What bothers you about roads and highways the most? Aside from bad drivers, some physical aspects. One example for me is when construction crews leave up road work signs for years and never take them down. I mean how could these professionals forget they are still up? Another example would be perhaps the most common issue, potholes. It's about this time of the year when we will see more of these on the roads.
Mine is when a sign is fabricated with obvious disregard for typical design standards like proper centering, correct margin widths, and consistent spacing between lines. These are things that are free and take only a few minutes worth of attention to check. But the end product will be there for years and years.
A related issue is inconsistent design from panel to panel within a highway system. Drive around Missouri enough and you'll get a feel for what a MoDOT sign looks like. Drive around Kansas and you'll definitely get a feel for what a KDOT sign looks like. Drive around Oklahoma or New Mexico, and you'll get a different set of design cues at every junction.
When they repaint lines after repaving, and they're not where they used to be. Maybe an acceleration lane is shortened, or the natural curve is gone and something sharper or more jagged is in its place. On a project near me, the line crew inexplicitly never painted the dashed passing line down the middle of a 2 lane ramp. It now appears as a 24' wide single lane ramp...which still features 2 lanes turning onto it.
For me, its bad signage, Especially signs that should be there, but aren't.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 19, 2016, 09:18:56 AM
For me, its bad signage, Especially signs that should be there, but aren't.
A subject that's been covered in several SW threads, but deserves reiteration here: the deteriorating lack of signage along state highways in CA -- especially on relinquished urban roads where continuation signage is specifically mandated. This is not only with simple reassurance signage, but has spread to junctions, where the trailblazers necessary to ensure route continuation have somehow vanished (I'm looking at you, CA 84 & CA 238 in Fremont!). The 12 districts seem to pay varying attention to the issue; some sort of statewide criteria need to be established (or re-established; this wasn't a problem 30+ years ago!).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2016, 06:15:03 AM
When they repaint lines after repaving, and they're not where they used to be. Maybe an acceleration lane is shortened, or the natural curve is gone and something sharper or more jagged is in its place. On a project near me, the line crew inexplicitly never painted the dashed passing line down the middle of a 2 lane ramp. It now appears as a 24' wide single lane ramp...which still features 2 lanes turning onto it.
My pet marking peeve is related to this - the fact that when they resurface a freeway, they almost NEVER resurface the bridge decks as well. The result is that the old markings on the bridges never line up with the new markings on the adjacent roadway.
Quote from: roadman on December 19, 2016, 03:01:55 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2016, 06:15:03 AM
When they repaint lines after repaving, and they're not where they used to be. Maybe an acceleration lane is shortened, or the natural curve is gone and something sharper or more jagged is in its place. On a project near me, the line crew inexplicitly never painted the dashed passing line down the middle of a 2 lane ramp. It now appears as a 24' wide single lane ramp...which still features 2 lanes turning onto it.
My pet marking peeve is related to this - the fact that when they resurface a freeway, they almost NEVER resurface the bridge decks as well. The result is that the old markings on the bridges never line up with the new markings on the adjacent roadway.
Of course not. Pavement work and bridge work are totally different. In fact, at NYSDOT, you'll hear people divide our capital projects into two sets: bridge and pavement projects. The different nature of rehabbing bridge decks compared to simple paving jobs will always result in the situation you describe. Don't think it can realistically be avoided given the engineering models that govern the basic set up of a capital program (i.e., if you need to do a paving job near a bridge that's in okay shape, there's no compelling argument to do the work on the bridge when that money could be better spent elsewhere).
(personal opinion emphasized).
The wrong warning sign installed. A very common one is W1-2 with a 25-mph advisory plaque; should be a W1-1 instead. Another common one is W4-2 (warning) instead of R3-7 (regulatory).
My other big pet peeve is exit-only lanes that just have regular dashed lines next to them instead of either dotted or solid.
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2016, 02:55:54 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on December 19, 2016, 09:18:56 AM
For me, its bad signage, Especially signs that should be there, but aren't.
A subject that's been covered in several SW threads, but deserves reiteration here: the deteriorating lack of signage along state highways in CA -- especially on relinquished urban roads where continuation signage is specifically mandated. This is not only with simple reassurance signage, but has spread to junctions, where the trailblazers necessary to ensure route continuation have somehow vanished (I'm looking at you, CA 84 & CA 238 in Fremont!). The 12 districts seem to pay varying attention to the issue; some sort of statewide criteria need to be established (or re-established; this wasn't a problem 30+ years ago!).
