For all redundant signage, not necessarily bad or ugly. Some could even be good.
From the Chicago Department of Redundancy Department at I-90/94 and Taylor St:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3702_zps3d434419.jpg&hash=7f0e4bf8a17fdf8c57bc017df65882084c817cb1) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3702_zps3d434419.jpg.html)
How many times does one need to say "one way"?
On the New Jersey Turnpike, you will find two sets of exit signs in some places, and you can see them both.
On I-15, just south of Idaho Falls:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FI15IdahoFallsexit1131-2.jpg&hash=b1c1e1065c61541384df98c1ec6f62ac815ca084)
I've seen intersections with up to five one way signs facing one direction. Wish I could remember where it was.
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2013, 05:48:24 PM
On the New Jersey Turnpike, you will find two sets of exit signs in some places, and you can see them both.
I believe that you are supposed to convey the same message with multiple signs at set distances according to the MUTCD. Unless it said 'EXIT 11 ↗' on two signs one at the gore point and the other right next to the gore, it's not redundant.
Quote from: xonhulu on December 26, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
On I-15, just south of Idaho Falls:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FI15IdahoFallsexit1131-2.jpg&hash=b1c1e1065c61541384df98c1ec6f62ac815ca084)
Quite possibly the most
useless exit sign I've ever seen.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8348%2F8221962930_d6ba6a26dd.jpg&hash=f919cc646493f389c4de81cfd0ba8d2a3c2ffb81)
These have been replaced and there's no longer a redundancy. At the end of KY 341 near Midway. Photo taken in 2000.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6028%2F5939750623_d7b0f4dc8a.jpg&hash=88dc51ef7ed6cf070858ea44219630092b73de85)
From 2011, at the end of KY 227 in Scott County.
Quote from: xonhulu on December 26, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
On I-15, just south of Idaho Falls:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FI15IdahoFallsexit1131-2.jpg&hash=b1c1e1065c61541384df98c1ec6f62ac815ca084)
Just looked on Google Street View, and as of September 2011, that advance BGS and the one pointing to the off-ramp both showed "Exit 113", no actual road/street/destination. But, according to the map Google has of the area, the cross-road is West 65th Street -- amazing that someone couldn't have put a sign with that on it before now (whether the cross-road was named at the time of the first BGSes or not), and avoided the embarrassment of redunduncy.
North Dakota does the same thing except there is no tab on the ahead exit sign. http://goo.gl/maps/jQev6
Only other sign is the sign in the gore: http://goo.gl/maps/WcXBD
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2013, 05:48:24 PM
On the New Jersey Turnpike, you will find two sets of exit signs in some places, and you can see them both.
Do you mean the inner/outer drives? They are 2 separate roadways, and thus need two separate signs. While a driver could get confused looking at the wrong signage, but that'll be their own damn fault.
Quote from: txstateends on December 27, 2013, 10:06:34 AM
Just looked on Google Street View, and as of September 2011, that advance BGS and the one pointing to the off-ramp both showed "Exit 113", no actual road/street/destination. But, according to the map Google has of the area, the cross-road is West 65th Street -- amazing that someone couldn't have put a sign with that on it before now (whether the cross-road was named at the time of the first BGSes or not), and avoided the embarrassment of redunduncy.
Until the mid-00's, this exit was for US 26/BL-15. But that was moved a few miles north when a new bridge was built over the Snake River. That's when this sign went up. You're right, it should read "West 65th St" or something about a destination, but instead we got that redundant beauty!
I want to say I'm supposed to stay to the right at this location in Galax VA, but I'm not entirely sure...
http://goo.gl/maps/MtcvP
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 27, 2013, 09:12:02 PM
I want to say I'm supposed to stay to the right at this location in Galax VA, but I'm not entirely sure...
http://goo.gl/maps/MtcvP
Mapmikey
And completely useless as it's pointing in the wrong direction. :-D
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/969542_10151616283504875_84756792_n.jpg)
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 28, 2013, 11:38:53 AM
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/969542_10151616283504875_84756792_n.jpg)
Even better is that each sign contains a different series. (Left: Series D or maybe E, Right: Series EM)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D400x400%26amp%3Blocation%3D43.073512%2C-70.781024%26amp%3Bheading%3D295%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bfov%3D40&hash=82e8242e033acddba84aacff061834a0eb617311)
I've got a bunch of pictures where sign replacements were ongoing, and both the old and new signs were still up, but I don't think that's what we're shooting for.
West Virginia posts ground-style signs at the gore points at interstate intersections, something similar to the New Hampshire example above.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 27, 2013, 09:12:02 PM
I want to say I'm supposed to stay to the right at this location in Galax VA, but I'm not entirely sure...
http://goo.gl/maps/MtcvP
Mapmikey
Is this facing in the wrong direction?
Oh Richmond, you so crazy. (This was taken in 2009 and is still there. There was a VDOT-installed VA 76 shield complete with VDOT sticker there prior to then.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3361%2F3293491953_ca76d21d68_z.jpg&hash=f1fda9da068709fccc2006924269daaada3895cc) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/3293491953/)
Quote from: kendancy66 on December 28, 2013, 12:56:38 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 27, 2013, 09:12:02 PM
I want to say I'm supposed to stay to the right at this location in Galax VA, but I'm not entirely sure...
http://goo.gl/maps/MtcvP
Mapmikey
Is this facing in the wrong direction?
Yes...this sign has been turned around at some point. Here is a Michael Summa picture from 1994 of it being in the right place:
http://www.millenniumhwy.net/summa/summa-Pages/Image341.html
Mapmikey
I've seen a few VDOT installations recently that say "Route I-95" and/or "Route I-64".
Quote from: Takumi on December 29, 2013, 12:04:39 AM
I've seen a few VDOT installations recently that say "Route I-95" and/or "Route I-64".
Do you mean literally "Route I-95,", or something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FI-205Clackamas2_zpsb010e4e7.jpg&hash=9624bcb7bd354a647fa9fd1c506f21536916746d)
If it's the first, then it's like something I've heard my brother-in-law complain about. He drives scrap metal to recycling facilities, and he says it annoys him when many of his co-workers refer to "Interstate I-5."
Google Street View is failing me at the moment, but I was in Savannah a few weeks ago and noticed dozens of trailblazers pointing the way to "Interstate I-16".
There are some sloppy green-out signs on I-390 south listing the distance to "Route I-86". http://goo.gl/maps/U1wRL
Yes, they did abbreviate "route" as "rte". Yes, that is original to the sign. No, I don't know what region 4 was thinking.
At least the original wording didn't say "Rte. NY 17".
Missouri does the same thing: Route I-44."
Quote from: Zeffy on December 28, 2013, 11:41:56 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 28, 2013, 11:38:53 AM
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/969542_10151616283504875_84756792_n.jpg)
Even better is that each sign contains a different series. (Left: Series D or maybe E, Right: Series EM)
Both Series EM, but the left has reduced interletter spacing.
In northwest Columbus, at The Mall at Tuttle Crossing, there are signs directing traffic to "Interstate I-(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F82%2FI-270.svg%2F38px-I-270.svg.png&hash=70eb418d8adc610bbe530745ecdb1a0316eb22d0)"
^ That's triple redundundant. :P
Quote from: vtk on December 29, 2013, 10:47:07 PM
In northwest Columbus, at The Mall at Tuttle Crossing, there are signs directing traffic to "Interstate I-(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F82%2FI-270.svg%2F38px-I-270.svg.png&hash=70eb418d8adc610bbe530745ecdb1a0316eb22d0)"
More like Interstate I-270 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F82%2FI-270.svg%2F38px-I-270.svg.png&hash=70eb418d8adc610bbe530745ecdb1a0316eb22d0) (https://maps.google.es/maps?ll=40.075904,-83.130562&spn=0.010607,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.075805,-83.130536&panoid=cVqYJMI3E9uV7ZIDA0CcwQ&cbp=12,31.26,,2,1.22).
I haven't been there in a while.
Quote from: xonhulu on December 29, 2013, 11:25:06 AM
Quote from: Takumi on December 29, 2013, 12:04:39 AM
I've seen a few VDOT installations recently that say "Route I-95" and/or "Route I-64".
Do you mean literally "Route I-95,", or something like this:
(snipped image)
Literally "Route I-95".
For those that chimed in on the PA Turnpike named interchanges thread a week or two ago; these would be of interest here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fpa%2Fi-276%2Fw333eo.jpg&hash=edda5b6513e40a41749ec3307c125313be7f1c0a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_wb_exit_266_03.jpg)
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2013, 02:58:50 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fpa%2Fi-276%2Fw333eo.jpg&hash=edda5b6513e40a41749ec3307c125313be7f1c0a)
Nice gantry arrow. :pan:
http://goo.gl/maps/ZPJ3T
Av. Example Ave.
The Province of Ontario has made no error or redundancy here.
The great majority of signage in eastern Ontario, particularly in the area of the national capital, Ottawa, is bilingual, English and French.
The greatest number of Franco-Ontarians live in the eastern side of the province, Canada is officially a bilingual nation. Metropolitan Ottawa-Hull straddles Ontario and Quebec. Quebec is where more than 80% of Canadians speak French as their primary language.
French puts Avenue before the street name, English afterward. Nothing redundant here.
Finally uploaded it. Again, VDOT is silly.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PmoGdEVg71M%2FUtF5axAC7TI%2FAAAAAAAAGqA%2FDK1x5x8smrg%2Fs1600%2FIMG_1731.JPG&hash=d56d73c43a4e91c70fc7cc5e26753001157bd7be)
Quote from: Takumi on January 13, 2014, 11:33:43 PM
Finally uploaded it. Again, VDOT is silly.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-PmoGdEVg71M%2FUtF5axAC7TI%2FAAAAAAAAGqA%2FDK1x5x8smrg%2Fs1600%2FIMG_1731.JPG&hash=d56d73c43a4e91c70fc7cc5e26753001157bd7be)
Why do they need "Route" in front of the actual designation for the route, in this case "I" for interstate? Signing it as "I-64" and "I-95" should be enough.
Quote from: Brandon on January 14, 2014, 07:46:30 AM
Why do they need "Route" in front of the actual designation for the route, in this case "I" for interstate? Signing it as "I-64" and "I-95" should be enough.
If I may be so bold as to offer a guess (but that's all it is, a guess)–in the thread on "General Highway Talk" about grandfathered signage, there are some links to materials showing pictures of some very old signs. One of them includes some old mileage signs on Virginia highways back in the 1960s. The mileage signs then said "Route I-95" and such, and I suspect part of the reason for doing it that way back then is that the Interstate system was still pretty new and people were not necessarily familiar with the numbers. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that the sign Takumi posted is just an example of someone at VDOT making essentially a carbon copy of the old sign. There are a good number of examples of places where Virginia signs are more or less updated replicas of old ones, sometimes with bad results (prime example: signs on I-395 that are carbon copies of old signs except the new ones use Clearview with bad results).
The reference to Richmond Airport reminds me that I've seen a few signs in various places that use airport codes followed by "Airport" (e.g., "RIC Airport" or "RDU Airport"). You could argue that those are redundant because the three-letter code by definition denotes an airport (though I guess with BWI, JFK, and LAX the code is the common name).
The previous version of that sign said I-64 JCT and I-95 JCT with shields for the two interstates there.
Palm Beach County has their own ideas of signage...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/256/20143461959_88596ba8e7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wG1vsg)
Georgia does this too, but only in Monticello along GA 16 (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.298646,-83.672862&spn=0.02249,0.038581&sll=29.652442,-82.314634&sspn=0.023384,0.038581&oq=gainev&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.298818,-83.673283&panoid=nSiWApB5yPRXGJBhjWmNWQ&cbp=12,305.89,,2,2.83)...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/906/41397976714_98a14667be_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/265cscd)
(Note: edited photo URLs)
speaking of redundancy, GA-16 is Eatontontontonton Street.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2014, 09:36:36 AM
If I may be so bold as to offer a guess (but that's all it is, a guess)in the thread on "General Highway Talk" about grandfathered signage, there are some links to materials showing pictures of some very old signs. One of them includes some old mileage signs on Virginia highways back in the 1960s. The mileage signs then said "Route I-95" and such, and I suspect part of the reason for doing it that way back then is that the Interstate system was still pretty new and people were not necessarily familiar with the numbers.
Those 1960s beltway signs said only "route 95."
I have not seen many "route I-xx" references in Virginia signage; I hope the Richmond sign above is not a new redundant trend...
Mapmikey
Can't remember exactly where but ISTHA does this when signing no re-entrance to highways,
NO NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE
NEXT ENTRANCE 8 MILES ILLINOIS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb6%2FIllinois_68.svg%2F385px-Illinois_68.svg.png&hash=ff4f1f19bc006cbc7f6cc13fdd486ced0d5ae83c)
or something of the sort. It drives me insane when I see those. Also, I think the whole idea is dumb.
EDIT: Its actually pretty smart, after driving cross-country a couple times and trying to find exits you can get back on the same direction. Stupid old self. :pan:
Quote from: Big John on December 27, 2013, 10:35:57 AM
North Dakota does the same thing except there is no tab on the ahead exit sign. http://goo.gl/maps/jQev6
Only other sign is the sign in the gore: http://goo.gl/maps/WcXBD
No-name exits aren't too uncommon around here, but the signage is far from redundant.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
Can't remember exactly where but ISTHA does this when signing no re-entrance to highways,
NO NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE
NEXT ENTRANCE 8 MILES ILLINOIS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb6%2FIllinois_68.svg%2F385px-Illinois_68.svg.png&hash=ff4f1f19bc006cbc7f6cc13fdd486ced0d5ae83c)
or something of the sort. It drives me insane when I see those. Also, I think the whole idea is dumb.
Like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.82522,-88.477305&spn=0.002323,0.005284&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.825345,-88.477403&panoid=VGLpjiRpQfk37PMjWfVJkQ&cbp=12,168.17,,2,-1.44
The signs have their uses though.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
Can't remember exactly where but ISTHA does this when signing no re-entrance to highways,
NO NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE
NEXT ENTRANCE 8 MILES ILLINOIS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb6%2FIllinois_68.svg%2F385px-Illinois_68.svg.png&hash=ff4f1f19bc006cbc7f6cc13fdd486ced0d5ae83c)
or something of the sort. It drives me insane when I see those. Also, I think the whole idea is dumb.
How is this redundent? It tells you you can't re-enter at this specific point, then tells you where you can re-enter, further down the road. 2 different points of info.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2014, 10:17:04 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
Can't remember exactly where but ISTHA does this when signing no re-entrance to highways,
NO NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE
NEXT ENTRANCE 8 MILES ILLINOIS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb6%2FIllinois_68.svg%2F385px-Illinois_68.svg.png&hash=ff4f1f19bc006cbc7f6cc13fdd486ced0d5ae83c)
or something of the sort. It drives me insane when I see those. Also, I think the whole idea is dumb.
How is this redundent? It tells you you can't re-enter at this specific point, then tells you where you can re-enter, further down the road. 2 different points of info.
The redundant part is the use of "ILLINOIS" followed by a shield with "ILLINOIS" at the top.
Quote from: Brandon on January 23, 2014, 10:39:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2014, 10:17:04 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
Can't remember exactly where but ISTHA does this when signing no re-entrance to highways,
NO NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE
NEXT ENTRANCE 8 MILES ILLINOIS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb6%2FIllinois_68.svg%2F385px-Illinois_68.svg.png&hash=ff4f1f19bc006cbc7f6cc13fdd486ced0d5ae83c)
or something of the sort. It drives me insane when I see those. Also, I think the whole idea is dumb.
How is this redundent? It tells you you can't re-enter at this specific point, then tells you where you can re-enter, further down the road. 2 different points of info.
The redundant part is the use of "ILLINOIS" followed by a shield with "ILLINOIS" at the top.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........
Yeah, sorry I couldn't provide a better visual example. I just couldn't remember a location with one of those in use.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 26, 2013, 10:01:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2013, 05:48:24 PM
On the New Jersey Turnpike, you will find two sets of exit signs in some places, and you can see them both.
I believe that you are supposed to convey the same message with multiple signs at set distances according to the MUTCD. Unless it said 'EXIT 11 ↗' on two signs one at the gore point and the other right next to the gore, it's not redundant. Quote from: xonhulu on December 26, 2013, 08:13:40 PM
On I-15, just south of Idaho Falls:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FI15IdahoFallsexit1131-2.jpg&hash=b1c1e1065c61541384df98c1ec6f62ac815ca084)
Quite possibly the most useless exit sign I've ever seen.
Couldn't even find a road name... I've seen better exit signs in the Appalachian Mountains for tiny, tiny streets better than that.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 23, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
Couldn't even find a road name... I've seen better exit signs in the Appalachian Mountains for tiny, tiny streets better than that.
I thought there was some law passed not too long ago that every road had to have a name, and every house a number - this for emergency response purposes.
Utah uses "ranch access" or something similar ("ranch exit"?) for those anonymous exits. New Mexico places an exit tab on top of a sign with just a mileage.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2014, 10:14:53 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 23, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
Couldn't even find a road name... I've seen better exit signs in the Appalachian Mountains for tiny, tiny streets better than that.
I thought there was some law passed not too long ago that every road had to have a name, and every house a number - this for emergency response purposes.
Utah uses "ranch access" or something similar ("ranch exit"?) for those anonymous exits. New Mexico places an exit tab on top of a sign with just a mileage.
It does have a street name (W 65th S, according to Google). It's just not posted.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 23, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
Couldn't even find a road name... I've seen better exit signs in the Appalachian Mountains for tiny, tiny streets better than that.
My strategy would be to use a placename, no matter how obscure. Its usage as the main identifier of a highway exit would make it less obscure over time.
Or if no placename is available, some arbitrary name, maybe even a noun picked at random out of the dictionary, would be an improvement over the current situation. At least "Shoehorn" or "Quartermaster" would be an improvement in memorability over "Exit 113".
Or Old US 26.
Quote from: NE2 on January 25, 2014, 04:17:39 AM
Or Old US 26.
Perhaps, but apparently the DOT doesn't want to use any name for the road that isn't already posted on that road by the agency that maintains it. On the other hand, if we're willing to settle for obscure or made-up placenames, I suppose otherwise-unsigned road names will do as well.
Apparently, this sign indicating "TO I-82" is
on I-82 itself near Kennewick, WA. It should say "TO I-182" . Conveniently enough, it would cause a gullible motorist who had just skirted by the Kennewick area to turn around and head back to the city center.
Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F1fh4lXC&hash=b1b25bbec5dd50a6f45a1aec8bc1011de40c04dc)
There's a story in the Tri-City Herald about it here (http://bit.ly/1fpqrp1).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5480%2F9096026893_7383b1e563_n.jpg&hash=27bcc5cf515df8730e0d26bdf95007eff1968325) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9096026893/)
Sine Salad on Yarnell at 210 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9096026893/) by ssoworld (http://www.flickr.com/people/ssoworld/), on Flickr
Quite a staple of Los Angles - The sign on the pole is LA's, the bgs is CalTrans's as is the standard "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" shield below.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3748%2F9232794922_834224284d_n.jpg&hash=533edc1187896453a618b9df9263c5ce97af037a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9232794922/)
Arroyo Seco Pkwy (SR 110) Entrance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9232794922/) by ssoworld (http://www.flickr.com/people/ssoworld/), on Flickr
Another - this time with "PARKWAY ENTRANCE"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8546%2F8710937161_2a8a3ae044_z.jpg&hash=01866edf288a4d2a0670b5280485939fbd55b4f6) Too many US 9's.
I'm not sure what is going on here... (Green-on-white is out, white-on-black is in.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5517%2F12216221934_df4678ec27_o.png&hash=7205f9695506a7d7417582295094540d3b9ac664)
Quote from: jbnv on January 29, 2014, 11:53:14 PM
I'm not sure what is going on here... (Green-on-white is out, white-on-black is in.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5517%2F12216221934_df4678ec27_o.png&hash=7205f9695506a7d7417582295094540d3b9ac664)
Nice solid sign post is out, older rusty off-center signpost is in??
I'm sorry, I meant that Louisiana is phasing out the green-on-white shields in favor of the white-on-black shields.
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 27, 2014, 06:44:08 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5480%2F9096026893_7383b1e563_n.jpg&hash=27bcc5cf515df8730e0d26bdf95007eff1968325) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9096026893/)
Sine Salad on Yarnell at 210 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9096026893/) by ssoworld (http://www.flickr.com/people/ssoworld/), on Flickr
Quite a staple of Los Angles - The sign on the pole is LA's, the bgs is CalTrans's as is the standard "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" shield below.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3748%2F9232794922_834224284d_n.jpg&hash=533edc1187896453a618b9df9263c5ce97af037a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9232794922/)
Arroyo Seco Pkwy (SR 110) Entrance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9232794922/) by ssoworld (http://www.flickr.com/people/ssoworld/), on Flickr
Another - this time with "PARKWAY ENTRANCE"
It seems like LA just added their own signs at every freeway entrance, even when there is a perfectly usable Caltrans sign is right there. Part of the reason for installation of these signs was to produce a blue sign (or equivalent) at every traffic signal. When I was growing up in LA in the 1970's and 1980's there were blue signs at every traffic light with an intersecting street. A great thing that allowed for people to clearly see the name of the cross street as these were large signs.
Later on, about 10 years ago, someone got the idea that these signs were needed at other signals as well. So we see yellow PED XING, and green Freeway Entrance signs at the freeway on-ramp signals. Now, I wouldn't call these redundant, since LA drivers are programmed to look for the blue sign hanging under the mast arm and expect to see something there (or possibly over the right traffic light, which is how they used to do it).
BUt the examples above are purely redundant. Why waste the money on putting up a sign that doesn't add any new information.
Also, some directional confusion for the 101 Ventura Freeway. The Ventura Freeway is East/West, but US 101 is north/south. On some Caltrans sings you'd see Ventura Fwy East/West without highway number, or US 101 North/South without Freeway names. But at least these usually featured control cities. When LA started signing the signs at traffic lights we simply see Us 101 East right arrow. Wrong and confusing!
If you post a new one, removing the old one is usually a good idea.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3091.jpg&hash=fdbd0f96a506d1b5762c1e280202e4ccee7250f8) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_3091.jpg.html)
Quote from: Brandon on February 18, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
If you post a new one, removing the old one is usually a good idea.
I'll bet they did several days later. better to have two than to have zero, especially for regulatory signage.
somewhere I have a photo of two identical speed limit 25 signs on the same post. not sure what was going on there.
it could be worse - somewhere I have a photo of a speed limit 35 and a speed limit 25 sharing the post!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 01:19:35 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 18, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
If you post a new one, removing the old one is usually a good idea.
I'll bet they did several days later.
Not so sure they did. Google caught it as well: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.490015,-88.165777&spn=0.009339,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.49006,-88.165729&panoid=BMA2i2h8FFrGi2ImkXJzKQ&cbp=12,151.73,,3,0.19
Note the lack of green in the my photo and the green in Google's image. It was up that way for at least 3 or 4 months.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 01:19:35 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 18, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
If you post a new one, removing the old one is usually a good idea.
Likewise: http://goo.gl/maps/5KsGG
In this case, you clearly see the old Exit 25 mph sign. They posted a new one about 100 feet away that should convey the same message, except it's a 25 mph advisory plate, then a separate sign below that states "On Ramp".
This occurred during a construction project from Exits 28 - 32. Of the multiple interchanges and ramps within this construction area, this was the only ramp to receive such sign treatment.
Except which sign is new? (I'm guessing the left one!)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 18, 2014, 07:11:15 PM
Except which sign is new? (I'm guessing the left one!)
I think the one on the left is. The one on the right is partially hidden in the brush.
Quote from: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 06:46:04 PM
I think the one on the left is. The one on the right is partially hidden in the brush.
Wow, can't imagine looking at that sign in the summer with foliage covering it.
Also, off-topic, but do you think winter is the worst season for roadgeeks? (Signs dirty, knocked by plows etc.)
or, are plants to annoying in the summer?
Personally, winter is much worse (at least near Chicago it is).
I love winter for photography and also for driving around without as much riffraff on the roads.
I like winter. Less traffic, and the snow on the ground but far enough from when it fell for the roads to be dry is a very nice effect. Plus my snow tires make a nice hum that I've come to associate with roadtrips since I clinched the highways of St. Lawrence and Franklin counties under the excuse that the periodic winter trips would keep the car running properly. My roadtrips used to be more winter oriented period since that was when I was in the north country consistently.
From this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6436.25#quickreply), this redundancy, in terms of BGS replacement, along I-91 in MA has been around for at least two months.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3HCAkWxxmDA/UryO0kxQ_DI/AAAAAAAATYc/uGaymeDWFGo/s720/IMG_1345.JPG)
The old BGS & gantry were still there as of 2 weeks ago.
Quote from: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 06:46:04 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 18, 2014, 07:11:15 PM
Except which sign is new? (I'm guessing the left one!)
I think the one on the left is. The one on the right is partially hidden in the brush.
The sign is in such good condition, why bother replacing it?
Fort Collins, CO, probably not there anymore:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mesalek.com%2Fcolo%2Fpicts%2Ffc_yield-drake.jpg&hash=cd60a31e0ef61b1bcb2f03c137d72921256becf5)
Must the left lane yield?
Quote from: NE2 on February 23, 2014, 10:52:22 PM
Must the left lane yield?
I think it had a stop sign.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2014, 08:34:30 AM
From this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6436.25#quickreply), this redundancy, in terms of BGS replacement, along I-91 in MA has been around for at least two months.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3HCAkWxxmDA/UryO0kxQ_DI/AAAAAAAATYc/uGaymeDWFGo/s720/IMG_1345.JPG)
The old BGS & gantry were still there as of 2 weeks ago.
91 east of the 605:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.876353,-118.081477,3a,75y,74.25h,78.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYh1iiBV3_R0uc9vagyc85g!2e0
Quote from: SSOWorld on January 27, 2014, 06:44:08 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5480%2F9096026893_7383b1e563_n.jpg&hash=27bcc5cf515df8730e0d26bdf95007eff1968325) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9096026893/)
Sine Salad on Yarnell at 210 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssoworld/9096026893/) by ssoworld (http://www.flickr.com/people/ssoworld/), on Flickr
Quite a staple of Los Angles - The sign on the pole is LA's, the bgs is CalTrans's as is the standard "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" shield below.
I got a buddy of mine who only lives a mile or so from that Yarnell/I-210 intersection.
Here are a couple:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5336%2F9239462137_1a4b50d946.jpg&hash=feb309bc9c9defdb62e87b12f70e19a6560481df)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5505%2F9239463137_de61447c17.jpg&hash=a8cf931299e18f44daf44998cef41eea2eba1f02)
I'm not really sure what the redundancy is here.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 08, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
I'm not really sure what the redundancy is here.
The combination of "PA" and the route shield.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 19, 2014, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 06:46:04 PM
I think the one on the left is. The one on the right is partially hidden in the brush.
Wow, can't imagine looking at that sign in the summer with foliage covering it.
Also, off-topic, but do you think winter is the worst season for roadgeeks? (Signs dirty, knocked by plows etc.)
or, are plants to annoying in the summer?
Personally, winter is much worse (at least near Chicago it is).
I think winter is better for roadgeeking. Around here, you don't have to worry about the weather so much (snow is always a possibility, but rarely actually happens more than once or twice per season). In the summer, photography is more difficult because you play hell trying to keep up with scrubbing the bug guts off the windshield and mitigating the glare caused by bright sunlight.
At least you get an extra evening daylight after today. Personally, that's what I look forward to with the time change, even though you lose that hour. Spring and fall, due to the nicer weather. Summer gets a greater chance of rain. Winter has dull to nonexistent foliage in many places, and there's less daylight.
With the exception of love bugs, most insects aren't anything a blade scraper and a bottle of water can't solve (with an additional trip to a gas station).
Quote from: formulanone on March 09, 2014, 08:57:23 PM
With the exception of love bugs, most insects aren't anything a blade scraper and a bottle of water can't solve (with an additional trip to a gas station).
So how about the stinging ones? You know, the ones that will fly into your window suddenly and you now have to worry about the little fucker stinging you.
Quote from: formulanone on March 09, 2014, 08:57:23 PM
At least you get an extra evening daylight after today. Personally, that's what I look forward to with the time change, even though you lose that hour. Spring and fall, due to the nicer weather. Summer gets a greater chance of rain. Winter has dull to nonexistent foliage in many places, and there's less daylight.
I'm still in standard time, so I haven't got that extra evening daylight yet. Instead, the forum has now the wrong hour for me, being one hour ahead of actual time here. So hard is keeping the forum hour in the same GMT offset instead of changing it with DST? Anyway, this will be solved on March 30th when Europe advances to DST.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 10, 2014, 01:25:56 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 09, 2014, 08:57:23 PM
At least you get an extra evening daylight after today. Personally, that's what I look forward to with the time change, even though you lose that hour. Spring and fall, due to the nicer weather. Summer gets a greater chance of rain. Winter has dull to nonexistent foliage in many places, and there's less daylight.
I'm still in standard time, so I haven't got that extra evening daylight yet. Instead, the forum has now the wrong hour for me, being one hour ahead of actual time here. So hard is keeping the forum hour in the same GMT offset instead of changing it with DST? Anyway, this will be solved on March 30th when Europe advances to DST.
In your preferences, you can change it one hour.
Old US 35 at Palmer Rd, Washington Court House, Ohio:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fimghost%2Fredundant-old35palmer.jpg&hash=fa89906fc60138bd961797d08d02324d19734a4b)
Probably because when the US 35 freeway ended at Palmer Road and US 35 made a turn at this intersection, it was a three-way stop.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 28, 2014, 08:34:47 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8546%2F8710937161_2a8a3ae044_z.jpg&hash=01866edf288a4d2a0670b5280485939fbd55b4f6)
Department of Redundancy Postings of Department of Redundancy Department Postings. :-D
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11212.msg274190#msg274190
And I'm not even convinced it's redundant the first time. Using a shield in two separate messages isn't necessarily redundant.
Actually I forgot that I posted it before. Silly as it is, it is almost like I was thinking the same thing under the circumstance. I ran across it the second time when I was sorting through my files, and thought it would be a good redundancy thing not realizing that the posting of the picture by me would be that.
Funny when I think about it.
So the thread now has redundancy.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3703/11846518685_75c7216591_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/j3Qvha)
At the bottom, the sign says "Northbound - Trucks" on one line and "Trucks Use Next Exit" on the next line. Photo taken by me on 1-4-14.
In Belchertown, MA at the northern terminus of MA 181 at US 202/MA 21; there are new (latest GSV predates the erection of such) LGS' for that intersection. For some reason there are two LGS panels for MA 21 North (right turn off 181) but no LGS for US 202 North (straight ahead).
The new LGS arrangement is as follows:
21 NORTH
WARE
BROOKFIELD
------------>
(main paddle LGS)
SOUTH
21 202
LUDLOW
<--------
(2nd LGS below main paddle)
21 NORTH
WARE
----------->
(3rd LGS below previous 2 LGS')
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to get a photo of it.
I'm surprised the nine or so signs for the Ari Halberstam Memorial Ramp haven't come up. I know a few came down during construction, but there were still more than any ramp could ever merit the last time I was there.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 31, 2014, 12:29:50 PM
21 NORTH
WARE
BROOKFIELD
------------>
(main paddle LGS)
SOUTH
21 202
LUDLOW
<--------
(2nd LGS below main paddle)
21 NORTH
WARE
----------->
(3rd LGS below previous 2 LGS')
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to get a photo of it.
Have a free render of what I think MassDOT paddle LGS look like:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA21_PaddleLGS_Redundancy_zps4729c47f.png&hash=dfa2f64d4d0d64f8bf883471e0768fb54c92b2ec)
Reasoning: Pictures are better than text, and I was bored. :biggrin:
Quote from: Zeffy on March 31, 2014, 01:15:27 PMHave a free render of what I think MassDOT paddle LGS look like:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA21_PaddleLGS_Redundancy_zps4729c47f.png&hash=dfa2f64d4d0d64f8bf883471e0768fb54c92b2ec)
Reasoning: Pictures are better than text, and I was bored. :biggrin:
Not bad but the new signs have the black off-set lines for the shields and the white off-sets are now rounded (to mimic the BGS). Also, the first LGS
paddle is mounted on
top of the post & MassDOT has long since adopted the practice of the 1st letter of the direction cardinal being slightly larger than the rest of the lettering.
Attempt 2:
I actually looked up on Alpsroads.net to see what it looked like, and matched it closely.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FMA21_PaddleLGS_Redundancy-f_zps0e3d05a7.png&hash=156f04c3b0f5c503519ba5c2096c3ba88e6a542b)
No idea why the 21 came out so... thick.
The older signs didn't have the embiggened first letter.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 31, 2014, 02:53:19 PM
The older signs didn't have the embiggened first letter.
He wasn't trying to copy the older signs. He was trying to show the LGS' as they appear
today.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 31, 2014, 04:19:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 31, 2014, 02:53:19 PM
The older signs didn't have the embiggened first letter.
He wasn't trying to copy the older signs. He was trying to show the LGS' as they appear today.
Right, I was just clarifying that using the old photo would yield a different result than what is there now for that reason.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/13558638905_08f7fa13de_z.jpg)Happen to catch this one a few years back during a sign change.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/13558638905_08f7fa13de_z.jpg)
If one is trying to argue that Clearview isn't easier to read than FHWA, don't use this picture. :)
Quote from: jbnv on April 01, 2014, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/13558638905_08f7fa13de_z.jpg)
If one is trying to argue that Clearview isn't easier to read than FHWA, don't use this picture. :)
No different that state DOTs replacing 30 year old Highway Gothic BGSes with brand new Clearview ones, and then claiming the improved visibility is due to using a new font.
Quote from: roadman on April 02, 2014, 11:31:15 AM
No different that state DOTs replacing 30 year old Highway Gothic BGSes with brand new Clearview ones, and then claiming the improved visibility is due to using a new font.
Of course, other new BGSes in states that haven't fallen victim to the Clearview bandwagon are perfectly legible, and (usually) don't end up looking like pieces of poop like many Clearview signs do.
Quote from: roadman on April 02, 2014, 11:31:15 AM
Quote from: jbnv on April 01, 2014, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/13558638905_08f7fa13de_z.jpg)
If one is trying to argue that Clearview isn't easier to read than FHWA, don't use this picture. :)
No different that state DOTs replacing 30 year old Highway Gothic BGSes with brand new Clearview ones, and then claiming the improved visibility is due to using a new font.
This brought back a small memory, road related. It was a commercial for 3M, and the claim was the material on their stop signs allowed the sign to be brighter at night than material used by a competitor.
To show the effectivness of the product, they showed a car at a normal 2 lane intersection. Stop signs were on both sides of the road. The 3M sign, used on the right, was definitely brighter than the competitor sign on the left.
What the ad didn't say: Cars stay to the right. Thus, the sign on the right received the benefits of the headlines shining almost directly on the sign.
Quote from: roadman on April 02, 2014, 11:31:15 AM
Quote from: jbnv on April 01, 2014, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/13558638905_08f7fa13de_z.jpg)
If one is trying to argue that Clearview isn't easier to read than FHWA, don't use this picture. :)
No different that state DOTs replacing 30 year old Highway Gothic BGSes with brand new Clearview ones, and then claiming the improved visibility is due to using a new font.
Not to mention the fact that the new BGS is located
closer to the driver than the old BGS.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+myrtle+beach&ll=33.821086,-78.670882&spn=0.000513,0.000603&hnear=North+Myrtle+Beach,+Horry+County,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.821002,-78.670896&panoid=jo_Jee2aQhFdFgcZlVMCDw&cbp=12,337.22,,0,0
In case you didn't know what intersection this is
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 02, 2014, 05:10:29 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+myrtle+beach&ll=33.821086,-78.670882&spn=0.000513,0.000603&hnear=North+Myrtle+Beach,+Horry+County,+South+Carolina&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=33.821002,-78.670896&panoid=jo_Jee2aQhFdFgcZlVMCDw&cbp=12,337.22,,0,0
In case you didn't know what intersection this is
Now
that's a waste of money on signs. :) Also, the STOP sign looks ugly because it's so low to the ground on that post.
Not to mention that all the new signblades (and other signs) are Clearview
Quote from: PColumbus73 on April 02, 2014, 05:46:40 PM
Not to mention that all the new signblades (and other signs) are Clearview
That 'DR' makes me wanna (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyshack.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fsvomit_100-104.gif&hash=ccbb7bfadba519b250af590c6ad472537c5525ae).
I digress, but I think this sign blade is worse:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+myrtle+beach&ll=33.8235,-78.672257&spn=0.000516,0.000603&hnear=North+Myrtle+Beach,+Horry+County,+South+Carolina&t=h&layer=c&cbll=33.823451,-78.672246&panoid=zaYzy0mnR4md5jPPgPsWCA&cbp=12,234.38,,1,6.21&z=21
Will post in Worst of Road Signs
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkPV-4-CcAIvPCM.jpg:large)
Photo posted at Skyscraper City (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=277981&page=478) by ChrisZwolle
Notes:
* One of the replies references the Department of Redundancy Department thread here at AARoads.
* Another reply introduces Alanland to Skyscraper City.
It's for all Interstates One through Five Hundred Ninety-Five, inclusive.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2014, 02:29:24 PM
Photo posted at Skyscraper City (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=277981&page=478) by Chris (He is also a member of this forum ;))
Notes:
* One of the replies references the Department of Redundancy Department thread here at AARoads.
* Another reply introduces Alanland to Skyscraper City.
I was about to put that photo here, which was tweeted by... AARoads. The reference to this thread was made by me :sombrero:, I changed my avatar in SSC to a bus route 41 LED display recently. The Alanland post was made by sotonsi, who (I pressume) is english si here.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2014, 02:29:24 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkPV-4-CcAIvPCM.jpg:large)
Photo posted at Skyscraper City (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=277981&page=478) by ChrisZwolle
Notes:
* One of the replies references the Department of Redundancy Department thread here at AARoads.
* Another reply introduces Alanland to Skyscraper City.
Dear God. That "thing" is brand-spankin' new, too.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 04, 2014, 03:52:49 PMThe Alanland post was made by sotonsi, who (I pressume) is english si here.
yep
Texas loves to do this:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CmhY3ry1yHQ/U0BnD4BGfnI/AAAAAAAABIQ/iRjmA6O1_N8/w406-h544-no/photo.JPG)
Sorry it is so blurry, but the bottom shields are SH 71 business shields. There are a lot of instances where Texas has BUSINESS written in the shield itself, then have a second banner above it also saying BUSINESS. Are there any other states that do this?
According to the TxDOT sign crew field book, the double business signage is correct, unfortunately.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2Ftxdotbusinesssign_zpscddd9416.png&hash=5e4fdfac13ce09b90330f777f9def85fca8801b8) (http://s1209.photobucket.com/user/Brian5561/media/txdotbusinesssign_zpscddd9416.png.html)
Quote from: Brian556 on April 05, 2014, 04:35:23 PM
According to the TxDOT sign crew field book, the double business signage is correct, unfortunately.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2Ftxdotbusinesssign_zpscddd9416.png&hash=5e4fdfac13ce09b90330f777f9def85fca8801b8) (http://s1209.photobucket.com/user/Brian5561/media/txdotbusinesssign_zpscddd9416.png.html)
But not always practiced. I have seen the business on the shield and no banner used as well.
And whats up with the business loop and spur saying "INTERSTATE"in the field book?
In Denton County it is not practiced. The word INTERATATE in the shields is just an error, it is not like that in the field.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 05, 2014, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on April 05, 2014, 04:35:23 PM
According to the TxDOT sign crew field book, the double business signage is correct, unfortunately.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2Ftxdotbusinesssign_zpscddd9416.png&hash=5e4fdfac13ce09b90330f777f9def85fca8801b8) (http://s1209.photobucket.com/user/Brian5561/media/txdotbusinesssign_zpscddd9416.png.html)
But not always practiced. I have seen the business on the shield and no banner used as well.
And whats up with the business loop and spur saying "INTERSTATE"in the field book?
What does the "A" at the bottom of the shield indicate?
Many routes have multiple business routes, each in a different city/town. This identifies them.
Quote from: Brian556 on April 06, 2014, 12:22:48 AM
In Denton County it is not practiced. The word INTERATATE in the shields is just an error, it is not like that in the field.
That's true everywhere. :bigass:
Quote from: Brian556 on April 06, 2014, 12:22:48 AM
In Denton County it is not practiced. The word INTERATATE in the shields is just an error, it is not like that in the field.
We'll yeah. I get ya. But this is in the field book. No wonder so many errors are made. You always have to think about who is installing the signs. They are not road buffs. They don't care if it is correct or not, just if their paycheck is on time. You have a field book telling some guy who doesn't know the first thing about the stuff we know what to do that has errors in it!! Makes me cringe.
I was a rare expection. Most sign crew employees are not interested in roads and signs, and do not have engineering knowledge. They really can't do anything beyond repairing damaged signs.
Is the road closed sign necessary?
(https://fbcdn-photos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-0/1558401_10203436435572814_8426116678019111149_n.jpg)
^^ The road closed sign is supposed to be used only for a temporary road closure.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2882/13206840334_ebb1650690_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/m83vvG)DSC01025 (https://flic.kr/p/m83vvG) by okroads (https://www.flickr.com/people/12472136@N05/), on Flickr
Picture taken by me on 3-15-14
LA 3144 West shows Alexandria, Winnfield as an option. http://goo.gl/maps/lRVoq
Turn away from Alexandria, going north, and what is the FIRST EXIT YOU SEE? http://goo.gl/maps/2cvwF
I'm not sure that's a redundancy, especially since we're talking two different routes.
It appears they used the same destinations for US 165 regardless if you're going North or South on US 167. While Alexandria may not make too much sense on 165 North since Alexandria is south of the area, there probably wasn't any other applicable destination that was worthwhile for this interchange. IMO, I'd rather take consistancy for an interchange's control cities.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3872/14431023965_745ac33959_c.jpg)
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2910/14407905616_3aecf054ea_c.jpg)
Both signs are along FL 417 SB near 5 miles from its southern terminus. The mileage sign with the exit listings is before FL 535 and the "TO Tampa" sign is after FL 535.
Maybe the second sign is there to tell you that no distance has passed since the first sign.
Regarding the Tampa signs, maybe it was installed to provide information on where I-4 went, since the destination sign did not have any destination but I-4 WEST.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 16, 2014, 12:16:15 AM
Regarding the Tampa signs, maybe it was installed to provide information on where I-4 went, since the destination sign did not have any destination but I-4 WEST.
That's also what I was thinking, but the distance
should have changed. This seems more erroneous than anything else.
Quote from: Big John on April 19, 2014, 04:24:15 PM
The road closed sign is supposed to be used only for a temporary road closure.
Quote from: Takumi on April 19, 2014, 03:31:22 PM
Is the road closed sign necessary?
(https://fbcdn-photos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-0/1558401_10203436435572814_8426116678019111149_n.jpg)
Personally I disagree with that statement, because it is a regulatory sign (black-on-white) so I think it can be allowed to remain there. I've seen WisDOT use ROAD CLOSED signs like that at the end of US 12 at the Wis.-Ill. border.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 17, 2014, 08:46:03 AM
Quote from: Big John on April 19, 2014, 04:24:15 PM
The road closed sign is supposed to be used only for a temporary road closure.
Quote from: Takumi on April 19, 2014, 03:31:22 PM
Is the road closed sign necessary?
(https://fbcdn-photos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-0/1558401_10203436435572814_8426116678019111149_n.jpg)
Personally I disagree with that statement, because it is a regulatory sign (black-on-white) so I think it can be allowed to remain there. I've seen WisDOT use ROAD CLOSED signs like that at the end of US 12 at the Wis.-Ill. border.
While there is nothing in the MUTCD that states use of the "Road Closed to Thru Traffic" sign can only be used for temporary traffic control situations, I've never seen it used outside of a construction-related purpose. "Road Closed to Thru Traffic" to me implies that at some point (i.e. if the sign weren't there) through traffic would be able to pass along the road.
For a road that doesn't allow any sort of through traffic by permanent design, you're not really closing the road at all--rather there is no way out. Thus, there is no need to use a regulatory sign to 'officially' close the road, but a warning to motorists that there is no way out along the roadway suffices. The only reasonable exception to this I can think of would be a road that used to allow through traffic but was closed off (like a neighborhood traffic calming measure preventing through cars but letting pedestrians through), which could benefit from a "Road Closed" sign at the point of closure but not other regulatory devices.
Quote from: roadfro on June 18, 2014, 12:11:20 AM
While there is nothing in the MUTCD that states use of the "Road Closed to Thru Traffic" sign can only be used for temporary traffic control situations, I've never seen it used outside of a construction-related purpose.
There's an example in my home county. A bridge was permanently closed and demolished and never replaced. The "Road Closed to Thru Traffic X Miles Ahead, Local Traffic Only" sign is used to notify drivers of the status.
Quote from: jake on June 16, 2014, 03:24:22 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 16, 2014, 12:16:15 AM
Regarding the Tampa signs, maybe it was installed to provide information on where I-4 went, since the destination sign did not have any destination but I-4 WEST.
That's also what I was thinking, but the distance should have changed. This seems more erroneous than anything else.
Presuming that the milemarker at the "TO Tampa" sign is correctly placed, it seens that the distance sign is the one that needs to be changed.
That's really stretching people's knowledge of road symbols and their meanings - I doubt most poeple would translate a green keystone shield to mean a toll road. Nor does the PA Turnpike symbol or even the PA Turnpike wording absolutely mean there will be a toll to pay. There are some short stretches of the PA Turnpike where one can ride toll free.
There's a short stretch on the northern part of the NE Extension that doesn't require a toll, and when the 95/Turnpike interchange is completed between there and Jersey won't be a toll either (or will be an all-electronic toll and/or one direction toll...can't recall right now).
Quote from: Hoss6884 on July 07, 2014, 09:45:58 AM
I guess this caught my attention more for the fact that this is the only shield along the Expressway that I've seen in either direction with the "TOLL" sign.
Yeah... they're only on the most recent section, around the new Mon River bridge. There is also pictures of where they used the "Toll" banner over I-376 on their Beaver Valley sections of highway as well.
