Department of Redundancy Department

[SkyPesos]

Further down is a "more accurate" sign: https://goo.gl/maps/vx24ydBjrk7sAFjo7

I did originally see that browsing street view, and it definitely highlights the issue: 275 East is signed as being via the exit-only lane early-on, but then becomes accessible from the option lane at the split.

Sometimes, ambiguity is superior. In this case, signing a single 275 shield without cardinal directions is the easiest and most logic fix, without resorting to APLs.

Funny enough, the NB direction does use an APL. One of the better arrow designs for APLs imo, they don't look as needlessly thick or large as some other examples are.

[jakeroot]

Further down is a "more accurate" sign: https://goo.gl/maps/vx24ydBjrk7sAFjo7

I did originally see that browsing street view, and it definitely highlights the issue: 275 East is signed as being via the exit-only lane early-on, but then becomes accessible from the option lane at the split.

Sometimes, ambiguity is superior. In this case, signing a single 275 shield without cardinal directions is the easiest and most logic fix, without resorting to APLs.

Funny enough, the NB direction does use an APL. One of the better arrow designs for APLs imo, they don't look as needlessly thick or large as some other examples are.

I agree, those look good. Only issue is the #3 lane's arrow pointing directly at the dividing line. Assuming the arrow is properly centered (it appears to be), the dividing line need to be moved to the right.

[formulanone]

Massachusetts' square and cubed routes:

[WillWeaverRVA]

Massachusetts' square and cubed routes:

Good Lord, RIDOT has invaded Massachusetts!

[JoePCool14]

Massachusetts' square and cubed routes:

You even got some nice horizontal compression on the text to top it off. Lovely stuff.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/YhNeYuWeF8irtWs96
Two different shields that should be spaced out from each other, but making them redundant. If CR 547 is signed both ways we already know of the junction.

[MCRoads]

Not sure if this counts as "redundancy", but I-25 in COS has many signs on gantries that simply say "NORTH/SOUTH I-25"  I don't see this in Denver or Pueblo, just in the springs.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/32CG1AZd4Bejo3nQ6

[kphoger]

Not sure if this counts as "redundancy", but I-25 in COS has many signs on gantries that simply say "NORTH/SOUTH I-25"  I don't see this in Denver or Pueblo, just in the springs.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/32CG1AZd4Bejo3nQ6

OK, that link just pointed me to the pavement.  But, assuming you meant this sign, that's just a Pull-Through Sign.  No different from a reassurance marker, really.

MUTCD guidance allows them to be used where "additional route guidance is desired".  Apparently it was desired at that location.

MUTCD E6-2

[Bruce]

ODOT overuses those pull-throughs around Portland.

[SkyPesos]

ODOT overuses those pull-throughs around Portland.

ODOT overuses those pull-throughs around Cincinnati.

[kphoger]

What, exactly, does "overuse" mean in this context?  How is posting a pull-through at an exit/interchange any different than posting a reassurance marker at an intersection on a surface route?  It's reassurance for the through route either way.

[MCRoads]

What, exactly, does "overuse" mean in this context?  How is posting a pull-through at an exit/interchange any different than posting a reassurance marker at an intersection on a surface route?  It's reassurance for the through route either way.

When you use it every single exit, averaging 1 per mile, that is just so much wasted material.

[Scott5114]

I mean, standards say there's supposed to be a reassurance marker of some kind after every onramp. Having it as a pullthru sign just makes it more visible.

[andrepoiy]

In Ontario, sometimes during long-term construction, they post long-term temporary signs. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but essentially, it's a temporary sign, but it would be there long enough that they actually put it into the ground and have regular colouring (instead of orange construction colouring).

I've noticed that some of them still haven't gotten removed even after the construction has been done and the overhead signs are up.

I forgot where I saw this though.

Also 500th post, wow, never thought I would get here this quickly.

