Print

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

[Quillz]

Atrocious 3di shields bother me:



There is nothing good about this shield. Horrible number font, the white margins aren't aligned properly and it uses the ugly, bloated '70 specs. There is almost no space between the number and the state name.

[Dr Frankenstein]

And the white lines don't have an even width. Even the "INTERSTATE" and "CONNECTICUT" words seem botched, but that might be the photo.

Thankfully there is a button copy sign just next to save the picture a bit.

[cjk374]

At least it's not neutered. 

[Michael]

This sign:

In Auburn, NY, truck traffic cannot continue straight to Dunning Ave from Columbus St., and I think that this sign could be used with a "TRUCKS" banner in that situation.

[Quillz]

At least it's not neutered. 

It might as well be neutered considering how little space there is between the state name and number. Even a standard '70 Interstate shield looks better than this.

[NE2]

See the example that I posted: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.378648,-81.504307&spn=0.00791,0.020599&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.378621,-81.504445&panoid=2JR_LIwgIWogYiRjTKZ3PQ&cbp=12,198.29,,0,-3.3
You can physically go straight, but then you conflict with traffic on the southbound exit ramp.

[froggie]

In that case, wouldn't a "RIGHT TURN ONLY" (accompanied by a "ONE WAY" on the median itself) be sufficient?

Not if a median doesn't exist or is too narrow (due to the presence of a left turn lane) or too far set back to install signage on.

We have a case of that at the Potomac Yard development in Alexandria.  Steve might recall it from dinner after the DC meet last year.  Though I don't think this particular sign is in use there.

[roadman]

If you look closely at the White River Junction overhead BGS that PennDOT Fan posted, you should quickly pick up on three of my pet BGS peeves:

1) Cardinal Direction to left of Interstate shield (North 89).  This treatment is normally reserved for exit direction signs where the advance signs are left arrow diagrammatic signs, and is intended to give the driver a consistent legend format throughout the entire sign series for the interchange.  On an exit direction sign where the advance signs are normal BGS format, this distinction is NOT needed.  None of the new advance signs for I-89 installed by NH Bureau of Turnpikes in 2007 (?) are diagrammatic signs, and this exit isn't a left side exit either.

2)  Exit Only plate with standard white up arrow to the right.  Should be full black on yellow Exit Only banner with black downward arrow over right lane.

3)  No exit numbers at Interstate highway to Interstate highway connections.  New Hampshire continues to be notorious for this practice, even on newer sign installations such as I-93 to I-89 in Bow and on I-93 to I-293 in Manchester.  What's even worse in the case of the diagrammatic signs for I-293, NHDOT placed an "exit tab" on these signs that reads Manchester Airport.

BTW, the northbound advance sign sequences on I-93 for both I-293 and I-89 also highlight another of my pet peeves (which, again, New Hampshire is notorious for).  Advance BGS panels (usually at the 2 mile point) on Interstate mainlines that only indicate "Junction" and the route shield, with NO destinations provided.

[Ian]

1) Cardinal Direction to left of Interstate shield (North 89).

Why am I just noticing this until now? I guess I've passed by the sign so many times it never hit me...

3)  No exit numbers at Interstate highway to Interstate highway connections.  New Hampshire continues to be notorious for this practice, even on newer sign installations such as I-93 to I-89 in Bow and on I-93 to I-293 in Manchester.  What's even worse in the case of the diagrammatic signs for I-293, NHDOT placed an "exit tab" on these signs that reads Manchester Airport.

I contacted NHDOT about that because I have been wondering why the state never numbered interstate/interstate junctions. Here is the response I got:

I have found no record that indicates why this decision was made initially, but have been told that since the subject interchange is more of a “split” between two interstate highways, it was not considered an “exit”.  This same practice occurs at the north and south “splits” between I-93 and I-293, along with the “split” between I-93 and NH 101 in Manchester.

[J N Winkler]

I'm reposting the picture in question since it last appeared about seven pages ago.

If you look closely at the White River Junction overhead BGS that PennDOT Fan posted, you should quickly pick up on three of my pet BGS peeves:

[. . .]

2)  Exit Only plate with standard white up arrow to the right.  Should be full black on yellow Exit Only banner with black downward arrow over right lane.

I am interpreting this to be the exit direction sign gantry because I can see a ramp speed sign in the distance.  That being the case, I agree with all the other criticisms but would not use a downward-pointing arrow.  Downward-pointing arrow with no distance legend means advance guide sign for a lane drop within one-quarter of a mile; upward-pointing arrow (either white on the green part of the sign panel or black on the yellow part) means exit direction sign.

I have a ton of other criticisms about this particular sign panel.  Primary destination legend is left-justified, when it should be centered.  I don't like "VT."  Arrow is badly positioned.  My usual preference for exit direction signs at simple lane drops is to treat the main message on the green-background portion as a single block and to center the arrow vertically to the right of it, but because "White River Jct VT" is so long (and would still be quite long even if "VT" were omitted, rendered in small caps, or changed to "Vt"), placing the arrow on the bottom yellow panel would reduce the sign panel area significantly.  In this placement the arrow should be between "EXIT" and "ONLY" and the three should be centered as a block.

BTW, if I am interpreting this situation correctly as a simple lane drop (no option lane), then the arrows on the pull-through sign are also superfluous.  The sign itself is not because freeway-to-freeway interchanges need pull-throughs.

[CL]

...enough said.

[Quillz]

The sign on the right is especially ugly with no separation between the exit number and the exit name.

[Scott5114]

BLATCH!

[Central Avenue]

They couldn't even get the baseline for "WEST" right...

