Consider the look, function, lineage, and design.
Discuss.
Are you talking about shield design, or just signage in general?
In both, I give Kansas my vote for the best signage. Kansas BGSes are designed very well, usually clear and also appealing to the eye. The sunflower is a great, eye-catching design with a symbol well-suited to the state. Tennessee is a close runner up in terms of BGS construction, and Wisconsin takes third.
Oklahoma has IMO a fine shield design but the BGSes here are woefully inconsistent. Some of the signs look downright bad.
my favorite shield is Nebraska - both the old and new styles.
best signage in general - California. where else are you going to find so many signs from the late 1950s??? From a functional perspective, it's a disaster of course, but old porcelain is awesome.
Favorite shield- Florida
Best signage- Probably Maryland. When you're on the Interstate and not familiar with the area, they will not hesitate to throw anything on their attraction signs. Even their ungodly short and useless state routes are sign fairly well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2009, 04:50:48 PM
best signage in general - California. where else are you going to find so many signs from the late 1950s??? From a functional perspective, it's a disaster of course, but old porcelain is awesome.
Admit it–that's why you picked it to be where you lived :P
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fnypics%2Fregional%2Ferie%2Fnorthtowns%2F324-190on190n.jpg&hash=49cc7b094a99981badf21929c57b5351b4d229f6)
*cringes*
no, I simply happened to get a job there. I'm moving to New Mexico in a few weeks!
In terms of rather nonstandard stuff that looks good, there's the New Jersey Turnpike, and the Merritt Parkway.
The Connecticut Turnpike also originally had its own distinct style of signs, but they're all long gone in favor of MUTCD-standard signage.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 07, 2009, 09:30:58 PM
In terms of rather nonstandard stuff that looks good, there's the New Jersey Turnpike, and the Merritt Parkway.
I was gonna say the same thing. I like NJTP's way of having the exit # and the distince to it on the top of the sign. I also like the style of arrow at the exits.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5343891597076737106 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5343891597076737106)
I call it the "snake arrow". That photo shows some of the older signs on the trurnpike. I also like how the Merritt Parkway has the "points" (I don't know what to call them) on the sides of the signs...
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/ConnecticutTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5323241816371679602 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/ConnecticutTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5323241816371679602)
Hates:-I am not a fan of NJDOT's freeway signage. They mount most of their signs on overhead sign posts that look just too bulky. Here is an example:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5341344115943163410 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5341344115943163410)
Just to big and too bulky for anywhere.
-I also hate NJDOT's practice of putting black space behind the state and US routes. Not a huge fan of it.
-Another thing I hate about NJDOT's freeway signs is that on a huge number of them, they use a huge amount of unnecessary green space. Here is a perfect example:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5341344474788401634 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewJerseyTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5341344474788401634)
Those signs can be downsized by a whole lot IMHO.
Likes:-I like how on most signs in New Hampshire and on the Maine Turnpike are signed in both English and metric:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewHampshireTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5353972540036942962 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewHampshireTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5353972540036942962)
-I also like how Connecticut's older practice is having the state and US shields on the freeway signs be button copy and have the shield be green as in a part of the sign. I can't explain it well, so just look here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/ButtonCopySigns#5296923468276634562 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/ButtonCopySigns#5296923468276634562)
-I like how on older signs in MA and RI have the exit tabs as part of the sign as in no separation like between the two...
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MassachusettsTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5323185719535104162 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MassachusettsTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5323185719535104162)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324326183437799730 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324326183437799730)
-I don't know why, but I kind of like it that there are a few giant yellow diamond warning signs on the freeways in Rhode Island...
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324326029477564690 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324326029477564690)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324327826445146866 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324327826445146866)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324328058832482546 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324328058832482546)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324328112599650882 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/RhodeIslandTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5324328112599650882)
My $0.02,
Ian
5114: I was referring to the BGS signage. Sorry I didn't clear that up, but appreciate your imput on guide signage.
WNY: Interesting font... :eyebrow:
My picks:
Best looking BGS: Michigan(pre-clearview) with the original underlined directions. Others incl. WVa, Ohio, and Penna(all seem to be using the sme design)
Best functional BGS: Maryland. Not neccessarily attractive, but very detailed and personable, if that's even an option.
N.C. I like in this category as well.
Ugliest BGS: Indiana.(And I was born there. Shame on you guys!)
Quote from: juscuz410 on August 08, 2009, 09:38:24 AM
Best functional BGS: Maryland. Not neccessarily attractive, but very detailed and personable, if that's even an option.
One functional peciliarity MDOT is fond of is using arrows pointing directly right instead of up/right when a ramp has a tight curve. I find it odd because I take arrows pointing directly left or right turn to mean a left or right turn (as at an intersection). Though it does practically emphasize the tightness of the curve, if unconventional.
Another is the habit of sticking shields on gore point signs at major splits. Again, functionally practical, but unusual.
Though, the best bit of novelty but functional signage I've seen is not actually signage, but pavement marking. Southbound on the NYS Thruway, approaching Exit 8 (the eastern 87/287 split), NYSTA after they redid the interchange painted I-87 and I-287 shields in the appropriate lanes (in color!) in addition to employing diagrammatic overheads. This sort of thing is apparently quite commonplace in Europe, but not here. We should do it more often. Only other place I've seen it is after the GW Bridge where NJDOT painted a NJ 4 shield in the exit only lane for it.