[MCRoads]

In Ontario, sometimes during long-term construction, they post long-term temporary signs. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but essentially, it's a temporary sign, but it would be there long enough that they actually put it into the ground and have regular colouring (instead of orange construction colouring).

I've noticed that some of them still haven't gotten removed even after the construction has been done and the overhead signs are up.

I forgot where I saw this though.

Also 500th post, wow, never thought I would get here this quickly.

In CO, they have done that with some signs on I-25 between COS and Denver. It is usually just exit gore signs though.

Also, congrats on 500 posts! I meant to make mine special, but I missed it... lol. (See personal blurb below the I-25 shield, lol.

[JoePCool14]

I'm surprised people complain about overuse of those pull-throughs. I wish Illinois used them more, both IDOT and ISTHA.

[MCRoads]

I'm surprised people complain about overuse of those pull-throughs. I wish Illinois used them more, both IDOT and ISTHA.

Look NB on 25. There are 2 within a QUARTER MILE! Tell me that isn't overuse!!
https://goo.gl/maps/u7eQYyTEyWwUJEHQA

[sprjus4]

It isn't overuse.

[roadfro]

I'm surprised people complain about overuse of those pull-throughs. I wish Illinois used them more, both IDOT and ISTHA.

Look NB on 25. There are 2 within a QUARTER MILE! Tell me that isn't overuse!!
https://goo.gl/maps/u7eQYyTEyWwUJEHQA

In this case, they're probably using the pull through signs in conjunction with the "sawn off" APL signs for what appears to be an intermediate exit with an option lane–using the pull through instead of a much bigger full APL sign to span all lanes where it's probably not really needed. While not MUTCD-compliant, I like it because it uses far less sign panel area when it's really not needed.

[ethanhopkin14]

Interesting

[Techknow]

Right lane goes to US 101. So does the middle lane. And so does the left/carpool lane! Taken at the south terminus of CA 85

[JoePCool14]

Right lane goes to US 101. So does the middle lane. And so does the left/carpool lane! Taken at the south terminus of CA 85

Not redundant. The right lane goes to US-101 North, the other two go to US-101 South.

[GaryA]

Right lane goes to US 101. So does the middle lane. And so does the left/carpool lane! Taken at the south terminus of CA 85

Not redundant. The right lane goes to US-101 North, the other two go to US-101 South.

Not so.  There is an upcoming exit from the right lane that can be used to get to US 101 North (not a direct connection, though), but all three lanes go to US 101 South -- the left HOV lane does use a separate HOV connector ramp, though.

[Techknow]

Not so.  There is an upcoming exit from the right lane that can be used to get to US 101 North (not a direct connection, though), but all three lanes go to US 101 South -- the left HOV lane does use a separate HOV connector ramp, though.

I haven't driven on CA-85 for two years, but you're right. Looking at GSV, all 3 lanes go to US-101 South. None of them go to the northbound direction. One has to take the exit, turn left, and then go straight to reach the freeway entrance to US-101 north. So these signs are a bit redundant...

[GaryA]

Not so.  There is an upcoming exit from the right lane that can be used to get to US 101 North (not a direct connection, though), but all three lanes go to US 101 South -- the left HOV lane does use a separate HOV connector ramp, though.

I haven't driven on CA-85 for two years, but you're right. Looking at GSV, all 3 lanes go to US-101 South. None of them go to the northbound direction. One has to take the exit, turn left, and then go straight to reach the freeway entrance to US-101 north. So these signs are a bit redundant...

I'd say only slightly redundant, if that.  The left lane goes into a separate ramp that connects to the US 101 S HOV lane, so the sign over that lane is telling drivers that a) this lane goes to US 101 South and b) what (and when) restrictions apply on who should use this lane/ramp.  If there wasn't US 101 South on both the sign for lane 1 and the sign for lanes 2/3, drivers might not realize that at the HOV lane split, both options go to US 101 South.  (You could come up with other ways to communicate that info, but I think it does need to be communicated.)

Now, the relative size and spacing of the signs seems off -- but this is Caltrans, after all.