Things that irk you about roads the most

[MNHighwayMan]

This one's pretty specific, and it irks me especially because I dealt with it today. Iowa seems not to bother with putting trailblazer markers for certain routes (US-6, specifically) at the top of off-ramps at the end of Interstate concurrencies. Like this one. You have to go left to continue on US-6 West but there's no sign at the top of the ramp pointing you that way.

Edit: I guess I could generalize this complaint into any place where there's insufficient signage to guide one along a specific route.

Iowa is okay compared to Arkansas. They don't usually sign their US routes on concurrencies with interstates (at least they didn't last time I went).

Yeah, for the three times that US-6 is concurrent with I-80 in Iowa, the DOT fully marks US-6 both on the Interstate and at interchanges with other routes. It seems more like this one particular example is an isolated incident of error of omission. The specific example I mentioned above also is the eastern end of a concurrency with IA-38 and I noticed that on the EB offramp to IA-38 South there aren't any 38 markers either. Seems to me that that one particular interchange needs to have a signage upgrade.

Edit: noticed that the interchange at the east end of the Altoona-Newton US-6/I-80 concurrency has the same problem with a lack of signage. Now I'm wondering if I can complain enough to get the IA DOT to install proper guiding signs for the routes.

[jeffandnicole]

My other big pet peeve is exit-only lanes that just have regular dashed lines next to them instead of either dotted or solid.

Thats a big one for me as well. Also, Orlando recently started installing dashed lines at the end of lanes when they're expected to merge. I find that to be extremely confusing and dangerous and if there wasn't nobody in the other lane, I'd have been driven onto the shoulder along with many others I've seen on the road not realizing this bad practice.

(Note: At least in NJ, Dashed lines are the normal long skip/passing lines.  Dotted lines are the short lines indicating an accel/decal/exit only lane)

Interesting you brought this up.  NJDOT has generally used dashed lines for their accel/decal lanes.  Recently though, NJDOT (and the NJ Turnpike Authority) are starting to use dotted lines on their accel/decal lanes. On a nearby construction project, the contractor painted the dotted lines on the accel lanes, leaving a gap at the end.  Apparently, that wasn't correct, as a few days later the dotted lines were painted all the way thru to the end of the accel lane merge point!

[dgolub]

Floating segments.  Seriously, why did you have to end that county route two blocks away from the state route where the road physically ends?  Even if it's going to be locally maintained, it would be more helpful to motorists to extend the designation so that they connect.

[TR69]

1. As has already been said here, stop lights hung from wires instead of being mounted on mast arms.

2. As also has already been offered on this thread, lack of turn lanes. There is an intersection near me where a railroad track parallels the right side (when heading west) a four-lane road (two lanes each direction). If there is a train present, then westbound traffic that wants to turn right onto the cross street, that crosses the four-lane road and the tracks, has to sit there at a dead stop in the through lane because there is no right turn lane for them to find refuge in. I assume it's done that way because of a lack of space for a turn lane, but it still seems terribly dangerous. Here's the intersection I'm talking about (complete with train!):

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.289867,-85.5121045,3a,75y,233.88h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_auTI-cNdy8at1c_T6tS_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

3.  This one is really specific, and really maybe belongs more on a "traffic signal error" type of thread, but here it is anyway. There's an intersection in Louisville where there are two left turn lanes to turn into a mall parking lot. The rightmost of the two left turn lanes is  both a turn lane *and* a through lane. So, you can have a situation where there is a green left turn arrow but red straight ahead arrow for this one lane. Alternatively, you can have a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow. So, which one does the motorist obey? I guess it depends on which direction they want to go. But if a person wants to go straight and obeys the red straight ahead arrow, someone is bound to come up behind him intending to use the green turn arrow that is also lit. You can imagine the hi-jinks that might ensue...  In the GSV shot below, you can see there is a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow over the right-hand left turn/straight through lane. The car at the front of the lane has its brake lights on -- maybe he's wanting to turn left into the mall and is stopping because of the red arrow? But what if someone comes up behind him intending to follow the green light straight through? Often that right hand through lane is choked with cars (this is a very busy shopping area) so taking evasive action by swerving to the right to avoid the stopped left-turning car is not always an option.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2485361,-85.6135993,3a,75y,191.19h,95.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ6VlCYuaKkuIsFsmoLb3VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[JMAN_WiS&S]

