Sign changes submitted to DOT by roadgeeks that actually got changed

[Alex]

Persistence is not always rewarded with contacting DOT's with errors. I've failed thus far with some recent attempts to point out errors or outdated signs.

[Bryant5493]

^^ Agreed. I've been trying to get signage installed to alert drivers on Camp Creek Parkway East/West (S.R. 6) that traffic merges right to left from US 29. Also, I'm trying to get two ramps (Perkerson Road to SR 166 East/Lakewood Avenue to SR 166 West) closed on Arthur Langford Jr. Parkway (SR 166) closed, because the ramps don't allow enough time and distance to merge safely.

I've tried these two suggestions at least twice before; hopefully, this time -- the third time -- will be the charm.


Be well,

Bryant

[Bryant5493]

I sent this first video to the Clayton County Department of Transportation and Development.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrrK06_U-Ik

This is the change based upon my video and suggestion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpSSejl0N0


Be well,

Bryant

[US71]

Near Huntsville, AR is War Eagle Creek. I noticed the signs were changed to War Eagle River. I contacted AHTD and they sort of said "oops" and replaced the signs.

[Alex]

I discovered that the mileage is off on two exit signs on the I-10 Mobile Bayway, but am not even going to bother contacting anyone on it given my poor response rate lately from ALDOT.

[US71]

I've discovered a 4 mile difference in the new mileage signs along I-40. Going west from Little Rock, the mileage to Ft Smith is nearly the same as the milepost numbers. Yet, when the new signs were erected, Ft Smith was suddenly 4 miles closer.

I haven't decided if I will write AHTD about this as the last 2 times I wrote, I got BS answers.

[Alex]

The sign on I-10 eastbound at FL 87 lists Navarre at 18 miles. Yet if you turn south on FL 87, the mileage reads 19. The PIO from FDOT did not respond to my other corrections or direct me to the appropriate person. I wrote about 4 items including a junction U.S. 90 shield posted on U.S. 90 westbound ahead of U.S. 98.

[ctsignguy]

This doesnt fall under 'actually got changed'....but maybe sometime in the future it will....

Current Connecticut State Route Marker


boring...and too close to similar route markers in Massachusetts, Rhody and Maine....

in the 1970s, Connecticut experimented with this design....usually seen on Conn 15 on the Merritt Parkway, a few with different numbers were used elsewhere in the state, but never in any real numbers...


I took that basic design and made two different shields with Photoshop....i then took the modified photos to Jeff Adams, head of the Connecticut State Sign Shop and he was impressed with how unique and different looking they were...

Prototype A - the cooler sign in my opinion (and his)


Prototype B - the better sign if number readability was the key issue


When i departed, he was lending some serious thought to making up a couple of prototypes, and showing them to the Connecticut DOT Commissioners (although he did say that they tend to have their own thoughts and ideas....but who knows?  They might actually like one or both designs!)

[agentsteel53]

I've discovered a 4 mile difference in the new mileage signs along I-40. Going west from Little Rock, the mileage to Ft Smith is nearly the same as the milepost numbers. Yet, when the new signs were erected, Ft Smith was suddenly 4 miles closer.

I haven't decided if I will write AHTD about this as the last 2 times I wrote, I got BS answers.

what's the MUTCD's official graphical representation for "caution: space-time continuum defies logic.  drive carefully."?

[ctroadgeek]

boring...and too close to similar route markers in Massachusetts, Rhody and Maine....

in the 1970s, Connecticut experimented with this design....usually seen on Conn 15 on the Merritt Parkway, a few with different numbers were used elsewhere in the state, but never in any real numbers...

Also living in Connecticut, I totally agree with you. It would seem that the shape of the state would be very easy to incorporate into a state route shield, much as you have shown us. It's not just that a square is a boring design, but that bordering states have pretty much the same one.

[ctsignguy]

boring...and too close to similar route markers in Massachusetts, Rhody and Maine....

in the 1970s, Connecticut experimented with this design....usually seen on Conn 15 on the Merritt Parkway, a few with different numbers were used elsewhere in the state, but never in any real numbers...

Also living in Connecticut, I totally agree with you. It would seem that the shape of the state would be very easy to incorporate into a state route shield, much as you have shown us. It's not just that a square is a boring design, but that bordering states have pretty much the same one.

And the other problem is since they went away from State name on the shields, Connecticut has been dreadfully inconsistent on signing style (a fact Jeff admits to), with even some Mass-style signs getting into the mix....

[Darkchylde]

I've never submitted sign changes to DOTD, but oddly enough, right after I take pictures of some areas, the signage changes. I've reported on some of my pages about missing signs, and they go up. Go figure.

