Things your state/province does and you like

[cl94]

Left on red is legal in New York. Of course, there are few places this applies because NYC has a blanket prohibition. Troy is one big place with all of the one-way streets. There are a few "no turn on red except curb lane" in Columbus, OH for dual left turn lanes, so that implies that Ohio also allows them.

Edit: fixed hyperlink

[empirestate]

Left on red is legal in New York. Of course, there are few places this applies because NYC has a blanket prohibition. Troy is one big place with all of the one-way streets. There are a few "no turn on red except curb lane" in Columbus, OH for dual left turn lanes, so that implies that Ohio also allows them.

Though as a result, you have the excitement of seeing "Left on red permitted after stop" signage now and then in NYC.

Elsewhere, yes, there are few chances to pull the maneuver; my whole life in Rochester, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I had the chance to do left on red and actually went through with it. (One of them involved a left turn onto one-way St. Paul St., which you can't do anymore as it's two-way now!)

[Pete from Boston]

My apologies. I did read that wrong. 

Though given how often the topic comes up on this board, readership here should be aware, even if generation driving public isn't.  (Not a defense of my misreading, just a follow up.)

I'm a member of Generation Driving Public, and I'm aware of it.

I'm not convinced police here are aware of it, nor that the ones that are won't still use it as an excuse to pull you over and just see what you're up to.

[texaskdog]

putting turnarounds at freeway interchanges.

[Pete from Boston]

putting turnarounds at freeway interchanges.

No longer my state, but New Jersey's "U-TURN" signs at exits are tremendously helpful.

[Quillz]

putting turnarounds at freeway interchanges.

On a similar note, Caltrans has been installing roundabouts at some exits, allowing the motorist to make a quick turnaround back onto the freeway if need be. The first one I drove on was at the 80/89 junction near Lake Tahoe.

[Quillz]

Also, I don't live in Idaho, but I really like their practice of using two different color schemes for their state route shields. Guide signs have a black-on-white shield, while the independent shields are white-on-black. It's a completely unnecessary practice and probably costs the state more money than need be, but it's a cool little signage practice I've not seen anywhere else.

[Buck87]

I'm not from Georgia, but I really like these overhead route signs they have at major intersections



As for Ohio, I like that it is one of the states that opts to include the mileages on these types of signs (middle row) at intersections

[mariethefoxy]

New York: honestly I cant think of anything I really like about the way they do road signage, always disliked it compared to how neighboring states like NJ and CT design things.

Delaware (future home): I like that the intersections between numbered routes are always well signed and even on the secret routes, the signs seem always shiny and new.

[noelbotevera]

I'm not from Georgia, but I really like these overhead route signs they have at major intersections

(pic snipped)

As for Ohio, I like that it is one of the states that opts to include the mileages on these types of signs (middle row) at intersections

(pic snipped)

Ehh...it's hard to see the cardinal directions, or other information. Unless you're a hawk, it's hard to tell that that's US 17 North instead of just US 17.

[Buck87]

Ehh...it's hard to see the cardinal directions, or other information. Unless you're a hawk, it's hard to tell that that's US 17 North instead of just US 17.

I think has more to do with the quality of that picture. Or are you speaking from the experience of seeing this type of signage in person?

Personally, I haven't had any issue reading them while driving in GA

[noelbotevera]

Ehh...it's hard to see the cardinal directions, or other information. Unless you're a hawk, it's hard to tell that that's US 17 North instead of just US 17.

I think has more to do with the quality of that picture. Or are you speaking from the experience of seeing this type of signage in person?

Personally, I haven't had any issue reading them while driving in GA

Mostly in pictures. But even good ones, it's hard to discern the sign elements from each other.

[SignBridge]

Marie, I think New York DOT is more competent at least re: the BGS's than either Connecticut or New Jersey.   At least in New York, lane-drops are signed correctly, but New Jersey was famous for years for their unsigned lane-drops. You'd be in the right-lane and it would suddenly disappear at an exit with no warning.

