States that suck at signing

[frankenroad]

Unlike most states that say "END route", Michigan uses "ENDS" and places it below the route number - here is one from GSV

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1022747,-85.5715443,3a,15y,206.17h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szFwPIZ2mZ1aP1aT533Vk5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

[GaryV]

Unlike most states that say "END route", Michigan uses "ENDS" and places it below the route number - here is one from GSV

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1022747,-85.5715443,3a,15y,206.17h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szFwPIZ2mZ1aP1aT533Vk5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Which is somewhat more grammatical, isn't it?

There are some places in MI where a freeway route ends and merges into another freeway where the ENDS sign placement is a little sketchy - it depends on where they can fit it.

Surface street signage in Detroit is pretty hit and miss.  That applies to reassurance markers as well as turns and ends. (It doesn't help that the endpoints in Detroit change every few years.) Nobody knows the highway numbers anyway.  You take Grand River Avenue, not M-5.

[jakeroot]

Unlike most states that say "END route", Michigan uses "ENDS" and places it below the route number - here is one from GSV

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1022747,-85.5715443,3a,15y,206.17h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szFwPIZ2mZ1aP1aT533Vk5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Which is somewhat more grammatical, isn't it?

Not only grammatically more correct, but also more correct in terms of placement relative to the shield (at least the way I see it). Information related to the cardinal direction you're travelling on a highway goes above. Information related to the physical movement of a highway at a particular point goes below. IMO, when a highway number physically comes to a halt, the "END" plaque should take the place of the directional arrows below the shield, not the cardinal direction. Obviously, decades of practice by the MUTCD dictate otherwise, but to me, Michigan's approach makes a lot more sense.

Possibly unrelated but interesting nonetheless, Washington very seldom places "END" markers, but the ones they do sometimes raise the initial cap so that it looks like "END". I was pretty sure the raising of the initial cap was limited to cardinal directions? Who knows. I've seen this both where 99 becomes 599, and Hwy 7 becomes I-705.

[Big John]

Possibly unrelated but interesting nonetheless, Washington very seldom places "END" markers, but the ones they do sometimes raise the initial cap so that it looks like "END". I was pretty sure the raising of the initial cap was limited to cardinal directions? Who knows. I've seen this both where 99 becomes 599, and Hwy 7 becomes I-705.

MUTCD limits it to cardinal directions.  M4-6 has all letters in END in the same height.

[thenetwork]

I don't think most states sign the ends of highways. The first time I ever saw the practice was in West Virginia. To me it seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Kentucky doesn't, and neither do our neighbors Virginia, Tennessee or Missouri. I don't think Illinois does it consistently. Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia are the only neighboring states that do it on a statewide basis.

Interesting, I'm so used to seeing them I never would have thought of it as being something that's somewhat rare. Ohio does do a good job posting route end signs, though I didn't notice the other day that there isn't one at US 250's end at US 6 in Sandusky. 

There USED to be...

I took this photo almost exactly a year ago -- it's gone now?!

Yeah, it's gone now...

That Cedar Point sign is endangered as well -- They have uneiled a new logo for 2017.

[wanderer2575]

Unlike most states that say "END route", Michigan uses "ENDS" and places it below the route number - here is one from GSV

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1022747,-85.5715443,3a,15y,206.17h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szFwPIZ2mZ1aP1aT533Vk5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Which is somewhat more grammatical, isn't it?

Not only grammatically more correct, but also more correct in terms of placement relative to the shield (at least the way I see it). Information related to the cardinal direction you're travelling on a highway goes above. Information related to the physical movement of a highway at a particular point goes below. IMO, when a highway number physically comes to a halt, the "END" plaque should take the place of the directional arrows below the shield, not the cardinal direction. Obviously, decades of practice by the MUTCD dictate otherwise, but to me, Michigan's approach makes a lot more sense.

Unfortunately, placement of the ENDS banner hasn't been consistent.  There are many installations like this:




And Michigan moved to the national standard when Clearview came in -- shield assemblies now use END instead of ENDS.  Sometimes above and sometimes below.  (Michigan also eliminated underlining the cardinal direction of routes on BGSs, and it was a sad day when that happened.)

