I noticed that Caltrans has stopped putting city names on replacement signs. Before a sign would read "Grand Ave Glendora" now just reads "Grand Ave." I wonder what led them to stop this practice. It's kind of helpful when you drive through a new area (and have no navi) to know what cities you are near.
What I miss the most is them no longer having freeway names such as "San Bernardino Freeway" or "Riverside Freeway" on lot of the new signs. Calling freeways by their names had become a part of So Cal culture.
The federal MUTCD, which Caltrans has now adopted through the mechanism of an interspersed supplement, does not allow mixing of street names and city names on freeway advance guide and exit direction signs. One or the other must be signed and Caltrans has chosen to sign street names while leaving city names for supplementary guide signs, as in other states.
Caltrans' own guidance has deprecated freeway names on primary freeway guide signing since the mid-1960's at least. The signs which still retain this information tend to be old, on surface streets, or installed and maintained by local agencies.
One case where I feel the MUTCD has erred. I certainly don't believe in mixing street names and route numbers - usually this involves county routes and depends on the region (for example, N. Jersey would use names, S. Jersey would use numbers for the 6xx routes). But destinations are vital and with the amount of information to pay attention to, it's easy to forget city names when you're looking for a particular route or street. "There's Main Street. Am I in Paterson yet? I saw a sign for Lodi a couple of miles ago. Probably the right one."
Once in a while, when they replace an old one with the green reflective sign, they will copy it word for word. I've see a couple when it will still read "San Bernardino Freeway" although only one new guide sign out of three will have it. Don't know if this inconsistency is done in error or what. Also, when they replaced the sign for Whitter Blvd on the 605, it reads "Whitter Blvd 72" but i don't think it's signed as CA 72 anymore (??) but they just copied the old sign.
Another pecularity was Mountain Ave on the 210. It reads "Mountain Ave Mt. Baldy." They briefly covered up the "Mount Baldy" then put it back, but now the "Mount Baldy" is centered under the "Mountain Ave." instead of being left justified under it. I know it's nitpicky, but us road geeks would notice stuff like that.
Re. AlpsROADS' points--I agree it is useful to have signing on a consistent basis and not to expect drivers to look for route shields in one region and street names in another, but I basically agree with the MUTCD's prohibition on putting street and city names on the same guide sign. Part of the justification is message loading. Under old Caltrans practice the city name is nonessential information which has to be repeated on every sign for consistency's sake, while under the current MUTCD it needs to appear only once on a supplemental guide sign. With increasing use of exit numbers on non-Interstate freeways, cities will become less important for localization anyway.
I agree with the ban on city names and street names mixing on the same sign. Especially if the highway one is traveling is running through the city listed on the sign--in those instances, a city limits or "city next X exits" sign is more helpful. When I'm driving in an unfamiliar urban area, I'm looking for the street/highway I need for my exit, and not necessarily a city somewhat distant. Increasing use of exit numbers, along with appropriate supplemental signage, definitely decreases the need to use city names for navigation on actual exit signage.
I did somewhat like CalTrans' use of freeway names on guide signs, even if it wasn't consistent. I imagine it could be somewhat cumbersome at interchanges where the named freeway switches highway. The names were much more prevalent when the highways were first built though, with references now seeming to prefer the numbers instead ("101" or "the 101", depending on location). It's something that could be perpetuated on supplemental signage, but can be done without just as easily.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on September 17, 2009, 08:49:14 PM
One case where I feel the MUTCD has erred. I certainly don't believe in mixing street names and route numbers - usually this involves county routes and depends on the region (for example, N. Jersey would use names, S. Jersey would use numbers for the 6xx routes).
I disagree, if the road has an assigned designation that is signed, it should be on the exit sign. When looking at Rand-McNally style city maps, it is easier to figure out the route # than the street name. And, I've run into many places where U.S. routes are given with street names, do you think the U.S. route number should not be shown?
There are many street name/route numbers in the Nashville area and they area a mix of US Routes, TN Primary and TN Secondary routes. And, IMHO most of them are helpful, maybe not to a resident like me but I would like to see them there if I was from out of town.
On I-24:
Exit 40: TN Secondary 45 - Old Hickory Blvd.
Exit 52: US 70S/US 41 - Murfreesboro Pike
Exit 59: TN 254 - Bell Road
Exit 61: TN Secondary 171 - Old Hickory Blvd.
On I-40:
Exit 199: TN Secondary 251 - Old Hickory Blvd.
Exit 201: US 70 - Charlotte Pike
Exit 204: Future "A": TN 155 North - Briley Parkway (Freeway)
Exit 204: Future "B": TN Secondary 155 South - White Bridge Road
Exit 209: US 70/US 70S - Charlotte Ave., Broadway
Exit 210C: US 31A/US 41A - 2nd and 4th Ave.
Exits 216B-C: TN Secondary 255 - Donelson Pike
Exit 221: TN Secondary 45 - Old Hickory Blvd.
On I-65:
Exits 61 - TN Secondary 248 - Peystonsville Rd., Spring Hill
Exit 69 - TN Secondary 441 - Moores Lane
Exit 71 - TN Secondary 253 - Concord Rd.
Exits 74A-B - TN 254 - Old Hickory Blvd.
Exit 78 - TN Secondary 255 - Harding Place
Exit 85 - US 41A - Rosa L Parks Blvd
Exit 87 - US 431 - Trinity Lane
Exit 89 - US 31W/US 41 - Dickerson Pike
Exit 91 - TN Secondary 45 - Old Hickory Blvd.
On I-440:
Exits 1A-B: US 70S - West End Ave.