I'm kind of curious to see if they start doing that with any new signage (especially with new reconstruction projects) for I-76 on the mainline.
There are seven traffic signals at this one intersection in North Vancouver. Five of them are for going straight (hence why they are yellow), two for left turns (the red lights). I don't think one needs to have five traffic lights to be able to know when to proceed through the intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiXFNhxb.jpg&hash=9454d9cb791e66d8f6bcf27ef05f4f03dd5dbc09)
GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/emF9W
Quote from: SignGeek101 on September 27, 2014, 10:54:08 PM
There are seven traffic signals at this one intersection in North Vancouver.
GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/emF9W
Eight. You missed a third, black, left turn signal on the left side of the intersection (not in the screenshot). It's kinda hard to see.
Overkill?
Not overkill at all. The 4 overhead lights = one light per lane. The lower right sided light is useful for traffic intending on turning right, putting it in a driver's line of sight. The 3 left turn lane lights are fine as well, especially if a light is out.
I've seen 4 or 5 lights for a single lane.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2014, 12:23:48 AM
Not overkill at all. The 4 overhead lights = one light per lane. The lower right sided light is useful for traffic intending on turning right, putting it in a driver's line of sight. The 3 left turn lane lights are fine as well, especially if a light is out.
I've seen 4 or 5 lights for a single lane.
That makes sense. Here in DC, we like the minimalist approach: 2 signals for 3 lanes. I much prefer Vancouver's set-up, though.
I'm still convinced that the majority of the Vancouverite population is following their ancestral traditions by installing many traffic signals for only one movement. For example, we have three signal heads just for this left turn slip in Hertfordshire, England. Unless the slip lane is un-signalized (which is rare), three signal heads appear to be the standard for slip lanes. I don't think four is unheard of, though I couldn't find a photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FycPkadt.png&hash=51d425e1bbda040a02f557755478cd347816e442)
And as far as redundancy goes, here's an intersection in Tacoma, Washington. There's only one lane at this T-intersection, and yet there are four heads... I have to wonder why they even posted a mast arm here...side mounted signals for this movement would have been sufficient IMO:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI58iYQf.png&hash=1dd26e65b9c4f1942fa03948ee3f63d29345f1f2)
Quote from: jake on September 28, 2014, 05:26:47 PM
I'm still convinced that the majority of the Vancouverite population is following their ancestral traditions by installing many traffic signals for only one movement. For example, we have three signal heads just for this left turn slip in Hertfordshire, England. Unless the slip lane is un-signalized (which is rare), three signal heads appear to be the standard for slip lanes. I don't think four is unheard of, though I couldn't find a photo:
Typically only when they have a pedestrian crossing attached, IIRC.
And even then this junction has only two (https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=50.907146,-1.40772&spn=0.004377,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.907045,-1.407813&panoid=NF1Jq3rjTnjY6lsGv8uosw&cbp=12,47.29,,0,5.03), despite being in the traffic signal capital of the UK.
Though this (https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.443737,-0.976667&spn=0.034826,0.084543&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.443605,-0.97688&panoid=YUUNeFI10xKwr5YUsR6D1g&cbp=12,21.75,,0,10.05) is rather overkill (and gives you a four).
PS: I can see you've paid a visit (virtual or otherwise) to the Magic Roundabout in Hemel.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQefwWJ6.png&hash=adebe0f7414eb0dc3907ed7ebae031c355309ad6) (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.794932,-85.906777&spn=0.024179,0.049567&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=37.795038,-85.91504&panoid=mrRoDO3uu2zy2wO75WSJzQ&cbp=12,13.55,,1,1.48)
what
Old Town, ME on US 2A.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3938/15668836165_688c995244_z.jpg)
http://goo.gl/maps/wbSwJ
To [7] Highway 7
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=933539406675607&set=oa.729573993798215&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=933539406675607&set=oa.729573993798215&type=3&theater)
It looks redundant but its on CA-244 in Sacramento, CA.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=943366289026252&set=oa.737541586334789&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=943366289026252&set=oa.737541586334789&type=3&theater)
In Natomas, CA I-5 for odd reasons is signed Twice even though there is a Hidden CA-99 Between the Sacramento Airport to the US-50, I-305, Business 80 interchange.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=918572491505632&set=pb.100000586708549.-2207520000.1416976520.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xap1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F1013255_918572491505632_3803793875769487917_n.jpg%3Foh%3Dc212351525cce0eee2a7844259e2a0da%26oe%3D54D17016%26__gda__%3D1427790687_689bb2596c11bcf63dd466a55c01dad6&size=744%2C744
US-50 in Downtown Sacramento To I-5 interchange
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=866569640039251&set=pb.100000586708549.-2207520000.1416976540.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xpf1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F10444715_866569640039251_628509996852983936_n.jpg%3Foh%3D91f2025e3c478cf364e559188dacde43%26oe%3D54D96F6A&size=526%2C237 West of CA-99 and CA-51 Interchange on US-50.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on September 27, 2014, 10:54:08 PM
There are seven traffic signals at this one intersection in North Vancouver. Five of them are for going straight (hence why they are yellow), two for left turns (the red lights). I don't think one needs to have five traffic lights to be able to know when to proceed through the intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiXFNhxb.jpg&hash=9454d9cb791e66d8f6bcf27ef05f4f03dd5dbc09)
GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/emF9W
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2014, 05:26:47 PM
I'm still convinced that the majority of the Vancouverite population is following their ancestral traditions by installing many traffic signals for only one movement. For example, we have three signal heads just for this left turn slip in Hertfordshire, England. Unless the slip lane is un-signalized (which is rare), three signal heads appear to be the standard for slip lanes. I don't think four is unheard of, though I couldn't find a photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FycPkadt.png&hash=51d425e1bbda040a02f557755478cd347816e442)
And as far as redundancy goes, here's an intersection in Tacoma, Washington. There's only one lane at this T-intersection, and yet there are four heads... I have to wonder why they even posted a mast arm here...side mounted signals for this movement would have been sufficient IMO:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI58iYQf.png&hash=1dd26e65b9c4f1942fa03948ee3f63d29345f1f2)
The two quotes above remind me of 3 known jurisdictions that use excessive signal heads:
* DelDOT
* IDOT
* WisDOT (especially with their IDOT imitations)
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 26, 2014, 10:35:33 AM
The two quotes above remind me of 3 known jurisdictions that use excessive signal heads:
* DelDOT
* IDOT
* WisDOT (especially with their IDOT imitations)
I never thought of DelDOT using too many. They seem to abide by the 1 signal per lane rule. If anything, they could use a additional one for permitted/protected left turns; often of which only 1 green or green/yellow arrow is used.
Regarding New Jersey roads on the other hand - they've been known to use 4 or 5 signal heads for a signal lane. And going back to the last picture: Almost all 'T' intersections have mast arms for all 3 legs of the intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_Nashville_Days_2-3%2FImages%2F244.jpg&hash=3f89647b2d64ae9e386f1f31e27ed0d20928b5a1)
Don't "lake" and "reservoir" mean the same thing?
They probably meant to put Nolin River Reservoir or Nolin River Lake.
8 signal heads facing one direction by Plover, WI: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4538437,-89.5087328,3a,75y,116.19h,91.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSnrdIUySXrXlnl65LJPOwA!2e0
Quote from: Big John on November 26, 2014, 01:57:08 PM
8 signal heads facing one direction by Plover, WI: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4538437,-89.5087328,3a,75y,116.19h,91.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSnrdIUySXrXlnl65LJPOwA!2e0
That whole setup looks very British to me, especially with the half-height masts for the turn lanes posted on the near-side of the intersection.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2014, 11:04:16 AM
And going back to the last picture: Almost all 'T' intersections have mast arms for all 3 legs of the intersection.
Since I posted the photo, it's fair that I respond. The through-movements should definitely have mast arms, but the terminating movement is better suited by just a couple of signals: keep the half-height mast on the right, and keep the mast-mounted signal on the left, and that's it.
This one has been taken down, but existed for a while.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_30-39_images%2F33_shield_jct49EB_adv.jpg&hash=fc118d8faff150212f5eb0166bb66548c06c4ffa)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2014, 11:53:02 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_Nashville_Days_2-3%2FImages%2F244.jpg&hash=3f89647b2d64ae9e386f1f31e27ed0d20928b5a1)
Don't "lake" and "reservoir" mean the same thing?
Not quite; a reservoir only exists where there's a dam or some other manmade structure to contain the water for later use. If there was previously a lake called Nolin Lake, and then they built a dam across its outlet stream, the resulting larger impoundment could certainly be called Nolin Lake Reservoir.
Here's my favorite signal over kill from my old town of Ramona CA: The eastern terminus of Warnock Road into San Vincente,5 signals, including 2 right turn 5 lamps, that were installed years before the road was upgraded with a specific right turn only/left turn only lane.
http://goo.gl/maps/9ebQh
The intersection of Bailey Cove Road and 4 Mile Post Road has three "No U-turn" signs at it now.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7553/15861760206_ea338eede4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qaDEGf)
Three No U-turn Signs (https://flic.kr/p/qaDEGf) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3762/10174117036_30b3c2a4bb_z.jpg)
Also a candidate for Sine Salad...
http://goo.gl/maps/C0PX4
If you can't make out the text:
STRICT TRAFFIC
ENFORCEMENT ZONE
NO TOLERANCE ALLOWED
SLOW DOWN
This sign is so redundant that the redundancy changes its meaning. It's apparently a warning to the cops that they aren't allowed to have any tolerance.
NO TOLERANCE ALLOWED
That's very close to "tolerance will not be tolerated", which sounds contradictory but isn't.
Quote from: dfwmapper on November 26, 2014, 10:47:31 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/C0PX4
If you can't make out the text:
STRICT TRAFFIC
ENFORCEMENT ZONE
NO TOLERANCE ALLOWED
SLOW DOWN
You know, if they really wanted slower traffic they could have made it something less than a six-lane road...
Quote from: empirestate on November 27, 2014, 12:15:25 AM
You know, if they really wanted slower traffic they could have made it something less than a six-lane road...
Historically, it needed the six lanes. The toll road didn't open east of Firewheel Parkway until 2012, but the frontage roads and Firewheel Parkway itself (plus all the houses in Rowlett) date back at least as far as the early 90s. A lot of people headed towards the northern suburbs for jobs. Had it been built today, it would probably be a four lane parkway (i.e. extra wide median that can accommodate future widening to six lanes).
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 26, 2014, 07:43:25 PM
The intersection of Bailey Cove Road and 4 Mile Post Road has three "No U-turn" signs at it now.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7553/15861760206_ea338eede4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qaDEGf)
Three No U-turn Signs (https://flic.kr/p/qaDEGf) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
The question is how many people ignore them? I will bet you will still have a driver or two ignore these signs even though it very much catches your eyes.
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 26, 2014, 10:35:33 AM
The two quotes above remind me of 3 known jurisdictions that use excessive signal heads:
* DelDOT
* IDOT
* WisDOT (especially with their IDOT imitations)
IDOT has actual rules regarding signal installations. There must be a minimum of three signals per direction, and a minimum of two signals per turning direction. A bare-bones setup will be two five-light towers (left turn) and one three-light signal, giving three signals for the through (and right turn) direction.
Actually the redundant heads are good on highways where the truck in front of you blocks your view of the two main signal heads.
NJ has at least four and up to six on divided highways with mast arms erected in the median. Some have the heads facing your way while mounted over the opposing roadway and the other side sees the back of the head aimed at you as well as you looking at the back of another head meant for the other direction. Most cases, though, they use back to back signal heads. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3292905,-74.3055338,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy_EeQIncw49u3uFXzvU3RA!2e0
The two turn heads that Delaware, Illinois, and even California are used in New Jersey at every left turn signal and that I feel is a good thing as well as the far left corner mount can be seen also around a truck in front of you as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2014, 02:22:46 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 26, 2014, 07:43:25 PM
The intersection of Bailey Cove Road and 4 Mile Post Road has three "No U-turn" signs at it now.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7553/15861760206_ea338eede4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qaDEGf)
Three No U-turn Signs (https://flic.kr/p/qaDEGf) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/people/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
The question is how many people ignore them? I will bet you will still have a driver or two ignore these signs even though it very much catches your eyes.
There was the occasional person who ignored the first two signs before the third one was put up, so it'll probably be the same amount of people.
For those that didn't already know; US 13 in Prospect Park, PA is indeed Chester Pike (http://goo.gl/maps/KNF1t). Pardon the blurry GSV.
Thread bump:
En route to/from last weekend's Cape May Mini-Meet; I saw three LBS' containing both the Wawa logo and text. Unfortunately, the current GSV predates the erection of two of those signs at NJ 347's northern terminus w/NJ 47 (but doesn't predate the Wawa store & gas station). I recall seeing a third LBS further south (not necessarily along 347) but can't recall the location.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2015, 11:40:43 AM
Thread bump:
En route to/from last weekend's Cape May Mini-Meet; I saw three LBS' containing both the Wawa logo and text. Unfortunately, the current GSV predates the erection of two of those signs at NJ 347's northern terminus w/NJ 47 (but doesn't predate the Wawa store & gas station). I recall seeing a third LBS further south (not necessarily along 347) but can't recall the location.
Was it for the same Wawa?
If so, there could've been a sign at the 47/347 split going south, then one on each side of the first intersection, as that particular Wawa is just off the intersection there.
Two of the 3 signs were definitely for that one Wawa at 47/347; both of which were on NJ 347 approaching the Mauricetown Crossway Road (CR 607 and NJ 47 northbound) intersection.
Per my earlier post, my "further south (not necessarily on 347)" reference, was referring to another Wawa located further south. Such was likely located in the actual meet area/route (and no it was not for the Wawa in Wildwood that's has the 50s drive-in decor; we passed by that one during the meet).
I even pointed the LBS out to those that were riding with me during the meet; but it came too quick to get a quick snapshot of such (I thought GSV would show the LBS' at 47/347 especially since it shows the Wawa fully open).
You're referring to this type of signage, right? http://goo.gl/maps/JMdOs That's what NJDOT does on roads that aren't limited-access highways. No idea why.
Wildwood has really been able to do a great job with encouraging some businesses to go with the doo-wop theme which can be found all throughout Wildwood. It's an ordinary Wawa inside, but a very unique setup on the outside.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2015, 03:26:59 PM
You're referring to this type of signage, right? http://goo.gl/maps/JMdOs That's what NJDOT does on roads that aren't limited-access highways. No idea why.
That would be the type. Your posted-example shows all-round redundancy (logo & text) regardless of the brand or venue.
Found this one (http://goo.gl/maps/wY73Z) recently and wasn't sure which thread to post/comment on it. It's not unique enough for the Good, Bad & Ugly thread, it's not technically erroneous (though some might view it as misleading depending on where they're heading), and there's not really a design error per say.
The issue: MA 62 east of this interchange w/US 3 goes through the center of Burlington (where its municipal facilities & offices are located) and US 3 south heads towards the Burlington Mall (to most outsiders, Burlington = where the mall is) its freeway segment does indeed end in Burlington (at I-95) not too far from the mall. However, using the name of a shopping mall as a highway destination (to differentiate from Burlington's municipal center) is frowned upon by MUTCD; so that option's out. To my knowledge, Burlington is not separated into either North/South or Upper/Lower sections.
Previous US 3 South signage at this particular interchange either listed BOSTON, possibly WINCHESTER, maybe both and possibly TO RTE. 128 (old) and/or TO 95 references in the D6 LGS legend; but never Burlington.
Note: there's still a supplemental TO 95 trailblazer (http://goo.gl/maps/D8G38) along MA 62 eastbound just prior to the US 3 south ramp leftover from the US 3 widening construction project.
Personally, I would have used BOSTON for these US 3 south ramp LGS' especially since one is greeted with this overhead BGS (http://goo.gl/maps/NR6WX) shortly after getting on US 3 South and erected supplemental (LBS) signage for the Burlington Mall near/at the on-ramp.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2015, 04:01:48 PM
Found this one (http://goo.gl/maps/wY73Z) recently and wasn't sure which thread to post/comment on it. It's not unique enough for the Good, Bad & Ugly thread, it's not technically erroneous (though some might view it as misleading depending on where they're heading), and there's not really a design error per say.
The issue: MA 62 east of this interchange w/US 3 goes through the center of Burlington (where its municipal facilities & offices are located) and US 3 south heads towards the Burlington Mall (to most outsiders, Burlington = where the mall is) its freeway segment does indeed end in Burlington (at I-95) not too far from the mall. However, using the name of a shopping mall as a highway destination (to differentiate from Burlington's municipal center) is frowned upon by MUTCD; so that option's out. To my knowledge, Burlington is not separated into either North/South or Upper/Lower sections.
Previous US 3 South signage at this particular interchange either listed BOSTON, possibly WINCHESTER, maybe both and possibly TO RTE. 128 (old) and/or TO 95 references in the D6 LGS legend; but never Burlington.
Note: there's still a supplemental TO 95 trailblazer (http://goo.gl/maps/D8G38) along MA 62 eastbound just prior to the US 3 south ramp leftover from the US 3 widening construction project.
Personally, I would have used BOSTON for these US 3 south ramp LGS' especially since one is greeted with this overhead BGS (http://goo.gl/maps/NR6WX) shortly after getting on US 3 South and erected supplemental (LBS) signage for the Burlington Mall near/at the on-ramp.
The change to "Burlington" was made as part of the 1996 US 3 Burlington to Tyngsborough sign update. The majority of the signs installed in 1996 were retained or reset as part of the subsequent widening project. Unfortunately, I can't find any records as to what the previous LGSes said.
And I agree with you that using Burlington as a control for US 3 south from MA 62 makes little sense. Personally, I would have used "US 3 SOUTH TO I-95 Boston" at this location. When I get a chance, I'll discuss this with my contacts in District 4 - there might actually be a history as to why the change to Burlington was made.
Quote from: roadman on January 14, 2015, 01:31:00 PM
The change to "Burlington" was made as part of the 1996 US 3 Burlington to Tyngsborough sign update. The majority of the signs installed in 1996 were retained or reset as part of the subsequent widening project. Unfortunately, I can't find any records as to what the previous LGSes said.
Guess on my part, the use of
Burlington for a US 3 South destination
for this interchange may have been the result of a
one-size-fits-all approach to interchange signage in the fore-mentioned 1996 sign replacement contract.
Meaning, since all the other interchanges north of MA 62 list
Burlington for a southbound destination (which is correct & proper given that none of the other connecting roads go to Burlington); such was applied for MA 62 signage as well despite the fact that 62 crosses into Burlington just east of US 3 near MITRE's complex.
As far as what was noted on the previous LGS'; I'm guessing that any US 3 South LGS prior to the 1980s likely listed the then-much-used
TO RTE. 128 - BOSTON legend. Later signage (80s vintage)
may have used either
WINCHESTER - BOSTON or just
BOSTON.
Quote from: roadman on January 14, 2015, 01:31:00 PMAnd I agree with you that using Burlington as a control for US 3 south from MA 62 makes little sense. Personally, I would have used "US 3 SOUTH TO I-95 Boston" at this location. When I get a chance, I'll discuss this with my contacts in District 4 - there might actually be a history as to why the change to Burlington was made.
See above for my personal speculation.
BTW, a similar destination redundancy exists in District 5(?) at the US 1/MA 114 interchange in Danvers involving the use of
Peabody for
both MA 114 East and US 1 South destinations.
MA 114 East Peabody BGS from US 1 South (http://goo.gl/maps/Ew8x6), BGS along US 1 North has the same listing.
US 1 South Peabody from MA 114 East (http://goo.gl/maps/gQMAe); but interestingly, the US 1 South BGS along MA 114 West (http://goo.gl/maps/NfZCs) still has the older Boston listing. Such is located shortly after one passes the on-ramp for I-95 South (which is also signed for Boston).
I'm well aware of the reason why
Boston (US 1 South's originally-listed destination) was removed from the 1 South BGS along 114 East; such coincided with the opening of the newly-added & constructed and fore-mentioned direct on-ramp to nearby I-95 South.
However, given that fact that Peabody has long since been a 114 east destination, plus the fact that US 1 goes nowhere near Downtown Peabody; I would've used either
W. Peabody or
Saugus for a US 1 South destination... and apply such on
all US 1 South signs at this interchange.
Not to bust your chops here but another destination redundancy (IMHO, this one's more of an error) exists with this particular LGS (http://goo.gl/maps/Ie5X6) at the I-95/MA 110 interchange. Since MA 110 East goes into Salisbury, it's a bit pointless to still have Salisbury as an I-95 North destination from here northward.
Here is a 1958 photo from Richmond Va. It is Broad St WB at Bowe St, which was NB US 1-301 during much of the 1950s.
There are 4 (!) different US 1-301 assemblies telling you to turn right - 3 different kinds (regular cutouts; white border; inverse white on black on an overhead sign).
I would post the pic itself but the Richmond Times-Dispatch will only allow me to link for free. If I wanted to (and I did) put the pictures themselves (8 total) on the Virginia Highways Project, they would charge me $50 per pic per year.
http://archives.blogs.timesdispatch.com/files/2013/06/0717_POD_Whitten-1024x778.jpg
For the curious, here is a 1952 photo heading in the opposite direction showing that US 33-250 did continue east past US 1-301...
http://archives.blogs.timesdispatch.com/2014/03/10/broad-lombardy-1952/
Mapmikey
WSDOT (and other neighboring west-coast jurisdictions) are known for their double shields on pull-throughs. But how about double cardinal-directions?
Sorry for shit iPhone quality. Sign was just installed maybe a week ago max on I-5 South just short of the SR-16 junction. I don't think it will last more than a few years given the construction in the area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw7Gxgbr.jpg&hash=3ea5b7cf0d91a86a3ad3025ad0405748e6a8ed55)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexpressway.paulrands.com%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fnsw%2Fnumbered%2Falphanumeric%2Fa32%2F02_katoombatocobar%2Feastbound%2Fimages%2F201309_06_bathurst_durhamst.jpg&hash=ca786def2a5e37f52255b069c9fdbb274b8b7f7c)
Quote from: jakeroot on January 15, 2015, 08:21:32 PM
WSDOT (and other neighboring west-coast jurisdictions) are known for their double shields on pull-throughs. But how about double cardinal-directions?
Sorry for shit iPhone quality. Sign was just installed maybe a week ago max on I-5 South just short of the SR-16 junction. I don't think it will last more than a few years given the construction in the area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fw7Gxgbr.jpg&hash=3ea5b7cf0d91a86a3ad3025ad0405748e6a8ed55)
I was hoping you'd noticed that sign. A couple of notes:
- That sign is too small. I've driven under it several times already, and I'm pretty sure it's only two lanes wide.
- It's on the same overpass as one of the "error" signs for the SR 16 exit, which reads Exit 132 when it's been 132B for a few years now, and incorrectly has the right two lanes marked exit only, when it should be only the right lane with an option lane.
- Taking the "gantry" as a whole, there's a host of lane assignment problems:
- The carriageway is 6 lanes wide at this point. With the I-5 sign being too small, that leaves two lanes in the center with no down arrows. Even if it were sized/mounted correctly, Lane #4 wouldn't have an arrow.
- The four left lanes should be signed as I-5 south. The reason the fourth one isn't is because it ends about a mile down the road, but not until after the Exit 132A off-ramp, with plenty of space to merge. A lane ends warning could be appropriate here if you didn't want to include the fourth lane on the I-5 pull-through, but that would probably be message loading.
- As mentioned, Lane #5 is an exit only lane for Exit 132A (38th Street) or an option lane for Exit 132B (SR 16). It shouldn't be signed as an exit only lane for SR 16.
Basically, they mean well, but a lot of the hopefully temporary construction signage in this area has turned out like crap.
http://goo.gl/maps/w9TOZ
I can't believe I'm complaining about a FHWA sign in BC, but here I am.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 26, 2015, 11:38:11 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/w9TOZ
I can't believe I'm complaining about a FHWA sign in BC, but here I am.
Fucking hell. That's bad.
http://goo.gl/maps/yijFH
I guess these are quite common though.
^ When I looked at the BC photo you (SignGeek101) posted, the second photo was the exact one I thought about.
It is CR220 Goddamnit(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg%5Dhttp%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F15%2F02%2F01%2Fab339883d7768f2dc23a1715cbf9d496.jpg&hash=431a343e0f6f6b5cbae3337a076795fa3e0c754f)[/IMG]
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2014, 09:07:51 AM
That's really stretching people's knowledge of road symbols and their meanings - I doubt most poeple would translate a green keystone shield to mean a toll road. Nor does the PA Turnpike symbol or even the PA Turnpike wording absolutely mean there will be a toll to pay. There are some short stretches of the PA Turnpike where one can ride toll free.
"Turnpike" implies a toll road.
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
"Turnpike" implies a toll road.
Not if you grew up somewhere with a bunch of 19th century turnpikes that still have those names.
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2014, 09:07:51 AM
That's really stretching people's knowledge of road symbols and their meanings - I doubt most poeple would translate a green keystone shield to mean a toll road. Nor does the PA Turnpike symbol or even the PA Turnpike wording absolutely mean there will be a toll to pay. There are some short stretches of the PA Turnpike where one can ride toll free.
"Turnpike" implies a toll road.
I might agree with this if you're referring to an Interstate-grade highway or similar (I suppose you could question whether the Pennsylvania Turnpike is Interstate-grade!), but I don't think it's accurate as a blanket statement. "Turnpike" isn't uncommon as a designator for an arterial road. My parents' neighborhood is located off Little River Turnpike, a standard four-lane suburban arterial with traffic lights and a 45-mph speed limit. As NE2 says, the road was privately built during the Jefferson Administration and back then it was a toll road. Its name stuck long after it became public.
Since I've never been to Oklahoma with its turnpikes named for people, if I hear "Turnpike" I think of a toll highway only if the word follows a state's name. Otherwise, I think of a longer arterial street. (The old Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike in Virginia would have been an exception, but the tolls were removed in the early 1990s and I never drove on it myself as a toll road, though I was a passenger on it many times during the toll era.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2015, 04:53:11 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2014, 09:07:51 AM
That's really stretching people's knowledge of road symbols and their meanings - I doubt most poeple would translate a green keystone shield to mean a toll road. Nor does the PA Turnpike symbol or even the PA Turnpike wording absolutely mean there will be a toll to pay. There are some short stretches of the PA Turnpike where one can ride toll free.
"Turnpike" implies a toll road.
I might agree with this if you're referring to an Interstate-grade highway or similar (I suppose you could question whether the Pennsylvania Turnpike is Interstate-grade!), but I don't think it's accurate as a blanket statement. "Turnpike" isn't uncommon as a designator for an arterial road. My parents' neighborhood is located off Little River Turnpike, a standard four-lane suburban arterial with traffic lights and a 45-mph speed limit. As NE2 says, the road was privately built during the Jefferson Administration and back then it was a toll road. Its name stuck long after it became public.
Since I've never been to Oklahoma with its turnpikes named for people, if I hear "Turnpike" I think of a toll highway only if the word follows a state's name. Otherwise, I think of a longer arterial street. (The old Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike in Virginia would have been an exception, but the tolls were removed in the early 1990s and I never drove on it myself as a toll road, though I was a passenger on it many times during the toll era.)
There is even a road in Salisbury, Massachusetts that is
named "Toll Rd." It has no toll.
(I've been trying to find a starting and ending point that uses Toll Rd. to bypass the I-95 toll in New Hampshire, but it's not quite working.)
Quote from: 1 on February 02, 2015, 05:26:59 PM
There is even a road in Salisbury, Massachusetts that is named "Toll Rd." It has no toll.
It was built as an approach to the NH Turnpike.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2015, 04:53:11 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2014, 09:07:51 AM
That's really stretching people's knowledge of road symbols and their meanings - I doubt most poeple would translate a green keystone shield to mean a toll road. Nor does the PA Turnpike symbol or even the PA Turnpike wording absolutely mean there will be a toll to pay. There are some short stretches of the PA Turnpike where one can ride toll free.
"Turnpike" implies a toll road.
I might agree with this if you're referring to an Interstate-grade highway or similar (I suppose you could question whether the Pennsylvania Turnpike is Interstate-grade!), but I don't think it's accurate as a blanket statement. "Turnpike" isn't uncommon as a designator for an arterial road. My parents' neighborhood is located off Little River Turnpike, a standard four-lane suburban arterial with traffic lights and a 45-mph speed limit. As NE2 says, the road was privately built during the Jefferson Administration and back then it was a toll road. Its name stuck long after it became public.
Since I've never been to Oklahoma with its turnpikes named for people, if I hear "Turnpike" I think of a toll highway only if the word follows a state's name. Otherwise, I think of a longer arterial street. (The old Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike in Virginia would have been an exception, but the tolls were removed in the early 1990s and I never drove on it myself as a toll road, though I was a passenger on it many times during the toll era.)
The Connecticut Turnpike is free. NJ, despite having "The Turnpike" has many non-toll turnpikes, like the Middlesex-Essex Turnpike, which nowadays is a few blocks long, nowhere near Essex County, and the Sussex Turnpike, which is just a county route in Morris (not Sussex) County.
Good point about Connecticut. While I overlooked that one when I made my comment, it doesn't really matter because regardless of its status, it doesn't change my overall feeling that if I hear "[state name] Turnpike" I generally think of a tolled highway.
(I do remember when the Connecticut Turnpike was tolled, though I was not yet old enough to drive at the time. If I refer to that road nowadays, though, I'd call it I-95.)
I'd say the word "turnpike" absolutely does imply a toll road, it's just that the implication often isn't borne out by reality. Taken literally, a "turnpike" refers to a barrier that can be moved. The connotation is that this would be moved upon payment of a toll (as is done at parking garages and many toll facilities today).
Of course, the vast majority of so-called "Turnpikes" today are no longer toll facilities; at the same time, many roads that currently are tolled don't use a movable barrier. Because of this, people who use the word "turnpike" often don't mean to imply a toll road; however, the word itself does connote this.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 03, 2015, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2015, 04:53:11 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2014, 09:07:51 AM
That's really stretching people's knowledge of road symbols and their meanings - I doubt most poeple would translate a green keystone shield to mean a toll road. Nor does the PA Turnpike symbol or even the PA Turnpike wording absolutely mean there will be a toll to pay. There are some short stretches of the PA Turnpike where one can ride toll free.
"Turnpike" implies a toll road.
I might agree with this if you're referring to an Interstate-grade highway or similar (I suppose you could question whether the Pennsylvania Turnpike is Interstate-grade!), but I don't think it's accurate as a blanket statement. "Turnpike" isn't uncommon as a designator for an arterial road. My parents' neighborhood is located off Little River Turnpike, a standard four-lane suburban arterial with traffic lights and a 45-mph speed limit. As NE2 says, the road was privately built during the Jefferson Administration and back then it was a toll road. Its name stuck long after it became public.
Since I've never been to Oklahoma with its turnpikes named for people, if I hear "Turnpike" I think of a toll highway only if the word follows a state's name. Otherwise, I think of a longer arterial street. (The old Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike in Virginia would have been an exception, but the tolls were removed in the early 1990s and I never drove on it myself as a toll road, though I was a passenger on it many times during the toll era.)
The Connecticut Turnpike is free. NJ, despite having "The Turnpike" has many non-toll turnpikes, like the Middlesex-Essex Turnpike, which nowadays is a few blocks long, nowhere near Essex County, and the Sussex Turnpike, which is just a county route in Morris (not Sussex) County.
Some of those in my area are the Easton Turnpike (NJ 28) and the Georgetown-Franklin Turnpike (CR 518). From what I've read though, turnpikes were privately built roads that required a toll to use back in the 19th century. No point to rename a road if so many people call it the old name (like old NJ route 3).
"Turnpike" to me means toll road. Though "turnpike" also implies to me that it was the state's first freeway.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 03, 2015, 12:22:06 PM
"turnpike" [...] implies [...] freeway.
Ha, well now we've opened that huge kettle of fish again!
(And per the thread's subject, this seems the perfect place to re-discuss it.) :-D
Quote from: empirestate on February 03, 2015, 02:01:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 03, 2015, 12:22:06 PM
"turnpike" [...] implies [...] freeway.
Ha, well now we've opened that huge kettle of fish again!
(And per the thread's subject, this seems the perfect place to re-discuss it.) :-D
I'm at least 1500 miles from the nearest turnpike...don't take my opinion seriously.
http://goo.gl/maps/ZuU09
Perhaps it would be better to post the second sign on the left side of the road, instead of 10 m in front of the other sign.
Just up the road:
http://goo.gl/maps/0nvm7
I'm sure it had to be done this way, but it still looks redundant to me whenever i see it. When the exits were renumbered on 595, the Davie road exit kept the same exit number, but they still put an "old" sign on the exit with the same number. Picture from AARoads 595 page.
(https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/florida595/i-595_eb_exit_007_03.jpg)
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/166998_1851155403128_6239395_n.jpg?oh=c625299a3542c727d45187153fbad8da&oe=55905542)
Found this in downtown Chicago a few years back.
VA-244 westbound prior to the left turn onto VA-7 eastbound. (https://goo.gl/maps/2QPfl) (There was similar redundancy with the former bridge-mounted sign that this ground-mounted one replaced.)
Quote from: ajlynch91 on February 24, 2015, 12:15:53 PMFound this in downtown Chicago a few years back.
There's similar "I-195" signs floating around East Providence in a similar style.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0)
Quote from: cjk374 on March 21, 2015, 08:24:37 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0)
What's the redundancy? It doesn't look like the pennant is posted in the right place (it should be at the beginning of the no passing zone), but it's intended to be used with the Gandalf sign: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2c.htm#section2C45
Quote from: cjk374 on March 21, 2015, 08:24:37 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0)
There's no redundancy there. In some states (Michigan), that's standard and normal. These states also post "PASS WITH CARE" at then end of the no passing zone.
Quote from: Brandon on March 21, 2015, 09:43:24 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on March 21, 2015, 08:24:37 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0)
There's no redundancy there. In some states (Michigan), that's standard and normal. These states also post "PASS WITH CARE" at then end of the no passing zone.
Well, there
is redundancy, it's just designed into the system. Any correctly signed and striped No Passing zone will be redundant.
-- Quote block fixed --sso
Quote from: Brandon on March 21, 2015, 09:43:24 AM
Quote from: cjk374 on March 21, 2015, 08:24:37 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.17027,-90.230263,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s3lRwGPk01X-M9kAeHYvWqA!2e0)
There's no redundancy there. In some states (Michigan), that's standard and normal. These states also post "PASS WITH CARE" at then end of the no passing zone.
The pennant appears to be orange, as though it is left-over from the construction.
Not sure if this qualifies as redundant or just odd...Texas State Highway 35, neutered as "SH 35":
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/311/20141959440_b169a7dc07_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wFSNNL)
SH-ex as 35 (https://flic.kr/p/wFSNNL) by formulanone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/formulanone/), on Flickr
Located in Pearland; there were a few more reassurance markers along SH 35 with the same design. It was raining a bit too much yesterday to get a good shot, so that's the best I could get.
Quote from: bigboi00069 on February 24, 2015, 11:03:45 AM
I'm sure it had to be done this way, but it still looks redundant to me whenever i see it. When the exits were renumbered on 595, the Davie road exit kept the same exit number, but they still put an "old" sign on the exit with the same number. Picture from AARoads 595 page.
(https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/florida595/i-595_eb_exit_007_03.jpg)
I thought FDOT started phasing out the "Old Exit #" signs...seems odd (and pointless) to re-create them for I-595 signage changes. With an exit seemingly every mile along that route, that was a good case for keeping sequential exit numbers instead of changing to mileage-based in 2002-03.
http://goo.gl/maps/p1pCu
They really want you to not go over 65 here.
This is similar to a sign posted by Zeffy here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2063012#msg2063012
But now states "THIS LANE"
http://goo.gl/maps/YjKrW
It's redundant because that arrow is supposed to dictate which lanes go where. Adding "This Lane" reinforces what already has been shown by the arrow.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 26, 2015, 01:12:31 PM
This is similar to a sign posted by Zeffy here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2063012#msg2063012
But now states "THIS LANE"
http://goo.gl/maps/YjKrW
It's redundant because that arrow is supposed to dictate which lanes go where. Adding "This Lane" reinforces what already has been shown by the arrow.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 26, 2015, 01:12:31 PM
This is similar to a sign posted by Zeffy here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2063012#msg2063012
But now states "THIS LANE"
http://goo.gl/maps/YjKrW
It's redundant because that arrow is supposed to dictate which lanes go where. Adding "This Lane" reinforces what already has been shown by the arrow.
It's common practice to show the next exit to the left of an exit only lane sign, so it's not immediately obvious that the lane over which it appears is the lane that exits. Arrows are often used incorrectly (see https://www.google.com/maps/@39.423524,-74.574362,3a,75y,91.38h,68.37t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1scoFnX0jH_IXhJURYblmJUg!2e0!5s20130801T000000!5m1!1e1), so they are not sufficient.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 26, 2015, 01:12:31 PM
This is similar to a sign posted by Zeffy here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11045.msg2063012#msg2063012
But now states "THIS LANE"
http://goo.gl/maps/YjKrW
It's redundant because that arrow is supposed to dictate which lanes go where. Adding "This Lane" reinforces what already has been shown by the arrow.
This is similar to one located on the WB Pa. Turnpike at I-476. Seems like a good application for some form of APL or diagrammatic panel.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on May 26, 2015, 01:12:31 PM
It's redundant because that arrow is supposed to dictate which lanes go where. Adding "This Lane" reinforces what already has been shown by the arrow.
Sometimes such reinforcement is called for.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.754186,-84.151638,3a,48.7y,91.54h,88.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sozK6CeuV3IQ5O2M6O7JpuQ!2e0
How redundant would it be to both show an airport symbol, and name the airport? Does this happen a lot in the US?
Shown here (ignore the somewhat poorly spaced sign. Ontario has a height limit of 275 cm I think, but yikes...)
https://goo.gl/maps/GbHHx
Quote from: SignGeek101 on June 16, 2015, 12:52:53 AM
How redundant would it be to both show an airport symbol, and name the airport? Does this happen a lot in the US?
"This road goes to an airport." "Which airport?" "Hamilton Airport."
Not really redundant to me.
Hamilton =/= Hamilton Airport :. 'Airport' should be added to make it clear, given that the Airplane logo isn't part of the text, but something separate*
Here's a British sign near Manchester (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.486032,-2.381967,3a,26.5y,68.6h,96.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqPXIEEsRRRAPHziAjJ-yng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) that shows that airports are not the city, and also how to incorporate the Airplane logo into the text and avoid writing the word.
The tube map used to have airplane logo at stations with direct services to airports that weren't shown on the map. But which airport was the service heading to? That was unclear as there was no name. They now only have it in the in-car diagrams which have always said 'Gatwick Airport' or similar on them.
*if it was basically a character, then "Hamilton <airplane>" would be fine.
Quote from: sammi on June 16, 2015, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on June 16, 2015, 12:52:53 AM
How redundant would it be to both show an airport symbol, and name the airport? Does this happen a lot in the US?
"This road goes to an airport." "Which airport?" "Hamilton Airport."
Not really redundant to me.
I guess... it's just with the sign having limited space, I don't really see why that info is needed. I feel that Quebec does a better job somehow:
https://goo.gl/maps/Bqlcl
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7620/16626475518_88f457ec94_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rke2V1)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/rke2V1) by Elliott Plack (https://www.flickr.com/photos/talllguy/), on Flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/8992862484/in/pool-njroads/
This here is sine salad because of redundancy, but everything on the large sign is on the smaller ones above it.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2015, 01:07:09 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/8992862484/in/pool-njroads/
This here is sine salad because of redundancy, but everything on the large sign is on the smaller ones above it.
I love it when you can tell exactly where a setup came from immediately without reading the destination names. This installation just screams New Jersey. The longer nonstandard arrows give it a sort of unique look that you don't really see in other states.
iPad
This past Saturday, I took a trip through the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles. I found a couple of candidates for this thread:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/283/19612804182_e9699ce457_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vT7Kof)DSC05337 (https://flic.kr/p/vT7Kof) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
U.S. 287 South in Boise City, OK. This is the only interchange in the Oklahoma panhandle.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/397/19431943600_32e0b65b84_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vB8MQm)DSC05404 (https://flic.kr/p/vB8MQm) by Eric Stuve (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/), on Flickr
Business Business TX 152 in Stinnett, TX.
Can you find the redundancy on this parking meter (https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/040411derek14jm.jpg)?
Quote from: empirestate on July 13, 2015, 09:14:04 PM
Can you find the redundancy on this parking meter (https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/040411derek14jm.jpg)?
For assistance in the unauthorized removal of this meter, call 311? :confused:
Quote from: empirestate on July 13, 2015, 09:14:04 PM
Can you find the redundancy on this parking meter (https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/040411derek14jm.jpg)?
It could either be the multiple credit card logos, the multiple coin pictures, or the multiple instances to call 311. All of which are appropriate redundancies based on their locations and sizes.
So, if I want to legally remove this parking meter, I should call 311? After all, it states "Unauthorized Removal Prohibited Call 311 for Assistance."
Quote from: roadman on July 14, 2015, 09:16:56 AM
So, if I want to legally remove this parking meter, I should call 311? After all, it states "Unauthorized Removal Prohibited Call 311 for Assistance."
Can you think of a situation where unauthorized removal would not be prohibited?
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on July 14, 2015, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 14, 2015, 09:16:56 AM
So, if I want to legally remove this parking meter, I should call 311? After all, it states "Unauthorized Removal Prohibited Call 311 for Assistance."
Can you think of a situation where unauthorized removal would not be prohibited?
iPhone
Might just be strongly discouraged. :D
Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2015, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: empirestate on July 14, 2015, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 14, 2015, 09:16:56 AM
So, if I want to legally remove this parking meter, I should call 311? After all, it states "Unauthorized Removal Prohibited Call 311 for Assistance."
Can you think of a situation where unauthorized removal would not be prohibited?
iPhone
Might just be strongly discouraged. :D
If the parking meter were removed, you wouldn't see the sticker because the meter is removed. You won't know to call 311 because the sticker is removed with the meter. Unless, of course, the thief decides to stick the sticker on the pole, because he wants you to call 311 to report the theft of the parking meter.
If you call 311 they'll authorize you to remove the parking meter! :-D :-D :-D
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 17, 2015, 11:03:58 AM
If you call 311 they'll authorize you to remove the parking sticker! :-D :-D :-D
Fixed :-D :-D :-D
State Capitol interchange in Olympia, WA:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.030491,-122.892892,3a,42.1y,347.21h,81.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soFWrNr9EAXgSV-rqvn84CQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
End of WA-109 in Taholah. This can go in both the "redundant" and "faded beyond recognition" categories:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.343666,-124.285946,3a,17.1y,36.81h,88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snxQJ-4_L2L5tKqBqOjVD0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
^^ It is faded since it is an old sign. When the pictorial signs first came out, they had a placard underneath them saying what the sign meant.
Quote from: Big John on July 27, 2015, 04:52:24 PM
^^ It is faded since it is an old sign. When the pictorial signs first came out, they had a placard underneath them saying what the sign meant.
It was sort of a transitionary stage where they were getting people used to the new symbols. Now, that said, I have seen newer instals of signal ahead signs with the placard underneath.
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-380_sb_exit_55_exit.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-380_sb_exit_55_exit.jpg)
This was posted on I-380 & IA 27 south in Buchanan County. The exit tab was removed by 2012, and the generic exit gore point sign remains.
GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.355359,-92.069126,3a,75y,97.39h,87.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skGW_2i5uKw5qMDw0F_2iUw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Edit, photographed another at the next southbound exit. It was still in place as of 2012 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.314998,-91.981439,3a,75y,278.05h,76.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHLMgDKCX6GiIc54ppWOreg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-380_sb_exit_49_exit.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-380_sb_exit_49_exit.jpg)
Exit 43 also included a tab at the gore point sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.247135,-91.893947,3a,75y,175.21h,82.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWBH7OLoNL3_uHEGO8XsBHw!2e0!5s20110901T000000!7i13312!8i6656), but it was replaced with a standard gore point sign by 2012.
These I-275 approach BGSs from I-71/I-75 southbound in Covington have to convey that you can take I-275 both east and west.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3736/20108922269_fd5ef70c29_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n)KY I-75/I-71 (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/)
In the Twin Cities whenever both directions are accessed by the same exit, the approach signs read
"(shield) (direction 1)
(direction 2)"
such as
"I-394 EAST
WEST"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fit1hPnR.jpg&hash=6b3243ee252d65e2b30b3c4b4f65e71dec87238a)
This self-explanatory image is an image that is self-expanatory. :-D
Have a redundant train sign reminding us just who pays for it:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/505/19626910844_187edc6c6c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vUn3Ny)
ST Link 1001 destination sign (https://flic.kr/p/vUn3Ny) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
It seems as if the driver forgot to switch on the destinations instead...not that it matters since there's only one line in the city and the direction is clearly marked on the platform.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 04, 2015, 06:06:16 PM
These I-275 approach BGSs from I-71/I-75 southbound in Covington have to convey that you can take I-275 both east and west.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3736/20108922269_fd5ef70c29_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n)KY I-75/I-71 (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/)
Clearly an I-275 shield isn't enough! We need the directions pronto!
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2015, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 04, 2015, 06:06:16 PM
These I-275 approach BGSs from I-71/I-75 southbound in Covington have to convey that you can take I-275 both east and west.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3736/20108922269_fd5ef70c29_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n)KY I-75/I-71 (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/)
Clearly an I-275 shield isn't enough! We need the directions pronto!
Tell me about it. :awesomeface:
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 04, 2015, 06:25:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fit1hPnR.jpg&hash=6b3243ee252d65e2b30b3c4b4f65e71dec87238a)
This self-explanatory image is an image that is self-expanatory. :-D
Cool button copy. How old are those signs/photos?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 04, 2015, 06:25:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fit1hPnR.jpg&hash=6b3243ee252d65e2b30b3c4b4f65e71dec87238a)
This self-explanatory image is an image that is self-expanatory. :-D
Cool button copy. How old are those signs/photos?
