Best/Worst looking highway signage

Started by juscuz410, August 07, 2009, 01:13:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

wisp2007

Nowadays British Columbia uses the standard Highway Gothic and Clearview fonts. But long ago, they used a variety of ugly fonts on their highway signs. They even used Helvetica sometimes.








agentsteel53

I like the fonts on those two signs.  Got any more examples?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

architect77

#52
When North Carolina finally gets around to widening a section of interstate, they do it right. Pictured is the reconstructed I-85 through Durham.

NCDOT is now all about customizing sizes of overheads. Less important exits are tightly-wrapped with oversized text which looks kinda good to me.

I wish someone would create a "Cantilevers from Hell" thread for those extremely far-reaching overheads that appear to be pushing the limit.

jjakucyk

Quote from: architect77 on December 21, 2009, 07:40:50 AM
When North Carolina finally gets around to widening a section of interstate, they do it right. Pictured is the reconstructed I-85 through Durham.

What's the story behind that black/white lane striping?  I've seen in Chicagoland where they'd repaint the lines on concrete roads like that, but with a full black stripe between the white dashes.  The point I guess was so they wouldn't have to align the new dashes with the old ones, and could just paint over it blind, so to speak.  This looks like a pretty deliberate and measured 50/50 white/black pattern. 

shoptb1

#54
Quote from: juscuz410 on September 14, 2009, 04:47:23 PM
As a fellow Ohioan, nothing irks me more than driving on our state's hwys/frwys and noting the inconsistencies of the signage. I was driving down I-77 from Canton towards Cambridge yesterday, lots of buttons, some newer signage, more buttons, then clearview, then back to buttons. Ugh!!

I totally agree! I live in Columbus and Ohio's inconsistency is mind-boggling.  I'm originally from Arkansas, and am pleased to report that when they decided to switch over to Clearview...they did it correctly....all signs were replaced!  Any idea when Ohio is going to replace all of this awful button-copy?

fixed malformed quotes

Riverside Frwy

North Carolina's signage is just plain beautiful.


The worst easily has to be California, from the (IMO) poorly design signage layout, to the ugly old button copy signs.The ugly dark green on older signs don't help either.Then of course California has some of the ugliest gantries I've ever seen, while most other states have the nice more modern looking gantries that aren't so noticeable...

realjd

Quote from: jjakucyk on December 21, 2009, 11:01:28 AM
What's the story behind that black/white lane striping?  I've seen in Chicagoland where they'd repaint the lines on concrete roads like that, but with a full black stripe between the white dashes.  The point I guess was so they wouldn't have to align the new dashes with the old ones, and could just paint over it blind, so to speak.  This looks like a pretty deliberate and measured 50/50 white/black pattern.  

A number of states do that on concrete and faded asphalt, and it's particularly common here in Florida. It's for increased contrast. A white line on white pavement is near impossible to see, so they paint a black stripe after the white stripe.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=25.534712,-80.367662&spn=0,359.997589&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=25.534926,-80.368223&panoid=WtIKbO3yi3urW3Xgj0-O5A&cbp=12,228.58,,0,4.3

3M also makes lane marking tape for the same purpose that's a white line with black edges:
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTtnxMcLXz6EV76EbHSHVs6EVs6E666666--

agentsteel53

#57
and here I think California is very distinctive, while I can't think of anything that North Carolina does that makes it memorable.  Just neutered interstates, retroreflective signs, and boring state route shields.  Could be anywhere in the US, really.

besides, dark green works.  And yes, the 70s-90s green is a bit unattractive, but that 60s porcelain green is very good-looking.



even with the patches, that's a whole lot better than anything NC has to offer.  Okay, fine, with one exception.



now that's the way to do it!
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Riverside Frwy

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 01:21:26 PM
and here I think California is very distinctive, while I can't think of anything that North Carolina does that makes it memorable.  Just neutered interstates, retroreflective signs, and boring state route shields.  Could be anywhere in the US, really.

besides, dark green works.  And yes, the 70s-90s green is a bit unattractive, but that 60s porcelain green is very good-looking.



even with the patches, that's a whole lot better than anything NC has to offer.  Okay, fine, with one exception.

Absolutely terrible.It almost looks Ghetto(lol) Again, the Gantry is hideous, and the patches make it look like the Frankenstein of highway signage.  :happy: :-D

agentsteel53

I don't see a problem with the gantry.  The right patch certainly could've been done in a better color... but the best solution is clearly to go up there with a crowbar and take them off, revealing a perfectly good US-60, I-10, US-70, US-99 gantry.

here's an example without patches.  better?

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

myosh_tino

I will agree with Agentsteel that California's signing is VERY distinctive and sets us apart from the rest of the country... dark green guide signs, button copy, no exit numbers (until recently), older spec Interstate shields, cutout US and State shields, etc.  It's all very "Californian".  :)
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

wytout

#61
Now it just don't get any purdier than this that's fur shur...

 :spin:

unfortunately, the photo loses the nice twisted angles that these two BGS's are currently leaning to
the breakaway's look like they shoulda broke away a long time ago.  Like an old man's teeth, the buttons are starting to fall out...
But for now at least... they stand fast against the elements.
-Chris

TheStranger

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 21, 2009, 01:50:54 PM
I will agree with Agentsteel that California's signing is VERY distinctive and sets us apart from the rest of the country... dark green guide signs, button copy, no exit numbers (until recently), older spec Interstate shields, cutout US and State shields, etc.  It's all very "Californian".  :)

For that matter, I like that California's exit numbers ARE tabbed somewhat differently from most states, also evidenced with the choice of skinnier fonts for the gore-point signs compared to those elsewhere!  Maybe not the best for visibility, but it is certanly distinctive.