In terms of looks, I definitely prefer rounded-edge signs. They break more easily, but definitely look prettier.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 08, 2009, 01:57:25 PM
Quote from: juscuz410 on August 08, 2009, 09:38:24 AM
Best functional BGS: Maryland. Not neccessarily attractive, but very detailed and personable, if that's even an option.
One functional peciliarity MDOT is fond of is using arrows pointing directly right instead of up/right when a ramp has a tight curve. I find it odd because I take arrows pointing directly left or right turn to mean a left or right turn (as at an intersection). Though it does practically emphasize the tightness of the curve, if unconventional.
Another is the habit of sticking shields on gore point signs at major splits. Again, functionally practical, but unusual.
How about Maryland's unique LANE ENDS sign?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F5e%2FMDSHA_W9-2%25282%2529.svg%2F289px-MDSHA_W9-2%25282%2529.svg.png&hash=caa7531fc90246963dee4be579d7be337c48a417)
Another odd habit of theirs is placing the sloping arrow on its own line, not centered like everyone else does, nor right-aligned like Texas, but 3/4 across the width of the sign.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 08, 2009, 01:57:25 PM
Though, the best bit of novelty but functional signage I've seen is not actually signage, but pavement marking. Southbound on the NYS Thruway, approaching Exit 8 (the eastern 87/287 split), NYSTA after they redid the interchange painted I-87 and I-287 shields in the appropriate lanes (in color!) in addition to employing diagrammatic overheads. This sort of thing is apparently quite commonplace in Europe, but not here. We should do it more often. Only other place I've seen it is after the GW Bridge where NJDOT painted a NJ 4 shield in the exit only lane for it.
Oklahoma has quite a few instances of this: OK-9 EB approaching I-35, and the Fort Smith Junction come to mind. I think there are some in Tulsa as well.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 08, 2009, 01:57:25 PM
Though, the best bit of novelty but functional signage I've seen is not actually signage, but pavement marking. Southbound on the NYS Thruway, approaching Exit 8 (the eastern 87/287 split), NYSTA after they redid the interchange painted I-87 and I-287 shields in the appropriate lanes (in color!) in addition to employing diagrammatic overheads. This sort of thing is apparently quite commonplace in Europe, but not here. We should do it more often. Only other place I've seen it is after the GW Bridge where NJDOT painted a NJ 4 shield in the exit only lane for it.
Nevada DOT has used this in a couple locations in Reno, approaching the Spaghetti Bowl interchange (I-80 / US 395), complete with the full-color interstate shields as well as a US highway shield for 395. The Interstate shield is in the 2004 Standard Highway Signs book (a MUTCD-related publication), but an equivalent US shield graphic is not in the book.
VDOT recently painted I-64 shields on the C/D roads at the newly redone Battlefield Blvd. interchange in Chesapeake, in the lane that takes you through to the I-64 mainline. I really like the idea, and definitely think it should become standard in complex junctions.
^^ re:word markings. I see them in construction zones fairly often where same direction through lanes split around a work area.
Would be effective as permanent guidance, especially when approach to roadway split is on a horizontal curve -- the overhead signs are not overly clear in these cases.
I thoroughly hate the widespread use of Button Copy on BGSes in here in CT, especially when the state route sheilds are the same color as the BGS and it is denoted by a white button copy box outline, green text field, and white button copy numerals inside it.
Conn utterly butchers button copy.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Ff%2Fca%2Fx6386.jpg&hash=98fee985206a25953feaf1c95f79a04f5d769881)
this is obviously a poor photo, but ... still. That's impressively bad contrast. Button copy as intended - i.e. on non-retroreflective backgrounds - works very well.
In general I do not see why green signs need to be retroreflective - it just diminishes contrast. I think the best combination is reflective white foreground on non-reflective dark green blackground. It is more cost-effective than button copy (the buttons, and the form-fit aluminum outlines, are pretty expensive!) and is easier to see than all-reflective-all-the-time green signs.
Totally agreed. Oklahoma has the crappy reflective button copy too:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fok%2Fi-40%2Fe142.jpg&hash=8df216c5b4b7016ed5665561b7a5e15747d53351)
Photo credit: Matt Kleiman, from alpsroads.com
Scott,
Where did you find that Maryland "lane ends" graphic?
Wikipedia, of course. :sombrero: Commons, to be more exact.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diagrams_of_road_signs_of_the_United_States (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diagrams_of_road_signs_of_the_United_States)
My thing has always been shields, but recently I noticed something else about CT's BGS's. In CT Exit tabs always appear in the center of the BGS even at the exit ramp, left or right exit does not matter, the tab is centered. Exit tabs in CT do not have any white borders. The main BGS does, but the exit tab does not. I'm not sure if this is true throughout the entire state, but it seems consistent in the greater hartford area on 84, 91, and other highways. One last gripe about CT's BGS's. I notice in other states, most recently when I was in MA and RI --not that they are particularly good at signage either! But, the outside edges of BGS's I noticed in those states are nicely finished off with an aluminum trim cap piece, but I've rarely ever seen a CT BGS with this, the individual ends of the strips used to make up the BGS are exposed all up and down the sides of the signs. just some more observations on why our BGS's are generally ugly, I've already covered the whole love of Buyton-copy issue, so no need to go back into that.