Even the Signed County Route program is a mess, although I would say it is far more expected in that sphere of influence. In the J1 thread I talked a lot about the inconsistencies between individual California counties in regards to signage, pavement, and even how some seem to have their individual grids.
But in regards to State route signage it certainly is all over the place in California and can be pretty maddening at times. Lack of continuity is probably my biggest pet peeve of all. It's even more frustrating when Arizona, Nevada, and even Utah are more up to spec whereas California used to be.
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2016, 03:59:39 PMAnother common one is W4-2 (warning) instead of R3-7 (regulatory).
R3-7 itself is one of my bugbears--it is usually impossible to read far enough in advance for smoothly maneuvering into the trap lane (or out of it, as the case may be). Agencies in snowbird states like Arizona often just use R3-5 for trap lanes, but even an appropriate member of the R3-8 family would be infinitely better than R3-7.
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2016, 03:59:39 PMMy other big pet peeve is exit-only lanes that just have regular dashed lines next to them instead of either dotted or solid.
Like here? (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.057943,-95.7463432,3a,75y,37.47h,85.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GFiEUNDX4g5XKo1VkrYWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) Weaving lanes from one interchange to the next are an uncomfortable gray area.
This one's pretty specific, and it irks me especially because I dealt with it today. Iowa seems not to bother with putting trailblazer markers for certain routes (US-6, specifically) at the top of off-ramps at the end of Interstate concurrencies. Like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/T4gfmUMoDHv) You have to go left to continue on US-6 West but there's no sign at the top of the ramp pointing you that way.
Edit: I guess I could generalize this complaint into any place where there's insufficient signage to guide one along a specific route.
When a BGS has a panel with a new destiation and the size of the font is different than the rest of the sign.
Example going SB out of Jacksonville on i95 at CR 210 exit the supplemtary guide sign used to say 'Dog Track' which is closed so they put a cover up for the new development of 'Nocatee'.. Different sizeat least its same font.. Ill get a pic next time I'm out that way
LGMS428
New traffic signals with too much control. WSDOT recently installed several new signals where stop signs were the former control (with one of the roads having priority w/ no stop sign). The new left turns are protected only maneuvers. The problem from a logistical standpoint is that it's harder to go from fully protected to protected/permissive, should the protected signals become unnecessary (they already have -- bunch of traffic waiting for a green light, despite no oncoming traffic). Signal "upgrades" should always go in stages, from fully permissive, to protected/permissive, to fully protected, never straight from fully permissive to fully protected. WSDOT very seldom changes signals from fully protected to protected/permissive, so (for example) suggesting the installation of an FYA where there is presently a protected-only left turn is very difficult. Basic protocol generally suggests against reducing control. The main issue is that full control may never have been necessary to begin with, but it's hard to convince them of that without being a PE or a fellow DOT employee.
It also comes down to a lack of creativity on the part of the DOT. They generally signalize every intersection the same way, be it a side road with 25 mph limits, or a highway with 65 mph limits: fully protected left turns. Of the four major agencies on the west coast, the BCMOT is the only one that regularly uses pro/per signals (like the rest of Canada). WSDOT, ODOT, and CalTrans almost always use protected only signals at every single intersection, regardless of whether or not it's necessary. I get that, at one time, it may have been standard protocol to install a three-head fully protected signal for each left turn maneuver. But times have changed, and there aren't any studies showing fully protected signals to be safer (drivers perform less risky manuevers with pro/per left turns). These agencies need to step up their creativity, and start using new signal phasing. Start using FYAs more often, using lagging phasing, etc.
Also, when an agency banishes permissive turns due to 40/45+ mph speed limit or three+ oncoming lanes.
Intersections without advance warning signs for the cross street, like we have all over Maryland.
Actuated signals uncoordinated with any of the other actuated signals surrounding them by an idiot of a DOT. It is most annoying to have the next signal turn red as soon as you get up to it after the signal you were at turns green. And then for it to happen at the next signal, the next signal, and the next signal.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 19, 2016, 09:47:04 PM
This one's pretty specific, and it irks me especially because I dealt with it today. Iowa seems not to bother with putting trailblazer markers for certain routes (US-6, specifically) at the top of off-ramps at the end of Interstate concurrencies. Like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/T4gfmUMoDHv) You have to go left to continue on US-6 West but there's no sign at the top of the ramp pointing you that way.
