Importance/necessity of route signage

[US-175]

If a route is numbered and established by the local/national-level DOT, isn't it just as important for it to be signed/labeled?  The DOT in question (and any other locals involved) went to the trouble to have the route--shouldn't it be easy to find (and continue to trace) by any member of the traveling public?  I wonder sometimes.  It seems like, depending on which place/DOT/authorities are involved, some place a greater need for a route's establishment/existence than on how well it is represented to whoever is out there driving.  I realize that most of us who populate this board and visit other online road-related sites pay more attention to road issues (like signage) than the average Joe/Jane, but the result of putting together and maintaining a road should not include confusion or any lack of information toward those driving.

One example:
I have noticed while ride-sharing (I drive for Lyft now) that Business US 287 is more well-signed in the suburbs and the approaches to Fort Worth, than in Fort Worth itself.  Nothing downtown, nothing south of there on Main or on Rosedale, and very little north of downtown around the Stockyards. There are BGSes showing Bus US 287 at the Rosedale exit from I-35W, but nothing at the intersection, or east/west of it.

OK, another (and another):
Inconsistent (almost non-existent) overlap signage for
* US 377 on I-30 between the downtown interchange and the Camp Bowie exit.
* US 287 on I-35W between the downtown interchange and the split from I-35W north of I-820 (it would be nice to see improvements to this one when the North Frwy. work is finally done, but I'm not holding my breath)

I may be doing a lot of  or  about this, and I know it's a preaching-to-the-choir deal, but to think the irritating lack of (or incorrect placement of) signage could be averted with more care and less laziness (or whatever is going on).  >ugh!!<

(/soapbox)

[Scott5114]

There are two reasons to assign something a route number. One is to provide a road user with a convenient method of navigation. The other is to provide the government responsible for a road with a convenient method of inventorying it. One of these demands good signage, the other does not.

[bzakharin]

If a US route is concurrent with an Interstate, it is likely that the US route came first and the Interstate superseded it. So, in your example, when they went through the trouble of establishing US 287, it was probably well signed. Then they went through the trouble of establishing I-35W which, of course, takes priority over the US routes that may or may not be concurrent with it. Would it be nice to have both? Yes it would. NJ does well with US 130, US 40, and US 22 when they are concurrent with I-295 and I-78. Not so much with US 1/9/46 when concurrent with I-95.

[Brian556]

If a route is numbered and established by the local/national-level DOT, isn't it just as important for it to be signed/labeled?  The DOT in question (and any other locals involved) went to the trouble to have the route--shouldn't it be easy to find (and continue to trace) by any member of the traveling public?  I wonder sometimes.  It seems like, depending on which place/DOT/authorities are involved, some place a greater need for a route's establishment/existence than on how well it is represented to whoever is out there driving.  I realize that most of us who populate this board and visit other online road-related sites pay more attention to road issues (like signage) than the average Joe/Jane, but the result of putting together and maintaining a road should not include confusion or any lack of information toward those driving.

One example:
I have noticed while ride-sharing (I drive for Lyft now) that Business US 287 is more well-signed in the suburbs and the approaches to Fort Worth, than in Fort Worth itself.  Nothing downtown, nothing south of there on Main or on Rosedale, and very little north of downtown around the Stockyards. There are BGSes showing Bus US 287 at the Rosedale exit from I-35W, but nothing at the intersection, or east/west of it.

OK, another (and another):
Inconsistent (almost non-existent) overlap signage for
* US 377 on I-30 between the downtown interchange and the Camp Bowie exit.
* US 287 on I-35W between the downtown interchange and the split from I-35W north of I-820 (it would be nice to see improvements to this one when the North Frwy. work is finally done, but I'm not holding my breath)

I may be doing a lot of  or  about this, and I know it's a preaching-to-the-choir deal, but to think the irritating lack of (or incorrect placement of) signage could be averted with more care and less laziness (or whatever is going on).  >ugh!!<

(/soapbox)

TxDOT has always been lousy at signing in the Ft Worth area. BUS 287 was signed as regular 287 until recently. Did you know that, a few years back, that BUS 287 was re-routed to follow Spur 280, and I-35W to avoid downtown Ft Worth? This is one of those situations where the city wanted control of the road so that they could make modifications.

I remember US 81/287/I-35W co-signing just N of I-820. The US 81 signage was of course removed long ago, but the 287 signage remained until the recent construction started

TxDOT had done a reversal, and has put US 77 signage back on I-35E from Denton to Dallas when they recently rebuilt it. The US 77 signage had previously been removed around 1980.

[oscar]

There are two reasons to assign something a route number. One is to provide a road user with a convenient method of navigation. The other is to provide the government responsible for a road with a convenient method of inventorying it. One of these demands good signage, the other does not.