EXAMPLES OF CENTERED EXIT TABS AND NOT EXIT TAB BORDERS (I-91 S in Windsor). Note the use of space on the Center Street Exit Directional. I think I would have put "Center" over "St" with the Arrow to the right of the Text instead, but that's just me I guess, not ConnDOT.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fbgs1.jpg&hash=aec1850616f5ba53e7d2e0cc871bc3554a1dd2be)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fbgs2.jpg&hash=d6d7cb66ae5eaa6a6ec695c87bb9a87071732fde)
Example of open ends on BGS's as seen on the left side of this BGS (consequently this BGS is NOT button-copy and less common in CT, on CT190 in Enfield, but it sure is ugly as all hell!)
I have seen very few signs with trim caps on the end around Manchester, strictly on a few of the non-button-copy signs there, but not all of them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fbgs3.jpg&hash=d3d8dbaced93422a79d4c9440c0492c1d5293114)
What pesters me on these Georgia highway signs is that Connector is posted as "Conn", and of course can be confused with Connecticut. :pan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Fthumb.php%3Ff%3DGeorgia%25201%2520Connector.svg%26amp%3Bwidth%3D200px&hash=4bcf1f7341ccdca456f7c366a9c1ae8991394a58)
And NYCDOT's handy signs with "Department of Transportation" smacked on the bottom should just be abbreviated with NYCDOT on the bottom. It'd be much easier, IMO.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Fthumb.php%3Ff%3DNYCDOT%2520W14-4.SVG%26amp%3Bwidth%3D200px&hash=284fae04b5c7c5d854f86dc59c0651048adcbacb)
And I don't like all those signs that look out of align or has too much space between words.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Fthumb.php%3Ff%3DNYCDOT%2520SP-145C.svg%26amp%3Bwidth%3D200px&hash=ed4c0d60c65af903b7c94594ddda3aa35d766e45)
I don't like the wording. Seems too much like something a person would say, not what a road sign would say. I think that it would be better said "NO PARKING
HERE ALWAYS" or "DO NOT PARK HERE".
QuoteWhat pesters me on these Georgia highway signs is that Connector is posted as "Conn", and of course can be confused with Connecticut.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Fthumb.php%3Ff%3DGeorgia%25201%2520Connector.svg%26amp%3Bwidth%3D200px&hash=4bcf1f7341ccdca456f7c366a9c1ae8991394a58)
I think anyone who sees that sign and thinks they are in Connecticut, has major problems and probably shouldn't be driving! :paranoid:
QuoteI think anyone who sees that sign and thinks they are in Connecticut, has major problems and probably shouldn't be driving!
But still, I think that it would look better with a connector auxiliary tab above.
I already posted this in another thread but for those that didn't go after it's ugliness there can now do it here :clap: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144NORTH25MILESSOUTHOFI-952.jpg&hash=d27469035d33b398e9ba6234f6b77b276af0b42a)
Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Fthumb.php%3Ff%3DNYCDOT%2520SP-145C.svg%26amp%3Bwidth%3D200px&hash=ed4c0d60c65af903b7c94594ddda3aa35d766e45)
I don't like the wording. Seems too much like something a person would say, not what a road sign would say. I think that it would be better said "NO PARKING
HERE ALWAYS" or "DO NOT PARK HERE".
"No Parking Anytime" works. :-P
@74/171: Where on earth is that? :ded:
Quote@74/171: Where on earth is that?
On VA 144 NB in Colonial Heights
QuoteQuote
What pesters me on these Georgia highway signs is that Connector is posted as "Conn", and of course can be confused with Connecticut.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Fthumb.php%3Ff%3DGeorgia%25201%2520Connector.svg%26amp%3Bwidth%3D200px&hash=4bcf1f7341ccdca456f7c366a9c1ae8991394a58)
I think anyone who sees that sign and thinks they are in Connecticut, has major problems and probably shouldn't be driving!
Whoa! :wow: when i first saw the image, I thought it was someone playin.
Quote"No Parking Anytime" works.
@74/171: Where on earth is that?
I do believe the Red Zone, don't even think..... signs are a NYCDOT exclusive.
Quote from: City on August 19, 2009, 08:44:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fw%2Fthumb.php%3Ff%3DNYCDOT%2520SP-145C.svg%26amp%3Bwidth%3D200px&hash=ed4c0d60c65af903b7c94594ddda3aa35d766e45)
I don't like the wording. Seems too much like something a person would say, not what a road sign would say. I think that it would be better said "NO PARKING
HERE ALWAYS" or "DO NOT PARK HERE".
That's sort of the point. I'm guessing NYCDOT intentionally worded the sign like that to get their point across stronger. It also gets your attention more than a typical bland legend would. Somewhat like the time a work zone contractor around here posted a speed limit of 52.... just to get people's attention.
A different alternative no parking sign. Churches are fond of using these:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg22.imageshack.us%2Fimg22%2F7890%2F37322392t.jpg&hash=1f0b1a4d1abdab0b044ad68b70103af337fb01ed)
It's hilarious the first time you see one, but then when you realize they're everywhere, it gets boring.
Oddly, I have never seen one of those.
do they exist in embossed form? if so I'd be more likely to note them!
Here's a worst of the worst for you!
CT20 Expressway EB to I-91 N & S
Sorry it's blurry, but you get the point, totally uncentered route number, Odd coloring, it's CT so it should have the state Name emblazoned on the shield.