Exit 3: US 431 Hillsboro Pike
Exit 6: US 31A/US 41A - Nolensville Pike
On TN 155 Briley Parkway:
Exit 4: US 70S/US 41 - Murfreesboro Pike
Exit 8: US 70 - Lebanon Pike
Exit 14: US 31 North - Gallatin Pike
Exit 16B: US 31W/US 41 - Dickerson Pike
Exit 19: US 431 - Whites Creek Pike
Exit 21: US 41 - Clarksville Pike
Exit 24: TN 12 - Ashland City Highway
Moved from Pacific Southwest.
Sometimes a city name is justified. Obviously, things like "Main Street" are very ambiguous and unhelpful without it. That said, sometimes it is unnecessary and best omitted.
As for what combination of shields+street name, shields+destination(s), street name+destination(s) or just street name is appropriate, it varies from case to case and this is something it's best not to force consistency on.
I guess VDOT's just decided to ignore that little bit of the MUTCD then. :-D Even recently replaced signs still mix city names and street names. For example, on I-664 southbound in Suffolk, VA, the exit for VA 337 says "Portsmouth Blvd / Portsmouth" That's one that could obviously be omitted... yet, is still there.
Wisconsin has also ignored this in some places - a sign on WIS 29 near Owen (between Wausau and Eau Claire) signs Owen and Cardinal Ave.
On a recent sign replacement on CA-85 in Mountain View, Caltrans decided to include the city names on the guide sign. On these exit and advance guide signs (http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=37.389254,-122.068714&spn=0,359.998227&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.388505,-122.068871&panoid=-KYhEY7YbYkCXcjZLsJwww&cbp=12,183.83,,1,-2.56) for CA-82/El Camino Real, you'll find the route number, road name and cities on each sign panel. Of course, this has resulted in a horribly laid-out sign.
Google Streetview of this sign...
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=37.389254,-122.068714&spn=0,359.998227&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.388505,-122.068871&panoid=-KYhEY7YbYkCXcjZLsJwww&cbp=12,183.83,,1,-2.56 (http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=37.389254,-122.068714&spn=0,359.998227&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.388505,-122.068871&panoid=-KYhEY7YbYkCXcjZLsJwww&cbp=12,183.83,,1,-2.56)
The 2009 MUTCD does not actually prohibit using a street name and city name on the same sign. I don't think the earlier versions did either. Sec. 2E-10.01 states: A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided. It's only Guidance, not a standard. Having clarified that, I for one don't understand the reason why this practice is discouraged. I don't see why it would be a problem to show a road name next to/or instead of a route shield along with 2 destinations, one for each direction. As other posters above have noted, some states widely disregard that recommendation, anyway. Add New York DOT to the list.
It's common in New York State, especially on Long Island to have a named county road (some counties do not number their highways) and 2 destinations displayed. Some of these county roads are wider and more heavily travelled than some state highways and are located in suburban areas. It's been done this way here for the last 50 years and there is no problem with this practice that I know of. And the street names are not boxed either. They are shown using the same size and type of mixed case lettering as the destinations.
So I ask: Why does the MUTCD discourage using road and city names on the same sign?
That's (road name next to route number above destinations) what I've seen done occasionally in Virginia, and I like it. For instance, here is the exit I get off I-64 at on my morning commute: https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia064/i-064_wb_exit_262b_01.jpg
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 22, 2010, 10:02:52 PM
That's (road name next to route number above destinations) what I've seen done occasionally in Virginia, and I like it.
Tennessee does it occasionally as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4043%2F4282647753_fb9507edf6.jpg&hash=d711edb98b6782f8d4d67efcd1150111786e7605)
20091222 I-65 N @ Exit 53-C by mightyace, on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4282647753/)
BTW Most people down here, myself included, simply refer to the freeway stub as Saturn Parkway and not by number.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 22, 2010, 08:10:07 PM
The 2009 MUTCD does not actually prohibit using a street name and city name on the same sign. I don't think the earlier versions did either. Sec. 2E-10.01 states: A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided. It's only Guidance, not a standard. Having clarified that, I for one don't understand the reason why this practice is discouraged. I don't see why it would be a problem to show a road name next to/or instead of a route shield along with 2 destinations, one for each direction. As other posters above have noted, some states widely disregard that recommendation, anyway. Add New York DOT to the list.
It's common in New York State, especially on Long Island to have a named county road (some counties do not number their highways) and 2 destinations displayed. Some of these county roads are wider and more heavily travelled than some state highways and are located in suburban areas. It's been done this way here for the last 50 years and there is no problem with this practice that I know of. And the street names are not boxed either. They are shown using the same size and type of mixed case lettering as the destinations.
So I ask: Why does the MUTCD discourage using road and city names on the same sign?
The primary reason has to do with message loading. Especially in cases such as indicated by the last two replies where the street name is put next to the route shield in addition to having two destinations. In these cases, the route name is really superfluous information that is not essential to guiding the long-distance traveler. Adding extra information to a freeway sign assembly means more time for the driver to process that information, which can take away from decision time necessary to merge for associated movements.
It is also MUTCD guidance that no more than three "blocks" of legend be used on a freeway sign, again for message loading reasons. In these examples, there's four (the route shield and street name are separate blocks of legend). For similar reasons, other guidance suggests that no more than three overhead signs be used in one assembly (at which cases legends should be reduced to two blocks if possible).
Quote from: roadfro on February 22, 2010, 11:01:28 PM
The primary reason has to do with message loading. Especially in cases such as indicated by the last two replies where the street name is put next to the route shield in addition to having two destinations. In these cases, the route name is really superfluous information that is not essential to guiding the long-distance traveler.
That may be true in general, but the specific case I showed, the route name is
not superfluous information as "Saturn Parkway" is what the road is most commonly known as. If anything, I'd remove one or both control cities from that sign with Columbia being the first to go.