IIRC, one and two-digit exit numbers usually use the classic square shield, having "EXIT" and the number in the same size (with the number and arrow flush for a two-line sign); three-digit numbers usually are in a rectangular sign and have "EXIT" above the number, which is then above the arrow, making it a three-line sign.  I have recently encountered at least one single-digit exit number gore sign in the California three-line format though, Exit 4 going westbound on I-80 (Bay Bridge) on Treasure Island.
Chris Sampang

Riverside Frwy

Caltrans can still keep the California Style, as they do with newly placed signs with exit numbers.However, I also would like to see those hideous gantries replaced with the tubular gantry design.(Those look really nice, especially with the newer signs)

shoptb1

I will agree the California is "unique" and earns some "style points", but has anyone thought about functionality?  I mean, these signs actually are there for a reason and honestly, the old button-copy is near to impossible to read at night from a distance compared to the new Clearview retroreflective.  It really makes a huge difference, and when we're talking about the reduction of last-minute weaving...it's more than a question of style; it's a question of safety.

wytout

Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 03:45:33 PM
I will agree the California is "unique" and earns some "style points", but has anyone thought about functionality?  I mean, these signs actually are there for a reason and honestly, the old button-copy is near to impossible to read at night from a distance compared to the new Clearview retroreflective.  It really makes a huge difference, and when we're talking about the reduction of last-minute weaving...it's more than a question of style; it's a question of safety.

Now Now, let's not be too hasty... it doesn't have to be CLEARVIEW.. blecchhhh... to be legible ;)
-Chris

shoptb1

Quote from: wytout on December 21, 2009, 03:46:40 PM
Now Now, let's not be too hasty... it doesn't have to be CLEARVIEW.. blecchhhh... to be legible ;)

In all fairness, you're right.  I do like Clearview personally b/c I find it to be the most legible in low-light conditions, but the retro-reflectivity is the most important part.

agentsteel53

I disagree on that.  I've always had an easier time reading signs with non-retroreflective backgrounds.  Assuming that the sign isn't worn, the buttons not cracked, etc...

this is especially true pre-dawn in cold climate, when the signs are covered with an uneven layer of condensation.  Then, the retroreflectivity fails and the contrast drops badly - meanwhile, with older signs, there is enough contrast to begin with, between foreground and background, that the signs are still legible.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 21, 2009, 03:34:00 PM
Caltrans can still keep the California Style, as they do with newly placed signs with exit numbers.

the California Style is black porcelain signs with white legend, with under- or overlighting and outline shields, and no reflectivity.



now that is a good-looking gantry.

anything else is federal style!  :-D
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

shoptb1

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:01:18 PM
...meanwhile, with older signs, there is enough contrast to begin with, between foreground and background, that the signs are still legible.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.  Most of the older signs in Ohio (and there are plenty of them) are so worn-out that when your headlights hit them, all that the driver can see is a blur and no reflectivity.  Case in point is I-71N from Cincinnati to Columbus...many of the guide signs are finally being replaced because there was no reflectivity at all, and the button-copy route shields just sparkle around the shield itself, but the numbers are no longer identified.  Definitely not fun if you actually need to rely on the signs to find your way.

agentsteel53

Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 04:08:58 PM
the button-copy route shields just sparkle around the shield itself, but the numbers are no longer identified

you mean the numbers were never made in button-copy?

there's a reason why button copy was used back then; older Scotchlite tended to fade quite badly, as you can see.  Modern high intensity sheeting is quite durable, so that's definitely a good replacement for buttons.

are the backgrounds of the Ohio signs you speak of reflective or non-reflective? I know Ohio used both styles.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

shoptb1

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:13:27 PM
you mean the numbers were never made in button-copy?

I believe that the buttons fell off of the route shields in about 1983.  LOL

agentsteel53

Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 04:15:44 PM

I believe that the buttons fell off of the route shields in about 1983.  LOL


well, that's a maintenance problem, not a design flaw! 

I'm gonna have to drive some of those Ohio freeways - I was last there in 2006 and at the time they didn't seem bad at all.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

wytout

#73
I can understaind shoptb1's pain when you are dealing with a little bit older button copy when it's on retroreflective sheeting and aging.  

We have some in CT.  Remember we don't use under or overlighting at all.  A lot of the signs on I-84 WB from Hartford to W.Hartford have buttons that don't reflect.  It's like trying to read essentially black text on barely-still-reflective backgrounds.  They're pretty bad.  

The newest button-copy we have (late '90's to about 2002/3 still has retroreflective backgrounds, but nice bright contrast with the still-like-new buttons, etc.  They actually have MUCH more daytime contrast than 100% retroreflective signs.  CT is starting to change a lot of signs with new retroreflective higher grade sheeting.  

I'm not so ecofriendly I guess, I'd rather see them spend money to just underlight the signage again, like the old days, and leave the actual signs alone ;).   I never used to care for our button copy, but and center mounted unframed exit tabs, but they do make our signs a bit unique.  Oh well. Fat chance of that happening.
-Chris

agentsteel53

button copy on retroreflective background is indeed a disaster.

those newest ones you mention - those are gonna look horrible in 10 years!  :ded:

nowadays, since button copy manufacturers are all out of business, the best option is prismatic high-intensity sheeting.  But put that on a non-reflective background; or, if the feds demand reflectivity because people otherwise apparently can't recognize a green guide sign at night, use engineer grade for the background, for some definite contrast.
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.