[cl94]

Marie, I think New York DOT is more competent at least re: the BGS's than either Connecticut or New Jersey.   At least in New York, lane-drops are signed correctly, but New Jersey was famous for years for their unsigned lane-drops. You'd be in the right-lane and it would suddenly disappear at an exit with no warning.

I agree. NYSDOT, NYSTA, and NYCDOT are quite competent and have signage that is neat and easy to understand. Almost everything is (and always was) signed. I remember moving to Ohio and thinking "what the heck is this?" when I saw their signage. A good amount of it was quite cluttered and difficult to understand. If you're from the northeast, you don't know what a dancing arrow is, because we signed option lanes with vertical arrows and/or diagrammatics (which is what the MUTCD always recommended). I will say that ODOT has greatly improved across the board in the past decade, though.

[mariethefoxy]

Marie, I think New York DOT is more competent at least re: the BGS's than either Connecticut or New Jersey.   At least in New York, lane-drops are signed correctly, but New Jersey was famous for years for their unsigned lane-drops. You'd be in the right-lane and it would suddenly disappear at an exit with no warning.

NYS Region 8's signs are horrible with the all caps boxes for the street names which make them very hard to read.

I never had an issue with the signs in Jersey, I like how they have the black borders on the route shields which makes them stand out.

I don't know where that lane drop issue is in Jersey but I don't believe I ever encountered it. As for Connecticut, they're good with exit only lanes and Lane Ends signs.

[empirestate]

Marie, I think New York DOT is more competent at least re: the BGS's than either Connecticut or New Jersey.   At least in New York, lane-drops are signed correctly, but New Jersey was famous for years for their unsigned lane-drops. You'd be in the right-lane and it would suddenly disappear at an exit with no warning.

NYS Region 8's signs are horrible with the all caps boxes for the street names which make them very hard to read.

Ah, there's the thing. If you're thinking just of the one region, and you don't like the boxed names, you might well think NY's signs are bad.  I don't happen to dislike the boxed street names myself, and I've traveled to every part of the state, so I wouldn't rank NY's signage poorly.

That being said, a rampant problem in my area–and yes, it's region 8–is erroneous NY shields for US routes. US 9 they seem to usually get right, but 6 and 202 are pretty much a toss-up (even when all three are on the same assembly).


iPhone

[jeffandnicole]

NJ highway lane drops are generally very well signed. Lane drops on non-highways aren't, and generally will have very minimal signage. Many times, if (and that's a big if) there's advanced signage, it's only a few hundred feet prior to the lane drop.

Many construction zones don't have much advanced lane drop signage either. Usually the first sign is 1,500 feet prior to the lane drop, probably to encourage use of all lanes prior to the closure point (a topic that has been discussed and argued many times before).

[mariethefoxy]

Marie, I think New York DOT is more competent at least re: the BGS's than either Connecticut or New Jersey.   At least in New York, lane-drops are signed correctly, but New Jersey was famous for years for their unsigned lane-drops. You'd be in the right-lane and it would suddenly disappear at an exit with no warning.

NYS Region 8's signs are horrible with the all caps boxes for the street names which make them very hard to read.

Ah, there's the thing. If you're thinking just of the one region, and you don't like the boxed names, you might well think NY's signs are bad.  I don't happen to dislike the boxed street names myself, and I've traveled to every part of the state, so I wouldn't rank NY's signage poorly.

That being said, a rampant problem in my area–and yes, it's region 8–is erroneous NY shields for US routes. US 9 they seem to usually get right, but 6 and 202 are pretty much a toss-up (even when all three are on the same assembly).


iPhone

All the regions cant seem to figure out how to draw the route shield hence the loads of variations out there. Region 10 and 11 are missing actual mile markers, we only have the reference markers) the addition of those large NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES signs to the parkway signs has made for a lot of wierd sign layouts so everything can fit into the bracket on the sign bridge.

[cl94]

Marie, I think New York DOT is more competent at least re: the BGS's than either Connecticut or New Jersey.   At least in New York, lane-drops are signed correctly, but New Jersey was famous for years for their unsigned lane-drops. You'd be in the right-lane and it would suddenly disappear at an exit with no warning.