Must have been placed by some contractor and is just further proof that road contractors don't give a hoot about the quality of signage. We have some much contractor placed signage in CT and I don't think one piece of it has ever been true to ConnDOT standards.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2F91noct1.JPG&hash=3483e20a79fa462ff040610e5e9878133c2f6bf6)
North Carolina's signage rocks...Arguably the best in the country. (IMHO)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Felectronicsign.jpg&hash=13fd8b5178b831940a3b550b148418b085ab3c9a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fgreensboro.jpg&hash=5ca11bbbb1fe875d069bcf490fb621d1fa1f9f76)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Falamance.jpg&hash=75bd4622d91523ccb66120f33ce87f56dea8c9d6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fralpedestal.jpg&hash=189c43ed882b3db08632216de43cb97b69104718)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fduplex.jpg&hash=6cf8de757a40803a564ee80142ff49748dc87bd1)
their green signs aren't too bad, but they do need more state-named surface-level shields.
The signs are visible by looking at Google Street View although the sun is causing blur on some of them. The capitalized S Main St is clearly visible.
RM,
As a fellow Ohioan, nothing irks me more than driving on our state's hwys/frwys and noting the inconsistencies of the signage. I was driving down I-77 from Canton towards Cambridge yesterday, lots of buttons, some newer signage, more buttons, then clearview, then back to buttons. Ugh!!
Architect,
NC does have some killer signage. There is always room for improvement though. Could use some better over/underpass signage like their neighbors to the north (and much like OUR neighbors to the north ). It would help both locals and travelers alike.
Wytout,
I need an excedrin after that pic! :crazy:
Quote from: architect77 on September 06, 2009, 05:20:59 AM
North Carolina's signage rocks...Arguably the best in the country. (IMHO)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fgreensboro.jpg&hash=5ca11bbbb1fe875d069bcf490fb621d1fa1f9f76)
Some well designed signs. I have to question the Greensboro one though...did there used to be something else on this sign? If not, that's a huge waste of space on what could be a much smaller sign.
For shields I am partial to Wisconsin, although I like Hawai'i, California, North Dakota, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, and Alabama. I like the plain circles (i.e. old Oklahoma, Iowa, etc.) but not the plain squares (i.e. Illinois, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland barely gets a pass here). I do not like the new South Carolina, I really don't like Vermont, or Idaho. Sorry Idaho, I like the rest of you pretty well.
RoadMaster,
That's ODOT at its best. The older signs are more correct. The newer signs, although more visually appealing get screwed up. The most popular of all goofups is the mixup of state & U.S. route shields on BGS signage.
ADD-on Road Master,
County Road signage is another issue with Ohio signage. Some signs bear the traditional blue pentagon with yellow trim, lettering and numbering; others with a more simple white square with the black trim, lettering, numbering (much like state signage in IN & IL) and others are just written out in full. There is NO consistency with Ohio's signage! :banghead:
Merged posts. In the future, please use the modify button. -DTP
That Greensboro Exit (120) has since been changed out; that sign is from before the link between I-85 and I-40 was built (and was at one time I-40). The idea was that you could get to West I-40 (now North I-73 thanks to the new signage) from I-85 North to go to Winston-Salem. Now you have Exit 120A for Business I-85 North, which now accesses I-40 proper in Death Valley, then Exit 120B for I-73/US 421 North, which goes to Winston-Salem, and I think that is now the second control city on the sign (I don't normally use I-85 going through southern Greensboro, so I can't say for sure)
I have complained about Michigan roads, but as far as signage goes Michigan is at the top. The state roads are well signed; even the interstate business loops. I think the brown state park signs should be bigger, but that's only a small problem.
I think Florida is one of the best also, but the Sunshine State is lazy on county route signage, especially in Orange County and some of the poles are crooked.
I think Illinois is the worst because it uses a lot of small signs and the control cities on the Chicago area freeways are to states instead of destinations
Nah, I have little complaint about the use of states as control cities around Chicago. Wisconsin is North, Indiana is East, and Iowa is West. I also like how the expressway name is on the bgs's. Now, for bad signage, those pictures of California signage come to mind. Some of them should not be shown to children.
Quote from: Brandon on October 13, 2009, 05:11:18 PM
Nah, I have little complaint about the use of states as control cities around Chicago. Wisconsin is North, Indiana is East, and Iowa is West. I also like how the expressway name is on the bgs's. Now, for bad signage, those pictures of California signage come to mind. Some of them should not be shown to children.
Examples? Are you talking about ones with bullet holes in them?
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 13, 2009, 03:32:01 PM
I think Illinois is the worst because it uses a lot of small signs and the control cities on the Chicago area freeways are to states instead of destinations
The states used in Illinois make sense, although I wonder if there's something more suitable along I-80 west besides "Iowa."
Especially for the eastbound routes, the states make sense. When you get into Indiana, you're assaulted by Indianapolis, Detroit and Toledo. Just put "Indiana" on the westbound guide signs and let the motorists figure out where they want to go when they get to Indiana.
Interesting that the non-toll road signs for I-80 mention Toledo, but entrances to the toll road give you choices of "Chicago" or "Ohio" and no mention of Toledo.
Quote from: Master son on October 13, 2009, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 13, 2009, 05:11:18 PM
Nah, I have little complaint about the use of states as control cities around Chicago. Wisconsin is North, Indiana is East, and Iowa is West. I also like how the expressway name is on the bgs's. Now, for bad signage, those pictures of California signage come to mind. Some of them should not be shown to children.
Examples? Are you talking about ones with bullet holes in them?
Probably all California's cruddy looking old button-copy signs covered with greenout patches. The bullet holes and razor wire don't help either.
