News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Erroneous road signs

Started by FLRoads, January 20, 2009, 04:01:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

I'll check and see.  It's kinda interesting that whoever was in an office deciding those numbers back then decided the identity of some of the roads we still have today (namely, major state routes like 1, 49, and plenty of the San Diego-area numbers)!


Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM
the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!

a short form history of the convoluted nature of California route numbering:

1910s - LRNs created, useful in navigation to absolutely nobody
1926 - US routes created, auto clubs start signing them in the next few years
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans
1964 - renumbering removes any duplicate US/Interstate situations, theoretically makes state sign routes their legislative #, but introduces such great situations as:

242 (built as 24, signed as 24 until the late 1980s)
260, 112 (signed as 61 thereafter)
164 (built as 19, signed as 19 to present day)

and others over time where a perfectly serviceable road exists on the corridor, but since it is not state-maintained or state-constructed, remains unsigned:

93 (Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Dam Road)
148 (Cosumnes River Boulevard)
258 (Western Avenue)
77 (a myriad of streets from Walnut Creek to Oakland)
87 between 101 and 237
251 (Sir Francis Drake Boulevard)
128 between I-505 and Davis
the north-south segment of 84 between Livermore and Rio Vista

And let's not forget the Route 39 gap between Fullerton and I-10 - in existence in the 1940s, seemingly corrected by 1964, but then reintroduced by the late 1980s AFTER a new improved road was built!?
Chris Sampang


Quillz

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM

as for who came up with California's route numbers - one of the old articles (August '34 or Sept '34) might have that info.

I'll check and see.  It's kinda interesting that whoever was in an office deciding those numbers back then decided the identity of some of the roads we still have today (namely, major state routes like 1, 49, and plenty of the San Diego-area numbers)!


Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:15:19 PM
the thing is, California already has a near-useless set of internal route designations (the LRNs... shudder) so implicitly they recognize that the signed routes are for navigation - so then sign the damn things!

a short form history of the convoluted nature of California route numbering:

1910s - LRNs created, useful in navigation to absolutely nobody
1926 - US routes created, auto clubs start signing them in the next few years
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans
1964 - renumbering removes any duplicate US/Interstate situations, theoretically makes state sign routes their legislative #, but introduces such great situations as:

242 (built as 24, signed as 24 until the late 1980s)
260, 112 (signed as 61 thereafter)
164 (built as 19, signed as 19 to present day)

and others over time where a perfectly serviceable road exists on the corridor, but since it is not state-maintained or state-constructed, remains unsigned:

93 (Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Dam Road)
148 (Cosumnes River Boulevard)
258 (Western Avenue)
77 (a myriad of streets from Walnut Creek to Oakland)
87 between 101 and 237
251 (Sir Francis Drake Boulevard)
128 between I-505 and Davis
the north-south segment of 84 between Livermore and Rio Vista

And let's not forget the Route 39 gap between Fullerton and I-10 - in existence in the 1940s, seemingly corrected by 1964, but then reintroduced by the late 1980s AFTER a new improved road was built!?
That's the single most annoying thing about California's route system... All the gaps that will likely never be filled in. I hate that Routes 39, 65, 178, 190, etc. are all incomplete.

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
1934 - state routes numbered, auto clubs sign them
1956 - interstates created, I think these were always signed by DOH/CalTrans

the Auto Clubs stopped signing state highways in 1947.  so yes, the interstates were always done by CDOH.

there are no interstate shields with a logo, as the logo was taken away in March '57 and the interstate shield approved in July ... unless someone came up with a prototype using the preliminary-approved 1956 spec.  I'll put together a mockup tonight of what that would look like.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

#778
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 05:27:04 PM
That's the single most annoying thing about California's route system... All the gaps that will likely never be filled in. I hate that Routes 39, 65, 178, 190, etc. are all incomplete.

65 is still slated to be finished...some time 30 or so years from now.  (Seriously!)

There also has been talk about reopening 39's north end eventually, but not sure why that middle section from Fullerton to Azusa remains unsigned when there is a navigable road there!

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:07:59 PM

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)

178 and 190 can be connected.  178 through Death Valley and 190 across Sherman Pass.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:07:59 PM

For routes like 178, 190...honestly the two segments of such should be entirely different routes.  (For that matter, now that the two segments of Route 16 are seperated by a 30 mile gap, why should this be one numbered route if the implied concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 will not be signed?)

178 and 190 can be connected.  178 through Death Valley and 190 across Sherman Pass.

Ah, you're right, forgot about Sherman Pass!  (It's what, the only non-state highway Sierra pass?)

178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:32:13 PM
Ah, you're right, forgot about Sherman Pass!  (It's what, the only non-state highway Sierra pass?)

that's built, yes.  168 is a tough one to reconnect because that road was literally never built.

