Sign Replacement Overkill

[Alex]

With all these talks about budget woes, spending cuts, wastes of money, etc., some attention should be given to how often signs are needlessly replaced. Two examples I noticed this week while working on some page updates:

This particular sign was replaced four times over a six year period (2001-2007):



And even better, the first image taken in 2004, replaced in 2006, and again in 2008:

[froggie]

I'm assuming you're not counting hurricanes (or the signs survived them), considering there were some nasty hurricanes in that area in '04 and '05...

[Alex]

I'm assuming you're not counting hurricanes (or the signs survived them), considering there were some nasty hurricanes in that area in '04 and '05...

I factored that as a possibility for just one of the sign replacements for Exit 22. Though other area signs (such as those for Exit 25) were unaffected, so even that is not guaranteed...

[Central Avenue]

Assuming those first four pictures are in chronological order, I'd say the latest exit 22 sign is also the ugliest.

[OracleUsr]

Doesn't the MUTCD require that even the pull-through sign on the bottom set have the raised caps like the two guide signs, or not?

[J N Winkler]

Yes, the MUTCD does require taller initial caps for cardinal direction words, regardless of the type of sign on which the cardinal direction word appears.

I don't have pictures readily to hand, but after compiling about 10,500 TxDOT sign design sheets over a period of 10 years, I have seen some "frequent flyers."  I estimate that the signs for the SH 349 Iraan/Sheffield exit off I-10 in Crockett County have been replaced at least two, and possibly three, times.  I have seen signs for RM 620/McNeil Road on IH 35 in multiple contracts over several years.  Sometime in the late nineties or early noughties (certainly after 1998) TxDOT completely replaced the approach signing on IH 40 for the IH 27 turban when that interchange was reconstructed; later, in 2004, the new signs were themselves replaced with new Clearview signs.  I also suspect some of the signs on IH 10 in El Paso have been replaced twice in the last ten years.

There are often perverse incentives for unnecessary sign replacements.  Often construction plans for sign replacements are developed by consultants rather than in-house and if the fees are based on sheet count rather than cost-plus, there is an incentive for the consultant to include designs for signs which have been replaced only recently.  Some types of term maintenance contract (not used that frequently in the US, but very common in, e.g., England) incentivize early replacement of signs by providing full funding before a cutoff date, and only partial funding (effectively, a penalty for the term contractor) after that date; that encourages the term contractor to replace signs which are slightly damaged but still serviceable (fine scratches and dents, that kind of thing).  Many agencies don't have computerized sign inventories, let alone ones with built-in condition tracking, so oftentimes replacing the sign whether it needs it or not consumes less clerical and field resource than actually checking the sign before marking it down for replacement.

[Central Avenue]

Doesn't the MUTCD require that even the pull-through sign on the bottom set have the raised caps like the two guide signs, or not?

Also the fourth Exit 22 sign has "North" and "South" in mixed-case.

[Alex]

Assuming those first four pictures are in chronological order, I'd say the latest exit 22 sign is also the ugliest.

Correct, they are in chronological order. I also think the most recent install is the ugliest. 

Judging by how badly the sign is dealing with the elements, it likely will be time to change it yet again