Edit: I guess I could generalize this complaint into any place where there's insufficient signage to guide one along a specific route.
Iowa is okay compared to Arkansas. They don't usually sign their US routes on concurrencies with interstates (at least they didn't last time I went).
Quote from: Rothman on December 19, 2016, 03:06:33 PM
Of course not. Pavement work and bridge work are totally different. In fact, at NYSDOT, you'll hear people divide our capital projects into two sets: bridge and pavement projects. The different nature of rehabbing bridge decks compared to simple paving jobs will always result in the situation you describe. Don't think it can realistically be avoided given the engineering models that govern the basic set up of a capital program (i.e., if you need to do a paving job near a bridge that's in okay shape, there's no compelling argument to do the work on the bridge when that money could be better spent elsewhere).
(personal opinion emphasized).
Yes, I do understand why pavement and bridge work are usually done separately. My peeve is simply with the fact that, when they resurface, they can never seem to get the markings on the new pavement to at least attempt to line up with the markings on the old bridges.
Traffic signals with a weak presence, so you hardly notice them. If one person fails to notice a red light, that's a recipe for a crash. This includes:
-A lack of overhead signal heads (i.e. all are post-mounted)
-A lack of signal backplates
-Any 8-inch sections. The old-timey feel of 12-8-8s is nice, but practicality is more important.
-Signals strung up on wires instead of mast arms. That's right. That's basically every signal in the eastern time zone. Mast arms have a stronger presence and are easier to foresee from an earlier distance imo.
-Any signal with fewer than two indications for a particular movement.
In short, I have a disdain for any signal that fails to meet Illinois DOT's basic standards (except doghouses are ok).
One time, I was driving on US35 in western Ohio and nearly blew right through a red light, because I didn't notice that the signal WAS THERE. It was a bunch of cable-mounted 8-inch signals, go figure. (it may have been this signal https://goo.gl/maps/FEFRXZFtHwT2 )
Two things related to wisconsin traffic signals. Straight thru up arrows (green) and when a left turn signal and thru signal are mounted together on the same pedistal mast, one on each side. They appear too close together. I dislike straight arrows because the local dot office has switched all straight arrows to solid balls I'm the Eau claire area, so it bothers me when I see others havent.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 20, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
-Any 8-inch sections. The old-timey feel of 12-8-8s is nice, but practicality is more important.
Ehh, I sort of agree. But not entirely. There are situations where 8-inch signals (even arrows and red balls) are fine, such as:
- near-side signals
- sideways eye-level signals at ramp meters
- secondary signals on the mast
- bike signals
Here's an example of how Vancouver uses 8-inch (200 mm) signal heads. 8-inch arrows and red orbs are ubiquitous all across the province:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkDw5WPN.png&hash=c90ec38035543736687fdb9f60d6d01c287feee5)
Here's that 8-inch arrow up close. As you can plainly see, 8-inches is plenty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD_xWrhZ8yI).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFLuBRO9.png&hash=b0b2dbeeb3f7f812a5c04439509e714d29df15cd)
Incorrect mileage signs--especially when the numbers are 5 or more miles off.
Quote from: amroad17 on December 20, 2016, 03:25:46 PM
Incorrect mileage signs--especially when the numbers are 5 or more miles off.
I'd imagine that this irks you later on, right?
Reduced speed limits in work zones that are maintained even when there are no workers present or no lane shifts/narrowing/other abnormal situations.
For instance -- Kentucky is getting ready to do a pavement rehab on I-64 between Midway and Frankfort. This is the original 1971 concrete pavement that was diamond grinded (diamond ground?) about 15 years ago, so I'd imagine a breaking-and-seating (rubbleizing) project is going to be done. A 55 mph speed limit is posted but obviously no paving can start until the blacktop plants open back up in the spring. As it is now, this is just one big seven-mile-long speedtrap.
Also, Virginia's ban on radar detectors and the ridiculous "80 mph is reckless driving, period" law.
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
My other big pet peeve is exit-only lanes that just have regular dashed lines next to them instead of either dotted or solid.
Thats a big one for me as well. Also, Orlando recently started installing dashed lines at the end of lanes when they're expected to merge (https://www.google.com/maps/place/University+of+Central+Florida/@28.5488492,-81.2104172,3a,60y,297.58h,80.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFmY7cgjbCXCMu4GxsK_q5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x88e7685d6a0a495f:0x5fd59b92b3c79bab!8m2!3d28.6024274!4d-81.2000599). I find that to be extremely confusing and dangerous and if there wasn't nobody in the other lane, I'd have been driven onto the shoulder along with many others I've seen on the road not realizing this bad practice. Dashed lines on highways should exclusively mean the lane is temporary/exit only. If its a weaving lane, its still exit only and should be dashed.