Signs date from around '92-'94. Photos, I don't know..
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 04, 2015, 06:25:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fit1hPnR.jpg&hash=6b3243ee252d65e2b30b3c4b4f65e71dec87238a)
This self-explanatory image is an image that is self-expanatory. :-D
Cool button copy. How old are those signs/photos?
The site came from gives a capture date of late November 2006. That also might explain the traffic, unless that area gets congested like that often? Any NJ peeps know?
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 04, 2015, 07:30:27 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2015, 07:19:52 PM
Clearly an I-275 shield isn't enough! We need the directions pronto!
Tell me about it. :awesomeface:
Southbound ones are still there. Northbound approaching I-275, signage at Turfway Road has been replaced, but several signs with similar redundancies still remain from KY 236 to the exit.
New Jersey has always been redundant with the Parkway and Turnpike having both shields and text on the same sign. Florida is now doing it for the FL Turnpike but only with "Turnpike" in text.
I believe Exit 129 is now replaced as someone earlier in this thread mentioned that the signs for the NJT read "Camden and New York City" and the pull through if I remember correctly (no I am not going to scroll through many of the 246 just to find it) the pull through now features "Paterson" as control city at the 129 exit diverge.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2015, 08:15:18 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 04, 2015, 06:25:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fit1hPnR.jpg&hash=6b3243ee252d65e2b30b3c4b4f65e71dec87238a)
This self-explanatory image is an image that is self-expanatory. :-D
Cool button copy. How old are those signs/photos?
Signs date from around '92-'94.
The signs in the background (ramp to NJTP) are much older (60s-early 70s).
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 04, 2015, 06:06:16 PM
These I-275 approach BGSs from I-71/I-75 southbound in Covington have to convey that you can take I-275 both east and west.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3736/20108922269_fd5ef70c29_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n) (https://flic.kr/p/wCXu1n) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133197723@N05/)
Such reminds me of a now-completely useless BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.26368,-71.569787,3a,75y,94.71h,77.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVE1xD8bO6eSFKqivDnRtow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) along the exit ramp from the Mass Pike (I-90) to I-495. Once upon a time, there used to be
LEFT LANE/
RIGHT LANE lettering underneath the I-495 shields.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 05, 2015, 03:27:42 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 04, 2015, 08:15:18 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 04, 2015, 06:25:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fit1hPnR.jpg&hash=6b3243ee252d65e2b30b3c4b4f65e71dec87238a)
This self-explanatory image is an image that is self-expanatory. :-D
Cool button copy. How old are those signs/photos?
Signs date from around '92-'94.
The signs in the background (ramp to NJTP) are much older (60s-early 70s).
Those or these signs are gone now, replaced within the past year:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/484/19358190155_cd164422ee.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/492/19352079422_df170f2ce4.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2015, 01:33:07 PM
New Jersey has always been redundant with the Parkway and Turnpike having both shields and text on the same sign. Florida is now doing it for the FL Turnpike but only with "Turnpike" in text.
I believe Exit 129 is now replaced as someone earlier in this thread mentioned that the signs for the NJT read "Camden and New York City" and the pull through if I remember correctly (no I am not going to scroll through many of the 246 just to find it) the pull through now features "Paterson" as control city at the 129 exit diverge.
The NYS Thruway tends to do this too. The thruway shield isn't as engrained as the turnpike shield, so often signs will add "N. Y. Thruway" or just "Thruway." A lot of signs for auxiliary interstates even list "Thruway" as the main destination.
iPad
Yes the Thruway shield is not on most guide signs, but the interstate I-87 or I-90, and the text like you said either NY Thruway or just Thruway. Not redundant, but true compared to NJ.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhB5e29i.jpg&hash=eb6b2f88750678ebb65a09a75a23a74b17d5773c)
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2015, 03:02:41 AM
Yes the Thruway shield is not on most guide signs, but the interstate I-87 or I-90, and the text like you said either NY Thruway or just Thruway. Not redundant, but true compared to NJ.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2015, 03:02:41 AM
Yes the Thruway shield is not on most guide signs, but the interstate I-87 or I-90, and the text like you said either NY Thruway or just Thruway. Not redundant, but true compared to NJ.
This is true in some areas, but in the Capital Region, the Thruway shield is used on BGSes:
See: https://goo.gl/maps/bV02c (https://goo.gl/maps/bV02c)
(There is a LGS before this that does say "Thruway Next Right")
And then, there's this sign with Northway in text and the Thruway shield:
https://goo.gl/maps/EvpAE (https://goo.gl/maps/EvpAE)
PHLBOS wrote
QuoteSuch reminds me of a now-completely useless BGS along the exit ramp from the Mass Pike (I-90) to I-495. Once upon a time, there used to be LEFT LANE/RIGHT LANE lettering underneath the I-495 shields
Classic case of not thinking the situation through before installing signs. The "Left Lane Right Lane" legends were removed about six months after the signs were installed. I've been told this was at the request of the Pike's Toll Operations folks, who cited problems when part of the toll plaza, which is between the signs and I-495, would be closed during the middle of the night or at other off-peak times.
Of course, the logical move would have been to completely remove the signs - wich is actually planned to happen as part of the I-90 Auburn to Boston sign replacement project being advertised for bids in October.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 26, 2015, 10:39:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2015, 01:07:09 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/triborough/8992862484/in/pool-njroads/
This here is sine salad because of redundancy, but everything on the large sign is on the smaller ones above it.
I love it when you can tell exactly where a setup came from immediately without reading the destination names. This installation just screams New Jersey. The longer nonstandard arrows give it a sort of unique look that you don't really see in other states.
Montvale! I love it when you can tell exactly where a setup came from immediately because you've seen it a thousand times.
I remember about when this was put in. The smaller signs are Bergen County standard, the large were necessitated as the result of a somewhat confusing rearrangement of that intersection in the 1980s. Kinderkamack Rd splits into a one-way pair around the town common while also intersecting Grand Ave, another major arterial. The number of unclear and/or counterintuitive movements and turns required significantly clearer signs than the smaller, more thorough ones.
This makes me crave the wings at Davey's Locker just beyond this intersection, with a 20oz pint of Yuengling.
QuoteSuch reminds me of a now-completely useless BGS along the exit ramp from the Mass Pike (I-90) to I-495. Once upon a time, there used to be LEFT LANE/RIGHT LANE lettering underneath the I-495 shields
I think LEFT LANE and RIGHT LANE were there for quite a while, more than six months. And the story I heard was that, due to traffic going north or south on I-495 backing up, there were a lot of people being stuck in one lane or the other needlessly by restricting northbound traffic to the left lane and southbound traffic to the right lane.
Am I the only one who cringes when they drive under this sign?
Paul
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2015, 03:02:41 AM
Yes the Thruway shield is not on most guide signs, but the interstate I-87 or I-90, and the text like you said either NY Thruway or just Thruway. Not redundant, but true compared to NJ.
Prior to 1983, NYSDOT Region 3 would sign (90) (trailblazer) and then "Thruway" as the destination. They changed this when they widened Interstate 81 between Northern Lights and Hiawatha Blvd. in Syracuse, then they switched to "(90) Thruway" on one line, with no other control cities. In the last ten years they've been using (90) (trailblazer) and then Albany / Buffalo for new signs. I think the last approach makes the most sense.
Not necessarily redundant, but certainly pointless: https://goo.gl/maps/8mLYq (https://goo.gl/maps/8mLYq)
What makes these signs even more pointless is that while it seems like the speed limit had been dropped and the school zone had never been updated or removed, in reality the road has always had the same 25 mph limit, as far as I can remember.
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=95C9E200D09DEA98!16343&authkey=!AOsn0CSlieHFrVE&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg
I would think one or the other would be sufficient.
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 08, 2015, 11:44:46 PM
Not necessarily redundant, but certainly pointless: https://goo.gl/maps/8mLYq (https://goo.gl/maps/8mLYq)
What makes these signs even more pointless is that while it seems like the speed limit had been dropped and the school zone had never been updated or removed, in reality the road has always had the same 25 mph limit, as far as I can remember.
What I can think of is that speeding fines are a little bit higher in school zones: http://www.virginiatickethelp.com/virginia-speeding-tickets/speeding-fines.html
Quote from: wytout on August 09, 2015, 09:10:35 AM
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=95C9E200D09DEA98!16343&authkey=!AOsn0CSlieHFrVE&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg
I would think one or the other would be sufficient.
I think that's from the transition period to symbols on signs here in the US. From what I've heard, signs would have another sign like that underneath it with the meaning of the symbol written out on it.
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 08, 2015, 11:44:46 PM
Not necessarily redundant, but certainly pointless: https://goo.gl/maps/8mLYq (https://goo.gl/maps/8mLYq)
What makes these signs even more pointless is that while it seems like the speed limit had been dropped and the school zone had never been updated or removed, in reality the road has always had the same 25 mph limit, as far as I can remember.
There is a similar school zone sign on Church Road in Cherry Hill, NJ. The last regular speed limit sign eastbound is 25 anyway, but the speed limit *after* the school zone is 40 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9316573,-74.9824701,3a,75y,102.71h,81.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ3YHyLniCjd5Geo5EqVYnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1). Since there is no corresponding reduction in the regular speed limit in the other direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9317264,-74.9827191,3a,75y,279.34h,81.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spU7zYJdXFAASoOqpshPG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) what is the actual speed limit in that school zone when the sign is *not* flashing? Is it 25 eastbound, but 40 westbound?
Also, I've seen construction zones or advisory speeds at curves (maybe both) in NJ somewhere that post identical speed limits to the regular ones.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 12, 2015, 02:21:20 PM
Also, I've seen construction zones or advisory speeds at curves (maybe both) in NJ somewhere that post identical speed limits to the regular ones.
For the last few weeks there has been a construction sign on westbound I-12 east of Baton Rouge, of the "speed limit ahead" variety, informing of a forthcoming speed limit of 70. The regular speed limit is 70, and the speed limit in that area before the construction began was 60!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F13vjfs3.jpg&hash=d103d495b1f4b26b6e0dbf41424f0a9aba1243a3)
Two circle signs (modern roundabout + old-style NJDOT circle) and a pair of "JCT Route 31" signs (you can probably barely make out the second assembly way in the background)
Which side of the Pennington Circle is that? Coming from CR 546 heading away from Lawrenceville?
Those in Western NYS: Are their still double-US-20 shield assemblies in and around the Buffalo area?
Years ago, I remember frequently seeing two US-20 shields in-a-row -- each on separate posts -- within no more than 100 feet from each other in the same direction after crossing an intersection.
It didn't look like they were in the middle of a sign replacement, as both assemblies looked like they were there for a while. And it wasn't within a short stretch of road either, this double-signing seemed to go on for dozens of miles!
Quote from: Zeffy on November 15, 2015, 10:26:16 PM
Which side of the Pennington Circle is that? Coming from CR 546 heading away from Lawrenceville?
From Washington Crossing towards the circle (eastbound)
Quote from: thenetwork on November 15, 2015, 10:34:59 PM
Those in Western NYS: Are their still double-US-20 shield assemblies in and around the Buffalo area?
Years ago, I remember frequently seeing two US-20 shields in-a-row -- each on separate posts -- within no more than 100 feet from each other in the same direction after crossing an intersection.
It didn't look like they were in the middle of a sign replacement, as both assemblies looked like they were there for a while. And it wasn't within a short stretch of road either, this double-signing seemed to go on for dozens of miles!
Not just US 20. I've seen it elsewhere in that area as well.
It's pretty common all over parts of NY for there to be a reassurance shield with a directional banner right after a major intersection and then another reassurance shield with no banner a few hundred feet later.
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2015, 01:58:15 PM
It's pretty common all over parts of NY for there to be a reassurance shield with a directional banner right after a major intersection and then another reassurance shield with no banner a few hundred feet later.
I think that may have been the standard up until the early 1980s because I remember seeing that a LOT in Upstate New York as I was growing up. When I lived in Western New York I remember seeing such an arrangement along NY 60 south of Fredonia in 1986 and thinking that they must still be following an old standard, because new installations at the time didn't follow that convention (at least as far as I noticed).
Does this PA Turnpike exit go to Pittsburgh? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4384347,-79.7506886,3a,75y,166.89h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-X3PKOAN_Ms8cdNR6jd2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Big John on November 20, 2015, 03:30:48 PM
Does this PA Turnpike exit go to Pittsburgh? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4384347,-79.7506886,3a,75y,166.89h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-X3PKOAN_Ms8cdNR6jd2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That would be the Department of Pennsylvania Turnpike Names Its Exits.
The more the merrier. Right? :)
https://goo.gl/maps/KEGLJ5UHXa22
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 22, 2015, 01:43:32 AM
The more the merrier. Right? :)
https://goo.gl/maps/KEGLJ5UHXa22
It means that you have to stay stopped for twice as long.
Quote from: jbnv on November 20, 2015, 03:48:03 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 20, 2015, 03:30:48 PM
Does this PA Turnpike exit go to Pittsburgh? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4384347,-79.7506886,3a,75y,166.89h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx-X3PKOAN_Ms8cdNR6jd2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That would be the Department of Pennsylvania Turnpike Names Its Exits.
This practice has been discussed before - see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11096.0
Cross-post from the Sine Salad thread. Unnecessary forward arrows, plus is there any possibility that Scenic Route SH 32 doesn't coincide with plain-old SH 32?
Quote from: mwb1848 on November 27, 2015, 10:57:51 AM
Here's a small helping from Mississippi, featuring an I-55 trailblazer, a SH 32 mainline shield, and a Scenic Route SH 32 shield. This was taken just east of Oakland, Miss., where Scenic 32 turns off of US 51 and joins mainline 32.
Mississippi's scenic routes are few and far between; they're a bit of a misnomer. Ultimately, they primarily serve to provide access to recreational facilities at Sardis, Enid, and Grenada Dams.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FIMG_1285_zps39ktwxiw.jpg&hash=c483f4b1aa6f06eafee4180750335cdce9c13756) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/IMG_1285_zps39ktwxiw.jpg.html)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6250397,-97.2965517,3a,75y,101.48h,85.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBNha-988QWitcK8LM3qG-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This one here with both KS 15 being mentioned in both shield and text.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 01:03:13 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6250397,-97.2965517,3a,75y,101.48h,85.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBNha-988QWitcK8LM3qG-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This one here with both KS 15 being mentioned in both shield and text.
I heard the story behind that one when I was there and noticed that sign a couple of years ago, but I forget.
https://goo.gl/maps/DBHVa1mT32A2
I guess having a 'ONE WAY' and a 'NO RIGHT TURN' sign right next to each other is a little redundant. Not a bad thing, just not needed.
I always think situations like these are a bit redundant:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3971398,-81.3046661,3a,22y,134.76h,88.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soXWxzmZOhplrUa-8M7uDcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Zeffy on December 20, 2015, 06:38:25 PM
I always think situations like these are a bit redundant:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3971398,-81.3046661,3a,22y,134.76h,88.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soXWxzmZOhplrUa-8M7uDcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I can understand their predicament here, but I think that's why the "JCT" tag exists (in that, it should say "JCT [FL-528 shield]"
Quote from: jbnv on November 27, 2015, 04:55:42 PM
Cross-post from the Sine Salad thread. Unnecessary forward arrows, plus is there any possibility that Scenic Route SH 32 doesn't coincide with plain-old SH 32?
Quote from: mwb1848 on November 27, 2015, 10:57:51 AM
Here's a small helping from Mississippi, featuring an I-55 trailblazer, a SH 32 mainline shield, and a Scenic Route SH 32 shield. This was taken just east of Oakland, Miss., where Scenic 32 turns off of US 51 and joins mainline 32.
Mississippi's scenic routes are few and far between; they're a bit of a misnomer. Ultimately, they primarily serve to provide access to recreational facilities at Sardis, Enid, and Grenada Dams.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FIMG_1285_zps39ktwxiw.jpg&hash=c483f4b1aa6f06eafee4180750335cdce9c13756) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/IMG_1285_zps39ktwxiw.jpg.html)
As noted, Scenic 32 and Hwy 32 do diverge, as I believe is the case for all of the Scenic numbered routes in Mississippi. Scenic 304 no longer even touches its "parent" route.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on November 22, 2015, 01:43:32 AM
The more the merrier. Right? :)
https://goo.gl/maps/KEGLJ5UHXa22
Highland, IN has a few intersections with double stop signs like that. Theres an intersection in Griffith that has a quad stop sign install (double stop signs on both sides of the road). I'll have to post a link to that intersection next time I'm on a pc as I'm on a mobile device right now.
Quote from: Mohkfry on December 20, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Highland, IN has a few intersections with double stop signs like that. Theres an intersection in Griffith that has a quad stop sign install (double stop signs on both sides of the road). I'll have to post a link to that intersection next time I'm on a pc as I'm on a mobile device right now.
Here's the link to the quad stop sign install if anyone wants to see it. I forgot all about this post until now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5372493,-87.4193997,3a,75y,92.93h,73.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_LbZ0yIIQACJdh_IwqROpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Mohkfry on January 02, 2016, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on December 20, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Highland, IN has a few intersections with double stop signs like that. Theres an intersection in Griffith that has a quad stop sign install (double stop signs on both sides of the road). I'll have to post a link to that intersection next time I'm on a pc as I'm on a mobile device right now.
Here's the link to the quad stop sign install if anyone wants to see it. I forgot all about this post until now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5372493,-87.4193997,3a,75y,92.93h,73.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_LbZ0yIIQACJdh_IwqROpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That seems a little excessive. If stopping itself is a problem (in that, people don't seem to do it because they don't see the sign), they should put the word STOP on the pavement as well. Perhaps a flashing red beacon overhead.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on January 02, 2016, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on December 20, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Highland, IN has a few intersections with double stop signs like that. Theres an intersection in Griffith that has a quad stop sign install (double stop signs on both sides of the road). I'll have to post a link to that intersection next time I'm on a pc as I'm on a mobile device right now.
Here's the link to the quad stop sign install if anyone wants to see it. I forgot all about this post until now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5372493,-87.4193997,3a,75y,92.93h,73.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_LbZ0yIIQACJdh_IwqROpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That seems a little excessive. If stopping itself is a problem (in that, people don't seem to do it because they don't see the sign), they should put the word STOP on the pavement as well. Perhaps a flashing red beacon overhead.
It is excessive. And the MUTCD now prohibited double posting signs on the same post like this. Appropriate emphasis would be to use reflective material on the sign post, conspicuity enhancements like flags, or adding a beacon.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on January 02, 2016, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on December 20, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Highland, IN has a few intersections with double stop signs like that. Theres an intersection in Griffith that has a quad stop sign install (double stop signs on both sides of the road). I'll have to post a link to that intersection next time I'm on a pc as I'm on a mobile device right now.
Here's the link to the quad stop sign install if anyone wants to see it. I forgot all about this post until now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5372493,-87.4193997,3a,75y,92.93h,73.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_LbZ0yIIQACJdh_IwqROpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That seems a little excessive. If stopping itself is a problem (in that, people don't seem to do it because they don't see the sign), they should put the word STOP on the pavement as well. Perhaps a flashing red beacon overhead.
A red flashing beacon would be better. Snow would cover the "STOP" on the pavement, and it would eventually be worn away by snow plows.
Quote from: Brandon on January 04, 2016, 11:00:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2016, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on January 02, 2016, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on December 20, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Highland, IN has a few intersections with double stop signs like that. Theres an intersection in Griffith that has a quad stop sign install (double stop signs on both sides of the road). I'll have to post a link to that intersection next time I'm on a pc as I'm on a mobile device right now.
Here's the link to the quad stop sign install if anyone wants to see it. I forgot all about this post until now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5372493,-87.4193997,3a,75y,92.93h,73.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_LbZ0yIIQACJdh_IwqROpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That seems a little excessive. If stopping itself is a problem (in that, people don't seem to do it because they don't see the sign), they should put the word STOP on the pavement as well. Perhaps a flashing red beacon overhead.
A red flashing beacon would be better. Snow would cover the "STOP" on the pavement, and it would eventually be worn away by snow plows.
That could be said for all pavement markings. That doesn't diminish their effectiveness the other 50% of the year. But I will agree that a flashing beacon would be best nonetheless.
I don't get this whole 'worn away by snowplow' argument. It's vastly overused on these boards. Plows rarely wipe away road markings - otherwise, every single center line, shoulder line, ped crossing, and other commonly used pavement markings would need to be redone every spring, which would be a huge expense to Transportation departments. The entire northern US would be pavement marking-free by March if these plows took away the markings. I couldn't imagine how much Canada would spend on paint if this was the case.
Plows don't wipe away pavement markings, especially to the extent depicted throughout these forums. In fact, a properly leveled plow shouldn't be touching the pavement much at all. Maybe the final scrapping after a storm, but that's about it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 03:40:48 PM
I don't get this whole 'worn away by snowplow' argument. It's vastly overused on these boards. Plows rarely wipe away road markings - otherwise, every single center line, shoulder line, ped crossing, and other commonly used pavement markings would need to be redone every spring, which would be a huge expense to Transportation departments. The entire northern US would be pavement marking-free by March if these plows took away the markings. I couldn't imagine how much Canada would spend on paint if this was the case.
Plows don't wipe away pavement markings, especially to the extent depicted throughout these forums. In fact, a properly leveled plow shouldn't be touching the pavement much at all. Maybe the final scrapping after a storm, but that's about it.
You need to drive in the salty Midwest more. I've seen pavement markings chipped and worn away by the plows and the salt after a few winters (not to mention all the potholes caused by the gouging). Lanes do get remarked every few years just for that reason. And plows do touch pavement quite a bit. That's why they have sparks flying when they scrape along the pavement.
Quote from: Brandon on January 04, 2016, 04:54:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 03:40:48 PM
I don't get this whole 'worn away by snowplow' argument. It's vastly overused on these boards. Plows rarely wipe away road markings - otherwise, every single center line, shoulder line, ped crossing, and other commonly used pavement markings would need to be redone every spring, which would be a huge expense to Transportation departments. The entire northern US would be pavement marking-free by March if these plows took away the markings. I couldn't imagine how much Canada would spend on paint if this was the case.
Plows don't wipe away pavement markings, especially to the extent depicted throughout these forums. In fact, a properly leveled plow shouldn't be touching the pavement much at all. Maybe the final scrapping after a storm, but that's about it.
You need to drive in the salty Midwest more. I've seen pavement markings chipped and worn away by the plows and the salt after a few winters (not to mention all the potholes caused by the gouging). Lanes do get remarked every few years just for that reason. And plows do touch pavement quite a bit. That's why they have sparks flying when they scrape along the pavement.
So what's your basis for deciding which pavement markings are more important than others?
Quote from: Brandon on January 04, 2016, 04:54:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 03:40:48 PM
I don't get this whole 'worn away by snowplow' argument. It's vastly overused on these boards. Plows rarely wipe away road markings - otherwise, every single center line, shoulder line, ped crossing, and other commonly used pavement markings would need to be redone every spring, which would be a huge expense to Transportation departments. The entire northern US would be pavement marking-free by March if these plows took away the markings. I couldn't imagine how much Canada would spend on paint if this was the case.
Plows don't wipe away pavement markings, especially to the extent depicted throughout these forums. In fact, a properly leveled plow shouldn't be touching the pavement much at all. Maybe the final scrapping after a storm, but that's about it.
You need to drive in the salty Midwest more. I've seen pavement markings chipped and worn away by the plows and the salt after a few winters (not to mention all the potholes caused by the gouging). Lanes do get remarked every few years just for that reason. And plows do touch pavement quite a bit. That's why they have sparks flying when they scrape along the pavement.
That is wayyyyyy different than how some people put it. Some people act as if the lines have to be painted every year.
Natural fading of the lines require them to be reapplied every 3 - 5 years. That's true regardless if you're in Minnesota or Miami.
Plows touch pavement all the time. There's various reasons why...sometimes the endcaps/wraparounds scrape the pavement a bit because of the road's crowning, and the skids, wheels, or whatever helps support the plow scrapes along the road surface as well.
A well adjusted plow should be about 1/2" - 1" off the ground. But just the natural bounciness of the truck will cause the plow to scrape along the ground anyway. And a plow slightly off the ground will help miss those jarring manhole covers that are just a fraction of an inch higher than the pavement. If you're in a car and a tire hits it, you won't even notice. A plow blade hit it, and you'd think you were hit by a semi.
Quote from: Mohkfry on January 02, 2016, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mohkfry on December 20, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Highland, IN has a few intersections with double stop signs like that. Theres an intersection in Griffith that has a quad stop sign install (double stop signs on both sides of the road). I'll have to post a link to that intersection next time I'm on a pc as I'm on a mobile device right now.
Here's the link to the quad stop sign install if anyone wants to see it. I forgot all about this post until now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5372493,-87.4193997,3a,75y,92.93h,73.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_LbZ0yIIQACJdh_IwqROpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's gotta be a record!
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
This remind me of people who press elevator buttons multiple times to get its attention. I bet it works just as well too unless they charge you per stop sign if you get a ticket. Paying 4 times as much might help. Maybe.
We need more overkill, put more stop signs that keep shrinking along the post.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 10, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
They clearly need a flashing red light suspended over the intersection. Or maybe two in each direction.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.153591,-118.2866334,3a,75y,127h,90.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEmxPCP5bYc-SeO9A0LD7cQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Two signs that GSV probably captured during a sign replacement project, but nonetheless redundant at the time.
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2016, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 10, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
They clearly need a flashing red light suspended over the intersection. Or maybe two in each direction.
It's labeled as a "dangerous interection" via signs at each approach along 45th Ave. there's been 4 stop signs here for as long as I remember. Streetview shows the stops signs there from at least 2009, but they've been there since at least the early 2000's.
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2016, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 10, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
They clearly need a flashing red light suspended over the intersection. Or maybe two in each direction.
Or this: https://youtu.be/ILNQN7fniDE
Quote from: empirestate on January 15, 2016, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2016, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 10, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
They clearly need a flashing red light suspended over the intersection. Or maybe two in each direction.
Or this: https://youtu.be/ILNQN7fniDE
That is just way too cool! I like that.
To save someone else googling, the water curtain stop sign is in Sydney. Interesting technology, but it shouldn't take that to get the attention of drivers of tall trucks. Will they now feel free to run into any other low bridge instead of paying attention to signs?
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:51:05 AM
To save someone else googling, the water curtain stop sign is in Sydney. Interesting technology, but it shouldn't take that to get the attention of drivers of tall trucks. Will they now feel free to run into any other low bridge instead of paying attention to signs?
It also shouldn't take that to get the attention of taxi drivers at mid-block Manhattan crosswalks, but here we are.
Quote from: empirestate on January 16, 2016, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:51:05 AM
To save someone else googling, the water curtain stop sign is in Sydney. Interesting technology, but it shouldn't take that to get the attention of drivers of tall trucks. Will they now feel free to run into any other low bridge instead of paying attention to signs?
It also shouldn't take that to get the attention of taxi drivers at mid-block Manhattan crosswalks, but here we are.
Neither would brick walls. They would simply use the sidewalks.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2016, 02:06:34 AM
Quote from: empirestate on January 16, 2016, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 16, 2016, 11:51:05 AM
To save someone else googling, the water curtain stop sign is in Sydney. Interesting technology, but it shouldn't take that to get the attention of drivers of tall trucks. Will they now feel free to run into any other low bridge instead of paying attention to signs?
It also shouldn't take that to get the attention of taxi drivers at mid-block Manhattan crosswalks, but here we are.
Neither would brick walls. They would simply use the sidewalks.
That's...not something I've seen evidence of. (Also, I missed a step or two in the discussion; is it your belief that they wouldn't stop for the water curtains–is that what the "neither" goes with?)
Exactly. Since we're only using theories anyway, I doubt taxis would stop simply because they're about to get wet. Sure, it's alarming the first time, but once they understand the use of it they'll realize they could just drive thru it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2016, 12:04:51 PM
Exactly. Since we're only using theories anyway, I doubt taxis would stop simply because they're about to get wet. Sure, it's alarming the first time, but once they understand the use of it they'll realize they could just drive thru it.
OK, I see. I think we got a little mixed up though; I wasn't being theoretical at all. Something more than a simple STOP sign is actually needed to get traffic to stop at the mid-block crosswalks (such as the ones at 6 1/2 Ave.). All traffic, too; I should have said more than just taxis. Bicycles most of all.
However, I certainly agree that the water curtain wouldn't work. That would only be effective on drivers unfamiliar with the area, such as over-height trucks about to enter a tunnel they're unfamiliar with.* For midtown Manhattan drivers, though, they would be come very familiar very quickly with where these water curtains are and just go on ignoring them as with any other traffic control device.
But I don't agree that a brick wall wouldn't work; I've never seen anything like a taxi driving up onto the sidewalk to avoid even so much as a police barricade, let alone an actual building. So some other physical barrier such as retractable bollards might indeed be effective, if not cost-effective. Another option might be whatever keeps people from parking during street-cleaning periods, but gives them no hesitation to double-park during the same periods, even though that offense carries the higher penalty. It's not that New Yorkers don't follow rules, it's just that they're selective about which rules are to be obeyed, and there seems to be a universal tacit understanding about which rules those are.
* (I started to write this sentence in the singular–"an over-height truck"–but re-cast the sentence to allow for the use of plural "they".) :-D
Quote from: empirestate on January 15, 2016, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2016, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 10, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
They clearly need a flashing red light suspended over the intersection. Or maybe two in each direction.
Or this: https://youtu.be/ILNQN7fniDE
Bad idea. You'd drench anyone with a convertible, or even just the windows open.
Quote from: Brandon on January 18, 2016, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: empirestate on January 15, 2016, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2016, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 10, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
They clearly need a flashing red light suspended over the intersection. Or maybe two in each direction.
Or this: https://youtu.be/ILNQN7fniDE
Bad idea. You'd drench anyone with a convertible, or even just the windows open.
I'd rather that happen than an oversized vehicle smash into that tunnel opening.
Quote from: Alex4897 on January 18, 2016, 11:51:25 AM
Quote from: Brandon on January 18, 2016, 11:44:24 AM
Bad idea. You'd drench anyone with a convertible, or even just the windows open.
I'd rather that happen than an oversized vehicle smash into that tunnel opening.
Just wait for the ensuing lawsuit.
It looks like the stop sign only activates once someone gets close to the tunnel. Does it come up after a few seconds? That would prevent anyone from getting drenched.
If you come out the other side wet, it's a sure sign to the cops that you've run the stop sign?
Quote from: Brandon on January 18, 2016, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: empirestate on January 15, 2016, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 14, 2016, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on January 10, 2016, 07:15:13 PM
Maybe that particular neighborhood thought that one octagon STOP sign isn't enough to convey the motorists to actually stop hence four of them in that image. Don't 'ya think that's a bit of overkill?
They clearly need a flashing red light suspended over the intersection. Or maybe two in each direction.
Or this: https://youtu.be/ILNQN7fniDE
Bad idea. You'd drench anyone with a convertible, or even just the windows open.
I don't think a convertible is likely to trip the overheight sensor here...
iPhone
From the local light rail (train) system here in Seattle:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMXxSIjj.jpg&hash=71fb2bdf9e167fa0c8e4f98ce52b9ad531b5818c)
(Westlake is the current northern terminus of the line, for context)
These are only patches covering the future destinations anyway (opening this March and September):
Before the patch:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAGN9ig1.jpg&hash=98f52bfad42022c97299aa24dea0a85d4a26f02a)
After the patch:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuDfVSWw.jpg&hash=764b727a97ac6483db3d3d9a3759c9f27c8278d0)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2015, 07:24:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 01:03:13 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6250397,-97.2965517,3a,75y,101.48h,85.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBNha-988QWitcK8LM3qG-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This one here with both KS 15 being mentioned in both shield and text.
I heard the story behind that one when I was there and noticed that sign a couple of years ago, but I forget.
I think it's something similar to the Pennsylvania Turnpike example upthread, in that this is to distinguish it from the "Wichita/Salina" exit (I-135) and the "Wichita" (K-96) exit. It matches what's printed on the toll tickets.
A little redundant, but probably for the better:
https://goo.gl/maps/Ui2UxbwCRzE2
Quote from: Bruce on January 28, 2016, 12:25:04 AM
From the local light rail (train) system here in Seattle:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMXxSIjj.jpg&hash=71fb2bdf9e167fa0c8e4f98ce52b9ad531b5818c)
(Westlake is the current northern terminus of the line, for context)
These are only patches covering the future destinations anyway (opening this March and September):
Before the patch:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAGN9ig1.jpg&hash=98f52bfad42022c97299aa24dea0a85d4a26f02a)
After the patch:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuDfVSWw.jpg&hash=764b727a97ac6483db3d3d9a3759c9f27c8278d0)
Ironically, the new ("before the patch") sign is still redundant, since the University of Washington is in Seattle.
In fact... it looks like those pictures are from the Beacon Hill station? So why do they say Seattle at all, since Beacon Hill is a neighborhood in Seattle? It would make a lot more sense if they said "Westlake" or "Downtown" instead.
Quote from: Bruce on January 28, 2016, 12:25:04 AM
From the local light rail (train) system here in Seattle:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMXxSIjj.jpg&hash=71fb2bdf9e167fa0c8e4f98ce52b9ad531b5818c)
(Westlake is the current northern terminus of the line, for context)
These are only patches covering the future destinations anyway (opening this March and September)
So... what did it say before SeaTac/Airport?
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 06, 2016, 11:40:45 AM
So... what did it say before SeaTac/Airport?
Probably Tukwila, the previous end of the line stop.
Quote from: kkt on February 06, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 06, 2016, 11:40:45 AM
So... what did it say before SeaTac/Airport?
Probably Tukwila, the previous end of the line stop.
No, it's probably Angle Lake (200th St.), which should open at the end of this year.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2016, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 06, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 06, 2016, 11:40:45 AM
So... what did it say before SeaTac/Airport?
Probably Tukwila, the previous end of the line stop.
No, it's probably Angle Lake (200th St.), which should open at the end of this year.
It would make sense to make the permanent sign the permanent terminus, and putting a cover over the sign until the new stations open.
I beleive this was also done on some freeway segments with the same idea in mind.
Quote from: mrsman on February 21, 2016, 03:50:02 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2016, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 06, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 06, 2016, 11:40:45 AM
So... what did it say before SeaTac/Airport?
Probably Tukwila, the previous end of the line stop.
No, it's probably Angle Lake (200th St.), which should open at the end of this year.
It would make sense to make the permanent sign the permanent terminus, and putting a cover over the sign until the new stations open.
I beleive this was also done on some freeway segments with the same idea in mind.
What I don't get is why they didn't just use blank patches, covering up the "&" and the future terminus. That would have looked so much better than this...
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12792184_10154045090722948_6009962967511001538_o.jpg)
Been wanting to photograph this one for awhile and took a pic this morning. It is located along Pinellas County 296 east at the SPUI with Florida 693.
Well I must say it is redundant, however I know some users on here who thinks this is the same as when the NJ Turnpike uses both the green stamp shield along with the text "NJ TURNPIKE" or "NJ Turnpike" on various state BGSes. Another story here on that one.
In fact it is the best find of redundant on here, IMO.
Two EB reassurance markers on I-70, coming off of exit 91 in Indiana (both are visible in the image linked below)
https://goo.gl/maps/7DY8jemdWew
Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2016, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 06, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 06, 2016, 11:40:45 AM
So... what did it say before SeaTac/Airport?
Probably Tukwila, the previous end of the line stop.
No, it's probably Angle Lake (200th St.), which should open at the end of this year.
We have a winner!
These signs were installed for the 2016 changes and will likely be replaced in 2021-2023 for the next round of light rail extensions (Lynnwood, Kent/Des Moines, Bellevue/Overlake).
A potential redundancy on this I-94 sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9636366,-87.7472419,3a,75y,30.92h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp43txiPflGpkKSbh4QVNUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Thoughts on this one?
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2016, 10:16:35 PM
A potential redundancy on this I-94 sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9636366,-87.7472419,3a,75y,30.92h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp43txiPflGpkKSbh4QVNUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Thoughts on this one?
The JCT is unnecessary.
Quote from: jbnv on March 08, 2016, 09:16:40 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 07, 2016, 10:16:35 PM
A potential redundancy on this I-94 sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9636366,-87.7472419,3a,75y,30.92h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp43txiPflGpkKSbh4QVNUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Thoughts on this one?
The JCT is unnecessary.
Or the TO, seeing as how the interchange for 94 is literally right there. :-P
To the defense of the sign: I think they may be saying that TO JCT means BOTH East & West I-94. Whereas the next sign mentions only TO I-90 West.
Reality: Drop the JCT.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 08, 2016, 01:17:02 PM
To the defense of the sign: I think they may be saying that TO JCT means BOTH East & West I-94. Whereas the next sign mentions only TO I-90 West.
Reality: Drop the JCT.
I don't think that TO JCT placards have anything to do with the fact that one can access I-94 both east and westbound. Only I-90 West is mentioned on the other sign because eastbound 90 and 94 merge just east of the West Wilson Ave interchange. What it needs is the TO JCT placards removed and East and West tabs added. If they wanted to get fancy, they could add an I-90 East sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIWiiIgd.png&hash=2948ba1135ba3e8442199e516338195161baf586)
DE 2 / 72 at Cleveland Avenue. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.686591,-75.7361885,3a,66.3y,104.91h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPK1HRwoxkitlgjDXcFuA1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.686591,-75.7361885,3a,66.3y,104.91h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPK1HRwoxkitlgjDXcFuA1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
These are pretty new, you used to be allowed to make a u-turn and utilize the right-hand turn lane on the opposite side of the intersection (for whatever reason) to get to DE 2. They were changed in a recent project at this intersection that redid the signals, changed DE 2 to split phasing (for the sake of adding another left turn lane for getting onto Cleveland Avenue), and removed a much needed second left turn lane from Cleveland onto DE 2.
Quote from: Alex4897 on March 22, 2016, 09:43:17 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIWiiIgd.png&hash=2948ba1135ba3e8442199e516338195161baf586)
DE 2 / 72 at Cleveland Avenue. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.686591,-75.7361885,3a,66.3y,104.91h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPK1HRwoxkitlgjDXcFuA1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.686591,-75.7361885,3a,66.3y,104.91h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPK1HRwoxkitlgjDXcFuA1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
These are pretty new, you used to be allowed to make a u-turn and utilize the right-hand turn lane on the opposite side of the intersection (for whatever reason) to get to DE 2. They were changed in a recent project at this intersection that redid the signals, changed DE 2 to split phasing (for the sake of adding another left turn lane for getting onto Cleveland Avenue), and removed a much needed second left turn lane from Cleveland onto DE 2.
Split phasing on Kirkwood Hwy mainline? Newark just gets dumber and dumber. I admit they needed more left turn capacity for Cleveland Ave from DE 2/72 west, but taking away the second turn lane from Cleveland Av west to DE 2/72 is a bad way of achieving it. They should acquire some of the dealership parking area there and expand the intersection to handle the commuter traffic vs ignoring it like they have done for the last 20 years. /localrant
I think the loop across Cleveland Ave from was for trucks servicing the car dealerships. As for the signals, an intersection near me is being resignalized to have five signals (including a FYA) facing two lanes of traffic. Overkill is just the standard these days.
Quote from: Alex on March 22, 2016, 11:00:49 AM
Split phasing on Kirkwood Hwy mainline? Newark just gets dumber and dumber. I admit they needed more left turn capacity for Cleveland Ave from DE 2/72 west, but taking away the second turn lane from Cleveland Av west to DE 2/72 is a bad way of achieving it. They should acquire some of the dealership parking area there and expand the intersection to handle the commuter traffic vs ignoring it like they have done for the last 20 years. /localrant
They're pretty limited by the underpass for the CSX line on the south leg of the intersection though. Sure they got the extra left turn lane to Cleveland that they wanted, but they didn't solve any of the delays (they arguably made it worse) because of the extra wait time that came as a result.
Removing the second left turn lane from Cleveland to DE 2/72 didn't even seem related to anything else they did, I have no clue what their rationale for pulling that was. The queue for turning left there is significantly longer now.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexpressway.paulrands.com%2Fgallery%2Froads%2Fnsw%2Fnumbered%2Fdecommissioned%2Fmetroads%2Fmetroad4%2F02_concordtosthwentworthville%2Fwestbound%2Fimages%2F201004_11_homebushwest_homebushbaydr_centenarydr_mr3.jpg&hash=8178595c8d9a97932875dfc97829a45886f89722)
If only that street was "Olympic Park Drive". Would've been a nice topper.
From not completing a sign replacement project from long ago...
https://goo.gl/maps/NTupPLAYKFA2
The Repaupo 1/2 Mile Button Copy sign here was replaced with the Repaupo/Gibbstown 1/2 sign just a few feet up the road. The old sign was never removed. We're talking years here.
Just for kicks: The small 295/130 sign telling you to keep left even though there's just one lane is from when this was a 2 lane ramp and the right lane ended at Exit 14. That dual lane setup was removed in the 1990's! You can still see the former reflector casing embedded in the bridge deck from that era here: https://goo.gl/maps/mBhofjuUgrq
Those lanes must have been seriously narrow when that bridge had two lanes.
But, I'm digging the state-name Interstate shield on that "Keep Left" sign.
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on March 28, 2016, 12:43:51 PM
Those lanes must have been seriously narrow when that bridge had two lanes.
But, I'm digging the state-name Interstate shield on that "Keep Left" sign.
They were normal lanes...but no shoulders, so it was a bit tight. At the 'touchdown' point on the other side of this overpass, the ramp there had been completely redone so there's no reminisce of the width and lane assignments there prior to the reconstruction. I'm a bit surprised the lamppost there doesn't get hit though! https://goo.gl/maps/9Vfmtuduhup
Triple redundancy for triple redundant sign makers. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9338633,-77.6480698,3a,81.1y,204.57h,92.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7iblil3U-PIyuGWE31ThdA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7iblil3U-PIyuGWE31ThdA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D340.36444%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)
This was bound to happen...
(Look closely at the Audubon Parkway sign...)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froadview-images.kytc.ky.gov%2FVan1_Mandli_Data_4%2F10-07-2015%2F2015_V2_117-US-41N%2F2015_V2_117-US-41N%2FRIGHT%2FDir_019%2FF_01946.jpg&hash=a5d5f07164053eeb527044d0fea6a0be8858a21e)
Source: Kentucky's Photolog viewer, which is KYTC's own little version of Google Street View.
Here's a good one if you know what the symbology stands for...
Photo taken in Plainfield, IL
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1604/25533367514_7802d1b119_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EUibAo)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 30, 2016, 02:43:18 PM
Here's a good one if you know what the symbology stands for...
Photo taken in Plainfield, IL
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1604/25533367514_7802d1b119_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EUibAo)
Actually, that’s a MUTCD standard (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2c.htm#section2C32_para01)
Quote from: MUTCD 2009 Chapter 2COption:
01 The Slippery When Wet (W8-5) sign (see Figure 2C-6) may be used to warn of unexpected slippery conditions. Supplemental plaques with legends such as ICE, WHEN WET, STEEL DECK, or EXCESS OIL may be used with the W8-5 sign to indicate the reason that the slippery conditions might be present.
NYSDOT is increasingly using the ICE plaque (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1871528,-77.1538421,3a,75y,275.77h,76.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDKKLwhMogbNDhKrv-1sNFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to replace ICY PAVEMENT ZONE signs.
This brings me to my peeve with the W8-5 sign: there’s nothing
in the symbol itself that says the car is skidding because of liquid water, as opposed to something else.
I’d like to see the W8-5 renamed something like Poor Traction sign, to cover
all bad-traction conditions, and require a plaque explaining why your car might turn sideways. Some other plaques that might be used are:
- LOOSE GRAVEL (replacing W8-7)
- ICE ON BRIDGE (replacing W8-13)
- SNOW DRIFTS
- REDUCED SALT USE
- MUD (areas with heavy farm-machine traffic)
Quote from: GenExpwy on March 31, 2016, 05:07:21 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 30, 2016, 02:43:18 PM
Here's a good one if you know what the symbology stands for...
Photo taken in Plainfield, IL
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1604/25533367514_7802d1b119_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EUibAo)
Actually, that's a MUTCD standard (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2c.htm#section2C32_para01)
Quote from: MUTCD 2009 Chapter 2COption:
01 The Slippery When Wet (W8-5) sign (see Figure 2C-6) may be used to warn of unexpected slippery conditions. Supplemental plaques with legends such as ICE, WHEN WET, STEEL DECK, or EXCESS OIL may be used with the W8-5 sign to indicate the reason that the slippery conditions might be present.
NYSDOT is increasingly using the ICE plaque (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1871528,-77.1538421,3a,75y,275.77h,76.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDKKLwhMogbNDhKrv-1sNFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to replace ICY PAVEMENT ZONE signs.
This brings me to my peeve with the W8-5 sign: there's nothing in the symbol itself that says the car is skidding because of liquid water, as opposed to something else.
I'd like to see the W8-5 renamed something like Poor Traction sign, to cover all bad-traction conditions, and require a plaque explaining why your car might turn sideways. Some other plaques that might be used are:
- LOOSE GRAVEL (replacing W8-7)
- ICE ON BRIDGE (replacing W8-13)
- SNOW DRIFTS
- REDUCED SALT USE
- MUD (areas with heavy farm-machine traffic)
We should be using more picture-type signage than word type signage. This type sign has been used for ages to note possible slippery conditions. Seems straight forward to me.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2016, 06:07:56 AM
We should be using more picture-type signage than word type signage. This type sign has been used for ages to note possible slippery conditions. Seems straight forward to me.
Exactly. If the MUTCD has a standard for it, then the
standard is for redundancy lol
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2016, 06:07:56 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on March 31, 2016, 05:07:21 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 30, 2016, 02:43:18 PM
Here's a good one if you know what the symbology stands for...
Photo taken in Plainfield, IL
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1604/25533367514_7802d1b119_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EUibAo)
Actually, that's a MUTCD standard (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2c.htm#section2C32_para01)
Quote from: MUTCD 2009 Chapter 2COption:
01 The Slippery When Wet (W8-5) sign (see Figure 2C-6) may be used to warn of unexpected slippery conditions. Supplemental plaques with legends such as ICE, WHEN WET, STEEL DECK, or EXCESS OIL may be used with the W8-5 sign to indicate the reason that the slippery conditions might be present.
