I found this quite funny: http://jalopnik.com/5044869/americas-10-most-confusing-traffic-signs (http://jalopnik.com/5044869/americas-10-most-confusing-traffic-signs)
I passed by #5 back in '07 on my way to the Keweenaw Peninsula.
#1 made me laugh so hard
These 2 look like something you would typically find in N.O.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fjalopnik%2F2008%2F09%2FTen-Conf-leftleftleft.jpg&hash=4ea6338eefa285cd70ce366a5e3dee3396a8ae89)
Except the 2nd and 4th arrows from the left would have OK written under them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fjalopnik%2F2008%2F09%2FTen-Conf-MILeft.jpg&hash=14895920ab08d19512624e72dd03cbf3f661c19c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw51225.jpg&hash=4e1ab52ab1ff8579a2740a28d3e70d581d6f912f)
one from Norway. The worst part isn't that all three roads lead to 823 (which is what the dashed outline means), but that all three are 823! Yes, the road loops around and meets itself.
that said, the most confusing traffic sign is when the road is painted "BUS TO YIELD". Oh no no, the bus is not to yield under any circumstances. You will yield to bus if you know what's right for you (and forget traditional English word order from top to bottom).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fjalopnik%2F2008%2F09%2FTen-Conf-leftleftleft.jpg&hash=4ea6338eefa285cd70ce366a5e3dee3396a8ae89)
I drive through this one all the time ... and as a San Franciscan, I don't say this often, but this could really use an overhead sign.
Also, worth noting here, US-101 turns left through this intersection, and it's either unsigned, or so poorly signed I've never noticed.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 24, 2009, 05:07:25 AM
I drive through this one all the time ... and as a San Franciscan, I don't say this often, but this could really use an overhead sign.
I really don't see what is too bad about this one.
I don't see what's so bad about overhead signs in general.
Quote from: froggie on June 24, 2009, 09:52:50 PM
A) sign clutter
B) "overheads don't belong in an urban area"...which is related to why Congress banned overhead wires within the "L'Enfant Plan" area of central D.C.
I'll agree on both points with one exception, wires for trolley/light rail.
Having to access a buried third rail made DC's trolley system more expensive than comparable systems elsewhere.
Plus, I think there's a beauty of seeing a trolley pole or a pantograph running across an overhead wire. (But, I'm a railfan as awell as a roodgeek!")
Quote from: NOLANOLA504 on June 24, 2009, 10:50:04 AM
I really don't see what is too bad about this one.
There's nothing wrong with the sign itself. It's more the "US 101/Mission St/GG Bridge" highway exit one block to the south, which dumps you into this intersection without any green signs telling you what lane to get into.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1+otis+street,+san+francisco,+ca&sll=37.772682,-122.418541&sspn=0.006377,0.013733&ie=UTF8&ll=37.773038,-122.420762&spn=0.006377,0.013733&z=17 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1+otis+street,+san+francisco,+ca&sll=37.772682,-122.418541&sspn=0.006377,0.013733&ie=UTF8&ll=37.773038,-122.420762&spn=0.006377,0.013733&z=17)
And San Francisco has a reputation to uphold for all the tourists. We aren't going to ruin it by putting BGSes all over the place ;)
QuoteHaving to access a buried third rail made DC's trolley system more expensive than comparable systems elsewhere.
A) the third rail is not buried...it runs parallel and to the side.
B) trolley = streetcar. DC's system is heavy rail...comparable to BART out in San Fran.
C) it's not the third rail per se that makes it more expensive...it's the dedicated, grade-separated right-of-way.
There was a cluster of signs in North Carolina, I believe, that was so confusing that someone actually hit them.
Quote from: froggie on June 25, 2009, 06:36:58 AM
QuoteHaving to access a buried third rail made DC's trolley system more expensive than comparable systems elsewhere.
A) the third rail is not buried...it runs parallel and to the side.
B) trolley = streetcar. DC's system is heavy rail...comparable to BART out in San Fran.
C) it's not the third rail per se that makes it more expensive...it's the dedicated, grade-separated right-of-way.
Froggie,
I was talking about Washington's trolley system that existed and disappeared long before Metro was built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dctrolley.org%2Fimages%2F766p4.jpg&hash=a9e4c0aa8ac57eabe1362acf701826252eb394fb)
The line in between the main tracks is a slot for the electric pickup to reach the buried third rail.
http://www.dctrolley.org (http://www.dctrolley.org)
As yes, I know that the current Metro is heavy rail. I have also heard some rumblings about new light rail (trolley) lines in our nations capital. If they do, a similar solution to the one shown in the picture would be necessary.