Other things on my list, kind of in order:
2) Protected signals when permissive-protected will functionally work (even if traffic is too busy, give me the permissive version so I can at least try in case it happpens to not be too busy)
3) Signals hung on a url=https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5976117,-81.2616518,3a,75y,200.78h,77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSz3oa2hRyu2ItgihVSWA_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]diagonal across the road[/url]. I find them very difficult to see. The only thing worse is signals hung in an X format over the road (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.567123,-81.2078447,3a,75y,173.56h,74.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDZg-3fLy9Z8e6OXhgys0BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I cannot figure out why anyone would use an X format for hanging signals. Makes no sense at all.
4) Pedestrian signals without the "egg crate" sun shade so you can actually see them (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5532427,-81.2052161,3a,15y,150.97h,85.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGNFcYoeXtJXCjCI7-YNuJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (the one behind it has it, wtf non matched pedestrian signals on the same crosswalk)
5) Unequally spaced signals (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5988268,-81.205795,3a,75y,41.12h,97.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL-AMeMW95ODZTz8ZAs2fPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I don't think the maps picture does it justice but the left turn signal is higher then the other 3 that are equal height, and is waayy too close to the doghouse which are clearly not centered on the lanes at all. Signals should either be equally spaced or aligned to the roadway lanes. Heights should always be either equal or matching the mounting poll, not random.
6) Missing turn lanes. Outside of downtowns, before a signal or other traffic control device beyond a 2 way stop sign is installed, I think both left and right turn lanes must be installed to attempt to alleviate the situation.
7) Missing/backwards reflectors. I hate how reflectors never get any maintenance until repaving, EVER. I never understood why they seem to throw thousands of reflectors out during every construction project but replacing one that gets knocked loose on a finished road is unheard of.
8) Signals that are flat out configured wrong (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6303145,-82.3888398,3a,15y,276.23h,93.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s79JyGZ9Dz-LqSpzAHfLOuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There is no reason for this signal to have a separate left turn phase from the right turn phase. Infact, the right turn should have the 5 signal head and be programmed to turn green with the left phase of the cross street. Also my area is filled with all red pedestrian cross phases (especially during school hours) that only give the walk signal to the longer crossing of the major road and not to the crossing of minor streets, even though no vehicular movement in the intersection is permitted at all.
9) Intersections where the peak of the road hasn't been smoothed out, so if you go straight over the road on the minor cross street your car bounces heavily. Likewise, driveway entrances where the road wasn't correctly sloped so we have to drive down through a really low drain and need to go super slow while trying to get off the roadway. The road should be built up and sloped to allow water to go to the gutter, not run the gutter through the middle of the entrance
10) Mismatched mast signal arms at the same intersection, without even an attempt to match anything up. (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5491603,-81.2041307,3a,74.5y,102.69h,85.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7MkXap72Jzk7j4Q4yr9EbA!2e0!5s20110401T000000!7i13312!8i6656) This intersection has a brown mast arm, a black one, and an unpainted one. 3 different "eras" of mast arm designs. Different heights, different mount points. I get that they want to install the most current "best" design without replacing everything but adapt it to at least be compatible with whats there. At least paint them all the same color or something (this intersection was finally recently painted all black but sat like this for more years then I can count)
Four things that are high on my list:
(1) Small regulatory signs placed high up next to the traffic light on the far side of the intersection such that they're extremely hard to see at night. (Example: Small white "No Turn on Red" sign not duplicated on the near side of the intersection.) Obviously the size of the intersection makes a big difference here.
(2) Signs in advance of intersections placed on the wrong side of the street for the traffic to which they apply. (Example: Near where we live there's a road with three lanes per side. As you approach one of the intersections, the left lane becomes left-turn only and there are six lanes going that way–two left turn, two straight, two right turn. The only advance sign warning of that is located off the right side of the road. It also doesn't say "Left Lane Must Turn Left" and instead has a diagram of the six lanes at the traffic light. The sign needs to be on the left where people in that lane are more likely to see it! EVERY time we go through there, someone who was in the far left lane is trying to shove to the right out of the turn lane in order to go straight.)