[Rothman]

Did anyone bring up Massachusetts?  Although I do have nostalgia for the "--9-->" type SGSes, the fact of the matter the SGSes are much worse than sign salads where you have multiple routes come together at even the simplest of intersections.  Can be very hard to determine even where the current route you're on goes. 

MA's also not the best at signing concurrencies.  Take this for example:  https://goo.gl/maps/41qWzrcxj412.  I suppose we should be grateful that both routes are shown, at least.

Or, questionable concurrencies: https://goo.gl/maps/bo7gubZPMWF2.  Wait...MA 141 is with MA 116 here?  Where's the sign for the junction between the two, then?  Where'd MA 141 go?: https://goo.gl/maps/KZw1Jvq6nPB2?  There's a junction with it ahead?  Where's the signage?!  Lack of signage in Holyoke for US 202 as well is getting worse and worse.

Anyway, I love the Bay State, but can't stand it when I can't follow routes due to bad signage.

[cl94]

Massachusetts was overshadowed by its neighbor to the south. The lack of state line signs at many crossings is quite striking as well.

[cl94]

Massachusetts was overshadowed by its neighbor to the south. The lack of state line signs at many Connecticut crossings is quite striking as well.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Three pages of posts and no one mentioned New Mexico? Absolutely terrible for posting state and U.S. highway route turns and junctions. Now, I have no issue with the fact that NM for the most part doesn't post U.S. concurrencies on Interstates; rather, I'm talking about situations like U.S. 84-285 turning at the junction with NM-68 in Española and having virtually no advance notice.

[Scott5114]

The one time I did any degree of traveling in New Mexico, I encountered the junction of NM 406 and NM 410, which is a T junction where NM 406 turns right and 410 begins to the left. The signage approaching the intersection had NM 410 and 406 shields, all right, but there were no arrows underneath them. I had to guess that 406 turned right because the 406 shield was on the right.

[Max Rockatansky]

The one time I did any degree of traveling in New Mexico, I encountered the junction of NM 406 and NM 410, which is a T junction where NM 406 turns right and 410 begins to the left. The signage approaching the intersection had NM 410 and 406 shields, all right, but there were no arrows underneath them. I had to guess that 406 turned right because the 406 shield was on the right.

New Mexico gets pretty wonky signage wise on anything that might be considered a "secondary" road by most.  The problem is that they literally have so many signed routes out in the sticks that a lot of them have extremely old or cheap signage. 

[roadman65]

Florida, in one way, is bad about signing.  They are inconsistent at times as you will see each intersection, though signing the routes good, are all different with shield placements.  For example, Palm Beach County signs intersections like NYSDOT does with the mileage number next the to control destination and no post junction mileage signs like the rest of Florida has.  In fact FDOT D4 only uses mileage signs for distances on routes on I-95 and a handful on US 1 that were carbon copied from when South Florida had rural areas between the cities that US 1 transited.

In fact if an overhead shield assembly is removed due to age or failing safety inspections, count on it to never be replaced unless they have a major road widening or construction project that will include overhead signing within the scope of the project.  Even inconsistency occurs when different contractors or phases of a road being built happens hence JYP in Orlando at FL 528.  John Young Parkway was first opened north of 528 before it was opened south of it.  So the interchange has overhead signs for the interchange southbound on JYP, but none going NB.  Even with the HOT lane construction on FL 528 that is going to replace the current overhead there southbound on JYP as new foundations with bolts out of them are present at the sign's location.  No bolts and foundation are dug as of yet going NB where overheads are in dyer need there.

Florida likes to ad lib and has no set way anymore to how an intersection is to be signed, although they do manage to at least let you know the direction of the junctioning route in one form or the other.  Then of course there is FL 39 that is totally confusing since they realigned FL 39 or did they not.  North of I-4 it is signed on the new Alexander Street while south of I-4 it is still signed on Wheeler, US 92, and Collins.  Plus I-4 signs FL 39 on Alexander and has Wheeler signed as CR 39.  FL 39A is still signed as a route on Alexander south of I-4 where it had been a preexisting city street of Plant City and coming into Plant City on FL 39 you are even defaulted onto the new Alexander Street.