Or, we could get rid of the TN 396 sign as no one really uses that to identify the road.
Quote from: mightyace on February 22, 2010, 11:17:07 PM
That may be true in general, but the specific case I showed, the route name is not superfluous information as "Saturn Parkway" is what the road is most commonly known as. If anything, I'd remove one or both control cities from that sign with Columbia being the first to go.
Or, we could get rid of the TN 396 sign as no one really uses that to identify the road.
I particularly like the way that Tennessee and Kentucky show the Route Name and the Route Number on their signs. I find this very useful to the traveler as people can refer to either.
Another reason not to use city names in the advance guide signing sequence is that relatability tends to be poor when there are multiple exits for the same city. In cases such as this, a person giving directions will usually say something like "Take the Agua Linda Road exit" rather than "take the Amado exit" in order to avoid confusion. Moreover, in cases such as this, relatability with regard to large-scale mapping (e.g., a single-sheet state map of the kind circulated by state DOTs or tourism departments at welcome centers) does not supply an argument in favor of using city names on advance guide signs. The reason for this is that, without detailed knowledge of the state DOT's policies regarding use of cities on signs, a driver studying the map will not know, for example, whether a given exit close to Amado is close enough for "Amado" to appear on the signs. Navigation will therefore be by exit number (where used) even though the name of the crossroad won't necessarily appear on the map.
It has never been the intention of the MUTCD compilers to eliminate city name signing entirely in urbanized areas. The preferred approach is to identify cities on boundary signs, supplemental guide signs (e.g., "Amado EXIT 32"), or "NEXT EXITS" signs (e.g., "Amado NEXT 3 EXITS"). This means that the city needs to be identified just once on one sign, and not multiple times on every advance guide and exit direction sign for every exit considered to lead to the city. It also allows the highway agency to differentiate between exits which offer immediate access to the city and others which are more distant from the freeway.
In regard to the SR 396/Saturn Parkway example, it would be safe to eliminate "Saturn Pkwy" on the main sign. People actually using it in conjunction with maps to reach a destination will be looking for the SR 396 designation and the linestyle indicating a freeway. People following spoken directions could easily be served by a supplemental guide sign reading "Saturn Parkway EXIT 53." The difficult case with regard to mixing road and city names on advance guide signs is not Saturn Parkway, but rather the expressway system in Chicago, because expressway names are embedded in the local vernacular, there are expressways with no explicit numerical designation (think Elgin-O'Hare Expressway or the Chicago Skyway), and there is often no direct correlation between expressway name and numerical designation.
P.S. The "Agua Linda Rd" and "Amado" examples above are taken from real life--I-19 in Arizona. The 1981 signing plans mixed city and crossroad names on signs, while the 1998 signing plans turfed the city names out to supplemental guide signs. I disagree with the approach the 1998 plans took to metric units, but where city names on advance guide signs are concerned, they are spot-on.
Re: whether to show the highway name along with the route shield. The above Chicago area problems apply to New York (and probably Los Angeles) as well. Many NYC area expressways were built in the 1950's as named routes with no (or little known) numbers. Then with the coming of the Interstate system, many of those highways were incorporated into the system (even though they didn't meet Interstate standards) and assigned Interstate route numbers. Some examples are the Cross Bronx Expwy, I-95 and the Brooklyn Queens Expwy, I-278. The new signing of the early 1960's used route numbers only, causing a public outcry that was big media news in New York for years. Finally in about 1970 NYC reached a compromise with NYS DOT that is still in place today. Within the 5 boroughs of NYC, virtually all directional signs show both the name and route number on the top line of the signs. (Similar to Virginia state routes in the Metro Wash. D.C. area) This satisfied New Yorkers, but does lead to excessive amount of legend on some signs. And quick readability is an issue. There are no easy answers here. A good case can be made for either viewpoint.
The Triple-A Auto Club has been encouraging this number/name practice region wide for many years but NYS DOT will not implement it ouside of New York City. Consequently, roads like the Long Island Expwy, outside of the city are signed only as I-495 and the NY Thruway as I-87/287
Quote from: mightyace on February 22, 2010, 11:17:07 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 22, 2010, 11:01:28 PM
The primary reason has to do with message loading. Especially in cases such as indicated by the last two replies where the street name is put next to the route shield in addition to having two destinations. In these cases, the route name is really superfluous information that is not essential to guiding the long-distance traveler.
That may be true in general, but the specific case I showed, the route name is not superfluous information as "Saturn Parkway" is what the road is most commonly known as. If anything, I'd remove one or both control cities from that sign with Columbia being the first to go.
Or, we could get rid of the TN 396 sign as no one really uses that to identify the road.
I looked at google maps to get a sense of what this route actually serves. A case could be made to sign the exit with the route shield and Saturn Pkwy legend only. Spring Hill could be moved to a supplemental guide sign (next exit, or next two exits). In the northbound direction (seen in the photo), Columbia as a destination city makes no sense, as those drivers would likely have turned off I-65 earlier.
However, I would still contend that for most travelers not familiar with the area, having "Saturn Pkwy" on the current sign is still a bit superfluous.
Quote from: roadfro on February 23, 2010, 05:07:42 PM
However, I would still contend that for most travelers not familiar with the area, having "Saturn Pkwy" on the current sign is still a bit superfluous.
I don't think I'll ever agree with you guys on that.
Nevertheless, it might well be time to retire "Saturn Parkway" anyhow. The road was originally built to serve the then new Saturn automobile plant near Spring Hill. If you don't exit the road at US 31 you head onto the plant grounds.
(Ironic side note, the plant is actually within the city limits of Columbia!)