1. As has already been said here, stop lights hung from wires instead of being mounted on mast arms.

2. As also has already been offered on this thread, lack of turn lanes. There is an intersection near me where a railroad track parallels the right side (when heading west) a four-lane road (two lanes each direction). If there is a train present, then westbound traffic that wants to turn right onto the cross street, that crosses the four-lane road and the tracks, has to sit there at a dead stop in the through lane because there is no right turn lane for them to find refuge in. I assume it's done that way because of a lack of space for a turn lane, but it still seems terribly dangerous. Here's the intersection I'm talking about (complete with train!):

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.289867,-85.5121045,3a,75y,233.88h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_auTI-cNdy8at1c_T6tS_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

3.  This one is really specific, and really maybe belongs more on a "traffic signal error" type of thread, but here it is anyway. There's an intersection in Louisville where there are two left turn lanes to turn into a mall parking lot. The rightmost of the two left turn lanes is  both a turn lane *and* a through lane. So, you can have a situation where there is a green left turn arrow but red straight ahead arrow for this one lane. Alternatively, you can have a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow. So, which one does the motorist obey? I guess it depends on which direction they want to go. But if a person wants to go straight and obeys the red straight ahead arrow, someone is bound to come up behind him intending to use the green turn arrow that is also lit. You can imagine the hi-jinks that might ensue...  In the GSV shot below, you can see there is a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow over the right-hand left turn/straight through lane. The car at the front of the lane has its brake lights on -- maybe he's wanting to turn left into the mall and is stopping because of the red arrow? But what if someone comes up behind him intending to follow the green light straight through? Often that right hand through lane is choked with cars (this is a very busy shopping area) so taking evasive action by swerving to the right to avoid the stopped left-turning car is not always an option.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2485361,-85.6135993,3a,75y,191.19h,95.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ6VlCYuaKkuIsFsmoLb3VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That third one should be a permitted/protected setup or split phase.

[jeffandnicole]

1. As has already been said here, stop lights hung from wires instead of being mounted on mast arms.

2. As also has already been offered on this thread, lack of turn lanes. There is an intersection near me where a railroad track parallels the right side (when heading west) a four-lane road (two lanes each direction). If there is a train present, then westbound traffic that wants to turn right onto the cross street, that crosses the four-lane road and the tracks, has to sit there at a dead stop in the through lane because there is no right turn lane for them to find refuge in. I assume it's done that way because of a lack of space for a turn lane, but it still seems terribly dangerous. Here's the intersection I'm talking about (complete with train!):

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.289867,-85.5121045,3a,75y,233.88h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_auTI-cNdy8at1c_T6tS_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

3.  This one is really specific, and really maybe belongs more on a "traffic signal error" type of thread, but here it is anyway. There's an intersection in Louisville where there are two left turn lanes to turn into a mall parking lot. The rightmost of the two left turn lanes is  both a turn lane *and* a through lane. So, you can have a situation where there is a green left turn arrow but red straight ahead arrow for this one lane. Alternatively, you can have a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow. So, which one does the motorist obey? I guess it depends on which direction they want to go. But if a person wants to go straight and obeys the red straight ahead arrow, someone is bound to come up behind him intending to use the green turn arrow that is also lit. You can imagine the hi-jinks that might ensue...  In the GSV shot below, you can see there is a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow over the right-hand left turn/straight through lane. The car at the front of the lane has its brake lights on -- maybe he's wanting to turn left into the mall and is stopping because of the red arrow? But what if someone comes up behind him intending to follow the green light straight through? Often that right hand through lane is choked with cars (this is a very busy shopping area) so taking evasive action by swerving to the right to avoid the stopped left-turning car is not always an option.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2485361,-85.6135993,3a,75y,191.19h,95.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ6VlCYuaKkuIsFsmoLb3VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That third one should be a permitted/protected setup or split phase.

May even be a new traffic light as well.  The exiting traffic from the mall area has 'STOP' painted in the lanes also.

