Recently, Alex and I wrote our county DOT and FDOT about various errors on signage in our area, such as a directional guide sign that had Tallahassee misspelled with only one 'e' at the interchange with CR 89 and Interstate 10, and two trailblazers for U.S. 90 that had a 'NORTH' banner instead of a 'TO' banner at the interchange of Interstate 10 and TOLL FL 281. On our way back from Alabama yesterday we drove by both of these locations to find that the erroneous signage had been corrected. Apparently FDOT received our inquiries and actually applied the necessary changes.
This is just one example where we have inquired to DOT about erroneous signs and actually had them corrected. I know that I wrote FDOT back in like 2003 and had them change some erroneous U.S. 301 signs that were shown as FL 301 signs at the interchange with Interstate 75 in Ellenton. I also wrote them about some U.S. 68 shields that were streamlined down FL 68 in Fort Pierce and they corrected those as well.
Alex has written them as well about adding a 'TO' banner on signage along westbound Interstate 4 at the Memorial Boulevard interchange in Lakeland and also about adding FL 295 and FL 296 signage along Interstate 110 in Pensacola. FDOT adhered to his emails as well and applying those changes.
So do any of you guys have any stories you wish to share?
Well, I write to my local DOTs (GDOT, Clayton County Department of Transportation and Development, College Park Public Works, etc.). They've changed a lot of signage.
Ex. 1: US 19/41 on the I-75 access road from I-285 East was signed as "To US 19/GA-41."
Ex. 2: SR 54 along University Avenue in Downtown Atlanta was unsigned at its interchange with I-75/85. GDOT posted end signage at the I-75/85 South ramp and begin signage at the I-75/85 North ramp.
Ex. 3: Traffic light-mounted street name signage was placed on SR 6 in East Point and College Park, as well as unincorporated South Fulton County.
These are the ones that I can recall off of the top of my head. There are many more, however.
Be well,
Bryant
Only signs I'm sure were changed as a result of my contacting the DOT are a few speed limit sign in Missouri on Rte A in Jefferson County; called and got MoDOT to study the speed limit, and they eventually raised it to from 55 to 60. I've tried to get a few other signs changed, but didn't have any luck; one was the speed limit on US 61 north of US 24, another was the guide signs on EB US 40 near I-270. The latter I tried to get MoDOT to have EB US 40 to NB I-270 use an optional (white arrow) lane setup instead of funneling all EB traffic wanting to exit to I-270 briefly into one lane.
OOh...I tried to get some Snohomish County, WA signs fixed...I saw a US-99 shield still up in Marysville!
You know how stubborn the MTO is? :verymad:
I inadvertently got two error OK 82 shields removed from US 59 south of Sallisaw. On a newly completed section of expressway, ODOT placed US 59/OK 82 shields on mainline 59. I was perplexed, and emailed my ODOT contact, and they replied that the signs were placed in error and would be removed. Next time I drove through they were gone. Now I wish I had just kept quiet.
I got Caltrans to fix the US 101 entrance shield that was missing it's numbers at SFO once. At least I think it was me that brought it's attention to them.
I managed to get the US 157 shields at Gaskins Road and Quioccasin Road (which are VA 157) fixed, as well as the long-standing US 161 in Richmond along US 33/250.
I enjoy error signage and do not ever call in
I definitely agree with you on some of that, but other aspects, I will write, especially if the number is wrong. One thing I wrote about earlier this year is a JCT US 90 shield posted on US 90 westbound ahead of US 98. The sign of course should display Jct US 98, but even better should display Jct US 98/FL 289, so I wrote about it.
I wouldn't know where to start with DelDOT. Right now (for instance) they're Clearvuing the DE 141 freeway, and not only are all the signs carbon-copy, some of them have new spelling mistakes.
About 10 years ago the exit gore sign for I-590 exit 3 went away in the winter, probably due to an accident. It remained gone for three years until I mentioned it in an email to the DOT.
Around this time I was invited to visit the region 4 DOT office and got to learn about the 490 reconstruction project (the one that is being completed this year; also got to visit the reconstruction/widening of I-490 in Victor being done at the time as well as the Troop-Howell Bridge reconstruction three years later). They mentioned that the ramps at I-490 exit 11 (westbound) for Ames St and Child St were being split. They weren't sure how they were going to number the exits at the time. I suggested 11A and 11B. Guess what they're numbered now... ;-)
QuoteThey weren't sure how they were going to number the exits at the time. I suggested 11A and 11B. Guess what they're numbered now...
I'm glad to see you made a difference.
Of course, they wouldn't have had that problem had they gone to mileage-based exit numbering. :-D
deanej said:
They weren't sure how they were going to number the exits at the time. I suggested 11A and 11B. Guess what they're numbered now...
Bryant5493 says:
That's awesome.
Be well,
Bryant
QuoteI wouldn't know where to start with DelDOT. Right now (for instance) they're Clearvuing the DE 141 freeway, and not only are all the signs carbon-copy, some of them have new spelling mistakes.
Oh do tell!
PennDotfan took some photos two weekends ago of some of the most recent carbon copied signs. I see that MUST EXIT is now in Clearview...
I'm compiling a list of Oklahoma sign errors on my site right now. After I "finish" my site, ODOT will be welcome to have at it. They have quite a job, though...I have 50ish errors so far...
Pardon my ignorance...What is clearview? What are gore signs?
^^ Gore signs are signs located in the gore area of, say, a freeway (ex., exit signage). The gore is a painted triangular shape between the regular travel lane and the exit lane. It's also illegal to pass over this shape, due to visibility issues.
Be well,
Bryant
And Clearview is a new font that's started popping up on signs in the past few years, different from the traditional FHWA fonts. Some people at a couple universities apparently did a study and determined that the traditional fonts sometimes suffered from visibility issues in certain conditions, so they came up with a new font to correct those problems, and now some DOTs have started using it.
Personally, I think they discovered a theoretical problem that really isn't much of a problem practically. Besides, the new font they came up with just doesn't look right.
By comparison, traditional font on the left, Clearview on the right:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg216.imageshack.us%2Fimg216%2F8953%2Fhighwayfonts.jpg&hash=356c0cc5cdeb5e2856f1310e4163560f2c67c8fa)
Hideous, no?
^^ I prefer the one of the left. It looks better to me.
I like the mileage post next to both of the BGSs.
Be well,
Bryant
Ick... Clearview is so hideous... Duke, you summed it up perfectly by saying "it just doesn't look right." That is exactly how I feel.
Thanks for the explanations. I feel smarter now. lol! :rolleyes:
Clearview is indeed hideous. It's not clear at all. Quite frankly, I think some of the FHWA's recent suggestions/changes in the MUTCD are a step in the wrong direction.
There's a few misspelled and incorrect signs here in Oregon. The one nearest to me is the OR-99W shields on OR-99 on the new Hilyard Street alignment, that was built last year. I've been meaning to report those. They also consistently screw up with OR-223 north of Dallas.