[agentsteel53]

also 1:2 lowercase to capital ratio??  that is a bit excessive.  3:4 has been proven by studies to be the most legible, and it does indeed aesthetically look the best.  2:3 is quaint and I like it because California used it 1950-1958 (and it shows up randomly on newer signs every once in a while) but 3:4 is the way to go.

[roadman]

I'm reposting the picture in question since it last appeared about seven pages ago.

If you look closely at the White River Junction overhead BGS that PennDOT Fan posted, you should quickly pick up on three of my pet BGS peeves:

[. . .]

2)  Exit Only plate with standard white up arrow to the right.  Should be full black on yellow Exit Only banner with black downward arrow over right lane.

I am interpreting this to be the exit direction sign gantry because I can see a ramp speed sign in the distance.  That being the case, I agree with all the other criticisms but would not use a downward-pointing arrow.  Downward-pointing arrow with no distance legend means advance guide sign for a lane drop within one-quarter of a mile; upward-pointing arrow (either white on the green part of the sign panel or black on the yellow part) means exit direction sign.... <snip> ...
BTW, if I am interpreting this situation correctly as a simple lane drop (no option lane), then the arrows on the pull-through sign are also superfluous.  The sign itself is not because freeway-to-freeway interchanges need pull-throughs.

You raise a good point, but the format on the I-89 exit direction sign is still non-standard.

Unless you are retrofitting an existing overhead sign to reflect a newly created exit only lane, the only case where using a white on green arrow for an "Exit Only" condition is acceptable is on the new "arrow per lane" signs for option lanes detailed in the 2009 MUTCD.  In all other cases, the arrow (either downward pointing or upward slanted) is to be part of the "Exit Only" banner and is to be black.

You also raise a good point about the arrows on the pull-thru sign.  However, in this case, the purpose of the sign appears to be not only confirmation of the I-93 north route, but serves as a lane assignment panel as well.  Given that the right lane is "Exit Only" to I-89, having the arrows on this sign makes sense from a driver guidance perspective.

[roadman]

I contacted NHDOT about that because I have been wondering why the state never numbered interstate/interstate junctions. Here is the response I got:

I have found no record that indicates why this decision was made initially, but have been told that since the subject interchange is more of a “split” between two interstate highways, it was not considered an “exit”.  This same practice occurs at the north and south “splits” between I-93 and I-293, along with the “split” between I-93 and NH 101 in Manchester.

.

The NHDOT response is generally correct.  When exit numbering standards were first developed for the Interstate system in the 1960s, commonly accepted signing practice was not to assign exit numbers for Interstate to Interstate connections.  However, based on subsequent changes to the Federal standards, the majority of states have since assigned exit numbers to these types of interchanges.

Note that at both the I-93 northbound/NH 101 eastbound 'split' in Manchester and the I-293 northbound/NH 101 'split' in Bedford, NH 101 has exit numbers.  The I-93 southbound/NH 101 westbound split in Manchester does not have an exit number, but that is because the exit is for I-293 northbound - NH 101 westbound follows the I-293 northbound roadway at this location.

[roadfro]

I can't think of any situation that should require to be used.

One situation: Mae Anne Ave & Sierra Highlands Dr in Reno, NV (Google Street View).

Mae Anne Ave is a collector arterial that ends at nearby McCarran Blvd, a major arterial. Sierra Highlands is primarily a residential street, which intersects Mae Anne, but also curves to intersect McCarran closer to I-80. There had been considerable cut-through traffic on Sierra Highlands from Mae Anne, so the city of Reno prohibited through traffic from taking Sierra Highlands SB across Mae Anne to cut through; however, they left an opening so that local traffic could turn in from WB Mae Anne. It is possible to make that straight ahead movement SB on Sierra Highlands, so in this instance a "no through movement" sign would be useful but a "Do Not Enter" sign would be inappropriate.

[shadyjay]

Massachusetts' oversized route shields really aggrevate me - I can see on the interstates but not on 2-lane state routes. 

Any outline shield.

Multiplexes not properly signed, or pointless multiplexes for that matter.

[shadyjay]

These two installations which went up a couple of years ago make me sick!




This is basically a carbon copy of the original - except the new assembly sports the VA HOSPITAL tab where an EXIT ONLY tab should be.  The most disgusting part is the missing arrow on the pull-though.  The missing EXIT tab is also annoying but it appears on the ground-mounted sign just past the overhead.


Then just off the exit, there's this:


Just really poor arrow placement, and the all-caps St Johnsbury is irritating!

[agentsteel53]

Any outline shield.

I love outline shields because they are an old standard.  1961 is where they made colored shields mandatory.



1960 sign.  the last of its kind - there are five state route outline shields and one US route left in California.

[Quillz]

There are two CA-27 outline shields I know of right at 101's Exit 27.

[froggie]

Unless you are retrofitting an existing overhead sign to reflect a newly created exit only lane, the only case where using a white on green arrow for an "Exit Only" condition is acceptable is on the new "arrow per lane" signs for option lanes detailed in the 2009 MUTCD.  In all other cases, the arrow (either downward pointing or upward slanted) is to be part of the "Exit Only" banner and is to be black.

So what you're saying is that this (don't directly click, but the photo is there) is no longer acceptable?

[J N Winkler]

I would also point out that, notwithstanding provisions in the 2009 MUTCD, that arrow configuration is still in wide use in signing construction plans, including ones which feature the new arrow-per-lane diagrammatics.

[RJ145]

I don't know why, but BGS with an outline but no rounded corners irritates me. As evident in shadyjay's picture. Although I can't say I've ever seen one with rounded corners, but I think it would look better.