applicant, as a means of aesthetically identifying the Wayfinding Signs. The size and shape of an enhancement marker shall be smaller than the Wayfinding Signs in order to avoid confusion with traffic control devices.

(5) A pictograph may be incorporated into the overall design of a Wayfinding Sign.

(6) There shall be a maximum of three destinations shown on each Wayfinding Sign....


**********

At the meeting the other night, the interim Director of the TDC pulled out a display board, saying that the signs were designed to FL DOT standards. He was defending the blue color of the background on the signs, saying that the FL DOT's guidelines required the background color to be blue. Reading item #1, above, I fail to see that.

Also, regarding item #6, above, If there is a max of only three destinations to be shown on each wayfinding sign, what the hell were they thinking making the signs that big? I thought maybe they were saving room for future developments to be added, but if they follow the FL DOT guidelines, they won't add any more destinations.

CR 30A is a County Road, hence the "CR" in the name. My point of the above, is that the interim Director of the TDC was giving us false information, trying to steer the 200 ppl in attendance into working around the blue color of the signs.
[/FONT]

The guidelines the TDC used were the MUTCD guidelines, not Florida law. You may have missed it, but when I asked Mr. Mares at the end of one of his long explanations of why the signs were "required" to be blue if by required he meant they legally had to follow the guidelines he was referencing, or if they the TDC chose an optional guideline. He admitted that they were not legally bound to follow the guidelines.

As Eileen, who was sitting next to me, whispered to me -- In marketing, you start with an appropriate and attractive concept, and then give it to the engineers to make it work, not the other way around.

Darn. Yes I do happen to be holding a copy of it. Had at 9AM the next morning. If nothing else, getting public records from the BCC has got to be the easiest thing anyone can do. I was going to send it to Aleonard to help in her quest, but never mind now.

For anyone else trying to look into things, making the request to Walton County Legal Department is the quickest way to get a response. They have the knowledge to 'splain things in a way that illicits a quick response.

OMG -- Everyone on that list is going to get GOP spam!

Thanks, Punzy. I apologize if I misunderstood Mr Mares, but I could swear that at least one time in the meeting, he said the signs were "designed around the FDOT guidelines." I should have videotaped the meeting.

Yes. Many of the TDC board are friends of Walton County and upstanding individuals. Lack of full transparency in reporting to them may have occurred. A few members are not in tune. A resolution to this problem may occur with recent exposure of defects.

Thanks, Punzy. I apologize if I misunderstood Mr Mares, but I could swear that at least one time in the meeting, he said the signs were "designed around the FDOT guidelines." I should have videotaped the meeting.

Oh, he did. I don't dispute that. I took careful notes, because all along I figured if Amelia Island and Key Biscayne can have beautiful wayfinding signage, it couldn't be legally required that the signs be industrial/commercial monstrosities. He said they had to work within the FDOT and the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Mr. Mares verbage was carefully constructed to make it seem as if the signs were legally mandated, but if you listened carefully you could pick out that the more atrocious aspects of the signs were guidelines from the MUTCD. That's why I asked if they were legally required to follow the MUTCD.

I'd be curious to know if this company (that wasn't the lowest bidder, correct SJ?) that specializes in these MUTCD compliant signs doesn't have some political and lobbying ties. I find it interesting that Ft. Walton Beach has almost the same signs when the TDC is insisting this is about "branding" the beaches.

Thanks for the clarification, Punzy. I am reading up on the MUTCD right now, which guidelines do call for blue background on the tourist directional signs. (Interesting, since FL DOT is more open.)

Regarding low bidder for these signs, I don't know. I do know that the bid for the additional 119 signs for the Timpoochie Trail, plus the however many (maybe 17) mile marker signs was not given to the low bidder. The BCC chose to go with a company out of Niceville (I think), whose bid was $190,000 (I think -- going from memory here), which was about $30K more than the low bid and $40K more than budgeted. The BCC stated that the reason they chose the Niceville company was because they were "local" and would be more familiar with the area. I'm not sure why that would matter since I understood Mr Marse, at the meeting the other night, to say that he, personally, had selected the placement of signs.

We need one here.....although I know some of the board members, they are fine people, I think they need to step aside or admit they have lost touch with the most popular asset the TDC has......the 30A area.