Some of the other ones are the result of ODOT not bothering to re-sign spots where they've re-adjusted routes, particularly around the "Willy Wonka Zone" near the Ross Island Bridge in Portland.
-Alex (Tarkus)
A couple items I brought up to the City of Las Vegas were indeed changed:
*When the city expanded a park near my house, cars were parking on the main road into my subdivision to go to baseball games and such. These drivers were quite careless in their parking maneuvers and would walk in the middle of the street to get to their cars. A little while after I contacted the city, they striped a bike lane along the road and erected no parking signs, prompting more people to actually use the parking provided in the park.
*When the city was installing a traffic signal at Rainbow Blvd & Gowan Rd, they inadvertently mixed up the block numbers on the illuminated street name signs. The signs were changed within two weeks.
One thing I pointed out to NDOT was never changed. Some exit numbers on US 95 in northwest Las Vegas are different from where their mileage-based numbers should be. This would be every exit north of Craig Road (exit 85). There is about one mile to the next interchange at Rancho Dr & Ann Road, it should be exit 86 but has been signed as exit 90 since opening. Each Las Vegas exit north of Craig Road is numbered about 4 miles higher than what it should be. When I emailed NDOT about this several years ago, I was told they'd look into it--I never received another response and the numbers haven't changed.
^^ Try e-mailing them again, if you haven't.
Be well,
Bryant
Persistence is not always rewarded with contacting DOT's with errors. I've failed thus far with some recent attempts to point out errors or outdated signs.
^^ Agreed. I've been trying to get signage installed to alert drivers on Camp Creek Parkway East/West (S.R. 6) that traffic merges right to left from US 29. Also, I'm trying to get two ramps (Perkerson Road to SR 166 East/Lakewood Avenue to SR 166 West) closed on Arthur Langford Jr. Parkway (SR 166) closed, because the ramps don't allow enough time and distance to merge safely.
I've tried these two suggestions at least twice before; hopefully, this time -- the third time -- will be the charm. :sombrero:
Be well,
Bryant
I sent this first video to the Clayton County Department of Transportation and Development.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrrK06_U-Ik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrrK06_U-Ik)
This is the change based upon my video and suggestion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpSSejl0N0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpSSejl0N0)
Be well,
Bryant
Near Huntsville, AR is War Eagle Creek. I noticed the signs were changed to War Eagle River. I contacted AHTD and they sort of said "oops" and replaced the signs.
I discovered that the mileage is off on two exit signs on the I-10 Mobile Bayway, but am not even going to bother contacting anyone on it given my poor response rate lately from ALDOT.
I've discovered a 4 mile difference in the new mileage signs along I-40. Going west from Little Rock, the mileage to Ft Smith is nearly the same as the milepost numbers. Yet, when the new signs were erected, Ft Smith was suddenly 4 miles closer.
I haven't decided if I will write AHTD about this as the last 2 times I wrote, I got BS answers.
The sign on I-10 eastbound at FL 87 lists Navarre at 18 miles. Yet if you turn south on FL 87, the mileage reads 19. The PIO from FDOT did not respond to my other corrections or direct me to the appropriate person. I wrote about 4 items including a junction U.S. 90 shield posted on U.S. 90 westbound ahead of U.S. 98.
This doesnt fall under 'actually got changed'....but maybe sometime in the future it will....
Current Connecticut State Route Marker
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fct15.jpg&hash=e6280f1402d4c2fd36d462fe057c26eb166f3761)
boring...and too close to similar route markers in Massachusetts, Rhody and Maine....
in the 1970s, Connecticut experimented with this design....usually seen on Conn 15 on the Merritt Parkway, a few with different numbers were used elsewhere in the state, but never in any real numbers...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FCT15-1.jpg&hash=21356488524b39112029755e857df657034b4d60)
I took that basic design and made two different shields with Photoshop....i then took the modified photos to Jeff Adams, head of the Connecticut State Sign Shop and he was impressed with how unique and different looking they were...
Prototype A - the cooler sign in my opinion (and his)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FCT15-prototypeA.jpg&hash=deae80e60522a33e2a78c8095774363581c39606)
Prototype B - the better sign if number readability was the key issue
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FCT15-prototypeB.jpg&hash=e37d617d566b86a8e633a225e06e508602bc41a4)
When i departed, he was lending some serious thought to making up a couple of prototypes, and showing them to the Connecticut DOT Commissioners (although he did say that they tend to have their own thoughts and ideas....but who knows? They might actually like one or both designs!)
Quote
I've discovered a 4 mile difference in the new mileage signs along I-40. Going west from Little Rock, the mileage to Ft Smith is nearly the same as the milepost numbers. Yet, when the new signs were erected, Ft Smith was suddenly 4 miles closer.
I haven't decided if I will write AHTD about this as the last 2 times I wrote, I got BS answers.
what's the MUTCD's official graphical representation for "caution: space-time continuum defies logic. drive carefully."?
Quoteboring...and too close to similar route markers in Massachusetts, Rhody and Maine....
in the 1970s, Connecticut experimented with this design....usually seen on Conn 15 on the Merritt Parkway, a few with different numbers were used elsewhere in the state, but never in any real numbers...
Also living in Connecticut, I totally agree with you. It would seem that the shape of the state would be very easy to incorporate into a state route shield, much as you have shown us. It's not just that a square is a boring design, but that bordering states have pretty much the same one.
Quote from: ctroadgeek on May 24, 2009, 01:51:36 PM
Quoteboring...and too close to similar route markers in Massachusetts, Rhody and Maine....
in the 1970s, Connecticut experimented with this design....usually seen on Conn 15 on the Merritt Parkway, a few with different numbers were used elsewhere in the state, but never in any real numbers...
Also living in Connecticut, I totally agree with you. It would seem that the shape of the state would be very easy to incorporate into a state route shield, much as you have shown us. It's not just that a square is a boring design, but that bordering states have pretty much the same one.
And the other problem is since they went away from State name on the shields, Connecticut has been dreadfully inconsistent on signing style (a fact Jeff admits to), with even some Mass-style signs getting into the mix....
I've never submitted sign changes to DOTD, but oddly enough, right after I take pictures of some areas, the signage changes. I've reported on some of my pages about missing signs, and they go up. Go figure.
My local paper (San Jose Mercury News / http://www.mercurynews.com (http://www.mercurynews.com)) has a column called the Roadshow written by Gary Richards and he has helped resolve everything from sign goofs to potholes to traffic signal issues. Apparently he has good connections with the local and state transportation agencies and is very good at alerting these agencies of problems on our roads and highways.
Don't like reviving threads, but I have an experience that I wanted to share.