NYS Region 8's signs are horrible with the all caps boxes for the street names which make them very hard to read.

Ah, there's the thing. If you're thinking just of the one region, and you don't like the boxed names, you might well think NY's signs are bad.  I don't happen to dislike the boxed street names myself, and I've traveled to every part of the state, so I wouldn't rank NY's signage poorly.

That being said, a rampant problem in my area–and yes, it's region 8–is erroneous NY shields for US routes. US 9 they seem to usually get right, but 6 and 202 are pretty much a toss-up (even when all three are on the same assembly).


iPhone

All the regions cant seem to figure out how to draw the route shield hence the loads of variations out there.

You say that like New York is the only state that has that problem. Ohio has a bunch of signs all over the state that cut off Toledo. I'm sure someone who's traveled around Ohio can back that up. In most cases, NY shields are pretty consistent for the type, with BGS shields being different from those posted individually. Again, NY is not the only state that does that. Yes, there are some Batman shields out there, but those are the exception. Recently, the shield has been standardized and newer installations are identical.

[SignBridge]

Jeffandnicole: Check out I-280 eastbound at the last interchange before the NJ Turnpike in Kearny. The exit for NJ-508 east is a totally unsigned lane-drop, unless it's been re-signed recently. (I haven't been there in at least a year). And it's been that way for many years, probably since I-280 was completed thru there in the late 1970's. I know I've seen other similar ones in New Jersey, but I can't recall any of them specifically. But check out that one on I-280. 

[cl94]

Jeffandnicole: Check out I-280 eastbound at the last interchange before the NJ Turnpike in Kearny. The exit for NJ-508 east is a totally unsigned lane-drop, unless it's been re-signed recently. (I haven't been there in at least a year). And it's been that way for many years, probably since I-280 was completed thru there in the late 1970's. I know I've seen other similar ones in New Jersey, but I can't recall any of them specifically. But check out that one on I-280.

Recent (late 2015) GSV shows that it is still unsigned before the exit. Why the hell NJDOT didn't put in an Exit Only is beyond me, but I remember that interchange quite well.

[SignBridge]

It looks like those overhead signs at the split are fairly new. I think that whole stretch was re-signed a few years ago, replacing all the original 1970's era signs. But apparently NJDOT is so out of touch with reality that they just copied the original signs when they did the replacements. And no one caught it! Not to mention that it's been that way for 35 years! Absolutely inexcusable! Welcome to NJDOT signing..........

[JoePCool14]

If anything, IDOT (and I'm speaking for primarily District 1) has been replacing almost every traffic signal in the area. Although it is probably a waste of money, they at least look nice.
They also replace signs relatively often.
Other than that I've got nothing.

For ISTHA, their sign design is getting better as they know how to use Clearview. They replace signs fairly quickly, and the roads are in nice condition. There's still plenty to gripe with them too.

[Big John]

I like how Wisconsin has letters instead of numbers for their county highways. It makes it a lot easier to distinguish between state and county highways.  The letters also allow counties to name county highways after roads or things in the area. 

Examples: 
County CA in Appleton: College Ave
County HS in Howard-Suamico is named because it goes through both communities
County GV in Brown Co. connects County G and County V

Sorry for the necrobump.

Brown County EB was named for Emmet Bertrand who recently died ay 97, according to fakebook.
Obit: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/GreenBayPressGazette/obituary.aspx?pid=197086586&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=GreenBayPressGazette&utm-content=197086586&fbclid=IwAR2JGnngUa1oltUwqKEW-kTDQ2m5GQ77lfwY3578KiayNkC0fSQIEPt_MAM
Relevant item was he worked for the county highway department for 32 years.

[STLmapboy]

I like how most of our signals are on mast arms and that we have an extensive state highway system. I also like our extensive interstate network and how wide some of our highways can be (including four-laned rural highways like US Routes 36, 54, 61, 63, and 67).

In addition, we seem to have a lot of nice bridges (though there definitely remain a few old ones), and our pavement is a bit better than Illinois.