Yes. Many of the TDC board are friends of Walton County and upstanding individuals. Lack of full transparency in reporting to them may have occurred. A few members are not in tune. A resolution to this problem may occur with recent exposure of defects.

Y'all are right, these are good people on the TDC board. Some are out of touch, but they didn't sign up for what's now happening. When they were approached about serving on the board, I'm sure the discussion went something like "it's just for one hour a month, all you have to do is oversee the paid staff's direction and serve as a resource for them." What they didn't count on was the controversy over the signs blowing up and driving the public into calling for explanations and more oversight.

Most of these board members are reasonable folks and they believe that the signs should be taken down. It is time for these board members to speak up and deliver a message to the paid staff that enough is enough- take down the signs and start over, cooperate with the residents and visitors to South Walton. The board needs to remember that it directs the paid staff, not the other way around.

Then we can move on and start a full, independent accounting of the TDC and bring in new leadership.

Y'all are right, these are good people on the TDC board. Some are out of touch, but they didn't sign up for what's now happening. When they were approached about serving on the board, I'm sure the discussion went something like "it's just for one hour a month, all you have to do is oversee the paid staff's direction and serve as a resource for them." What they didn't count on was the controversy over the signs blowing up and driving the public into calling for explanations and more oversight.

Most of these board members are reasonable folks and they believe that the signs should be taken down. It is time for these board members to speak up and deliver a message to the paid staff that enough is enough- take down the signs and start over, cooperate with the residents and visitors to South Walton. The board needs to remember that it directs the paid staff, not the other way around.

Then we can move on and start a full, independent accounting of the TDC and bring in new leadership.

I agree with you, except the members were approached to show up for one hour a month. Most of the board, are on other boards or have served other boards before. They knew the possibilities of controversy might crop up, as with any board, and I admire them for that. Hopefully, they will be reasonable and see where we are coming from.

Quick question for all of you who see these blue signs at night. I have not noticed the lettering on these signs as being reflective, like the lettering on street signs. It is a MUTCD guideline that the lettering be:
"guide signs shall be retro-reflective or illuminated to show the same shape
and similar color by both day and night, unless specifically stated otherwise in the text discussion in this Manual of a particular sign or group of signs."

Anyone know?

Back to the sign colors. In Section 2A of the MUTCD, Table 2A-5. Common Uses of Sign Colors, the title of Table 2A-5 says very much -- "Common Uses" of sign colors. It is not a "requirement" for the wayfinding signs to be blue, as I read this.

This is interesting:
Section 2A.18 Mounting Height Support:
The provisions of this Section apply unless specifically stated otherwise for a particular sign elsewhere in this Manual.

Standard:
Signs installed at the side of the road in rural districts shall be at least 1.5 m (5 ft), measured from the bottom of the sign to the near edge of the pavement.
Where parking or pedestrian movements occur, the clearance to the bottom of the sign shall be at least 2.1 m (7 ft). (if the TDC is following these guidelines, it seems to me that all of the signs welcoming us into the different "towns," are set too low to the ground.)

Directional signs on freeways and expressways shall be installed with a minimum height of 2.1 m (7 ft).

If a secondary sign is mounted below another sign, the major sign shall be installed at least 2.4 m (8 ft) and the secondary sign at least 1.5 m (5 ft) above the level of the pavement edge. All route signs, warning signs, and regulatory signs on freeways and expressways shall be at least 2.1 m (7 ft) above the level of the pavement edge.

Option:
The height to the bottom of a secondary sign mounted below another sign may be 0.3 m (1 ft) less than the height specified above.

Where signs are placed 9 m (30 ft) or more from the edge of the traveled way, the height to the bottom of such signs may be 1.5 m (5 ft) above the level of the pavement edge.

The signs are not easily read at night and do not appear to have reflective lettering or illumination.

I would really like to see the TDC Board Members and Staff take advantage of this situation in a positive way: think what could be done for the community if the TDC would take the energy and passion demonstrated by the citizens of Walton county because of the signs, and channel it into a positive cooperative effort to install signs that truly represent our area.