--
Was traveling in Jacksonville, FL one day documenting the current status of the reconstruction of the I-10/I-95 interchange. Well, I noticed that an exit tab for Exit #351C that had survived after that exit had been permanently closed on top of an I-95 BGS (It said "TO EXIT 351C"). So, I shoot off an e-mail to FDOT about it. They thanked me for pointing out the missed sign and said they were going to tell the contractor to remove it asap. Next time I used that interchange, it was removed.
I have emailed PennDOT twice about sign goofs - the first was an incorrect US220 shield (it read PA220), and the second were some guide sign goofs on PA-28 that were leading people to the wrong place. They actually responded to both concerns in less than 48 hours (via email) and were fixed within 30 days. I used their online customer service link.
Quote from: LeftyJR on August 05, 2010, 09:46:32 PM
I have emailed PennDOT twice about sign goofs - the first was an incorrect US220 shield (it read PA220), and the second were some guide sign goofs on PA-28 that were leading people to the wrong place. They actually responded to both concerns in less than 48 hours (via email) and were fixed within 30 days. I used their online customer service link.
WHY? Sign goofs are cool, unless they give blatantly false information. A state shield instead of a US shield with the same number isn't hurting anybody. A goof is something interesting to look at, when it is fixed it's just another sign.
Can't speak for Lefty, but I personally find sign errors annoying. It's just proof that those in charge don't care as much as I do, when they should. If it's fixed, then at least it proves they care enough to amend the error. Plus, you should know as well as I do, that in Oklahoma there are a few situations where a state shield instead of a US shield with the same number does give blatantly false information–US/OK 270 is probably the worst offender, but there are several number overlaps like US/OK 54, 59, 266, etc.
Sign goofs are not cool.
Those of you living in Ohio would definitely have your work cut out for you. One thread on here highlights Ohio's multitude of signing errors.
I'm with Scott on this. I also get annoyed where a three-digit number gets crammed into a two-digit shield (except, strangely, for county shields).
Quote from: akotchi on August 06, 2010, 01:19:39 PM
I'm with Scott on this. I also get annoyed where a three-digit number gets crammed into a two-digit shield (except, strangely, for county shields).
that is because the county route pentagon shield fits three digits more elegantly. The number is less tall, so even two-digit numbers do not go anywhere near out to the sides, so a two- or three-digit number can be fit even in Series D most of the time.
I tend to prefer the two-digit shields with compressed digits, simply because three-digit shields can be so, so goofy-looking. See Arkansas and Alabama for example, or even the 1961 30x25 non-proportional interstate shield. But a well-designed three-digit shield works well, though, like the 1961 21x18/42x36 interstate shield, the 395 button copy green sign shield in my avatar, or this classic California US cutout.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19564661i1.jpg)
it's too bad the feds didn't make a '61 spec three-digit US shield (they went instead for specifying narrower digits) because 1961 was the last year the feds introduced good-looking sign designs.
By 1970, when they did introduce wide US shields, they had clearly lost all design sensibility and sense of aesthetics. That's why we're stuck with blob-like ugly shields for both two and three digit routes since the dawn of time. It'll be a sad day when the last few holdout states go away from '61 spec shields to '70, '78, and whatever other abominations are coming down the pike.
I honestly think the 2 digit route shield for all numbered routes doesn't look bad in states that use them as a standard like Connecticut, New Hampshire, North Carolina etc.
With error signs, I am neutral about them. I think the state route/US route error is kind of annoying because it is a sign of a sign contractor's laziness. However, the state route or US route being on an interstate shield (or vise versa) is kind of interesting. It is also amusing to come up to road signs that are misspelled.
I had TDOT change out the text based sign that was added at the intersection of US 31 (southbound) and US 412, Bus US 412, and US 43. For some reason the real signs were there at one point only to be replaced by the text sign. They changed the signs back to the real signs after I sent a message to TDOT.
ARDOT will never admit I was right, but the "split" exit at 71B/ 112 off I-49 was confusing so I suggested guide signs to supplement the exit sign. "Not needed" is what they told me, but a few months later guide signs DID appear.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4618/39567931162_7b521b1a2a_d.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1735/42705980252_13bbe353e9_d.jpg)
When VDOT renumbered the exits on the Beltway in Virginia, the order in which the suffix letters appeared changed because the direction in which the exit numbers ran changed. Previously, the exits had run clockwise from Exit 1 in Alexandria to Exit 14 at the GW Parkway, this consistent with the original Beltway exit numbering in which the consecutive numbers continued clockwise through Maryland up to Exit 38 at I-295. Thus, because the exits ascended clockwise, on the Inner Loop the suffix letters likewise ascended from a driver's perspective, while on the Outer Loop they descended. (Example: At Springfield on the Outer Loop, I-95 South was Exit 4C, I-395 was Exit 4B, and the thru movement on the Beltway was "Exit" 4A.)
The renumbering involved continuing the anticlockwise milepost-based numbering on Maryland's part of the Beltway into Virginia as far as Springfield; after that point, I-95's exit numbers take over, though they continue to ascend anticlockwise (and indeed I-95's presence is why Maryland's numbers ran anticlockwise to begin with). This means the suffix letters got reverse from how they were before. In Springfield on the Outer Loop, I-95 South is now Exit 57A and I-395 is Exit 57B; the thru movement on the Beltway is no longer signed as an "exit" on the Outer Loop.
But when they first signed all this, there was a problem: At that time, the thru movement was still signed as an "exit" and someone at VDOT messed up the signs such that you had I-95 South signed as Exit 57A, I-395 signed as Exit 57B, and the thru movement on the Beltway signed as "Exit" 57A–thus, there were two different movements signed as Exit 57A.
I sent in a message to VDOT reporting the problem and I got back a very nice message from Steve Titunik, the Springfield Interchange project manager, profusely thanking me for pointing out an embarrassing mistake and saying he wished he could give me an HOV exemption pass for a few weeks as a way of expressing gratitude, but that state law wouldn't allow that. So instead he mailed me a thick envelope containing some VDOT paraphernalia, including a VDOT logo pen and a beach ball (may have been some other stuff, but those are the two items I remember–it's been at least 15 years now).
In the years since then, I've contacted VDOT to report when someone was putting exit tabs on the wrong side of advance BGSs on the Beltway. Someone was putting the exit tab for the immediate upcoming right-side exit on the right and the tab for exits beyond that on the left, maybe in a misguided effort to balance out the sign assembly's appearance when two signs with exit tabs appeared next to each other. They corrected the mistakes, but I didn't get any special merchandise for my efforts.
The other notable sign change that happened after I requested it was back when VDOT raised the speed limit in the I-395 HOV lanes to 65 mph. I noticed that a lot of people seemed not to be speeding up to 65 when the lanes were pointed southbound and I theorized that the reason was that the southbound 65-mph sign near the Pentagon was located somewhat behind a light pole in a fairly busy area where it was easy to miss, and then there wasn't another speed limit sign for several miles due to the lack of onramps. I suggested that VDOT post a second sign near Shirlington, a mile or so south of the first one, to remind people of the higher speed limit, and they did! My father said I should get to give the sign an honorary name and, as a joke, I said it should be the Ronald Reagan Memorial Speed Limit Sign (this because my then-girlfriend, now wife, was always griping about too many things being named for Reagan). That sign is gone now after the HO/T lane conversion because they use variable speed limits. I didn't try to contact them to ask if I could have it because I'm sure they would have said no and because there isn't space on my garage wall for it anyway.
