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.