Big goof on FDOT when they decided to realign FL 39 as they totally forgot that the old part of it south of I-4 needed to be resigned so now you get directed southbound to use the new Alexander Street onto FL 39A, while NB you still follow the route it always took.  Sort of like US 11 in Watertown, NY where US 11 is signed on two completely different alignments depending on which way you travel, although I think that one was done by NYSDOT on purpose for traffic control,  but here its two different projects and no communication between engineers.

[cpzilliacus]

Big goof on FDOT when they decided to realign FL 39 as they totally forgot that the old part of it south of I-4 needed to be resigned so now you get directed southbound to use the new Alexander Street onto FL 39A, while NB you still follow the route it always took.  Sort of like US 11 in Watertown, NY where US 11 is signed on two completely different alignments depending on which way you travel, although I think that one was done by NYSDOT on purpose for traffic control,  but here its two different projects and no communication between engineers.

Virginia, when they move a U.S. route or state primary system route outside of a municipality for purposes of  bypassing the place, will often leave the old route as a bannered Business route.

But they often leave the old signs intact without putting up new Business banners. 

Some (most?) of this is probably the fault of the city or town in question, as the roads within the corporate limits of the municipality are normally maintained by the municipal government, not VDOT (there are some exceptions for small towns).

Maryland can also be guilty.  When MD-5 in Charles County was re-routed onto a bypass route, the old route of MD-5 through the commercial sprawl of Waldorf was supposed to be  signed as Business MD-5.  But the part of Business MD-5 that follows U.S. 301 is not signed well at all, and the part that was once MD-5 (and is now Business MD-5) is not signed adequately where it turns away from U.S. 301 either.

[SidS1045]

I love the Bay State, but can't stand it when I can't follow routes due to bad signage.

A few years back MassDOT contracted a firm (which, mercifully, we will not name here) to work on state route shields in the city of Boston...adding new ones where necessary and replacing worn out ones.  To their everlasting regret, they completely botched the job.  There were multiple instances of posting the wrong routes in the wrong places, posting incorrect cardinal directions and turns, and in at least one instance placing a state route shield on a street which was not a state route.  It has always been extremely difficult to follow state routes through Boston, but this didn't help.

As I recall MassDOT made the contractor correct all the mistakes at the contractor's expense, but I have to wonder where the oversight/double-checking process broke down.

[bob7374]

I love the Bay State, but can't stand it when I can't follow routes due to bad signage.

A few years back MassDOT contracted a firm (which, mercifully, we will not name here) to work on state route shields in the city of Boston...adding new ones where necessary and replacing worn out ones.  To their everlasting regret, they completely botched the job.  There were multiple instances of posting the wrong routes in the wrong places, posting incorrect cardinal directions and turns, and in at least one instance placing a state route shield on a street which was not a state route.  It has always been extremely difficult to follow state routes through Boston, but this didn't help.

As I recall MassDOT made the contractor correct all the mistakes at the contractor's expense, but I have to wonder where the oversight/double-checking process broke down.

Here's a prime example of 2013 sign mess with MA 2A signed the wrong directions where it is not 2A south of Comm. Ave. This is Tremont Street approaching Mass Ave. in September 2013:


East is actually to the left and West to the right.

This is the only 2A sign left from the contract, heading west on Mass Ave beyond Huntington Ave, the East banner replaced with a To in 2014:

[EdM]

Unlike most states that say "END route", Michigan uses "ENDS" and places it below the route number

Actually I think it's better. To each his own. 

[EdM]

I love the Bay State, but can't stand it when I can't follow routes due to bad signage.

A few years back MassDOT contracted a firm (which, mercifully, we will not name here) to work on state route shields in the city of Boston...adding new ones where necessary and replacing worn out ones.  To their everlasting regret, they completely botched the job.  There were multiple instances of posting the wrong routes in the wrong places, posting incorrect cardinal directions and turns, and in at least one instance placing a state route shield on a street which was not a state route.  It has always been extremely difficult to follow state routes through Boston, but this didn't help.