Since we're bumping here...everything here was done a good 20-25 years ago or so:
I observed, almost daily, that traffic on Rt. 42 North at the Creek Road accel lane was moving to the right preparing for entering 295, only to need to merge left again as the accel lane ended. I wrote NJDOT asking that they convert the skip lines (which indicate passing from either lane) to a solid line/skip line, to more heavily demonstrate that this was an accel lane so motorists wouldn't weave into the accel lane. They did paint the solid line (which they didn't duplicate after the road was repaved many years later).
There was a beyond-faded NJ 41 sign somewhere. Been like that for years. I wrote NJDOT, and it was replaced.
When new BGS signage was installed on I-295, one of the towns was mis-spelled ( https://goo.gl/maps/CDvRffvTVW6Xp7H56 , originally signed as Gibbtsown), I took a pic and the local paper printed it with photo credit to me. NJDOT described the process of how they fix errors like this, and it was fixed fairly quickly.
And my biggest change that I'll never get credit for (and honestly, probably have absolutely no proof of...): Way back when the 295/76/42 interchange in NJ was in the forever-development stage, I submitted a hand-drawn version of how I think the interchange should be reworked. I brought and submitted my drawings to one of their public meetings, only to be told that the angle of 295 over 42 was much too acute. Low and behold, the selected design of the interchange has this very same angle I submitted many years prior! The entire design I had isn't duplicated - the ramp from 42 North to 295 North isn't what I envisioned, and I tried incorporating the missing movements this interchange had into the overall redesign that remained separated into its own project, but I would like to think that my drawing was sitting on someone's desk, and they decided to see if my vision would ultimately be workable.
Quote from: US71 on November 05, 2020, 09:17:34 AM
ARDOT will never admit I was right, but the "split" exit at 71B/ 112 off I-49 was confusing so I suggested guide signs to supplement the exit sign. "Not needed" is what they told me, but a few months later guide signs DID appear.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4618/39567931162_7b521b1a2a_d.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1735/42705980252_13bbe353e9_d.jpg)
What about the missing number in "EXITS MPH"?
Quote from: stridentweasel on November 05, 2020, 12:03:43 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 05, 2020, 09:17:34 AM
ARDOT will never admit I was right, but the "split" exit at 71B/ 112 off I-49 was confusing so I suggested guide signs to supplement the exit sign. "Not needed" is what they told me, but a few months later guide signs DID appear.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4618/39567931162_7b521b1a2a_d.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1735/42705980252_13bbe353e9_d.jpg)
What about the missing number in "EXITS MPH"?
That was right after the signs had been installed and ARDOT(or likely the contractor) hadn't finished the signs.
Not a signage change but there was a closure on CA 198 recently west of Coalinga due to a fire. Originally Caltrans District 6 had their social media alert post say there was no detour available. Subsequently I posted Los Gatos Creek Road and Sign County Route J1 as alternates on a reply tab. I was surprised to find out later in the day they actually ran with it and posted them as detours around the fire.
I've mentioned this several times as one of my least favorite things KDOT has done sign-wise, but it actually used to be worse:
https://goo.gl/maps/VEMVBcj7FVYxdgdt7
On southbound US 69 approaching the 135th Street exit in Overland Park, KS, there used to be no mention whatsoever of the right-hand lane being dropped at the exit. I did mention it to the city, and possibly the state, although my suggestion was to go with the MUTCD-standard overhead signs, or at the very least, install a sign saying "RIGHT LANE EXIT ONLY" or "RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT." I still dislike the vague "RIGHT LANE ONLY" wording, but I haven't said anything about it to Overland Park or KDOT, because at least those signs are an improvement over no mention at all.
It's worth noting that the earlier southbound configuration of the US 69 interchanges at Blue Valley Parkway and 135th Street was such that both southbound lanes of Blue Valley Parkway continued onto US 69, and US 69 was tapered down to a single lane in advance of the convergence, and the single lane coming from US 69 was dropped at 135th Street. Also, back when this configuration was present, US 169 was routed along K-150/135th Street from I-35 to US 69, ran concurrently with US 69 for that approximately 3/4-mile distance, and ran along Blue Valley Parkway and then Metcalf Avenue north to US 56. Blue Valley Parkway only received its name when US 169 was re-routed, because the street needed a name, and I guess Overland Park didn't want to do what Olathe did when US 56 was re-routed to follow I-35 all the way south to Gardner (https://goo.gl/maps/fhWf8NJQ7hGGxCdQ7).
I caught an error in North Little Rock 3 years ago that ARDOT denied was there. Right after the new Arkansas River Bridge was opened,,the sign contractor posted a US 10 instead of ARKANSAS 10. ARDOT denied the error until I showed them a photo ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4272/35118031696_388174fe53_z_d.jpg)
Years ago, after a newer set of BGSes were installed in the Dallas area, I noticed the US 175 EB exit to Second Ave.-Bruton Rd. had the BGS at the exit as "Second Ave.-Burton Rd.". I called some office, likely the Dallas regional TxDOT office, to tell somebody about the sign being misspelled. IIRR, the person taking the call didn't sound too interested, and likely thinking that I was bothering them. But, within the next couple of weeks, I noticed that the "u" and "r" had been greened-out with an "ru" over it. So it was fixed, but not completely replaced.
I also did something similar in the city of Dallas, while the city was in the process of rolling out new street blades that used the Clearview style. A street at the end of my block, Herschel, had a replacement street blade one day. It looked strange, and I looked at it again--there were 2 "L"s at the end. So I got with the city about it. They didn't sound like they'd jump up right then and change it. But within about 3 weeks, I noticed a replacement "Herschel" with the correct spelling.
In more recent years, a similar thing happened, as a replacement Clearview street blade went up on Oates Dr., but Dallas crews put up, of course, "Oats", on the sign. I did the same thing as before to report it, but I believe it took longer to get the corrected "Oates" sign out there and up.
I advised TDOT that maybe they should have a transition sign showing the US 412 ends and the SR 99 begins (technically US 412 is SR 99). They ended up putting US 412 End signage and in the opposite direction they put up a BEGIN sign. I complained that in the opposite direction there is no US 412 sign for miles after one turns on to it if they get off the I-65 exit. US 412 begins as I-65.