The thing I like (at least on Big Green Signs) in Utah is the black trim on the US and State Route Shields; it really makes them stick out.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 08, 2009, 01:57:25 PM
Quote from: juscuz410 on August 08, 2009, 09:38:24 AM
Though, the best bit of novelty but functional signage I've seen is not actually signage, but pavement marking. Southbound on the NYS Thruway, approaching Exit 8 (the eastern 87/287 split), NYSTA after they redid the interchange painted I-87 and I-287 shields in the appropriate lanes (in color!) in addition to employing diagrammatic overheads. This sort of thing is apparently quite commonplace in Europe, but not here. We should do it more often. Only other place I've seen it is after the GW Bridge where NJDOT painted a NJ 4 shield in the exit only lane for it.
I saw this on I-10 yesterday in New Orleans. It's the first time I ever saw this.
Added missing close-quote tag - Alex
it is also done in texas too! i think it is a great idea a long time coming.
Nowadays British Columbia uses the standard Highway Gothic and Clearview fonts. But long ago, they used a variety of ugly fonts on their highway signs. They even used Helvetica sometimes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F2wovlo2.jpg&hash=39fc70deff110c6087c70c5861297448b2eb74ed)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F2iln800.jpg&hash=7564a25cb947e8f1b5ce748a854464753c699478)
I like the fonts on those two signs. Got any more examples?
When North Carolina finally gets around to widening a section of interstate, they do it right. Pictured is the reconstructed I-85 through Durham.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2F85durham.jpg&hash=cb3237506d7b9d2ad2d292f320904f944753a5d5)
NCDOT is now all about customizing sizes of overheads. Less important exits are tightly-wrapped with oversized text which looks kinda good to me.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fi85ncexit132_02.jpg&hash=699c93692220d1bd180afbb812c21827ab7ed0b3)
I wish someone would create a "Cantilevers from Hell" thread for those extremely far-reaching overheads that appear to be pushing the limit.
Quote from: architect77 on December 21, 2009, 07:40:50 AM
When North Carolina finally gets around to widening a section of interstate, they do it right. Pictured is the reconstructed I-85 through Durham.
What's the story behind that black/white lane striping? I've seen in Chicagoland where they'd repaint the lines on concrete roads like that, but with a full black stripe between the white dashes. The point I guess was so they wouldn't have to align the new dashes with the old ones, and could just paint over it blind, so to speak. This looks like a pretty deliberate and measured 50/50 white/black pattern.
Quote from: juscuz410 on September 14, 2009, 04:47:23 PM
As a fellow Ohioan, nothing irks me more than driving on our state's hwys/frwys and noting the inconsistencies of the signage. I was driving down I-77 from Canton towards Cambridge yesterday, lots of buttons, some newer signage, more buttons, then clearview, then back to buttons. Ugh!!
I totally agree! I live in Columbus and Ohio's inconsistency is mind-boggling. I'm originally from Arkansas, and am pleased to report that when they decided to switch over to Clearview...they did it correctly....all signs were replaced! Any idea when Ohio is going to replace all of this awful button-copy?
fixed malformed quotes
North Carolina's signage is just plain beautiful.
The worst easily has to be California, from the (IMO) poorly design signage layout, to the ugly old button copy signs.The ugly dark green on older signs don't help either.Then of course California has some of the ugliest gantries I've ever seen, while most other states have the nice more modern looking gantries that aren't so noticeable...
Quote from: jjakucyk on December 21, 2009, 11:01:28 AM
What's the story behind that black/white lane striping? I've seen in Chicagoland where they'd repaint the lines on concrete roads like that, but with a full black stripe between the white dashes. The point I guess was so they wouldn't have to align the new dashes with the old ones, and could just paint over it blind, so to speak. This looks like a pretty deliberate and measured 50/50 white/black pattern.
A number of states do that on concrete and faded asphalt, and it's particularly common here in Florida. It's for increased contrast. A white line on white pavement is near impossible to see, so they paint a black stripe after the white stripe.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=25.534712,-80.367662&spn=0,359.997589&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=25.534926,-80.368223&panoid=WtIKbO3yi3urW3Xgj0-O5A&cbp=12,228.58,,0,4.3
3M also makes lane marking tape for the same purpose that's a white line with black edges:
http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTtnxMcLXz6EV76EbHSHVs6EVs6E666666--
and here I think California is very distinctive, while I can't think of anything that North Carolina does that makes it memorable. Just neutered interstates, retroreflective signs, and boring state route shields. Could be anywhere in the US, really.
besides, dark green works. And yes, the 70s-90s green is a bit unattractive, but that 60s porcelain green is very good-looking.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580103i2.jpg)
even with the patches, that's a whole lot better than anything NC has to offer. Okay, fine, with one exception.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NC/NC19690742i1.jpg)
now that's the way to do it!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 01:21:26 PM
and here I think California is very distinctive, while I can't think of anything that North Carolina does that makes it memorable. Just neutered interstates, retroreflective signs, and boring state route shields. Could be anywhere in the US, really.
besides, dark green works. And yes, the 70s-90s green is a bit unattractive, but that 60s porcelain green is very good-looking.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580103i2.jpg)
even with the patches, that's a whole lot better than anything NC has to offer. Okay, fine, with one exception.
Absolutely terrible.It almost looks Ghetto(lol) Again, the Gantry is hideous, and the patches make it look like the Frankenstein of highway signage. :happy: :-D
I don't see a problem with the gantry. The right patch certainly could've been done in a better color... but the best solution is clearly to go up there with a crowbar and take them off, revealing a perfectly good US-60, I-10, US-70, US-99 gantry.
here's an example without patches. better?