[jp the roadgeek]

Four words: Connecticut Reflective Button Copy.  Didn't like it when it came in, as the state route shields had no background to them.  Hate it even more now that the reflectors have outlived their useful life and signs are illegible until you're right on top of them.  Not that I'm not familiar with the road, but I was on I-91 in Windsor last night and I couldn't read the signs until I was about 20 feet away from them. 

Also hate sign errors like substituting a state route sign for a US route sign.

[SP Cook]

Generally and specifically in WV:

- Signage that proclaims idiocy about speed limits, such as "safety zone" (SL are not about safety), "strict enforcement", "targeted enforcement area" , and such.  A waste of resources.

- Signage about pointless economic development boondoggles.  Such as proclaiming most EVERY county a "Certified Business Location", and breaking the state up into things like the "Polymer Alliance Zone" and the "High Tech Corridor" and the "Economic Gateway Region".   Leaving out the stupidity of these programs themselves, what information is imparted to a motorist by this signage?  Does anybody traveling between Cleveland and Charlotte on 77 really CARE if he or she is or is not in the Polymer Alliance Zone?

- Naming roads/bridges after people.  In WV it is getting vastly over-done.  Other than the 100s of things named after the late Byrd-god, every bridge, even over minor creeks gets named and state resources are used to sign this.  Resources that could be used for actual things.  Often these bridges are named for a local veteran.  People whose service was, yes, honorable, but who were not killed or wounded or even shiped overseas or decorated with more than the so-called Fire Watch Medal.  Takes away from large public works and military service that is truly exceptional, and for every person so honored, there are 100 more in the same community with similar records.  After all, there are more veterans than bridges.

- Pennsylvania one.  Every road I know of in Pennsylvania has a sign for "Last Exit in Pennsylvania".  Which in my travels seems to be unique.  I don't care. 

- WV has a uniform policy that all stop lights must be in the same pattern all the time.  Combined with just plain having too many stop lights on the corridors in the first place, this causes pointless traffic tie ups on nights or weekends where the pattern could be changed or the lights set to flash.

- Watershed signs.  Started with the Chesepeake Bay drainage.  OK, that makes some sense as that bay does have unique environmental issues.  But now it is getting copied all over.  The WV Turnpike signs the Paint Creek Watershed.  Paint Creek being a minor stream of no paricular scenic value with no enviornmental issues different from any other creek. 

- The WV Turnpike's idiotic detours.  After a failure to remove snow led to a major traffic tie up, the mis-management signed 5 sepearte detours, some as long as 112 miles and one of which actually goes into Virginia and back, as a PR measure.  All over roads very likely to receive the same or more snow.  None have been, or ever will be used. 

- Signs about laws when I enter a state.  Virginia is bad for this.  It is proper to sign about things that actually affect motorists which actually vary from state the state (motorcycle helmets, lights on when raining, radar detectors, so on) but all of this tough on crime, gun ban, drugs are bad don't use drugs, DUI means jail, PR horses*** is a waste of $$. 

- This "move over" crap.  This causes wrecks.  I have had trucks cut me off multiple times.  Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous.  So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.

[jeffandnicole]

- This "move over" crap.  This causes wrecks.  I have had trucks cut me off multiple times.  Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous.  So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.

I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.

Who knows...maybe that cop just pulled over a murder suspect or a kidnapper.  Apparently, only serious police work involves sitting in an office.

[Rothman]

- This "move over" crap.  This causes wrecks.  I have had trucks cut me off multiple times.  Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous.  So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.

I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.

I don't know if people think the cop himself has the choice.  I typically take such statements saying that the police in general have better things to do than traffic enforcement.

[jeffandnicole]

- This "move over" crap.  This causes wrecks.  I have had trucks cut me off multiple times.  Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous.  So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.

I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.

I don't know if people think the cop himself has the choice.  I typically take such statements saying that the police in general have better things to do than traffic enforcement.

I've heard that too. 

I also hear "Why aren't police pulling people over for ______? There's too many people doing _____".