But, as the Saturn brand is now defunct (and in recent years only the Vue, IIRC, was built there) and the plant is currently operating at a minimal activity level, it would probably work to just get rid of Saturn Parkway as a name. If that would happen, I wouldn't have a problem with it being off the BGS.
We all acknowledge that the MUTCD theory on signing is that it should be oriented to the out-of-town traveler. However I think there's more to this story.
Would it make sense to sign major roads like the New Jersey Turnpike only as I-95? I don't think so. Fortunately it is usually signed for both using the Interstate shield and either the NJ Turnpike logo shield or spelling the name out. Ditto for the Pennsylvania Tpk. and the New York Thruway, which in different parts of the states are different numbered routes. Should those only be signed using their Interstate numbers? That would confuse a lot of drivers who are looking for those very well known road names.
The sign system should not ignore the local driver either, as was done in New York during the road expansion and erecting of new route shield only signs in the 1960's which I mentioned earlier in this thread. It might be a reasonable compromise to both types of drivers for both the route shield and common name of the road to be displayed. Agreed, this can (in some cases) lead to excessive legend on the sign, but what good are the signs if they don't also help local people find their road. Again, this is the position of the Auto Club of NY for the last 40 years at least. They are attuned to common sense.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 23, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
The sign system should not ignore the local driver either, as was done in New York during the road expansion and erecting of new route shield only signs in the 1960's which I mentioned earlier in this thread. It might be a reasonable compromise to both types of drivers for both the route shield and common name of the road to be displayed. Agreed, this can (in some cases) lead to excessive legend on the sign, but what good are the signs if they don't also help local people find their road. Again, this is the position of the Auto Club of NY for the last 40 years at least. They are attuned to common sense.
Sometimes any name or destination is a major improvement: California (SoCal in particular) has plenty of examples of advance exits for a route where other than the shield, the only identifiers are cardinal directions and "Freeway," which doesn't do much to identify where the route goes or what segment of that route it is!
I would give Ohio's ODOT a very poor grade as far as helping non-locals finding numbered routes:
Cleveland's Innerbelt for the most part uses street names only, and not the route numbers (Chester Ave w/ no US 322 designation, Superior Avenue w/ no US 6 designation, etc...)
SR-8 in Akron fails to list SR-261 in the signage for Tallmadge Road nor does it fail to indicate Second Avenue as the exit for North/East SR-59 traffic although SR-59 South/West (it's randomly listed either way, depending on ODOT's mood) mysteriously appears as early as Graham Road -- 2 miles NORTH of Second Avenue!!!
I-77/US 62 in Canton is very sporadic on listing Fulton Avenue as SR-687 (Although ODOT has added a few SR-687 shields as stand alone shields atop the BGSs.
Same thing for Columbus on I-71 @ Polaris Parkway -- The SR-759 shields were added as separate reassurance shields above the BGS...Even in recent sign upgrades, ODOT continued to snub SR 759 shields within the BGSs -- EPIC FAIL!
And for the most part, all the aforementioned signs list only the street names on a single line and aren't even close to already having "too much information" on them.
Just plain laziness on ODOT's part.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
I would give Ohio's ODOT a very poor grade as far as helping non-locals finding numbered routes:
Same thing for Columbus on I-71 @ Polaris Parkway -- The SR-759 shields were added as separate reassurance shields above the BGS...Even in recent sign upgrades, ODOT continued to snub SR 759 shields within the BGSs -- EPIC FAIL!
Just plain laziness on ODOT's part.
With all due respect, what are you even talking about here? It's SR-750, and the BGSs definitely include them.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.315864,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.137448,-82.971025&spn=0.017126,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.137331,-82.971059&panoid=AJ0iEWvSKn8-Lr-cUfiEGQ&cbp=12,9.13,,0,4.2 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.315864,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.137448,-82.971025&spn=0.017126,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.137331,-82.971059&panoid=AJ0iEWvSKn8-Lr-cUfiEGQ&cbp=12,9.13,,0,4.2)
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
SR-8 in Akron fails to list SR-261 in the signage for Tallmadge Road
I assume you mean consistently as some BGS on Route 8 have it (or had it) if this streetview is obsolete. I lived in Cuyahoga Falls from 1985 to 1995 and remember that some of the signage for Tallmadge
Ave. has OH 261 signs.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=akron,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.978077,45&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Akron,+Summit,+Ohio&ll=41.095589,-81.499672&spn=0.011708,0.010986&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.09551,-81.49965&panoid=kkpVBiwsJNBgvsfoYMDLdA&cbp=12,1.11,,0,25.04
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
nor does it fail to indicate Second Avenue as the exit for North/East SR-59 traffic although SR-59 South/West (it's randomly listed either way, depending on ODOT's mood) mysteriously appears as early as Graham Road -- 2 miles NORTH of Second Avenue!!!
It took me a bit to figure out what you meant, but now I know you're talking about SB 8. Now, it is technically correct that the Second Avenue exit not have the OH 59 sign, but I agree, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a "TO OH 59 EAST" on those signs.
P.S.
Quote from: mightyace on February 23, 2010, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 23, 2010, 05:07:42 PM
However, I would still contend that for most travelers not familiar with the area, having "Saturn Pkwy" on the current sign is still a bit superfluous.
I don't think I'll ever agree with you guys on that.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Moving on...
Quote from: SignBridge on February 23, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
We all acknowledge that the MUTCD theory on signing is that it should be oriented to the out-of-town traveler. However I think there's more to this story.