We did not need a Workshop on Signs that were already installed; the time for that kind of visioning exercise was long past;

We do not need the Interim Director to continue to imply that the signs are installed because of the FDOT;

We do not need staff blocking doors and "requiring" signatures to get into a public meeting (even to go to the bathroom!:angry:;

We do not need Guidelines laid down to members of the community in dictatorial ways-Ground Rules for meetings are a product of "buy in" from the participants and the facilitator;

We do not need citizens (and media) locked out of a public meeting; if there was a fire code issue, then the doors should have been open and a microphone set up so people outside could hear;

We do not need county employees who feel as though they have no responsibility to be accountable to the citizens of the county;

What we do need:

A TDC that markets the area using the natural beauty and peacefulness that sets South Walton apart from so much of the rest of Florida;

A Director and staff who are open to hearing and respecting the community members who have taken time off from work and family to show up--because they care so much about the community;

A meeting facilitiator who can "read" the audience, and realize that the "workshop" needs to be curtailed, so that the people can be heard;

Open doors and optional sign in sheets on a table somewhere;

TDC directors who take charge; instead of rubber-stamping whatever is put in front of them;

A leader who can come forward and take charge of a situation that has become a train wreck, but that could result in a communitiy effort that would be so much more than the sum of its parts.

Y'all are right, these are good people on the TDC board. Some are out of touch, but they didn't sign up for what's now happening. When they were approached about serving on the board, I'm sure the discussion went something like "it's just for one hour a month, all you have to do is oversee the paid staff's direction and serve as a resource for them." What they didn't count on was the controversy over the signs blowing up and driving the public into calling for explanations and more oversight.

Most of these board members are reasonable folks and they believe that the signs should be taken down. It is time for these board members to speak up and deliver a message to the paid staff that enough is enough- take down the signs and start over, cooperate with the residents and visitors to South Walton. The board needs to remember that it directs the paid staff, not the other way around.

Then we can move on and start a full, independent accounting of the TDC and bring in new leadership.

So true. I wonder how many TDC Board members, currently serving, were serving in 2002, the first public mention of these signs. Anyone know? I'd also guess that most of the TDC staff was not employed by the TDC at in 2002. Does anyone know if this is true? If it is true, why in the world are they all so defensive about the signs? It doesn't make sense to me. As for the TDC Board Members, I know none of them on a personal basis. I would like to think everyone is a good person until they prove me wrong. I hope they don't prove me wrong. I hope that they do take a stand, have the guts to say what's on their mind, and give the right direction to the staff, and have them take down the signs.

For those who want to do their own DD, Chapter 2G of the MUTCD can be found here. The only question is, after reading the Purpose and Application, do these big blue signs fit the application as described below? I don't think so.

CHAPTER 2G. TOURIST-ORIENTED DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Section 2G.01 Purpose and Application
Support:
Tourist-oriented directional signs are guide signs with one or more panels that display the business
identification of and directional information for business, service, and activity facilities.
Standard:
A facility shall be eligible for tourist-oriented directional signs only if it derives its major portion of
income or visitors during the normal business season from road users not residing in the area of the
facility.
Option:
Tourist-oriented directional signs may include businesses involved with seasonal agricultural products.
Standard:
When used, tourist-oriented directional signs shall be used only on rural conventional roads and shall
not be used on conventional roads in urban areas nor at interchanges on freeways or expressways.
Where both tourist-oriented directional signs and Specific Service signs (see Chapter 2F) would be
needed at the same intersection, the tourist-oriented directional signs shall incorporate the needed
information from, and be used in place of, the Specific Service signs.
Guidance:
Each State that elects to use tourist-oriented directional signs should have a State policy for use as indicated
in Section 2G.07.
Option:
Tourist-oriented directional signs may be used in conjunction with General Service signs (see Section
2D.45).

Here is a really good section of the MUTCD guidelines regarding Tourist-Oriented Directional Signs:

Section 2G.07 State Policy
Standard:
"To be eligible for tourist-oriented directional signing, facilities shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws concerning the provisions of public accommodations without regard to race, religion, color, age, sex, or national origin, and with laws concerning the licensing and approval of service facilities. Each State that elects to use tourist-oriented directional signs shall adopt a policy that complies with these provisions."

Many of the "Beach Communities," which are named on the signs, are private communities. Being private, would they be eligible, as defined above, to be named on the signs?