Quote from: froggie on June 24, 2009, 09:52:50 PM
"overheads don't belong in an urban area"
Depends on what kind of overhead we're talking about. Street signs on signal mast arms are quite useful since they're easier to see and allow drivers to find their turn without having to slow down to look at smaller street signs on the corner, holding up traffic.
Large overhead BGSs on urban streets are rather out of place, though, unless we're talking about a major boulevard.
Quote from: froggie on June 25, 2009, 02:10:50 PM
mightyace: ok...thought you were talking about more recent times, and not DC's old (and long-gone) streetcar system.
No problem.
Though, I wonder if Washington's ban on overhead wires was one of the many factors in the decision to build the partly-underground Metro heavy rail system. Albeit, a minor one.
Not the one I was talking about, but similar...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrianglesigns.org%2Fpictures%2Fhighways%2Fnc27210-us401421.jpg&hash=6c3816d4a25c93f9be4698aa08de3107212b8160)
and that is why we need color-coded route shields.
having a route maintain the same color, and never intersect another route with the same color, may or may not be possible (see: the four-color topology problem, and North Carolina's tendency to have lots of routes come together - a problem also shared by Georgia and other places) - so Mississippi's solution may be the most practical: have only areas with multiple intersecting roads (urban areas, for the most part) use the colored shields, while rural shields remain black and white. Then, as the driver gets to a new urban area, he picks up his color and can follow the route through the multiplex (or choose a new one) easily, remembering to follow the color until he leaves the confluence behind and reverts to black and white shields.
I have no idea what Mississippi did on long rural multiplexes, say US-11 and US-80, which run together from the Alabama state line all the way to Meridian - about 10 miles, and I am pretty sure there are longer multiplexes out there. Did they keep the colors in the rural section, or just revert to black and white anyway when it became apparent that all other routes had been left behind, and 11/80 was the only possibility?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2009, 03:35:07 PM
and that is why we need color-coded route shields.
having a route maintain the same color, and never intersect another route with the same color, may or may not be possible (see: the four-color topology problem, and North Carolina's tendency to have lots of routes come together - a problem also shared by Georgia and other places) - so Mississippi's solution may be the most practical: have only areas with multiple intersecting roads (urban areas, for the most part) use the colored shields, while rural shields remain black and white. Then, as the driver gets to a new urban area, he picks up his color and can follow the route through the multiplex (or choose a new one) easily, remembering to follow the color until he leaves the confluence behind and reverts to black and white shields.
I have no idea what Mississippi did on long rural multiplexes, say US-11 and US-80, which run together from the Alabama state line all the way to Meridian - about 10 miles, and I am pretty sure there are longer multiplexes out there. Did they keep the colors in the rural section, or just revert to black and white anyway when it became apparent that all other routes had been left behind, and 11/80 was the only possibility?
Isn't that a problem with the South altogether?
I don't recall offhand which other states have excessive multiplexing - just Georgia and North Carolina really come to mind. Then again, there is Nashville, and also I-465 in Indianapolis holds about 8 routes at one point in its circle, due to Indy's tendency to re-route highways onto bypasses whenever possible.
all of these places would do well with colored shields.
Florida, the place most famous for colored shields, has a lot of lengthy multiplexes (17/92, 19/27A/98, etc) so for them the "all colors all the time" approach may be the best ... they managed to pull it off without like colors intersecting until US-192 was extended to US-27, and without too too many different colors. US-98 in black and US-41 in coral needed their own color since they intersected damn near every other route in the state.
It's too bad they never put the state routes on a color scheme too, as Mississippi did.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2009, 04:35:03 PM
Then again, there is Nashville,
Could you clarify what you are talking about?
The interstate duplexes with 24, 40 and 65?
The US routes through downtown?
The hidden multiplexes with US routes. According to TDOT and some other maps, every US route has a hidden state route to go with it but they are rarely signed?
As a Nashville area resident I don't see an issue, but I may be missing the forest for the trees, please enlighten me.
I think Nashville's major problem is the similar numbers ... 31, 41, 31A, 41A, 431. That's five routes using only three numbers, and a letter that looks vaguely like one of the numbers. I don't have the photo readily available, but I believe there is a gantry that has at least three of those shields on it, along with 70S - and the other two are very close-by.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2009, 05:21:05 PM
I think Nashville's major problem is the similar numbers ... 31, 41, 31A, 41A, 431. That's five routes using only three numbers, and a letter that looks vaguely like one of the numbers. I don't have the photo readily available, but I believe there is a gantry that has at least three of those shields on it, along with 70S - and the other two are very close-by.
OK, now I know what you're talking about.
Signing in Nashville like most of Tenessee is a mess.
If you can follow a US route through Nashville without making a wrong turn, more power to you.
And, you forgot that north of town you have 31E and 31W instead of 31 and 31A and all four "31s" all exist in city limits.
