States Ranked by Signage Quality

[Occidental Tourist]

If California's idiotic method of retrofitting exit numbers combined with switching to retroreflective signs at around the same time–which created a whole generation of frankensigns–doesn't put California at the bottom of everyone's list, I'm going to start drinking early today.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MN's only real sin is being crappy about control cities in the Twin Cities area, especially at the Fish Lake interchange. I'd like to see Madison/St. Cloud on 694 and Albert Lea/Bloomington and Madison on 494. Should also add Duluth at 35W/694, which wouldn't be out of character for current practice.

[webny99]

MN's only real sin is being crappy about control cities in the Twin Cities area, especially at the Fish Lake interchange.

I believe Minnesota has very high internal standards, and it definitely shows. Their guidance on rural state routes is a lot better than almost any other state (IMO). You mentioned the lack of control cities, which I also find annoying, and I would add that signage doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio. Those are the only reasons why I ranked it "good" instead of "excellent".

[plain]

I've just personally always felt North Carolina has way better signage, in terms in consistency and conforming to traditional standards, then Virginia.

Agreed.

And VDOT aside, several independent cities suck so bad at signage it brings the entire state down.

[sprjus4]

And VDOT aside, several independent cities suck so bad at signage it brings the entire state down.

Agreed, but that doesn't leave VDOT in the clear. They've done poor signage as well on non-interstate freeways & arterial interchanges.

[plain]

And VDOT aside, several independent cities suck so bad at signage it brings the entire state down.

Agreed, but that doesn't leave VDOT in the clear. They've done poor signage as well on non-interstate freeways & arterial interchanges.

Oh no doubt. I probably should've said "And besides VDOT".

[webny99]

I'll probably flip Virginia and North Carolina with my next revision. I am actually surprised there have not been more specific recommendations for promotion or demotion.

[MNHighwayMan]

I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.

In what specific ways?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.

In what specific ways?

Was thinking the same, especially since my memories of Ohio off-Turnpike are a lot of grody, old signs.

[webny99]

I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.

In what specific ways?

Was thinking the same, especially since my memories of Ohio off-Turnpike are a lot of grody, old signs.

Hard to answer without posting examples (which I will do later) but the biggest thing is that I vastly prefer the font Ohio and Michigan use (clearview?  ). Also, they use a lot more control cities in suburban areas, which I really like. I think signs with no controls, like at 494/35W, are ugly. And I'm not a fan of MN's state route shield; its too similar to the Interstate shield, and clashes badly with "exit only" banners (IMO).

I'll get to see more Ohio signs next week in the new territory I cover on my trip to Tennessee, but thus far almost all of what I've seen in the Cleveland and Columbus areas has been highly consistent and looks brand new. Off of the interstates, there is no question MN does a superior job, but Ohio's newer installs on I-90 and I-71 set a pretty high standard.

[vdeane]

Rhode Island is definitely last.  A state this small should not have this many signage issues.  It's as if RIDOT thinks it's a city DOT.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Rhode Island is definitely last.  A state this small should not have this many signage issues.  It's as if RIDOT thinks it's a city DOT.

I've heard the gas tax isn't required to be used on roads or transportation in RI, so it generally gets directed to other things.

[vdeane]

It wouldn't cost any more to make the signs right rather than with font issues and whatnot.  Adding the shields for route signage omitted on overlaps might cost something, but definitely a lot less than most other transportation work.

[oscar]

California does a lousy job with signing Interstate Business Loops off the interstate.  They usually just have those dinky banners that say Route 5 Business.

That's pretty good, visible enough and avoids confusion between red-and-blue regular Interstate markers and (sometimes badly faded) green business route markers. Since most business routes in California are locally-maintained, once you get off the freeway, business route signage is very inconsistent. Sometimes the locality stops caring about its business route (having gotten over being bypassed by the freeway), the business route signage goes away, then Caltrans will take the hint and remove its own business route signage from the freeway.

[Super Mateo]

I've just personally always felt North Carolina has way better signage, in terms in consistency and conforming to traditional standards, then Virginia.

