Worst SERIES of signs (for a single exit)

[webny99]

Not sure if this is worth it's own thread. If not, it can be merged.

Anyways, it occurred to me the other day that there might not be a worse series of signage on approach to a major highway junction, when looked at holistically, than I-490 WB approaching I-590/NY 590 (Exit 21). I-490 EB is almost as bad, but at least has a 1-mile advance sign.

Here's an overview, and keep in mind that this is the busiest approach to the busiest highway junction in the Rochester region:

First advance warning sign - right off the bat, 1/2 mile isn't nearly enough warning for this junction. It should be 1 mile minimum, and ideally there would be 1-1/2 mile advance sign here. Even worse, it's actually only 2150 feet (0.4 miles) from this sign to the gore point, and there's a heavy weaving movement that has to occur in that distance. Also, there's no exit destinations listed, which is unacceptable for a freeway to freeway junction.
Second advance warning sign - yeah, it gets worse. Again, no control cities for exiting traffic or through traffic; massive amounts of wasted green space; no indication of the distance to the exit; no indication that it's a split exit; and this type of sign (diagrammatical) is outdated and no longer supported by the MUTCD.
Exit direction sign - does not need to be split between three panels (unnecessary duplication of "Exit 21"), again lacks control cities, and should be an APL instead of this configuration, or at least have arrows pointing up and to the right instead of down for the exiting movements.

[Hobart]

Not sure if this is worth it's own thread. If not, it can be merged.

Anyways, it occurred to me the other day that there might not be a worse series of signage on approach to a major highway junction, when looked at holistically, than I-490 WB approaching I-590/NY 590 (Exit 21). I-490 EB is almost as bad, but at least has a 1-mile advance sign.

Here's an overview, and keep in mind that this is the busiest approach to the busiest highway junction in the Rochester region:

First advance warning sign - right off the bat, 1/2 mile isn't nearly enough warning for this junction. It should be 1 mile minimum, and ideally there would be 1-1/2 mile advance sign here. Even worse, it's actually only 2150 feet (0.4 miles) from this sign to the gore point, and there's a heavy weaving movement that has to occur in that distance. Also, there's no exit destinations listed, which is unacceptable for a freeway to freeway junction.
Second advance warning sign - yeah, it gets worse. Again, no control cities for exiting traffic or through traffic; massive amounts of wasted green space; no indication of the distance to the exit; no indication that it's a split exit; and this type of sign (diagrammatical) is outdated and no longer supported by the MUTCD.
Exit direction sign - does not need to be split between three panels (unnecessary duplication of "Exit 21"), again lacks control cities, and should be an APL instead of this configuration, or at least have arrows pointing up and to the right instead of down for the exiting movements.

Maybe it's normal in New York, but 590 on the state shield looks... oddly overinflated, or something, like the numbers are too big for the shield.

[Scott5114]

this type of sign (diagrammatical) is outdated and no longer supported by the MUTCD.

Section 2E.22 sure looks like it's still there to me.

[webny99]

this type of sign (diagrammatical) is outdated and no longer supported by the MUTCD.

Section 2E.22 sure looks like it's still there to me.

I'm sure I read that on this forum. Now to see if I can find it...

(Although even if diagrammaticals are still supported, I doubt they're supported with a diagram of these proportions. It should have at least a third of the vertical length chopped off the bottom, with the remainder magnified, to be of any value.)

[webny99]

Maybe it's normal in New York, but 590 on the state shield looks... oddly overinflated, or something, like the numbers are too big for the shield.

I agree that something is off with these NY 590 shields, probably at least in part because they're so old. I'm no good with identifying fonts, but I think the one used here different than the one they use now. New installs typically look like this.

[webny99]

this type of sign (diagrammatical) is outdated and no longer supported by the MUTCD.

Section 2E.22 sure looks like it's still there to me.

I'm sure I read that on this forum. Now to see if I can find it...

OK, so there was some discussion of it here - I was remembering that diagrammaticals are possibly going to be dropped with the next version of the MUTCD. So, I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

Either way, NY has been replacing all diagrammaticals with APL's, so that would likely be the case here if/when this signage ever gets replaced.

[Rothman]

this type of sign (diagrammatical) is outdated and no longer supported by the MUTCD.

Section 2E.22 sure looks like it's still there to me.

I'm sure I read that on this forum. Now to see if I can find it...