As I recall MassDOT made the contractor correct all the mistakes at the contractor's expense, but I have to wonder where the oversight/double-checking process broke down.

Yeah, tell me about it. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_State_Highway_System#/media/File:Boston-worboys-sign.jpg This is an old sign erected by the city back between 1969 and 1972 when the C-routes still existed! As of 2008, the sign was still there. Since then it was mercifully taken out to pasture and shot!

Back in the 90s IIRC, someone put up two Alabama route markers for Mass. 10 and Mass. 141 in Easthampton and apparently around 2009 they were replaced--but not properly! 

Another state that sucks is Louisiana. Half the time their route markers are not posted, or only very discreetly so, especially in the New Orleans area. Here is an example.

[roadman]

I love the Bay State, but can't stand it when I can't follow routes due to bad signage.

A few years back MassDOT contracted a firm (which, mercifully, we will not name here) to work on state route shields in the city of Boston...adding new ones where necessary and replacing worn out ones.  To their everlasting regret, they completely botched the job.  There were multiple instances of posting the wrong routes in the wrong places, posting incorrect cardinal directions and turns, and in at least one instance placing a state route shield on a street which was not a state route.  It has always been extremely difficult to follow state routes through Boston, but this didn't help.

As I recall MassDOT made the contractor correct all the mistakes at the contractor's expense, but I have to wonder where the oversight/double-checking process broke down.

Here's a prime example of 2013 sign mess with MA 2A signed the wrong directions where it is not 2A south of Comm. Ave. This is Tremont Street approaching Mass Ave. in September 2013:


East is actually to the left and West to the right.

This is the only 2A sign left from the contract, heading west on Mass Ave beyond Huntington Ave, the East banner replaced with a To in 2014:

Although MassDOT District 6 crews corrected some signs for the City when they were discovered to be in error, note that this was not a MassDOT project, but the City of Boston.  In Massachusetts, many sections of US and state numbered routes actually fall under local jurisdiction for maintenance, including SGS panels and route marker assemblies.  As for the cause of the directional errors on the signs, apparently Boston's design consultant had the orientation of the plans 180 degrees opposite of what it should have been.

[cjk374]

From the "Erroneous Signs" thread:

20161217_142915 by Jess Kilgore, on Flickr

Only possible if you are Dr. Who travelling in the TARDIS.

What is erroneous about this sign?  Either there's nothing wrong or I'm missing something. 

US 167 goes both straight and right. US 167 North does not.

Even worse...167 north goes to the right. Southbound 167 is at the next signal running to the left, which is also where US 80 west turns to join US 167 thru downtown Ruston. LA 146 runs concurrent with US 167 through this intersection northbound & thru the next intersection southbound. The previous assembly had no directional banners.

This is one of many fine examples of how Louisiana sucks big time at signing routes. 

[RobbieL2415]

The problem with CT is until recently they don't ever use mile markers.

[cjk374]

The problem with CT is until recently they don't ever use mile markers.

Several states don't use mile marker (AR, MS & MO come to mind). Louisiana does, but only replaces them every several years...just to watch them disappear or get mowed over again. (sans the interstates. They do a good job maintaining those)

Unless they do this:

20150701_073437 by Jess Kilgore, on Flickr

This is on I-220 in Bossier City. AFAIK, this is the only mile marker I have seen with the wrong shield on interstates 12, 20, 59, & 220. Don't know about the others.

[silverback1065]

does nevada sign any of their state roads?

[Max Rockatansky]

does nevada sign any of their state roads?

Extensively, and they even have specific numbers for; primary, secondary, and urban.  NDOT even tries to lump similar numbers into areas, really all of it is quite good.

[silverback1065]

does nevada sign any of their state roads?

Extensively, and they even have specific numbers for; primary, secondary, and urban.  NDOT even tries to lump similar numbers into areas, really all of it is quite good.

So it's just the urban areas that are badly signed?