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580171i1.jpg)
I will agree with Agentsteel that California's signing is VERY distinctive and sets us apart from the rest of the country... dark green guide signs, button copy, no exit numbers (until recently), older spec Interstate shields, cutout US and State shields, etc. It's all very "Californian". :)
Now it just don't get any purdier than this that's fur shur...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2F515.JPG&hash=4cc85623fd577c0b331f019e5664f10014bca17e) :spin:
unfortunately, the photo loses the nice twisted angles that these two BGS's are currently leaning to
the breakaway's look like they shoulda broke away a long time ago. Like an old man's teeth, the buttons are starting to fall out...
But for now at least... they stand fast against the elements.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 21, 2009, 01:50:54 PM
I will agree with Agentsteel that California's signing is VERY distinctive and sets us apart from the rest of the country... dark green guide signs, button copy, no exit numbers (until recently), older spec Interstate shields, cutout US and State shields, etc. It's all very "Californian". :)
For that matter, I like that California's exit numbers ARE tabbed somewhat differently from most states, also evidenced with the choice of skinnier fonts for the gore-point signs compared to those elsewhere! Maybe not the best for visibility, but it is certanly distinctive.
IIRC, one and two-digit exit numbers usually use the classic square shield, having "EXIT" and the number in the same size (with the number and arrow flush for a two-line sign); three-digit numbers usually are in a rectangular sign and have "EXIT" above the number, which is then above the arrow, making it a three-line sign. I have recently encountered at least one single-digit exit number gore sign in the California three-line format though, Exit 4 going westbound on I-80 (Bay Bridge) on Treasure Island.
Caltrans can still keep the California Style, as they do with newly placed signs with exit numbers.However, I also would like to see those hideous gantries replaced with the tubular gantry design.(Those look really nice, especially with the newer signs)
I will agree the California is "unique" and earns some "style points", but has anyone thought about functionality? I mean, these signs actually are there for a reason and honestly, the old button-copy is near to impossible to read at night from a distance compared to the new Clearview retroreflective. It really makes a huge difference, and when we're talking about the reduction of last-minute weaving...it's more than a question of style; it's a question of safety.
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 03:45:33 PM
I will agree the California is "unique" and earns some "style points", but has anyone thought about functionality? I mean, these signs actually are there for a reason and honestly, the old button-copy is near to impossible to read at night from a distance compared to the new Clearview retroreflective. It really makes a huge difference, and when we're talking about the reduction of last-minute weaving...it's more than a question of style; it's a question of safety.
Now Now, let's not be too hasty... it doesn't have to be CLEARVIEW.. blecchhhh... to be legible ;)
Quote from: wytout on December 21, 2009, 03:46:40 PM
Now Now, let's not be too hasty... it doesn't have to be CLEARVIEW.. blecchhhh... to be legible ;)
In all fairness, you're right. I do like Clearview personally b/c I find it to be the most legible in low-light conditions, but the retro-reflectivity is the most important part.
I disagree on that. I've always had an easier time reading signs with non-retroreflective backgrounds. Assuming that the sign isn't worn, the buttons not cracked, etc...
this is especially true pre-dawn in cold climate, when the signs are covered with an uneven layer of condensation. Then, the retroreflectivity fails and the contrast drops badly - meanwhile, with older signs, there is enough contrast to begin with, between foreground and background, that the signs are still legible.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 21, 2009, 03:34:00 PM
Caltrans can still keep the California Style, as they do with newly placed signs with exit numbers.
the California Style is black porcelain signs with white legend, with under- or overlighting and outline shields, and no reflectivity.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19550151i1.jpg)
now that is a good-looking gantry.
anything else is federal style! :-D
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:01:18 PM
...meanwhile, with older signs, there is enough contrast to begin with, between foreground and background, that the signs are still legible.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Most of the older signs in Ohio (and there are plenty of them) are so worn-out that when your headlights hit them, all that the driver can see is a blur and no reflectivity. Case in point is I-71N from Cincinnati to Columbus...many of the guide signs are finally being replaced because there was no reflectivity at all, and the button-copy route shields just sparkle around the shield itself, but the numbers are no longer identified. Definitely not fun if you actually need to rely on the signs to find your way.
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 04:08:58 PM
the button-copy route shields just sparkle around the shield itself, but the numbers are no longer identified
you mean the numbers were never made in button-copy?
there's a reason why button copy was used back then; older Scotchlite tended to fade quite badly, as you can see. Modern high intensity sheeting is quite durable, so that's definitely a good replacement for buttons.
are the backgrounds of the Ohio signs you speak of reflective or non-reflective? I know Ohio used both styles.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:13:27 PM
you mean the numbers were never made in button-copy?
I believe that the buttons fell off of the route shields in about 1983. LOL
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 04:15:44 PM
I believe that the buttons fell off of the route shields in about 1983. LOL
well, that's a maintenance problem, not a design flaw!
I'm gonna have to drive some of those Ohio freeways - I was last there in 2006 and at the time they didn't seem bad at all.
I can understaind shoptb1's pain when you are dealing with a little bit older button copy when it's on retroreflective sheeting and aging.
We have some in CT. Remember we don't use under or overlighting at all. A lot of the signs on I-84 WB from Hartford to W.Hartford have buttons that don't reflect. It's like trying to read essentially black text on barely-still-reflective backgrounds. They're pretty bad.
The newest button-copy we have (late '90's to about 2002/3 still has retroreflective backgrounds, but nice bright contrast with the still-like-new buttons, etc. They actually have MUCH more daytime contrast than 100% retroreflective signs. CT is starting to change a lot of signs with new retroreflective higher grade sheeting.