OK, so there was some discussion of it here - I was remembering that diagrammaticals are possibly going to be dropped with the next version of the MUTCD. So, I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

Either way, NY has been replacing all diagrammaticals with APL's, so that would likely be the case here if/when this signage ever gets replaced.

Sometimes questionably, such as at NY 85 NB and I-90.

Then, there's that awful APL on I-81 just north of its western split with I-86.

[Henry]

What irks me the most is the signing of states as control cities, like Chicago does (and in fact, it's the one thing I hate most about IDOT!). Sure, St. Louis reciprocates the practice by putting "Illinois" on signs directing motorists across the river, but still, it's very annoying.

[NE2]

What irks me the most is the signing of states as control cities, like Chicago does (and in fact, it's the one thing I hate most about IDOT!). Sure, St. Louis reciprocates the practice by putting "Illinois" on signs directing motorists across the river, but still, it's very annoying.

What does this have to do with the topic?

[machias]

Not sure if this is worth it's own thread. If not, it can be merged.

Anyways, it occurred to me the other day that there might not be a worse series of signage on approach to a major highway junction, when looked at holistically, than I-490 WB approaching I-590/NY 590 (Exit 21). I-490 EB is almost as bad, but at least has a 1-mile advance sign.

Here's an overview, and keep in mind that this is the busiest approach to the busiest highway junction in the Rochester region:

First advance warning sign - right off the bat, 1/2 mile isn't nearly enough warning for this junction. It should be 1 mile minimum, and ideally there would be 1-1/2 mile advance sign here. Even worse, it's actually only 2150 feet (0.4 miles) from this sign to the gore point, and there's a heavy weaving movement that has to occur in that distance. Also, there's no exit destinations listed, which is unacceptable for a freeway to freeway junction.
Second advance warning sign - yeah, it gets worse. Again, no control cities for exiting traffic or through traffic; massive amounts of wasted green space; no indication of the distance to the exit; no indication that it's a split exit; and this type of sign (diagrammatical) is outdated and no longer supported by the MUTCD.
Exit direction sign - does not need to be split between three panels (unnecessary duplication of "Exit 21"), again lacks control cities, and should be an APL instead of this configuration, or at least have arrows pointing up and to the right instead of down for the exiting movements.

When I lived in New York I had many conversations with folks in R4 over the lack of control cities here. They felt there wasn't enough in the way of control cities available. I proposed "Sea Breeze / Corning" or even "To 104 / To 390" but no joy.

[webny99]

When I lived in New York I had many conversations with folks in R4 over the lack of control cities here. They felt there wasn't enough in the way of control cities available. I proposed "Sea Breeze / Corning" or even "To 104 / To 390" but no joy.

Interesting. Northbound wouldn't seem to be a problem, as Irondequoit is now in use on both directions of I-390 and NY 31 (Exit 2). The bigger issue would be fitting "Irondequoit" in a condensed space on an APL or other sign panel without altering the dimensions beyond what's practical.

Southbound is a bit trickier. Corning requires two route switches which is a bit too convoluted for my liking. My preferences would be:
#1 - Henrietta
#2 - Brighton (only not #1 because half of the interchange itself is in Brighton, and the town also spans north of the interchange)
#3 - Airport (or possibly Pittsford on I-490 EB and Airport on I-490 WB)

[CoreySamson]

Any thread discussing the worst series of signs has to discuss the Creek Turnpike:

https://goo.gl/maps/B2eH3u1VaRhsNhLX8 (3/4 mile advance signage)
https://goo.gl/maps/HPDoL25EAuADk3Lo8 (1/4 mile advance signage)
https://goo.gl/maps/oQWZgNXa8fMKWYwv6 (final exit signage)

[Scott5114]

Any thread discussing the worst series of signs has to discuss the Creek Turnpike:

Isn't it nice how, now that you live in Oklahoma, you basically have in your back pocket an instant-win card for threads like these?

[Hobart]

Any thread discussing the worst series of signs has to discuss the Creek Turnpike:

https://goo.gl/maps/B2eH3u1VaRhsNhLX8 (3/4 mile advance signage)
https://goo.gl/maps/HPDoL25EAuADk3Lo8 (1/4 mile advance signage)
https://goo.gl/maps/oQWZgNXa8fMKWYwv6 (final exit signage)

This unironically makes me want to put my fist through my monitor, vomit, and slip on my icy fire escape.