To be honest, I haven't found enough of a mistake to warrant contacting the DOT, but I have reported downed signs and signs blocked by trees, etc. the only real mistake I have ever reported to the DOT (it might just have been the city roads department) was at an intersection where the cross street changes names. The sign did not indicate this, so I sent an email about it. I received an automated "Thank you for your concern, well look into it" email, then an email that basically said "yeah, your right. We are about to redo the intersection, so we will be sure to fix it then." Sure enough, after construction finished, there was a new sign, acknowledging both roads.
I like to think I facilitated quite a few changes to signs in New York State:
1. Interstate to Thruway approach guide signs now include Albany and Buffalo in Regions 3 and 4 after I had a lengthy discussion with NYSDOT about this
2. I helped get numerous signs corrected, especially in Region 2. One set of overhead signs in Rome, N.Y. for "WEST 46" were patched to the correct "SOUTH 46" . "NORTH NY 8 -12 / Downtown Utica-Watertown" was corrected to remove the cardinal directions
3. In Region 4, left Exit 4 from I-590 used to point to the mainline instead of the exit ramp
I emailed CalTrans that the third exit arrow (leftmost on the sign) on the 2 lane NB 405 exit to CA 55 shouldn't be there, and they greened it out:
https://goo.gl/maps/tS7qjTFgSC72PNbs9 (https://goo.gl/maps/tS7qjTFgSC72PNbs9)
I had WSDOT fix the lettering on a bunch of signs:
Quote from: jakeroot on October 29, 2020, 12:59:01 PM
This sign was posted a while back, and received several redesigns. WSDOT has gone and fixed the signs, plus several others:
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 06, 2020, 11:19:39 PM
Washington's first DDI is getting god-awful signs.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50183966828_6fd7cc3fa3_b.jpg)
Source (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/50183966828/in/photostream/)
Screenshot from my dashcam. Note both the original and redesigned signs use one letter size for the Marvin Road cardinal direction. Haven't seen that for a while:
(https://i.imgur.com/uV7xL3Z.png)
In Atlanta when the new I-85-285 interchange was opened, GDOT erected a new, grossly misleading overhead assembly on eastbound 285 not quite a mile from the first 85 offramp. I went downtown to GDOT's offices to meet with them about it in person. Turns out that not only was the designed layout misleading, but the gantry was installed several hundred feet upstream from its intended location, before the added right lane that the assembly referred to had been developed, causing the entire assembly to be, in effect, shifted one lane to the left. The taper for that added right lane was in a curve; I suspect that it was decided that if the gantry was placed at its original location, it'd be unclear to which lane each down arrow referred to. So they decided to move the whole thing upstream to a tangent section, but forgot to redesign the signage accordingly.
A few weeks later, the gantry was gone, to be replaced a few days later with something completely different. Specifically, while the original installation included exit only panels over each of the two rightmost lanes, the new one had none at all.
This happened in 1987. The gantry is now gone, victim of the pre-Olympic widening of 285.
I have informed WSDOT about the mis-labeling of SR 525 from N/S to E/W on the LSGs on Alderwood Mall Parkway. They said the would look into it, but haven't seen a change yet.
In my city, I got the city to install sharrows on a road frequently used by bikes, with no shoulders. I have tried and failed to get "Share the Road" signs posted, or at least the Horse/Bike warning signs. I did get general pedestrian crossing signs replaced with school crossing signs... only to have the school close a few years later. Also got some of the skinny "Stop for Pedestrian" signs for the crosswalks adjacent to the school, only for them to be mounted on the poles under the crossing signs, instead of in the middle of the road. So some small victories.
Still want WSDOT too rotate our FYA light they installed, from being on the Highway to being on the Cross Street, and to add it to our other intersections in a similar manner, and implement flashing lights after 9pm, when there isn't ferry traffic.
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 07, 2020, 02:11:12 PM
Still want WSDOT too rotate our FYA light they installed, from being on the Highway to being on the Cross Street, and to add it to our other intersections in a similar manner, and implement flashing lights after 9pm, when there isn't ferry traffic.
Which intersection is that? WSDOT seems to have a fetish with protected-only signals along two lane state highways, changing them to FYAs only as necessary.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2020, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 07, 2020, 02:11:12 PM
Still want WSDOT too rotate our FYA light they installed, from being on the Highway to being on the Cross Street, and to add it to our other intersections in a similar manner, and implement flashing lights after 9pm, when there isn't ferry traffic.
Which intersection is that? WSDOT seems to have a fetish with protected-only signals along two lane state highways, changing them to FYAs only as necessary.
SR 525 and Fish Rd/Main St. in Freeland. The entire reason the community rallied around getting a traffic signal in the first place was to stop people cutting in front of ferry traffic, from the oncoming lane (true for most of our traffic signals), and adding the FYA seemed like such a bad idea. However, since this intersection has protected lefts from Fish/Main, it makes much more sense for the FYAs to be on those roads, and keep the lefts fully protected from 525.
My greatest contribution to the roadgeekery world was about 10-15 years ago in Cleveland, Ohio...
ODOT had always listed in their records SR-3 duplexing with US-42 from Ridge Road in Parma to Detroit Avenue just west of downtown. However, actual signage since at least the early 70s always stated that SR-3 ENDED at US-42/Pearl Road in Parma.
At the time there was a weekly column in the Cleveland Plain Dealer which covered the where's and whys of Road issues in NEOH. I posed the question to the column and they got a hold of ODOT.
Not too long after that, the decades-old error was fixed and SR-3 was officially co-signed along US-42 to Downtown -- although the BGSs along I-71 and I-90 have yet to include the SR-3 shield at their respective exits with US-42.
Not a bad accomplishment at an intersection I once lived by for a few years!!
In Minnesota signs for US 169 north of Virginia were removed after I reported them.
With the US 14 project, a plaque reading "To" instead of "South" US 218 was appeared. That caused a minor stir here with us wondering if the terminus had moved and it wound up being a MnDOT mistake that they fixed when we asked them about it.
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 07, 2020, 05:13:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 07, 2020, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 07, 2020, 02:11:12 PM
Still want WSDOT too rotate our FYA light they installed, from being on the Highway to being on the Cross Street, and to add it to our other intersections in a similar manner, and implement flashing lights after 9pm, when there isn't ferry traffic.
Which intersection is that? WSDOT seems to have a fetish with protected-only signals along two lane state highways, changing them to FYAs only as necessary.
SR 525 and Fish Rd/Main St. in Freeland. The entire reason the community rallied around getting a traffic signal in the first place was to stop people cutting in front of ferry traffic, from the oncoming lane (true for most of our traffic signals), and adding the FYA seemed like such a bad idea. However, since this intersection has protected lefts from Fish/Main, it makes much more sense for the FYAs to be on those roads, and keep the lefts fully protected from 525.
I see. Are you saying people are turning left onto Main and cutting through Freeland to jump ahead of slow-moving WA-525 traffic?
The area doesn't seem like it needs any protected signals, for any roads. Just a bunch of two-lane roads. Hardly worth protecting a left turn from a single lane of oncoming traffic.
