Signage pet peeves

[myosh_tino]

4) Mile markers should not be reset to zero every time you cross into a new county within the state (like OH).

or California.  combine that with the lack of exit numbers, and one ends up not knowing at all where they are.

California does not use mile markers (except on CA-58 from Bakersfield to Boron).  What's used in California are called Post Miles and are for maintenance purposes only.  Post Miles are NOT intended to be used by the traveling public.

[agentsteel53]

Post Miles are NOT intended to be used by the traveling public.

then why make up all those aluminum paddles?  An individual one is cheap; the entire signing program is expensive.  Tax dollars at work.

Really, someone should have thought - in 1963 when they adopted the modern postmile style - that maybe the general public could benefit from a very simple change in the numbering system: namely, to start mileage from the state border, as specified in the AASHO interstate manual of 1957/58.  The maintenance personnel, inasmuch as they would've needed the mileage to the county line (not so often) could have just had a book that added up all the county mileages, if they would've ever needed to know.

Standard mileposts: not exactly a precedent.  They were used on the National Road as early as 1843, and I believe the Appian Way used them in the oh-so-modern year of 312 BC.  Then again, California was far behind in many things: route shields on guide signs, only as late as 1955, and the whole exit numbering fiasco: a successful experiment in 1971 resulted in the whole concept being abandoned until 2002.  Go figure.

like I said: your tax dollars at work.  Why be efficient when you're spending someone else's money??

[myosh_tino]

Of course hindsight is 20/20. 

An ideal system for California today is the dual system used in Nevada (use both white post miles and green mile posts).  But given what's currently in use, the post mile system, adding green mile posts to every single state highway, U.S. route and interstate in California would be very, very expensive.  If you're also advocating the removal of the post mile system in California, then you'd also have to convert all the highway logs, maintenance logs, construction documents, etc from the post mile system to the mile post system.

I would much rather see my tax dollars going towards actual road construction/maintenance than be wasted on some silly project to convert post miles to mile posts just because "everyone else is doing it".

[roadfro]

An ideal system for California today is the dual system used in Nevada (use both white post miles and green mile posts). 

You say this as if the dual system is widespread in Nevada. The only highways where NDOT uses standard green MUTCD milepost panels is on Interstate highways--all other highways use post mile panels similar to California's. I-80 is really the only highway in Nevada where postmiles and mileposts are used and don't correlate to the same mileage--I-15 uses both as well (postmiles are sporadic in the Las Vegas area), but the distances are the same since the route stays in one county inside Nevada.

[agentsteel53]

Of course hindsight is 20/20.  

foresight is doable, though... or, in this case, standard due diligence: looking around and seeing what everyone else uses.  by 1964, state-line-based mileposts were not only a good idea, but they were the law.  (see 1957/58 and 1961 AASHO manuals.)  Like I mentioned, a common zero ideal has been around to the time of the Romans: milestones on the Italian peninsula show the distance to Rome, which is a perfectly good zero index.  I wouldn't object if all of CA's mileposts showed the distance to Sacramento; I just wish they wouldn't reset at every county line!

An ideal system for California today is the dual system used in Nevada (use both white post miles and green mile posts).  But given what's currently in use, the post mile system, adding green mile posts to every single state highway, U.S. route and interstate in California would be very, very expensive.  If you're also advocating the removal of the post mile system in California, then you'd also have to convert all the highway logs, maintenance logs, construction documents, etc from the post mile system to the mile post system.

the maintenance logs can stay as is - no one cares about those except Caltrans and roadgeeks.  Caltrans can make up a quick reference manual for themselves (i.e. "101 Marin county, offset is 469.4" (or whatever the Hell it is)), and roadgeeks can convert in their heads.  

the adding of the green miles would be significantly less expensive than that horrible "exit tabs or bust" project we have so far, that has caused clumsy and aesthetically displeasing retrofits (seriously? did external tabs kick your dog or something?  why the aversion??), and worse, has been the sad demise of so many historically viable signs.  I've already mentioned the exit number fiasco: they tried them in '71, found that they worked, and couldn't be bothered to install them going forward.

I would much rather see my tax dollars going towards actual road construction/maintenance than be wasted on some silly project to convert post miles to mile posts just because "everyone else is doing it".

agreed on this one - I just think that in 1964 CA should've gone with 1) state-line-based postmiles, and 2) exit numbers, at least keeping them by 1971 for sure.  

[Quillz]

I've noticed many BGS in California often omit the bottom white border on their signs, simply because they're usually not seen from the driver's line of sight. But it's annoying... Three sides of the BGS have a white border, and the bottom one is completely bare.

[CL]

...and


Can you guess what it is? Well, it's actually two things. Both images feature my first pet peeve: that arrow floating outside of the "exit only" shading. How aesthetically unpleasing.  Unaesthetically pleasing is not quite what you're after.

The second image has the weird lower-case text that's too small which makes the sign look tacky. I've seen this type of problem discussed on the boards somewhere before...

[TheStranger]

CL: Looking at the second image, the odd mixed case text is reminiscent of California's mid-1950s mixed case style (Series D capital letters, Series E(M) lowercase).

[agentsteel53]

even more extreme - CA used a 2:3 ratio, and that looks like 3:5.  Not quite 1:2 but close.

[agentsteel53]

the major problem with the first photo is that "280 east" is not a shield.  Unless it's road number 280, in which case it is fine.  If it is "to 80 East", then it is beyond the pale.

