The Best of Road Signs

[national highway 1]

I like those angled exit signs. Reminds me of the 50s and those attractions on US 66.

[Brandon]

More IDOT button copy:



Missing a bar (I think it fell off years ago):



InDOT button copy:

[Kacie Jane]

I can't include either of those last two in my personal "Best of".

Even discounting the missing bar, there's unnecessary green space between the 57 and Chicago.  In the third photo, the layout on the right panel is all wrong -- most egregiously, the lack of space between "Ripley" and "Toll".

Just as Clearview doesn't automatically make a sign "worst of", button copy shouldn't automatically make a sign "best of".

[mukade]

Wasn't "Ripley St." added later? One thing funny, whe I lived up in NWI, I never heard anyone ever call it Ripley Street. Everyone I knew always called it "51".

[Brandon]

Wasn't "Ripley St." added later? One thing funny, whe I lived up in NWI, I never heard anyone ever call it Ripley Street. Everyone I knew always called it "51".

The sign's been that way as long as I can remember.  There's another nearer the exit that's missing and I-90 shield.

[Takumi]

Original overheads at VA 10/32 crossing over the US 13/58/460 bypass in Suffolk. There were no more VA 10 eastbound postings after this.

[PurdueBill]

The Memphis/Chicago pair seem to be part of Illinois's like for signs on the same overhead assembly to be the same height even though one of them could be shorter. 

The missing separator between the exit number and the rest of the sign evokes old Mass signage to me--although only when the main sign is pretty narrow or the exit number something with an A-B shown would an old Mass sign have a full-width tab with no separator.

[national highway 1]

Not everyday you see a BGS FM/RM road:

Old black on white FM/RM roads:


Well proportioned square, prior to the implementation of the thick border:

Good arrow shields:

Green digits

Wyoming type, a trace of Mexico:

[Alps]

Not everyday you see a BGS FM/RM road:

I heard these are becoming the new standard.

[Central Avenue]

I could do without the all-caps Clearview for "JUNCTION" but otherwise I like it.

[connroadgeek]

I don't think I've ever seen a distance sign on CT freeways

Conn Tpke:  NB / Greenwich
Parkway:  WCP SB in Meriden
I-84:  WB there's one in the Union area, don't think there's any EB
I-91:  None I can think of, though I remember one SB between Exits 21 & 20 which had mile and km distances but that's been gone for years.
I-95:  One NB in Stonington, two SB between N. Stonington and Groton
CT 2:  EB and WB between Glastonbury and Norwich, at least one in each direction, if not 2
CT 9:  One in each direction between Exits 8 & 9

Maybe a few others. 

All are single-pieced signs, not the "separate tabs".  Those only appear on surface roads.  Same goes for VT as well.

Distance signs on CT highways are rare - end of story. The state is tiny and doesn't warrant distance signs - everything is close by distance but far by time. More useful would be electronic signs giving time to a particular point. Instead our electronic signs tell us that if we don't click it we'll get a ticket. Thanks that's useful.

[national highway 1]

I do like this TN 33 shield, even if it's not centered properly:

[Alps]

I don't think I've ever seen a distance sign on CT freeways

Conn Tpke:  NB / Greenwich
Parkway:  WCP SB in Meriden
I-84:  WB there's one in the Union area, don't think there's any EB
I-91:  None I can think of, though I remember one SB between Exits 21 & 20 which had mile and km distances but that's been gone for years.
I-95:  One NB in Stonington, two SB between N. Stonington and Groton
CT 2:  EB and WB between Glastonbury and Norwich, at least one in each direction, if not 2
CT 9:  One in each direction between Exits 8 & 9

Maybe a few others. 

All are single-pieced signs, not the "separate tabs".  Those only appear on surface roads.  Same goes for VT as well.

Distance signs on CT highways are rare - end of story. The state is tiny and doesn't warrant distance signs - everything is close by distance but far by time. More useful would be electronic signs giving time to a particular point. Instead our electronic signs tell us that if we don't click it we'll get a ticket. Thanks that's useful.

Hm? Distance signs are all over the place in CT.

[J N Winkler]

Not everyday you see a BGS FM/RM road:

I heard these are becoming the new standard.

Previously discussed here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7038.msg159729#msg159729

The claim has indeed been made that these signs represent a new standard.  I disbelieve it (they appeared just in one contract, as designable signs, and not in any other signing contracts).  SHSD fails to confirm that they are a standard.

[Duke87]

New York City was forced to replace all their street signs in the late 70's/early 80's when the feds, MUTCD in hand, demanded they be white on green. Previously, there was a color code by borough.
Bronx = white on blue
Queens = blue on white
Brooklyn = white on black
Manhattan and Staten Island  = black on yellow

Well, I found a survivor today:


Apparently there are still a few others left, but this is a rarity.

[roadman]

Not everyday you see a BGS FM/RM road:

I heard these are becoming the new standard.

Previously discussed here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7038.msg159729#msg159729

The claim has indeed been made that these signs represent a new standard.  I disbelieve it (they appeared just in one contract, as designable signs, and not in any other signing contracts).  SHSD fails to confirm that they are a standard.

This shield format for BGSes has been the Federal standard for state route shields with black backgrounds on BGSes for some time (IIRC, it first showed up in the 1988 MUTCD).  See the MUTCD - Section 2E.27 and Figure 2E-17.  The rationale is that, at night, the amount of black space visible on the BGS for a shield with black background detracts from the overall legibility of the sign.

The generally accepted exception to this standard is for state route shields (like MA, CT) on BGSes that have an inset black border.  In those cases, the inset border can remain on the marker.

[J N Winkler]

Not everyday you see a BGS FM/RM road:

I heard these are becoming the new standard.