[DrSmith]

I feel like NY doesn't want to announce some major junctions very early...maybe a mile at best
I-90 west heading down to I-787 in Albany there is only a 1/2 mile advance notice.
https://goo.gl/maps/9LmuAAMUvLWezRYJ8
Maybe 3/4 mile if you count this indirect mention
https://goo.gl/maps/Nv6W1poTdwjLsBmv8

Many years ago it seemed like there was no advance warning for I-684. I remember it feeling like there was only a sign at the exit both heading I-84 West before I-684 South and also from I-287 East to I-684 North. As I only did that drive occasionally, especially taking I-684, it was always a seeking game to find it, especially off I-287 where there were multiple exits in there. At least from I-84 I  knew I-684 was shortly after the Conn-NY border.

[machias]

I feel like NY doesn't want to announce some major junctions very early...maybe a mile at best
I-90 west heading down to I-787 in Albany there is only a 1/2 mile advance notice.
https://goo.gl/maps/9LmuAAMUvLWezRYJ8
Maybe 3/4 mile if you count this indirect mention
https://goo.gl/maps/Nv6W1poTdwjLsBmv8

Many years ago it seemed like there was no advance warning for I-684. I remember it feeling like there was only a sign at the exit both heading I-84 West before I-684 South and also from I-287 East to I-684 North. As I only did that drive occasionally, especially taking I-684, it was always a seeking game to find it, especially off I-287 where there were multiple exits in there. At least from I-84 I  knew I-684 was shortly after the Conn-NY border.

It varies wildly between NYSDOT regions. I know R3 (Syracuse) has gone crazy with posting 2 miles, 1 mile, 1/2 mile (sometimes) for just about every interchange where practical but the other regions just keep doing the same thing over and over.

IIRC, R9 has signs on both side of the road on I-84 westbound approaching I-684. That always seemed weird to me and I don't recall seeing it anywhere else in the state.

[Rothman]

I feel like NY doesn't want to announce some major junctions very early...maybe a mile at best
I-90 west heading down to I-787 in Albany there is only a 1/2 mile advance notice.
https://goo.gl/maps/9LmuAAMUvLWezRYJ8
Maybe 3/4 mile if you count this indirect mention
https://goo.gl/maps/Nv6W1poTdwjLsBmv8

Many years ago it seemed like there was no advance warning for I-684. I remember it feeling like there was only a sign at the exit both heading I-84 West before I-684 South and also from I-287 East to I-684 North. As I only did that drive occasionally, especially taking I-684, it was always a seeking game to find it, especially off I-287 where there were multiple exits in there. At least from I-84 I  knew I-684 was shortly after the Conn-NY border.

It varies wildly between NYSDOT regions. I know R3 (Syracuse) has gone crazy with posting 2 miles, 1 mile, 1/2 mile (sometimes) for just about every interchange where practical but the other regions just keep doing the same thing over and over.

IIRC, R9 has signs on both side of the road on I-84 westbound approaching I-684. That always seemed weird to me and I don't recall seeing it anywhere else in the state.

R8, not R9...

[machias]

I feel like NY doesn't want to announce some major junctions very early...maybe a mile at best
I-90 west heading down to I-787 in Albany there is only a 1/2 mile advance notice.
https://goo.gl/maps/9LmuAAMUvLWezRYJ8
Maybe 3/4 mile if you count this indirect mention
https://goo.gl/maps/Nv6W1poTdwjLsBmv8

Many years ago it seemed like there was no advance warning for I-684. I remember it feeling like there was only a sign at the exit both heading I-84 West before I-684 South and also from I-287 East to I-684 North. As I only did that drive occasionally, especially taking I-684, it was always a seeking game to find it, especially off I-287 where there were multiple exits in there. At least from I-84 I  knew I-684 was shortly after the Conn-NY border.

It varies wildly between NYSDOT regions. I know R3 (Syracuse) has gone crazy with posting 2 miles, 1 mile, 1/2 mile (sometimes) for just about every interchange where practical but the other regions just keep doing the same thing over and over.

IIRC, R9 has signs on both side of the road on I-84 westbound approaching I-684. That always seemed weird to me and I don't recall seeing it anywhere else in the state.

R8, not R9...

Yes, thank you. Not living in New York for a few years I've lost my NYSDOT region mojo.