Recently I sent in a notice to IDOT to fix two "IL-45" shields installed by a contractor at the intersection of Milwaukee Ave. and Deerfield Rd. in Riverwoods that should've been US-45. One in each direction. Surprisingly, they responded and fixed the signs fairly quickly after notifying them. IDOT finally gets a positive point from me! :clap:
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 09, 2020, 12:46:26 PM
Recently I sent in a notice to IDOT to fix two "IL-45" shields installed by a contractor at the intersection of Milwaukee Ave. and Deerfield Rd. in Riverwoods that should've been US-45. One in each direction. Surprisingly, they responded and fixed the signs fairly quickly after notifying them. IDOT finally gets a positive point from me! :clap:
Most of us would have preferred that the errors be left unchanged. There are a few folks who hesitate to post pictures of old signs for fear some public servant will see the post and have the signs replaced.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2020, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 09, 2020, 12:46:26 PM
Recently I sent in a notice to IDOT to fix two "IL-45" shields installed by a contractor at the intersection of Milwaukee Ave. and Deerfield Rd. in Riverwoods that should've been US-45. One in each direction. Surprisingly, they responded and fixed the signs fairly quickly after notifying them. IDOT finally gets a positive point from me! :clap:
Most of us would have preferred that the errors be left unchanged. There are a few folks who hesitate to post pictures of old signs for fear some public servant will see the post and have the signs replaced.
The errors were there for easily over a year. I had had enough of seeing them there, sorry.
And no need to worry about losing any sign relics in this case. IDOT is pretty aggressive on replacing signs, and this intersection had been rebuilt recently anyways.
Seeing some of these posts, makes me think I should try contacting MoDOT again about the I-70 EB Express Lane Entrance signage in St Louis. This gives me hope that an email might make it to someone who understands that the current signage is at least lacking and at most misleading
The sign bothers me every time I pass under it, usually coming back to Southern Illinois from STL Airport
I've gotten NYSDOT R11 to correct a brand-new overhead sign that had an I-295 shield instead of I-278. It's since been fixed. Also got the NYCDOT to remove an erroneous NY 27 shield on the West Side Highway (NY 9A). Don't know how that got there or how no one noticed in the two years it was there.
I've gotten NYSDOT to replace some missing signs here and there, nothing spectacular. Also had them installed a RIGHT LANE MUST EXIT sign in Poughkeepsie. The overhead Exit Only sign is right AT the exit even though there's ample room in the preceding 1/2 mile for an overhead sign.
Years ago I advised NYSDOT of "State Speed Limit 65" signs on Interstate 81 in Oswego County. They were replaced within a week with standard "Speed Limit 65" signs.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/backup/images/speedlimit65.jpg)
I got INDOT to correctly sign US 35 at the interchange with US 31, they forgot to show 35 turning up the ramps to join 31. I tried to get them to fix the "East Blvd" signs for another exit on that road, it was supposed to be called "boulevard street" but they said they knew it was wrong, but noone else seems to have noticed and the cost is too high to fix.
Quote from: machias on November 12, 2020, 07:15:38 PM
Years ago I advised NYSDOT of "State Speed Limit 65" signs on Interstate 81 in Oswego County. They were replaced within a week with standard "Speed Limit 65" signs.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/backup/images/speedlimit65.jpg)
What was the issue?
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2020, 09:30:36 PM
Quote from: machias on November 12, 2020, 07:15:38 PM
Years ago I advised NYSDOT of "State Speed Limit 65" signs on Interstate 81 in Oswego County. They were replaced within a week with standard "Speed Limit 65" signs.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/backup/images/speedlimit65.jpg)
What was the issue?
New York's state speed limit is 55, not 65.
Quote from: 1 on November 12, 2020, 09:37:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2020, 09:30:36 PM
Quote from: machias on November 12, 2020, 07:15:38 PM
Years ago I advised NYSDOT of "State Speed Limit 65" signs on Interstate 81 in Oswego County. They were replaced within a week with standard "Speed Limit 65" signs.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/backup/images/speedlimit65.jpg)
What was the issue?
New York's state speed limit is 55, not 65.
Ahh, cheers.
We don't have a state speed limit in WA, so I'm not used to seeing a sign like that at all. I know NY has those special speed limit signs with like "village speed limit" or something that I don't see elsewhere. I just knew I had seen this one before but I guess the actual number didn't tip me off.
Not a signage change, nor did I contact anyone at a DOT about it, but about 20 or so years ago while I was doing my 'Highway Features of the Week' thing (they're archived), I suggested a lane striping change on SB I-39 a bit south of its SW interchange with US 20 on the far south side of Rockford, IL (it was that week's 'feature'). About a month or so later, I received an e-mail from someone in the peanut gallery that informed me that IDOT had just restriped the highway in the exact manner that I had suggested.
I take a LOT of inspiration from an 'Average Joe' doing an 'Average Joe' job in Chicago a bit over a century ago - Edward P. Brennan worked as a bill collector who did house visits, was frustrated at the total mess that was the city at the time (it was so bad that the Post Office was having troubles doing their thing) and was determined to do something about it. In 1901 he started taking action.
http://burnhamplan100.lib.uchicago.edu/node/2561/
:cool:
Mike
I don't think I have seen this mentioned yet, but someone who was fed up with missing an exit in LA fixed the sign themselves! CalTrans even kept the fix when the sign was replaced!
Quote from: MCRoads on November 14, 2020, 04:24:07 PM
I don't think I have seen this mentioned yet, but someone who was fed up with missing an exit in LA fixed the sign themselves! CalTrans even kept the fix when the sign was replaced!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/02/11/guerrilla_public_service_on_99_invisible_richard_ankrom_replaced_a_los_angeles.html
That is one of many stories on Richard Ankrom fixing this BGS himself
Youtube video: https://youtu.be/Clgl63CWOkM
Fascinating to see the amount of trouble he had to go through to make those signs. Just imagine how much easier doing it would be now that we have reflective sheeting. I have a home vinyl cutter, so given an aluminum blank of the proper size, I'd be able to make one of those in a day.
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head
at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday. Here's my post about it in the thread I started about the issue several years ago:
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:10:55 AM
Reviving this nearly four year old thread to give an unexpected update: thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday, the issue with this signal head has been resolved!
The slightly longer version of the story: When passing through this intersection yesterday, I was once again bothered by the third green ball, so I decided on a whim to email NYSDOT about it (through their general feedback form online) and see if anything became of it. I left a short description of the problem and a Google Maps link to the signal, and sure enough, I heard back tonight with a very positive update: they acknowledged that the third green ball facing the left lane could be misinterpreted, and that it had been fixed to display red arrow, yellow arrow, and FYA - so basically an acknowledgment that it should have been an FYA all along. And they even sent a picture of each corrected phase! Needless to say, that made my day! I was giddy by the time I finished reading the email. I can't believe I didn't do this sooner!