And, yes 70 and 70S are closely parallel or duplex through Nashville as well. Just Monday night, I was getting on I-40 East, I-65 South at Church St. and there were trailblazers for both 70 and 70S.
If you think that's confusing, if you go east to Lebanon, 70N starts there and you have 70N, 70 and 70S all in existence running parallel to each other.
Using street names may not help much either. For example if you take 431 south out of town, you start on Broadway, turn onto 21st Avenue South which becomes Hillsboro Pike at I-440 and somewhere between there and Franklin it becomes Hillsboro Road.
Or, the surface streets that make up TN secondary 155 where Briley Parkway was never finished are from west to east, Whitebridge Road, Woodmont Blvd, and Thompson Ln.
I could go on, but I think I'd need a whole topic (book?) for all the foolishness in Nashville's highway system.
All this and their tendency to schedule construction on both an interstate and its primary alternate at the same time is why I think TnDOT's unofficial motto is "You can't get thar from here!" :banghead: :pan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.villagephotos.com%2Fp%2F2005-10%2F1085993%2FNCmesssmall.jpg&hash=6cc681011c323bf31d679918ed2df1e4ca018d5e)
I had forgotten about the 70/70S and 31/31A/31E/31W ... that makes it even sillier, you're right! If I remember correctly, staying on your choice of 24, 40, or 65, without getting bucked off, is also a non-trivial accomplishment. Nothing compared to the Kansas City cyclotron, but still non-trivial.
speaking of US routes that are dang near impossible to follow, see also Memphis.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2009, 08:47:12 PM
speaking of US routes that are dang near impossible to follow, see also Memphis.
Well, we're still talkin' Tennessee here! :-D :sombrero:
those By-Pass (or is it Bypass? I can never remember!) and Truck shields need suffixes in the shields. I'd go with 601Y and 601T. Add colored shields, and that gantry would be completely legible.
this brings up how to sign bannered routes in color. Florida used inverted shield designs (i.e. white on blue instead of blue on white for business US-90 vs. regular US-90), and as far as I know, Mississippi signed the business routes in color and left the bypasses b/w. But if you have ALT, TRUCK, BYPASS, BY-PASS, SCENIC, COASTAL, TEMPORARY, CITY, OPTIONAL, UNBUILT, UNASSIGNED, UNWISE, HYPOTHETICAL, LEFT-HANDED, BACKUP, NORMAL, BY_PASS, REGULAR, INCIDENTAL, PECULIAR, BY!!??!PASS, TAX EXEMPT, and DUTY FREE versions of a route ... it may get a little confusing.
(can you tell I'm not a fan of bannered routes?)
I dunno. I don't like the idea of color coding shields. Looks totally fugly.
An easier way to deal with the problem of complicated intersections would be to explain them with a simple diagrammatic as opposed to a ton of shields.
So, instead of this mess:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrianglesigns.org%2Fpictures%2Fhighways%2Fnc27210-us401421.jpg&hash=6c3816d4a25c93f9be4698aa08de3107212b8160)
Just do this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg146.imageshack.us%2Fimg146%2F8869%2Fsignex.png&hash=aaeea24df7fc6d8daf0d7724b12873e583c6bd77)
There. Was that so hard?
I finally found it!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdeclubz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F07%2Fconcord-north-carolina.jpg&hash=c5017686b6092030b4ba66e784dabc47bd89667f)
Quote from: Hellfighter on June 26, 2009, 01:06:54 AM
I finally found it!
http://declubz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/concord-north-carolina.jpg (http://declubz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/concord-north-carolina.jpg)
Lol, I guess there is a huge parking lot near that sign so motorists can stop and read all the signs? :sombrero:
QuoteI finally found it!
After I posted it for you.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2009, 12:27:55 AM
Just do this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg146.imageshack.us%2Fimg146%2F8869%2Fsignex.png&hash=aaeea24df7fc6d8daf0d7724b12873e583c6bd77)
I like it. It shows the exact same information and is much more legible. I could read this in a second or two and know what I had to do. The original signs mess. Well, I'd probably end up having to make a U-turn after going the wrong way! :banghead:
what's wrong with suffixed routes? The reason I don't like bannered routes is because the banner does not provide, especially at high speeds, sufficient differentiation.