I can't say much for Virginia, as unless it's on US 52 or I-77, I haven't seen it.  North Carolina, though, has some flaws over in the Sandhills region.  My biggest peeve with it is that the cross streets at stoplights are only labeled with small street blades, if at all.  NC 211/Yadkin is barely labeled at all.  Good luck finding ANY sign with Yadkin on it.  NC 211 is followable, but the signage isn't great.  I don't know is this is the state DOT or the Sandhills area DOT, but it's hard to find major intersections.

[PurdueBill]

I would add that signage [in Minnesota] doesn't usually look quite as sharp as it does in, say, Michigan or Ohio.

In what specific ways?

Was thinking the same, especially since my memories of Ohio off-Turnpike are a lot of grody, old signs.

Hard to answer without posting examples (which I will do later) but the biggest thing is that I vastly prefer the font Ohio and Michigan use (clearview?  ). Also, they use a lot more control cities in suburban areas, which I really like. I think signs with no controls, like at 494/35W, are ugly. And I'm not a fan of MN's state route shield; its too similar to the Interstate shield, and clashes badly with "exit only" banners (IMO).

I'll get to see more Ohio signs next week in the new territory I cover on my trip to Tennessee, but thus far almost all of what I've seen in the Cleveland and Columbus areas has been highly consistent and looks brand new. Off of the interstates, there is no question MN does a superior job, but Ohio's newer installs on I-90 and I-71 set a pretty high standard.

Ohio is off Clearview except for signs planned before Clearview.  The current ODOT Sign Design Manual uses only FHWA lettering.  That said, new ODOT signs generally look pretty good.  Clearview tended to appear in places it did not belong (EXIT ONLY fields, for example) as seen in Akron where signs designed before Clearview was eliminated and then at least temporarily reinstated are seen.

Indiana has a lot of problems lately with signs with improper border spacing--shields very close to the top of the sign and then awkward spacing below.  This often happens on signs that have been refaced on existing metal from older signs.  What is sad is that the layout of the previous sign (which all they had to do is carbon copy) which was in button copy or even in 15-20 year-old reflective copy was perfect.  It seems to be a recurring problem in Indiana lately.

[plain]

My biggest peeve with it is that the cross streets at stoplights are only labeled with small street blades, if at all.

I actually agree about the blades, they are very undersized. You'd think a place like Charlotte for example would have blades you could easily see before reaching a major intersection (and of course it's even worse at night). Looks like they just used normal ground-mounted blades and put them up on the mast arms & wire spans 

[RobbieL2415]

CT:  Boy, they really used to not care how anything looked.  They always used the cheapest metal for regular road signs and exit gores.  The worst is when they put one up for a memorial or a park.  They're like "oh, yea, that's important, I guess.  Let's just slap some paint and text on it and call it done."  Their lack of borders around exit tabs always bothered me for some reason.  But they finally changed the spec book so that they have them.

Other oddities:

-Inconsistent SR shield borders, either bold or regular, or nonexistent on some BGSs
-Inconsistent sign replacement.  You could go five miles through a set of new ones and then have everything revert back to the way it was for the next five.
-Lack of pull-through signs at busy intersections.  Like, you're on your own if you've never been here before.  Figure it out

[index]

To add to the earlier discussion on uniformity, in terms of uniform styles of signage throughout the state, (and you can tack uniformity of roads in general across the state on to this as well) North Carolina does very well at that. Whether you're in Asheville or Wilmington or wherever, signage generally looks the same with little to no deviation or style changes.

[Mergingtraffic]

I'd say going by visual, proportions and spacing, CT does very well.   Button copy was always well designed and the new signage is visually appealing.  No bubble interstate shields at all. No Clearview. Speaking of interstate shields in BGSs, the fonts in CT are well proportioned. Not to fat or thin.  I noticed the new 3Di sheilds in BGSs in NY and Massachusetts are too thin.  (Drove up I-684 lately in Brewster, NY? Horrible "684" fonts in new signage near I-84)

Florida also does well.  I like the exit tabs in both states, seperate with a border around the whole exit tab. 

I don't like NY's exit tabs with no bottom border and they tend to use bubble shields too.  Even MA's exit tabs are kind odd with the bottom being connected to the main sign.