(3) When they restripe a road but they don't repair the ruts left in the pavement by the old striping they removed. It feels like invariably the ruts from the old skip lines wind up underneath your tires.
(4) Overhead traffic lights placed on the near side of the intersection too close to the stop bar. I suppose this would alleviate item (1), in theory, but in practice it doesn't because if you're the first car waiting on line, often you can't see the lights unless you bend down, and if you stop too far back of the stop bar, depending on the intersection and which lane you're in you may not trigger the light to change. I HATE sitting there hunched down trying to see the light!
Quote from: mvak36 on December 20, 2016, 09:31:45 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 19, 2016, 09:47:04 PM
This one's pretty specific, and it irks me especially because I dealt with it today. Iowa seems not to bother with putting trailblazer markers for certain routes (US-6, specifically) at the top of off-ramps at the end of Interstate concurrencies. Like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/T4gfmUMoDHv) You have to go left to continue on US-6 West but there's no sign at the top of the ramp pointing you that way.
Edit: I guess I could generalize this complaint into any place where there's insufficient signage to guide one along a specific route.
Iowa is okay compared to Arkansas. They don't usually sign their US routes on concurrencies with interstates (at least they didn't last time I went).
Yeah, for the three times that US-6 is concurrent with I-80 in Iowa, the DOT fully marks US-6 both on the Interstate and at interchanges with other routes. It seems more like this one particular example is an isolated incident of error of omission. The specific example I mentioned above also is the eastern end of a concurrency with IA-38 and I noticed that on the EB offramp to IA-38 South there aren't any 38 markers either. Seems to me that that one particular interchange needs to have a signage upgrade.
Edit: noticed that the interchange at the east end of the Altoona-Newton US-6/I-80 concurrency has the same problem with a lack of signage. Now I'm wondering if I can complain enough to get the IA DOT to install proper guiding signs for the routes.
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 21, 2016, 12:16:25 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
My other big pet peeve is exit-only lanes that just have regular dashed lines next to them instead of either dotted or solid.
Thats a big one for me as well. Also, Orlando recently started installing dashed lines at the end of lanes when they're expected to merge. I find that to be extremely confusing and dangerous and if there wasn't nobody in the other lane, I'd have been driven onto the shoulder along with many others I've seen on the road not realizing this bad practice.
(Note: At least in NJ, Dashed lines are the normal long skip/passing lines. Dotted lines are the short lines indicating an accel/decal/exit only lane)
Interesting you brought this up. NJDOT has generally used dashed lines for their accel/decal lanes. Recently though, NJDOT (and the NJ Turnpike Authority) are starting to use dotted lines on their accel/decal lanes. On a nearby construction project, the contractor painted the dotted lines on the accel lanes, leaving a gap at the end. Apparently, that wasn't correct, as a few days later the dotted lines were painted all the way thru to the end of the accel lane merge point!
Floating segments. Seriously, why did you have to end that county route two blocks away from the state route where the road physically ends? Even if it's going to be locally maintained, it would be more helpful to motorists to extend the designation so that they connect.
1. As has already been said here, stop lights hung from wires instead of being mounted on mast arms.
2. As also has already been offered on this thread, lack of turn lanes. There is an intersection near me where a railroad track parallels the right side (when heading west) a four-lane road (two lanes each direction). If there is a train present, then westbound traffic that wants to turn right onto the cross street, that crosses the four-lane road and the tracks, has to sit there at a dead stop in the through lane because there is no right turn lane for them to find refuge in. I assume it's done that way because of a lack of space for a turn lane, but it still seems terribly dangerous. Here's the intersection I'm talking about (complete with train!):
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.289867,-85.5121045,3a,75y,233.88h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_auTI-cNdy8at1c_T6tS_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
3. This one is really specific, and really maybe belongs more on a "traffic signal error" type of thread, but here it is anyway. There's an intersection in Louisville where there are two left turn lanes to turn into a mall parking lot. The rightmost of the two left turn lanes is both a turn lane *and* a through lane. So, you can have a situation where there is a green left turn arrow but red straight ahead arrow for this one lane. Alternatively, you can have a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow. So, which one does the motorist obey? I guess it depends on which direction they want to go. But if a person wants to go straight and obeys the red straight ahead arrow, someone is bound to come up behind him intending to use the green turn arrow that is also lit. You can imagine the hi-jinks that might ensue... In the GSV shot below, you can see there is a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow over the right-hand left turn/straight through lane. The car at the front of the lane has its brake lights on -- maybe he's wanting to turn left into the mall and is stopping because of the red arrow? But what if someone comes up behind him intending to follow the green light straight through? Often that right hand through lane is choked with cars (this is a very busy shopping area) so taking evasive action by swerving to the right to avoid the stopped left-turning car is not always an option.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2485361,-85.6135993,3a,75y,191.19h,95.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ6VlCYuaKkuIsFsmoLb3VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: TR69 on December 21, 2016, 09:09:02 AM