[myosh_tino]

My local paper (San Jose Mercury News / http://www.mercurynews.com) has a column called the Roadshow written by Gary Richards and he has helped resolve everything from sign goofs to potholes to traffic signal issues.  Apparently he has good connections with the local and state transportation agencies and is very good at alerting these agencies of problems on our roads and highways.

[rickmastfan67]

Don't like reviving threads, but I have an experience that I wanted to share.

--

Was traveling in Jacksonville, FL one day documenting the current status of the reconstruction of the I-10/I-95 interchange.  Well, I noticed that an exit tab for Exit #351C that had survived after that exit had been permanently closed on top of an I-95 BGS (It said "TO EXIT 351C").  So, I shoot off an e-mail to FDOT about it.  They thanked me for pointing out the missed sign and said they were going to tell the contractor to remove it asap.  Next time I used that interchange, it was removed.

[LeftyJR]

I have emailed PennDOT twice about sign goofs - the first was an incorrect US220 shield (it read PA220), and the second were some guide sign goofs on PA-28 that were leading people to the wrong place.  They actually responded to both concerns in less than 48 hours (via email) and were fixed within 30 days.  I used their online customer service link.

[bugo]

I have emailed PennDOT twice about sign goofs - the first was an incorrect US220 shield (it read PA220), and the second were some guide sign goofs on PA-28 that were leading people to the wrong place.  They actually responded to both concerns in less than 48 hours (via email) and were fixed within 30 days.  I used their online customer service link.

WHY?  Sign goofs are cool, unless they give blatantly false information.  A state shield instead of a US shield with the same number isn't hurting anybody.  A goof is something interesting to look at, when it is fixed it's just another sign.

[Scott5114]

Can't speak for Lefty, but I personally find sign errors annoying. It's just proof that those in charge don't care as much as I do, when they should. If it's fixed, then at least it proves they care enough to amend the error. Plus, you should know as well as I do, that in Oklahoma there are a few situations where a state shield instead of a US shield with the same number does give blatantly false information–US/OK 270 is probably the worst offender, but there are several number overlaps like US/OK 54, 59, 266, etc.

Sign goofs are not cool.

[architect77]

Those of you living in Ohio would definitely have your work cut out for you. One thread on here highlights Ohio's multitude of signing errors.

[akotchi]

I'm with Scott on this.  I also get annoyed where a three-digit number gets crammed into a two-digit shield (except, strangely, for county shields).

[agentsteel53]

I'm with Scott on this.  I also get annoyed where a three-digit number gets crammed into a two-digit shield (except, strangely, for county shields).

that is because the county route pentagon shield fits three digits more elegantly.  The number is less tall, so even two-digit numbers do not go anywhere near out to the sides, so a two- or three-digit number can be fit even in Series D most of the time.

I tend to prefer the two-digit shields with compressed digits, simply because three-digit shields can be so, so goofy-looking.  See Arkansas and Alabama for example, or even the 1961 30x25 non-proportional interstate shield.  But a well-designed three-digit shield works well, though, like the 1961 21x18/42x36 interstate shield, the 395 button copy green sign shield in my avatar, or this classic California US cutout.



it's too bad the feds didn't make a '61 spec three-digit US shield (they went instead for specifying narrower digits) because 1961 was the last year the feds introduced good-looking sign designs.

By 1970, when they did introduce wide US shields, they had clearly lost all design sensibility and sense of aesthetics.  That's why we're stuck with blob-like ugly shields for both two and three digit routes since the dawn of time.  It'll be a sad day when the last few holdout states go away from '61 spec shields to '70, '78, and whatever other abominations are coming down the pike.

[Ian]

I honestly think the 2 digit route shield for all numbered routes doesn't look bad in states that use them as a standard like Connecticut, New Hampshire, North Carolina etc.

With error signs, I am neutral about them. I think the state route/US route error is kind of annoying because it is a sign of a sign contractor's laziness. However, the state route or US route being on an interstate shield (or vise versa) is kind of interesting. It is also amusing to come up to road signs that are misspelled.

[Avalanchez71]

I had TDOT change out the text based sign that was added at the intersection of US 31 (southbound) and US 412, Bus US 412, and US 43.  For some reason the real signs were there at one point only to be replaced by the text sign.  They changed the signs back to the real signs after I sent a message to TDOT.

[US71]

ARDOT will never admit I was right, but the  "split" exit at 71B/ 112 off I-49 was confusing so I suggested guide signs to supplement the exit sign. "Not needed" is what they told me, but a few months later guide signs DID appear.