If I were approaching that North Carolina gantry at 45mph and slowing, I may or may not be able to pick out from there which of the banners represents the road I intend to follow. Basically, it requires two passes of reading instead of just one.
the thought process is something like "okay, 73, east so not mine, 73 again ... wait, which 73 is which ... that one's TRUCK EAST, not for me either, don't care about 29, don't care about 601, still don't care about 601, here's another 73, it's WEST, that's the one I want ... wait, no, it's TRUCK WEST, okay now we get to regular 73 west... and I'm in a left turn only lane, screw."
if there were suffixes, it would be "73, okay that's east, so not me, 73T, don't care, 29, don't care, 601, don't care, 601T, don't care, 73T, don't care, 73, okay this one is west, change lanes to keep going straight, great!"
it's much more cognitively straightforward.
in short, banners should only reflect direction, or a trailblazer (like TO or JCT) to refer to a unique stretch of road. EAST 73, WEST 73, JCT 73, TO 73 will all get you to the stretch of road that is "73". "TRUCK 73" will get you somewhere completely different, and that road should have a different identifier - in this case, 73T.
I see your second point about truck routes ... what about for more general alternates, like Alternate and Business?
as for the first point, I do believe in the cognitive advantage of having *something* in the shield itself to note, immediately, "this is not the 73 you are looking for", that is not present with just the banner.
After reading this, just to get input from a non-roadgeek, I showed my mother that confusing array of signs from North Carolina and asked her whether she would know where to go more likely with bannered or suffixed routes. She said bannered because she wouldn't have a clue what each suffix meant. However, if that was a standard practice, she said she would just skip over the 73T shields because it was something different than the 73 she was looking for, while with TRUCK 73 she would still have to look up at the TRUCK banner to differentiate.
So from that observation I think that suffixed routes would be easier to read and tell apart only if they were standard practice nationwide.
Suffixes do no good in a state that uses suffixed numbers all the time for non-banner route purposes.
As to the confusing photos above, states could avoid such confusing and busy route marker assemblies by not signing so many overlapping routes.
For example, on the second pic with the seven shields plus three more. Why is there both a truck route and a bypass route for US 601 (not to mention that this doesn't seem like a bypass)? Why do both the eastbound and westbound truck route for highway 73 run the same direction, and on the eastbound mainline?
Just a thought...
would your mother have any objection driving down the truck route? the TRUCK banner these days seems almost obsolete. There seem to be very few state highways that are of such low quality that they cannot accommodate trucks.
I just thought about a compromise to the banners vs suffixes: what about placing the banner within the shield itself? This would differentiate, easily upon brief visual inspection, between the main route and its bannered counterparts. To me the major problem with having a banner on top is that, on first glance, both 401s look the same.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19980691i1.jpg)
here, I can easily tell the difference between 69 and Alt 69. (And I still could even if Alt 69 were placed in a black square instead of being a cutout. It's putting the banner *into* the shield that makes the difference for me.)
also, another thing: consistency. In Oklahoma, sometimes Alt 69 is signed as "69A" on guide signs. It took me a bit of time, when I was traveling, to note that 69A and Alt 69 were the same route! So whichever way is deemed to be the optimal signing approach, *stick to it*!
In the shield works, but the text needs to be larger than that. No need to spell it all out, either. "ALT 69" would be fine. Similarly, one can use "TRK 69", "BUSN 69", "BYP 69", and "SPUR 69" for truck, business, bypass, and spur.
Although, honestly, "Truck" is the only banner that's ever really necessary, since there's something fundamentally different about the route. Otherwise, letter suffixes should suffice.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 26, 2009, 12:27:55 AM
Just do this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg146.imageshack.us%2Fimg146%2F8869%2Fsignex.png&hash=aaeea24df7fc6d8daf0d7724b12873e583c6bd77)
There. Was that so hard?
This is something Alabama needs to do with some of its intersections:
Hamilton, AL: US 278/AL 74 at US 43/AL 17 with US 78 in close proximity, and AL 171 in close proximity (not signed) (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hamilton,+al&sll=37.509726,-95.712891&sspn=49.779815,79.013672&ie=UTF8&ll=34.14225,-87.98829&spn=0.006438,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.142229,-87.988175&panoid=zqbsPU51RQPpndNlCkIWVA&cbp=12,276.41,,0,7.1)
Tuscumbia, AL: US 43/AL13/AL17 at US 72 at US 72 Alternate/AL 20/AL 157 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=sheffield,+al&sll=33.928797,-87.816811&sspn=0.025816,0.038581&ie=UTF8&ll=34.710997,-87.667465&spn=0.012788,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.710749,-87.667421&panoid=R3q4lko7HLKXvzNhjcQtiA&cbp=12,340.87,,0,0.6)
Fayette, AL: US 43/AL 171 at AL 18, with AL 96 in close proximity, and AL 159 in close proximity, but left off the sign assembly (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=fayette,+al&sll=34.711773,-87.669268&sspn=0.012788,0.01929&ie=UTF8&ll=33.684479,-87.828376&spn=0.012945,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.684485,-87.828483&panoid=Z_Uu1OT-VUAXQWGkpFU0Cw&cbp=12,289.16,,0,10.01)