Narrative:

Ground control cleared me to taxi to runway 12 via taxiway a, taxiway A1, runway 17R hold short of runway 12. It was XA10 local and just becoming light. The approach ends of runways 12 and 17R are very close together and to reach runway 12 a slight back taxi on runway 17R is required by looking at the taxi chart. I taxied onto runway 17R and thought I was holding short of runway 12, but in reality had crossed runway 12. Ground control called and informed me of this error. According to him, I was supposed to have held short of runway 17R (an inactive runway according to ATIS). I didn't interpret his original clearance as such, but in any case did cross runway 12 by mistake. Poor signage and inadequate taxiway markings at this point plus poor design of having 2 runways share a nearly common approach end contributed to this incursion. The taxi chart, as depicted on the chart, was a little vague also. No other traffic was in the area at the time so no traffic conflict existed. Perhaps painting additional directions on the taxiway, as is done at some other airports, would help prevent a future problem at this point. Better depiction on the taxi chart would also help.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN SMA SEL FAILED TO STOP SHORT OF ACTIVE RWY DURING TAXI FOR TKOF RESULTING IN TWR INTERVENTION. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BUT PLT CLAIMS THAT THE ARPT DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SIGNS AND MARKINGS. IN ADDITION HE BELIEVES THAT THE ARPT DIAGRAM COMMERCIAL CHART COULD BE MADE TO MORE CLRLY SHOW THE HOLDING POINT OF THE INTERSECTING RWY APCH ENDS.

Narrative: GND CTL CLRED ME TO TAXI TO RWY 12 VIA TXWY A, TXWY A1, RWY 17R HOLD SHORT OF RWY 12. IT WAS XA10 LCL AND JUST BECOMING LIGHT. THE APCH ENDS OF RWYS 12 AND 17R ARE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER AND TO REACH RWY 12 A SLIGHT BACK TAXI ON RWY 17R IS REQUIRED BY LOOKING AT THE TAXI CHART. I TAXIED ONTO RWY 17R AND THOUGHT I WAS HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 12, BUT IN REALITY HAD CROSSED RWY 12. GND CTL CALLED AND INFORMED ME OF THIS ERROR. ACCORDING TO HIM, I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE HELD SHORT OF RWY 17R (AN INACTIVE RWY ACCORDING TO ATIS). I DIDN'T INTERPRET HIS ORIGINAL CLRNC AS SUCH, BUT IN ANY CASE DID CROSS RWY 12 BY MISTAKE. POOR SIGNAGE AND INADEQUATE TXWY MARKINGS AT THIS POINT PLUS POOR DESIGN OF HAVING 2 RWYS SHARE A NEARLY COMMON APCH END CONTRIBUTED TO THIS INCURSION. THE TAXI CHART, AS DEPICTED ON THE CHART, WAS A LITTLE VAGUE ALSO. NO OTHER TFC WAS IN THE AREA AT THE TIME SO NO TFC CONFLICT EXISTED. PERHAPS PAINTING ADDITIONAL DIRECTIONS ON THE TXWY, AS IS DONE AT SOME OTHER ARPTS, WOULD HELP PREVENT A FUTURE PROB AT THIS POINT. BETTER DEPICTION ON THE TAXI CHART WOULD ALSO HELP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.