NYSDOT is increasingly using the ICE plaque (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1871528,-77.1538421,3a,75y,275.77h,76.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDKKLwhMogbNDhKrv-1sNFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to replace ICY PAVEMENT ZONE signs.
This brings me to my peeve with the W8-5 sign: there's nothing in the symbol itself that says the car is skidding because of liquid water, as opposed to something else.
I'd like to see the W8-5 renamed something like Poor Traction sign, to cover all bad-traction conditions, and require a plaque explaining why your car might turn sideways. Some other plaques that might be used are:
- LOOSE GRAVEL (replacing W8-7)
- ICE ON BRIDGE (replacing W8-13)
- SNOW DRIFTS
- REDUCED SALT USE
- MUD (areas with heavy farm-machine traffic)
We should be using more picture-type signage than word type signage. This type sign has been used for ages to note possible slippery conditions. Seems straight forward to me.
Except most people don't realize what it means (they confuse it with the curve sign)
Sorry, it really is important to differentiate between roads that are slippery when wet and roads that are slippery when DRY. :banghead:
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 31, 2016, 02:22:33 PM
Sorry, it really is important to differentiate between roads that are slippery when wet and roads that are slippery when DRY. :banghead:
Sorry to dispute you, but the differentiation seems important to me. I want to know the reason for slipperiness, because it may affect my driving. If it says WHEN WET and it's raining, I'll slow down. If it's a sunny day, I'll keep moving. If it says ICE and the temperature is near or below freezing, I'll slow down. If the temperature is 60, I'll move along.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 31, 2016, 12:52:34 PM
Except most people don't realize what it means (they confuse it with the curve sign)
Says who? I don't think the MUTCD would include the sign if they didn't think people were catching on to its meaning.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 31, 2016, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on March 31, 2016, 12:52:34 PM
Except most people don't realize what it means (they confuse it with the curve sign)
Says who? I don't think the MUTCD would include the sign if they didn't think people were catching on to its meaning.
I train people how to drive a bus and part of the training is for them to be able to recognize signs they've seen along the way. A few times I've picked out the Slippery When Wet signs, and when I asked, "What was that sign we just passed?" a few times I've gotten "curve" as the answer.
Quote from: busman_49 on April 04, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 31, 2016, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on March 31, 2016, 12:52:34 PM
Except most people don't realize what it means (they confuse it with the curve sign)
Says who? I don't think the MUTCD would include the sign if they didn't think people were catching on to its meaning.
I train people how to drive a bus and part of the training is for them to be able to recognize signs they've seen along the way. A few times I've picked out the Slippery When Wet signs, and when I asked, "What was that sign we just passed?" a few times I've gotten "curve" as the answer.
Okay then. Roughly how many people understood the sign, versus how many did not? Personally, a well-designed symbol should have, roughly, an 80% recognition rate. Perhaps the FHWA has different standards.
It's funny, the US clearly prefers text on their signs instead of (or along with) pictures with the exception of really obvious things like various arrows, traffic light, trucks, horses, and red circles with lines through any of the above. And then there are things that completely violate this for no apparent reason. Aside from "slippery when wet" we have "no parking" (P with line through it), "stop" or "yield ahead", "school crossing" (vs regular crossing), "Hospital".
How did this come to be? Was there some intent there or did this situation organically evolve somehow? I know that the shapes of stop and yield signs are pretty universally used around the world and "slippery" and "Hospital" signs are similar in spirit to their European counterparts as well, but that does not prevent the US from using completely different signs for everything else.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2016, 02:55:18 PM
Quote from: busman_49 on April 04, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 31, 2016, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on March 31, 2016, 12:52:34 PM
Except most people don't realize what it means (they confuse it with the curve sign)
Says who? I don't think the MUTCD would include the sign if they didn't think people were catching on to its meaning.
I train people how to drive a bus and part of the training is for them to be able to recognize signs they've seen along the way. A few times I've picked out the Slippery When Wet signs, and when I asked, "What was that sign we just passed?" a few times I've gotten "curve" as the answer.
Okay then. Roughly how many people understood the sign, versus how many did not? Personally, a well-designed symbol should have, roughly, an 80% recognition rate. Perhaps the FHWA has different standards.
You got me there. I'm sure it was over 80%
Quote from: bzakharin on April 04, 2016, 03:44:20 PM
It's funny, the US clearly prefers text on their signs instead of (or along with) pictures with the exception of really obvious things like various arrows, traffic light, trucks, horses, and red circles with lines through any of the above. And then there are things that completely violate this for no apparent reason. Aside from "slippery when wet" we have "no parking" (P with line through it), "stop" or "yield ahead", "school crossing" (vs regular crossing), "Hospital".
How did this come to be? Was there some intent there or did this situation organically evolve somehow? I know that the shapes of stop and yield signs are pretty universally used around the world and "slippery" and "Hospital" signs are similar in spirit to their European counterparts as well, but that does not prevent the US from using completely different signs for everything else.
"Stop" was standardized internationally very early. Things like "slippery", "parking", and "hospital" are hard to make a still picture of that will be easily understood by 80% of people without prior instruction.
Quote from: kkt on April 04, 2016, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 04, 2016, 03:44:20 PM
It's funny, the US clearly prefers text on their signs instead of (or along with) pictures with the exception of really obvious things like various arrows, traffic light, trucks, horses, and red circles with lines through any of the above. And then there are things that completely violate this for no apparent reason. Aside from "slippery when wet" we have "no parking" (P with line through it), "stop" or "yield ahead", "school crossing" (vs regular crossing), "Hospital".
How did this come to be? Was there some intent there or did this situation organically evolve somehow? I know that the shapes of stop and yield signs are pretty universally used around the world and "slippery" and "Hospital" signs are similar in spirit to their European counterparts as well, but that does not prevent the US from using completely different signs for everything else.
"Stop" was standardized internationally very early. Things like "slippery", "parking", and "hospital" are hard to make a still picture of that will be easily understood by 80% of people without prior instruction.
But why no text? Like I said, there are plenty of signs that have both a picture (or other large abstract element, letter, or number, like for Speed Limit) that stands out, and text?
Quote from: bzakharin on April 04, 2016, 04:34:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 04, 2016, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 04, 2016, 03:44:20 PM
It's funny, the US clearly prefers text on their signs instead of (or along with) pictures with the exception of really obvious things like various arrows, traffic light, trucks, horses, and red circles with lines through any of the above. And then there are things that completely violate this for no apparent reason. Aside from "slippery when wet" we have "no parking" (P with line through it), "stop" or "yield ahead", "school crossing" (vs regular crossing), "Hospital".
How did this come to be? Was there some intent there or did this situation organically evolve somehow? I know that the shapes of stop and yield signs are pretty universally used around the world and "slippery" and "Hospital" signs are similar in spirit to their European counterparts as well, but that does not prevent the US from using completely different signs for everything else.
"Stop" was standardized internationally very early. Things like "slippery", "parking", and "hospital" are hard to make a still picture of that will be easily understood by 80% of people without prior instruction.
But why no text? Like I said, there are plenty of signs that have both a picture (or other large abstract element, letter, or number, like for Speed Limit) that stands out, and text?
Text alongside well-known symbols adds to sign clutter. Signs should be as bare-bones as possible. As for the sign above, supplementary plaques under the "slippery" symbol should be reserved for cases like bridge grating, not simple cases such as a wet surface, where it should be relatively well-understood that wet surfaces can be slick (this is just my opinion, by the way -- the FHWA may disagree).
Spotted this in downtown Huntsville, AL, today:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1469/25695543734_0ac5a0d58d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/F9CnW7)Yield Yield Here to Peds (https://flic.kr/p/F9CnW7) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
I was going to post this on The Worst of Road Signs before I remembered that this thread exists. The sign is still there, as well.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4080/4819754529_042930f248_b.jpg)
I wonder how many people from North Carolina actually know what diamond routes signify. That being said, I think that in that setup the TO should be moved to the left of the NC, but that doesn't make it any less redundant.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 18, 2016, 02:33:52 PM
I was going to post this on The Worst of Road Signs before I remembered that this thread exists. The sign is still there, as well.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4080/4819754529_042930f248_b.jpg)
The same folks that blindly follow GPS would think it's US 58 which is ~60 miles . Virginia and north call everthing "route xx" which may contribute to confusion
Perhaps it's in exchange for Virginia putting up a "To I-40" trailblazer on US 220 southbound at the VA 40 intersection between Roanoke and Martinsville.
A state road in New Mexico had about over 70 duplicates of road signs stacked one in front of the other. Yep, every type of sign had an similar sign installed in front of the old sign. You can watch the story from the KRQE website. http://krqe.com/2016/04/18/drivers-on-one-state-road-see-double-after-sign-mistake/ (http://krqe.com/2016/04/18/drivers-on-one-state-road-see-double-after-sign-mistake/)
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/13007095_10154782853293082_8772948081521609532_n.jpg?oh=76bdb3f193b755b371321d2beb52d872&oe=57B35C57)
Quote from: barcncpt44 on April 21, 2016, 02:35:12 AM
A state road in New Mexico had about over 70 duplicates of road signs stacked one in front of the other. Yep, every type of sign had an similar sign installed in front of the old sign. You can watch the story from the KRQE website. http://krqe.com/2016/04/18/drivers-on-one-state-road-see-double-after-sign-mistake/ (http://krqe.com/2016/04/18/drivers-on-one-state-road-see-double-after-sign-mistake/)
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/13007095_10154782853293082_8772948081521609532_n.jpg?oh=76bdb3f193b755b371321d2beb52d872&oe=57B35C57)
It is New Mexico, though, so that's not surprising.
Quote from: http://krqe.com/2016/04/18/drivers-on-one-state-road-see-double-after-sign-mistake/
NMDOT says that contractor is in the midst of replacing 125 signs along SR 592 as part of a $32,000 project.
So, basically, they weren't done with the project and hadn't gotten around to taking down the old signs yet. Hardly newsworthy, IMO.
I've come upon several sign replacement projects where this happened, including along US 52 in West Virginia near Williamson a few years ago. I was a bit surprised, because the old signage seemed to be fine and not in need of replacement.
This has happened in Louisiana as well. Particularly in sign replacement jobs on the interstates.
Quote from: jbnv on April 21, 2016, 02:30:53 PM
This has happened in Louisiana as well. Particularly in sign replacement jobs on the interstates.
How often does it happen where the two signs are up for years?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11212.msg279375#msg279375
That one is still there, even though the new sign was installed in December 2013 (about 2-1/2 years ago).
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
This ramp, which is from I-295 north to I-95 north in Attleboro (MA), has one of the highest incidences of truck rollovers in the entire state. So, yah, I'd say it's a dangerous curve.
I think the reason why this is a dangerous curve is because of that stub, and this is an unintentional ending. There's orange barrels in the distance, meaning that this might've been extended. However, considering this might've been extended and this is an interstate-interstate junction, how come this isn't safer or has a better design?
Quote from: roadman on April 28, 2016, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
This ramp, which is from I-295 north to I-95 north in Attleboro (MA), has one of the highest incidences of truck rollovers in the entire state. So, yah, I'd say it's a dangerous curve.
Are there any plans to modify/reconfigure this interchange?
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2016, 05:31:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 28, 2016, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
This ramp, which is from I-295 north to I-95 north in Attleboro (MA), has one of the highest incidences of truck rollovers in the entire state. So, yah, I'd say it's a dangerous curve.
Are there any plans to modify/reconfigure this interchange?
As of right now, no. The only other project along I-95 is construction in Canton.
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 28, 2016, 05:40:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2016, 05:31:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 28, 2016, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
This ramp, which is from I-295 north to I-95 north in Attleboro (MA), has one of the highest incidences of truck rollovers in the entire state. So, yah, I'd say it's a dangerous curve.
Are there any plans to modify/reconfigure this interchange?
As of right now, no. The only other project along I-95 is construction in Canton.
It looks like there's plenty of ROW and favorable angles (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Attleboro,+MA/@41.9565744,-71.3034442,621m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e45df97249b007:0xc9801dee522f4720)to simply turn the interchange into a more gradual left-sweeping ramp.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 28, 2016, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 28, 2016, 05:40:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2016, 05:31:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 28, 2016, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
This ramp, which is from I-295 north to I-95 north in Attleboro (MA), has one of the highest incidences of truck rollovers in the entire state. So, yah, I'd say it's a dangerous curve.
Are there any plans to modify/reconfigure this interchange?
As of right now, no. The only other project along I-95 is construction in Canton.
It looks like there's plenty of ROW and favorable angles (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Attleboro,+MA/@41.9565744,-71.3034442,621m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e45df97249b007:0xc9801dee522f4720)to simply turn the interchange into a more gradual left-sweeping ramp.
(post corrected because I mixed up my loop North 95 signs)
There is a rumored Attleboro Connector that will extend this highway stub. I assume it will eliminate the loop, but I don't know far the concept has been developed.
Quote from: spooky on April 29, 2016, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 28, 2016, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 28, 2016, 05:40:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2016, 05:31:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 28, 2016, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
This ramp, which is from I-295 north to I-95 north in Attleboro (MA), has one of the highest incidences of truck rollovers in the entire state. So, yah, I'd say it's a dangerous curve.
Are there any plans to modify/reconfigure this interchange?
As of right now, no. The only other project along I-95 is construction in Canton.
It looks like there’s plenty of ROW and favorable angles (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Attleboro,+MA/@41.9565744,-71.3034442,621m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e45df97249b007:0xc9801dee522f4720)to simply turn the interchange into a more gradual left-sweeping ramp.
indeed.
https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx
That project is for a different death ramp. The ramp in the photo is I-295 and I-95 in Attleboro, not Canton.
Quote from: roadman on April 29, 2016, 10:56:13 AM
Quote from: spooky on April 29, 2016, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 28, 2016, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 28, 2016, 05:40:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2016, 05:31:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 28, 2016, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: jbnv on April 28, 2016, 02:43:00 PM
Cross-post from Unique Signs:
Quote from: formulanone on April 28, 2016, 12:30:31 PM
I like the big loopy arrow on this one at the end of I-295 in Massachusetts:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1448/26394216440_661c1871c4_o.jpg)
Apparently this is a dangerous curve!
This ramp, which is from I-295 north to I-95 north in Attleboro (MA), has one of the highest incidences of truck rollovers in the entire state. So, yah, I'd say it's a dangerous curve.
Are there any plans to modify/reconfigure this interchange?
As of right now, no. The only other project along I-95 is construction in Canton.
It looks like there’s plenty of ROW and favorable angles (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Attleboro,+MA/@41.9565744,-71.3034442,621m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e45df97249b007:0xc9801dee522f4720)to simply turn the interchange into a more gradual left-sweeping ramp.
indeed.
https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/cantoninterchange.aspx
That project is for a different death ramp. The ramp in the photo is I-295 and I-95 in Attleboro, not Canton.
d'oh! I corrected my earlier post.
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 28, 2016, 05:23:04 PMThere's orange barrels in the distance, meaning that this might've been extended.
It means no such thing. The on-ramps to I-295 from both sides of I-95 are being re-aligned to eliminate, as much as possible, some very sharp turns.
But yes, that interchange should have been designed differently, particularly the ramps between I-295N and I-95N. On I-95N the two ramps are in direct conflict and cause quite a few accidents, in similar fashion to the mess at the I-93/I-95 cloverleaf in Reading and Woburn.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOHjKg9g.jpg&hash=0a63595ffafbdb28fadf2728601e7649aa18198c)
Note the one area where you can stop or stand
Here's something I found in Crete, IL:
What do you need a school speed limit for if the regular speed is already 20mph?
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7224/27962972461_40cb93cdb6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JAZxuR)
2016-07-02_12-05-05 (https://flic.kr/p/JAZxuR) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 02, 2016, 06:03:24 PM
Here's something I found in Crete, IL:
What do you need a school speed limit for if the regular speed is already 20mph?
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7224/27962972461_40cb93cdb6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JAZxuR)
2016-07-02_12-05-05 (https://flic.kr/p/JAZxuR) by Paul Drives (https://www.flickr.com/photos/138603251@N02/), on Flickr
Maybe higher fines?
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2016, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 02, 2016, 06:03:24 PM
What do you need a school speed limit for if the regular speed is already 20mph?
Maybe higher fines?
Ding ding ding.
https://goo.gl/maps/x99cHgwdQUJ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/x99cHgwdQUJ2)
Though, to be pedantic, this isn't quite as bad as it appears. The white speed tab on top is technically a speed limit, not an advisory speed (as with the yellow tab below). Noneless, having both mounted on the same pole is pretty bad.
I'm not sure what the address of this house is.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7237/26367266944_a1029af868_c.jpg)
Quote from: jbnv on July 11, 2016, 07:36:37 PM
I'm not sure what the address of this house is.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7237/26367266944_a1029af868_c.jpg)
I'm also not sure if the mailbox can be seen.
http://tinyurl.com/z6v5cte
I think this is State Route 51. This beaut has been standing for 5+ years now.
Oh, and State Route 51 should be posted NORTH/SOUTH here instead of EAST/WEST.
Quote from: jbnv on July 11, 2016, 07:36:37 PM
I'm not sure what the address of this house is.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7237/26367266944_a1029af868_c.jpg)
I bet the mailman is still putting someone else's mail in it lol
Quote from: jbnv on July 11, 2016, 07:36:37 PM
I'm not sure what the address of this house is.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7237/26367266944_a1029af868_c.jpg)
Reminds me of a snippet from a Jay Leno "Headlines" segment:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBYsLvZd.jpg&hash=ed1c70aec30594c48965fca090633c4113077851)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcbYZYQo.jpg&hash=2feb06f175a259b2ba042f2c4c47d78c39cbb6f4)
WHICH HOUSE IS ON FIRE?!?!?
https://youtu.be/EGpZgZC8bD4?t=121 (https://youtu.be/EGpZgZC8bD4?t=121)
Makes a great gift for those hard-to-shop-for people!
I'm not sure if I can turn left here. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9338633,-77.6480698,3a,82.2y,230.6h,84.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7iblil3U-PIyuGWE31ThdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 18, 2016, 02:33:52 PM
I was going to post this on The Worst of Road Signs before I remembered that this thread exists. The sign is still there, as well.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4080/4819754529_042930f248_b.jpg)
I go down this way every year on my way to Myrtle Beach. I hate that sign.
Re the "57564" mailbox: if his UPS driver is anything like the ones that service my business, he'll need at least three more large and noticeable numbers to assure consistent delivery!
Quote from: epzik8 on August 06, 2016, 04:44:01 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 18, 2016, 02:33:52 PM
I was going to post this on The Worst of Road Signs before I remembered that this thread exists. The sign is still there, as well.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4080/4819754529_042930f248_b.jpg)
I go down this way every year on my way to Myrtle Beach. I hate that sign.
Maybe they don't want you to think you're in Michigan!
Thought I'd mention here that on all highways maintained by Kankakee County Illinois, the start of each striped no-passing zone hosts BOTH a "No Passing Zone" pennant and a white "Do Not Pass" sign.
A couple GSV examples:
https://goo.gl/maps/TxL3u5u8VZL2
https://goo.gl/maps/Q4LnkM5wVmr
https://goo.gl/maps/gncKPEnFgq92
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 08, 2016, 09:41:49 PM
Thought I'd mention here that on all highways maintained by Kankakee County Illinois, the start of each striped no-passing zone hosts BOTH a "No Passing Zone" pennant and a white "Do Not Pass" sign.
A couple GSV examples:
https://goo.gl/maps/TxL3u5u8VZL2
https://goo.gl/maps/Q4LnkM5wVmr
https://goo.gl/maps/gncKPEnFgq92
If it were up to me, all no passing zones would be signed this way.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 08, 2016, 09:41:49 PM
Thought I'd mention here that on all highways maintained by Kankakee County Illinois, the start of each striped no-passing zone hosts BOTH a "No Passing Zone" pennant and a white "Do Not Pass" sign.
IIRC, that was how No Passing Zones were to be originally signed back in the early 70s, when the yellow pennant sign was introduced. So if you were stuck behind a big, slow vehicle and you started to make your move to pass, the pennant served as the Do Not Pass sign for the opposing lane, and it could be seen better from a distance than a black-on-white Do Not Pass sign.
Michigan used to be good at signing No Passing Zones this way as well.
Quote from: kphoger on August 08, 2016, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 08, 2016, 09:41:49 PM
Thought I'd mention here that on all highways maintained by Kankakee County Illinois, the start of each striped no-passing zone hosts BOTH a "No Passing Zone" pennant and a white "Do Not Pass" sign.
A couple GSV examples:
https://goo.gl/maps/TxL3u5u8VZL2
https://goo.gl/maps/Q4LnkM5wVmr
https://goo.gl/maps/gncKPEnFgq92
If it were up to me, all no passing zones would be signed this way.
Before this post, I thought this was the way it was supposed to be signed (as it's the only way I'd ever personally seen it done).
2009 MUTCD indicates that the use of either the "Do Not Pass" sign or the "No Passing Zone" pennant are optional. The pennant, however, must be accompanied by either double yellow lines or the other sign.
I found this today at the Holland Mills Rd Bridge in New Hamburg, ON. It appears they bolted a "Maximum 3t" sign on top of an old weight limit sign, but you can still see "tonnes" written at the bottom.
So now it reads "Maximum 3t tonnes" :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCs2gQpN.jpg&hash=b7383cbbd25b73598f6a51bba2fd9f66fa557161)
Near Gallatin, TN:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8668/28310359943_2802a57348.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZGc)No Left Turns, No Thru Traffic, Right Turn Only (https://flic.kr/p/K8FZGc) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
In their defense though, it appears that the intersection had been redone recently.
^ Interestingly, the "No thru traffic" sign has the arrow on top of the red prohibitive slash. It should be below, as in the "no left turn" sign.
Found this photo posted by hbelkins in the Sine Salad thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7573.msg2154551#msg2154551 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7573.msg2154551#msg2154551)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_VA_NC%2FImages%2F21.jpg&hash=e11b4b45ca8efd4896f100146da381fff00cc203)
Along the inner loop of I-695 near Dundalk, Maryland, a couple of overpass signs and exit signs are marked twice. However, the State Highway Administration will likely remove the old Highway Gothic signs and keep the Clearview ones. Not shown here is the Cove Road overpass; I didn't get a good view of the double signage on that one.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEAFo4Zi.jpg&hash=484fdc648636f36c278a8a2477161eba5ea6d714)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F57DPOcT.jpg&hash=24c59887e2518fff8ebb395f7965b3a7662b5771)
Quote from: 7/8 on August 11, 2016, 02:08:13 PM
I found this today at the Holland Mills Rd Bridge in New Hamburg, ON. It appears they bolted a "Maximum 3t" sign on top of an old weight limit sign, but you can still see "tonnes" written at the bottom.
So now it reads "Maximum 3t tonnes" :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCs2gQpN.jpg&hash=b7383cbbd25b73598f6a51bba2fd9f66fa557161)
Maybe
t is a variable. Given the bridge is closed to vehicular traffic,
t could potentially be as low as 0.05 (in which case the weight limit is 150kg, the weight of a large person).
"Trunk Highway Highway 65"
https://goo.gl/maps/EhLnQhjfZhP2
Nice job, city of Blaine.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8127/29825985125_9c66ec549a_k_d.jpg)
Pretty hard to be prosecuted for violating these hours
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2016, 12:01:35 AM
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8127/29825985125_9c66ec549a_k_d.jpg)
Pretty hard to be prosecuted for violating these hours
If you stay the whole day, that is midnight to midnight, on the first Sunday of November, you might be subject to prosecution.
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2016, 12:01:35 AM
Pretty hard to be prosecuted for violating these hours
They didn't specify which 24 hours. :spin:
Quote from: jbnv on September 21, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2016, 12:01:35 AM
Pretty hard to be prosecuted for violating these hours
They didn't specify which 24 hours. :spin:
But what if it's daylight savings time and you head west, so that you have a 25 hour day? What happens for that 25th hour?
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 21, 2016, 10:35:50 AM
Quote from: jbnv on September 21, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: peterj920 on September 21, 2016, 12:01:35 AM
Pretty hard to be prosecuted for violating these hours
They didn't specify which 24 hours. :spin:
But what if it's daylight savings time and you head west, so that you have a 25 hour day? What happens for that 25th hour?
Sorry Noel someone beat you to that joke :) (see two posts above you)
I'm kind of amazed that two separate people came up with that technicality though.
What about leap seconds?
On Interstate 66 west approaching the Roosevelt Bridge into Arlington, Virginia there's this overhead sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0tR94JM.jpg&hash=68a3b55f39cbbe53eb8ecc0d80f75801d21a00dd)
And then this smaller sign pretty much says the same thing.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVGuMFhP.jpg&hash=443fe57cfa90f0fe32fbb0477d1b689791a9072c)
I could be wrong, but looks like LA 1 is up ahead (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5445834,-91.4415816,3a,75y,117.88h,93.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDApIQ0_EUClXlueOFwbUfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F43v55a8.jpg&hash=ecf62c789bccdff3893fb02011e2146b19c31b17)
US 90 Signs, Gibson, LA. (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6900172,-90.9811236,3a,75y,267.71h,89.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srJgAyusL0JLDPZdmmNUjbg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Does this count?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6507655,-74.8741787,3a,15y,351.63h,92.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqQHMDFBVEoIb1hPaMBw0gA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
There are three sets of this too, 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile and at the ending point.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 10, 2016, 03:29:55 PM
Does this count?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6507655,-74.8741787,3a,15y,351.63h,92.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqQHMDFBVEoIb1hPaMBw0gA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
There are three sets of this too, 1/2 mile, 1/4 mile and at the ending point.
Personally, I think something like this is a good thing (if not a little over the top with the excessively large overhead signs!).
Spotted this on NY 531 in Spencerport. Three "EMERGENCY STOPPING ONLY" signs in a row.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1774843,-77.7947793,3a,37.5y,117h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWbi_JS_TTbxaJqTCHKMYmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The Thruway just installed something similar, only with the signs pointed towards the travel lanes rather than at drivers, in the Montezuma Wildlife Refuge. They're near a pavilion and bald eagle statue.
You don't need both types of KEEP RIGHT signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6720317,-122.2752127,3a,75y,213.65h,85.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sypAM_oF8EJVPYmyK1lzqyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)...
This gem was on westbound I-69 in Flint MI for many years. It was replaced a couple years ago.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfXJYJ80.jpg&hash=aa6ab7f613ab5406e4efed024be7b56374e4c0f6)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 05, 2016, 12:20:15 AM
This gem was on westbound I-69 in Flint MI for many years. It was replaced a couple years ago.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfXJYJ80.jpg&hash=aa6ab7f613ab5406e4efed024be7b56374e4c0f6)
Was the second I-69 shield originally a US 27 shield?
Quote from: vtk on January 18, 2017, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 05, 2016, 12:20:15 AM
This gem was on westbound I-69 in Flint MI for many years. It was replaced a couple years ago.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfXJYJ80.jpg&hash=aa6ab7f613ab5406e4efed024be7b56374e4c0f6)
Was the second I-69 shield originally a US 27 shield?
Actually for several decades, it was the norm for M-DOT to use multiple shields on the same pull through signs.
For example, on I-75 there were pull throughs where the signs looked like this:
75 Detroit 75
With a down arrow below each shield and the control city.
But you are correct in saying that having 2 shields on a two lane pull-through sign is a bit odd and redundant. Michigan usually just uses (now) one shield centered over the control city. At this particular point on I-69, US-27 would not have been a part of the interstate -- too far east.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FNashville_2005%2FPICT0274.jpg&hash=f655e12167075321c679c59fc55f2f69a47c5630)
^^^ I don't get it.
If "Lake Reservoir" is the joke, that's a fairly common trend.
"Lake" and "reservoir" are the same thing. It should either be "Nolin Lake" or "Nolin Reservoir."
The actual name is "Nolin River Reservoir" but most people refer to it as "Nolin Lake." (pronounced no-lynn).
My dad's oldest sister and her husband (my aunt and uncle) had a place on Nolin for years. We used to go fishing down there a couple of times a year.
Quote from: vtk on January 18, 2017, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 05, 2016, 12:20:15 AM
This gem was on westbound I-69 in Flint MI for many years. It was replaced a couple years ago.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfXJYJ80.jpg&hash=aa6ab7f613ab5406e4efed024be7b56374e4c0f6)
Was the second I-69 shield originally a US 27 shield?
Might have originally been an M-21 shield.
^^ M-21 is on surface streets in Flint, not on I-69 until you are east (or well west) of the city.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 21, 2017, 11:53:07 PM
"Lake" and "reservoir" are the same thing. It should either be "Nolin Lake" or "Nolin Reservoir."
Well, not exactly, although I get that that's the joke here. If a dam is built downstream of a natural lake, the resulting impoundment would be a reservoir and could quite conceivably be named after the existing lake. Superfluous, perhaps, but not altogether redundant.
Quote from: GaryV on January 22, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
^^ M-21 is on surface streets in Flint, not on I-69 until you are east (or well west) of the city.
It is now, but when the freeway was first built in the Flint area it carried the M-21 and M-78 designations. M-21 was moved back onto surface streets when the freeway was later redesignated as an extension of I-69.
I noticed driving on WIS 29 over the last few years that on presumably older signs installed before exit numbers were retrofitted on them, WISDOT greened out all the extra instances of "EXIT" on the bottom of the sign after the retrofits were complete.
I found this sign an hour ago on Roseville Rd in North Dumfries, ON. I personally don't recall seeing a "Right Lane Ends" sign written in text before.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBIdxDdR.jpg&hash=b8c22afdcaf7d5cba534d00da1b2dd4dc30d5d76)
Quote from: 7/8 on February 05, 2017, 01:26:45 PM
I found this sign an hour ago on Roseville Rd in North Dumfries, ON. I personally don't recall seeing a "Right Lane Exits" sign written in text before.
....
You still haven't. :-D
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 05, 2017, 01:51:48 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on February 05, 2017, 01:26:45 PM
I found this sign an hour ago on Roseville Rd in North Dumfries, ON. I personally don't recall seeing a "Right Lane Exits" sign written in text before.
....
You still haven't. :-D
Oops! :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fxjq4Kij.jpg&hash=ef11f028e489ae18c048394526b0ab840378a412)
Quote from: epzik8 on April 04, 2017, 12:25:52 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fxjq4Kij.jpg&hash=ef11f028e489ae18c048394526b0ab840378a412)
I don't see the redundancy? Transit centers are usually for surface transportation.
Quote from: kkt on April 04, 2017, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on April 04, 2017, 12:25:52 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fxjq4Kij.jpg&hash=ef11f028e489ae18c048394526b0ab840378a412)
I don't see the redundancy? Transit centers are usually for surface transportation.
The redundancy is the 'Exit 1' tab and the 'Exit 1' where the distance to the exit normally goes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2017, 12:54:57 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 04, 2017, 12:47:17 PM
I don't see the redundancy? Transit centers are usually for surface transportation.
The redundancy is the 'Exit 1' tab and the 'Exit 1' where the distance to the exit normally goes.
Oh, right. Of course.
In case you don't know the advised speed for an freeway-freeway ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/sMntAmXXAY32
There are four. For a freeway-freeway transition, it's a bit on the slow side.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 14, 2017, 01:07:28 AM
In case you don't know the advised speed for an freeway-freeway ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/sMntAmXXAY32
There are four. For a freeway-freeway transition, it's a bit on the slow side.
Reminds me vaguely of the triple speed limit sign setup where the retarded 45 MPH parkway begins on I-35E in St. Paul (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9154501,-93.1443315,3a,75y,352.43h,80.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szpTsZurlbADY4EHXIDM1PA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There are plenty of warning signs on its approach, too.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 14, 2017, 01:07:28 AM
In case you don't know the advised speed for an freeway-freeway ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/sMntAmXXAY32
There are four. For a freeway-freeway transition, it's a bit on the slow side.
65? I was under the impression that the Great White North used blocks of ten when posting speed limit signs, irrespective of the limit being advisory or otherwise.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2017, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 14, 2017, 01:07:28 AM
In case you don't know the advised speed for an freeway-freeway ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/sMntAmXXAY32
There are four. For a freeway-freeway transition, it's a bit on the slow side.
65? I was under the impression that the Great White North used blocks of ten when posting speed limit signs, irrespective of the limit being advisory or otherwise.
Quebec has their advisory speed limits ending in 5's (never 0's). I'm not sure if any other provinces do that (Ontario doesn't).
Quote from: 7/8 on April 14, 2017, 03:49:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2017, 03:33:13 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 14, 2017, 01:07:28 AM
In case you don't know the advised speed for an freeway-freeway ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/sMntAmXXAY32
There are four. For a freeway-freeway transition, it's a bit on the slow side.
65? I was under the impression that the Great White North used blocks of ten when posting speed limit signs, irrespective of the limit being advisory or otherwise.
Quebec has their advisory speed limits ending in 5's (never 0's). I'm not sure if any other provinces do that (Ontario doesn't).
As far as I'm aware, Quebec is the only jurisdiction that has advisory (ramp) limits commonly ending on a '5'.
Hartselle, AL:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4297/35757429232_a47611a81b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaWy)No Parking No Parking Anytime (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaWy) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4318/35795662521_64118e1ef3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98nc)No Parking No Parking Anytime (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98nc) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 14, 2017, 08:52:40 PM
Hartselle, AL:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4297/35757429232_a47611a81b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaWy)No Parking No Parking Anytime (https://flic.kr/p/WtLaWy) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4318/35795662521_64118e1ef3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98nc)No Parking No Parking Anytime (https://flic.kr/p/Wx98nc) by freebrickproductions (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96431468@N06/), on Flickr
Maybe the felt like people would think at night to park there.
How about this one? Part of the issue is there are two 25 MPH advisory speed signs and then a 15 MPH sign (plus 15 MPH plates below the curve chevrons on the ramp).
https://goo.gl/maps/gqwJ2g3gdHS2
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 15, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
How about this one? Part of the issue is there are two 25 MPH advisory speed signs and then a 15 MPH sign (plus 15 MPH plates below the curve chevrons on the ramp).
https://goo.gl/maps/gqwJ2g3gdHS2
That's more misleading than anything. 25 or 15? I suppose, since it's an advisory speed, it's not legally binding anyway. But strange that they'd have two different suggested ramp speeds.
All told, I do like the redundant advisory speeds below the chevrons, even if 15 is unnecessary.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2017, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 15, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
How about this one? Part of the issue is there are two 25 MPH advisory speed signs and then a 15 MPH sign (plus 15 MPH plates below the curve chevrons on the ramp).
https://goo.gl/maps/gqwJ2g3gdHS2
That's more misleading than anything. 25 or 15? I suppose, since it's an advisory speed, it's not legally binding anyway. But strange that they'd have two different suggested ramp speeds.
All told, I do like the redundant advisory speeds below the chevrons, even if 15 is unnecessary.
25 for regular vehicles and 15 for trucks... doesn't seem that hard to understand to me.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2017, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 15, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
How about this one? Part of the issue is there are two 25 MPH advisory speed signs and then a 15 MPH sign (plus 15 MPH plates below the curve chevrons on the ramp).
https://goo.gl/maps/gqwJ2g3gdHS2
That's more misleading than anything. 25 or 15? I suppose, since it's an advisory speed, it's not legally binding anyway. But strange that they'd have two different suggested ramp speeds.
All told, I do like the redundant advisory speeds below the chevrons, even if 15 is unnecessary.
On ramps where there's a history of truck turnovers, they will specifically post a lower advisory limit for trucks.
It's not legally binding...as a speed limit. But if a truck takes the curve at 25 mph, you can bet the ticket will be written up for unsafe speed, the insurance company will want to know what you didn't slow down to the advised speed, and your company will say "bye-bye"!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2017, 02:44:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2017, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 15, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
How about this one? Part of the issue is there are two 25 MPH advisory speed signs and then a 15 MPH sign (plus 15 MPH plates below the curve chevrons on the ramp).
https://goo.gl/maps/gqwJ2g3gdHS2
That's more misleading than anything. 25 or 15? I suppose, since it's an advisory speed, it's not legally binding anyway. But strange that they'd have two different suggested ramp speeds.
All told, I do like the redundant advisory speeds below the chevrons, even if 15 is unnecessary.
On ramps where there's a history of truck turnovers, they will specifically post a lower advisory limit for trucks.
It's not legally binding...as a speed limit. But if a truck takes the curve at 25 mph, you can bet the ticket will be written up for unsafe speed, the insurance company will want to know what you didn't slow down to the advised speed, and your company will say "bye-bye"!
I didn't connect the truck "tip over" warning as a separate truck advisory limit. I figured the sign had to say "TRUCK" above the limit, not just a symbol.
I think you might be over-stating the importance of CDL holders abiding to advisory limits. Are you expecting an officer to be waiting halfway down the ramp with a radar gun?
If the truck tipped over, though, that's different. At that point, the ignorance of the advisory limit would almost certainly come into question.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2017, 04:24:49 PM
I think you might be over-stating the importance of CDL holders abiding to advisory limits. Are you expecting an officer to be waiting halfway down the ramp with a radar gun?
If the truck tipped over, though, that's different. At that point, the ignorance of the advisory limit would almost certainly come into question.
Many commercial vehicles have cameras which record forward-facing video and in-cab video, as well as metrics such as speed, and if triggered (usually by g-force events) they send a clip to the company for analysis. Taking a curve too fast can potentially trigger the camera, and then the driver may face corrective action.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2017, 04:24:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2017, 02:44:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 15, 2017, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 15, 2017, 10:43:26 AM
How about this one? Part of the issue is there are two 25 MPH advisory speed signs and then a 15 MPH sign (plus 15 MPH plates below the curve chevrons on the ramp).
https://goo.gl/maps/gqwJ2g3gdHS2
That's more misleading than anything. 25 or 15? I suppose, since it's an advisory speed, it's not legally binding anyway. But strange that they'd have two different suggested ramp speeds.
All told, I do like the redundant advisory speeds below the chevrons, even if 15 is unnecessary.
On ramps where there's a history of truck turnovers, they will specifically post a lower advisory limit for trucks.
It's not legally binding...as a speed limit. But if a truck takes the curve at 25 mph, you can bet the ticket will be written up for unsafe speed, the insurance company will want to know what you didn't slow down to the advised speed, and your company will say "bye-bye"!
I didn't connect the truck "tip over" warning as a separate truck advisory limit. I figured the sign had to say "TRUCK" above the limit, not just a symbol.
I think you might be over-stating the importance of CDL holders abiding to advisory limits. Are you expecting an officer to be waiting halfway down the ramp with a radar gun?
If the truck tipped over, though, that's different. At that point, the ignorance of the advisory limit would almost certainly come into question.
I definitely left out a key component of my issue with trucks. If the truck takes the curve at 25 mph *and tips over*...
The symbol illustrates why trucks need to slow dow, so words aren't needed (buses are expected to slow down as well when such a sign is used). But regardles of what vehicle flips over on a ramp, it's almost guaranteed excessive speed was at least one of the causes of such flipping.
Three signs to advertise WV 230 NB in a row:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRQ88HYh.jpg&hash=0c4139d4d8e0f15079b22c8587ce593ab05a4def)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxJGNKqp.png&hash=8446bdc08b3f949dc939d4ec5c425ab050dfe2fb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F41aYePV.png&hash=5d4fdd3e72fd2032c0aee9a98dbacbcd43df772c)
Quote from: logan230 on July 24, 2017, 05:58:09 PM
Three signs to advertise WV 230 NB in a row:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRQ88HYh.jpg&hash=0c4139d4d8e0f15079b22c8587ce593ab05a4def)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxJGNKqp.png&hash=8446bdc08b3f949dc939d4ec5c425ab050dfe2fb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F41aYePV.png&hash=5d4fdd3e72fd2032c0aee9a98dbacbcd43df772c)
That's normal...
Quote from: JJBers on July 24, 2017, 07:03:09 PM
That's normal...
Even in the second image? There are two WV 230 NB signs not a few feet from each other.
My guess is there were just the standard two originally, but people were still having trouble missing the turn, so they added the third.
Just in case the big green sign with a big arrow on it doesn't get your attention...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYO1ELZA.png&hash=e5bb41e0c38df34ef3d2f832ff41d01643cf6fa7)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4385/36746729756_f4ae58590c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XZbAw9)No left or U turn, written in two different ways (https://flic.kr/p/XZbAw9) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
No left turn or U-turn, shown in two different ways for the same intersection. MA 16 east, Everett, MA.
Really Florida, Really? You need THREE "Right Lane Exit Only" signs within a half a mile of the next interchange...
On FL-293 in Niceville.
Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4665455,-86.4103026,3a,30y,68.37h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvTxIC_JlWwfhOIw6OE6Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 02, 2017, 06:45:55 PM
Really Florida, Really? You need THREE "Right Lane Exit Only" signs within a half a mile of the next interchange...
On FL-293 in Niceville.
But how nice(ville) of them to make sure that you get the message.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 02, 2017, 06:45:55 PM
Really Florida, Really? You need THREE "Right Lane Exit Only" signs within a half a mile of the next interchange...
On FL-293 in Niceville.
Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4665455,-86.4103026,3a,30y,68.37h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvTxIC_JlWwfhOIw6OE6Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
White-on-green too. Should be black-on-white. Or maybe black-on-yellow, since freeways, apparently, use different colors to convey regulatory messages.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2017, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 02, 2017, 06:45:55 PM
Really Florida, Really? You need THREE "Right Lane Exit Only" signs within a half a mile of the next interchange...
On FL-293 in Niceville.
Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4665455,-86.4103026,3a,30y,68.37h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvTxIC_JlWwfhOIw6OE6Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
White-on-green too. Should be black-on-white. Or maybe black-on-yellow, since freeways, apparently, use different colors to convey regulatory messages.
Usually Florida is better than that.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2017, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 02, 2017, 06:45:55 PM
Really Florida, Really? You need THREE "Right Lane Exit Only" signs within a half a mile of the next interchange...
On FL-293 in Niceville.
Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4665455,-86.4103026,3a,30y,68.37h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvTxIC_JlWwfhOIw6OE6Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
White-on-green too. Should be black-on-white. Or maybe black-on-yellow, since freeways, apparently, use different colors to convey regulatory messages.
"Exit Only" isn't technically a regulatory message–it's a warning. There is a black-on-white "Right Lane Must Exit" sign available for use on expressway/freeway facilities that agencies can use if it's deemed necessary to establish a regulation.
Quote from: roadfro on September 03, 2017, 01:22:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2017, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 02, 2017, 06:45:55 PM
Really Florida, Really? You need THREE "Right Lane Exit Only" signs within a half a mile of the next interchange...
On FL-293 in Niceville.
Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4665455,-86.4103026,3a,30y,68.37h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvTxIC_JlWwfhOIw6OE6Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
White-on-green too. Should be black-on-white. Or maybe black-on-yellow, since freeways, apparently, use different colors to convey regulatory messages.
"Exit Only" isn't technically a regulatory message–it's a warning. There is a black-on-white "Right Lane Must Exit" sign available for use on expressway/freeway facilities that agencies can use if it's deemed necessary to establish a regulation.
I don't get it. All regulatory messages are inherently warning messages. Explain to me why the signs below are anything different...they are all warnings of impending "shall" movements, after all (much like the "EXIT ONLY" message).
FWIW, the signs below are all standard signs that I see across the Seattle area.
EDIT: Before you say something like "these signs establish regulation" (which, IMO, an "EXIT ONLY" sign also does), also explain why APLs are required to have yellow "EXIT ONLY" banners.
(https://i.imgur.com/9j9LqVD.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8zQWPQv.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cPw3Vyb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/o5c0O7J.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cwyM3cI.png)
I've only seen "right lane must exit" signs on non-freeways, and only if there isn't already an overhead with an "exit only" sign.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2017, 04:04:48 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 03, 2017, 01:22:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 03, 2017, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 02, 2017, 06:45:55 PM
Really Florida, Really? You need THREE "Right Lane Exit Only" signs within a half a mile of the next interchange...
On FL-293 in Niceville.
Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4665455,-86.4103026,3a,30y,68.37h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvTxIC_JlWwfhOIw6OE6Ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
White-on-green too. Should be black-on-white. Or maybe black-on-yellow, since freeways, apparently, use different colors to convey regulatory messages.
"Exit Only" isn't technically a regulatory message–it's a warning. There is a black-on-white "Right Lane Must Exit" sign available for use on expressway/freeway facilities that agencies can use if it's deemed necessary to establish a regulation.
I don't get it. All regulatory messages are inherently warning messages. Explain to me why the signs below are anything different...they are all warnings of impending "shall" movements, after all (much like the "EXIT ONLY" message).
FWIW, the signs below are all standard signs that I see across the Seattle area.
EDIT: Before you say something like "these signs establish regulation" (which, IMO, an "EXIT ONLY" sign also does), also explain why APLs are required to have yellow "EXIT ONLY" banners.
I would not consider "all regulatory messages are inherently warning messages" to be an accurate statement. Black-on-white regulatory signs such as "No parking" or "Speed Limit 55" or "Slow vehicles must use turnout" are not warnings, but rather establish something that the driver must do or comply with. However, black-on-yellow warning signs are used to inform/warn drivers of conditions that may not be readily apparent–winding curves, lane merge, stop ahead, pedestrian crossing, etc.–and are not necessarily something that must be complied with. Hence, under normal circumstances, why you can be cited for not adhering to a speed limit sign (regulatory) but generally can not be cited for exceeding an advisory speed (warning).
The "exit only" placards are black-on-yellow as a warning that a particular lane exits ahead or at that point. It doesn't establish a regulation that you must exit. I would surmise that before different lane marking patterns for auxiliary and drop lanes became recommended/required, an exit only panel would have been the only way to have advance notice of such a condition. Now that we do have dashed lines versus the broken (normal) lane line, there are other context clues.
That's me just speculating though. I will grant you that it does seem to be a bit of a gray area with exit only, especially in the context of other guide and lane assignment strategies... (And I don't have a good explanation for why exit only panels are required on APL signs other than a hunch "we've always signed it this way" sort of response.)