1. As has already been said here, stop lights hung from wires instead of being mounted on mast arms.
2. As also has already been offered on this thread, lack of turn lanes. There is an intersection near me where a railroad track parallels the right side (when heading west) a four-lane road (two lanes each direction). If there is a train present, then westbound traffic that wants to turn right onto the cross street, that crosses the four-lane road and the tracks, has to sit there at a dead stop in the through lane because there is no right turn lane for them to find refuge in. I assume it's done that way because of a lack of space for a turn lane, but it still seems terribly dangerous. Here's the intersection I'm talking about (complete with train!):
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.289867,-85.5121045,3a,75y,233.88h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_auTI-cNdy8at1c_T6tS_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
3. This one is really specific, and really maybe belongs more on a "traffic signal error" type of thread, but here it is anyway. There's an intersection in Louisville where there are two left turn lanes to turn into a mall parking lot. The rightmost of the two left turn lanes is both a turn lane *and* a through lane. So, you can have a situation where there is a green left turn arrow but red straight ahead arrow for this one lane. Alternatively, you can have a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow. So, which one does the motorist obey? I guess it depends on which direction they want to go. But if a person wants to go straight and obeys the red straight ahead arrow, someone is bound to come up behind him intending to use the green turn arrow that is also lit. You can imagine the hi-jinks that might ensue... In the GSV shot below, you can see there is a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow over the right-hand left turn/straight through lane. The car at the front of the lane has its brake lights on -- maybe he's wanting to turn left into the mall and is stopping because of the red arrow? But what if someone comes up behind him intending to follow the green light straight through? Often that right hand through lane is choked with cars (this is a very busy shopping area) so taking evasive action by swerving to the right to avoid the stopped left-turning car is not always an option.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2485361,-85.6135993,3a,75y,191.19h,95.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ6VlCYuaKkuIsFsmoLb3VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That third one should be a permitted/protected setup or split phase.
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on December 21, 2016, 09:52:40 AM
Quote from: TR69 on December 21, 2016, 09:09:02 AM
1. As has already been said here, stop lights hung from wires instead of being mounted on mast arms.
2. As also has already been offered on this thread, lack of turn lanes. There is an intersection near me where a railroad track parallels the right side (when heading west) a four-lane road (two lanes each direction). If there is a train present, then westbound traffic that wants to turn right onto the cross street, that crosses the four-lane road and the tracks, has to sit there at a dead stop in the through lane because there is no right turn lane for them to find refuge in. I assume it's done that way because of a lack of space for a turn lane, but it still seems terribly dangerous. Here's the intersection I'm talking about (complete with train!):
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.289867,-85.5121045,3a,75y,233.88h,80.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_auTI-cNdy8at1c_T6tS_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
3. This one is really specific, and really maybe belongs more on a "traffic signal error" type of thread, but here it is anyway. There's an intersection in Louisville where there are two left turn lanes to turn into a mall parking lot. The rightmost of the two left turn lanes is both a turn lane *and* a through lane. So, you can have a situation where there is a green left turn arrow but red straight ahead arrow for this one lane. Alternatively, you can have a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow. So, which one does the motorist obey? I guess it depends on which direction they want to go. But if a person wants to go straight and obeys the red straight ahead arrow, someone is bound to come up behind him intending to use the green turn arrow that is also lit. You can imagine the hi-jinks that might ensue... In the GSV shot below, you can see there is a red turn arrow but a green straight ahead arrow over the right-hand left turn/straight through lane. The car at the front of the lane has its brake lights on -- maybe he's wanting to turn left into the mall and is stopping because of the red arrow? But what if someone comes up behind him intending to follow the green light straight through? Often that right hand through lane is choked with cars (this is a very busy shopping area) so taking evasive action by swerving to the right to avoid the stopped left-turning car is not always an option.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2485361,-85.6135993,3a,75y,191.19h,95.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ6VlCYuaKkuIsFsmoLb3VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That third one should be a permitted/protected setup or split phase.