The MUTCD gives a support statement indicating that "The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area." (Sec 2E.02, para 1)
So not necessarily the out-of-town traveler. But from that wording, you're primarily considering the out-of-town driver. They are the ones more likely to be navigating with a paper map that may not have the close detail needed for street names and other specifics that locals would most likely be aware of.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
I would give Ohio's ODOT a very poor grade as far as helping non-locals finding numbered routes:
(examples)
Just plain laziness on ODOT's part.
In my opinion, it really depends on the situation as to what should be signed.
Numbered routes aren't always useful in navigating certain areas. To me, it's important to sign those numbered routes that actually go somewhere. If it's just a state maintained route that happens to coincide with an urban street, that number doesn't necessarily need to be posted along the freeway.
I don't know what the case is with the ODOT examples mentioned. But this has been Nevada DOT's general policy. For example, along I-15 within the Las Vegas Valley, there are 11 interchanges with major arterial roadways that are also state-maintained highways. Of those state routes, four actually leave the valley or serve as a primary connection to another route. Three of these four are signed from the freeway (the fourth might be as well...not sure since the freeway was recently reconstructed and signs replaced). All the other numbered routes are not signed from the freeway.
Quote from: roadfro on February 24, 2010, 09:15:33 PM
Numbered routes aren't always useful in navigating certain areas. To me, it's important to sign those numbered routes that actually go somewhere. If it's just a state maintained route that happens to coincide with an urban street, that number doesn't necessarily need to be posted along the freeway.
I don't know what the case is with the ODOT examples mentioned. But this has been Nevada DOT's general policy. For example, along I-15 within the Las Vegas Valley, there are 11 interchanges with major arterial roadways that are also state-maintained highways. Of those state routes, four actually leave the valley or serve as a primary connection to another route. Three of these four are signed from the freeway (the fourth might be as well...not sure since the freeway was recently reconstructed and signs replaced). All the other numbered routes are not signed from the freeway.
With regards to signage for Nevada urban state highways - in most of those examples, isn't surface-street signing of those designations very sparse at best? In that case, the names are being used more anyway.
In California, I think every effort is made to acknowledge (signed) state routes off of freeway exits in urban areas, with a few exceptions (Routes 213 and 47 in the Los Angeles harbor region, both of which do have signage but are not noted off I-405). Former Route 274 in San Diego was signed off of the freeways it intersected, as is current State Route 66 in San Bernardino. Former Route 160 was signed off of US 50 when it went down Freeport Boulevard in Sacramento.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 24, 2010, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 24, 2010, 09:15:33 PM
I don't know what the case is with the ODOT examples mentioned. But this has been Nevada DOT's general policy. For example, along I-15 within the Las Vegas Valley, there are 11 interchanges with major arterial roadways that are also state-maintained highways. Of those state routes, four actually leave the valley or serve as a primary connection to another route. Three of these four are signed from the freeway (the fourth might be as well...not sure since the freeway was recently reconstructed and signs replaced). All the other numbered routes are not signed from the freeway.
With regards to signage for Nevada urban state highways - in most of those examples, isn't surface-street signing of those designations very sparse at best? In that case, the names are being used more anyway.
That is true in the majority of cases. There are other urban routes that have received a decent amount of surface-street signage while having no route numbers on freeway guide signs.
The original point is still valid though. If the state route is really useful for regional navigation, it should be signed from the freeway. If it's just an arterial, signing from the freeway isn't as important as the street name. I do think US highways should always be signed though, either on main signs or supplemental signs as appropriate to the situation.
Quote from: roadfro on February 25, 2010, 12:24:31 AM
That is true in the majority of cases. There are other urban routes that have received a decent amount of surface-street signage while having no route numbers on freeway guide signs.
I haven't been to Vegas in 6 years...but I recall NV 604 being one of the worst-signed routes - though at least one sign DID exist - that of course being much more famous as either Las Vegas Boulevard or The Strip. (In any case, most of that designation has been decomissioned if I am not mistaken.)
Other than NV 146, are there any other well-signed state routes within the Las Vegas urban area?
Quote from: roadfro
The original point is still valid though. If the state route is really useful for regional navigation, it should be signed from the freeway. If it's just an arterial, signing from the freeway isn't as important as the street name. I do think US highways should always be signed though, either on main signs or supplemental signs as appropriate to the situation.
Sometimes I think this is also dependent on the size of the metro area, case in point Route 82 in the Peninsula/SF/San Jose, which is ALWAYS signed off of freeways even though the road is known much more as El Camino Real for most segments. While 82 is honestly just a long arterial route, its length makes it an important surface corridor in the entire region, as opposed to a short 10-mile boulevard.
The much shorter Route 47 near Long Beach is an interesting case (where it is not signed from the freeways it intersects), for that designation, as Alameda Street (along with the Terminal Island Freeway) serves as a vital connector to the Los Angeles port area.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 25, 2010, 01:48:46 AM
Sometimes I think this is also dependent on the size of the metro area, case in point Route 82 in the Peninsula/SF/San Jose, which is ALWAYS signed off of freeways even though the road is known much more as El Camino Real for most segments. While 82 is honestly just a long arterial route, its length makes it an important surface corridor in the entire region, as opposed to a short 10-mile boulevard.
Actually, exits on I-380 in San Bruno, CA-92 in San Mateo and CA-85 in Mountain View for El Camino Real/CA-82 are signed with
both the route number (82) and name (El Camino Real). Exit signage on CA-85 for El Camino Real also include city names (Mountain View and Sunnyvale). All exit signs with the exception of northbound CA-85 are new ones that include exit numbers.
Exits on I-880 in San Jose are also signed with the route number and name although the road's name is now "The Alameda". The southbound exit sign also includes a city name (Santa Clara). The northbound exit sign is new and includes an exit number.
