Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sp_redelectric]

Pet peeve is my local city (Tigard, Oregon) that seems to hand-make its own signs, making them appear to be very unprofessional and "fake".  Fonts used are inconsistent and letters are often unevenly spaced.  Some of the newer signs with the newest reflective sheeting are applied right on top of an older sign without removing the old sign sheeting first so the old sign image is clearly visible even when driving and sometimes even at night.  What's worse is that Washington County has a pretty darn good sign shop that rarely ever goofs.

[xonhulu]

Pet peeve is my local city (Tigard, Oregon) that seems to hand-make its own signs, making them appear to be very unprofessional and "fake".  Fonts used are inconsistent and letters are often unevenly spaced.  Some of the newer signs with the newest reflective sheeting are applied right on top of an older sign without removing the old sign sheeting first so the old sign image is clearly visible even when driving and sometimes even at night.  What's worse is that Washington County has a pretty darn good sign shop that rarely ever goofs.

Here's a classic from Tigard most of you have probably seen:



Still up as far as I know.

[luokou]

Pet peeve is my local city (Tigard, Oregon) that seems to hand-make its own signs, making them appear to be very unprofessional and "fake".  Fonts used are inconsistent and letters are often unevenly spaced.  Some of the newer signs with the newest reflective sheeting are applied right on top of an older sign without removing the old sign sheeting first so the old sign image is clearly visible even when driving and sometimes even at night.  What's worse is that Washington County has a pretty darn good sign shop that rarely ever goofs.

Tigard has been notorious for stretching out Series C for any application, as if that's the only typeface in their shop!

Here's a classic from Tigard most of you have probably seen:



Still up as far as I know.

This goof shows up at nearly every signal from Hall Blvd. all the way south to Bull Mtn. Rd. The only one of these signs that I saw with a correct OR-99W shield was at (or near) the intersection at SW 72nd Ave. next to Freddy's. Probably a Multnomah County sign shop that put that one up, though I don't even know if that particular sign is around anymore.

[sp_redelectric]

This goof shows up at nearly every signal from Hall Blvd. all the way south to Bull Mtn. Rd. The only one of these signs that I saw with a correct OR-99W shield was at (or near) the intersection at SW 72nd Ave. next to Freddy's. Probably a Multnomah County sign shop that put that one up, though I don't even know if that particular sign is around anymore.

If I recall correctly, the intersection at 72nd/Freddy's doesn't have a Pacific Highway sign.

However thanks to the Hall/Main/Greenburg project, the Main/Greenburg intersection has a proper shield; Hall had the separate Highway 99W sign (formerly with the upside down Oregon shield but has since been corrected), and Canterbury has a separate and proper sign.

Further south at 124th avenue (in Tualatin city limits) Tualatin omits the highway shield but includes the city's logo and includes the "West" as part of the highway name that Tigard omits.

[Icodec]

States that still use the old exit numbering system....Don't want to say any names *eyes turn towards the northeast*.


WRONG SHIELDS!!!!!!!
Honestly, how hard is it to put an Ohio shield instead of a circle?

Finally, the things like wrong fonts, off center control cities, PENNDOT, anything like that.

[vtk]

Unsigned optional exit lanes - as noted, causes unnecessary lane changes.

Messed up shields - wrong shape (aspect ratio) for number of digits, OH/US mixup, using literal OH outline instead of simplified shape in SDM, numbers too small (should be half height of shield, using C or B for Interstates if necessary)

Incomplete Clearview Application - Just approve neg-contrast Clearview already. It's already used in a lot of places, and besides 4B looks better than E next to 4W.  On the other hand, mixed E should be acceptable instead of E(M) in pos contrast for names on guide signs.  Still, I disagree with geometry of numerals in Clearview. They should basically be FHWA numerals with stroke weights modidied to match Clearview letters. (With the bolder neg contrast, this would make awesome shields!)

High intensity yellow on signs that use regular-intensity white

Ground-mounted BGS with more than 2 lanes each way or high truck traffic

No signage for common freeway & interchange names

Unclear directional signage at rest areas - most Ohio rest areas have a sign that basically says, but not so simply, "everything but cars go left". They really need signs that clearly indicate "cars go right".