I've asked permission to share part of the email along with the pictures, so hopefully I can add those here soon! And now I can add "Helped correct an erroneous signal head" to my very short list of notable roadgeek accomplishments!
:cheers:
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:20:25 AM
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday.
Now this one is strange. Didn't think you could do a FYA with only three bulbs... I've only seen them with protected lefts.
There's a sign on the off-ramp designated Exit 54B on the Outer Loop of the Capital Beltway in Virginia directing traffic to "Queensberry Rd." Problem is, the street is an avenue, not a road. The sign has been incorrect since 2012 and I've reported it to VDOT multiple times; they disclaim responsibility and contend it's Transurban's responsibility because the sign was erected during the HO/T lane construction, but Transurban disclaims responsibility and says it's VDOT's bailiwick because the sign is on an off-ramp from the general-purpose lanes, not from the HO/T lanes. Makes me wish I could fabricate a greenout "Av" and go out there and stick it on the sign like that I-5 guy did. Plus, if I could do that, then I know VDOT would rush to change the sign because they insist on using "Ave" rather than "Av."
Quote from: behogie230 on February 19, 2022, 06:48:04 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:20:25 AM
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday.
Now this one is strange. Didn't think you could do a FYA with only three bulbs... I've only seen them with protected lefts.
Yep, FYA's are the new standard for NYSDOT at all intersections, even when there's no protected phase. This one is a bit unique because there is a protected phase in the opposite direction (southbound), but apparently not enough volume to warrant it northbound.
During a rework dealing with a pair of intersections in Coos Bay OR, the US 101 signs were incorrectly done as state 101 shields. I sent an email to the local ODOT and was told at first that everything was fine. I sent another email. This time the responder said they would send someone to look the signage over. That resulted in an email coming my way from them saying that I was right. The incorrect signs were replaced soon afterwards.
Rick
I tweeted at the temporary director of MDOT once about some signs along Bethel Road in Saucier for US 49 and got an official response.
https://twitter.com/MoiraPrime/status/1380648764826865671
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EykMuqwWQAIA9um?format=jpg&name=small)
They responded with multiple tweets saying they'd fix it, and they did!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8yZ502XoAcjm2Y?format=jpg&name=small)
https://twitter.com/MoiraPrime/status/1426684408153743361
Quote from: behogie230 on February 19, 2022, 06:48:04 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:20:25 AM
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday.
Now this one is strange. Didn't think you could do a FYA with only three bulbs... I've only seen them with protected lefts.
Not only is such an FYA permitted, it's actually necessary in order to prevent yellow trap for an approach that does not get a protected left when the opposing approach does have a protected left.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 21, 2022, 02:36:10 AM
Quote from: behogie230 on February 19, 2022, 06:48:04 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:20:25 AM
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday.
Now this one is strange. Didn't think you could do a FYA with only three bulbs... I've only seen them with protected lefts.
Not only is such an FYA permitted, it's actually necessary in order to prevent yellow trap for an approach that does not get a protected left when the opposing approach does have a protected left.
I can't believe I never thought of this before! So in addition to this now being fixed from an interpretation perspective, left turning traffic will have the FYA during the opposing green arrow phase, which will reduce wait times.
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2022, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 21, 2022, 02:36:10 AM
Quote from: behogie230 on February 19, 2022, 06:48:04 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:20:25 AM
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday.
Now this one is strange. Didn't think you could do a FYA with only three bulbs... I've only seen them with protected lefts.
Not only is such an FYA permitted, it's actually necessary in order to prevent yellow trap for an approach that does not get a protected left when the opposing approach does have a protected left.
I can't believe I never thought of this before! So in addition to this now being fixed from an interpretation perspective, left turning traffic will have the FYA during the opposing green arrow phase, which will reduce wait times.
... if programmed correctly. Some agencies are known to take shortcuts by programming the FYA to match the adjacent lane green, instead of the oncoming traffic green like it's supposed to. There would still be yellow trap if such a shortcut is done.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 21, 2022, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 21, 2022, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on February 21, 2022, 02:36:10 AM
Quote from: behogie230 on February 19, 2022, 06:48:04 AM
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:20:25 AM
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday.
Now this one is strange. Didn't think you could do a FYA with only three bulbs... I've only seen them with protected lefts.
Not only is such an FYA permitted, it's actually necessary in order to prevent yellow trap for an approach that does not get a protected left when the opposing approach does have a protected left.
I can't believe I never thought of this before! So in addition to this now being fixed from an interpretation perspective, left turning traffic will have the FYA during the opposing green arrow phase, which will reduce wait times.
... if programmed correctly. Some agencies are known to take shortcuts by programming the FYA to match the adjacent lane green, instead of the oncoming traffic green like it's supposed to. There would still be yellow trap if such a shortcut is done.
Yes, but to make sure I'm understanding correctly... that's only true if the protected phase is lagging, right?
At this particular intersection, the opposing green arrow is always leading, so there wasn't a yellow trap even before this was fixed, and there won't be now since NY's FYA's are always (at least in my experience) properly programmed to go solid yellow>solid red>return to FYA at the end of the opposing protected phase.
The yellow trap hazard is commonly encountered with lagging phases, but can also occur with leading left turn phases if phase skip is allowed. I.e. if there's no cross street traffic, so its phase gets skipped and the oncoming straight through light remains green. So it's not a major issue but it is something to be aware of.
Interesting. PennDOT only uses FYA when the approach has a protected left. If there's a potential for yellow trap, there is a sign on the mast arm that says "opposing traffic has extended green" .
Quote from: behogie230 on February 26, 2022, 10:38:39 AM
Interesting. PennDOT only uses FYA when the approach has a protected left. If there's a potential for yellow trap, there is a sign on the mast arm that says "opposing traffic has extended green" .
Does Pennsylvania use flashing yellow arrows anywhere else? Or just at lead-lag intersections or those with one fully protected approach?
Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2022, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: behogie230 on February 26, 2022, 10:38:39 AM
Interesting. PennDOT only uses FYA when the approach has a protected left. If there's a potential for yellow trap, there is a sign on the mast arm that says "opposing traffic has extended green" .
Does Pennsylvania use flashing yellow arrows anywhere else? Or just at lead-lag intersections or those with one fully protected approach?
As far as I'm aware, the state has only used it for protected/permissive lefts.
Quote from: behogie230 on February 26, 2022, 10:38:39 AM
Interesting. PennDOT only uses FYA when the approach has a protected left. If there's a potential for yellow trap, there is a sign on the mast arm that says "opposing traffic has extended green" .
PennDOT definitely does use three-section permissive-only FYAs, albeit rarely. One I can remember is at the intersection of US 422 and Locust St (https://goo.gl/maps/A2e4tLetoT9iH7VZ7) in Myerstown. I know I've seen at least one or two more, but I can't remember where exactly.
