Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[plain]

The other signs around there aren't much better and almost all of them have "Business" in lowercase.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/c1JSySGorqgntmyD7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SZUL46efFJMRwJYRA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tzs3wRi4ZfExqfDn8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZHTwrWHHYWa544dr6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/m4VfU2ehuWF7i3Xs9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kDAgnyvsWcY7agnD6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oibSVkYyE5TvDRQ2A

[FrCorySticha]

The other signs around there aren't much better and almost all of them have "Business" in lowercase.

A number of those, including the first one posted, look like "Business" was just squeezed on to an existing sign. It just seems crammed in there.

[sprjus4]

The other signs around there aren't much better and almost all of them have "Business" in lowercase.

A number of those, including the first one posted, look like "Business" was just squeezed on to an existing sign. It just seems crammed in there.

The problem is, they weren’t.

That interchange was built in 2018 and the signs came with it. It has always been US-58 Business through Courtland.

[FrCorySticha]

The problem is, they weren’t.

That interchange was built in 2018 and the signs came with it. It has always been US-58 Business through Courtland.

That's what makes them worse. It would be somewhat forgivable if they were retrofitted, but not as newly designed.

[hbelkins]

I think these are more "design errors" than "actual 'worst of.'"

[MCRoads]

I have a rare case of Texas making utterly crap signs.

Both in San Antonio, both at the same interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/hAqnRyECLyuzdSyU8 (not damaged, still looks like garbage)
https://goo.gl/maps/uVsx7FDxShddmzZP9 (damaged, but it is slightly intelligible. It probably looked worse than the sign above when new)

[JoePCool14]

I have a rare case of Texas making utterly crap signs.

Both in San Antonio, both at the same interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/hAqnRyECLyuzdSyU8 (not damaged, still looks like garbage)
https://goo.gl/maps/uVsx7FDxShddmzZP9 (damaged, but it is slightly intelligible. It probably looked worse than the sign above when new)

With regards to the second one, what is the point of putting a YOUR SPEED indicator when there are multiple lanes? They should go with what Wisconsin does, which is to post signs for each lane that can light up individually and say TOO FAST FOR CURVE.

[MCRoads]

I have a rare case of Texas making utterly crap signs.

Both in San Antonio, both at the same interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/hAqnRyECLyuzdSyU8 (not damaged, still looks like garbage)
https://goo.gl/maps/uVsx7FDxShddmzZP9 (damaged, but it is slightly intelligible. It probably looked worse than the sign above when new)

With regards to the second one, what is the point of putting a YOUR SPEED indicator when there are multiple lanes? They should go with what Wisconsin does, which is to post signs for each lane that can light up individually and say TOO FAST FOR CURVE.

Like this?
https://goo.gl/maps/Bh5BdoGbPvcB3Nay9

[Big John]

^^ this: https://goo.gl/maps/ZtCT85KZJdn4W12y5

[TheHighwayMan394]

One I just saw on Facebook (won't repost because it's a personal photo by someone and I don't have permission), but in KC a BGS for the I-70 East exit off I-635 was damaged with the top half of the sign where it would have said I-70 WEST was presumably unusable and removed, so KDOT's solution was to tack a standalone I-70 shield to the top of the sign.

(I-70 standalone shield)
        <-St. Louis

That sort of bizarre fix reminds me loosely of the Frankensign from the early days of this thread.

EDIT: GSV has it https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1061079,-94.6806408,3a,15y,153.43h,99.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8bPc6p5lHMHJptRrHUbbjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Alex]

One I just saw on Facebook (won't repost because it's a personal photo by someone and I don't have permission), but in KC a BGS for the I-70 East exit off I-635 was damaged with the top half of the sign where it would have said I-70 WEST was presumably unusable and removed, so KDOT's solution was to tack a standalone I-70 shield to the top of the sign.

(I-70 standalone shield)
        <-St. Louis

That sort of bizarre fix reminds me loosely of the Frankensign from the early days of this thread.

Not the first time KDOT has done something bad with a portion of unusable sign... Spotted this one for US 24 Business/K-27 on I-70 westbound in October:

[CoreySamson]

That sort of bizarre fix reminds me loosely of the Frankensign from the early days of this thread.

That reminds me, does anyone have a picture of the original Frankensign?

Gah, kill that patch with fire! (or whatever damaged the rest of the sign)

[MCRoads]

That sort of bizarre fix reminds me loosely of the Frankensign from the early days of this thread.

That reminds me, does anyone have a picture of the original Frankensign?

Gah, kill that patch with fire! (or whatever damaged the rest of the sign)

IIRC someone posted one on here, but IDK where. It was there for a long while I think, so probably several people have pictures of it.

[Bruce]

There is a sign at a local shopping plaza that is really terrible. It isn’t as bad as any of these, but it will probably cause (if it hasn’t already) an accident. The sign is about 1’x2’ and says, on 4 lines of probably 6in text, says: “INCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP”. What it is trying to say is, although the road has 4 directions of traffic, it is only a 3 way stop. What it probably should have is “3-WAY” placard, with a sign underneath that says “LEFT/RIGHT/OPPOSITE TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP”, similar to the “CROSS TRAFFIC DIES NOT STOP” placard:

The same sign in this Lake Stevens, WA parking lot: https://goo.gl/maps/2d2SHNr7BKtk7A3z7

Almost got t-boned here by an elderly driver who clearly ignored the sign and assumed I would full stop while driving eastbound.