Quote from: mightyace on February 22, 2010, 10:26:39 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 22, 2010, 10:02:52 PM
That's (road name next to route number above destinations) what I've seen done occasionally in Virginia, and I like it.
Tennessee does it occasionally as well.
20091222 I-65 N @ Exit 53-C by mightyace, on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4282647753/)
BTW Most people down here, myself included, simply refer to the freeway stub as Saturn Parkway and not by number.
Brevard County, FL does that on I-95 with three exits (183, 191, 195), but for example, they'll have "Fiske [FL 519 shield] Blvd" across the top with the destinations below it. Of course, the street names are of a smaller font.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 25, 2010, 03:14:19 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 25, 2010, 01:48:46 AM
Sometimes I think this is also dependent on the size of the metro area, case in point Route 82 in the Peninsula/SF/San Jose, which is ALWAYS signed off of freeways even though the road is known much more as El Camino Real for most segments. While 82 is honestly just a long arterial route, its length makes it an important surface corridor in the entire region, as opposed to a short 10-mile boulevard.
Actually, exits on I-380 in San Bruno, CA-92 in San Mateo and CA-85 in Mountain View for El Camino Real/CA-82 are signed with both the route number (82) and name (El Camino Real). Exit signage on CA-85 for El Camino Real also include city names (Mountain View and Sunnyvale). All exit signs with the exception of northbound CA-85 are new ones that include exit numbers.
Exits on I-880 in San Jose are also signed with the route number and name although the road's name is now "The Alameda". The southbound exit sign also includes a city name (Santa Clara). The northbound exit sign is new and includes an exit number.
Actually, that was pretty close to what I said :)
Quotecase in point Route 82 in the Peninsula/SF/San Jose, which is ALWAYS signed off of freeways
However, the street name is not always noted - I think this is the case for the southern 280/82 junction. (When 82 is on El Camino Real and San Jose Avenue, street name and route are both signed; I want to say this is also the case along San Carlos Street in downtown San Jose, off of Route 87.)
Quote from: TheStranger on February 25, 2010, 01:10:31 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 25, 2010, 03:14:19 AM
Actually, exits on I-380 in San Bruno, CA-92 in San Mateo and CA-85 in Mountain View for El Camino Real/CA-82 are signed with both the route number (82) and name (El Camino Real). Exit signage on CA-85 for El Camino Real also include city names (Mountain View and Sunnyvale). All exit signs with the exception of northbound CA-85 are new ones that include exit numbers.
Exits on I-880 in San Jose are also signed with the route number and name although the road's name is now "The Alameda". The southbound exit sign also includes a city name (Santa Clara). The northbound exit sign is new and includes an exit number.
Actually, that was pretty close to what I said :)
Oops. My bad. :)
Quote from: TheStranger on February 25, 2010, 01:10:31 PM
Quotecase in point Route 82 in the Peninsula/SF/San Jose, which is ALWAYS signed off of freeways
However, the street name is not always noted - I think this is the case for the southern 280/82 junction. (When 82 is on El Camino Real and San Jose Avenue, street name and route are both signed; I want to say this is also the case along San Carlos Street in downtown San Jose, off of Route 87.)
You are right... sort of. There are no direct ramps from I-280 to CA-82 in downtown San Jose. Southbound traffic uses the 7th Street/Virginia Street exit while northbound traffic uses the 7th Street exit. Both exits are signed "TO 82". Below are replicas of the exit signage I've drawn for my website's exit guides...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fi280_north%2F280n_2.jpg&hash=114e228d8b5e44b3b9b8895e26ec13d602b13a81)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fi280_south%2F280s_2A.jpg&hash=2c1c35e4036050f7f06420c4600625fa6b0811dc)
With regards to CA-87 where there is an actual interchange with CA-82, all exits are signed with route number and street name (San Carlos St/Auzerais Ave northbound, Park Ave/San Carlos St southbound).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fca87_south%2F87s_6A.jpg&hash=5014387a161f27e645f8baae47f4946c5b0ac12d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fca87_north%2F87n_6.jpg&hash=b77b22ed4024f825a370ecbaedd90986a705ed00)
And for completeness, exit signage for the U.S. 101/CA-82 interchange in south San Jose also features route number and road name (Blossom Hill Rd/Silver Creek Valley Rd).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Fsvroads%2Fguides%2Fus101_north%2F101n_378.jpg&hash=8afc1b957c35ae940e72ec70d067e65e49328af8)
Quote from: TheStranger on February 25, 2010, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: roadfro on February 25, 2010, 12:24:31 AM
That is true in the majority of cases. There are other urban routes that have received a decent amount of surface-street signage while having no route numbers on freeway guide signs.
I haven't been to Vegas in 6 years...but I recall NV 604 being one of the worst-signed routes - though at least one sign DID exist - that of course being much more famous as either Las Vegas Boulevard or The Strip. (In any case, most of that designation has been decomissioned if I am not mistaken.)
Other than NV 146, are there any other well-signed state routes within the Las Vegas urban area?
SR 604 was never really well signed, as far as I'm aware... The route in unincorporated Clark County (the Strip section and south out of town) has been turned over to the county, except a small portion at the intersection of Tropicana Ave for "intersection maintenance". The route in Las Vegas was turned over to the city prior to that. SR 604 still exists in North Las Vegas and along Las Vegas Blvd up to the Apex interchange at I-15.
As to other well-signed state routes in the Vegas area:
* SR 564 (former section of SR 146) is well signed in Henderson. This is the main route into Lake Mead.
* SR 160 is decently signed in the southwest valley. This is the highway leading to Pahrump, which has been slowly getting expanded due to the explosive growth in this part of town.
