Erroneous road signs

[J N Winkler]

Since Kentucky uses demountable copy, that's an easy fix for someone with a bucket truck.

I think direct-applied copy can be overlaid over the error the same way, though field amendments are not generally recommended for signs.  With traffic management and (possibly) overtime taken into account, this "easy fix" will probably cost KyTC as much as a day's salary for the technician who developed the erroneous sign panel detail.

[hbelkins]

Since Kentucky uses demountable copy, that's an easy fix for someone with a bucket truck.

I think direct-applied copy can be overlaid over the error the same way, though field amendments are not generally recommended for signs.  With traffic management and (possibly) overtime taken into account, this "easy fix" will probably cost KyTC as much as a day's salary for the technician who developed the erroneous sign panel detail.

There are two contractors who do panel signs for Kentucky. For Districts 1 through 5 it is NWK. (That would include Louisville). For Districts 6 through 12 it is George B. Stone. This is for replacement of damaged signs. I don't know if the sign in question here was a replacement, or a new installation in conjunction with a construction project (in which case, the sign fabrication would have been subcontracted out). It's been awhile since Kentucky has done a large-scale sign replacement project along a significant section of highway. Last one I can remember was I-64 east of Lexington to the West Virginia state line. Those are contracted out to the lowest bidder.

[Buck87]

When I was growing up there were two random US 20 reassurance signs in Bellevue, Ohio that incorrectly used the Ohio shield, and I always thought it was kinda quirky. Then in 2005 there was a rebuild of 20 and the sidewalks through downtown, and after the project was over they replaced every single US 20 shield in the whole town with OH 20 shields, even "TO 20" ones nearly a mile away on OH 269. So I emailed ODOT about it, and they were eventually changed. Then to my surprise there was a front page article in the Sandusky Register about it a week or two later, must have been a slow news day. I still get crap about that one from a few of my fiends.

On a similar note, a few years ago when the new Seneca East school complex opened on US 224 west of Attica, Ohio all of the 224 signage at and around the new traffic light for the school entrance used the Ohio shield. Though I noticed last month that it has been corrected.

[J N Winkler]

There are two contractors who do panel signs for Kentucky. For Districts 1 through 5 it is NWK. (That would include Louisville). For Districts 6 through 12 it is George B. Stone. This is for replacement of damaged signs. I don't know if the sign in question here was a replacement, or a new installation in conjunction with a construction project (in which case, the sign fabrication would have been subcontracted out).

The article says the error was in the construction plans, which tends to imply the latter scenario (turnkey construction).  There are some state DOTs (such as Kansas DOT) which I suspect use the phrase "construction plans" to refer to the design documents they forward to companies that hold term contracts for signing, but it is more common for these to be called "work authorizations," "work orders," "sign installation orders," etc.

Assuming this sign was installed as part of a turnkey job, I am sure the contract advertisement is archived somewhere on the KyTC website, but finding it could be quite a task unless it was major enough to be one of KyTC's spotlight projects.

The construction plans themselves should be available through KyTC's Project Archive in due course, but even with recent additions it is still several years behind current contract lettings.  KyTC now makes construction letting plans available for viewing and download through a planroom contractor.  Unfortunately, the cache of projects is only one year deep, only viewable images (pixel count limited to 3400 x 2200) can be downloaded free of charge, and the site relies on login and URL obfuscation to discourage casual download of the viewing images.

It's been awhile since Kentucky has done a large-scale sign replacement project along a significant section of highway. Last one I can remember was I-64 east of Lexington to the West Virginia state line. Those are contracted out to the lowest bidder.

I agree there has been a drought, but has it really been that deep?  As an example, were there major items of work other than signing in project number 02-2058.00 (conversion of the Pennyrile Parkway to I-69)?

[hbelkins]

I drove the WK/I-69 going to the Wichita meet, and because of my car trouble in Springfield and my desire not to have to fight St. Louis rush hour traffic, on the way home as well, and yet I had completely forgotten about that one, although I am not sure if I would categorize that as a true sign replacement project even though that's in essence what it was.

There was also one on the Bluegrass Parkway, but I'm pretty sure it happened before the one on I-64 mentioned above.

[Buck87]

I was on Google maps taking a look around at the I-480/I-271 triangle area in metro Cleveland and stumbled across this upside down OH 13 truck route sign. No idea why this sign would be upside down at the bottom of a pole on the wrong side of the road, or better yet, why it's in metro Cleveland, 50+ miles from the nearest stretch of OH 13.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=41.424602,-81.520796&spn=0.001923,0.009238&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.424602,-81.520796&panoid=PPT_SoX4AZOQj_Vk3qOQVg&cbp=12,52.67,,0,19.53

[vtk]

Ew, and it's the fugly variant too.

[Zeffy]

I was on Google maps taking a look around at the I-480/I-271 triangle area in metro Cleveland and stumbled across this upside down OH 13 truck route sign. No idea why this sign would be upside down at the bottom of a pole on the wrong side of the road, or better yet, why it's in metro Cleveland, 50+ miles from the nearest stretch of OH 13.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=h&ie=UTF8&ll=41.424602,-81.520796&spn=0.001923,0.009238&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.424602,-81.520796&panoid=PPT_SoX4AZOQj_Vk3qOQVg&cbp=12,52.67,,0,19.53

Look to the left and you have a RIDOT I-480 shield... 

[TCN7JM]

Two in a row on Rice Street between Sioux Falls and Brandon.

This one should have a "TO" banner for I-90, as the road it turns onto isn't I-90, and this one should read "CR 121; TO I-90" because the road it turns on is, in fact, CR 121, not to it.

I've driven by these hundreds of times and somehow not noticed the error until today.