BTW: The combo guide/lane assignment signs you've pictured here aren't MUTCD standard. There is a combination lane-use/destination sign that was introduced in the 2009 MUTCD. The combo signs are meant to be an individual sign per lane, and aren't allowed to be used for a lane with optional movements. So, your first example is nonconforming (which could be remedied with white on green arrows), but the next two are in that spirit.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4416/36982256072_51fe33be3f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YkZJhG)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 10, 2017, 07:03:03 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4416/36982256072_51fe33be3f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YkZJhG)
This is doubly true since there isn't really an NJ Turnpike North here. That, of course, does stop this nonsense at the other end of the Turnpike:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6840173,-75.4821417,3a,75y,120.16h,76.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbaQ8LqA2EyPoBID1J_JTIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
And please don't tell me it's the Delaware Turnpike they're referring to
https://goo.gl/9afpZY
(https://i.imgur.com/fxVY0HP.png)
https://goo.gl/Aw3neA
(https://i.imgur.com/349obga.png)
This signage is new at 12th St. and Front St in Boise, ID
(https://i.imgur.com/Uzru7HR.jpg)
The NO LEFT/NO THRU sign also belongs in the Worst of Signs thread...
Quote from: thenetwork on March 08, 2018, 03:37:08 PM
The NO LEFT/NO THRU sign also belongs in the Worst of Signs thread...
And the overhead sign on the surface street BGS thread.
Funny thing is this is what it looked like when GSV passed through in August 2017:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsMECUeW.png&hash=127a6fe24cf6867c6bcc539b8af20f4b8d0f6495)
So since then (probably prompted by the driveway across the street opening), they installed both that symbolic no straight/left sign and a "No Right Turn" sign...okay then. The one way sign is slightly redundant too, though that alone doesn't prohibit going straight.
Quote from: doorknob60 on March 08, 2018, 06:35:00 PM
So since then (probably prompted by the driveway across the street opening), they installed both that symbolic no straight/left sign and a "No Right Turn" sign...okay then.
Your funny typo reminds me of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/djpnS.png)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 08, 2018, 08:02:04 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on March 08, 2018, 06:35:00 PM
So since then (probably prompted by the driveway across the street opening), they installed both that symbolic no straight/left sign and a "No Right Turn" sign...okay then.
Your funny typo reminds me of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/djpnS.png)
Ha, oops. I'll leave it in for shits and giggles :P
Worth noting it's not in the picture, but there is actually also at least one standard DO NOT ENTER sign on the driveway across the street, even more redundant!
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4777/40030149804_05e3c0c06c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23ZjYUC)
Just west of Roosevelt, UT.
One from Spain. Two arrows and a big white sign, and if even then you don't know how to get to Ihabar... pic from Street View (https://www.google.es/maps/@42.9150977,-1.9171931,3a,37.5y,45.28h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scM-_SPCb7fah8kwUV3A-DQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://i.imgur.com/iOvIrAt.jpg)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 08, 2018, 08:02:04 PM
Your funny typo reminds me of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/djpnS.png)
I've always wondered where that happened.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 11, 2018, 05:59:36 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 08, 2018, 08:02:04 PM
Your funny typo reminds me of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/djpnS.png)
I've always wondered where that happened.
On someone's computer via photo-modification software.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2018, 06:59:24 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 11, 2018, 05:59:36 PM
I've always wondered where that happened.
On someone's computer via photo-modification software.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was originally just the two no left/right turn signs (something I can imagine a real, but lazy contractor actually doing!), then someone decided to photoshop in the straight arrow signs. Notice how the bolt heads holding those signs don't line up with the slight left-leaning angle of the post.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4796/40772651251_48410beb61_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/257WuHH)To I-85 and redundant "do not block intersection", Atlanta (https://flic.kr/p/257WuHH) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
"Don't block the box" and "Do not block intersection" mean the same thing.
Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2018, 03:03:38 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4796/40772651251_48410beb61_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/257WuHH)To I-85 and redundant "do not block intersection", Atlanta (https://flic.kr/p/257WuHH) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
"Don't block the box" and "Do not block intersection" mean the same thing.
There are a lot of places where the box (or other pattern) isn't painted on the road, so I suppose they used it to illustrate where not to stop.
I think the various "don't block the box" signs are not MUTCD-compliant, since I've seen a fair bit of variation on the idea.
Quote from: formulanone on March 13, 2018, 07:02:39 AM
I think the various "don't block the box" signs are not MUTCD-compliant, since I've seen a fair bit of variation on the idea.
"Don't block the box" are not in the MUTCD at all. If such signs have anything more than a word message, then they're technically not MUTCD compliant.
Quote from: roadfro on March 15, 2018, 10:41:02 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 13, 2018, 07:02:39 AM
I think the various "don't block the box" signs are not MUTCD-compliant, since I've seen a fair bit of variation on the idea.
"Don't block the box" are not in the MUTCD at all. If such signs have anything more than a word message, then they're technically not MUTCD compliant.
How is that different than a "No Turn on Red (Japan)" sign (R10-11), "Left Turn Yield On Green (Green dot)" (R10-12), Turning Vehicles (Yield) to (Pedestrian) (R10-15), among others, which incorporates both words and symbol, and are contained within the MUTCD?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 11:40:56 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 15, 2018, 10:41:02 AM
Quote from: formulanone on March 13, 2018, 07:02:39 AM
I think the various "don't block the box" signs are not MUTCD-compliant, since I've seen a fair bit of variation on the idea.
"Don't block the box" are not in the MUTCD at all. If such signs have anything more than a word message, then they're technically not MUTCD compliant.
How is that different than a "No Turn on Red (Japan)" sign (R10-11), "Left Turn Yield On Green (Green dot)" (R10-12), Turning Vehicles (Yield) to (Pedestrian) (R10-15), among others, which incorporates both words and symbol, and are contained within the MUTCD?
All the signs you mention are standard signs found in the MUTCD that combine text and standard symbol(s). MUTCD 2A.06 allows the use non-standard word message signs for situations that are not already covered by a standard sign–however, symbols or images not already found within the manual cannot be used unless the agency is undergoing the official experimentation process.
So the image of the intersection with box in the "don't block the box" example originally quoted is not MUTCD compliant on the grounds that "do not block intersection" is already an MUTCD standard sign that conveys the same message. In the context of this conversation, the "don't block the box" sign also fails MUTCD compliance because it uses a symbol/image not found in the MUTCD (unless an official experimentation is in effect for that sign and graphic).
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 11, 2018, 01:08:15 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4777/40030149804_05e3c0c06c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23ZjYUC)
Just west of Roosevelt, UT.
I thought this was pretty normal in Washington, but from looking over Google Maps, all I can find is one of four things:
- Street name instead of highway shield or number: http://bit.ly/2GCYj6p
- Highway shield with or without cardinal directions: http://bit.ly/2ItW71H -- & -- http://bit.ly/2GEABXM
- Highway number written out: http://bit.ly/2GCYj6p
But I can't find any examples of both being written out. So nice find!
EDIT: links were broken by Google...dickheads...
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM
I thought this was pretty normal in Washington, but from looking over Google Maps, all I can find is one of four things:
- Street name instead of highway shield or number: https://goo.gl/PhHhnc
- Highway shield with or without cardinal directions: https://goo.gl/53BnPH -- & -- https://goo.gl/tDRpZf
- Highway number written out: https://goo.gl/9vqmxp
But I can't find any examples of both being written out. So nice find!
FYI, Google says they disabled your links because they violated the terms of service...
Utah mostly follows your examples above, although I've never seen a route shield by itself without a street name or cardinal direction, and if there's a street name the most common thing is to put both the highway shield and street name on the sign.
That said, here's another one on US-6 in Spanish Fork (https://goo.gl/maps/G3wrUYpbcF92). I've also seen it done in New Mexico, as this picture from Bernalillo shows:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4721/38982988395_2cd4832509_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22oN1iz)
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 17, 2018, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM
I thought this was pretty normal in Washington, but from looking over Google Maps, all I can find is one of four things:
- Street name instead of highway shield or number: https://goo.gl/PhHhnc
- Highway shield with or without cardinal directions: https://goo.gl/53BnPH -- & -- https://goo.gl/tDRpZf
- Highway number written out: https://goo.gl/9vqmxp
But I can't find any examples of both being written out. So nice find!
FYI, Google says they disabled your links because they violated the terms of service...
That's odd. I've shortened almost 900 links with goo.gl. No idea why they'd suddenly pull this crap. I've submitted the links for review.
In the mean time, here's some new links (in the order originally listed):
http://bit.ly/2GCYj6p
http://bit.ly/2ItW71H
http://bit.ly/2GEABXM
http://bit.ly/2GCYj6p
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 17, 2018, 06:17:20 PM
Utah mostly follows your examples above, although I've never seen a route shield by itself without a street name or cardinal direction, and if there's a street name the most common thing is to put both the highway shield and street name on the sign.
They're pretty rare, to be honest. The example above is from Spokane, and I think another example exists somewhere northeast of Seattle along Hwy 9, but I can't remember where.
I saw this sign from Australia while watching a vehicle review. Seems awfully redundant...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hobbiesplus.com.au%2Fsignspotters%2FP1050024.JPG&hash=8e47b7f35adcf49814be132ce9c14bedd6cc23b5)
image from hobbiesplus.com.au (http://www.hobbiesplus.com.au/signspotters/regulatory.htm)
I'll leave this here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0117225,-80.1392297,3a,37y,267.97h,90.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLeKU0fPFQGuvxEiLfsocXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0117025,-80.1397938,3a,90y,268.22h,91.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSPDmoCV-a6aO9Iwso847Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
17 individual indications that a sharp 90 degree turn is ahead (one of them being some of those thin plastic bollard thingies that get knocked over all the time). 7 of them are diamond warning signs, and two have beacons. Looking back at historic street view, they increased in numbers over the years. Did people keep crashing or something??
Quote from: index on March 26, 2018, 03:48:36 PM
I'll leave this here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0117225,-80.1392297,3a,37y,267.97h,90.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLeKU0fPFQGuvxEiLfsocXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0117025,-80.1397938,3a,90y,268.22h,91.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSPDmoCV-a6aO9Iwso847Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
17 individual indications that a sharp 90 degree turn is ahead (one of them being some of those thin plastic bollard thingies that get knocked over all the time). 7 of them are diamond warning signs, and two have beacons. Looking back at historic street view, they increased in numbers over the years. Did people keep crashing or something??
Jesus! They ought to consider more than just signs, like maybe some rumble strips. I have definitely never seen an approach to a sharp turn with that many warning signs. I don't even think a sharp turn on a freeway would have that many.
Now, if we're talking about the W1-8 signs (the chevrons), it's quite common for those to be used every meter or two. They are meant to indicate roadway alignment, hence the name "roadway alignment chevron" (or something along those lines).
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2018, 04:59:26 PM
Quote from: index on March 26, 2018, 03:48:36 PM
I'll leave this here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0117225,-80.1392297,3a,37y,267.97h,90.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLeKU0fPFQGuvxEiLfsocXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0117025,-80.1397938,3a,90y,268.22h,91.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSPDmoCV-a6aO9Iwso847Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
17 individual indications that a sharp 90 degree turn is ahead (one of them being some of those thin plastic bollard thingies that get knocked over all the time). 7 of them are diamond warning signs, and two have beacons. Looking back at historic street view, they increased in numbers over the years. Did people keep crashing or something??
Jesus! They ought to consider more than just signs, like maybe some rumble strips. I have definitely never seen an approach to a sharp turn with that many warning signs. I don't even think a sharp turn on a freeway would have that many.
Now, if we're talking about the W1-8 signs (the chevrons), it's quite common for those to be used every meter or two. They are meant to indicate roadway alignment, hence the name "roadway alignment chevron" (or something along those lines).
Maybe the signs were on sale? :pan: :sombrero:
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2018, 04:59:26 PM
They ought to consider more than just signs, like maybe some rumble strips. I have definitely never seen an approach to a sharp turn with that many warning signs. I don't even think a sharp turn on a freeway would have that many.
That may be true, but all 17 could easily fit inside this monstrosity (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5199716,-81.671674,3a,75y,235.68h,75.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIrxl60CUzLdsDGEumcZYzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) :D
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/881/27568055548_5315463207_c.jpg)
Methuen, MA
Quote from: webny99 on March 26, 2018, 09:46:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 26, 2018, 04:59:26 PM
They ought to consider more than just signs, like maybe some rumble strips. I have definitely never seen an approach to a sharp turn with that many warning signs. I don't even think a sharp turn on a freeway would have that many.
That may be true, but all 17 could easily fit inside this monstrosity (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5199716,-81.671674,3a,75y,235.68h,75.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIrxl60CUzLdsDGEumcZYzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) :D
There are several of these in cleavland, but... my eyes... so big, and yellow, and that arrow is ugly... it looks like it was drawn on MS paint! I drew signs on MS Paint and they weren't that bad!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSCF6rso.jpg&hash=11300f18e480d2fbc795f94f1d6acb07d1a737b9)
Riverside, MO
Quote from: 1 on April 13, 2018, 08:00:26 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/881/27568055548_5315463207_c.jpg)
Methuen, MA
Walmart. Nuff said.
It's a pedestrian sign at Coleman ferry dock in Seattle, but the ferries are operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation, so it's sort-of road related.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14466704841_e6b67949f3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/o3nDkx)Department of Redundancy Department (https://flic.kr/p/o3nDkx) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
From Lawrenceville, NJ, comes this one.
Princeton Pike southbound at the ramp to I-295 SB (Exit 68). The route marker in the background is the new change reflecting I-295 now replacing I-95 to the Delaware River -- it was I-95 NB, at least for one more exit to the east. The route marker in the foreground is left over from the former signing to reflect that I-295 SB had started not far from this location. It was supposed to be removed, but its continued presence is not an issue.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1746/42117727394_9474427724_b.jpg)
Quote from: US 89 on March 17, 2018, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM
I thought this was pretty normal in Washington, but from looking over Google Maps, all I can find is one of four things:
- Street name instead of highway shield or number: https://goo.gl/PhHhnc
- Highway shield with or without cardinal directions: https://goo.gl/53BnPH -- & -- https://goo.gl/tDRpZf
- Highway number written out: https://goo.gl/9vqmxp
But I can't find any examples of both being written out. So nice find!
FYI, Google says they disabled your links because they violated the terms of service...
Utah mostly follows your examples above, although I've never seen a route shield by itself without a street name or cardinal direction, and if there's a street name the most common thing is to put both the highway shield and street name on the sign.
That said, here's another one on US-6 in Spanish Fork (https://goo.gl/maps/G3wrUYpbcF92). I've also seen it done in New Mexico, as this picture from Bernalillo shows:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4721/38982988395_2cd4832509_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22oN1iz)
Another example of this. In Toppenish, WA.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1735/42003900174_fa330d327e_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26ZJY8q)IMG_8883 (https://flic.kr/p/26ZJY8q) by Cameron Frazer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146732988@N03/), on Flickr
Ah yes. the venerable towns of West and East.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180701/34c00d253e8ae1d1198d142bd4f8ce97.jpg)
Nexus 6P
(https://i.imgur.com/ADMSsJU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/VPK767J.jpg)
This one's long gone, as there no longer is a BL US-12 in Niles.
(https://i.imgur.com/9TEHkPz.jpg)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 04, 2018, 10:33:03 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/VPK767J.jpg)
But this one's not redundant...The first shield lets you know that M-25 has begun, and the second reminds you you're on M-25... :pan:
Quote
This one's long gone, as there no longer is a BL US-12 in Niles.
(https://i.imgur.com/9TEHkPz.jpg)
That one's a bit excessive.
Quote from: roadfro on July 06, 2018, 10:07:56 AM
Quote
This one's long gone, as there no longer is a BL US-12 in Niles.
(https://i.imgur.com/9TEHkPz.jpg)
That one's a bit excessive.
I have to wonder if one of those
JCT BUSINESS 12 assemblies was intended to replace the other but the removal of the redundant signage had not yet taken place when this photo was taken.
That's how they replaced them on my side of the state ... the new ones were installed, then a week later, the old ones were pulled.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180706/721568b680c26eefcef447e6eb0a2ff6.jpg)
I am not sure what to make of this! Arkansas does this all the time. Even with perpendicular intersections (T junctions) they'll put up the double arrow twice (black on white and black on yellow).
iPhone
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on July 06, 2018, 01:17:07 PM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180706/721568b680c26eefcef447e6eb0a2ff6.jpg
I am not sure what to make of this! Arkansas does this all the time. Even with perpendicular intersections (T junctions) they'll put up the double arrow twice (black on white and black on yellow).
I think the best option, to make it less unusual, would be to locate the junction marker to another pole. I don't see why it has to be directly above the "large arrow" (W1-6) sign.
Railroad Crossing Advanced Warning Signs should be 460 feet ahead of the crossing on 30 mph roads according to the MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2c.htm#section2C05). Or 10 feet. Whatever.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1828/42430221035_1dc86c88b2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27DpYt6)Short Distance Advance Warning Sign, Kent, Wasington (https://flic.kr/p/27DpYt6) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on July 10, 2018, 11:26:54 PM
Railroad Crossing Advanced Warning Signs should be 460 feet ahead of the crossing on 30 mph roads according to the MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2c.htm#section2C05). Or 10 feet. Whatever.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1828/42430221035_1dc86c88b2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27DpYt6)Short Distance Advance Warning Sign, Kent, Wasington (https://flic.kr/p/27DpYt6) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Is that even a road there, or just a sidewalk?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2018, 12:08:40 AM
Is that even a road there, or just a sidewalk?
The road is behind the photo. There used to be a sidewalk on the right side of the crossing, but that was removed when the commuter rail station went in. GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/sEMLVJuHrkz)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 04, 2018, 10:33:03 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/VPK767J.jpg)
Speaking of redundancy, I hate how common the "NO STOPPING STANDING OR PARKING" verbiage is for this sign. Just say "NO STOPPING ANYTIME."
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 11, 2018, 10:50:48 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 04, 2018, 10:33:03 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/VPK767J.jpg)
Speaking of redundancy, I hate how common the "NO STOPPING STANDING OR PARKING" verbiage is for this sign. Just say "NO STOPPING ANYTIME."
Redundancies:
North
Michigan 25
No Parking
Certain states do well in using sign and post space well, but others get carried away sometimes.
I'd like to see someone park without stopping... :)
Quote from: kkt on July 11, 2018, 05:07:58 PM
I'd like to see someone park without stopping... :)
It's possible that "parking", "standing", and "stopping" are all different legal terms in Michigan. For example, a parked car isn't stopped; it's parked. A stopped car waiting for someone isn't stopped; it's standing. And someone who is parked off to the side using their phone isn't parked; they're stopped.
No idea if this is actually the case anywhere. I kind of hope it isn't, because it's kind of confusing.
^^ New York definitions: https://www.newyorksafetycouncil.com/articles/no-parking-vs-no-standing-vs-no-stopping-signs.aspx
QuoteNo Parking Signs
Many people pull over at No Parking signs temporarily in order to load or unload passengers or groceries. The New York Department of Transportation allows you to stop to load or unload packages or merchandise at curbside, as well as stop to expeditiously drop off or pick up passengers at this sign. But keep it moving, because this sign doesn't permit the driver to leave the vehicle unattended for even a brief few minutes.
No Standing Signs
No Standing signs apply to unloading and loading people only, not merchandise. New York law allows you to expeditiously drop off or pick up passengers at this sign, but it doesn't allow you to wait for passengers to arrive or to load or unload merchandise at the curb. The important thing to remember about No Standing signs is that they are "people only" signs, and you could receive a ticket if you don't adhere to this rule.
No Stopping Signs
Of all three signs discussed here, No Stopping signs are the strictest. No Stopping signs mean that you cannot stop for any reason — to drop off or pick up passengers, to wait for people to arrive, or to load or unload merchandise. Any violation of this sign can be punishable by law. The only time that you should ever stop at one of these signs is if it is a true emergency or if you are directed to do so by a police officer. However, you should make sure to obey all traffic signals around No Stopping signs as you normally would.
Quote from: Big John on July 11, 2018, 05:56:58 PM
^^ New York definitions: https://www.newyorksafetycouncil.com/articles/no-parking-vs-no-standing-vs-no-stopping-signs.aspx
[clipped]
Thanks. I was hoping that "no stopping" meant "no stopping, ever, for anything, unless absolutely necessary", since that makes the most sense. Glad I wasn't wrong.
Any idea if you could be ticketed for stopping or standing in a pay-to-park zone? You're technically not parked.
I never understood "standing" and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 12, 2018, 10:48:13 AM
I never understood "standing" and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I always understood the meaning because I drive for Lyft. Technically, whenever I drop or pick up someone, I'm standing on the street while they're entering or exiting. That said, I almost never see "no standing" signs in Seattle. If they don't want people to stop, they use "no stopping", and that's about it. Parking, standing, loading, etc is permitted just about anywhere else there isn't a sign (though I do see "loading" and "waiting" signs). That includes parking in a lane of traffic on a one lane road.
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
As you are getting on I-205 NB from I-5 SB, right as the ramps are merging, there is a Speed Limit 65 sign. 1 mile later, there is a Speed 65 sign. No exits happened in between the 2 signs. Speed 65 is the same as Speed Limit 65 on an interstate in Oregon.
LG-TP260
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
Nah, just needs a few dozen more signs, a few beacons (both regular and RRFB), a small air raid siren, and a giant neon sign that reads:
!DANGER!
CLIFF
...for good measure. :bigass:
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 22, 2018, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
Nah, just needs a few dozen more signs, a few beacons (both regular and RRFB), a small air raid siren, and a giant neon sign that reads:
!DANGER!
CLIFF
...for good measure. :bigass:
That is the first length limit sign I have ever seen.
Quote from: cjk374 on July 22, 2018, 10:05:32 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 22, 2018, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
Nah, just needs a few dozen more signs, a few beacons (both regular and RRFB), a small air raid siren, and a giant neon sign that reads:
!DANGER!
CLIFF
...for good measure. :bigass:
That is the first length limit sign I have ever seen.
Quite a few of them in the mountains of SW Virginia.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
I concur. And they should have at least used red object markers here instead of yellow–yellow object markers denote obstructions in the road, whereas red object markers denote end of road/pavement.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 22, 2018, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
Nah, just needs a few dozen more signs, a few beacons (both regular and RRFB), a small air raid siren, and a giant neon sign that reads:
!DANGER!
CLIFF
...for good measure. :bigass:
Something tells me that some drivers still won't get the picture! Can't imagine how many burned out cars are sitting at the bottom of that ravine.
Quote from: cjk374 on July 22, 2018, 10:05:32 AM
That is the first length limit sign I have ever seen.
Definitely less common than weight restrictions. I know of two in my area: for this exit (https://goo.gl/bEHXe4), due to a mini roundabout at the terminus being too awkward for long trucks, and this bridge (https://goo.gl/NxE6vJ), due to weight and small intersections on either side (too many stuck trucks beforehand).
Quote from: roadfro on July 22, 2018, 01:32:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
I concur. And they should have at least used red object markers here instead of yellow–yellow object markers denote obstructions in the road, whereas red object markers denote end of road/pavement.
Well, I guess you could say the ravine is an obstruction for drunk drivers. Nevertheless, definitely needs to be red.
I'd suggest a guardrail with several red object markers, and maybe some blinking LED lights around the edge of the object markers as well. The "big arrow" signs could be placed behind the guardrail, up a bit. A guide sign wouldn't hurt either.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 22, 2018, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
Nah, just needs a few dozen more signs, a few beacons (both regular and RRFB), a small air raid siren, and a giant neon sign that reads:
!DANGER!
CLIFF
...for good measure. :bigass:
You forgot the obligatory
LITTER CONTROL
PROVIDED BY
ACME
CORPORATION
sign.
Quote from: roadman on July 24, 2018, 05:03:38 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 22, 2018, 04:20:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2018, 02:55:13 AM
Quote from: TBKS1 on July 21, 2018, 11:05:44 PM
What about this? (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.598076,-116.6432,3a,29.9y,252.41h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCpGtR8seMeXgPVM6bwjZOg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D133.85556%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
I think a barrier would be smart there. Quite a dip!
Nah, just needs a few dozen more signs, a few beacons (both regular and RRFB), a small air raid siren, and a giant neon sign that reads:
!DANGER!
CLIFF
...for good measure. :bigass:
You forgot the obligatory LITTER CONTROL
PROVIDED BY
ACME
CORPORATION
sign.
ACME Anything?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/42264295060/in/dateposted-public/
How about this one! If this is not redundant, what else could it be!
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2013, 05:48:24 PM
On the New Jersey Turnpike, you will find two sets of exit signs in some places, and you can see them both.
Double carriageway in each direction (one of which is for Cars Only), from Exit 6 northward to the E-W leg split at Exit 15.
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on August 16, 2018, 01:27:01 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2013, 05:48:24 PM
On the New Jersey Turnpike, you will find two sets of exit signs in some places, and you can see them both.
Double carriageway in each direction (one of which is for Cars Only), from Exit 6 northward to the E-W leg split at Exit 15.
Are you aware that you're replying to a
nearly-five-year-old post and that
at least two similar replies were made back then?
Contributing to more redundancy perhaps? :sombrero:
Just 3s0 you're aware of 35Ohio State Route 350 on US 68:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1956/43105335020_a00a3269f0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28F57ko)
I saw this while I was in Marianna a few months ago, I didn't get a photo of it, but here it is on Google Street View.
(https://i.imgur.com/XhXyQxH.jpg)
Google Street View Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7744066,-90.7721631,3a,15y,8.97h,83.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBqaq-3OkXfd42xoO6f8KHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: TBKS1 on October 15, 2018, 12:04:48 AM
I saw this while I was in Marianna a few months ago, I didn't get a photo of it, but here it is on Google Street View.
(https://i.imgur.com/XhXyQxH.jpg)
Google Street View Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7744066,-90.7721631,3a,15y,8.97h,83.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBqaq-3OkXfd42xoO6f8KHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Arkansas does that often.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 15, 2018, 01:23:59 PM
Quote from: TBKS1 on October 15, 2018, 12:04:48 AM
I saw this while I was in Marianna a few months ago, I didn't get a photo of it, but here it is on Google Street View.
(https://i.imgur.com/XhXyQxH.jpg)
Google Street View Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7744066,-90.7721631,3a,15y,8.97h,83.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBqaq-3OkXfd42xoO6f8KHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Arkansas does that often.
Yeah I know, I've seen that a lot here. I'm not really sure why we do it but eh.
I just felt like I should put it here.
To be fair, to someone unfamiliar with the Arkansas system, a "Route 1B" without the business banner might not immediately mean "Business Route 1."
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 15, 2018, 07:56:19 PM
To be fair, to someone unfamiliar with the Arkansas system, a "Route 1B" without the business banner might not immediately mean "Business Route 1."
If it weren't for the aaroads.com forum,
I wouldn't have known that a 'B' after a route number indicated a business route. Everywhere I've lived or spent much time driving uses the full [BUSINESS] banner instead.
I'm guessing they either didn't want to use a "To" banner, for mixed it up. Old AR-1 presumably followed Alabama Avenue in Marianna (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7736946,-90.7790215,14.25z):
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3887/14848686339_6ef4484aeb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oC8p8r)
Quote from: formulanone on October 16, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
I'm guessing they either didn't want to use a "To" banner, for mixed it up. Old AR-1 presumably followed Alabama Avenue in Marianna (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7736946,-90.7790215,14.25z):
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3887/14848686339_6ef4484aeb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oC8p8r)
AH, Arkansas route signage M1-6, instead of M1-5 (as in the SHS). Silly Arkansas! :-P
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/930/39737040780_574bfca0a3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23xqHNL)
Is it SOUTH?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 22, 2018, 03:12:42 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/930/39737040780_574bfca0a3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23xqHNL)
Is it SOUTH?
Well, considering 95 North is now signed on PA Turnpike East, it's not inconceivable. Then again, if this is located where I think it's located, there is no Turnpike North there. Then again, they signed the nonexistent Turnpike South here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6827538,-75.4799371,3a,37.5y,357.93h,94.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shsVnaHQF8478Z1XgGQkcjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: bzakharin on October 22, 2018, 04:53:52 PM
Then again, they signed the nonexistent Turnpike South here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6827538,-75.4799371,3a,37.5y,357.93h,94.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shsVnaHQF8478Z1XgGQkcjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That sign has always been all sorts of messed up. Its not TO 295, it IS the ramp for 295 South. The gore sign only references 551 South with no mention of 295 South. And they generously gave it (NJ) Turnpike South, probably as there's no other way to access the NJ Turnpike South from the intersection just prior to this sign.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2018, 05:53:21 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 22, 2018, 04:53:52 PM
Then again, they signed the nonexistent Turnpike South here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6827538,-75.4799371,3a,37.5y,357.93h,94.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shsVnaHQF8478Z1XgGQkcjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That sign has always been all sorts of messed up. Its not TO 295, it IS the ramp for 295 South. The gore sign only references 551 South with no mention of 295 South. And they generously gave it (NJ) Turnpike South, probably as there's no other way to access the NJ Turnpike South from the intersection just prior to this sign.
Maybe they swapped the TO and the SOUTH by accident?
But my point is there *is* no Turnpike South at this point. It has ended (ok, not quite, but it's beyond the tolls, and the only thing it's doing is merging into I-295 South anyway)
Quote from: bzakharin on October 23, 2018, 12:39:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2018, 05:53:21 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 22, 2018, 04:53:52 PM
Then again, they signed the nonexistent Turnpike South here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6827538,-75.4799371,3a,37.5y,357.93h,94.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shsVnaHQF8478Z1XgGQkcjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That sign has always been all sorts of messed up. Its not TO 295, it IS the ramp for 295 South. The gore sign only references 551 South with no mention of 295 South. And they generously gave it (NJ) Turnpike South, probably as there's no other way to access the NJ Turnpike South from the intersection just prior to this sign.
Maybe they swapped the TO and the SOUTH by accident?
There's this at the ramp entrance: https://goo.gl/maps/itk5ZoGV8DU2 . No mention of 295 South whatsoever. I always thought this sign really was meant for that ramp coming from the Flying J that appears to be for 295 South but is completely unsigned for where the ramp actually leads you: https://goo.gl/maps/p92isWsZnJv.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 23, 2018, 12:39:01 PM
But my point is there *is* no Turnpike South at this point. It has ended (ok, not quite, but it's beyond the tolls, and the only thing it's doing is merging into I-295 South anyway)
Actually, it ends at the Rt. 49/130 bridge. So after taking the ramp for 295 South and going around the sharp 35 mph curb, 295 and the Turnpike co-exist together for about 1,200 feet, and it appears based on the striping that the Turnpike has jurisdiction. https://goo.gl/maps/4K7x2478usx
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2018, 12:50:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 23, 2018, 12:39:01 PM
(ok, not quite, but it's beyond the tolls, and the only thing it's doing is merging into I-295 South anyway)
Actually, it ends at the Rt. 49/130 bridge. So after taking the ramp for 295 South and going around the sharp 35 mph curb, 295 and the Turnpike co-exist together for about 1,200 feet, and it appears based on the striping that the Turnpike has jurisdiction. https://goo.gl/maps/4K7x2478usx
That doesn't contradict my statement, which you quoted. As for Jurisdiction, NJTA has a "Mile 0" painted on the bridge, but NJDOT recently put up mile markers on that part of 295, and the NJDOT spec "Entering Twp of Pennsville" has been there as long as I've been traveling that through that area.
Pennsylvania's mile marker Zero and Zero-Tenths on US 1 at the Maryland state line:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1918/43770400760_92045b74db_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/29FQKd5)
Quote from: formulanone on October 28, 2018, 11:41:00 AM
Pennsylvania's mile marker Zero and Zero-Tenths on US 1 at the Maryland state line:
How is that redundant? Couldn't there be a [0 3/10] mile marker?
Quote from: kphoger on October 29, 2018, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 28, 2018, 11:41:00 AM
Pennsylvania's mile marker Zero and Zero-Tenths on US 1 at the Maryland state line:
How is that redundant? Couldn't there be a [0 3/10] mile marker?
What is zero divided by ten?
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 29, 2018, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 28, 2018, 11:41:00 AM
Pennsylvania's mile marker Zero and Zero-Tenths on US 1 at the Maryland state line:
How is that redundant? Couldn't there be a [0 3/10] mile marker?
What is zero divided by ten?
Zero, of course.
But [0 0/10] and [0 3/10] are not the same thing. So I guess my point is that [0 0/10] is only redundant if you also find [35 0/10] to be equally redundant.
The redundancy is the use of the 0/10 fraction at all. The beginning of a mile is always 0/10.
Of course, Pennsylvania is just using 0/10 as an excuse to fill that bottom half and/or be consistent with other signs which use fractions. Personally, I'd prefer decimals (0, 0.1, 0.2, etc).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 29, 2018, 03:31:45 PM
The redundancy is the use of the 0/10 fraction at all. The beginning of a mile is always 0/10.
Of course, Pennsylvania is just using 0/10 as an excuse to fill that bottom half and/or be consistent with other signs which use fractions. Personally, I'd prefer decimals (0, 0.1, 0.2, etc).
Agreed on all points. So does Maryland sign other whole-number mileposts with 0/xx fractions, or does it do the usual?
Quote from: kphoger on October 29, 2018, 04:07:34 PM
So does Maryland sign other whole-number mileposts with 0/xx fractions, or does it do the usual?
I'm only familiar with the DMV sections of Maryland, but I don't recall noticing PA-level of detail in their mile markers.
Quote from: kphoger on October 29, 2018, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 29, 2018, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 28, 2018, 11:41:00 AM
Pennsylvania's mile marker Zero and Zero-Tenths on US 1 at the Maryland state line:
How is that redundant? Couldn't there be a [0 3/10] mile marker?
What is zero divided by ten?
Zero, of course.
But [0 0/10] and [0 3/10] are not the same thing. So I guess my point is that [0 0/10] is only redundant if you also find [35 0/10] to be equally redundant.
The 0 Milepost and 0/10 on the same sign mean the same thing. That's the redundant part of the picture.
I saw this grove of signs yesterday–across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2018, 03:12:10 PM
I saw this grove of signs yesterday–across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
GSV here. (https://goo.gl/maps/ZVTRGzH8VD22)
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 04:11:42 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2018, 03:12:10 PM
I saw this grove of signs yesterday–across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
GSV here. (https://goo.gl/maps/ZVTRGzH8VD22)
Very decidedly not MUTCD-compliant.
The sign replacement contractors along the eastern I-90/Mass Pike project have put up several redundant bridge height signs, one ground-mounted, the other on the bridge itself, such as the case here westbound in Framingham:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90signs1018a.JPG&hash=429aa625aff3bbff8cd9cbf6d9dfc0a13059eaf5)
Quote from: bob7374 on November 06, 2018, 05:12:09 PM
The sign replacement contractors along the eastern I-90/Mass Pike project have put up several redundant bridge height signs, one ground-mounted, the other on the bridge itself, such as the case here westbound in Framingham:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90signs1018a.JPG&hash=429aa625aff3bbff8cd9cbf6d9dfc0a13059eaf5)
What, you're saying that's not enough of an advance warning? :spin:
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2018, 03:12:10 PM
I saw this grove of signs yesterday–across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
Kind of looks like something you'd find in Ohio.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2018, 03:12:10 PM
I saw this grove of signs yesterday—across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
At least there's a state-named I-95 in that rogues' gallery.
Quote from: formulanone on November 06, 2018, 08:05:37 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2018, 03:12:10 PM
I saw this grove of signs yesterday–across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
At least there's a state-named I-95 in that rogues' gallery.
I found it on GSV. I just wanted to see if there was a stop sign on the other side of the street which there isn't.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6245917,-75.949434,3a,90y,172.26h,86.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swB3R1XPbonVxrMkg-1oWeg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2018, 10:04:21 AM
I found it on GSV.
You seriously hunted down the GSV?
↓ ↓ I just linked to the GSV six posts before yours. ↓ ↓
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 04:11:42 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2018, 03:12:10 PM
I saw this grove of signs yesterday–across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
GSV here. (https://goo.gl/maps/ZVTRGzH8VD22)
Plus
Brandon quoted my link in his next post.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:13:33 PM
You seriously hunted down the GSV?
↓ ↓ I just linked to the GSV six posts before yours. ↓ ↓
'
We are in the
redundancy thread, after all.
Quote from: kphoger on November 07, 2018, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 07, 2018, 10:04:21 AM
I found it on GSV.
You seriously hunted down the GSV?
↓ ↓ I just linked to the GSV six posts before yours. ↓ ↓
Quote from: kphoger on November 06, 2018, 04:11:42 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2018, 03:12:10 PM
I saw this grove of signs yesterday–across the street from a Flying J travel center in North East, MD. Note that these signs are across the street, so the warning to stop is on the other side of a through street (which does not need to stop for or yield to Flying J traffic).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4821/31882605188_87df38fea3_c.jpg)
GSV here. (https://goo.gl/maps/ZVTRGzH8VD22)
Plus Brandon quoted my link in his next post.
It didn't take much to do it. I was already on Google Maps and just searched for Flying J near North East, Maryland. As soon as I clicked on the GSV I saw it.
One of these shields is just like the other...
https://goo.gl/maps/8m8CgA7jYrH2
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 07, 2019, 10:52:00 AM
One of these shields is just like the other...
https://goo.gl/maps/8m8CgA7jYrH2
Should be Truck 19. They also need a Truck 11 in there, too, but apparently didn't have room for it.
That replaced a classic cutout sine salad.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 07, 2019, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 07, 2019, 10:52:00 AM
One of these shields is just like the other...
https://goo.gl/maps/8m8CgA7jYrH2
Should be Truck 19. They also need a Truck 11 in there, too, but apparently didn't have room for it.
That replaced a classic cutout sine salad.
2 generations removed...this was there in between the cutouts and the new LGS
https://goo.gl/maps/FDhBMWERP4D2
Even more confusing to a motorist is that there is a US 19 shield in a JUNCTION LGS on US 11-19 approaching the same intersection.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 06, 2018, 05:12:09 PM
The sign replacement contractors along the eastern I-90/Mass Pike project have put up several redundant bridge height signs, one ground-mounted, the other on the bridge itself, such as the case here westbound in Framingham:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90signs1018a.JPG&hash=429aa625aff3bbff8cd9cbf6d9dfc0a13059eaf5)
This one on thee Atlantic City Expressway is even better:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5546868,-74.7428667,3a,17.2y,131.48h,90.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8JYVGjvj1oKnILyVJOy_kw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Douglas Rd DOUGLAS RD.
I guess they just forgot to remove the old style sign..
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2574923,-122.9831744,3a,15y,136.07h,106.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skD6El6A_65XZX_vltVSFyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Which is cool, 'cause the old one uses the old custom font!
Quote from: bcroadguy on March 08, 2019, 05:48:28 AM
Douglas Rd DOUGLAS RD.
I guess they just forgot to remove the old style sign..
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2574923,-122.9831744,3a,15y,136.07h,106.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skD6El6A_65XZX_vltVSFyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Two generations of "Albro Place". (https://goo.gl/maps/3pFGX4JuA4D2)
That reminds me of the intersection of 500 East and 1300 South in Salt Lake City:
https://goo.gl/maps/tniWoucobYt
https://goo.gl/maps/rg6QmEoubzz
In both cases, the redundant signs on the mast itself were carried over from the wire-span lights that were there before this intersection was upgraded to mast-arms around 2010. As you can tell from more recent GSV, they've now been removed.
Quote from: US 89 on March 09, 2019, 01:38:29 PM
That reminds me of the intersection of 500 East and 1300 South in Salt Lake City:
https://goo.gl/maps/tniWoucobYt
https://goo.gl/maps/rg6QmEoubzz
In both cases, the redundant signs on the mast itself were carried over from the wire-span lights that were there before this intersection was upgraded to mast-arms around 2010. As you can tell from more recent GSV, they've now been removed.
There is one like this in NJ I know of:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3798582,-74.5773087,3a,37.5y,300.53h,88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swFu6PfTVHTyNQuEdn0sKrg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Both of these are new post-construction. If you play around with GSV, you'll see the old sign was just mounted on the pole.
I-495 (MA), exit 19
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7924/32434560417_fd32e518c6_c.jpg)
Quote from: 1 on March 14, 2019, 10:32:06 AM
I-495 (MA), exit 19
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7924/32434560417_fd32e518c6_c.jpg)
These are freaking everywhere with the sign replacement
^Which one is the replacement? I'd say the one with "Lowell" only, but that sure looks like a button copy shield which makes me think it's old I wouldn't think the paddle sign is newer given the all upper case control cities. Both have a taller "N" in "North"
Quote from: roadfro on March 17, 2019, 02:56:16 PM
^Which one is the replacement? I'd say the one with "Lowell" only, but that sure looks like a button copy shield which makes me think it's old I wouldn't think the paddle sign is newer given the all upper case control cities. Both have a taller "N" in "North"
The one with Marlboro on it is the newer one.
Found this in North Little Rock:
No Left Turn (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7755934,-92.2669582,3a,57.5y,178.93h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stETgDtknvc_NH5vnSAxOyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e3) :banghead:
GPS: Turn left onto E 22nd St.
"But, I- I can't turn left..."
GPS: Turn left damnit!
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 03, 2019, 06:33:46 PM
Found this in North Little Rock:
No Left Turn (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7755934,-92.2669582,3a,57.5y,178.93h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stETgDtknvc_NH5vnSAxOyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e3) :banghead:
GPS: Turn left onto E 22nd St.
"But, I- I can't turn left..."
GPS: Turn left damnit!
You can't turn left coming south because there is no road there. You can turn left coming north, though.
Isn't the sign referring to E 22nd St, which is approximately 100 feet ahead on the left?
I realize it's not exactly opposite the signalized approach on the right, but it's pretty clear what the intent is.
Quote from: spooky on April 04, 2019, 10:37:18 AM
Isn't the sign referring to E 22nd St, which is approximately 100 feet ahead on the left?
I realize it's not exactly opposite the signalized approach on the right, but it's pretty clear what the intent is.
I wonder why the restriction? (I think I can guess, but it seems excessive not to be time-based.)
More to the point, where's the redundancy? And also, how is it repetitive?
E 22nd Street has a separate no left turn sign at the actual intersection
Quote from: bzakharin on April 04, 2019, 11:59:00 AM
E 22nd Street has a separate no left turn sign at the actual intersection
Oh...well, I guess that's redundant, if intentionally so. No different than an advance turn assembly followed by a junction assembly, really.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8699182067/in/dateposted-public/
Quote from: spooky on April 04, 2019, 10:37:18 AM
Isn't the sign referring to E 22nd St, which is approximately 100 feet ahead on the left?
I realize it's not exactly opposite the signalized approach on the right, but it's pretty clear what the intent is.
I would have to say it is considering there is another no left turn sign at the street and right under the no left turn sign on the light post it says E 22nd St.
I've posted the equivalent of this with US highways before, but this was the first I'd ever seen it with a state route:
(https://i.imgur.com/FjaxoSL.jpg)
Taken in Stansbury Park, Utah.
Bad resolution, but 2 warnings of a curve within 200 feet of each other. Both have a right curve at 45 mph reccomended. Redundant as this one curve is the only one for the next 1.5 miles and was 2 signs really necessary for this?
GSW had not been updated to show both signs and both signs have been up for a year or so.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190626/3e7c739ed0ce9b96010540950d99c257.jpg)
SM-J737T
Perhaps they were having issues with drivers missing the turn, so they installed another sign. I've seen this a few times in Pennsylvania.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on June 26, 2019, 05:27:11 PM
Bad resolution, but 2 warnings of a curve within 200 feet of each other. Both have a right curve at 45 mph reccomended. Redundant as this one curve is the only one for the next 1.5 miles and was 2 signs really necessary for this?
GSW had not been updated to show both signs and both signs have been up for a year or so.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190626/3e7c739ed0ce9b96010540950d99c257.jpg)
SM-J737T
This is not redundant. It's allowed in the MUTCD standards for curves.
See page 111.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2c.pdf
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on June 26, 2019, 05:27:11 PM
2 warnings of a curve within 200 feet of each other.
Quote from: CardInLex on June 27, 2019, 07:36:08 PM
This is not redundant. It's allowed in the MUTCD standards for curves.
See page 111.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2c.pdf
I'm not seeing on Table 2C-4 (which page 111 suggests I should refer to for spacing guidelines) where less than 200 feet is specified for any speed limit dropping down to a 45mph warning sign situation.
Assuming I'm reading the chart correctly...
75 mph dropping to 45 mph = 550 feet
65 mph dropping to 45 mph = 400 feet
55 mph dropping to 45 mph = 275 feet
Quote from: CardInLex on June 27, 2019, 07:36:08 PM
This is not redundant. It's allowed in the MUTCD standards for curves.
See page 111.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2c.pdf
I don't follow..."redundant" and "allowed" aren't antonyms. Indeed, many redundant things aren't just allowed, but essential (such as a spare parachute).
Its allowed I thought, but stuff that's allowed can be redundant.
SM-J737T
Bicycles in tunnel when light flashing, speed 25 MPH (https://goo.gl/maps/nkXTZBhZHgEJvdrZ7?fbclid=IwAR2pKDZwFO6wol7syPTBeZNBO8geFJhHImhubiU05yY62xXFpoN8AXxIlMw), when the default speed is 25.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 28, 2019, 12:47:40 AM
Bicycles in tunnel when light flashing, speed 25 MPH (https://goo.gl/maps/nkXTZBhZHgEJvdrZ7?fbclid=IwAR2pKDZwFO6wol7syPTBeZNBO8geFJhHImhubiU05yY62xXFpoN8AXxIlMw), when the default speed is 25.
Probably should be 20 MPH.
Exit 1C on I-464 southbound in Chesapeake, VA, which is non-existent. There's only Exit 1B (I-64 East, Inner Loop) and 1A (I-64 West, Outer Loop), then it changes to Exit 15 (US-17 South) once it transitions onto VA-168 South.