That's all I know of for sure off the top of my head, as I live in Reno currently and haven't driven all the Vegas routes in some time. I do know that each route's begin/end points are almost always clearly signed, and some other routes get the occasional reassurance shield when crossing other routes (such as at the junction of SR 159 & SR 599).
Quote from: roadfro on February 25, 2010, 06:09:07 PM
That's all I know of for sure off the top of my head, as I live in Reno currently and haven't driven all the Vegas routes in some time. I do know that each route's begin/end points are almost always clearly signed, and some other routes get the occasional reassurance shield when crossing other routes (such as at the junction of SR 159 & SR 599).
Was 599 ever well-signed off of US 95 (and for that matter, was its other designation as a US 95 business loop also acknowledged much from the freeway)?
Quote from: shoptb1 on February 24, 2010, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
I would give Ohio's ODOT a very poor grade as far as helping non-locals finding numbered routes:
Same thing for Columbus on I-71 @ Polaris Parkway -- The SR-759 shields were added as separate reassurance shields above the BGS...Even in recent sign upgrades, ODOT continued to snub SR 759 shields within the BGSs -- EPIC FAIL!
Just plain laziness on ODOT's part.
With all due respect, what are you even talking about here? It's SR-750, and the BGSs definitely include them.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.315864,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.137448,-82.971025&spn=0.017126,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.137331,-82.971059&panoid=AJ0iEWvSKn8-Lr-cUfiEGQ&cbp=12,9.13,,0,4.2 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=columbus,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.315864,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio&ll=40.137448,-82.971025&spn=0.017126,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.137331,-82.971059&panoid=AJ0iEWvSKn8-Lr-cUfiEGQ&cbp=12,9.13,,0,4.2)
My bad on 2 counts on the Polaris Parkway signage...I hit the 9 instead of the 0 on the keyboard. And last time I was through there the Gemini Place exit was just starting to be built, and ODOT was still using the first-generation signs when Polaris Parkway was first created & opened.
Quote from: mightyace on February 24, 2010, 05:37:51 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
SR-8 in Akron fails to list SR-261 in the signage for Tallmadge Road
I assume you mean consistently as some BGS on Route 8 have it (or had it) if this streetview is obsolete. I lived in Cuyahoga Falls from 1985 to 1995 and remember that some of the signage for Tallmadge Ave. has OH 261 signs.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=akron,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.978077,45&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Akron,+Summit,+Ohio&ll=41.095589,-81.499672&spn=0.011708,0.010986&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.09551,-81.49965&panoid=kkpVBiwsJNBgvsfoYMDLdA&cbp=12,1.11,,0,25.04
I think that is the only one, and that sign was part of the rebuilding of Route 8 through downtown. Unless they have upgraded the rest of the signs north of the Glenwood Avenue exit, the majority of them still are shieldless:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=akron,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.038806,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Akron,+Summit,+Ohio&ll=41.104704,-81.500007&spn=0.000494,0.001206&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.104706,-81.500015&panoid=OZbH7ZWd5f4hvWO0oPKxhQ&cbp=12,187.16,,0,4
As of 4 years ago, (the last time I was through there -- I lived in Medina County at the time), ODOT had been picky in which BGSs they replaced along Route 8 between Glenwood Avenue & Graham Road. One sign on the gantry would be upgraded while the other one or two signs remained intact -- some of them first-generation signs from the late 70s with the original florescent lighting fixtures!
In the aforementioned picture above, the Perkins Street Sign was upgraded as a result of the rebuilding of Route 8 through Downtown. That Tallmadge Exit sign had been upgraded shortly after SR-261 was re-routed along Main & Tallmadge Avenues instead of the original E. Market/Newton(?)/Southwest Avenue routing to Tallmadge Circle, and yet ODOT still hasn't added ANY SR-261 shields on or above the BGS.
^^^
Just checking.
I passed through there, on Route 8 SB anyway, just after New Years, but my van was acting up so I wasn't paying attention to the BGSs.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 25, 2010, 06:23:57 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 25, 2010, 06:09:07 PM
That's all I know of for sure off the top of my head, as I live in Reno currently and haven't driven all the Vegas routes in some time. I do know that each route's begin/end points are almost always clearly signed, and some other routes get the occasional reassurance shield when crossing other routes (such as at the junction of SR 159 & SR 599).
Was 599 ever well-signed off of US 95 (and for that matter, was its other designation as a US 95 business loop also acknowledged much from the freeway)?
Oops...I actually meant SR 595 in that post, not SR 599.
I'll answer the question, though. At both interchanges with US 95, SR 599 is signed as "US 95 Business / Rancho Drive" on all the freeway and ramp guide signs. However, I've never seen any business shields along the road itself. Rancho Drive does have SR 599 shields at both ends, as well as at least one set of reassurance shields on each side of the junction with Cheyenne Ave (SR 578)--it also got new postmile panels within the last 6 months, which seem to correspond with another truncation of length south of the southern US 95 interchange.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
I would give Ohio's ODOT a very poor grade as far as helping non-locals finding numbered routes:
Cleveland's Innerbelt for the most part uses street names only, and not the route numbers (Chester Ave w/ no US 322 designation, Superior Avenue w/ no US 6 designation, etc...)
SR-8 in Akron fails to list SR-261 in the signage for Tallmadge Road nor does it fail to indicate Second Avenue as the exit for North/East SR-59 traffic although SR-59 South/West (it's randomly listed either way, depending on ODOT's mood) mysteriously appears as early as Graham Road -- 2 miles NORTH of Second Avenue!!!
I-77/US 62 in Canton is very sporadic on listing Fulton Avenue as SR-687 (Although ODOT has added a few SR-687 shields as stand alone shields atop the BGSs.