Cardinal directions disjoint from shields on guide signs - I'm looking at you, Indiana

Edit - one more I just remembered
Do Not Enter signs oriented as if I can't continue straight when they really mean I can't turn down the side street

[vdeane]

Unsigned optional exit lanes - as noted, causes unnecessary lane changes.

Indeed.  Especially dangerous in an area like Kamikaze Curve where traveling in the signed exit lane results in making a lane change anyways.

No signage for common freeway & interchange names

Ever see signage in NYC?  It's way too cluttered; looks like NYCDOT contracts out their signage to Caltrans and sticks a tab on top.  I'd prefer it if traffic reports just started using the proper numbers in addition to local names.

[roadfro]

No signage for common freeway & interchange names

This is something discouraged (prohibited?) in the national MUTCD, and some agencies (such as Caltrans) are moving away from with new/revised signs. Ultimately, more and more people nowadays use highway numbers over highway names.

[english si]

Interestingly, signing junction names (though not road/freeway names) something that's being moved towards in the UK, as it assists Europeans, especially Germans, who for some reason can't work with road numbers or exit numbers (though there don't tend to be exit numbers where the name is signed, at least not on the road you are on).

They aren't signed on motorways, unless you are coming to a terminal roundabout and have to slow down anyway. But they are signed on equally fast grade-separated dual carriageways.

[vtk]

No signage for common freeway & interchange names

This is something discouraged (prohibited?) in the national MUTCD, and some agencies (such as Caltrans) are moving away from with new/revised signs. Ultimately, more and more people nowadays use highway numbers over highway names.

Last time I read the relevant sections, it was allowed under fairly limited conditions.  In Columbus, that allowance is used to post a few "memorial" designations that nobody ever uses.  Besides those memorial signs, I have not seen any signed freeway names in Columbus for as long as I've been paying attention to such things -- nearly 20 years.  Yet, the traffic reports consistently refer to freeway segments and interchanges by names that aren't signed.  Signing these common names (not the memorial names) would be of some benefit to visitors, particularly if nationally-published maps begin displaying the names as well. 

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but...
Seriously, freeway and interchange names need to be signed, and they should be the common / traffic-report names, not memorial names.  They're not on signs, and they're not on nationally-published maps; I would have to go to Wikipedia or a roadgeek website to find out for example where the Borman, Kennedy, and Eisenhower expressways are in Chicago, and personally, I'm not likely to remember such information unless I see the highways labeled as such on a map or on signage along the applicable freeways.  I imagine visitors to Columbus could have similar issues, though our freeway names are a bit more obviously named.  Still, our terms "Outerbelt" and "Innerbelt" could confuse some people from the east coast, who might believe these refer to the counter-clockwise and clockwise halves of I-270, respectively; in fact, that would only be one-quarter true. </rant>

[mtantillo]

How about College/University exits in general? On many occasions, the signed exit is in no way, shape, or form the best way to reach the school. My alma mater, Lynchburg College, is completely guilty of this. Exit 3A - Business US 501 (Kemper Street) is a STRAIGHT shot, yet they have spotty signage saying to continue to regular US 501...which is ridiculously out of the way and poorly signed. Even worse, Google Maps also shows US 501A (which is unsigned and perhaps decommissioned?) When I was a student ambassador (college tour guide for prospective students) people were constantly late because they would get severely lost in the city.

York College of PA is guilty of this, too. Exit 15 (Business 83) is a direct shot, but yet, the interstate signs the college at Exit 16, which is Queen St (PA 74.) This is not only an indirect shot, but reassurance signage completely disappears.

I'm sure there are other examples. It just seems silly to me to route people poorly around town when there are more or less direct routes straight to the front gates.

Well, when I was doing college visits back in the day, I asked a tour guide why the signs took us on a 10 minute U-shaped route when the college was only 2 minutes off a different exit?  "We asked for the signs to use that route so people don't come through the bad part of town on the way here...it would give them a bad first impression of the school!"