Quote178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).

yep, up Trona-Wildrose Rd and down Badwater Rd.  I've driven that road in pitch black wondering just why the Hell they can't bother to throw me a bone and a 178 reassurance.  There, I would argue that the lack of guide signage is dangerous - to have 178 clearly labeled on either side of the gap on the map, and then to lead the driver through about 100 miles of completely uncertain navigational features... the road is labeled as a gray line, but after about 40 miles of absolutely no reassurance, one does start to wonder if they've made a bad turn.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:45:12 PM

Quote178...the direct routing through Death Valley isn't buildable because of the national park boundaries, though one can reconnect both segments using part of 190 (albeit a very indirect connection).

yep, up Trona-Wildrose Rd and down Badwater Rd.  I've driven that road in pitch black wondering just why the Hell they can't bother to throw me a bone and a 178 reassurance.  There, I would argue that the lack of guide signage is dangerous - to have 178 clearly labeled on either side of the gap on the map, and then to lead the driver through about 100 miles of completely uncertain navigational features... the road is labeled as a gray line, but after about 40 miles of absolutely no reassurance, one does start to wonder if they've made a bad turn.

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:49:35 PM

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p

the way it is right now, with a big old-fashioned gap in the middle is utterly senseless.  I know people are supposed to exercise caution in Death Valley but really would a few competent sets of 178/190 guide signs in the Badwater area, and a reassurance marker oh about every 10 miles, be that bad an idea??
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:50:48 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:49:35 PM

I just think that, why not number the part going back to 190 on the west end as 178 (instead of an unnumbered road with no clue where to go), and use one of the currently unusued three digit numbers on the east half, like 212 or 214?

Knowing CalTrans, if they were to use another number, it'll be 21. :p

the way it is right now, with a big old-fashioned gap in the middle is utterly senseless.  I know people are supposed to exercise caution in Death Valley but really would a few competent sets of 178/190 guide signs in the Badwater area, and a reassurance marker oh about every 10 miles, be that bad an idea??

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.

and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

D-Dey65

I found another one in Google Images of the interchange with US 6 & NY 293 in Harriman State Park



I really have to drive on the Long Mountain Parkway, and all the other roads of Bear Mountain/Harriman State Parks.


TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.


128 is probably not that bad but I would say there are good 15-20 mile stretches between reassurance markers from what I remember.  It's been many months since I've been down that road though...
Chris Sampang

Quillz

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

Reassurance markers!? 

For one extreme example...between Winters and Route 121, Route 128 has almost NO reassurance markers whatsoever - the only way one remembers they're on a state highway is to check out the postmiles!  And this is supposed to be a fully-acknowledged, fully-signed state route in this segment!

I'm pretty sure that one does not go more than 40 miles between reassurance markers anywhere in California.

and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Even on Route 62? That just might be the loneliest road in California.

agentsteel53

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 10:46:59 PM
and, besides, between Winters and Route 121, you're not nervously eyeing your gas gauge even in the worst of darkness...
Even on Route 62? That just might be the loneliest road in California.
[/quote]

that one at least is well-signed: next services, 100 miles. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Eth

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:04:56 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 02:03:25 PM
I believe there are some 1/2 green signs at the western terminus.  No stand-alones, though.  That would be a highly tempting gantry to steal!

Is there any mention of 2 off of Interstate 10?

I think 2 is still signed from 405, but that's in the Los Angeles city limits - even there, the shield count is rather scant.

I was just in Santa Monica about a month ago, and I believe I do remember seeing a CA 2 trailblazer at the end of the first exit ramp from I-10 eastbound.

architect77


cu2010

Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2010, 09:08:27 PM
I found another one in Google Images of the interchange with US 6 & NY 293 in Harriman State Park

The US/NY shield error is (unfortunately) common in New York...

The 293 shield looks off, too...it's too short. The 6 looks better (despite being wrong), but appears to be of the crappy new standard (which is better than some of the other newer shields I've seen, but still bad compared to the old standard).
This is cu2010, reminding you, help control the ugly sign population, don't have your shields spayed or neutered.

Ian

UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

Ian

PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...








UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

Alex

Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 02, 2010, 03:30:13 PM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...


I saw those several years ago, lame that they are still wrong. What is even sadder, they were correct in 2001:
https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania200/pa-261_nb_end.jpg

Ian

Quote from: AARoads on September 04, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on September 02, 2010, 03:30:13 PM
PA 322 shield errors on PA 261 at its northern terminus at US 322 in Bethel Township, PA...


I saw those several years ago, lame that they are still wrong. What is even sadder, they were correct in 2001:
https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania200/pa-261_nb_end.jpg

And PennDOT (or whatever contractor) did not see a different shield design when replacing them??
UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

mefailenglish

There are several PA 119 shields in and around Point Marion along US 119.


WillWeaverRVA

More US/state route error madness. Bad things come in threes, apparently:


Not VA 407: Bad Things Come in Threes by Will Weaver, on Flickr

1. Non-cutout shields for I-264 and I-464
2. This should be a VA 407 shield, not a US 407 shield (it's also the wrong width but I'll ignore that)
3. Number 2 doesn't apply because this isn't part of VA 407! (VA 407 runs from VA 168 to the Norfolk/VA Beach line...it ended about half a mile before here)
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

US71

I saw one yesterday (didn't get photos, but maybe Bugo has some)

US70B in North Little Rock is posted as "mainline" US 70
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.