(https://i.ibb.co/pzRbGWG/I464-South-Exit1-C.png)
VDOT really wants you to know that this is the way to I-64 & VA 143
Images from GSV(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190628/1a6a13bf149d0c92c7740631c99798ba.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190628/1509e3a2daec902976bc743a8468a325.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190628/cb490f0480f9c6f2b8b7d916c3108736.jpg)
SM-S820L
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2019, 07:34:00 AM
Exit 1C on I-464 southbound in Chesapeake, VA, which is non-existent. There's only Exit 1B (I-64 East, Inner Loop) and 1A (I-64 West, Outer Loop), then it changes to Exit 15 (US-17 South) once it transitions onto VA-168 South.
(https://i.ibb.co/pzRbGWG/I464-South-Exit1-C.png)
This is a remnant of when VA 104 was still signed and the Oak Grove Connector was not yet built. EXIT 1C was for VA 104 (the straight ahead movement). Carbon copying does not help here. VA 168 should also be added to the overhead signs.
Quote from: plain on June 28, 2019, 11:54:32 AM
VDOT really wants you to know that this is the way to I-64 & VA 143
Images from GSV(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190628/1a6a13bf149d0c92c7740631c99798ba.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190628/1509e3a2daec902976bc743a8468a325.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190628/cb490f0480f9c6f2b8b7d916c3108736.jpg)
SM-S820L
VDOT has been doing this for 30-35 years, especially on divided arterials. I guess they want to make sure
both lanes see the signs.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 28, 2019, 12:47:40 AM
Bicycles in tunnel when light flashing, speed 25 MPH (https://goo.gl/maps/nkXTZBhZHgEJvdrZ7?fbclid=IwAR2pKDZwFO6wol7syPTBeZNBO8geFJhHImhubiU05yY62xXFpoN8AXxIlMw), when the default speed is 25.
Reminds me of heading south on US 231 in Blountsville. Upon enter the town limits, the speed limit drops to 35 MPH:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.090515,-86.5849801,3a,15y,237.16h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCk5qcrvNPm2AsWJQKYcgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
But then, a few hundred feet later...
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0889654,-86.5867464,3a,15y,257.61h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stsfGrPmTQvJkED_GPJ5jbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
^^ The school speed limit is either more enforceable or fines are higher in a school zone. Probably had to put up a sign even though there is no reduction of speed.
Quote from: Big John on June 30, 2019, 12:58:47 PM
^^ The school speed limit is either more enforceable or fines are higher in a school zone. Probably had to put up a sign even though there is no reduction of speed.
I'm guessing it's related to the fact that cops tend to enforce speed limits more strictly in school zones (and work zones and speed traps) than elsewhere on the road, generally.
Another possibility is that the main speed limit was at one time higher, but then got reduced and they did not adjust the school speed limit sign.
I believe that it is confusing to have a school speed limit sign without a speed reduction. They could have a sign that warns of the presence of a school, like the yellow pentagon sign, without mentioning the speed, since it is irrelevant. [It seems the yellow pentagon sign is there, so the school speed limit should be removed.]
In my area, this is how it's done in areas where the main road is 25 all times (and no corresponding reduction is necessary since school zones are default at 25).
(https://i.ibb.co/z7LVCP4/VA168-Business45-Advisory-Speed.png)
VA-168 Business (Battlefield Blvd) in Chesapeake, north of the Hickory area, has an advisory speed of 45 mph around this curve, though the speed limit is already 45 mph.
It's redundant now, though it's a left over from when the speed limit was 50 mph, and was never removed. The speed limit was dropped to 45 mph in order to attempt to deter drivers from avoiding tolls on the Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168 Mainline). The speed limit is only 55 mph on the rural freeway (and it was also 55 mph on VA-168 Business south of Hickory, until lowered to 45 mph) and lowering the speed on VA-168 Business hasn't done anything in changing people's decisions. Until they raise the Expressway to 65 mph, which is a reasonable speed given the design of the freeway, and the rural environment, few people are likely to be "deterred" due to speed limits. Hardly anybody follows the 55 mph limit today as it is on the toll road.
I just came across this 2007 photo in my collection.
(https://i.imgur.com/x34w1Zd.jpg)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 30, 2019, 07:09:55 PM
I just came across this 2007 photo in my collection.
(https://i.imgur.com/x34w1Zd.jpg)
What about buses? :spin:
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 07:14:13 PM
What about buses? :spin:
Probably will fall under the "truck" category.
Nah. Buses don't have to detour.
Quote from: mrsman on June 30, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
Another possibility is that the main speed limit was at one time higher, but then got reduced and they did not adjust the school speed limit sign.
I believe that it is confusing to have a school speed limit sign without a speed reduction. They could have a sign that warns of the presence of a school, like the yellow pentagon sign, without mentioning the speed, since it is irrelevant. [It seems the yellow pentagon sign is there, so the school speed limit should be removed.]
In my area, this is how it's done in areas where the main road is 25 all times (and no corresponding reduction is necessary since school zones are default at 25).
Aren't there additional restrictions when driving in a school zone? Not to mention higher fines from traffic violations. These zones are not delineated by yellow pentagons.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 05:53:54 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/z7LVCP4/VA168-Business45-Advisory-Speed.png)
VA-168 Business (Battlefield Blvd) in Chesapeake, north of the Hickory area, has an advisory speed of 45 mph around this curve, though the speed limit is already 45 mph.
It's redundant now, though it's a left over from when the speed limit was 50 mph, and was never removed. The speed limit was dropped to 45 mph in order to attempt to deter drivers from avoiding tolls on the Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168 Mainline). The speed limit is only 55 mph on the rural freeway (and it was also 55 mph on VA-168 Business south of Hickory, until lowered to 45 mph) and lowering the speed on VA-168 Business hasn't done anything in changing people's decisions. Until they raise the Expressway to 65 mph, which is a reasonable speed given the design of the freeway, and the rural environment, few people are likely to be "deterred" due to speed limits. Hardly anybody follows the 55 mph limit today as it is on the toll road.
Everytime I have been in a speed zone under 55 mph, the curve advisory speed matches the speed limit unless the curve is sharper than the speed zone limit.
Quote from: cjk374 on July 01, 2019, 06:51:01 PM
Everytime I have been in a speed zone under 55 mph, the curve advisory speed matches the speed limit unless the curve is sharper than the speed zone limit.
From my experience, usually an advisory speed is not posted unless the curve is requires a slower speed. In this case, the speed limit is 45 mph, and the curve is 45 mph, so the curve advisory signage should not have an advisory speed displayed. Simply an arrow and that's all.
A similar situation exists on a nearby road where a 45 mph advisory speed is posted on a 45 mph speed zone. In the past, the speed limit was 55 mph, and the curve required slowing to 45 mph. Now that the speed limit has been lowered to 45 mph, the sign is redundant.
On another road nearby, the speed limit has always been 45 mph, and there's a 45 mph curve that does not have any advisory speed posted, simply just an arrow. That's because you can take the curve at the speed limit with no issues. If you're exceeding the speed limit, that's your own issue.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 10:19:06 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 01, 2019, 06:51:01 PM
Everytime I have been in a speed zone under 55 mph, the curve advisory speed matches the speed limit unless the curve is sharper than the speed zone limit.
From my experience, usually an advisory speed is not posted unless the curve is requires a slower speed. In this case, the speed limit is 45 mph, and the curve is 45 mph, so the curve advisory signage should not have an advisory speed displayed. Simply an arrow and that's all.
A similar situation exists on a nearby road where a 45 mph advisory speed is posted on a 45 mph speed zone. In the past, the speed limit was 55 mph, and the curve required slowing to 45 mph. Now that the speed limit has been lowered to 45 mph, the sign is redundant.
On another road nearby, the speed limit has always been 45 mph, and there's a 45 mph curve that does not have any advisory speed posted, simply just an arrow. That's because you can take the curve at the speed limit with no issues. If you're exceeding the speed limit, that's your own issue.
I think the highway departments assume (in many cases correctly) that there is probably significant speeding on the straight sections. The warning of the curves is to let people know to slow down for their own safety.
I don't think of it as redundant at all.
Quote from: mrsman on July 02, 2019, 09:58:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 10:19:06 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on July 01, 2019, 06:51:01 PM
Everytime I have been in a speed zone under 55 mph, the curve advisory speed matches the speed limit unless the curve is sharper than the speed zone limit.
From my experience, usually an advisory speed is not posted unless the curve is requires a slower speed. In this case, the speed limit is 45 mph, and the curve is 45 mph, so the curve advisory signage should not have an advisory speed displayed. Simply an arrow and that's all.
A similar situation exists on a nearby road where a 45 mph advisory speed is posted on a 45 mph speed zone. In the past, the speed limit was 55 mph, and the curve required slowing to 45 mph. Now that the speed limit has been lowered to 45 mph, the sign is redundant.
On another road nearby, the speed limit has always been 45 mph, and there's a 45 mph curve that does not have any advisory speed posted, simply just an arrow. That's because you can take the curve at the speed limit with no issues. If you're exceeding the speed limit, that's your own issue.
I think the highway departments assume (in many cases correctly) that there is probably significant speeding on the straight sections. The warning of the curves is to let people know to slow down for their own safety.
I don't think of it as redundant at all.
Well the thing is, you only see the advisory speed being the speed limit in this area if it was a left over from a higher speed limit.
There's plenty of other places in the area that otherwise have simply an arrow.
What's interesting is that 45 mph advisory speed in the 45 mph zone is easily driveable at 50 mph - it's not even a sharp curve.
I simply see advisory speeds as a reminder of the speed limit in the context of the upcoming curves.
PA had the opposite for a short while...in prep of raising speed limits to 70, there were some places where new curve signs were posted with 65 MPH advisories, while the freeway was still marked at 65 and before the announcement was made.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on July 03, 2019, 07:49:57 AM
PA had the opposite for a short while...in prep of raising speed limits to 70, there were some places where new curve signs were posted with 65 MPH advisories, while the freeway was still marked at 65 and before the announcement was made.
I'd rather do things in that order than the opposite, wherein someone could have a speed-related crash due to missing advisory plaques after the speed limit increase.
Quote from: kphoger on July 03, 2019, 03:00:12 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on July 03, 2019, 07:49:57 AM
PA had the opposite for a short while...in prep of raising speed limits to 70, there were some places where new curve signs were posted with 65 MPH advisories, while the freeway was still marked at 65 and before the announcement was made.
I'd rather do things in that order than the opposite, wherein someone could have a speed-related crash due to missing advisory plaques after the speed limit increase.
Completely agree. And it was a nice clue that 70 MPH was coming, even before it was announced...
On westbound OK 32 entering Marietta:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2Froadphotos%2Fcities%2Fmarietta2.jpg&hash=41e5a8b70e084b758b218ec6547e62e0375ed557)
This is a case where the signage appears redundant, but is in fact not.
https://goo.gl/maps/MNDkU4yy7QksrYrj9
The sign on the left is for the main road, and the one on the right is for the on ramp which passes over the exit in a braided ramp setup
Quote from: US 89 on May 08, 2019, 11:59:16 AM
I've posted the equivalent of this with US highways before, but this was the first I'd ever seen it with a state route:
(https://i.imgur.com/FjaxoSL.jpg)
Taken in Stansbury Park, Utah.
That is, in my opinion, only partially redundant. I say that because while the road may be signed as State Road/Route 138, it is possible for the road to have a separate name. A bit like how in Washington, SR 99 has several legal street names: Everett Mall Way, Evergreen Way, HWY 99, Aurora Ave, East Marginal Way, etc. With a few exceptions over its length, Businesses are identified by their address on the legal street name, not the route number. However, other State Routes in Washington, have huge sections without another name, so addresses are based on mileage and the route number; for example 14888 SR 525. So this sign may be useful, especially if the route goes from having a street name attached, to not, and there are redundant addresses in close proximity.
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 07, 2019, 01:24:00 PM
Quote from: US 89 on May 08, 2019, 11:59:16 AM
I've posted the equivalent of this with US highways before, but this was the first I'd ever seen it with a state route:
Taken in Stansbury Park, Utah.
That is, in my opinion, only partially redundant. I say that because while the road may be signed as State Road/Route 138, it is possible for the road to have a separate name. A bit like how in Washington, SR 99 has several legal street names: Everett Mall Way, Evergreen Way, HWY 99, Aurora Ave, East Marginal Way, etc. With a few exceptions over its length, Businesses are identified by their address on the legal street name, not the route number. However, other State Routes in Washington, have huge sections without another name, so addresses are based on mileage and the route number; for example 14888 SR 525. So this sign may be useful, especially if the route goes from having a street name attached, to not, and there are redundant addresses in close proximity.
Reminds of the surface road named IH-37 in Corpus Christi, TX :spin:
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8022088,-97.3915269,3a,37.5y,349.46h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP7Y3QeRWQXEIAhYRzrTjAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
In reality, it's to have "continuity" as while I-37 ends a few blocks to the west, the road continues as a surface road to Shoreline Blvd.
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 06, 2019, 11:31:04 PM
This is a case where the signage appears redundant, but is in fact not.
https://goo.gl/maps/MNDkU4yy7QksrYrj9
The sign on the left is for the main road, and the one on the right is for the on ramp which passes over the exit in a braided ramp setup
This is how the NJ Turnpike works for the dual-dual setup. Both roadways have exits for the same interchange.
^ Similar situation here, caused by braided ramps.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7764454,-76.2496177,3a,75y,45.48h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scyJctPdxaTJ6UR9vVdDDNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Redundancy is IMO a good thing... as long as it's consistent redundancy, and not being used to show off a variety of ugly fonts and route shield designs! X-(
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2019, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 06, 2019, 11:31:04 PM
This is a case where the signage appears redundant, but is in fact not.
https://goo.gl/maps/MNDkU4yy7QksrYrj9
The sign on the left is for the main road, and the one on the right is for the on ramp which passes over the exit in a braided ramp setup
This is how the NJ Turnpike works for the dual-dual setup. Both roadways have exits for the same interchange.
A similar example in MA (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.526685,-70.9570814,3a,75y,48.25h,86.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smzDJifTYWPf6V0a3Bwav4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); although the road on the right acts more like a collector-distributor ramp at this interchange.
Seen in Washington DC this week:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48867653756_776f2b35b2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hsguWq)
I've always liked the dual Bellevue Way signs on I-90 (https://goo.gl/maps/8eWyYn93oU5vfFi9A), though they're getting harder to see with the trees.
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0511437,-76.1480338,3a,46.6y,93.73h,94.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPp6LcBrZi1REHL1MDmNaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) yet another example on I-690 in Syracuse that looks redundant but actually isn't. I always wondered why there's a separate sign on the left instead of a single sign with three arrows, but then one day I realized that because of the short barrier between the ramp and mainline, it's still technically "on" the ramp.
Quote from: Michael on October 08, 2019, 09:49:02 PM
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0511437,-76.1480338,3a,46.6y,93.73h,94.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPp6LcBrZi1REHL1MDmNaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) yet another example on I-690 in Syracuse that looks redundant but actually isn't. I always wondered why there's a separate sign on the left instead of a single sign with three arrows, but then one day I realized that because of the short barrier between the ramp and mainline, it's still technically "on" the ramp.
It's certainly better than this nonredundant sign in a similar context on I-294 in Illinois.
(https://i.imgur.com/FPvEHHV.png)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 09, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
Quote from: Michael on October 08, 2019, 09:49:02 PM
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0511437,-76.1480338,3a,46.6y,93.73h,94.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPp6LcBrZi1REHL1MDmNaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) yet another example on I-690 in Syracuse that looks redundant but actually isn't. I always wondered why there's a separate sign on the left instead of a single sign with three arrows, but then one day I realized that because of the short barrier between the ramp and mainline, it's still technically "on" the ramp.
It's certainly better than this nonredundant sign in a similar context on I-294 in Illinois.
(image)
Disagree. I'd rather see one sign panel per destination. It's easier to parse in a short amount of time.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 09, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
Quote from: Michael on October 08, 2019, 09:49:02 PM
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0511437,-76.1480338,3a,46.6y,93.73h,94.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPp6LcBrZi1REHL1MDmNaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) yet another example on I-690 in Syracuse that looks redundant but actually isn't. I always wondered why there's a separate sign on the left instead of a single sign with three arrows, but then one day I realized that because of the short barrier between the ramp and mainline, it's still technically "on" the ramp.
It's certainly better than this nonredundant sign in a similar context on I-294 in Illinois.
(https://i.imgur.com/FPvEHHV.png)
Can you imagine that monstrosity in a OAPL sign?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 10, 2019, 12:38:15 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 09, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
Quote from: Michael on October 08, 2019, 09:49:02 PM
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0511437,-76.1480338,3a,46.6y,93.73h,94.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPp6LcBrZi1REHL1MDmNaug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) yet another example on I-690 in Syracuse that looks redundant but actually isn't. I always wondered why there's a separate sign on the left instead of a single sign with three arrows, but then one day I realized that because of the short barrier between the ramp and mainline, it's still technically "on" the ramp.
It's certainly better than this nonredundant sign in a similar context on I-294 in Illinois.
(https://i.imgur.com/FPvEHHV.png)
Can you imagine that monstrosity in a OAPL sign?
There are some that wide already in the wild. Since there's no option lane here, no need for an APL.
^ Obviously 5 straight arrows :bigass:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49569920686/in/dateposted-public/
The Alamo is on two signs side by side approaching one exit.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 22, 2020, 11:54:21 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49569920686/in/dateposted-public/
The Alamo is on two signs side by side approaching one exit.
Is that brown sign new?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 22, 2020, 11:54:21 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49569920686/in/dateposted-public/
The Alamo is on two signs side by side approaching one exit.
What's across the alley? ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50050490773_88f92ab0a5_o.png)
You sure this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.005622,-82.4425569,3a,37.5y,155.75h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7Tr37Nu-0ql6f6tDVCNgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) leads to West I-94/69?
Quote from: adwerkema on June 27, 2020, 12:57:37 PM
You sure this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.005622,-82.4425569,3a,37.5y,155.75h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7Tr37Nu-0ql6f6tDVCNgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) leads to West I-94/69?
On a similar note, am I (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4729941,-76.8366111,3a,75y,214.93h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sePlszWyAUf15w5PeJLYjdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) getting on I-795 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4713908,-76.8371915,3a,37.5y,202.15h,90.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflGJckTWQeHW2FWZxKr0lQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)?
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 27, 2020, 06:56:32 PM
Quote from: adwerkema on June 27, 2020, 12:57:37 PM
You sure this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.005622,-82.4425569,3a,37.5y,155.75h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7Tr37Nu-0ql6f6tDVCNgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) leads to West I-94/69?
On a similar note, am I (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4729941,-76.8366111,3a,75y,214.93h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sePlszWyAUf15w5PeJLYjdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) getting on I-795 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4713908,-76.8371915,3a,37.5y,202.15h,90.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflGJckTWQeHW2FWZxKr0lQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)?
That first sign is one of the closest signs to a CA freeway entrance sign that I have seen in MD. It lets you know in definitive terms that you are entering the freeway 795 and no option to go elsewhere.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 27, 2020, 06:56:32 PM
Quote from: adwerkema on June 27, 2020, 12:57:37 PM
You sure this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.005622,-82.4425569,3a,37.5y,155.75h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7Tr37Nu-0ql6f6tDVCNgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) leads to West I-94/69?
On a similar note, am I (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4729941,-76.8366111,3a,75y,214.93h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sePlszWyAUf15w5PeJLYjdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) getting on I-795 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4713908,-76.8371915,3a,37.5y,202.15h,90.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflGJckTWQeHW2FWZxKr0lQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)?
What other signage contradicts that to make you think you're not going on I-795, or there are other options?
Quote from: adwerkema on June 27, 2020, 12:57:37 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50050490773_88f92ab0a5_o.png)
You sure this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.005622,-82.4425569,3a,37.5y,155.75h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7Tr37Nu-0ql6f6tDVCNgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) leads to West I-94/69?
It might be a sanity check for drivers after they pass this assembly (https://goo.gl/maps/PtFbnuLn47ibXNsA6).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2020, 11:15:49 AM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 27, 2020, 06:56:32 PM
Quote from: adwerkema on June 27, 2020, 12:57:37 PM
You sure this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.005622,-82.4425569,3a,37.5y,155.75h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7Tr37Nu-0ql6f6tDVCNgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) leads to West I-94/69?
On a similar note, am I (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4729941,-76.8366111,3a,75y,214.93h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sePlszWyAUf15w5PeJLYjdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) getting on I-795 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4713908,-76.8371915,3a,37.5y,202.15h,90.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflGJckTWQeHW2FWZxKr0lQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)?
What other signage contradicts that to make you think you're not going on I-795, or there are other options?
None, really - only reason I can think of for that much I-795 signage on the same ramp is to hammer home the point that drivers, who have just been driving on this 4-lane, at-grade bypass of Reisterstown (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4754123,-76.8334905,3a,75y,237.51h,88.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCxdyGKl98AX9qT4B9CZPbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) and passed thru a signalized intersection with MD 140, are now defaulting onto a freeway. This location might be a good candidate for a "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" sign, as mrsman was alluding to with that first sign.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 08, 2019, 01:34:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2019, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: kendancy66 on October 06, 2019, 11:31:04 PM
This is a case where the signage appears redundant, but is in fact not.
https://goo.gl/maps/MNDkU4yy7QksrYrj9
The sign on the left is for the main road, and the one on the right is for the on ramp which passes over the exit in a braided ramp setup
This is how the NJ Turnpike works for the dual-dual setup. Both roadways have exits for the same interchange.
A similar example in MA (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.526685,-70.9570814,3a,75y,48.25h,86.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smzDJifTYWPf6V0a3Bwav4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); although the road on the right acts more like a collector-distributor ramp at this interchange.
This is the northerly interchange of I-95 and 128. The C/D road on the right carries traffic from I-95 south to 128 north. The original signs installed at this location in 1989 as part of the Task 'A' interchange project had Lynn as a control city instead of Salem. About a year or so later, Lynn was overlaid with Salem. However, the overlays were not tall enough, so the bottom of the 'y' in Lynn was still visible. The overlays were also fabricated from a thicker sheet aluminum than normally used for such panels. The signs were replaced with the current panels as part of the 2005 I-95 Lynnfield-Peabody-Danvers sign replacement project.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 28, 2020, 01:04:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2020, 11:15:49 AM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 27, 2020, 06:56:32 PM
Quote from: adwerkema on June 27, 2020, 12:57:37 PM
You sure this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.005622,-82.4425569,3a,37.5y,155.75h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp7Tr37Nu-0ql6f6tDVCNgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) leads to West I-94/69?
On a similar note, am I (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4729941,-76.8366111,3a,75y,214.93h,90.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sePlszWyAUf15w5PeJLYjdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) getting on I-795 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4713908,-76.8371915,3a,37.5y,202.15h,90.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflGJckTWQeHW2FWZxKr0lQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)?
What other signage contradicts that to make you think you're not going on I-795, or there are other options?
None, really - only reason I can think of for that much I-795 signage on the same ramp is to hammer home the point that drivers, who have just been driving on this 4-lane, at-grade bypass of Reisterstown (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4754123,-76.8334905,3a,75y,237.51h,88.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCxdyGKl98AX9qT4B9CZPbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) and passed thru a signalized intersection with MD 140, are now defaulting onto a freeway. This location might be a good candidate for a "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" sign, as mrsman was alluding to with that first sign.
So far MD has not adopted "freeway entrance" signs to my knowledge, but as NY seems to have recently adopted it in specific situations, this would be a good candidate. It can only increase safety.
Are you sure that this exit (https://www.google.pl/maps/@35.4921325,-108.4893548,3a,15y,119.7h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0-_YEfiXJGod4s4QjG-t8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) should be taken at 25mph?
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 29, 2020, 12:07:33 PM
Are you sure that this exit (https://www.google.pl/maps/@35.4921325,-108.4893548,3a,15y,119.7h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0-_YEfiXJGod4s4QjG-t8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) should be taken at 25mph?
See, this is an instance where redundancy is a good thing - slowing down to 25 mph from 75-80 mph takes a long distance, so the more signs there are, the less likely it is the driver will take the ramp too hot and end up over the side. Multiple signs in this case means "take this advisory seriously".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/30371721043/in/album-72157672404927284/
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2020, 08:23:53 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/30371721043/in/album-72157672404927284/
What's redundant about that? One gantry, with signs pointing either to the exit or to terminal and parking.
Quote from: GaryV on June 30, 2020, 08:33:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2020, 08:23:53 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/30371721043/in/album-72157672404927284/
What's redundant about that? One gantry, with signs pointing either to the exit or to terminal and parking.
The US 54 shield next to the text "US 54" is probably a bit of overkill.
Quote from: GaryV on June 30, 2020, 08:33:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2020, 08:23:53 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/30371721043/in/album-72157672404927284/
What's redundant about that? One gantry, with signs pointing either to the exit or to terminal and parking.
The US 54 is not needed twice.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2020, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: GaryV on June 30, 2020, 08:33:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2020, 08:23:53 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/30371721043/in/album-72157672404927284/
What's redundant about that? One gantry, with signs pointing either to the exit or to terminal and parking.
The US 54 is not needed twice.
Change one of them to US-400! :awesomeface:
Milepost 162 followed by Milepost 162.0 (https://goo.gl/maps/4WKiNWE3XoFcesEo9)
The I-5 variable speed limit sign assemblies are identified by what looks like regular mile posts, with rare (for this state) 1/10th of a mile decimal precision. Even if one sign is within a 10th of a mile of a milepost.
Did someone say Turnpike? This is I-40 East in Yukon, OK. Just found this browsing Oklahoma Street View, where you're almost guaranteed to find hot garbage.
(https://i.imgur.com/5UYwwGq.png)
Street View link. (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4638621,-97.7176225,3a,40.9y,125.15h,90.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUcpwve_tm7HYaDvfoDTEmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 07, 2020, 11:43:23 AM
Did someone say Turnpike? This is I-40 East in Yukon, OK. Just found this browsing Oklahoma Street View, where you're almost guaranteed to find hot garbage.
(https://i.imgur.com/5UYwwGq.png)
Street View link. (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4638621,-97.7176225,3a,40.9y,125.15h,90.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUcpwve_tm7HYaDvfoDTEmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The text in yellow would better read "Toll Road" to specify it's a toll road. There are numerous "Turnpikes" around the country that are not tolled.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 07, 2020, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 07, 2020, 11:43:23 AM
Did someone say Turnpike? This is I-40 East in Yukon, OK. Just found this browsing Oklahoma Street View, where you're almost guaranteed to find hot garbage.
(https://i.imgur.com/5UYwwGq.png)
Street View link. (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4638621,-97.7176225,3a,40.9y,125.15h,90.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUcpwve_tm7HYaDvfoDTEmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The text in yellow would better read "Toll Road" to specify it's a toll road. There are numerous "Turnpikes" around the country that are not tolled.
Well, hopefully the ground-mounted sign before this clarifies this for you.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HnqAT1N8xx1BbFUv7
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2020, 02:10:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 07, 2020, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on September 07, 2020, 11:43:23 AM
Did someone say Turnpike? This is I-40 East in Yukon, OK. Just found this browsing Oklahoma Street View, where you're almost guaranteed to find hot garbage.
(https://i.imgur.com/5UYwwGq.png)
Street View link. (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4638621,-97.7176225,3a,40.9y,125.15h,90.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUcpwve_tm7HYaDvfoDTEmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The text in yellow would better read "Toll Road" to specify it's a toll road. There are numerous "Turnpikes" around the country that are not tolled.
Well, hopefully the ground-mounted sign before this clarifies this for you.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HnqAT1N8xx1BbFUv7
I've seen some newer OK installs that specify "TOLL" instead of turnpike, but sprjus4 is right in that turnpikes can be untolled.
On another note, you could go full New Hampshire (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1687791,-71.5337638,3a,23.8y,73.07h,98.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sawmzq34DVJ-JTL-kWZRaAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) with the signage. "A toll road."
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 07, 2020, 03:41:06 PM
I've seen some newer OK installs that specify "TOLL" instead of turnpike, but sprjus4 is right in that turnpikes can be untolled.
On another note, you could go full New Hampshire (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1687791,-71.5337638,3a,23.8y,73.07h,98.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sawmzq34DVJ-JTL-kWZRaAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656/) with the signage. "A toll road."
Is the leading "A"
really necessary?
Seein' double Dunkin. (https://goo.gl/maps/wbsHh6XYyJkwWHNP7) Maybe the one without a drive-thru wanted an additional sign, or no one wanted to remove the faded sign.
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 07, 2020, 03:41:06 PM
I've seen some newer OK installs that specify "TOLL" instead of turnpike, but sprjus4 is right in that turnpikes can be untolled.
Not in Oklahoma. We've never had 'turnpikes' that weren't tolled like the states east of the Mississippi River. I suspect OTA is finally trying to get with the program by switching to 'TOLL' instead of 'TURNPIKE' as out-of-state drivers were getting confused.
What about a shield that is redundant with itself?
SH BUSINESS 288 B! (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.0908765,-95.4148154,3a,75y,184.3h,89.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx89H-jk59NoUUDHL7kEqtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Business 288 is actually called that everywhere in the area, strangely enough. Even all the street blades say Business 288 B.
Quote from: CoreySamson on September 07, 2020, 09:43:53 PM
What about a shield that is redundant with itself?
SH BUSINESS 288 B! (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.0908765,-95.4148154,3a,75y,184.3h,89.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx89H-jk59NoUUDHL7kEqtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Business 288 is actually called that everywhere in the area, strangely enough. Even all the street blades say Business 288 B.
You may have the wrong GSV. I can't see a shield.
Quote from: STLmapboy on September 07, 2020, 10:20:28 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on September 07, 2020, 09:43:53 PM
What about a shield that is redundant with itself?
SH BUSINESS 288 B! (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.0743425,-95.4101033,3a,15y,237.39h,86.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA7udZru-R1YbcDcmQvnD4w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Business 288 is actually called that everywhere in the area, strangely enough. Even all the street blades say Business 288 B.
You may have the wrong GSV. I can't see a shield.
Fixed.
That's not actually redundant–the "B" there is not short for "Business", as it would be in Arkansas, but is an internal designator attached to that business highway. If there were another Business 288 somewhere, that one would have a different letter at the bottom of the shield.
I am guessing that the letters are assigned off of the TxDOT internal reference system somehow, since Texas 6 has a Business 6-N in the central part of the state, then P, R, and S as it gets closer to its southern terminus.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2020, 10:16:55 PM
That's not actually redundant–the "B" there is not short for "Business", as it would be in Arkansas, but is an internal designator attached to that business highway. If there were another Business 288 somewhere, that one would have a different letter at the bottom of the shield.
I am guessing that the letters are assigned off of the TxDOT internal reference system somehow, since Texas 6 has a Business 6-N in the central part of the state, then P, R, and S as it gets closer to its southern terminus.
That's how I think it is, similar to how NH suffixes routes. i.e. 11A, 11B, 11C, 11D. There could possibly be a Business 288 A somewhere.
Quote from: Ben114 on September 13, 2020, 10:44:01 PM
There could possibly be a Business 288 A somewhere.
That was my first thought, and I checked; there isn't. Likewise, with Business 6, the lowest letter used is N.
Unless there's a Loop 288 A up in Denton, I'm 99.9% sure that there never was or is a Business 288A along TX 288's route.
Looking at TX-288's Wikipedia page indicates that there never was a Business 288A, but that instead, the current SH Business 288B was once part of Spur 300, and a state highway, TX 227 (which was only designated for about 4 years).
I think Scott's assumption that the extraneous "B" is probably an internal designation is probably correct, now that I think about it.
Quote from: CoreySamson on September 14, 2020, 02:04:39 PM
Unless there's a Loop 288 A up in Denton, I'm 99.9% sure that there never was or is a Business 288A along TX 288's route.
Looking at TX-288's Wikipedia page indicates that there never was a Business 288A, but that instead, the current SH Business 288B was once part of Spur 300, and a state highway, TX 227 (which was only designated for about 4 years).
I think Scott's assumption that the extraneous "B" is probably an internal designation is probably correct, now that I think about it.
Texas puts a tiny letter at the bottom of Business Route shields. Usually the first one is "A", but I've seen other letters for longer routes.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/837/41814657270_f9d0ed09b1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26H23NJ)
Here's a Business US 281 shield with a T (under the "2"), in Falfurrias:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7474/15228605413_948b692463_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pcGzQi)
Business US 77 in Brownsville, with a "Z"; presumably because US 77 terminates shortly after the Business loop ends:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7506/15228605483_5e17f6f92f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pcGzRv)
I have seen it in a few state highways, but sometimes you can't tell if it's just part of the mounting.
Quote from: formulanone on September 15, 2020, 10:36:47 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on September 14, 2020, 02:04:39 PM
Unless there's a Loop 288 A up in Denton, I'm 99.9% sure that there never was or is a Business 288A along TX 288's route.
Looking at TX-288's Wikipedia page indicates that there never was a Business 288A, but that instead, the current SH Business 288B was once part of Spur 300, and a state highway, TX 227 (which was only designated for about 4 years).
I think Scott's assumption that the extraneous "B" is probably an internal designation is probably correct, now that I think about it.
Texas puts a tiny letter at the bottom of Business Route shields. Usually the first one is "A", but I've seen other letters for longer routes.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/837/41814657270_f9d0ed09b1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26H23NJ)
Here's a Business US 281 shield with a T (under the "2"), in Falfurrias:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7474/15228605413_948b692463_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pcGzQi)
Business US 77 in Brownsville, with a "Z"; presumably because US 77 terminates shortly after the Business loop ends:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7506/15228605483_5e17f6f92f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pcGzRv)
I have seen it in a few state highways, but sometimes you can't tell if it's just part of the mounting.
They do it with business loop interstates as well. They skip several letters (they don't go A, B) for future expansion of business highways. It is more for internal logging then for it to be visible to the motorist, so when they say Business US 59, they can know which version of Business US 59 they are talking about since there are several iterations.
I think you're going the wrong way...
Looking backwards on US 395 southbound just before the Nevada state line at Long Valley Road turnoff (https://goo.gl/maps/ftaYfGmEAZ4bBoMe9)
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
I think you're going the wrong way...
Looking backwards on US 395 southbound just before the Nevada state line at Long Valley Road turnoff (https://goo.gl/maps/ftaYfGmEAZ4bBoMe9)
:-D :-D :-D Jesus!!! That's not standard for
Nevada California, is it?
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2020, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
I think you're going the wrong way...
Looking backwards on US 395 southbound just before the Nevada state line at Long Valley Road turnoff (https://goo.gl/maps/ftaYfGmEAZ4bBoMe9)
:-D :-D :-D Jesus!!! That's not standard for Nevada, is it?
Might not be standard in Nevada, but that's in California.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 09:31:52 PM
Might not be standard in Nevada, but that's in California.
Right, California. Still thinking that's not normal.
Guys, I don't think this is I-70 West... (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9994862,-78.2330408,3a,31.5y,261.77h,96.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNf4P6qRmrI-NqFhR1tHh6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 22, 2020, 12:25:40 AM
Guys, I don't think this is I-70 West... (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9994862,-78.2330408,3a,31.5y,261.77h,96.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNf4P6qRmrI-NqFhR1tHh6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Considering the town this is in, I think they get a pass for redundant signage. Just to really hammer in the fact that an Interstate Highway passes by a few gas stations and restaurants. :colorful:
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 09:31:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2020, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
I think you're going the wrong way...
Looking backwards on US 395 southbound just before the Nevada state line at Long Valley Road turnoff (https://goo.gl/maps/ftaYfGmEAZ4bBoMe9)
:-D :-D :-D Jesus!!! That's not standard for Nevada, is it?
Might not be standard in Nevada, but that's in California.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2020, 11:41:21 PM
Right, California. Still thinking that's not normal.
Oh no, not a standard at all. Just a few miles upstream in CA, there's a more normal installation. I think there's been some previous incidents at this location. It's not very far from the Bordertown casino on the Nevada side and that roadway is also served by this access point–interestingly there isn't a crossover to make the left turn to US 395 north from this location, which probably has contributed to some potential wrong way movements here and the need for the abundant and oversized signage.
Actual city limits may appear and reappear across a freeway, but it's less confusing to only sign one of them. Interstate 205, Entering Portland (button copy) (https://goo.gl/maps/z5fqh1JosnAiqXoA9) Then Entering Maywood Park (https://goo.gl/maps/MJynXERuPEQyxMdP8) (no local exits). (Two tenths of a mile away, while still in Maywood Park) Entering Portland (https://goo.gl/maps/8p8PL5es4b1NdeT37) again. :confused: I guess Maywood Park wanted their name on a freeway sign. The city was created to stop construction of I-205. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywood_Park,_Oregon)
I don't see what's redundant or confusing about that. You leave Portland and enter Maywood Park. Then you leave Maywood Park and enter Portland again. It's useful to know where the city limits are in case there are different ordinances that need to be observed.
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
I think you're going the wrong way...
Looking backwards on US 395 southbound just before the Nevada state line at Long Valley Road turnoff (https://goo.gl/maps/ftaYfGmEAZ4bBoMe9)
Maybe they're just testing out three different layouts for the WRONG WAY panel. :-D
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 09:31:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2020, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
I think you're going the wrong way...
Looking backwards on US 395 southbound just before the Nevada state line at Long Valley Road turnoff (https://goo.gl/maps/ftaYfGmEAZ4bBoMe9)
:-D :-D :-D Jesus!!! That's not standard for Nevada, is it?
Might not be standard in Nevada, but that's in California.
And there's weirdness in the other direction, too. Heading southbound in the northbound lanes there are no
WRONG WAY signs, but instead a pair of icy road warning signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6740787,-120.001255,3a,75y,156.21h,78.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP9hpMYvSYioHOnmAhHPHzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). If you are reading those signs, ice might not be your biggest problem.
It's June in that GSV image. They may be turned around to face traffic during the colder months.
Quote from: GenExpwy on October 18, 2020, 12:48:35 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 09:31:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2020, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadfro on September 19, 2020, 06:10:26 PM
I think you're going the wrong way...
Looking backwards on US 395 southbound just before the Nevada state line at Long Valley Road turnoff (https://goo.gl/maps/ftaYfGmEAZ4bBoMe9)
:-D :-D :-D Jesus!!! That's not standard for Nevada, is it?
Might not be standard in Nevada, but that's in California.
And there's weirdness in the other direction, too. Heading southbound in the northbound lanes there are no WRONG WAY signs, but instead a pair of icy road warning signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6740787,-120.001255,3a,75y,156.21h,78.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP9hpMYvSYioHOnmAhHPHzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). If you are reading those signs, ice might not be your biggest problem.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 18, 2020, 01:05:38 AM
It's June in that GSV image. They may be turned around to face traffic during the colder months.
Yes, those signs are on swivel supports so they can be turned to face traffic when applicable. The round metal posts painted orange are the main clue–many Caltrans signs for winter weather conditions use similar posts–as opposed to wood supports or other types of metal posts common to most other sign types. Interesting here thought that the signs are turned backwards...in my experience, signs like this are usually turned 90° away from the road surface when not in use instead of 180° backwards.
^
Why turn the signs around at all? Just leave them faced towards traffic.
Some states have a policy of hiding winter conditions information when not applicable. Oklahoma used to have a standard "Watch for Ice on Bridge" sign that folded in half during the summer months, forming a triangular sign with an anti-littering message. Later, these signs were replaced with an all-year sign reading "Bridge Ices Before Road", which is a statement that's true, if not particularly relevant, year-round.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2020, 02:41:46 AM
Some states have a policy of hiding winter conditions information when not applicable. Oklahoma used to have a standard "Watch for Ice on Bridge" sign that folded in half during the summer months, forming a triangular sign with an anti-littering message. Later, these signs were replaced with an all-year sign reading "Bridge Ices Before Road", which is a statement that's true, if not particularly relevant, year-round.
Arkansas went to "Bridge may Ice in Cole Weather" a few years ago replacing folding "Watch for Ice" . Texas is slowly updating their signs.
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2020, 02:41:46 AM
Some states have a policy of hiding winter conditions information when not applicable. Oklahoma used to have a standard "Watch for Ice on Bridge" sign that folded in half during the summer months, forming a triangular sign with an anti-littering message. Later, these signs were replaced with an all-year sign reading "Bridge Ices Before Road", which is a statement that's true, if not particularly relevant, year-round.
Arkansas went to "Bridge may Ice in Cole Weather" a few years ago replacing folding "Watch for Ice" . Texas is slowly updating their signs.
Texas forever, and still has "Watch For Ice on Bridge" signs that fold into a silver triangle during the summer. Some time 20ish years ago, they decided folding and unfolding them cost too much money so they kept them down year round. So Texas has signs that fold up, but aren't folded up year round. Some still get the folded treatment, I guess it depends on the location of the sign to the nearest TxDOT sub station, making it more cost effective.
Ohio signs say "Bridge Ices before Road". I was traveling with a friend who got very confused because he interpreted "before" as meaning "in front of" instead of "sooner than".
Missouri doesn't care if your bridge ices, therefore no signs.
For years, Kentucky's language was "Bridges Freeze Before Roadway." The MUTCD now calls for "Bridges Ice Before Road."
West Virginia still uses "Watch for Ice on Bridge" with ICE in larger text.
I kind of have to wonder what the purpose of the signs is at all. Bridges icing before roads is a physics fact that pretty much anyone driving in winter weather should be aware of. You may as well post signs reading "Larger vehicles take longer to stop" or "Crashing cars into one another causes damage". Perhaps the intent is mostly to notify the driver of the fact that they're simply crossing a bridge, since it can be tricky to tell in a few instances, but given that in non-icy conditions that information isn't super relevant, maybe a less intrusive symbol indication of some kind would be better, like Minnesota's snowplow triangles.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2020, 02:17:16 PM
West Virginia still uses "Watch for Ice on Bridge" with ICE in larger text.
This was Oklahoma's format for these signs as well, although I seem to remember them using Series D, and the WV examples I'm seeing use Series C.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on October 19, 2020, 10:17:40 AM
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2020, 02:41:46 AM
Some states have a policy of hiding winter conditions information when not applicable. Oklahoma used to have a standard "Watch for Ice on Bridge" sign that folded in half during the summer months, forming a triangular sign with an anti-littering message. Later, these signs were replaced with an all-year sign reading "Bridge Ices Before Road", which is a statement that's true, if not particularly relevant, year-round.
Arkansas went to "Bridge may Ice in Cole Weather" a few years ago replacing folding "Watch for Ice" . Texas is slowly updating their signs.
Texas forever, and still has "Watch For Ice on Bridge" signs that fold into a silver triangle during the summer. Some time 20ish years ago, they decided folding and unfolding them cost too much money so they kept them down year round. So Texas has signs that fold up, but aren't folded up year round. Some still get the folded treatment, I guess it depends on the location of the sign to the nearest TxDOT sub station, making it more cost effective.
In the Houston area, it seems every single bridge has a "Bridge May Ice In Cold Weather" sign plastered in front of it like Arkansas does, but it doesn't look like they fold from what I've seen. The irony is usually it only gets down to freezing once per year (It's only snowed once and sleeted twice in the 9 years I've lived in the area).
So why even have the signs in the first place? Sure, it does warn the motorists whom have probably have never seen ice on the road before that ice may be present on the bridges, but at the same time, it maybe ices once or twice a decade, and since the signs are posted at every freakin' bridge, drivers treat them as invisible (I know I do). Besides, if it snows or ices, school is basically automatically canceled and everyone just has parties in the snow (or is afraid to go outside).
Here are some of many examples:
#1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1706706,-95.4534335,3a,29.9y,199.95h,88.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMe8UNSlhcz1F2CEKgmtlvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
#2 (a twofer) (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.477266,-95.4047095,3a,23.4y,39.15h,92.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUvUcj0fxmzxavlYBicVW8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
#3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.0523573,-95.5582607,3a,15y,53.96h,92.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWxNNNVu3anigaf3_6X4B5A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWxNNNVu3anigaf3_6X4B5A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D83.036255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
#4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5359533,-95.502613,3a,54.1y,216.7h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSPyFjoTcOPPu27zOSKVzbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
#5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7484007,-95.3593824,3a,18.6y,55.54h,90.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slSLpXsx0V8cyhnHJyNe2qg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2020, 02:17:16 PM
West Virginia still uses "Watch for Ice on Bridge" with ICE in larger text.
Warning: Internal checkpoint ahead
Quote from: CoreySamson on October 19, 2020, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on October 19, 2020, 10:17:40 AM
Quote from: US71 on October 19, 2020, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2020, 02:41:46 AM
Some states have a policy of hiding winter conditions information when not applicable. Oklahoma used to have a standard "Watch for Ice on Bridge" sign that folded in half during the summer months, forming a triangular sign with an anti-littering message. Later, these signs were replaced with an all-year sign reading "Bridge Ices Before Road", which is a statement that's true, if not particularly relevant, year-round.
Arkansas went to "Bridge may Ice in Cole Weather" a few years ago replacing folding "Watch for Ice" . Texas is slowly updating their signs.
Texas forever, and still has "Watch For Ice on Bridge" signs that fold into a silver triangle during the summer. Some time 20ish years ago, they decided folding and unfolding them cost too much money so they kept them down year round. So Texas has signs that fold up, but aren't folded up year round. Some still get the folded treatment, I guess it depends on the location of the sign to the nearest TxDOT sub station, making it more cost effective.
In the Houston area, it seems every single bridge has a "Bridge May Ice In Cold Weather" sign plastered in front of it like Arkansas does, but it doesn't look like they fold from what I've seen. The irony is usually it only gets down to freezing once per year (It's only snowed once and sleeted twice in the 9 years I've lived in the area).
So why even have the signs in the first place? Sure, it does warn the motorists whom have probably have never seen ice on the road before that ice may be present on the bridges, but at the same time, it maybe ices once or twice a decade, and since the signs are posted at every freakin' bridge, drivers treat them as invisible (I know I do). Besides, if it snows or ices, school is basically automatically canceled and everyone just has parties in the snow (or is afraid to go outside).
