News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Erroneous road signs

Started by FLRoads, January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

US71

Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast


WillWeaverRVA

#751
Quote from: PennDOTFan on August 29, 2010, 12:42:23 PM
Not too much of an error, but DelDOT messed up the colors for the E-ZPass logo! The text is supposed to be white and the background is supposed to be purple. I-95 southbound approaching the Newark toll plaza.

Actually, purple-on-white is an alternate logo scheme for the E-ZPass logo; some of the state E-ZPass websites use that version, and that's how it appears on most transponders. It's just not common on actual signage. The Peace Bridge uses that, though, among others.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

nyratk1


agentsteel53

Quote from: nyratk1 on August 29, 2010, 09:28:41 PM


should be 1-5?

not that I know... the error I found is subtle and can be detected in the mirror.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

corco

Quoteshould be 1-5?

.melborp eht si taht tbuod I

tchafe1978

WISDOT can't even get it right on their own website. This page is about WIS 33. There is no US 33 in Wisconsin, mind you.

http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/wis33corridorpas/index.htm

Quillz

I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

And until very recently, there was signage on CA-14 for a junction with CA-126, which was truncated west at I-5 also many years back.

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.

agentsteel53

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

there is one sign on 5 left that has the 42 shield.  And there is one stand-alone trailblazer, if you know where to look...
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

Aren't there 42 references on other freeways as well?  42 actually was deleted way before that - in 1968!!!  (the west portion becoming I-105, east portion becoming part of Route 90) - but remained signed while its replacement (I-105) was under construction, and for some years afterward.

Likewise, I-405 still refers to Route 91 on Artesia Boulevard, which I'm not sure is still part of the state highway.

Quote from: Quillz

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it.  
Chris Sampang

Brandon

Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 31, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
WISDOT can't even get it right on their own website. This page is about WIS 33. There is no US 33 in Wisconsin, mind you.

http://www.dot.wi.gov/projects/swregion/wis33corridorpas/index.htm

That's what happens when you refer to everything as simply "Highway" as they do behind the Cheddar Curtain.  :rofl:
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Quillz

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
I thought I posted this already, but I can't find it...

Anyway, several signs on I-405 in CA refer to a junction with State Route 42. This was true... A long, long time ago. State Route 42 was deleted entirely at least 20 years ago, yet signage continues to this very day.

Aren't there 42 references on other freeways as well?  42 actually was deleted way before that - in 1968!!!  (the west portion becoming I-105, east portion becoming part of Route 90) - but remained signed while its replacement (I-105) was under construction, and for some years afterward.

Likewise, I-405 still refers to Route 91 on Artesia Boulevard, which I'm not sure is still part of the state highway.

Quote from: Quillz

But the presser is that the opposite is also true. For example, you won't find signage in Weed for when I-5 and CA-265 intersect, because the latter isn't signed, despite the fact it is fully funded and exists.

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it. 
I drove through Weed in August 2009, and I didn't see any signs on I-5. I even went down Weed Boulevard and didn't see one, although it may have been added in the past year.

And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)

agentsteel53

Quote from: Brandon on August 31, 2010, 01:48:43 PM

That's what happens when you refer to everything as simply "Highway" as they do behind the Cheddar Curtain.  :rofl:

that and your US and state markers look identical from a distance.

and then there is ... this.

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:48:02 PM

Supposedly a Route 265 sign has been added in recent years though I haven't seen it.  

northbound, a mile or two north of downtown on old 99.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)

Yeah, this is a major drawback of the legislative route-assignment system: in almost all cases, route signing is not based on what is navigationally logical, but whether a city or county or the state maintains a stretch of road.  Some legislative definitions now specify that truncated segments must still be signed, but this is not true for all of them.
Chris Sampang

Quillz

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
And yes, CalTRANS redefined Route 91 a few years back so that it no longer officially connects to I-405. It just ends at the Gardena city limits, I think, or is the Artesia city limits? There a few other routes like that, CA-2 comes to mind, that have been officially defined to end at city limits, rather than at other state highways. (CA-91 and CA-2 used to end at state highways, they don't anymore.)