:-P
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2022, 01:20:25 AM
Do changes to traffic signals count as well as signs? :sombrero:
If they do, I have a success story to share: the leftmost signal head at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2084924,-77.4609329,3a,37.6y,351.17h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sECFeAyG9LXZ4TJHrfaL-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) was updated from solid red/yellow/green to red arrow/yellow arrow/FYA thanks to an email I sent to NYSDOT yesterday. Here's my post about it in the thread I started about the issue several years ago:
...
It sounds like NYSDOT likes you. You should show them NJDOT's signal placement guidelines.
A pothole report I made to Mercer County, NJ earlier this month to note a bunch of potholes along westbound CR 632 (Pennington-Lawrenceville Road) had a little aside about how the road itself was incorrectly signed as "CR 640." The error probably dated back to when Mercer first started posting shields on the 600 routes, Alps caught the original version on his page (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_640/), later another older style replaced that by 2011, and was replaced two more times with retroreflective signs (first with a thick solid yellow outer edge, then a thin yellow edge inset a little bit). I can't vouch for the potholes being fixed (the ones I complained about on eastbound 546 weren't fixed as of this afternoon) but the shields were fixed:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Mercer_CR_632_westbound%2C_sign_corrected%2C_July_2022.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/CR_546_eastbound%2C_CR_632_shield_corrected%2C_July_2022.jpg/640px-CR_546_eastbound%2C_CR_632_shield_corrected%2C_July_2022.jpg)
(the second pic's CR 632 arrow is partially incorrect since the route continues ahead of the intersection)
Quote from: V'Ger on March 21, 2009, 07:46:46 PM
I got Caltrans to fix the US 101 entrance shield that was missing it's numbers at SFO once. At least I think it was me that brought it's attention to them.
I got CalTrans to cut back some bushes from the exit distance signs on I-880 near SJC. I also reported the "Two Exit 1D" problem on I-880. The got tp the first one in a week or two. The second took almost two years.
I tried to get Waukesha County to sign the gap of Hwy VV in Sussex. Does not look like I was successful at that.
I'd like to believe it was me that got FDOT to fix US-1 & US-90's routing in Jacksonville, FL during the Overland Bridge project.
For awhile, they had both US routes on the surface streets between the Main Street Bridge and Atlantic Blvd, when they were both suppose to be going onto the I-95 C/D lanes in that area. Their own GIS showed that, & the AASHTO log showed it too.
So, I mentioned it awhile back when the first plans came out for that project (especially since it included signage plans). I even got them to post FL-5 in that area, which was what US-1/US-90 improperly traveled on, even though at first they said they weren't going to post FL-5 (but fix US-1/90).
I've got another successful change under my belt.
I recently wrote to ISTHA about the ramp from SB 294 to EB 90. Two lanes become one at the top of the bridge over 294, but there was no lane drop signage on the whole ramp. I was pleased that within a week of my message, multiple Lane Ends signs were placed on the ramp. This was genuinely needed signage: due to the vertical crest, you don't see the lane merge until the last minute, so I give them high marks for addressing this so quickly.
Who would you contact at the NYSDOT about signs that have been missing for a long time. The "exit now" sign (the one with the arrow) for Exit 41N (106-107 North) on I-495 East has been missing for years now, and despite other signs in the area being replaced this one is still gone. It was on an old triangle shaped gantry that was taken down around 2016 and never put back. The NEXT RIGHT sign is also missing.
I can't imagine it was due to the gantry being too old since there's some pretty ancient and rusty hardware holding up signs on NY 135 South, south of NY 24 that never got replaced during the reconstruction of that section a while back (the northbound side got all new gantries), maybe someone hit it?
I was noticing in Callahan, FL that a SB mileage sign was missing on US 1 & 23. I wrote FDOT about it and they sent me a letter months later that they sent out a work order for one to be installed.
Another place a mileage sign was needed was at the beginning of US 192 near Disney in Central FL. I wrote to FDOT about it and months later they sent me design specs of a sign they were going to use at that location and informed me that they were doing something to handle my concern about the missing sign.
In 2010 I complained about missing overheads in Tallahassee on US 90 West at US 27. These were the only reference to US 27 at the location. Weeks later I received a reply that action would be taken to install the missing signs. However they only installed a ground mount assembly, but at least drivers on US 90 WB now are aware of US 27.
In another location in a Tallahassee I reported a missing US 27 North shield as well as missing FL 63 signs on NB Apilache Parkway at Monroe Street where the route turns right onto FL 63 NB for a concurrency. Again they replaced some of what I said was missing. The turn US 27 shield got replaced, but still to this day no acknowledgement of FL 63 is at that specific location.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on October 25, 2022, 03:28:19 AM
Who would you contact at the NYSDOT about signs that have been missing for a long time. The "exit now" sign (the one with the arrow) for Exit 41N (106-107 North) on I-495 East has been missing for years now, and despite other signs in the area being replaced this one is still gone. It was on an old triangle shaped gantry that was taken down around 2016 and never put back. The NEXT RIGHT sign is also missing.
I can't imagine it was due to the gantry being too old since there's some pretty ancient and rusty hardware holding up signs on NY 135 South, south of NY 24 that never got replaced during the reconstruction of that section a while back (the northbound side got all new gantries), maybe someone hit it?
NYSDOT Region 10: (631) 952-6632
I blogged about a misspelling on a street sign down the road from me a few years ago, and within weeks it was replaced with one with the correct spelling. Watchdog or coincidence?
Quote from: epzik8 on October 25, 2022, 07:14:55 AM
I blogged about a misspelling on a street sign down the road from me a few years ago, and within weeks it was replaced with one with the correct spelling. Watchdog or coincidence?
Koinkydink.
Maybe y'all can convince NCDOT to update the lane striping and add overhead exit only signs on I-26 eastbound to US-74 at Exit 67 (https://goo.gl/maps/hmzBEHa44gNobUZu8), and make it a two-lane/option lane exit (https://goo.gl/maps/DRkPfMosMj41SVVx7) while they're at it. I've tried for more than a decade to no avail. There's a repaving project starting next year, and I'm sure they'll copy/paste the pavement markings exactly the same like they always do. They also don't seem to care that the westbound exit for US-74 is Exit 66 while eastbound is still signed as Exit 67. Westbound, Exit 67 is for NC-108 (https://goo.gl/maps/KEFcwSzsHssQfKWV8).
A while ago, I reported this sign because of the incorrect distance to I-94 on Wis 29 east of Chippewa Falls.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9192832,-91.2284951,3a,32.5y,261.81h,87.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAEB5Lt7L_KnUTNIDURl6Xg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9192832,-91.2284951,3a,32.5y,261.81h,87.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAEB5Lt7L_KnUTNIDURl6Xg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://goo.gl/maps/cVymwFA27Gmcg1jGA
The mileage sign got installed by a letter I wrote FDOT D2.