Here are some of many examples:
#1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1706706,-95.4534335,3a,29.9y,199.95h,88.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMe8UNSlhcz1F2CEKgmtlvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
#2 (a twofer) (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.477266,-95.4047095,3a,23.4y,39.15h,92.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUvUcj0fxmzxavlYBicVW8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
#3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.0523573,-95.5582607,3a,15y,53.96h,92.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWxNNNVu3anigaf3_6X4B5A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWxNNNVu3anigaf3_6X4B5A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D83.036255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
#4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5359533,-95.502613,3a,54.1y,216.7h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSPyFjoTcOPPu27zOSKVzbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
#5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7484007,-95.3593824,3a,18.6y,55.54h,90.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slSLpXsx0V8cyhnHJyNe2qg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
These are the ones I am most familiar with. This is them in the colder months:
https://goo.gl/maps/7jMJUkA6kfFGvH1T6 (https://goo.gl/maps/7jMJUkA6kfFGvH1T6)
The same sign in the warmer months:
https://goo.gl/maps/Ginhe66sqsRwjifR9 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ginhe66sqsRwjifR9)
As you can see they have some PSA on them about either watching for motorcycles or maintaining your vehicle when folded. They had nothing on them when I was a kid.
Here's one in Oklahoma where the hinges have rusted so the sign is permanently open
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1835/28123176857_aaa5a0987c_z_d.jpg)
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 19, 2020, 03:40:17 PM
I kind of have to wonder what the purpose of the signs is at all. Bridges icing before roads is a physics fact that pretty much anyone driving in winter weather should be aware of. You may as well post signs reading "Larger vehicles take longer to stop" or "Crashing cars into one another causes damage". Perhaps the intent is mostly to notify the driver of the fact that they're simply crossing a bridge, since it can be tricky to tell in a few instances, but given that in non-icy conditions that information isn't super relevant, maybe a less intrusive symbol indication of some kind would be better, like Minnesota's snowplow triangles.
In New England, they tend to appear more in places where the meteorological likelihood of the phenomena happening exists. Mostly on higher speed roads crossing rivers and streams. Due to the moisture underneath, that is likelier to ice up worse than a bridge going over another roadway. For that purpose I feel they are useful, because it warns of the enhanced danger at that particular crossing.
At some point, rather quickly once building a road, a DOT is going to learn what bridges present this problem more often.
An example, with a bridge on a 70 MPH interstate in the middle of a curve just before an exit, https://goo.gl/maps/DaeZ8wnC6rd9VLzc9
I feel like these signs are necessary to a point, but when they are literally EVERYWHERE, it almost defeats the point. I forget what the phenomena is called, but it is basically like the Boy Who Called Wolf: eventually, you see it enough it just doesn't register. I feel like there needs to be standards on where these go, that is more than just "X distance from the beginning of bridge" . Like "X distance from the beginning of any bridge structures that cross water, or has a horizontal or vertical alignment change, or is not easily identified, or as determined by speacial circumstance."
^
I barely even notice the signs half of time having seen them so regularly. The average motorist probably wouldn't even think twice about what it means or that it's even there.
I pretty much echo what everyone else is saying. It's pointless to install them on every bridge, because at that point, they quickly lose their impact. DOTs should be more strategic about where they place them.
The two states I frequent the most, that being Illinois and Wisconsin, do not bother with these signs, which I appreciate. Michigan and Indiana on the other hand...
problem is, if someone spun out on the ice on an unmarked bridge, they'd sue because "You didn't warn me." Regardless if they were warned 93 other times that week.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 19, 2020, 09:17:46 PM
^
I barely even notice the signs half of time having seen them so regularly. The average motorist probably wouldn't even think twice about what it means or that it's even there.
Quote from: MCRoads on October 19, 2020, 08:45:41 PM
I feel like these signs are necessary to a point, but when they are literally EVERYWHERE, it almost defeats the point. I forget what the phenomena is called, but it is basically like the Boy Who Called Wolf: eventually, you see it enough it just doesn't register. I feel like there needs to be standards on where these go, that is more than just "X distance from the beginning of bridge" . Like "X distance from the beginning of any bridge structures that cross water, or has a horizontal or vertical alignment change, or is not easily identified, or as determined by speacial circumstance."
Yesterday I decided to count the number of "Bridge May Ice In Cold Weather" signs on the fastest route between my house and my church 10 miles away. I counted 11. Completely unnecessary when it only ices once every decade or so, as I said earlier. Totally defeats the sign's purpose of being noticed.
Quote from: SectorZ on October 19, 2020, 04:49:36 PM
In New England, they tend to appear more in places where the meteorological likelihood of the phenomena happening exists. Mostly on higher speed roads crossing rivers and streams. Due to the moisture underneath, that is likelier to ice up worse than a bridge going over another roadway. For that purpose I feel they are useful, because it warns of the enhanced danger at that particular crossing.
It's not the moisture under a bridge that makes it freeze up, but rather the air. A road surface is insulated against heat loss by the ground under it, but a bridge has cold air on all sides and so it radiates heat in every direction, making it reach a freezing temperature sooner.
In fact, you could imagine a case where a low bridge over a wide expanse of relatively warm water actually freezes less quickly, because the water creates a warmer layer of air than that of the surrounding land area.
Back in the 1970s, you could tell which bridges on I-64 were equipped with heated decks because they did not have the "Bridge Freezes Before Roadway" signs. The ones that I remember were the bridge over Kilgore Creek Road (just east of Exit 28 - Milton) and the eastbound deck of the Nitro Bridge (between Exit 44 and Exit 45). Note that locals referred to the I-64 Nitro Bridge as the Green Bridge, and kept calling it the Green Bridge even after the DOH painted it blue back in the late 1980s. I'm not sure if the DOH was ever able to equip the westbound lanes with heating elements. It wasn't too many years before the heating elements quit working and the "Bridge Freezes Before Roadway" signs were reinstated.
Alright, so I know this isn't a sign, but I did find this redundancy while reading my Introduction to Infrastructure textbook today. Scan it; see if you can find the headbanger.
(https://i.imgur.com/ozzHh1Z.jpg)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 16, 2020, 06:43:18 PM
Alright, so I know this isn't a sign, but I did find this redundancy while reading my Introduction to Infrastructure textbook today. Scan it; see if you can find the headbanger.
(https://i.imgur.com/ozzHh1Z.jpg)
"Interstate I-40"?
Quote from: amroad17 on November 17, 2020, 02:06:41 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on November 16, 2020, 06:43:18 PM
Alright, so I know this isn't a sign, but I did find this redundancy while reading my Introduction to Infrastructure textbook today. Scan it; see if you can find the headbanger.
(https://i.imgur.com/ozzHh1Z.jpg)
"Interstate I-40"?
I also don't know if I've heard of a bridge or tunnel called a chokepoint in this manner. Usually a chokepoint is a reduction of a lane, a toll plaza, a traffic light along a stretch of road that otherwise doesn't have any, or something else that causes congestion on a frequent or daily basis.
Quote from: amroad17 on November 17, 2020, 02:06:41 AM
"Interstate I-40"?
Yep. Even better, there was a typo on the next page where they referred to it is "1-40". Yes, that is a number one.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2020, 06:06:37 AM
I also don't know if I've heard of a bridge or tunnel called a chokepoint in this manner. Usually a chokepoint is a reduction of a lane, a toll plaza, a traffic light along a stretch of road that otherwise doesn't have any, or something else that causes congestion on a frequent or daily basis.
A chokepoint could also be a route that all traffic must use to get from two points. For example, the Dubuque, IA area has the issue of getting over the Mississippi River. There are only two options for crossing: US-20 into IL or US-151 into WI. Those could definitely be chokepoints if they were blocked, closed, etc.
I think bridges and tunnels can more easily become chokepoints over time, as they are typically the most expensive and time-consuming part of a freeway upgrade.
As an example, the 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in Seattle was, for years (before replacement six years ago), the main chokepoint for westbound traffic as the 520 lost at least two lanes entering the old, narrow bridge. Down south in Clark County, the current I-5 bridges over the Columbia River, connecting WA and OR, is a chokepoint for WA travellers as I-5 is much wider in WA than the bridges it connects to. Both became chokepoints over time as the connecting roads were upgraded but without replacing the bridges.
Some consider Seattle's Alaskan Way Tunnel, opened 2019, as a chokepoint along WA-99, as both connecting roadways are three lanes each direction, one more than the tunnel's two in each direction. But in practice, it was designed like this on purpose, with lanes approaching the tunnel leaving the roadway through ramps rather than merging.
Perhaps my favorite tunnel chokepoint (said with a smirk) is the George Massey Tunnel south of Vancouver, BC. The tunnel is two lanes each direction, but BC-99 is three to four lanes in each direction approaching the tunnel. It was set to be replaced with a bridge by the last government, but those plans were scrapped and a new tunnel is being favoured.
The dictionary definition of "chokepoint" should be a picture of the Squirrel Hill Tunnel.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2020, 01:19:30 PM
I think bridges and tunnels can more easily become chokepoints over time, as they are typically the most expensive and time-consuming part of a freeway upgrade.
As an example, the 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in Seattle was, for years (before replacement six years ago), the main chokepoint for westbound traffic as the 520 lost at least two lanes entering the old, narrow bridge. Down south in Clark County, the current I-5 bridges over the Columbia River, connecting WA and OR, is a chokepoint for WA travellers as I-5 is much wider in WA than the bridges it connects to. Both became chokepoints over time as the connecting roads were upgraded but without replacing the bridges.
Some consider Seattle's Alaskan Way Tunnel, opened 2019, as a chokepoint along WA-99, as both connecting roadways are three lanes each direction, one more than the tunnel's two in each direction. But in practice, it was designed like this on purpose, with lanes approaching the tunnel leaving the roadway through ramps rather than merging.
Perhaps my favorite tunnel chokepoint (said with a smirk) is the George Massey Tunnel south of Vancouver, BC. The tunnel is two lanes each direction, but BC-99 is three to four lanes in each direction approaching the tunnel. It was set to be replaced with a bridge by the last government, but those plans were scrapped and a new tunnel is being favoured.
Even in cases where the approach road has the same number of lanes as the bridge, a bridge can still be a chokepoint, especially in urban areas. Consider a freeway with 3 lanes in each direction on both approaches and on the bridge itself. Parallel roads do exist, but none cross the river. To the extent that any of the side street traffic wants to cross the river, that traffic has to join the freeway for a short while. So while there may be 4 lanes of traffic in each direction on land (3 for the freeway and 1 for the parallel road), there are only 3 for the bridge, the 3 lanes of the freeway alone.
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2020, 07:11:12 AM
Even in cases where the approach road has the same number of lanes as the bridge, a bridge can still be a chokepoint, especially in urban areas. Consider a freeway with 3 lanes in each direction on both approaches and on the bridge itself. Parallel roads do exist, but none cross the river. To the extent that any of the side street traffic wants to cross the river, that traffic has to join the freeway for a short while. So while there may be 4 lanes of traffic in each direction on land (3 for the freeway and 1 for the parallel road), there are only 3 for the bridge, the 3 lanes of the freeway alone.
Ahh, yes, of course. That's a very good point. Bridges and tunnels are chokepoints for the overall network. Maybe they are better called pinch points? Since traffic from several directions is pinched into one road.
When I made my comment, I was referring to a bridge not being a chokepoint as, in of itself, it's just a continuation of the roadway. If there's a steep incline that causes traffic to slow, or a reduction in the lanes on the bridge, that would be related to the bridge itself. But in cases where the bridge may be the only bridge around, or other roads feed into the bridge, technically the bridge is a defacto chokepoint, although the blame could really be placed on the fact that other bridges don't exist.
If I were to use some real-life examples: The US 1 Bridge over the Delaware River is actually *wider* than the approach roadways for any distance on either side. US 1 in PA is 2 lanes per direction right up to the interchange just east of the bridge. US 1 in NJ is 2 lanes per direction about a mile west of the bridge. The only chokepoint would be the toll plaza on the WB side.
When the Walt Whitman Bridge is running at 4 lanes in the direction you're traveling, it's not a chokepoint because the highway feeding into it is 3 lanes per direction, and a 4th lane is created by a lane approaching the bridge. However, it does become a chokepoint when the zipper barrier only allows 3 lanes in any one direction, mostly because the main approach highway loses the lane, rather than the created lane.
The I-95 Bridge over the Susquehanna River is kind of a chokepoint. Not because of the lanes, as there's 3 lanes on the bridge along with 3 lanes on either side, but rather due to the lack of shoulders and the crosswinds that cause traffic to slow down. Not to mention some motorists really don't like being on the outside lane of that bridge and use the middle lane at a reduced speed. But on 95 in Maryland, even the service plazas in the center of the roadway are kind of like chokepoints, because of the left lane accel and decel lanes for the toll plaza. Drive by there on a summer or holiday weekend when there's a lot of vacationers travelling and not as familiar with the roadway, and you'll see what I mean!
The Delaware Memorial Bridge can be a chokepoint due to the steepness of the incline. Underpowered trucks have a bit of a tough climb getting to the top. Although, when all 4 lanes are open, it's usually not an issue.
Jackroots examples are all good ones as to why bridges/tunnels are considered chokepoints.
Of course, maybe I just have a more narrow definition of a chokepoint compared to others! :colorful:
I saw this on the US route state route thread. Surprisingly, the photo description was for the route shield and not for the ridiculous construction signage.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1775/28887797067_9a790ebb7a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/L1HvCF)
(formulanone)
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2020, 07:11:12 AM
Even in cases where the approach road has the same number of lanes as the bridge, a bridge can still be a chokepoint, especially in urban areas. Consider a freeway with 3 lanes in each direction on both approaches and on the bridge itself. Parallel roads do exist, but none cross the river. To the extent that any of the side street traffic wants to cross the river, that traffic has to join the freeway for a short while. So while there may be 4 lanes of traffic in each direction on land (3 for the freeway and 1 for the parallel road), there are only 3 for the bridge, the 3 lanes of the freeway alone.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2020, 01:07:00 PM
Ahh, yes, of course. That's a very good point. Bridges and tunnels are chokepoints for the overall network. Maybe they are better called pinch points? Since traffic from several directions is pinched into one road.
In Pittsburgh, we used to tease the locals as having "tunnel vision". In spite of signs reminding folks to maintain 55 mph in the Squirrel Hill tubes, somebody in both lanes invariably slows down to 30 or 35 mph and chokes down everything. Much of the traffic problems on I-376 back 30 years ago was not due to capacity, but due to driver reaction to narrow lanes with no shoulders. I suspect the "Maintain 55" signs have since come down due to the likelihood of congestion due to true capacity issues ahead.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 19, 2020, 07:06:46 PM
Much of the traffic problems on I-376 back 30 years ago was not due to capacity, but due to driver reaction to narrow lanes with no shoulders. I suspect the "Maintain 55" signs have since come down due to the likelihood of congestion due to true capacity issues ahead.
I don't recall ever seeing signs specify a speed (such as "Maintain 55"), but for all my recollection, there have been (and still are) signs stating to "Maintain speed thru tunnels"
https://goo.gl/maps/ucojD3tJPpqFMbLNA
Quote from: 1 on November 19, 2020, 06:29:32 PM
I saw this on the US route state route thread. Surprisingly, the photo description was for the route shield and not for the ridiculous construction signage.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1775/28887797067_9a790ebb7a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/L1HvCF)
(formulanone)
That's just how I roll. 😁 If I get a lot of variation from the same route, then I'll title that.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 19, 2020, 07:06:46 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 18, 2020, 07:11:12 AM
Even in cases where the approach road has the same number of lanes as the bridge, a bridge can still be a chokepoint, especially in urban areas. Consider a freeway with 3 lanes in each direction on both approaches and on the bridge itself. Parallel roads do exist, but none cross the river. To the extent that any of the side street traffic wants to cross the river, that traffic has to join the freeway for a short while. So while there may be 4 lanes of traffic in each direction on land (3 for the freeway and 1 for the parallel road), there are only 3 for the bridge, the 3 lanes of the freeway alone.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2020, 01:07:00 PM
Ahh, yes, of course. That's a very good point. Bridges and tunnels are chokepoints for the overall network. Maybe they are better called pinch points? Since traffic from several directions is pinched into one road.
In Pittsburgh, we used to tease the locals as having "tunnel vision". In spite of signs reminding folks to maintain 55 mph in the Squirrel Hill tubes, somebody in both lanes invariably slows down to 30 or 35 mph and chokes down everything. Much of the traffic problems on I-376 back 30 years ago was not due to capacity, but due to driver reaction to narrow lanes with no shoulders. I suspect the "Maintain 55" signs have since come down due to the likelihood of congestion due to true capacity issues ahead.
Still slightly better than the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel(s), which become a pair of 1-way stops in rush hour.
You sure you aren't supposed to park here? (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2766675,-87.5453645,3a,32.7y,119.44h,84.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNECybMas8D6HxXPDARYf5g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DNECybMas8D6HxXPDARYf5g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D246.64886%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
(Orange Beach, Alabama, on AL 182)
^^Those look like temporary no parking signs.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 19, 2020, 07:06:46 PM
In Pittsburgh, we used to tease the locals as having "tunnel vision". In spite of signs reminding folks to maintain 55 mph in the Squirrel Hill tubes, somebody in both lanes invariably slows down to 30 or 35 mph and chokes down everything.
Well you see, the Squirrel Hill Tunnels eats cars for dinner. But its vision is based on movement, so you want to go through as slowly as possible to avoid being its next meal.
3 No Outlet signs, 1 Dead End sign and 1 Do Not Enter Sign which certainly doesn't belong at the entrance to a public, two way roadway.
SR 2074 Hulton Rd, Penn Hills, PA
https://imgur.com/OOmff7T (https://imgur.com/OOmff7T)
Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/c4PZFNDZ1bgUKvDb6 (https://goo.gl/maps/c4PZFNDZ1bgUKvDb6)
Quote from: tylert120 on January 24, 2021, 08:07:41 AM
3 No Outlet signs, 1 Dead End sign and 1 Do Not Enter Sign which certainly doesn't belong at the entrance to a public, two way roadway.
SR 2074 Hulton Rd, Penn Hills, PA
https://imgur.com/OOmff7T (https://imgur.com/OOmff7T)
Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/c4PZFNDZ1bgUKvDb6 (https://goo.gl/maps/c4PZFNDZ1bgUKvDb6)
Not present in either of the two GSV images.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 24, 2021, 12:56:36 PM
Quote from: tylert120 on January 24, 2021, 08:07:41 AM
3 No Outlet signs, 1 Dead End sign and 1 Do Not Enter Sign which certainly doesn't belong at the entrance to a public, two way roadway.
SR 2074 Hulton Rd, Penn Hills, PA
https://imgur.com/OOmff7T (https://imgur.com/OOmff7T)
Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/c4PZFNDZ1bgUKvDb6 (https://goo.gl/maps/c4PZFNDZ1bgUKvDb6)
Not present in either of the two GSV images.
Correct, these signs were recently erected. Maps link was just for reference.
Looks like they really don't want you to turn left here.
https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148 (https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148)
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 26, 2021, 07:41:28 PM
Looks like they really don't want you to turn left here.
https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148 (https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148)
Challenge accepted! :awesomeface:
when one stop sign isn't enough... (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1526884,-84.4499972,3a,26.4y,101.25h,88.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPNG7n7LlX-xL97kmIlY3XA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2021, 01:16:21 AM
when one stop sign isn't enough... (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1526884,-84.4499972,3a,26.4y,101.25h,88.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPNG7n7LlX-xL97kmIlY3XA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
There used to be a handful of them in NE Ohio up until the early 80s. I wonder if it was an allowed option back in the day.
Quote from: thenetwork on January 27, 2021, 09:22:55 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 27, 2021, 01:16:21 AM
when one stop sign isn't enough... (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1526884,-84.4499972,3a,26.4y,101.25h,88.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPNG7n7LlX-xL97kmIlY3XA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
There used to be a handful of them in NE Ohio up until the early 80s. I wonder if it was an allowed option back in the day.
I don't know think "doubling up" a sign on the same post was explicitly allowed, but it probably wasn't specifically disallowed...the 2009 MUTCD implemented that restriction and suggests other methods of emphasis.
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2021, 11:01:48 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 26, 2021, 07:41:28 PM
Looks like they really don't want you to turn left here.
https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148 (https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148)
Challenge accepted! :awesomeface:
I would literally go out of my way to turn left there! :)
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 26, 2021, 07:41:28 PM
Looks like they really don't want you to turn left here.
https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148 (https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148)
Similar situation here on US 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1394231,-72.0164613,3a,75y,359.18h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJfE4t-c2QOpB8wuaId2llw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) when coming out of [shameless brewery plug]the amazing Treehouse Brewing Company in Charlton MA![/shameless brewery plug]
Quote from: jmacswimmer on January 28, 2021, 02:22:07 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 26, 2021, 07:41:28 PM
Looks like they really don't want you to turn left here.
https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148 (https://goo.gl/maps/jQkUY77oKYSBEb148)
Similar situation here on US 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1394231,-72.0164613,3a,75y,359.18h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJfE4t-c2QOpB8wuaId2llw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) when coming out of [shameless brewery plug]the amazing Treehouse Brewing Company in Charlton MA![/shameless brewery plug]
On the contrary, here's a no left turn sign coming out of a Kroger (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2723152,-84.3261342,3a,84.4y,40.34h,75.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEsnLtRNDl45zja75G349IA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that a lot of drivers miss. A common loophole I see with people that want to get onto US 22 NB out of there is to go straight and cut through the strip mall/gas station ahead.
I wonder if they allow pedestrians here. (https://goo.gl/maps/ts3mTxyuPzRnvbKD6)
US-30
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GWNDK6rV644SsmF5A
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2021, 11:49:40 PM
US-30
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GWNDK6rV644SsmF5A
I guess they didn't feel like measuring.
I want to add something to the discussion of choke points:
In Norfolk, VA, you are on a peninsula, with 3 routes east, 1 route north, and land routes to the south. Imagine for a minute that, because of a storm, the HRBT floods, and the power lines next to the James river bridge are blown down. That closes 2 routes from the Norfolk area to be shut down. Now, because of this, all traffic flows through the MMBT. This in itself would cause an issue, as a driver failed to stop, and caused a pileup. Now, all 3 routes east are blocked. And, the best part, this happens on July 2, during the 4th of July rush. Sounds like a made up, worst-case scenario, right?
Well, it actually happened in 2009. It was a traffic disaster, and it caused great concern about how effective the bridges would be during a hurricane evacuation. It is one of the big reasons the HRBT expansion finally got off the ground. I moved there in 2012, and people were still talking about how bad it was. They thought it could happen again!
Well, I actually have something productive to add to this thread! (If you could call this thread productive...)
This assembly in Mobile, AL.
https://goo.gl/maps/bGFY5heRDuFTd2Lu7
Either use a single sign with
TO
TRUCK
98
<-
or have 2 signs that say
TO TO
EAST EAST
TRUCK TRUCK
98 98
<- <-
But NOT THAT!!
Quote from: MCRoads on April 16, 2021, 08:27:23 PM
Well, I actually have something productive to add to this thread! (If you could call this thread productive...)
This assembly in Mobile, AL.
https://goo.gl/maps/bGFY5heRDuFTd2Lu7
Either use a single sign with
TO
TRUCK
98
<-
or have 2 signs that say
TO TO
EAST EAST
TRUCK TRUCK
98 98
<- <-
But NOT THAT!!
Assuming you're not referring to the bit of blacktop that the link actually points to...
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with the sign. At first I though that the road goes to plain US-90, not US-90-Truck, but now I'm not so sure. What exactly is redundant and/or erroneous?
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2021, 09:31:41 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 16, 2021, 08:27:23 PM
Well, I actually have something productive to add to this thread! (If you could call this thread productive...)
This assembly in Mobile, AL.
https://goo.gl/maps/bGFY5heRDuFTd2Lu7
Either use a single sign with
TO
TRUCK
98
<-
or have 2 signs that say
TO TO
EAST EAST
TRUCK TRUCK
98 98
<- <-
But NOT THAT!!
Assuming you're not referring to the bit of blacktop that the link actually points to...
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with the sign. At first I though that the road goes to plain US-90, not US-90-Truck, but now I'm not so sure. What exactly is redundant and/or erroneous?
I'm not sure what is wrong with that, either.
Quote from: renegade on April 16, 2021, 09:43:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2021, 09:31:41 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 16, 2021, 08:27:23 PM
Well, I actually have something productive to add to this thread! (If you could call this thread productive...)
This assembly in Mobile, AL.
https://goo.gl/maps/bGFY5heRDuFTd2Lu7
Either use a single sign with
TO
TRUCK
98
<-
or have 2 signs that say
TO TO
EAST EAST
TRUCK TRUCK
98 98
<- <-
But NOT THAT!!
Assuming you're not referring to the bit of blacktop that the link actually points to...
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with the sign. At first I though that the road goes to plain US-90, not US-90-Truck, but now I'm not so sure. What exactly is redundant and/or erroneous?
I'm not sure what is wrong with that, either.
There is a sign assembly that has 2 of the same signs, with no differences. Both of them say
TO
TRUCK
98
<-
One says 90, the other says 98.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 16, 2021, 11:49:40 PM
US-30
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GWNDK6rV644SsmF5A
This one makes sense... The text was put at the bottom on the sign. It doesn't meet spec. So instead of modifying the sigh they just added the exit sign at the proper place on the mast.
Quote from: 1 on April 17, 2021, 05:52:37 PM
One says 90, the other says 98.
...well, I'm not sure why I thought both of them said 98, as now that it is pointed out, it seems very obvious...
Quote from: MCRoads on April 16, 2021, 08:27:23 PM
or have 2 signs that say
TO TO
EAST EAST
TRUCK TRUCK
98 98
<- <-
Quote from: MCRoads on April 19, 2021, 10:51:14 AM
...well, I'm not sure why I thought both of them said 98, as now that it is pointed out, it seems very obvious...
Then isn't what you suggested as a possible replacement
just as redundant as what you thought was actually in the field?
Quote from: kphoger on April 19, 2021, 03:21:59 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on April 16, 2021, 08:27:23 PM
or have 2 signs that say
TO TO
EAST EAST
TRUCK TRUCK
98 98
<- <-
Quote from: MCRoads on April 19, 2021, 10:51:14 AM
...well, I'm not sure why I thought both of them said 98, as now that it is pointed out, it seems very obvious...
Then isn't what you suggested as a possible replacement just as redundant as what you thought was actually in the field?
I made a typo, one is supposed to say East, the other West...
Remember, kids: Don't drink and post.
Actually, do drink and post if you want. Makes for a more entertaining forum. But just don't get behind the wheel. :-P
This one here qualifies as two shields close together sharing the same info.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245687707_04c792f4aa_h.jpg)
That would look less ridiculous, if the first sign were moved farther back. They use different arrows, after all.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51264706864_1d494337e3_k.jpg
This one on US 231 near Cottondale, FL.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51264706864_1d494337e3_k.jpg)
https://goo.gl/maps/WF7jZ3t2RUaCgixZ8
KY Ave. and Kentucky Avenue.
when one I-275 shield isn't enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0405263,-84.5865715,3a,49.3y,247.93h,104.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Nlkm0SZ_8zwYcS1fN-2gA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
^^^
I can actually understand the logic behind that. If it just said "I-275/Airport," then motorists not familiar with the area looking to go toward Newport or I-471 might not know to take that ramp. A solution might be to sign it "I-275/To I-471," either in text or shield form.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 26, 2021, 10:37:08 PM
when one I-275 shield isn't enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0405263,-84.5865715,3a,49.3y,247.93h,104.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Nlkm0SZ_8zwYcS1fN-2gA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I get the idea, but that's still the wrong lane for 275 East.
I think a single shield would be better without any cardinal directions.
I don't think signing I-471 is necessary. Would anyone normally be going to I-471 from there? Maybe US-27 might be better.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2021, 01:24:41 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 26, 2021, 10:37:08 PM
when one I-275 shield isn't enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0405263,-84.5865715,3a,49.3y,247.93h,104.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Nlkm0SZ_8zwYcS1fN-2gA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I get the idea, but that's still the wrong lane for 275 East.
I think a single shield would be better without any cardinal directions.
I don't think signing I-471 is necessary. Would anyone normally be going to I-471 from there? Maybe US-27 might be better.
Looks like it's time to work our "Redesign this!" magic on this assembly. To the digital sign shop we go!
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2021, 01:24:41 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 26, 2021, 10:37:08 PM
when one I-275 shield isn't enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0405263,-84.5865715,3a,49.3y,247.93h,104.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Nlkm0SZ_8zwYcS1fN-2gA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I get the idea, but that's still the wrong lane for 275 East.
I think a single shield would be better without any cardinal directions.
I don't think signing I-471 is necessary. Would anyone normally be going to I-471 from there? Maybe US-27 might be better.
Adding a TO I-471 to the Northbound approach to I-275 may be beneficial, but I don't see any need for an I-471 reference for southbound traffic.
Quote from: thenetwork on June 28, 2021, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2021, 01:24:41 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 26, 2021, 10:37:08 PM
when one I-275 shield isn't enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0405263,-84.5865715,3a,49.3y,247.93h,104.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Nlkm0SZ_8zwYcS1fN-2gA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I get the idea, but that's still the wrong lane for 275 East.
I think a single shield would be better without any cardinal directions.
I don't think signing I-471 is necessary. Would anyone normally be going to I-471 from there? Maybe US-27 might be better.
Adding a TO I-471 to the Northbound approach to I-275 may be beneficial, but I don't see any need for an I-471 reference for southbound traffic.
Further down is a "more accurate" sign: https://goo.gl/maps/vx24ydBjrk7sAFjo7
As far as TO I-471: https://goo.gl/maps/BzkXvUXc9uqKnbfe9
Quote from: amroad17 on June 29, 2021, 01:24:24 AM
Further down is a "more accurate" sign: https://goo.gl/maps/vx24ydBjrk7sAFjo7
I did originally see that browsing street view, and it definitely highlights the issue: 275 East is signed as being via the exit-only lane early-on, but then becomes accessible from the option lane at the split.
Sometimes, ambiguity is superior. In this case, signing a single 275 shield without cardinal directions is the easiest and most logic fix, without resorting to APLs.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2021, 02:35:21 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 29, 2021, 01:24:24 AM
Further down is a "more accurate" sign: https://goo.gl/maps/vx24ydBjrk7sAFjo7
I did originally see that browsing street view, and it definitely highlights the issue: 275 East is signed as being via the exit-only lane early-on, but then becomes accessible from the option lane at the split.
Sometimes, ambiguity is superior. In this case, signing a single 275 shield without cardinal directions is the easiest and most logic fix, without resorting to APLs.
Funny enough, the NB direction does use an APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0282776,-84.6102477,3a,46.8y,28.22h,98.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syK6egKHUydJ0Zq4xDjKCDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). One of the better arrow designs for APLs imo, they don't look as needlessly thick or large as some other examples are.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2021, 02:35:21 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 29, 2021, 01:24:24 AM
Further down is a "more accurate" sign: https://goo.gl/maps/vx24ydBjrk7sAFjo7
I did originally see that browsing street view, and it definitely highlights the issue: 275 East is signed as being via the exit-only lane early-on, but then becomes accessible from the option lane at the split.
Sometimes, ambiguity is superior. In this case, signing a single 275 shield without cardinal directions is the easiest and most logic fix, without resorting to APLs.
Funny enough, the NB direction does use an APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0282776,-84.6102477,3a,46.8y,28.22h,98.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syK6egKHUydJ0Zq4xDjKCDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). One of the better arrow designs for APLs imo, they don't look as needlessly thick or large as some other examples are.
I agree, those look good. Only issue is the #3 lane's arrow pointing directly at the dividing line. Assuming the arrow is properly centered (it appears to be), the dividing line need to be moved to the right.
Massachusetts' square and cubed routes:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51314318004_0cc4a250b8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbthYL)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51313586756_8d3cb11ac3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbpxB3)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51314314784_560b5e75dc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbth2f)
Quote from: formulanone on July 25, 2021, 11:57:57 AM
Massachusetts' square and cubed routes:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51314318004_0cc4a250b8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbthYL)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51313586756_8d3cb11ac3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbpxB3)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51314314784_560b5e75dc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbth2f)
Good Lord, RIDOT has invaded Massachusetts!
Quote from: formulanone on July 25, 2021, 11:57:57 AM
Massachusetts' square and cubed routes:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51314318004_0cc4a250b8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbthYL)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51313586756_8d3cb11ac3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbpxB3)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51314314784_560b5e75dc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mbth2f)
You even got some nice horizontal compression on the text to top it off. Lovely stuff.
https://goo.gl/maps/YhNeYuWeF8irtWs96
Two different shields that should be spaced out from each other, but making them redundant. If CR 547 is signed both ways we already know of the junction.
Not sure if this counts as "redundancy", but I-25 in COS has many signs on gantries that simply say "NORTH/SOUTH I-25" I don't see this in Denver or Pueblo, just in the springs.
Example: https://goo.gl/maps/32CG1AZd4Bejo3nQ6
Quote from: MCRoads on August 18, 2021, 01:41:31 PM
Not sure if this counts as "redundancy", but I-25 in COS has many signs on gantries that simply say "NORTH/SOUTH I-25" I don't see this in Denver or Pueblo, just in the springs.
Example: https://goo.gl/maps/32CG1AZd4Bejo3nQ6
OK, that link just pointed me to the pavement. But, assuming you meant
this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/6zcWG6taZDHqAcc56), that's just a Pull-Through Sign. No different from a reassurance marker, really.
MUTCD guidance allows them to be used where "additional route guidance is desired". Apparently it was desired at that location.
MUTCD E6-2
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_02.gif)
ODOT overuses those pull-throughs around Portland.
Quote from: Bruce on August 18, 2021, 04:37:09 PM
ODOT overuses those pull-throughs around Portland.
ODOT overuses those pull-throughs around Cincinnati.
What, exactly, does "overuse" mean in this context? How is posting a pull-through at an exit/interchange any different than posting a reassurance marker at an intersection on a surface route? It's reassurance for the through route either way.
Quote from: kphoger on August 18, 2021, 06:12:37 PM
What, exactly, does "overuse" mean in this context? How is posting a pull-through at an exit/interchange any different than posting a reassurance marker at an intersection on a surface route? It's reassurance for the through route either way.
When you use it every single exit, averaging 1 per mile, that is just so much wasted material.
I mean, standards say there's supposed to be a reassurance marker of some kind after every onramp. Having it as a pullthru sign just makes it more visible.
In Ontario, sometimes during long-term construction, they post long-term temporary signs. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but essentially, it's a temporary sign, but it would be there long enough that they actually put it into the ground and have regular colouring (instead of orange construction colouring).
I've noticed that some of them still haven't gotten removed even after the construction has been done and the overhead signs are up.
I forgot where I saw this though.
Also 500th post, wow, never thought I would get here this quickly.
Quote from: andrepoiy on August 18, 2021, 10:00:26 PM
In Ontario, sometimes during long-term construction, they post long-term temporary signs. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but essentially, it's a temporary sign, but it would be there long enough that they actually put it into the ground and have regular colouring (instead of orange construction colouring).
I've noticed that some of them still haven't gotten removed even after the construction has been done and the overhead signs are up.
I forgot where I saw this though.
Also 500th post, wow, never thought I would get here this quickly.
In CO, they have done that with some signs on I-25 between COS and Denver. It is usually just exit gore signs though.
Also, congrats on 500 posts! I meant to make mine special, but I missed it... lol. (See personal blurb below the I-25 shield, lol.
I'm surprised people complain about overuse of those pull-throughs. I wish Illinois used them more, both IDOT and ISTHA.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on August 19, 2021, 09:05:09 AM
I'm surprised people complain about overuse of those pull-throughs. I wish Illinois used them more, both IDOT and ISTHA.
Look NB on 25. There are 2 within a QUARTER MILE! Tell me that isn't overuse!!
https://goo.gl/maps/u7eQYyTEyWwUJEHQA
It isn't overuse.
Quote from: MCRoads on August 20, 2021, 02:31:14 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on August 19, 2021, 09:05:09 AM
I'm surprised people complain about overuse of those pull-throughs. I wish Illinois used them more, both IDOT and ISTHA.
Look NB on 25. There are 2 within a QUARTER MILE! Tell me that isn't overuse!!
https://goo.gl/maps/u7eQYyTEyWwUJEHQA
In this case, they're probably using the pull through signs in conjunction with the "sawn off" APL signs for what appears to be an intermediate exit with an option lane–using the pull through instead of a much bigger full APL sign to span all lanes where it's probably not really needed. While not MUTCD-compliant, I like it because it uses far less sign panel area when it's really not needed.
Interesting (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3900723,-86.793616,3a,38.6y,78.63h,97.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTeAVa84Vz5M0pztQA26C8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Right lane goes to US 101. So does the middle lane. And so does the left/carpool lane! Taken at the south terminus of CA 85
(https://i.imgur.com/7xeqa6X.jpg)
Quote from: Techknow on October 04, 2021, 01:15:30 AM
Right lane goes to US 101. So does the middle lane. And so does the left/carpool lane! Taken at the south terminus of CA 85
(https://i.imgur.com/7xeqa6X.jpg)
Not redundant. The right lane goes to US-101
North, the other two go to US-101
South.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 04, 2021, 10:58:20 AM
Quote from: Techknow on October 04, 2021, 01:15:30 AM
Right lane goes to US 101. So does the middle lane. And so does the left/carpool lane! Taken at the south terminus of CA 85
(https://i.imgur.com/7xeqa6X.jpg)
Not redundant. The right lane goes to US-101 North, the other two go to US-101 South.
Not so. There is an upcoming exit from the right lane that can be used to get to US 101 North (not a direct connection, though), but all three lanes go to US 101 South -- the left HOV lane does use a separate HOV connector ramp, though.
Quote from: GaryA on October 04, 2021, 02:19:22 PM
Not so. There is an upcoming exit from the right lane that can be used to get to US 101 North (not a direct connection, though), but all three lanes go to US 101 South -- the left HOV lane does use a separate HOV connector ramp, though.
I haven't driven on CA-85 for two years, but you're right. Looking at GSV, all 3 lanes go to US-101 South. None of them go to the northbound direction. One has to take the exit, turn left, and then go straight to reach the freeway entrance to US-101 north. So these signs are a bit redundant...
Quote from: Techknow on October 04, 2021, 03:50:00 PM
Quote from: GaryA on October 04, 2021, 02:19:22 PM
Not so. There is an upcoming exit from the right lane that can be used to get to US 101 North (not a direct connection, though), but all three lanes go to US 101 South -- the left HOV lane does use a separate HOV connector ramp, though.
I haven't driven on CA-85 for two years, but you're right. Looking at GSV, all 3 lanes go to US-101 South. None of them go to the northbound direction. One has to take the exit, turn left, and then go straight to reach the freeway entrance to US-101 north. So these signs are a bit redundant...
I'd say only slightly redundant, if that. The left lane goes into a separate ramp that connects to the US 101 S HOV lane, so the sign over that lane is telling drivers that a) this lane goes to US 101 South and b) what (and when) restrictions apply on who should use this lane/ramp. If there wasn't US 101 South on both the sign for lane 1 and the sign for lanes 2/3, drivers might not realize that at the HOV lane split, both options go to US 101 South. (You could come up with other ways to communicate that info, but I think it does need to be communicated.)
Now, the relative size and spacing of the signs seems off -- but this is Caltrans, after all.
https://goo.gl/maps/oyDpc9NpND9Mf2Uv5
South US 1-9 SB.
I get why one "wrong way" sign on each side of the road is useful over just one altogether, but two stacked on top of each other (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2256252,-84.3786979,3a,43y,101.41h,88.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCPUWsYK_TAE2l2KA559Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) seems redundant to me.
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 09, 2021, 01:30:37 PM
I get why one "wrong way" sign on each side of the road is useful over just one altogether, but two stacked on top of each other (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2256252,-84.3786979,3a,43y,101.41h,88.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCPUWsYK_TAE2l2KA559Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) seems redundant to me.
I believe this is a new standard for many states. It's to help with drivers going the wrong way on limited access highways.
When I was a kid it was "WRONG WAY / GO BACK", but I guess they don't want people doing that anymore.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 01:22:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/oyDpc9NpND9Mf2Uv5
South US 1-9 SB.
That took me to a photo of construction underneath a bridge.
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 09, 2021, 01:30:37 PM
I get why one "wrong way" sign on each side of the road is useful over just one altogether, but two stacked on top of each other (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2256252,-84.3786979,3a,43y,101.41h,88.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCPUWsYK_TAE2l2KA559Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) seems redundant to me.
CDOT has been quickly installing wrong way detection systems which, when a sensor detects a wrong way driver on an exit ramp, will activate red flashing LED lights that border new WRONG WAY signs. Most looked to be single sign assemblies ‐ one on each side of ramp -- but I have seen some ramps with two WW signs on a post.
I saw them on I-70 from at least Dillon, CO on the east. CDOT has been working their way west since late summer and now they are almost up to Grand Junction. Seems like they are taking 1-2 days per interchange.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2021, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 01:22:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/oyDpc9NpND9Mf2Uv5
South US 1-9 SB.
Up on top look.
That took me to a photo of construction underneath a bridge.
Up on top look :D
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 09, 2021, 01:30:37 PM
I get why one "wrong way" sign on each side of the road is useful over just one altogether, but two stacked on top of each other (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2256252,-84.3786979,3a,43y,101.41h,88.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCPUWsYK_TAE2l2KA559Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) seems redundant to me.
There are two on each post because studies have shown that intoxicated drivers tend to look downward while they are driving, and the idea is that they'll see them. This came about after the three college students on spring break were killed after their murderer got on I-75 going south in the northbound lanes near Bowling Green a few years ago.
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/02/students-killed-in-wrong-way-i-75-crash/
The final report on the crash recommended duplicate signs on each side of the ramps to call additional attention that a driver is going the wrong way. Seems totally unnecessary, sure, but if it prevents one accident, it's worth its weight in gold.
Quote from: renegade on November 10, 2021, 01:03:26 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on November 09, 2021, 01:30:37 PM
I get why one "wrong way" sign on each side of the road is useful over just one altogether, but two stacked on top of each other (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2256252,-84.3786979,3a,43y,101.41h,88.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siCPUWsYK_TAE2l2KA559Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) seems redundant to me.
There are two on each post because studies have shown that intoxicated drivers tend to look downward while they are driving, and the idea is that they'll see them. This came about after the three college students on spring break were killed after their murderer got on I-75 going south in the northbound lanes near Bowling Green a few years ago.
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/02/students-killed-in-wrong-way-i-75-crash/
The final report on the crash recommended duplicate signs on each side of the ramps to call additional attention that a driver is going the wrong way. Seems totally unnecessary, sure, but if it prevents one accident, it's worth its weight in gold.
Nevada DOT's approach in its recent wrong way driver detection/warning installations is to mount a first set of wrong way signs with red RRFB-style flashers at a lower height then a second set further back at normal height–and often signs on both sides of the ramp even when the ramp is fairly narrow. example via Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/UGM2cXisjrjVEVnK6)). Lots of redundancy, but for these warning systems redundancy is kinda the point. (You might also notice small red reflectors on the backside of the normal edge delineator reflectors. I think they ought to use red reflective tape on all the sign posts as well.)
Has any DOT ever installed permanent red flashing beacons facing downstream (aka, towards wrong-way traffic)? It could be flashing 24/7. As long as it's not facing traffic coming off the freeway, no one except those going the wrong way would see it.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2021, 06:25:50 PM
Has any DOT ever installed permanent red flashing beacons facing downstream (aka, towards wrong-way traffic)? It could be flashing 24/7. As long as it's not facing traffic coming off the freeway, no one except those going the wrong way would see it.
I doubt this. This would be a passive system, which would introduce a larger maintenance cost (for operating a permanently flashing beacon) for minimal benefit and potential reduced effectiveness over time if drivers get used to a constant flashing device in the area.
The kinds of systems NDOT and others have installed are active systems that only flash when a wrong way driver is detected, which have more up front costs for the detection but only activate when necessary. Active systems also have the ability to alert a DOT/highway patrol monitoring center when the wrong way driver is detected and the flashers begin, and (depending on how it's set up) activate VMS or other warning signs upstream to alert other drivers of the potential hazard.
Quote from: roadfro on November 13, 2021, 08:14:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2021, 06:25:50 PM
Has any DOT ever installed permanent red flashing beacons facing downstream (aka, towards wrong-way traffic)? It could be flashing 24/7. As long as it's not facing traffic coming off the freeway, no one except those going the wrong way would see it.
I doubt this. This would be a passive system, which would introduce a larger maintenance cost (for operating a permanently flashing beacon) for minimal benefit and potential reduced effectiveness over time if drivers get used to a constant flashing device in the area.
Understood. I was thinking the same thing, that drivers tend to begin ignoring things that are always on. But, I would have thought this might be different as the only time a driver would see it would be in their rear-view mirrors, or (importantly) directly in front of them if they were heading in the wrong direction. Even those drivers who may get used to seeing it in their rear-view, or as they pass by the ramps along the cross-road, perhaps only one in one-hundred thousand of those drivers would need to actively respond to the reason for the beacons' existence (basically: this is the wrong way).
Quote from: roadfro on November 13, 2021, 08:14:40 PM
The kinds of systems NDOT and others have installed are active systems that only flash when a wrong way driver is detected, which have more up front costs for the detection but only activate when necessary. Active systems also have the ability to alert a DOT/highway patrol monitoring center when the wrong way driver is detected and the flashers begin, and (depending on how it's set up) activate VMS or other warning signs upstream to alert other drivers of the potential hazard.
I would have thought that the costs involved for a permanent flashing beacon that had no detection system would actually be quite low, perhaps even lower over the course of a few decades as there would be very little in the way of maintenance. I was envisioning some sort of pole-mounted permanent-flashing beacon (one on either side of the off-ramp) with an R5-1 or R5-1a sign below it, perhaps using solar power to keep the beacons lit if no other conduit capacity exists nearby (i.e. for a VMS or ATM system).