I'm not so ecofriendly I guess, I'd rather see them spend money to just underlight the signage again, like the old days, and leave the actual signs alone ;). I never used to care for our button copy, but and center mounted unframed exit tabs, but they do make our signs a bit unique. Oh well. Fat chance of that happening.
button copy on retroreflective background is indeed a disaster.
those newest ones you mention - those are gonna look horrible in 10 years! :ded:
nowadays, since button copy manufacturers are all out of business, the best option is prismatic high-intensity sheeting. But put that on a non-reflective background; or, if the feds demand reflectivity because people otherwise apparently can't recognize a green guide sign at night, use engineer grade for the background, for some definite contrast.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:22:05 PM
button copy on retroreflective background is indeed a disaster.
those newest ones you mention - those are gonna look horrible in 10 years! :ded:
They won't be there in 10 years. CT is slowly doing spot changes to high grade 100% microprism sheeted signs and letters on BGS's as needed, and also blanket changes in stages throughout the state. They're going to be disappearing before they ever get the change to look as bad as the ones in West Hartford.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:13:27 PM
are the backgrounds of the Ohio signs you speak of reflective or non-reflective? I know Ohio used both styles.
Seems to be both at the point of installation, but with zilcho maintenance... The problem is that the signs are not lighted from underneath in most places, which makes reading them almost impossible...
Ohio is a very non-standardized state, which is probably due in part to the large number of freeways that require BGS maintenance. A good contrast is Kentucky to the south, which replaced all of their BGS at one time with retroreflective signs with an extra-large non-Clearview font sometime in the last 5 years.
The Clearview replacements are being done in phases...Franklin and Pickaway counties south of Columbus on I-71 already have the new mounting brackets up, just waiting on the BGS installation. :clap:
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 04:25:05 PM
The problem is that the signs are not lighted from underneath in most places, which makes reading them almost impossible...
I've seen very good non-underlit signs - but I am sure those have to be maintained too!
those much-derided California porcelain signs are getting to be over
fifty years old in some cases, and they are holding up incredibly well.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 04:29:54 PM
those much-derided California porcelain signs are getting to be over fifty years old in some cases, and they are holding up incredibly well.
I'm not sure that the pictures you've shown in this thread of Cali signs make me think of the phrase "holding up incredibly well" so much as "hanging on by a thread". They are definitely ghetto fabulous, that's for sure. :spin:
They are time-tested tho. Think about how long they've hung there in the same place. Signs here that are half that old have completely exhausted their useful life.
Quote from: wytout on December 21, 2009, 04:49:00 PM
They are time-tested tho. Think about how long they've hung there in the same place. Signs here that are half that old have completely exhausted their useful life.
I wonder if that is completely due to the materials, or also due to the favorable California weather?
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 05:02:17 PM
I wonder if that is completely due to the materials, or also due to the favorable California weather?
I think they have all been replaced by now, but I remember as recently as 2006 there were porcelain signs up in the Donner Pass area that were holding up well.
there are definitely porcelains in Reno that look very good.
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 04:35:43 PM
I'm not sure that the pictures you've shown in this thread of Cali signs make me think of the phrase "holding up incredibly well" so much as "hanging on by a thread". They are definitely ghetto fabulous, that's for sure. :spin:
okay, here's one without patches:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19640671i1.jpg)
that sign is from 1968, and would look even better in the correct light: I shot that photo directly into the sun!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2009, 05:14:59 PM
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 21, 2009, 05:02:17 PM
I wonder if that is completely due to the materials, or also due to the favorable California weather?
I think they have all been replaced by now, but I remember as recently as 2006 there were porcelain signs up in the Donner Pass area that were holding up well.
there are definitely porcelains in Reno that look very good.
Many of those old porcelains around Donner Pass have either been replaced or will be replaced in the not-too-distant future, with all the construction going on around there. Some new signs closer to the Nevada line, like around the Hirschdale Road exit, were replaced a few years ago but haven't held up...the green sheeting has torn off on a few of those! :pan:
Those porcelain signs in Reno are in decent shape, but they are not readable at all at night. NDOT hasn't replaced the florescent lights/fixtures on those for years. I thought they might replace those signs when they modernized some of the signs on I-80 last summer, but they're still there. Most of those porcelains are pull-through signs which aren't really critical to have there in the first place, so maybe that's why they haven't really been kept up or replaced. In any event, it's kinda odd to see a brand new sign next to an incredibly old one--well, odd for Nevada at least, cause it's common in California!
Quote from: roadfro on December 21, 2009, 05:39:27 PM
Many of those old porcelains around Donner Pass have either been replaced or will be replaced in the not-too-distant future, with all the construction going on around there. Some new signs closer to the Nevada line, like around the Hirschdale Road exit, were replaced a few years ago but haven't held up...the green sheeting has torn off on a few of those! :pan:
meanwhile, the porcelains are going strong...
QuoteThose porcelain signs in Reno are in decent shape, but they are not readable at all at night. NDOT hasn't replaced the florescent lights/fixtures on those for years. I thought they might replace those signs when they modernized some of the signs on I-80 last summer, but they're still there. It's kinda odd to see a brand new sign next to an incredibly old one--well, odd for Nevada at least, cause it's common in California!