Previously discussed here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7038.msg159729#msg159729

The claim has indeed been made that these signs represent a new standard.  I disbelieve it (they appeared just in one contract, as designable signs, and not in any other signing contracts).  SHSD fails to confirm that they are a standard.

This shield format for BGSes has been the Federal standard for state route shields with black backgrounds on BGSes for some time (IIRC, it first showed up in the 1988 MUTCD).  See the MUTCD - Section 2E.27 and Figure 2E-17.  The rationale is that, at night, the amount of black space visible on the BGS for a shield with black background detracts from the overall legibility of the sign.

The generally accepted exception to this standard is for state route shields (like MA, CT) on BGSes that have an inset black border.  In those cases, the inset border can remain on the marker.

Roadman, I am afraid you misunderstand.  The point at issue here is not that the FM "shields" appear against the sign background without a black surround.  Texas already has a standard guide-sign FM shield which consists of a white rectangle whose width varies as needed to accommodate the route number digits in Series D (black) at an uniform height.  This shield is quite bland compared to the independent-mount design, which positions the route number digits within the state outline on a square blank with a black or brown background.  The digits always appear in Series D but the height varies as required to fit the designation within the state outline.

The sign shown in the photo was installed as part of a major signing contract around 2007 in which, instead of using the standard guide-sign FM shield, TxDOT experimented with using the route number digits and foreground elements of the independent-mount shield against the green guide sign background, as if they formed a guide sign shield.  This contract covered signs in only one of TxDOT's 26 districts.  This experiment was not repeated in any other districts or in any other signing contracts, a point to which I can speak with some expertise since I collect sign design sheets for every construction and maintenance contract TxDOT processes through its statewide letting.

Some contributors to this board believe that, in spite of its design advantages for high-speed traffic, TxDOT's standard guide-sign FM shield is boring compared to the independent-mount shield, and they would like to believe that TxDOT has adopted the experimental state-outline design as a new standard.  The intent of my previous post was to point out that there is no evidence this has happened.  I would not expect it to, since the design is fairly wasteful of material compared to the guide-sign FM shield that is already the established standard.  (There is a limit beyond which the additional material usage cannot be justified as enhancing target value.)

Edit:  The contract I am thinking of has CCSJ 0046-03-031 and the work was performed in TxDOT's Atlanta district.  File date stamps suggest it was advertised for the November 2004 letting.

[Kacie Jane]

Some contributors to this board believe that, in spite of its design advantages for high-speed traffic, TxDOT's standard guide-sign FM shield is boring compared to the independent-mount shield, and they would like to believe that TxDOT has adopted the experimental state-outline design as a new standard.  The intent of my previous post was to point out that there is no evidence this has happened.  I would not expect it to, since the design is fairly wasteful of material compared to the guide-sign FM shield that is already the established standard.  (There is a limit beyond which the additional material usage cannot be justified as enhancing target value.)

For me, the issue has nothing to do with the BGS shield being boring -- or conversely, has nothing to do with the BGS shield being better for high speed traffic.

I just think that it's at best odd, and at worst confusing to the average motorist, to use completely different shields on BGSs from what they use on the route itself.

[J N Winkler]

For me, the issue has nothing to do with the BGS shield being boring -- or conversely, has nothing to do with the BGS shield being better for high speed traffic.

I just think that it's at best odd, and at worst confusing to the average motorist, to use completely different shields on BGSs from what they use on the route itself.

Yes, TxDOT's approach flies in the face of the MUTCD Guidance statement (in 2D.11, and referred to in Roadman's post upthread) that addresses the design of state route markers.  However, the Standard statement provides that the state route shields shall be as designed by the state DOT.

In actuality the guide-sign and independent-mount SH shields are a reasonably close match to each other, the main difference being that the independent-mount shield is always square and has a heavy black border with the digits above rather than below "TEXAS."  The problem rests with the FM/RM shields and certain other specialty shields which use the state outline.  I personally don't complain too loudly since the logical and economical fix, if TxDOT wanted to conform more completely to MUTCD guidance, would be to substitute white squares for the independent-mount shield designs that currently use the state outline.

[Brandon]

Was going through St Louis earlier on I-64/US-40 eastbound, and saw this for a gore sign.  I kind of liked it.

[CanesFan27]

How long did NC use button copy? Those shields look very modern.

These were a test project done in the mid-late 90s when they widened US 1 to four lanes from a Super Two.  There had been a similar project on I-485 in the Matthews area.

[Alex]

Was going through St Louis earlier on I-64/US-40 eastbound, and saw this for a gore sign.  I kind of liked it.

It is quite useful considering that there is no access to I-70 west or I-55 south from I-64 east. You simply default into East St. Louis.

[agentsteel53]

Green digits

nope, those are black - it is just the photo quality which makes them look green.

[agentsteel53]

I just think that it's at best odd, and at worst confusing to the average motorist, to use completely different shields on BGSs from what they use on the route itself.

not only that, but the surface-level signs say FARM ROAD, while the green signs say FM.  I remember my first time driving in Texas - I did not have an instinctive understanding that those two meant the same thing.  I happened to get off at some FM exit to get gas, and saw a FARM ROAD with the same number going off into the distance, so I made the connection by observation, but it was quite a bit longer before I learned that FM meant "farm to market".

[thenetwork]

Was going through St Louis earlier on I-64/US-40 eastbound, and saw this for a gore sign.  I kind of liked it.

I see this as a very confusing sign. I know most of us read it as, "Last Missouri Exit, Exit 40", but a lot of people not familiar with the area could read it as, "Last Missouri Exit...(US-) 40 exit here." 

The assembly would be better off with a standard, but smaller EXIT 40 sign with diagonal arrow and a black on yellow square immediately below it stating "LAST EXIT IN MISSOURI".