Alaska has six-digit inventory numbers for all its state-maintained roads, and also most or all other non-Federal roads. None of these inventory numbers are signed. A few state-maintained roads also have one- or two- digit route numbers. Even for the handful of roads assigned route numbers, route number signs are not a real high priority (roads usually are called by their names, not numbers), though most of those routes have at least a little route number signage. This might be an Arctic thing, since the story is similar in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

Some other state DOTs seem compelled to slap route numbers on every little scrap of pavement they maintain, including the unimportant ones (often ones they would like to but can't remove from their state highway systems). Route number signage is spotty or non-existent for the unimportant ones.

[sparker]

There are two reasons to assign something a route number. One is to provide a road user with a convenient method of navigation. The other is to provide the government responsible for a road with a convenient method of inventorying it. One of these demands good signage, the other does not.

Alaska has six-digit inventory numbers for all its state-maintained roads, and also most or all other non-Federal roads. A few state-maintained roads also have one- or two- digit route numbers. Even for the handful of roads assigned route numbers, route number signs are not a real high priority (roads usually are called by their names, not numbers), though most of them have at least a little route number signage. This might be an Arctic thing, since the story is similar in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

Some other state DOTs seem compelled to slap route numbers on every little scrap of pavement they maintain, including the unimportant ones (often ones they would like to but can't remove from their state highway systems). Route number signage is spotty or non-existent for the unimportant ones.

That was one of the purposes of the old (pre-1964) CA system of LRN (legislative route numbers) and SSR (state signed route) designations.  All state-maintained highways were intrinsically LRN's; those deemed important enough for interregional (or, at times intraregional travel) received SSR numbers.  A lot of connecting routes, particularly in the San Joaquin/Sacramento valleys, were LRN's for the entire life of the original system (LRN's 124, 130, 131, 136, and 142 were prominent among those) without ever seeing a SSR assigned to them; others were eventually signed once the population of the Valley increased (LRN 135/139 becoming SSR 43, and LRN 123 becoming SSR 59).  Post-'64, the Division of Highways went on a "signage spree" to the point where if it was maintained, it was signed -- regardless of length.  Some connectors previously considered too minor to sign, such as the Carpenteria beach-access route, previously LRN 152, being signed as CA 224 by 1967, even though it was only about 1.3 miles long.  This led to a large number of urban/suburban streets suddenly getting state signage.  Prior to the spree, there was a "shakeout" of short routes deemed unnecessary for system inclusion (the original CA 165 in East Los Angeles and CA 215 in Pomona, both deleted by the end of 1965).  But the signage credo continued through the Caltrans transition in 1973, although many routes were deleted during the Brown/Gianturco  years ('75-'83), and even more during the penny-pinching Deukmejian and Wilson gubernatorial years ('83-'99).  But lately, with Caltrans seemingly occupied elsewhere (HSR, administering block grants for local roads & streets), consistent signage has become something of a joke in CA.  If it isn't on a freeway or major interregional arterial, maintenance of signage may as well be considered optional rather than mandatory (and it certainly does vary district to district).  It certainly isn't 1969 (arguably the year of maximum signed mileage), and there are no signs (ironically!) that it's going to improve anytime soon.   

[TheStranger]

  If it isn't on a freeway or major interregional arterial, maintenance of signage may as well be considered optional rather than mandatory (and it certainly does vary district to district).  It certainly isn't 1969 (arguably the year of maximum signed mileage), and there are no signs (ironically!) that it's going to improve anytime soon.   

I'll even say this:

I've been on two major interregional corridors where signage might as well be nonexistant:

- Route 128 just west of Winters up to Monticello in the 2000s, where only sign you were on a state highway were the callboxes with 128 on them.  Very few shields

- Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395, about 2 or 3 years ago.  I don't even recall more than one trailblazer in either direction.

[sparker]

I'll even say this:

I've been on two major interregional corridors where signage might as well be nonexistant:

- Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395, about 2 or 3 years ago.  I don't even recall more than one trailblazer in either direction.

Up until about 5 years ago there were a few more reassurance shields along CA 18 west of US 395; but as that area is the site of major post-recession housing development (Adelanto has some of the cheapest acreage in the high desert), sporadic widening of Palmdale Road/CA 18 at access points to these tracts has likely claimed more than a few of those; and District 8 isn't known for its pristine signage practices; without a slew of complaints -- particularly from the cities or county -- the signs are probably not going to be replaced anytime soon. 

[LM117]

If a US route is concurrent with an Interstate, it is likely that the US route came first and the Interstate superseded it.

That's especially true in NC.

[Roadgeekteen]

If a US route is concurrent with an Interstate, it is likely that the US route came first and the Interstate superseded it. So, in your example, when they went through the trouble of establishing US 287, it was probably well signed. Then they went through the trouble of establishing I-35W which, of course, takes priority over the US routes that may or may not be concurrent with it. Would it be nice to have both? Yes it would. NJ does well with US 130, US 40, and US 22 when they are concurrent with I-295 and I-78. Not so much with US 1/9/46 when concurrent with I-95.

Interstates do take prioraty.