[1995hoo]

When VDOT renumbered the exits on the Beltway in Virginia, the order in which the suffix letters appeared changed because the direction in which the exit numbers ran changed. Previously, the exits had run clockwise from Exit 1 in Alexandria to Exit 14 at the GW Parkway, this consistent with the original Beltway exit numbering in which the consecutive numbers continued clockwise through Maryland up to Exit 38 at I-295. Thus, because the exits ascended clockwise, on the Inner Loop the suffix letters likewise ascended from a driver's perspective, while on the Outer Loop they descended. (Example: At Springfield on the Outer Loop, I-95 South was Exit 4C, I-395 was Exit 4B, and the thru movement on the Beltway was "Exit" 4A.)

The renumbering involved continuing the anticlockwise milepost-based numbering on Maryland's part of the Beltway into Virginia as far as Springfield; after that point, I-95's exit numbers take over, though they continue to ascend anticlockwise (and indeed I-95's presence is why Maryland's numbers ran anticlockwise to begin with). This means the suffix letters got reverse from how they were before. In Springfield on the Outer Loop, I-95 South is now Exit 57A and I-395 is Exit 57B; the thru movement on the Beltway is no longer signed as an "exit" on the Outer Loop.

But when they first signed all this, there was a problem: At that time, the thru movement was still signed as an "exit" and someone at VDOT messed up the signs such that you had I-95 South signed as Exit 57A, I-395 signed as Exit 57B, and the thru movement on the Beltway signed as "Exit" 57A–thus, there were two different movements signed as Exit 57A.

I sent in a message to VDOT reporting the problem and I got back a very nice message from Steve Titunik, the Springfield Interchange project manager, profusely thanking me for pointing out an embarrassing mistake and saying he wished he could give me an HOV exemption pass for a few weeks as a way of expressing gratitude, but that state law wouldn't allow that. So instead he mailed me a thick envelope containing some VDOT paraphernalia, including a VDOT logo pen and a beach ball (may have been some other stuff, but those are the two items I remember–it's been at least 15 years now).

In the years since then, I've contacted VDOT to report when someone was putting exit tabs on the wrong side of advance BGSs on the Beltway. Someone was putting the exit tab for the immediate upcoming right-side exit on the right and the tab for exits beyond that on the left, maybe in a misguided effort to balance out the sign assembly's appearance when two signs with exit tabs appeared next to each other. They corrected the mistakes, but I didn't get any special merchandise for my efforts.

The other notable sign change that happened after I requested it was back when VDOT raised the speed limit in the I-395 HOV lanes to 65 mph. I noticed that a lot of people seemed not to be speeding up to 65 when the lanes were pointed southbound and I theorized that the reason was that the southbound 65-mph sign near the Pentagon was located somewhat behind a light pole in a fairly busy area where it was easy to miss, and then there wasn't another speed limit sign for several miles due to the lack of onramps. I suggested that VDOT post a second sign near Shirlington, a mile or so south of the first one, to remind people of the higher speed limit, and they did! My father said I should get to give the sign an honorary name and, as a joke, I said it should be the Ronald Reagan Memorial Speed Limit Sign (this because my then-girlfriend, now wife, was always griping about too many things being named for Reagan). That sign is gone now after the HO/T lane conversion because they use variable speed limits. I didn't try to contact them to ask if I could have it because I'm sure they would have said no and because there isn't space on my garage wall for it anyway.

[jeffandnicole]

Since we're bumping here...everything here was done a good 20-25 years ago or so:

I observed, almost daily, that traffic on Rt. 42 North at the Creek Road accel lane was moving to the right preparing for entering 295, only to need to merge left again as the accel lane ended.  I wrote NJDOT asking that they convert the skip lines (which indicate passing from either lane) to a solid line/skip line, to more heavily demonstrate that this was an accel lane so motorists wouldn't weave into the accel lane.  They did paint the solid line (which they didn't duplicate after the road was repaved many years later).

There was a beyond-faded NJ 41 sign somewhere.  Been like that for years.  I wrote NJDOT, and it was replaced.

When new BGS signage was installed on I-295, one of the towns was mis-spelled ( https://goo.gl/maps/CDvRffvTVW6Xp7H56 , originally signed as Gibbtsown), I took a pic and the local paper printed it with photo credit to me.  NJDOT described the process of how they fix errors like this, and it was fixed fairly quickly.

And my biggest change that I'll never get credit for (and honestly, probably have absolutely no proof of...): Way back when the 295/76/42 interchange in NJ was in the forever-development stage, I submitted a hand-drawn version of how I think the interchange should be reworked.  I brought and submitted my drawings to one of their public meetings, only to be told that the angle of 295 over 42 was much too acute.  Low and behold, the selected design of the interchange has this very same angle I submitted many years prior!  The entire design I had isn't duplicated - the ramp from 42 North to 295 North isn't what I envisioned, and I tried incorporating the missing movements this interchange had into the overall redesign that remained separated into its own project, but I would like to think that my drawing was sitting on someone's desk, and they decided to see if my vision would ultimately be workable.