[1995hoo]

Passed this sign assembly in Louisa, Virginia, on Saturday (I didn't have the dashcam running, so I've linked Street View instead). The error is the "22" shield, which should be a state primary route shield.

[hbelkins]

I saw it last year and got a photo:

[Mapmikey]

That US 22 shield has been there a while...back to at least 2006...

Mapmikey

[TCN7JM]

Another one in the "how haven't I noticed this until now" category:



This sign has certainly seen better days, and it seems the City of Sioux Falls has been too lazy to change it for at least eighteen years, as 11th Street hasn't been SD 38 since somewhere around 1995. The SD 38 designation now ends at I-29 in the northwestern corner of the city, and this is now SD 42.

[PHLBOS]

This sign has certainly seen better days, and it seems the City of Sioux Falls has been too lazy to change it for at least eighteen years, as 11th Street hasn't been SD 38 since somewhere around 1995. The SD 38 designation now ends at I-29 in the northwestern corner of the city, and this is now SD 42.

Something tells me that BGS is way older than 1995; meaning that the info. was correct when it first erected but never updated when 11th St. lost its SD 38 designation & became SD 42.

It's not so much erroneous as much as it's obsolete in terms of route info.

[TCN7JM]

Image snipped

This sign has certainly seen better days, and it seems the City of Sioux Falls has been too lazy to change it for at least eighteen years, as 11th Street hasn't been SD 38 since somewhere around 1995. The SD 38 designation now ends at I-29 in the northwestern corner of the city, and this is now SD 42.

Something tells me that BGS is way older than 1995; meaning that the info. was correct when it first erected but never updated when 11th St. lost its SD 38 designation & became SD 42.

It's not so much erroneous as much as it's obsolete in terms of route info.

Correct in the past or not, it's still erroneous. It's not like these are all over the place, all the trailblazers mark it as SD 42 as well as all other BGSs. They just plain forgot this one sign which, if nothing else, is erroneous on the city's part.

[PHLBOS]

Correct in the past or not, it's still erroneous. It's not like these are all over the place, all the trailblazers mark it as SD 42 as well as all other BGSs. They just plain forgot this one sign which, if nothing else, is erroneous on the city's part.

Not changing/updating a sign due to a route number change, thereby making it erroneous, has been done multiple times before.

Boston, Charlesgate approaching Storrow Drive from Kemnore Square (these BGS were erected about a year or two before US 1 was rerouted onto I-93).

http://goo.gl/maps/rEj75

Braintree, MA (this was discussed in the I-93 thread); one old remaining trailblazer sign that still refers to I-93 South as 128 North.  It was correct when it was first erected in the mid-80s but was rendered obsolete (& technically erroneous) by 1989-1990 when the DPW officially truncated 128 to I-95/93(US 1) in Canton.  The BGS' are obviously newer.

http://goo.gl/maps/FF1AJ

Here's a real gem in Revere, MA along MA 16/Revere Beach Parkway at the MA 107 interchange.  Despite the fact that this road has not been part of MA 1A since 1971, the MDC/DCR still signs this road as such at this location.

http://goo.gl/maps/PpsA6

Adding insult to injury, this is the second replacement for this BGS/LGS in over 20 years.  The first replacement also listed the old/obsolete route number (15-16 years after the change). 

Nonetheless to the above-examples, it is my understanding that the purpose of this thread was to post or comment on signs that were outright erroneous not because they contained former route numbers in them.  One could have a whole separate thread devoted to such.

[TCN7JM]

Nonetheless to the above-examples, it is my understanding that the purpose of this thread was to post or comment on signs that were outright erroneous not because they contained former route numbers in them.  One could have a whole separate thread devoted to such.

Personally I don't see a difference (especially after you erect a new sign with the former number), but hey. Whatever floats your boat.

[hbelkins]

Why? Because the route being intersected is actually KY 1460, not KY 3495, as shown below.



This is on US 23/US 119 northbound and US 460/KY 80 westbound in Pikeville.

[jeffandnicole]

At least the "4" was correct.  And the 0 is shaped like an alien's head.

[PHLBOS]

And the 0 is shaped like an alien's head.

Or the mouth of the Scream ghost.

[NE2]

Ideally both routes should be signed there, since the first bit of 1460 is just a connecting link to a T intersection where 1460 goes left and 3495 begins to the right. I'd recommend extending 1460 over 3495, but that might confuse people heading southbound on US 23 and looking for 1460 into Pikeville. On the other hand it would take them a bit closer to a sweet looking suspension bridge.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Pikeville_city.pdf

[hbelkins]

Ideally both routes should be signed there, since the first bit of 1460 is just a connecting link to a T intersection where 1460 goes left and 3495 begins to the right. I'd recommend extending 1460 over 3495, but that might confuse people heading southbound on US 23 and looking for 1460 into Pikeville. On the other hand it would take them a bit closer to a sweet looking suspension bridge.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Pikeville_city.pdf

Of course, 3495 and 1460 are the old routes of 23.

I've passed by that bridge a zillion times but don't know the history of it. There's a plaque there now; I guess I need to stop and look at it next time I'm in the area.

[NE2]

It's a socialist WPA project: http://bridgehunter.com/ky/pike/pauley/

[roadman65]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Garwood,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.647983,-74.352504&spn=0.002678,0.004463&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.319638,9.140625&oq=garw&t=h&hnear=Garwood,+Union,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.647983,-74.352504&panoid=10DcanAtpnupJ_bP6vGAEQ&cbp=12,102.52,,1,0
This one is totally incorrect.  CR 509 does not at all pass through this intersection.  In fact, more than 30 years ago it did, however this assembly is neither a carbon copy sign nor a left over from that era when it was.  Somebody, obviously used a very very old SLD when designing and planting of this.

[NE2]

I seem to remember a lot of disagreement between state and county in Union County.