[roadman]

- Watershed signs.  Started with the Chesepeake Bay drainage.  OK, that makes some sense as that bay does have unique environmental issues.  But now it is getting copied all over.  The WV Turnpike signs the Paint Creek Watershed.  Paint Creek being a minor stream of no paricular scenic value with no enviornmental issues different from any other creek.

Massachusetts put up watershed signs for a period in the 1990s.  Then FHWA noticed (the signs were rather large) and made the state remove them.

[roadman65]

How about both Colorado and New Mexico not acknowledging US routes that are signed on interstates.  I could see US 85, being forced to have it because Texas keeps their's alive.  It should really be split into two like US 2 and US 422, but we all know how that works.

Then I have heard that Utah considers US 189 to be on their system from I-15 to US 40, despite it being a route in Wyoming via US 40 and I-80.

Bottom line is I believe that all routes should be signed wherever they are!

Another issue is the fact that Orange County in Florida signs some roads by the route number on overhead traffic light street signs and not the road name.  SR 482 from Orange Avenue at Sand Lake/ McCoy and "US 441" on the Wal Mart/ Berkshire Club apartments in the Hunters Creek/ Southchase area on Orange Blossom Trail. 

IMO is that the section of McCoy Road east of Orange should be an extension of Sand Lake Road, but that is not why Orange County did that practice there.  It is the only signal that refers to SR 482 on that stretch which irks me.  As far as WalMart all other area street signs use "Orange Blossom Trail" and US 441 is also US 17 & 92 that always gets ignored.

[Max Rockatansky]

IMO is that the section of McCoy Road east of Orange should be an extension of Sand Lake Road, but that is not why Orange County did that practice there.  It is the only signal that refers to SR 482 on that stretch which irks me.  As far as WalMart all other area street signs use "Orange Blossom Trail" and US 441 is also US 17 & 92 that always gets ignored.

Basically McCoy turns into Westbound only west of Via Flora.  Jetport if I recall correctly is mostly eastbound only on the south side of 528.  Really I think that the exit 8 ramps is the logical place to end 482, but yes I agree it needs to be signed better...along with many others.  The one that always bothered me in regards to signage was no "End" at Crystal Lake at the eastern terminus.  15 should have been routed via Colonial and Crystal Lake to reach Lake Underhill than the weird alignment on Brown/Thompson to just to take South and Anderson which are just Frontage roads of 408.

[20160805]

Floating segments.  Seriously, why did you have to end that county route two blocks away from the state route where the road physically ends?  Even if it's going to be locally maintained, it would be more helpful to motorists to extend the designation so that they connect.

Case in point: why does County BB (Greenville-Appleton, WI; follows Prospect Ave) randomly end at Bartell Drive (inconsequential side street nobody's heard of)?  They could have extended it eastward to WI 47, an extra mile or so, and it would have made a LOT more sense (and more county highway miles for anyone using that section).

[GaryV]

"Right Lane Ends" sign that really means, "Right Lane Must Turn Right".  If I'm in an unfamiliar area and know I'm going to be turning right, do I gamble on whether the lane ends before my intersection?

"Exit Only" lanes that don't indicate whether the next lane may exit as well (onto a 2-lane exit ramp).  I was impressed with CA over 25 years ago when they labelled both lanes, especially when the exit ramp split (say for EB and WB directions).  MI doesn't seem to ever label a permissive exit lane.

[1995hoo]

The thing TR69 mentions about the optional turn lane with weird light phasing can be dangerous. DC has that in a few places; the one I encounter most is at 18th and Constitution NW. The left-turn light is on first, with the straight light, and then the red turn arrow comes on but the straight traffic keeps the green. If you try to go left from the optional turn lane and you stop when the red arrow is on but the thru traffic has a green, you'll probably get rear-ended. Very bad design.

[davewiecking]

One example for me is when construction crews leave up road work signs for years and never take them down. I mean how could these professionals forget they are still up?

Bingo. I imagine some sort of Governmental Approval is required to certify that a project has been completed and punch list finished off before the sign is removed (possibly by the contractor?). But I pass one such "End Construction" sign every day from a project that was completed about 2 years ago. For about a year, that sign was in the middle of another construction zone marked with beginning and ending signs. I think one of the 4x4 posts is broken and the sign isn't very straight any more, so maybe the assumption was "it's not standing up properly, so nobody will read it". The "Construction Ahead" signs seem to get taken down more regularly than the "End Construction" signs.

