city names on freeway signs

[shoptb1]

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

[mightyace]

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I assume you mean consistently as some BGS on Route 8 have it (or had it) if this streetview is obsolete.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

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.

[roadfro]

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...

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.

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.

[TheStranger]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[TheStranger]

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?

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[florida]

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

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.

[TheStranger]

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

case 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.)

[myosh_tino]

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.  

case 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...

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).

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).

[roadfro]

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).

[TheStranger]

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)?

[thenetwork]

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

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.

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.

[mightyace]

^^^

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

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.

[Desert Man]

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.

[The Premier]

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.

[thenetwork]

They have been replaced in 2008, although some of the 1970s signs still remain.

And just how many years -- nae DECADES -- did it finally take for ODOT to acknowledge SR-261's realignment along Tallmadge Ave??? 

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. 

[vtk]

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 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.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

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 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).