May even be a new traffic light as well. The exiting traffic from the mall area has 'STOP' painted in the lanes also.
Four words: Connecticut Reflective Button Copy. Didn't like it when it came in, as the state route shields had no background to them. Hate it even more now that the reflectors have outlived their useful life and signs are illegible until you're right on top of them. Not that I'm not familiar with the road, but I was on I-91 in Windsor last night and I couldn't read the signs until I was about 20 feet away from them.
Also hate sign errors like substituting a state route sign for a US route sign.
Generally and specifically in WV:
- Signage that proclaims idiocy about speed limits, such as "safety zone" (SL are not about safety), "strict enforcement", "targeted enforcement area" , and such. A waste of resources.
- Signage about pointless economic development boondoggles. Such as proclaiming most EVERY county a "Certified Business Location", and breaking the state up into things like the "Polymer Alliance Zone" and the "High Tech Corridor" and the "Economic Gateway Region". Leaving out the stupidity of these programs themselves, what information is imparted to a motorist by this signage? Does anybody traveling between Cleveland and Charlotte on 77 really CARE if he or she is or is not in the Polymer Alliance Zone?
- Naming roads/bridges after people. In WV it is getting vastly over-done. Other than the 100s of things named after the late Byrd-god, every bridge, even over minor creeks gets named and state resources are used to sign this. Resources that could be used for actual things. Often these bridges are named for a local veteran. People whose service was, yes, honorable, but who were not killed or wounded or even shiped overseas or decorated with more than the so-called Fire Watch Medal. Takes away from large public works and military service that is truly exceptional, and for every person so honored, there are 100 more in the same community with similar records. After all, there are more veterans than bridges.
- Pennsylvania one. Every road I know of in Pennsylvania has a sign for "Last Exit in Pennsylvania". Which in my travels seems to be unique. I don't care.
- WV has a uniform policy that all stop lights must be in the same pattern all the time. Combined with just plain having too many stop lights on the corridors in the first place, this causes pointless traffic tie ups on nights or weekends where the pattern could be changed or the lights set to flash.
- Watershed signs. Started with the Chesepeake Bay drainage. OK, that makes some sense as that bay does have unique environmental issues. But now it is getting copied all over. The WV Turnpike signs the Paint Creek Watershed. Paint Creek being a minor stream of no paricular scenic value with no enviornmental issues different from any other creek.
- The WV Turnpike's idiotic detours. After a failure to remove snow led to a major traffic tie up, the mis-management signed 5 sepearte detours, some as long as 112 miles and one of which actually goes into Virginia and back, as a PR measure. All over roads very likely to receive the same or more snow. None have been, or ever will be used.
- Signs about laws when I enter a state. Virginia is bad for this. It is proper to sign about things that actually affect motorists which actually vary from state the state (motorcycle helmets, lights on when raining, radar detectors, so on) but all of this tough on crime, gun ban, drugs are bad don't use drugs, DUI means jail, PR horses*** is a waste of $$.
- This "move over" crap. This causes wrecks. I have had trucks cut me off multiple times. Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous. So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 21, 2016, 11:09:13 AM
- This "move over" crap. This causes wrecks. I have had trucks cut me off multiple times. Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous. So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.
I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.
Who knows...maybe that cop just pulled over a murder suspect or a kidnapper. Apparently, only serious police work involves sitting in an office.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 21, 2016, 11:09:13 AM
- This "move over" crap. This causes wrecks. I have had trucks cut me off multiple times. Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous. So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.
I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.
I don't know if people think the cop himself has the choice. I typically take such statements saying that the police in general have better things to do than traffic enforcement.
Quote from: Rothman on December 21, 2016, 01:31:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 21, 2016, 11:09:13 AM
- This "move over" crap. This causes wrecks. I have had trucks cut me off multiple times. Yes, standing beside a high-speed highway on foot is dangerous. So, turn the radar gun off, and do some serious useful work and problem solved.
I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.
I don't know if people think the cop himself has the choice. I typically take such statements saying that the police in general have better things to do than traffic enforcement.
I've heard that too.
I also hear "Why aren't police pulling people over for ______? There's too many people doing _____".
Quote- Watershed signs. Started with the Chesepeake Bay drainage. OK, that makes some sense as that bay does have unique environmental issues. But now it is getting copied all over. The WV Turnpike signs the Paint Creek Watershed. Paint Creek being a minor stream of no paricular scenic value with no enviornmental issues different from any other creek.