[tolbs17]

That mile tab on the top right pisses me off. Ugh. Well, it's VDOT.

201 Dominion Blvd S
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fPFsx56NfPMFx4bi6

[sprjus4]

That mile tab on the top right pisses me off. Ugh. Well, it's VDOT.

201 Dominion Blvd S
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fPFsx56NfPMFx4bi6

Yup... all of Dominion Blvd. It's been like that since 2016.

And no, it wasn't VDOT, it was the city of Chesapeake.

[tolbs17]

That mile tab on the top right pisses me off. Ugh. Well, it's VDOT.

201 Dominion Blvd S
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fPFsx56NfPMFx4bi6

Yup... all of Dominion Blvd. It's been like that since 2016.

And no, it wasn't VDOT, it was the city of Chesapeake.

I'm betting on when they will replace those ugly signs with ones that are not childish looking.

[sprjus4]

That mile tab on the top right pisses me off. Ugh. Well, it's VDOT.

201 Dominion Blvd S
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fPFsx56NfPMFx4bi6

Yup... all of Dominion Blvd. It's been like that since 2016.

And no, it wasn't VDOT, it was the city of Chesapeake.

I'm betting on when they will replace those ugly signs with ones that are not childish looking.

Likely not for a long time… there’s still signs on the VA-168 expressway that are 20+ years old. Unlike VDOT, which has replaced most interstate signage around the region in the last decade, it’s not necessarily a priority for the city. As ugly as the signs may be, they are adequate.

It’s a miracle they built the freeway to begin with.

[tolbs17]

That mile tab on the top right pisses me off. Ugh. Well, it's VDOT.

201 Dominion Blvd S
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fPFsx56NfPMFx4bi6

Yup... all of Dominion Blvd. It's been like that since 2016.

And no, it wasn't VDOT, it was the city of Chesapeake.

I'm betting on when they will replace those ugly signs with ones that are not childish looking.

Likely not for a long time… there’s still signs on the VA-168 expressway that are 20+ years old. Unlike VDOT, which has replaced most interstate signage around the region in the last decade, it’s not necessarily a priority for the city. As ugly as the signs may be, they are adequate.

It’s a miracle they built the freeway to begin with.

Which is ironic because the NC Turnpike Authority is planning to replace the overhead and mileage signs along the western portions of NC-540 but that won't start until the East End Connector in Durham has opened to traffic (i think). Directionals will be changed from North-South to East-West and I'm sure this is because of the extension (which is currently under construction) of the highway.

Some signs are just 5 years old and they are perfectly fine.

More information about the replacement of the signs - https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

The ones on the northern side of I-440 need it more I say. They are roughly 30 years old and they are almost not readable at night.

There's already a plan to resurface I-540 in Northern Raleigh and replace the signs but that has been pushed back indefinitely.

[webny99]

I think this one qualifies, at least relative to expectations. Things that stand out negatively include (1) the letter spacing (look at the spacing on N O R T H !), (2) poor word and shield alignment, (3) wasted space, and (4) the arrow being arrow location underneath the text instead of next to it, not to mention (5) way oversized. I could do a lot better, if I don't say so myself:






I even experimented with adding another exit destination and it still ended up smaller than the original:

[Scott5114]

Gonna have to side with the gatekeepers here. That one is no big deal, especially in Indiana, which uses this kind of layout with shields spread across multiple lines a lot. Your point (4) against it is actually required by the draft 2022 MUTCD, even.

Really, it looks like they merely paired 24" shields with 16" text (36"/16" is normal) and that's why it looks off.

[webny99]

Gonna have to side with the gatekeepers here. That one is no big deal, especially in Indiana, which uses this kind of layout with shields spread across multiple lines a lot. Your point (4) against it is actually required by the draft 2022 MUTCD, even.

Really, it looks like they merely paired 24" shields with 16" text (36"/16" is normal) and that's why it looks off.

On the other hand, my replacement does look about 1000 x better.

[webny99]

I'm also not at all in support of the arrow being located at the bottom if that does indeed become standard. It's much clearer and looks much better on the right side.

[Scott5114]

I'm also not at all in support of the arrow being located at the bottom if that does indeed become standard. It's much clearer and looks much better on the right side.

The proposed rule is arrow at bottom for ground-mounted signs and arrow at right for overhead-mounted signs (except in the case of exit only lanes). No rationale is given for the rule, though I think the intent might be to avoid the arrow being obscured by brush in areas with heavy vegetation. There's been some pushback against this rule in public comments, so we'll see whether it makes it through to the final manual.

For what it's worth, I've always thought arrow-at-bottom led to less balanced designs.

[JoePCool14]

I'm also not at all in support of the arrow being located at the bottom if that does indeed become standard. It's much clearer and looks much better on the right side.

Neither am I. It's also a space saver if the sign in question is really wide.