Yeah, this is a major drawback of the legislative route-assignment system: in almost all cases, route signing is not based on what is navigationally logical, but whether a city or county or the state maintains a stretch of road.  Some legislative definitions now specify that truncated segments must still be signed, but this is not true for all of them.
I know that for many years, signage continued for CA-126 between I-5 and CA-14, although this has finally been removed in recent years.

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:59:20 PM

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.

I actually don't recall finding any Route 2 shields left in Santa Monica in February - definitely tried to look around for them the two times I went down that street.  Both trips were at night though so I could have missed seeing them.
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

I think 2 is still signed from 405, but that's in the Los Angeles city limits - even there, the shield count is rather scant.
Chris Sampang

Quillz

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:01:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:59:20 PM

However, almost all signage continues to exist for CA-2, Santa Monica Boulevard, west of the Los Angeles city limits where the route is supposed to officially terminate. This is most likely done because CA-2 used to end at CA-1 and the signage, though wrong, just makes things easier for motorists. But in the case of CA-91, the same was not done... You won't too many CA-91 shields west of Gardena or Artesia nowadays.

I actually don't recall finding any Route 2 shields left in Santa Monica in February - definitely tried to look around for them the two times I went down that street.  Both trips were at night though so I could have missed seeing them.
Well, "fully signed" was probably too strong a word. I have definitely seen some CA-2 shields on Santa Monica Blvd. quite recently, though. It's possible they'll be removed eventually, but I think the idea is to imply that CA-2/SMB leads to CA-1, even if the former is not legally true anymore.

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

don't remember - have not driven 10 in that area in a while.

the fact that we're having this debate on where the route is signed and where it isn't ... that just makes it eminently clear how hosed California's system is.  of course it should be signed!  2 should go down that boulevard, regardless of who maintains it.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Quillz

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

don't remember - have not driven 10 in that area in a while.

the fact that we're having this debate on where the route is signed and where it isn't ... that just makes it eminently clear how hosed California's system is.  of course it should be signed!  2 should go down that boulevard, regardless of who maintains it.
Couldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.

TheStranger

Quote from: QuillzCouldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.

118 east of 210 would need to be built first! :-D  (which is basically dependent on if 249 is ever constructed between Sunland and Palmdale)


I know that the surface road between I-5 and Route 14 along the 126 corridor was recently built to arterial standards - logically, this should be 126!

I wonder how many DOTs actually do sign routes based on navigation only, as opposed to maintenance (I want to say Massachussetts is one of them).  Prior to the 1964 renumbering (actually, prior to the 1950s), the auto clubs were the ones who did this in California - were they the ones who came up with the route numbers?
Chris Sampang

Quillz

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:28:20 PM
Quote from: QuillzCouldn't agree more. The way I see it, a state route, especially a valuable single- or two-digit one, should always clearly terminate at another numbered highway, not at some artificial city limit. I still wish CA-126 continued east along Magic Mountain Parkway to CA-14, and I also wish some of the planned state route extensions, such as the eastern CA-118 extension, would be built or signed.

118 east of 210 would need to be built first! :-D  (which is basically dependent on if 249 is ever constructed between Sunland and Palmdale)


I know that the surface road between I-5 and Route 14 along the 126 corridor was recently built to arterial standards - logically, this should be 126!

I wonder how many DOTs actually do sign routes based on navigation only, as opposed to maintenance (I want to say Massachussetts is one of them).  Prior to the 1964 renumbering (actually, prior to the 1950s), the auto clubs were the ones who did this in California - were they the ones who came up with the route numbers?
I think they were, yeah. There was one in NorCal and one in SoCal. Numbers were assigned in pairs in NorCal and SoCal. Someone had a really good post not too long ago explaining the numbering scheme.

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 04:50:40 PM
I think they were, yeah. There was one in NorCal and one in SoCal. Numbers were assigned in pairs in NorCal and SoCal. Someone had a really good post not too long ago explaining the numbering scheme.

I'm pretty familiar with all that (the number assignments, the number scheme, and the existence of the CSAA in NorCal and the ACSC in SoCal as the two organizations responsible for putting up route markers) - not so much who, if anyone, at those auto clubs - or if it was elsewhere - created the numbers.
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

Massachusetts indeed signs routes based on navigation, as does Vermont.  I think VT even has a few town-maintained stretches of interstate freeway!

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.