[NE2]

the major problem with the first photo is that "280 east" is not a shield.  Unless it's road number 280, in which case it is fine.  If it is "to 80 East", then it is beyond the pale.

280 East is the name of the road. It's the north-south road 2.8 blocks east of the zero line, intersecting east-west roads at address 280. 280 West would be a separate north-south road 5.6 blocks to the west. The integer multiples of 100 are often said with ordinal numbers (200 East = 2nd East) but 280 East is probably said thus,

[CL]

the major problem with the first photo is that "280 east" is not a shield.  Unless it's road number 280, in which case it is fine.  If it is "to 80 East", then it is beyond the pale.

280 East is the name of the road. It's the north-south road 2.8 blocks east of the zero line, intersecting east-west roads at address 280. 280 West would be a separate north-south road 5.6 blocks to the west. The integer multiples of 100 are often said with ordinal numbers (200 East = 2nd East) but 280 East is probably said thus,

Ha... "2 [to] 80 East." Good one.

But yeah, 280 East is the whole Salt Lake numbering system. 600 South, 2100 North, what have you. That road happens not to lie directly three blocks east of 0, so it's 280 East (although the actual name of that road is Fashion Blvd, but that's a story for another day).

[agentsteel53]

that explains why I had not heard of route 280!  I figured the sign was in the SLC area (where else is there a freeway exit 12 to I-15?) so I was crossing my fingers that this was not the extraordinarily lazy way of signing "to Interstate 80 East".

[NE2]

As a kid I was always amused by the way the parallel freeways in south Jersey are signed 295 and to 95.

One thing I really dislike is when a one-way pair ends and there's a double-arrow sign with no directions. It's correct but doesn't tell you which way to turn to continue on the route you're on.

[Quillz]

Also it annoys me when signs combine all sorts of fonts on them.

Today, I came across a sign that had the exit tabs in Series C, the name of the exit in Series E(M) and then an "Exit Only" in Series D.

While I think that guide signs should always be in Series E(M), I'd at least like to see consistent signs, even if they were all in Series A or B.

[national highway 1]

I also dislike signs that have heavy amounts of greenout, therefore making the sign TACKY. I also dislike old signs that are so dirty that they are illegible. In both these cases, the sign(s) should be replaced.

[Mergingtraffic]

...and


Can you guess what it is? Well, it's actually two things. Both images feature my first pet peeve: that arrow floating outside of the "exit only" shading. How unaesthetically pleasing.

The second image has the weird lower-case text that's too small which makes the sign look tacky. I've seen this type of problem discussed on the boards somewhere before...

and the lack of exit tabs.

[froggie]

-No control cities at freeway junctions: Every freeway should have a control city that is associated with it. I especially dislike the practice of some places(like Minnesota in the Twin Cities) of not signing any control cities with the 3di loops.

Some freeways just don't need control cities.  What would you use for MN 62?  Or MN 100?  Or MN 610?

One could make an argument for putting control cities on I-694 (MnDOT posts "Twin Cities Bypass Use I-694" on I-94 on each side).  But not really with I-494.

[tdindy88]

-No control cities at freeway junctions: Every freeway should have a control city that is associated with it. I especially dislike the practice of some places(like Minnesota in the Twin Cities) of not signing any control cities with the 3di loops.

Some freeways just don't need control cities.  What would you use for MN 62?  Or MN 100?  Or MN 610?

One could make an argument for putting control cities on I-694 (MnDOT posts "Twin Cities Bypass Use I-694" on I-94 on each side).  But not really with I-494.

Furthermore, there may be too many outgoing highways from a city each with its own control city that it may be difficult to determine which control city or cities you should use. For cities that have four highways coming out in each of the cardinal directions it may be alright, like what I've seen in Ohio, but for Indianapolis where I'm from, we have six, soon to be eight freeways coming out from the city that you have to start signing two or three control cities and then you have to change those cities after a few exits, becoming unnecessary clutter.

[Brandon]

{removed images}

and the lack of exit tabs.

They do have exit tabs, full-width exit tabs a la Illinois, but only one of them (the California Ave exit) is done right, IMHO, by aligning it to the side of the exit ramp.

[Brandon]

Also it annoys me when signs combine all sorts of fonts on them.

Then you'd love some of the ISTHA bgses on I-88 that have Series E and Clearview.  The signs are for the 22nd Street exit (to IL-83) with a distance in miles.  I've still got to get a photo, but I kid you not, the "22" in 22nd Street is Series E, but the distance is in Clearview!

[6a]

Warning:
Signal Ahead Sign upside down

<-------------- Yeah, me too

[Brandon]

Warning:
Signal Ahead Sign upside down

<-------------- Yeah, me too

Need a pic of it, but IDiOT did one of these for a ramp meter for an entrance from Wbd St Charles Rd to the Ebd Ike.

[xonhulu]

Here's an example of something I see occasionally here in Oregon that annoys me a little bit:



Wouldn't it make more sense for the 223 shield to be on the right?

Here's another goofy arrow arrangement not too far away:

[Bryant5493]

I hate that Georgia doesn't have -- well at least in the Atlanta region -- consistent, well signed lane ending signage. Sometimes, you're driving along and the lane just ends. I've seen this around quite a bit. What I like about Alabama is that when a lane ends, you know it's ending. The lines indicate that the lane's ending. This is popping up in some places in Georgia; not a lot, though. (At least I've not seen it in a lot of place here.)


Be well,

Bryant