Nevada never went back and reflectorized their porcelain signs like California did in the 1970s and 80s. Someone needs to go up there with a bag of buttons and a bucket of glue...
also, now that I think about it, that Reno I-80 "Salt Lake" pull-through isn't all that old. I once managed to catch a glimpse of the date stamp on the back: CA-78 :-D
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on December 21, 2009, 01:11:27 PM
North Carolina's signage is just plain beautiful.
The worst easily has to be California, from the (IMO) poorly design signage layout, to the ugly old button copy signs.The ugly dark green on older signs don't help either.Then of course California has some of the ugliest gantries I've ever seen, while most other states have the nice more modern looking gantries that aren't so noticeable...
With some of the world's most fabled control cities and set amongst some the world's most stunning topography, California's signage is worship-able as far as I'm concerned.
This photo says it all. In North Carolina using these wood posts for directions to Burlington, Greenville or Pittsboro= Hee Haw. Also consider California's curbed and polished secondary thoroughfares flanked by America's most elegant mast-arm signals.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fcalwoodposts.jpg&hash=4d88667092ad39d2ba512fbf06579fc3f0feec7c)
North Carolina's interstate-building prowess is accompanied by total disregard and sloppy execution of virtually all secondary arterials such as Wake Forest Road in Raleigh.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Foldwakeforest.jpg&hash=cdc0da11888a2421b43aafb115c2fb4d0b9fdd49)
California is on the right track in maintaining the uniform height of their box beam gantries and not accompanying every interstate shield with "North, South, etc."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fcalnewsign.jpg&hash=c1c126207f97c3aa7a786fcae4362a9485c0c382)
Quote from: architect77 on December 21, 2009, 07:47:01 PM
With some of the world's most fabled control cities and set amongst some the world's most stunning topography, California's signage is worship-able as far as I'm concerned.
What does this have to do with the execution of the signage again? Just because California in itself is amazing, it doesn't mean that CalTrans has or is doing a good job maintaining the system design. I don't see the connection there. :pan:
Quote from: architect77 on December 21, 2009, 07:47:01 PM
California is on the right track in maintaining the uniform height of their box beam gantries and not accompanying every interstate shield with "North, South, etc."
I think it's even more confusing with the ABSENCE of directionals...isn't it kind of nice to know which direction you're heading? Perhaps I'm a little bit OCD, but I find it very annoying when these elements are omitted. :banghead:
Quote from: shoptb1 on December 22, 2009, 12:50:32 AM
I think it's even more confusing with the ABSENCE of directionals...isn't it kind of nice to know which direction you're heading? Perhaps I'm a little bit OCD, but I find it very annoying when these elements are omitted. :banghead:
in general I do love directionals, but in the example gantry he gave, you are heading due south on I-80 West/I-580 East. I lived in the bay area for several years and even to this day I find myself going the wrong way on that $!@&( multiplex.
Please allow me to explain my viewpoint with a few disjunct thoughts:
1) I lived in Southern California for four years in the 90's and loved every second of it.
2) The state's aging signage is testiment to how modern and ahead of its time it was back in the 1950's and 1960's during its enormous undertaking of highway construction.
3) In my opinion the aesthetics of California's signage is overshadowed by the landscape and scenery and should stay that way.
4) I guess what I'm trying to say is nobody cares about the decrepit signage as long as it gets you to Palm Springs, Big Sur, and Mammoth (I've never been to Mammoth)
5) Everywhere in the US is a tradeoff, no one place is perfect and if it was everyone would flock there until they ruin it.
6) I live in NYC and probably won't ever move again, however I HATE cold weather and won't be happy again until April. Lol.
Oh, and I see everyone's point about directionals, but I always sort of am aware of the cardinal directions everywhere I go though I realize many people aren't. Therefore for me N/S/E/W guidance is only important at junctions where I have to choose a direction.
Of course I have found myself headed the wrong way many times while traveling through unfamiliar areas. Happy Holidays....
It's not the lack of directionals that would confuse me with that California sign but the excess number of arrows, as mentioned recently in another thread. Presumably the lane the photographer is in can be used for San Jose or San Francisco.
Quote from: Truvelo on December 23, 2009, 12:06:21 PM
It's not the lack of directionals that would confuse me with that California sign but the excess number of arrows, as mentioned recently in another thread. Presumably the lane the photographer is in can be used for San Jose or San Francisco.
That would be correct (that third lane from left can be used for either 880 south or 80 west). Thinking out loud, this might be a situation where a mix of text (i.e. "RIGHT THREE LANES" for I-80) and arrows might work, though there's probably a much better solution within the current MUTCD.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 23, 2009, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on December 23, 2009, 12:06:21 PM
It's not the lack of directionals that would confuse me with that California sign but the excess number of arrows, as mentioned recently in another thread. Presumably the lane the photographer is in can be used for San Jose or San Francisco.
That would be correct (that third lane from left can be used for either 880 south or 80 west). Thinking out loud, this might be a situation where a mix of text (i.e. "RIGHT THREE LANES" for I-80) and arrows might work, though there's probably a much better solution within the current MUTCD.
Missing directionals aren't as bad if the route begins at the exit or there is a single exit to reach both directions (provided the sign text and later signs clearly distinguish desired direction). The use of multiple arrows and slanted arrows is an issue that is not exclusive to California and can be found in many states. This concern is addressed in the recent MUTCD revisions. The MUTCD is not as supportive of "RIGHT 3 LANES" text as having one arrow per lane. Upward pointing arrows (one per lane) and/or diagrammatic signs would be the suggestion in the current manual. The thread about multilane exits & lane drops has additional discussion along these lines.