[kurumi]

This one is irrational and small but still irks, especially at the end of a long rush hour: signal phase for your left turn differs from expected.

Example: you're in a NB left turn lane at a 4-way signalized intersection. Cross traffic (EB-WB straight) has the green. The "usual" phases imply your turn is next:
...
NB-SB straight
EB-WB opposing left turns
EB-WB straight and right (current green)
NB-SB opposing left turns (you're NEXT!!!1!)
...

If that does not happen, if some other movement gets the green, the "they SKIPPED us" sensation is pretty strong.

In some areas with light rail transit that preempts the phases, it can actually reset the sequence to start further forward (or back) and then you truly have been skipped, and that's doubly frustrating.

[Revive 755]

The thing TR69 mentions about the optional turn lane with weird light phasing can be dangerous. DC has that in a few places; the one I encounter most is at 18th and Constitution NW. The left-turn light is on first, with the straight light, and then the red turn arrow comes on but the straight traffic keeps the green. If you try to go left from the optional turn lane and you stop when the red arrow is on but the thru traffic has a green, you'll probably get rear-ended. Very bad design.

I was going to say this was not MUTCD compliant, particularly the Kentucky example, but it appears the use of separate left turn head manages to keep it compliant.

A shared signal face shall not be used for protected only mode left turns unless the CIRCULAR GREEN and left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indications always begin and terminate together.

[cbeach40]

- Watershed signs.  Started with the Chesepeake Bay drainage.  OK, that makes some sense as that bay does have unique environmental issues.  But now it is getting copied all over.  The WV Turnpike signs the Paint Creek Watershed.  Paint Creek being a minor stream of no paricular scenic value with no enviornmental issues different from any other creek. 

The purpose of watershed signs are to inform the public and emergency responders of drinking water protection zones where a contaminated spill could have significant negative impacts on public drinking water supplies in the area. The signs will alert them to wellhead and intake protection zones in the event of an accident causing a spill.

May have copied and pasted from an email I received. 

[johndoe]

the "they SKIPPED us" sensation is pretty strong.

This is one drawback of adaptive signals; drivers expect certain sequences and assume something is wrong if the algorithms select an alternate one.  Apparently there are more customer complaints in these corridors.  Sometimes I'm glad that my job doesn't revolve around taking public comments

One that bugs me is the "right lane must turn right" sign for a 100' tapered turn lane.  I always assumed that sign was intended for a long through lane that finally ended.  When you can see the beginning and end of the lane me thinks that sign is overkill.

[hm insulators]

Poorly maintained pavement.

[J N Winkler]

"Exit Only" lanes that don't indicate whether the next lane may exit as well (onto a 2-lane exit ramp).  I was impressed with CA over 25 years ago when they labelled both lanes, especially when the exit ramp split (say for EB and WB directions).  MI doesn't seem to ever label a permissive exit lane.

Since the 2009 edition of MUTCD, this is by design except at exits equipped with APLs.  It is a result of FHWA taking the position that it is worse to have through traffic changing lane unnecessarily to avoid an option lane than it is to have exiting traffic changing lane unnecessarily into the dropped lane.

[hbelkins]

I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.

You can look at this two ways. Number one, the supervisors should be assigning the beat cops to other activities besides speed enforcement. Number two, the cop could voluntarily choose not to write any tickets while they're on patrol. But the existence of quotas -- yes, they deny they exist; and yes, they're lying when they do, because I've had it independently verified that quotas do exist, especially for federal programs like Click It or Ticket or Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over -- limits their ability to say, "Well, I worked these roads but didn't catch anyone speeding so I didn't write any tickets."

I don't know if people think the cop himself has the choice.  I typically take such statements saying that the police in general have better things to do than traffic enforcement.

Me too. I'd much rather have the Lexington police patrolling the areas where there have been so many murders this year, or in areas with known drug or gang activity, than running radar on New Circle Road or I-75.