Same thing for Columbus on I-71 @ Polaris Parkway -- The SR-759 shields were added as separate reassurance shields above the BGS...Even in recent sign upgrades, ODOT continued to snub SR 759 shields within the BGSs -- EPIC FAIL!
And for the most part, all the aforementioned signs list only the street names on a single line and aren't even close to already having "too much information" on them.
Just plain laziness on ODOT's part.
I know where Polaris is, I don't know where OH 759 is. However you are correct about ODOT adding Oh 750 shields as an afterthought on the Polaris Parkway BGSes for many years. Alas, with the most recent round of "highway improvements" around I-71-Polaris, the overhead signage in both directions, have Oh 750 shields included on them since 2008.
On I-10 signs in Los Angeles and San Bernardino, and Cal. state route 60 signs in Riverside: The signs point east to Indio not Palm Springs and Banning. When the I-10 and then US 60 freeways were constructed then finished in the 1960s and early 70s, it was the main city in between Redlands and the Colorado River.
Quote from: thenetwork on February 25, 2010, 08:51:05 PM
Quote from: mightyace on February 24, 2010, 05:37:51 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on February 24, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
SR-8 in Akron fails to list SR-261 in the signage for Tallmadge Road
I assume you mean consistently as some BGS on Route 8 have it (or had it) if this streetview is obsolete. I lived in Cuyahoga Falls from 1985 to 1995 and remember that some of the signage for Tallmadge Ave. has OH 261 signs.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=akron,+oh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.978077,45&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Akron,+Summit,+Ohio&ll=41.095589,-81.499672&spn=0.011708,0.010986&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.09551,-81.49965&panoid=kkpVBiwsJNBgvsfoYMDLdA&cbp=12,1.11,,0,25.04
I think that is the only one, and that sign was part of the rebuilding of Route 8 through downtown. Unless they have upgraded the rest of the signs north of the Glenwood Avenue exit, the majority of them still are shieldless:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=akron,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.038806,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Akron,+Summit,+Ohio&ll=41.104704,-81.500007&spn=0.000494,0.001206&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.104706,-81.500015&panoid=OZbH7ZWd5f4hvWO0oPKxhQ&cbp=12,187.16,,0,4
As of 4 years ago, (the last time I was through there -- I lived in Medina County at the time), ODOT had been picky in which BGSs they replaced along Route 8 between Glenwood Avenue & Graham Road. One sign on the gantry would be upgraded while the other one or two signs remained intact -- some of them first-generation signs from the late 70s with the original florescent lighting fixtures!
In the aforementioned picture above, the Perkins Street Sign was upgraded as a result of the rebuilding of Route 8 through Downtown. That Tallmadge Exit sign had been upgraded shortly after SR-261 was re-routed along Main & Tallmadge Avenues instead of the original E. Market/Newton(?)/Southwest Avenue routing to Tallmadge Circle, and yet ODOT still hasn't added ANY SR-261 shields on or above the BGS.
They have been replaced in 2008, although some of the 1970s signs still remain.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4139%2F5037669060_3619b746af.jpg&hash=0c09f99c6e1c4644f7296414769fa64dcc01e269)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4148%2F5037669294_1d30abc050.jpg&hash=e776b5ca66b75c4efbd71cd1a2d6722aa5f3bf9c)
Quote from: The Premier on June 07, 2011, 07:35:00 PM
They have been replaced in 2008, although some of the 1970s signs still remain.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4139%2F5037669060_3619b746af.jpg&hash=0c09f99c6e1c4644f7296414769fa64dcc01e269)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4148%2F5037669294_1d30abc050.jpg&hash=e776b5ca66b75c4efbd71cd1a2d6722aa5f3bf9c)
And just
how many years -- nae DECADES -- did it finally take for ODOT to acknowledge SR-261's realignment along Tallmadge Ave??? :hmm:
BTW, on that 2nd photo, that gore sign is one of dozens of smaller signs that the City of Akron creates and installs for ODOT on area freeways. I must say that most of their signage is pretty good.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 27, 2010, 02:34:12 PM
However you are correct about ODOT adding Oh 750 shields as an afterthought on the Polaris Parkway BGSes for many years. Alas, with the most recent round of "highway improvements" around I-71-Polaris, the overhead signage in both directions, have Oh 750 shields included on them since 2008.
If I were to guess a reason for that, I'd say it's because that interchange and Polaris Pkwy (at least, west of Worthington Rd) were built years before OH-750 was extended to I-71. Simpson (http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/750.html) records that OH-750 wasn't extended until 1996, whereas the interchange and section of Polaris Pkwy west of I-71 had appeared on the Ohio Transportation Maps since the 1992 edition.
Quote from: vtk on June 29, 2011, 10:36:54 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 27, 2010, 02:34:12 PM
However you are correct about ODOT adding Oh 750 shields as an afterthought on the Polaris Parkway BGSes for many years. Alas, with the most recent round of "highway improvements" around I-71-Polaris, the overhead signage in both directions, have Oh 750 shields included on them since 2008.
If I were to guess a reason for that, I'd say it's because that interchange and Polaris Pkwy (at least, west of Worthington Rd) were built years before OH-750 was extended to I-71. Simpson (http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/750.html) records that OH-750 wasn't extended until 1996, whereas the interchange and section of Polaris Pkwy west of I-71 had appeared on the Ohio Transportation Maps since the 1992 edition.
Oh 750 was to be extended west to I-71 when the Polaris interchange was built. The delay in OH 750's eastward extension was due to A) public opposition to ODOT decommissioning Oh 605 between US 36/Oh 3 and Oh 37 (to trade off the "new" Oh 750 designation), then B) locating funding to build a bridge over the Railroad lines, which took three years (for who knows what reason).