[Michael in Philly]

I agree 100 percent.  (with Vtk - sorry, Laura Bianca - you posted while I was typing.)

I grew up in the New York area and see little point in complaining about people calling expressways by the names they've been using for half a century or more (and calling them "expressways," for that matter) because it's not compliant with a document which - notwithstanding its biblical status around here - most people have never heard of.  And likewise I see little point in complaining about said commonly-used expressway names being on signs (besides, didn't New York get specific permission to do that?)

That said, don't Chicago expressway names show up on most road atlases, and the Chicago map within the Illinois official map?  I'd expect them to be on any road map of the Chicago area (as opposed to a map of the whole state, where the scale would be too small).  Los Angeles too....

[roadfro]

No signage for common freeway & interchange names

This is something discouraged (prohibited?) in the national MUTCD, and some agencies (such as Caltrans) are moving away from with new/revised signs. Ultimately, more and more people nowadays use highway numbers over highway names.

Last time I read the relevant sections, it was allowed under fairly limited conditions.  In Columbus, that allowance is used to post a few "memorial" designations that nobody ever uses.  Besides those memorial signs, I have not seen any signed freeway names in Columbus for as long as I've been paying attention to such things -- nearly 20 years.  Yet, the traffic reports consistently refer to freeway segments and interchanges by names that aren't signed.  Signing these common names (not the memorial names) would be of some benefit to visitors, particularly if nationally-published maps begin displaying the names as well. 

Names are not supposed to supplant the numbered designation. The MUTCD does not allow memorial names on directional guide signs on the mainline or intersecting routes. The signs are preferred to be located off the highway...

[Michael in Philly]

And non-memorial designations - which people actually use - are prohibited altogether....

[NE2]

If you have access to the New York Times archive:
June 25, 1961: DEBATE STIRRED BY HIGHWAY SIGNS
May 23, 1964: SAFETY MEN URGE CLEAR ROAD SIGNS
December 14, 1966: Signs to Nowhere (editorial)
June 17, 1967: Auto Club Assails Highway Signs Here as Obsolete and Deceptive
August 26, 1967: STATE TO REPLACE ROAD SIGNS HERE
July 9, 1968: Highway Signs Here Point Way to Confusion
April 5, 1970: Road Signs Still Confusing
There may be others that I didn't save years ago when I had access.

The gist is that the state interpreted the MUTCD to say that Interstates must be identified only by numbers, not names. The 1964 article includes the following:

However, the Bureau of Public Roads has ruled: "There is no objection to the display of a route number with a highway name on the top line of a guide sign so long as other conditions of the sign design are met. This amounts to a ruling that the intersected road may be identified by name, number or both."

This one also talks about the "local stranger", "a person who lives and works in the metropolitan area but who gets off his regular routes on trips to the World's Fair or other recreational points on weekends". This driver would be more familiar with names than numbers.

[J N Winkler]

Most of this--including the specific term "local stranger"--comes from research the California Division of Highways carried out into freeway guide signing in the late 1950's and early 1960's (the Auto Safety Foundation study and the Bulletin 244 study).  The general recommendation that freeway names not be signed originates from this work, but in cities with old freeway systems where the freeway names are entrenched in people's minds, there is a strong relatability argument for signing freeway names which tends to clash with the message-loading argument for not signing them.  "Relatability" in this context means that it is desirable to have freeway names on the signs so that they correspond to other navigational information, such as maps, telephone directories, directions given orally, etc. which references freeway names.

I don't support freeway name signing for places like Columbus, Wichita, Kansas City, or even Portland.  But in cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, I think it is probably unavoidable.

[NE2]

The tipping point for me would be whether the name was signed before the number. For example, in Orlando, the toll roads were originally marked with special shields, and only later had the numbers publicly signed. So SR 408 is often called the East-West and SR 528 the Beachline (silly recent renaming of the Bee Line).

[agentsteel53]

that's generally a good tipping point. 

however, for California, the route numbers were signed by 1955, albeit in a dual name-and-number format well into the 70s.

at what point do you think "no one has called these freeways by name in over a generation"? 