Aside from the non-blue background of the service panels, this new BGS sign in CT is really well done. I like how the border of the exit tab is a little more thin than the main sign.



An example of NY exit tabs....notice how it just pops up with no bottom border. It's like that even on non button copy signs in NY.

[SidS1045]

What's "poor" about MA? They're pretty good about getting you where you need to go.

What Massachusetts are you talking about?  Not the one I grew up in.  Try following MA 122A from start to finish, or MA 141 or MA 116 in the Chicopee and Holyoke areas.  MA is terrible at posting reassurance signage.

Blame that on the state's practice of "musical jurisdictions".  Just because a secondary roadway is a numbered route doesn't automatically mean it's owned by the states.  And most local communities have an aversion to signs.

Doesn't change the fact that signage in MA sucks.

I'm seeing some gradual improvement, so I'd rate it as average.  Replacement signs of all types are generally pretty good.  IMO what's holding it back is some of the old stuff, and the tendency to literally forget about replacing some signs which are decades past their usable life.

The contractor from a few years back who completely botched the replacement reassurance markers in Boston didn't help matters.  Signing north-south routes as east-west and vice versa, signing north as south or east as west, placing reassurance markers on streets which were not numbered at all...and their excuse was that they didn't orient the maps properly when determining sign placement.  Really???

[PHLBOS]

I noticed the new 3Di shields in BGSs in NY and Massachusetts are too thin.  (Drove up I-684 lately in Brewster, NY? Horrible "684" fonts in new signage near I-84)

The I-684 shield signs (reassurance markers) your speak of with the narrower font are in Series C; which is actually quite acceptable for 3-digit routes that don't contain a 1 in them.  The issue with those particular I-684 shields may be that the numerals could be an inch or two taller size-wise.  I-shields as of late, everywhere, seem to be sporting lower height numerals.  As a result, there seems to be more blue-space than previously and there's a tendency for the numerals to be placed either too low or too high.

The worst offenders in terms of I-shields (I don't believe any exist in NY) are those with the narrower Series B numerals; such are much harder to read from a distance.  IMHO, those shields w/the Series B numerals are a flat-out abomination and need to go.

An example of NY exit tabs....notice how it just pops up with no bottom border. It's like that even on non button copy signs in NY.

FWIW, that tab was added on over two decades later than the main panel, which dates back to when I-684 (originally I-87) was built.

[MNHighwayMan]

To counter this, designers often manually change the numeral height from 18 inches (for a 36 inch shield) for 15 inches.

The FHWA Standard Highway Signs standard for a 36" Interstate shield is 15" numerals though. Using 18" numerals is either state-specific or non-standard.

[roadman]

To counter this, designers often manually change the numeral height from 18 inches (for a 36 inch shield) for 15 inches.

The FHWA Standard Highway Signs standard for a 36" Interstate shield is 15" numerals though. Using 18" numerals is either state-specific or non-standard.

Yes, you are correct.  When I first started in this profession (34+ years ago), the 'rule of thumb" I was taught for route shields was that the number was half the height of the shield, regardless of whether the shield was for an Interstate, US, or State route.  Apparently, SignCAD follows the same "rule of thumb".  And old MassDPW specs for Interstate Route shields (before they deferred to the MUTCD and SHS book for such details) show a 15 inch numeral for a 36 inch shield.

In light of this, I've deleted my original post.

[Roadsguy]

From what little I've seen in Street View and signage plans, NC's freeway signage has improved a lot within the past 10 years or so. Most of the signage that I see in the plans for major projects is excellent. I haven't seen enough surface road signage to really have an opinion on that, considering how few times I've actually been to NC.

PennDOT's freeway signage varies by district, with some being excellent and others inconsistent at best. District 8's newer signage is some of the most consistently excellent that I've seen much of, Clearview aside (the few new District 8 Highway Gothic signs are excellent), but a lot of the western districts still occasionally use the ugly and wrong oversized first letter style with their Clearview signs. District 9 just used it on the new US 219 expressway. Districts 5 and 6 are usually okay.