My other reservation with the active systems, besides the larger upfront costs, is that I haven't heard of any
major success stories with any of the systems. At least in Phoenix, I still seem to hear a lot about wrong-way drivers who manage to reach the carriageway. It could be that the overall number of wrong-way drivers has dropped off, but it would be rather specious reasoning to assume the wrong-way systems are to thank (you could easily claim old drivers staying home thanks to the COVID-19 are to thank). Of course, if ADOT's wrong-way systems are indeed to thank, the next major issue is that the systems aren't at every interchange. In the mean-time, I think we need to find a very cheap solution that can be applied quickly at most off-ramps, rather than the high-up front cost, applied-as needed systems currently being deployed.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2021, 09:51:29 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 13, 2021, 08:14:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2021, 06:25:50 PM
Has any DOT ever installed permanent red flashing beacons facing downstream (aka, towards wrong-way traffic)? It could be flashing 24/7. As long as it's not facing traffic coming off the freeway, no one except those going the wrong way would see it.
I doubt this. This would be a passive system, which would introduce a larger maintenance cost (for operating a permanently flashing beacon) for minimal benefit and potential reduced effectiveness over time if drivers get used to a constant flashing device in the area.
Understood. I was thinking the same thing, that drivers tend to begin ignoring things that are always on. But, I would have thought this might be different as the only time a driver would see it would be in their rear-view mirrors, or (importantly) directly in front of them if they were heading in the wrong direction. Even those drivers who may get used to seeing it in their rear-view, or as they pass by the ramps along the cross-road, perhaps only one in one-hundred thousand of those drivers would need to actively respond to the reason for the beacons' existence (basically: this is the wrong way).
Quote from: roadfro on November 13, 2021, 08:14:40 PM
The kinds of systems NDOT and others have installed are active systems that only flash when a wrong way driver is detected, which have more up front costs for the detection but only activate when necessary. Active systems also have the ability to alert a DOT/highway patrol monitoring center when the wrong way driver is detected and the flashers begin, and (depending on how it's set up) activate VMS or other warning signs upstream to alert other drivers of the potential hazard.
I would have thought that the costs involved for a permanent flashing beacon that had no detection system would actually be quite low, perhaps even lower over the course of a few decades as there would be very little in the way of maintenance. I was envisioning some sort of pole-mounted permanent-flashing beacon (one on either side of the off-ramp) with an R5-1 or R5-1a sign below it, perhaps using solar power to keep the beacons lit if no other conduit capacity exists nearby (i.e. for a VMS or ATM system).
My other reservation with the active systems, besides the larger upfront costs, is that I haven't heard of any major success stories with any of the systems. At least in Phoenix, I still seem to hear a lot about wrong-way drivers who manage to reach the carriageway. It could be that the overall number of wrong-way drivers has dropped off, but it would be rather specious reasoning to assume the wrong-way systems are to thank (you could easily claim old drivers staying home thanks to the COVID-19 are to thank). Of course, if ADOT's wrong-way systems are indeed to thank, the next major issue is that the systems aren't at every interchange. In the mean-time, I think we need to find a very cheap solution that can be applied quickly at most off-ramps, rather than the high-up front cost, applied-as needed systems currently being deployed.
I might be underestimating maintenance costs on an active vs passive system. Passive continuous beacons would have more maintenance from the perspective of replacing burnt out bulbs/LEDs more regularly and constant draw on electricity. But what I didn't think about before with an active system is that it also has a constant electricity draw for the detection, and also has more components to monitor and potentially test on an ongoing basis.
You probably haven't heard much about success stories with these systems for a few potential reasons:
(1) Just hearing about wrong-way drivers in general (at least in the news media) is fairly rare because the ones that make the news are usually the ones where the wrong-way driver made it to the mainline and caused serious injury/fatality.
(2) I would suspect there are far more instances of wrong way incursion to an off ramp than make the news, but the driver realizes their mistake and corrects before getting too far. If such incursions are warded off by an active warning, it's not really a newsworthy event.
(3) Such occurrences are pretty much random, so there's not a big data set to work with. Therefore, effectiveness of the systems takes a few years to study to get some statistically significant results that can be meaningfully reported. Some of these jurisdictions haven't had their systems deployed long enough to be able to report meaningful results. (For example, I think NDOT's first extensive deployment on I-80 western Reno is approaching three years old. Three years of before & after data tends to be a minimum benchmark in traffic safety/improvement studies.)
Didn't mean to derail this thread...I think there's a wrong-way driver thread in this board we can take this to.
Quote from: roadfro on November 16, 2021, 12:37:17 PM
I might be underestimating maintenance costs on an active vs passive system. Passive continuous beacons would have more maintenance from the perspective of replacing burnt out bulbs/LEDs more regularly and constant draw on electricity. But what I didn't think about before with an active system is that it also has a constant electricity draw for the detection, and also has more components to monitor and potentially test on an ongoing basis.
You probably haven't heard much about success stories with these systems for a few potential reasons:
(1) Just hearing about wrong-way drivers in general (at least in the news media) is fairly rare because the ones that make the news are usually the ones where the wrong-way driver made it to the mainline and caused serious injury/fatality.
(2) I would suspect there are far more instances of wrong way incursion to an off ramp than make the news, but the driver realizes their mistake and corrects before getting too far. If such incursions are warded off by an active warning, it's not really a newsworthy event.
(3) Such occurrences are pretty much random, so there's not a big data set to work with. Therefore, effectiveness of the systems takes a few years to study to get some statistically significant results that can be meaningfully reported. Some of these jurisdictions haven't had their systems deployed long enough to be able to report meaningful results. (For example, I think NDOT's first extensive deployment on I-80 western Reno is approaching three years old. Three years of before & after data tends to be a minimum benchmark in traffic safety/improvement studies.)
Didn't mean to derail this thread...I think there's a wrong-way driver thread in this board we can take this to.
As far as redundancy, ODOT has been known to leave the old Wrong Way signs in place and add the doubles especially when the existing ones were mounted back to back with other signs (e.g., one here was behind a BGS and the other behind a turn lane assignment sign (https://goo.gl/maps/mzMYAJmCZByEjfin8); removing neither would result in taking any posts down; they just left the signs. See this a lot around my neck of the woods.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2021, 06:25:50 PM
Has any DOT ever installed permanent red flashing beacons facing downstream (aka, towards wrong-way traffic)? It could be flashing 24/7. As long as it's not facing traffic coming off the freeway, no one except those going the wrong way would see it.
I know I have seen one in Florida before, 10+ years ago, but I can't recall at all where it was, or if its still there.
I-44/H.E. Bailey Tpk takes you to Oklahoma City and Oklahoma City.
Also, like so many Oklahoma signs, this qualifies for WORST OF.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gxZqfeW4nuPYUZEj6
Courtesy of Big Rig Steve, in Minooka, Illinois:
https://twitter.com/BigRigTravels/status/1470751855118594050
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 12, 2021, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2021, 06:25:50 PM
Has any DOT ever installed permanent red flashing beacons facing downstream (aka, towards wrong-way traffic)? It could be flashing 24/7. As long as it's not facing traffic coming off the freeway, no one except those going the wrong way would see it.
I know I have seen one in Florida before, 10+ years ago, but I can't recall at all where it was, or if its still there.
Mass Pike did them (https://goo.gl/maps/GBVDkiC3rYqLsfJFA) at rest areas (https://goo.gl/maps/zLY7629f1USMKqJm6) but they were a Turnpike Authority thing that never caught on elsewhere in the state. They still hang around and some do still flash at least. (https://goo.gl/maps/ZYM3Q73GabhDxz4bA)
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 11:59:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2021, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 01:22:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/oyDpc9NpND9Mf2Uv5
South US 1-9 SB.
This is a ramp designation, for which signs have been starting to appear on highway interchanges. They are probably more for agency maintenance workers and may not mean as much to motorists.
Up on top look.
That took me to a photo of construction underneath a bridge.
Up on top look :D
The pier on the right has both a warning strip on a sign and on the pier itself on the near right bridge column.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51855576512_9f154f3d21_3k.jpg)
I found this pair of "No Outlet" signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1259233,-77.4222584,3a,15y,138.25h,89.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM7x4ay9Tzd-BPfXj_Wlpvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and immediately thought of this thread. :-D
There's no question about it, the right lane has 2.8m of clearance (the signs say "VOIE DE DROITE - 2.8m"). As long as the signal mast was horizontal, such a sign was on it.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51907879867_76c90a6ef5_w.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2n5VseZ)Voie de droite - 2.8m... over and over (https://flic.kr/p/2n5VseZ) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
From the Cimarron Turnpike: No No U-Turn. U-Turn Strictly Enforced.
(https://i.imgur.com/VJBVW86.jpg)
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2022, 06:44:07 PM
From the Cimarron Turnpike: No No U-Turn. U-Turn Strictly Enforced.
[img]
Because of the location of the U-turn symbol, that almost seems more contradictory than redundant. If you read the bottom part by itself, it sounds a variant of "Speed Limit Strictly Enforced", which would mean you
have to U-turn.
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2022, 08:12:45 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2022, 06:44:07 PM
From the Cimarron Turnpike: No No U-Turn. U-Turn Strictly Enforced.
[img]
Because of the location of the U-turn symbol, that almost seems more contradictory than redundant. If you read the bottom part by itself, it sounds a variant of "Speed Limit Strictly Enforced", which would mean you have to U-turn.
Exactly what I thought. It sounds like if you don't U-turn, you are gonna be in trouble.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2022, 06:44:07 PM
From the Cimarron Turnpike: No No U-Turn. U-Turn Strictly Enforced.
(https://i.imgur.com/VJBVW86.jpg)
Alanland will be stealing that design for their MUTCD.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2022, 07:11:15 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 05, 2022, 06:44:07 PM
From the Cimarron Turnpike: No No U-Turn. U-Turn Strictly Enforced.
(https://i.imgur.com/VJBVW86.jpg)
Alanland will be stealing that design for their MUTCD.
Also not to mention there is a double negative before the U-turn being strictly enforced. No, no U-turn. Everything about that sign tells me I must U-turn.
At this intersection, (https://goo.gl/maps/hfDdcfED8Ad4Qk1k9) I am not sure which direction to go if I want to go on I-10 West.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2022, 07:11:15 PM
Alanland will be stealing that design for their MUTCD.
The Manual on Ununiform Traffic Control Devices?
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 15, 2022, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2022, 07:11:15 PM
Alanland will be stealing that design for their MUTCD.
The Manual on Ununiform Traffic Control Devices?
No. It's clearly on an expressway, therefore #alandot has it in the MUGGED, not the MUTCD. The MUTCD is only for non-expressway items–excluding ALANCAN, of course, which has its own separate manual.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 29, 2021, 10:55:29 PM
the new/old 2021 Manual of Ununiform Goat Graphic Expressway Design (MUGGED)
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2022, 03:14:51 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 15, 2022, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 06, 2022, 07:11:15 PM
Alanland will be stealing that design for their MUTCD.
The Manual on Ununiform Traffic Control Devices?
No. It's clearly on an expressway, therefore #alandot has it in the MUGGED, not the MUTCD. The MUTCD is only for non-expressway items–excluding ALANCAN, of course, which has its own separate manual.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 29, 2021, 10:55:29 PM
the new/old 2021 Manual of Ununiform Goat Graphic Expressway Design (MUGGED)
Thanks for debunking me using... me. :-D
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 15, 2022, 03:40:27 PM
Thanks for debunking me using... me. :-D
Fitting, for this thread, don't you think?
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2022, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on March 15, 2022, 03:40:27 PM
Thanks for debunking me using... me. :-D
Fitting, for this thread, don't you think?
Quite. 2022 me is being redundant of 2021 me.
Hmm. I wonder what the speed limit is?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52027613957_0bd91021ab_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ngv81R)
That speed limit sign should be taken and posted on any speed radar that doesn't have the speed limit posted at the same point. I think that shouldn't be allowed. It's unfair to post a radar and not have the speed limit right there.
(https://d2p6e6u75xmxt8.cloudfront.net/2/2019/02/Cycling-Lane-Fail-4.jpg)
I-390 between exits 10 (US 20/NY 5) and 12 (Thruway) is in a two-year project for paving, guardrails, signs, etc. Northbound was paved last year, and in recent weeks new northbound signs have been installed. The weird thing is that there is now a shiny new, permanent, SPEED LIMIT 65 sign about every mile along that 10-mile stretch.
The only explanation I can think of is that maybe the engineer-in-charge got confused by the construction signs, and thought that a permanent SPEED LIMIT 65 sign was required everywhere that there had been a temporary WORK ZONE SPEED LIMIT 55 sign back when traffic was reduced to a single lane last year.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 25, 2022, 07:00:06 AM
Hmm. I wonder what the speed limit is?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52027613957_0bd91021ab_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ngv81R)
I still find it very interesting how many one-way streets remain in Renton. I cannot imagine it does anything to reduce speeding. Plus, as someone who commutes via N 3rd and N 4th, the one-way streets result in unnecessary signals. Park Ave is about the only signal I think is warranted between Logan and Sunset, and even that signal lasts way too long (for Park).
I know portions of Williams and Wells have been modified to two-way, but then they have all-way stops at every intersection, so of course speeds are down.
Here's one near my house:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52062797883_88eba09cce_w.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2njBrYg)Redundant "maximum 30" sign (https://flic.kr/p/2njBrYg) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
The light up sign wasn't redundant at one point, as the speed limit was variable, but the speed limit was changed to be 30 km/h at all times.
Kind of sort of.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52147682784/in/dateposted-public/
The misplaced banner gives illusion to US 231s nature to be told twice.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2022, 09:22:25 AM
Kind of sort of.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52147682784/in/dateposted-public/
The misplaced banner gives illusion to US 231s nature to be told twice.
Wrong photo? I'm seeing a double JCT (which doesn't qualify for this thread), but there's only one 231 shield in the photo.
Quote from: 1 on June 15, 2022, 09:28:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2022, 09:22:25 AM
Kind of sort of.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52147682784/in/dateposted-public/
The misplaced banner gives illusion to US 231s nature to be told twice.
Wrong photo? I'm seeing a double JCT (which doesn't qualify for this thread), but there's only one 231 shield in the photo.
I think he is referring to the BUSSINESS banner being above the JCT banner, creating the illusion they needed to tell you twice its Business US-231.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 15, 2022, 10:13:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 15, 2022, 09:28:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2022, 09:22:25 AM
Kind of sort of.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52147682784/in/dateposted-public/
The misplaced banner gives illusion to US 231s nature to be told twice.
Wrong photo? I'm seeing a double JCT (which doesn't qualify for this thread), but there's only one 231 shield in the photo.
I think he is referring to the BUSSINESS banner being above the JCT banner, creating the illusion they needed to tell you twice its Business US-231.
Correct. That is why I said kind of sort of.
The Business banners are directly on both top and bottom of the US 231 shield.
I think I gotta turn left to go to the Charlottetown bypass.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52184241767_f82eb32cfe_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvkT1k)Do I turn left? (https://flic.kr/p/2nvkT1k) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 30, 2022, 09:09:06 PM
I think I gotta turn left to go to the Charlottetown bypass.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52184241767_f82eb32cfe_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvkT1k)Do I turn left? (https://flic.kr/p/2nvkT1k) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
They should just do like the PHL Airport did back in the 90s when Concourse B was being renovated; temporary signs everywhere for restrooms, phones, etc. stylized like graffiti for fun but down at the very end of the concourse, they had one that instead of listing Phone, Restrooms, Baggage Claim, etc. it said "EVERYTHING'S THAT WAY" with an arrow. Silly? Yes, but effective.
Near Ocean Shores, Washington
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52305155561_e78c5e4b77_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nG2AsV)
Quote from: kphoger on April 29, 2022, 08:56:41 AM
(https://d2p6e6u75xmxt8.cloudfront.net/2/2019/02/Cycling-Lane-Fail-4.jpg)
(I realize this is old, but...) This is isn't actually redundant. If the sign wasn't there, there wouldn't be signage in the cycle way. :-D
Quote from: webny99 on August 23, 2022, 08:21:45 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 29, 2022, 08:56:41 AMimg
(I realize this is old, but...) This is isn't actually redundant. If the sign wasn't there, there wouldn't be signage in the cycle way. :-D
It reminds me of an interview I just heard with a former TV producer just recently. A game show had a guest say "Oh jeez," the censor thought he said "Oh Jesus" and said that the announcer had to insert a disclaimer that "This program was edited for broadcast." When the tape was reexamined, it was confirmed he only said "jeez" and it wouldn't need to be edited out. But then the disclaimer, if left in, would be a lie to the viewers. They couldn't edit out the disclaimer because then the program would have been edited for broadcast. Ultimately, it was just determined to edit out a quarter second of dead air during the show and the disclaimer was left intact.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51337638661/in/album-72157719576559427/
I-580 west to San Rafael is listed twice on two separate panels.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 19, 2022, 09:08:42 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51337638661/in/album-72157719576559427/
I-50 west to San Rafael is listed twice on two separate panels.
I-580, yes?
https://goo.gl/maps/DobhtraFtJxfp5NJ8
Two NY 384 shields. One with EAST and the other TO.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2022, 09:28:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/DobhtraFtJxfp5NJ8
Two NY 384 shields. One with EAST and the other TO.
South.
US 1, Route 1
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CikE7CskoyyxX4o6
Along those lines (US 1, Route 1); if you prefer using names instead of route numbers, I-440 in Nashville has you covered:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5164/5231728107_cc7ecfe150.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/8YiYuK)
"Four-Forty Parkway", Nashville (https://flic.kr/p/8YiYuK) by therealkurumi (https://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/), on Flickr
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2022, 02:33:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2022, 09:28:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/DobhtraFtJxfp5NJ8
Two NY 384 shields. One with EAST and the other TO.
South.
So i see. I thought it was erroneous until I see eventually it turns south at Towanda and follows Delaware Avenue into Buffalo.
https://goo.gl/maps/mv54kFce5CZ3bzFu8
This shield assembly south of NY 104 is odd to reference I-90 here due to its location from I-90 requires a travel on I-190 to reach it.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 15, 2022, 10:49:15 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/mv54kFce5CZ3bzFu8
This shield assembly south of NY 104 is odd to reference I-90 here due to its location from I-90 requires a travel on I-190 to reach it.
That is one of the more egregious examples, but it's quite common for I-90/Thruway to be referenced even when it requires several turns. Sometimes it's I-90 on its own, sometimes it's the Thruway trailblazer on its own, and sometimes it's both.
Example (https://goo.gl/maps/YNP7jfCTadGUT7yh7) (requires left here, right on NY 318, right on NY 414, left onto entrance ramp)
Example (https://goo.gl/maps/nq4ABwqafF2ZudRy7) (requires right here, left on Cider St, right onto entrance ramp)
Quote from: plain on November 15, 2022, 05:11:52 PM
US 1, Route 1
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CikE7CskoyyxX4o6
that's on greenout over the highway's previous name, which is now simply Route 1. imo, they should've left the greenout blank.
https://goo.gl/maps/fFTTH4FEvtQXcEK89
Toronto twice here.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 25, 2022, 01:11:19 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fFTTH4FEvtQXcEK89
Toronto twice here.
I think this one is okay. The first "Toronto" beside the 405 is a control city. The second "Toronto" beside the QEW is actually a direction (equivalent of "west") since the QEW doesn't use normal directions (due to it's horseshoe shape). This sign makes it clear that the 405 only gives access to the Toronto-direction of the QEW, with no access to the Niagara/Fort Erie-direction.
Quote from: odditude on November 19, 2022, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: plain on November 15, 2022, 05:11:52 PM
US 1, Route 1
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CikE7CskoyyxX4o6
that's on greenout over the highway's previous name, which is now simply Route 1. imo, they should've left the greenout blank.
Would've been better to just use control cities. Richmond and Chester or Colonial Heights would do.
One RR 25 shield too much on ON 401 in Colborne:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52530901490_4a81d4827e_w.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2o2YAS7)ON 401 WB at RR 25 (https://flic.kr/p/2o2YAS7) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Quote from: plain on November 25, 2022, 07:02:19 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 19, 2022, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: plain on November 15, 2022, 05:11:52 PM
US 1, Route 1
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CikE7CskoyyxX4o6
that's on greenout over the highway's previous name, which is now simply Route 1. imo, they should've left the greenout blank.
Would've been better to just use control cities. Richmond and Chester or Colonial Heights would do.
No . It was clearly a message to be sent to all of us.
https://goo.gl/maps/z3QZ3Uy9TvsWSpkFA
Two I-95 shields here.
Funny thing is a US 1 south shield is needed as this is where the US Route briefly shares pavement with I-95 from this here ramp.
I wonder if the left lane has to turn or not...
(https://i.imgur.com/RBPvktp.png)
Showing all of them at once is a challenge, but there are 3 separate signs leading up to this corner:
(https://i.imgur.com/64a9drV.png)
Keep left for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel × 2
https://maps.app.goo.gl/chnXHs4T467TKWeR6
Quote from: plain on January 15, 2023, 10:02:15 PM
Keep left for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel × 2
https://maps.app.goo.gl/chnXHs4T467TKWeR6
It looks as if the first sign was supposed to be taken down but forgotten because the second sign has been put up on a newer wood post.
Of course, with the driving habits of some motorists, keeping the two redundant signs could be beneficial in case a motorist wasn't paying attention when reaching the first sign.
Quote from: plain on January 15, 2023, 10:02:15 PM
Keep left for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel × 2
https://maps.app.goo.gl/chnXHs4T467TKWeR6
While not necessarily redundant, that BGS for I-664 seems a bit overloaded with text. Even having that Downtown Hampton sign on the left may be better placed elsewhere not on this gantry.
Wasted metal on an Emergency Detour Route assembly in Port Hope, Ontario:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52639601355_e416dda6e6.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oczHxH)Redundant EDR ON 401 signs (no flash) (https://flic.kr/p/2oczHxH) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
In Michigan, detours for state routes (either for the routes themselves or for closed ramps) are signed right up to the point where the detour merges or turns onto the route, which leads to stuff like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/MyFA6AN.jpg)
Hey guys, I think this might just be a tollway ahead!
(https://i.imgur.com/PbECCzy.jpg)
IL-173 near Machesney Park, IL.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2023, 08:39:31 AM
Hey guys, I think this might just be a tollway ahead!
(https://i.imgur.com/PbECCzy.jpg)
IL-173 near Machesney Park, IL.
Definitely a place where a yellow panel at the top reading "A TOLL ROAD" like New Hampshire would be the easy way out.
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 22, 2023, 07:04:26 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2023, 08:39:31 AM
Hey guys, I think this might just be a tollway ahead!
(https://i.imgur.com/PbECCzy.jpg)
IL-173 near Machesney Park, IL.
Definitely a place where a yellow panel at the top reading "A TOLL ROAD" like New Hampshire would be the easy way out.
Definitely. This sign is probably close to 15 years old, given there's no yellow TOLL banner and there's no Clearview. Nowadays, a yellow TOLL banner would be present.
This one has two yellow TOLL banners, which doesn't really make sense either: https://goo.gl/maps/Sqs9YesMrrzbdUYX6
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2023, 09:11:52 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 22, 2023, 07:04:26 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on January 22, 2023, 08:39:31 AM
Hey guys, I think this might just be a tollway ahead!
(https://i.imgur.com/PbECCzy.jpg)
IL-173 near Machesney Park, IL.
Definitely a place where a yellow panel at the top reading "A TOLL ROAD" like New Hampshire would be the easy way out.
Definitely. This sign is probably close to 15 years old, given there's no yellow TOLL banner and there's no Clearview. Nowadays, a yellow TOLL banner would be present.
This one has two yellow TOLL banners, which doesn't really make sense either: https://goo.gl/maps/Sqs9YesMrrzbdUYX6
For all that they might as well just stuck a single TOLL banner above the entire BGS. Wouldn't be as good as TOLL ROAD across the top but still.
https://goo.gl/maps/BD8T5b1iZT9NG2MP6
I-196 BL twice here.
https://goo.gl/maps/vCsz522edZfEErZd6
Two panels for the same single lane exit here.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2023, 02:44:34 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/vCsz522edZfEErZd6
Two panels for the same single lane exit here.
One is for the main roadway and one is for the C/D lanes.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YtzXZ5ViRPS3STgT8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YtzXZ5ViRPS3STgT8)
Sign has a supplemental sign for a destination already on the BGS. The signs were both put up around the same time (replacing perfectly functional button copy that was MUTCD compliant and not looking like a Nassau County sign, I might add), when signage was replaced at all approaches to the bridge and these LGSs were put up at every approach to guide people to the Belt. The other approaches have more normal advance signage that removed the Belt to add toll information (neccessating the LGSs), but this one was seemingly made by a different contractor and kept the Belt on the BGS, making the (presumably NYCDOT-erected) LGS redundant.
Two consecutive assemblies to an illegitimate route on Crescent St in downtown Montréal:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52735395480_bdd92f42a2_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2om3FNy)Way to rub it in (https://flic.kr/p/2om3FNy) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
Does this count? Redundant keep right: https://goo.gl/maps/Q9teweUdfaBis5SJ7
It's a roundabout in Sultan, Washington, that was installed sometime between September 2008 and October 2013. The sign that's not on the metal pole is actually knocked over on the ground now, as seen in the image above, so here's a view from 2013: https://goo.gl/maps/GFWU4EnryQN2TqKJ8 The funny part is that it seems it was installed that way, and it was only done on the east side of the roundabout while heading west on US 2. It's not present on the west side of the roundabout while heading east on US 2. Since it's truly redundant, I see no need to report it. In fact, I say cover the little thing it attaches to on the ground and throw it away.
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
Saved this one from r/IdiotsInCars a while back. Proof that redundancy isn't always effective :)
(https://i.imgur.com/kKXxCQo.jpg)
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission enters the chat:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1116383,-75.284365,3a,75y,250.6h,92.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSx4u0E3a029rpbT7qaKtyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2296959,-76.4299092,3a,34.4y,311.53h,92.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipPp7KdioQxmO43XI7IqN9siCfJ61xhT-g6VbvZH!2e10!7i7680!8i3840
Something tells me I'm sposta stop here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7602568,-76.9859602,3a,75y,11.98h,70.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZaXXja9mf4nufY22_ycR-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: tckma on March 09, 2023, 01:55:14 PM
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission enters the chat:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1116383,-75.284365,3a,75y,250.6h,92.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSx4u0E3a029rpbT7qaKtyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2296959,-76.4299092,3a,34.4y,311.53h,92.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipPp7KdioQxmO43XI7IqN9siCfJ61xhT-g6VbvZH!2e10!7i7680!8i3840
I'm pretty sure that these are useless vestiges taken from what was on the original PA Tpk signage that identified exits by city like that (I believe exits had a name and number originally). However, doing this became uselessly redundant decades ago when modern guide sign elements were added, yet they persist, And now in spectacular CLEARVIEW! :-D
The PA Turnpike has interchange names. In both these instances, the name coincides with the control cities.
Clarks Summit and Landsdale both on the NE Extension have the same, but in the former “ Scranton” is added as a control city to sort of take away from the focus, however still in both the name and control city for US 6 & 11.
Edit: They did finally remove the Landsdale name and control at Exit 31.
https://goo.gl/maps/26bA5FheoRXscYkYA
However the next following it’s still there, but only as name while Harleyville and Kulpsville replaced Landsdale as a control city.
https://goo.gl/maps/LR9eSFoHxdyjtxAP9
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
What part is redundant?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2023, 03:18:02 PM
The PA Turnpike has interchange names. In both these instances, the name coincides with the control cities.
The
E-ZPass Only, excuse me,
newer interchanges that were added within the last 15 years, such as 320, 340, and 352, have never had names like that. I don't know why they don't just ditch the interchange names off the entire PA Turnpike system. It would eliminate Department of Redundancy Department style signage (now in spectacular CLEARVIEW) like this, that has persisted apparently across several sign replacement contracts.
DYK that the toll booths on the PA Turnpike were originally called Ticket Sales Offices? As if driving on the Turnpike were some sort of capital-E Event, which I suppose back in the 1940s, it WAS. Yet the original eastern terminus at Carlisle doesn't even have a historical marker, though the original ramps still exist: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2195778,-77.1897445,604m/data=!3m1!1e3
I made this a mini roadgeek trip a few years back when I started working in PA and still lived in MD and was commuting back and forth on Mondays and Fridays.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2023, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
What part is redundant?
I guess they REALLY wanted to be sure you know that this is a reservoir of water, and not a reservoir of electric charge or banana pudding.
Banana pudding! LOL
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2023, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2023, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
What part is redundant?
I guess they REALLY wanted to be sure you know that this is a reservoir of water, and not a reservoir of electric charge or banana pudding.
If it is indeed "Lake" that's considered redundant here, I don't have an issue with it. "Nolin Reservoir" is a bit wide for one line and looks awkward on two lines, so this is actually my preference, at least aesthetically.
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 06:43:56 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2023, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2023, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
What part is redundant?
I guess they REALLY wanted to be sure you know that this is a reservoir of water, and not a reservoir of electric charge or banana pudding.
If it is indeed "Lake" that's considered redundant here, I don't have an issue with it. "Nolin Reservoir" is a bit wide for one line and looks awkward on two lines, so this is actually my preference, at least aesthetically.
They could have used the official Corps name for the reservoir, Nolin River Lake, to really befuddle people. Is it a river or a lake? It's a reservoir!
https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Recreation/Lakes/Nolin-River-Lake/
Quote from: PurdueBill on March 09, 2023, 09:53:02 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 09, 2023, 06:43:56 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2023, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2023, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
What part is redundant?
I guess they REALLY wanted to be sure you know that this is a reservoir of water, and not a reservoir of electric charge or banana pudding.
If it is indeed "Lake" that's considered redundant here, I don't have an issue with it. "Nolin Reservoir" is a bit wide for one line and looks awkward on two lines, so this is actually my preference, at least aesthetically.
They could have used the official Corps name for the reservoir, Nolin River Lake, to really befuddle people. Is it a river or a lake? It's a reservoir!
https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Recreation/Lakes/Nolin-River-Lake/
Many of the lakes in that part of the state are known by the rivers they're on -- Barren River, Green River, Rough River, etc. In my youth I remember Nolin being called Nolin River Reservoir; or in the alternative, Nolin Lake. It's pronounced "no-lynn" in case anyone wonders.
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on March 09, 2023, 01:35:09 AM
Saved this one from r/IdiotsInCars a while back. Proof that redundancy isn't always effective :)
(https://i.imgur.com/kKXxCQo.jpg)
Kind of off-topic, kind of related:
This reminds me that there is no sign for not "blocking the box" here in Japan, and in fact entering intersections even when the other side is blocked is actually very common. Drivers on the perpendicular road are basically expected to just put up with it.
Here is an example of a busy three-way intersection below. Even though the receiving roadways to the left and center are both full, drivers still pull out into the intersection regardless. If a gap doesn't come, they just hang out in the junction while it's red and turn or continue straight whenever the opportunity arises, only yielding to cars that have a green light and pedestrians. Obviously more caution is exercised at four-way intersections.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52770585552_ee25825dd7_k.jpg)
Jagaru West Junction at Rush Hour (https://flic.kr/p/2opa3zW) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
In case it isn't obvious, an added lane from I-581 will be coming in on the left side (posted 3 times in a row).
(https://i.ibb.co/XJMBScr/I81-I581redundancy.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3425369,-79.99696,3a,28.8y,223.01h,86.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbVpMiE6NYdIakJEQrHW7DQ!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192
It appears this was posted before as a merge sign when the left lane did not continue and simply merged... perhaps then 3 signs may have been necessary to alert motorists with redundancy, but now that it is an added lane condition where the lane continues, I'm not so sure it's necessary.
I wonder if these count. Two signs for I-90 west Seattle in Ellensburg: https://goo.gl/maps/NXHL81YLiQpKVyzg7
That sign by the tree directly at the westbound freeway entrance didn't used to be there, and the sign in front of the power pole on the right was also different, as it also included I-90 east for Spokane: https://goo.gl/maps/anXWZZKfT5sTYD1X9
is parking allowed here? https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5921584,-82.364146,3a,75y,335.78h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjy6vrSjftjuHN5336KB56A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 10, 2023, 06:30:26 AM
is parking allowed here? https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5921584,-82.364146,3a,75y,335.78h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjy6vrSjftjuHN5336KB56A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/49149837142
You mean this?
Quote from: UCFKnights on April 10, 2023, 06:30:26 AM
is parking allowed here? https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5921584,-82.364146,3a,75y,335.78h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjy6vrSjftjuHN5336KB56A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I've heard that's done to physically prevent trucks from parking on the freeway if the rest stop is full. There used to be something similar on I-5 in Washington (https://goo.gl/maps/RjLayLud5BzSVGsP6), but most of the signs have since dissappeared.
Norristown, PA: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1127761,-75.3423843,3a,23.3y,317.27h,89.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8jVpTQKJTc42cFXeDPvtvQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8jVpTQKJTc42cFXeDPvtvQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.73196%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
So which is it? US-202 South, or TO US-202 South?
Quote from: tckma on April 11, 2023, 10:44:14 AM
Norristown, PA: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1127761,-75.3423843,3a,23.3y,317.27h,89.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8jVpTQKJTc42cFXeDPvtvQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8jVpTQKJTc42cFXeDPvtvQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.73196%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
So which is it? US-202 South, or TO US-202 South?
It's the TO as Dekalb is only NB. Nearby Markley is SB US 202.
Quote from: tckma on April 11, 2023, 10:44:14 AM
Norristown, PA: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1127761,-75.3423843,3a,23.3y,317.27h,89.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8jVpTQKJTc42cFXeDPvtvQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8jVpTQKJTc42cFXeDPvtvQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.73196%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
So which is it? US-202 South, or TO US-202 South?
That's not Department of Redundancy Department. That's Contradictory Signs.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51390032080
The same sign twice.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52844173835/
Double vision or two yield signs.
"ONE WAY" "ONE WAY"
"FREEWAY->" "FREEWAY->"
Market and 4th, San Francisco (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7857493,-122.4058838,3a,15y,76.62h,99.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s51KNPgdcPDnksjVtWLkykA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Kinda unrelated: I thought California traffic lights were so uniform until I looked around San Francisco / The Bay Area.
https://goo.gl/maps/yaMF7t6SZ8yyvDto9
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2023, 09:11:23 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/yaMF7t6SZ8yyvDto9
Same in the other direction, so bonus points are awarded for consistent redundancy.
Traffic light ahead.
ICYMI: Traffic light ahead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0668208,-75.3430533,3a,75y,184.05h,77.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRy1S_L5WjjgRWrPEajuPww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Gee, I wonder what the speed limit is here (3 speed limit signs on the same block with no intervening intersections).
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0196984,-75.2506227,3a,49.6y,73.13h,85.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDxAUMw-1UVBf8gwfPY_Ctw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.01985,-75.2480603,3a,75y,73.31h,85.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRUtS9FdBSc3p1RnBccpA-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: tckma on May 15, 2023, 09:42:14 AM
Traffic light ahead.
ICYMI: Traffic light ahead.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0668208,-75.3430533,3a,75y,184.05h,77.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRy1S_L5WjjgRWrPEajuPww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Looks like someone forgot to take down the old sign–again.
Real life duplication glitch
(https://i.imgur.com/uulrKnU.jpeg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8699181531
When two projects use the same posted detour route. There are A LOT of redundant I-94 and M-10 detour assemblies around downtown Detroit this year.
(https://i.imgur.com/JMb0Wgq.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/nRySzx2.jpg)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 01, 2023, 10:48:35 PM
When two projects use the same posted detour route. There are A LOT of redundant I-94 and M-10 detour assemblies around downtown Detroit this year.
Looks like RIDOT managed both projects.
https://goo.gl/maps/1hSEaF5Bfzj83gyL9
WS Route 158 one half mile on both mileage and guide almost across from each other.
https://goo.gl/maps/nqLfuoSt9EMhDUSEA
U Turn twice.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/nqLfuoSt9EMhDUSEA
U Turn twice.
NEXT RIGHT
U TURN
U TURN
NEXT RIGHT
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2023, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2023, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
What part is redundant?
I guess they REALLY wanted to be sure you know that this is a reservoir of water, and not a reservoir of electric charge or banana pudding.
Bring on the 'fill
- with [y]' posts. I didn't see the redundancy either, until you explained it. I do like banana pudding, tho.
I didn't even know that BBCode formatting worked that way.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on June 23, 2023, 07:33:48 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 09, 2023, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2023, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
This one's been around forever and it still amuses me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52734839156_57b24babc3_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL)2023 TN-AL Trip Photos Day 3 - 165 (https://flic.kr/p/2okZQqL) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
What part is redundant?
I guess they REALLY wanted to be sure you know that this is a reservoir of water, and not a reservoir of electric charge or banana pudding.
Bring on the 'fill - with [y]' posts. I didn't see the redundancy either, until you explained it. I do like banana pudding, tho.
I guess they *could* be referencing two different things.
A) Nolin Lake
B) Reservoir
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on March 09, 2023, 01:35:09 AM
Saved this one from r/IdiotsInCars a while back. Proof that redundancy isn't always effective :)
(https://i.imgur.com/kKXxCQo.jpg)
Off topic, but I recognized this intersection just from the picture. And I've only been through it twice in my whole life, both times last month. And neither of those times did I approach from that direction. Memory is wild!
On VA-20 in Orange:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wB0LSZQ9/3-D8-E9-D7-C-DF1-B-40-A2-BFFD-3134-EE10-ADBE.jpg)
https://goo.gl/maps/mxHK5DGTkNwWuVdg8
Two US 95 shields.
I am thinking this has to do with dust storms (https://goo.gl/maps/FykPhpQXqTknJdzo9), but shouldn't you just stop if there is one? There is a variable speed limit sign on both sides of the road and they are also not very far spaced apart between the next one and the one before it, if you look around. Can someone tell me why there are so many variable speed limit signs on this stretch of I-10 outside of Casa Grande, AZ?
4 out of 6 warning signs for the ramp from I-605 N to I-10 E (https://goo.gl/maps/mhDDrGZn6fD7ADJn6):
(https://i.imgur.com/3iewG86.png)
The rollover warning signs are also 7 feet large, instead of 3 or 4.
Quote from: CovalenceSTU on August 28, 2023, 03:14:56 AM
4 out of 6 warning signs for the ramp from I-605 N to I-10 E (https://goo.gl/maps/mhDDrGZn6fD7ADJn6):
(https://i.imgur.com/3iewG86.png)
The rollover warning signs are also 7 feet large, instead of 3 or 4.
Weird, since at least from eyeballng it, the radii don't seem seem that bad.
Baltimore Beltway at Back River bridge
(https://i.imgur.com/vTAxQzJ.jpg)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 04, 2023, 05:40:52 PM
Weird, since at least from eyeballng it, the radii don't seem seem that bad.
It's the same as it was before the new flyover ramp (when there was only 1 sign) so the only thing I can think of is concerns about the sound barrier blocking the view. Although I can't imagine it does the job better then, say, a beacon and chevrons.
I think there's a two-way left turn lane here. This is on QC 138 WB in the village of Ragueneau, west of Baie-Comeau.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53470954952_4148bbaa35_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pt3C1q)Redundancy in Ragueneau (https://flic.kr/p/2pt3C1q) by Liliana Vess (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilianauwu/), on Flickr
North 652 to 652
(https://i.imgur.com/SFw23eK.jpeg)
I found this near my current place of living last week. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219934450352133&set=a.10219934523073951)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53510559149_7a773bedb8_c.jpg)
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 05, 2024, 06:17:52 AM
I found this near my current place of living last week. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219934450352133&set=a.10219934523073951)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53510559149_7a773bedb8_c.jpg)
A redundancy expressly prohibited by the MUTCD (two stop signs on one post).
Two arrows on the guide sign (with no line separating them) on US 9 NB at NJ 70 WB (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219945575750261&set=a.10219945912918690)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53514115769_3e85a44b02_c.jpg)
On I-684 NB at its Rest Area (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219980981675387&set=pcb.10219981105758489)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53529307228_5f88965245_c.jpg)
Permanent VMS with a portable VMS stationed almost directly underneath.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3368538,-75.9866302,3a,45.7y,40.6h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshfhKNo8Ep1zt1MRBtGG9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 15, 2024, 05:29:06 AM
Permanent VMS with a portable VMS stationed almost directly underneath.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3368538,-75.9866302,3a,45.7y,40.6h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshfhKNo8Ep1zt1MRBtGG9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
That's not necessarily redundant though...
Around here, overhead VMS installations are rarely used to provide construction-related information—preference being for traffic incidents, travel time info, Amber alerts, and maybe the occasional message about really major construction closures. Conversely, portable VMS devices are used like 95% of the time for construction project updates only. It likely relates to the DOT having control over what messaging is displayed on a permanent VMS, whereas a contractor can fairly easily change the message on their portable VMS as needed to accommodate changing conditions in the construction project.
Quote from: epzik8 on September 04, 2023, 06:19:16 PM
Baltimore Beltway at Back River bridge
(https://i.imgur.com/vTAxQzJ.jpg)
Judging from my driving around Maryland, whichever sign is newer here (guessing the roadside sign, see below) was probably placed en masse at all bridges regardless of whether the other sign existed or not.
My sense if my memory serves, is that the roadside signs are newer than the ones attached to bridges, if only for the fact that roadside signs are probably easier to install and replace.
Quote from: roadfro on February 17, 2024, 03:23:09 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on February 15, 2024, 05:29:06 AM
Permanent VMS with a portable VMS stationed almost directly underneath.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.3368538,-75.9866302,3a,45.7y,40.6h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshfhKNo8Ep1zt1MRBtGG9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
That's not necessarily redundant though...
Around here, overhead VMS installations are rarely used to provide construction-related information—preference being for traffic incidents, travel time info, Amber alerts, and maybe the occasional message about really major construction closures. Conversely, portable VMS devices are used like 95% of the time for construction project updates only. It likely relates to the DOT having control over what messaging is displayed on a permanent VMS, whereas a contractor can fairly easily change the message on their portable VMS as needed to accommodate changing conditions in the construction project.
Correct. I won't judge something as being redundant unless I know what the message actually says.
Might be a truck route in Mansfield, OH:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/okiCzbNfK4cYaLDg9
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 23, 2024, 11:17:00 AM
Might be a truck route in Mansfield, OH:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/okiCzbNfK4cYaLDg9
I touched those routes in June 2023 meaning that they infected my Top Stats List on Travel Mapping (https://travelmapping.net/user/topstats.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GbnQMc3X1gMKqPie6
Two Great River Road Shields.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 05, 2024, 06:17:52 AM
I found this near my current place of living last week. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219934450352133&set=a.10219934523073951)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53510559149_7a773bedb8_c.jpg)
This assembly is back to one stop sign as of yesterday.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 27, 2024, 02:29:23 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GbnQMc3X1gMKqPie6
Two Great River Road Shields.
Is there a different meaning to the green and brown colored signs?
Quote from: GaryV on February 27, 2024, 10:44:26 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 27, 2024, 02:29:23 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GbnQMc3X1gMKqPie6
Two Great River Road Shields.
Is there a different meaning to the green and brown colored signs?
Assuming it's not a redundancy, my guess is the green signs are for the main route and the brown signs are for spur or loop routes to points of interest. That's how it works for Great Lakes Circle Tour signage.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on February 27, 2024, 12:03:26 PM
Quote from: GaryV on February 27, 2024, 10:44:26 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 27, 2024, 02:29:23 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GbnQMc3X1gMKqPie6
Two Great River Road Shields.
Is there a different meaning to the green and brown colored signs?
Assuming it's not a redundancy, my guess is the green signs are for the main route and the brown signs are for spur or loop routes to points of interest. That's how it works for Great Lakes Circle Tour signage.
green signs = main route = KY-94
brown signs = alternate route = KY-166
It's not entirely clear to me how the green trailblazer makes sense in that location, but it isn't redundant.
They didn't take down the old shields yet:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/h9MTWfwnomN6gkw46
Quote from: mglass87 on March 13, 2024, 08:07:27 AM
They didn't take down the old shields yet:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/h9MTWfwnomN6gkw46
The aggravating thing is that's an ugly new install: "East" tab is too big, "To" tab is too small, and "South" tab is missing altogether. Who installed this, Goldilocks and the Three Bears?
On Glenridge Dr south of I-285 near the I-285/GA 400 interchange (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220086626636445&set=a.10220087381215309)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53588502198_09dc8f9027_c.jpg)
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 14, 2024, 08:24:33 PM
On Glenridge Dr south of I-285 near the I-285/GA 400 interchange (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220086626636445&set=a.10220087381215309)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53588502198_09dc8f9027_c.jpg)
Even weirder, I don't think I've EVER seen a "TO" banner on a hospital sign assembly!
I wonder if you're supposed to turn left here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Cm1zk3vuUVFj4Hd38
Quote from: mglass87 on March 17, 2024, 09:59:27 AM
I wonder if you're supposed to turn left here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Cm1zk3vuUVFj4Hd38
Way off topic, but I thought that I had seen first-hand every possible method of unloading a railcar or a trailer. I hope the trucker got out first. Look far right.
Quote from: mglass87 on March 17, 2024, 09:59:27 AM
I wonder if you're supposed to turn left here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Cm1zk3vuUVFj4Hd38
I have to wonder if that was put up by Hopewell (and being done on the cheap to avoid installing posts), or by the owner of that facility who was tired of people crashing through their fence.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 17, 2024, 07:41:16 PM
Way off topic, but I thought that I had seen first-hand every possible method of unloading a railcar or a trailer. I hope the trucker got out first. Look far right.
Looks like they did:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2968075,-77.2816456,3a,15y,257.23h,106.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slOHAWi1wIHqIhiVPTMJqaA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.218521,-74.779687,3a,75y,52.47h,105.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQbRhHRMBpq6wfzqIf2G7WQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
However, two weight limit signs are still not enough.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2024, 04:33:24 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.218521,-74.779687,3a,75y,52.47h,105.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQbRhHRMBpq6wfzqIf2G7WQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
However, two weight limit signs are still not enough.
Wonder what necessitated them to post that horses are not allowed?
Two signs for I-295 found in Washington, DC:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPnXs1D5/IMG-0020.jpg)
4/21/24.
Quote from: Hunty2022 on April 23, 2024, 11:35:01 AMTwo signs for I-295 found in Washington, DC:
My guess? Someone had a contract to put up new signs. Nothing in the contract said anything about taking down the old ones.