[TheStranger]

at what point do you think "no one has called these freeways by name in over a generation"? 

In California's case, I think the answer is likely "never" with some rather long-standing examples, i.e. Bayshore and Eastshore and MacArthur (all of which predate the freeways built there).  And this is with very little current signing mentioning those names anywhere - though there are examples of it in existence scattered about.

I don't know if the Nimitz name was ever signed on Route 17/today's I-880 to the extent that freeway names were signed in SoCal, but that one has also stuck to this day.

[myosh_tino]

at what point do you think "no one has called these freeways by name in over a generation"? 

In California's case, I think the answer is likely "never" with some rather long-standing examples, i.e. Bayshore and Eastshore and MacArthur (all of which predate the freeways built there).  And this is with very little current signing mentioning those names anywhere - though there are examples of it in existence scattered about.

I don't know if the Nimitz name was ever signed on Route 17/today's I-880 to the extent that freeway names were signed in SoCal, but that one has also stuck to this day.

I tend to agree with TheStranger on this one especially when you factor in the local radio and TV stations who continue to use the freeway names (Bayshore, Eastshore, MacArthur, Nimitz, etc), in combination with the route numbers, quite extensively on their traffic reports. 

I've also heard KCBS, the local all-news radio station in San Francisco, refer to CA-85 as the "West Valley Freeway" or the "Stevens Creek Freeway".

[vtk]

Let me be clear: I support, at minimum, signing the common names (which are often official, in that they are recognized by the city) of freeways on those freeways*, in addition to route numbers.  I also support signing those names on guide signage on intersecting roads, in addition to route numbers, only if it does not result in cluttered signs or message overload. 

Of course I expect map publishers to include common names of freeways, but I recognize that this is extremely unlikely if the names aren't signed or already included on other maps.  How else is the mapmaker going to know about them?

* Probably the best place to sign freeway names would be on pull-through signage after major interchanges, particularly at the start of the stretch of freeway to which the name applies, and preferrably not on the same gantry as any other guide signage.  Speed limit signs could be mounted alongside these pull-through signs, particularly if some of the traffic may have just come from a freeway with a different speed limit.

[Stratuscaster]

If they do it right, there's no reason they cannot include the recognized name of the freeway under the cardinal direction - and that's what I'd prefer.

How it's done in Chicagoland is close. These overhead BGS get it right:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.865486,-87.644387&spn=0,0.004748&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.688268,77.783203&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.865576,-87.644392&panoid=y3R4uaTQdpW0FLY5g7Kfzw&cbp=12,22.33,,0,-0.81

These don't, because the name is on two lines. I understand why - it's a space issue - but the name itself could be set in a smaller type perhaps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chicago,+IL&hl=en&ll=41.855474,-87.644366&spn=0.002657,0.004748&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.688268,77.783203&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.855939,-87.644228&panoid=CxyEBxAqABr9RnsUkoSvWg&cbp=12,22.39,,0,-2.95

ISHTA has signs up along I-355 and I-88 that have the name "N-S Tollway" and "E-W Tollway" respectively. Those are no longer the 'official' names - 355 is the "Veterans Memorial Tollway" and 88 is the "Reagan Memorial Tollway". No BGS's show those names - most newer signs show just "TOLLWAY", and the latest signs now have the black-on-yellow TOLL banner above the cardinal direction (another peeve of mine.)

Like vtk said, if it can be done without clutter, it should be. But I'd put it on the signs AT interchanges, as well as on pull-throughs.

In other cases, using local names isn't helpful. Example - I-290 west of the I-294/Tri-State is known as "The Eisenhower Extension." Personally, it's been a long enough time since it was built, it's time to just include it as part of the whole "Eisenhower Expressway." Same with the "Edens Spur" - just make it part of the Edens.

[hbelkins]

[Stratuscaster]

Take the name down a few sizes, maybe a narrower type, and put it on one line - and you'd have a good looking sign. And, if the local common name is "Deegan Expy" - then use that.

[hbelkins]