Massachusetts put up watershed signs for a period in the 1990s. Then FHWA noticed (the signs were rather large) and made the state remove them.
How about both Colorado and New Mexico not acknowledging US routes that are signed on interstates. I could see US 85, being forced to have it because Texas keeps their's alive. It should really be split into two like US 2 and US 422, but we all know how that works.
Then I have heard that Utah considers US 189 to be on their system from I-15 to US 40, despite it being a route in Wyoming via US 40 and I-80.
Bottom line is I believe that all routes should be signed wherever they are!
Another issue is the fact that Orange County in Florida signs some roads by the route number on overhead traffic light street signs and not the road name. SR 482 from Orange Avenue at Sand Lake/ McCoy and "US 441" on the Wal Mart/ Berkshire Club apartments in the Hunters Creek/ Southchase area on Orange Blossom Trail.
IMO is that the section of McCoy Road east of Orange should be an extension of Sand Lake Road, but that is not why Orange County did that practice there. It is the only signal that refers to SR 482 on that stretch which irks me. As far as WalMart all other area street signs use "Orange Blossom Trail" and US 441 is also US 17 & 92 that always gets ignored.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2016, 04:05:04 PM
IMO is that the section of McCoy Road east of Orange should be an extension of Sand Lake Road, but that is not why Orange County did that practice there. It is the only signal that refers to SR 482 on that stretch which irks me. As far as WalMart all other area street signs use "Orange Blossom Trail" and US 441 is also US 17 & 92 that always gets ignored.
Basically McCoy turns into Westbound only west of Via Flora. Jetport if I recall correctly is mostly eastbound only on the south side of 528. Really I think that the exit 8 ramps is the logical place to end 482, but yes I agree it needs to be signed better...along with many others. The one that always bothered me in regards to signage was no "End" at Crystal Lake at the eastern terminus. 15 should have been routed via Colonial and Crystal Lake to reach Lake Underhill than the weird alignment on Brown/Thompson to just to take South and Anderson which are just Frontage roads of 408.
Quote from: dgolub on December 21, 2016, 08:50:39 AM
Floating segments. Seriously, why did you have to end that county route two blocks away from the state route where the road physically ends? Even if it's going to be locally maintained, it would be more helpful to motorists to extend the designation so that they connect.
Case in point: why does County BB (Greenville-Appleton, WI; follows Prospect Ave) randomly end at Bartell Drive (inconsequential side street nobody's heard of)? They could have extended it eastward to WI 47, an extra mile or so, and it would have made a LOT more sense (and more county highway miles for anyone using that section).
"Right Lane Ends" sign that really means, "Right Lane Must Turn Right". If I'm in an unfamiliar area and know I'm going to be turning right, do I gamble on whether the lane ends before my intersection?
"Exit Only" lanes that don't indicate whether the next lane may exit as well (onto a 2-lane exit ramp). I was impressed with CA over 25 years ago when they labelled both lanes, especially when the exit ramp split (say for EB and WB directions). MI doesn't seem to ever label a permissive exit lane.
The thing TR69 mentions about the optional turn lane with weird light phasing can be dangerous. DC has that in a few places; the one I encounter most is at 18th and Constitution NW. The left-turn light is on first, with the straight light, and then the red turn arrow comes on but the straight traffic keeps the green. If you try to go left from the optional turn lane and you stop when the red arrow is on but the thru traffic has a green, you'll probably get rear-ended. Very bad design.
Quote from: J Route Z on December 19, 2016, 02:01:37 AM
One example for me is when construction crews leave up road work signs for years and never take them down. I mean how could these professionals forget they are still up?
Bingo. I imagine some sort of Governmental Approval is required to certify that a project has been completed and punch list finished off before the sign is removed (possibly by the contractor?). But I pass one such "End Construction" sign every day from a project that was completed about 2 years ago. For about a year, that sign was in the middle of another construction zone marked with beginning and ending signs. I think one of the 4x4 posts is broken and the sign isn't very straight any more, so maybe the assumption was "it's not standing up properly, so nobody will read it". The "Construction Ahead" signs seem to get taken down more regularly than the "End Construction" signs.
This one is irrational and small but still irks, especially at the end of a long rush hour: signal phase for your left turn differs from expected.
Example: you're in a NB left turn lane at a 4-way signalized intersection. Cross traffic (EB-WB straight) has the green. The "usual" phases imply your turn is next:
...
NB-SB straight
EB-WB opposing left turns
EB-WB straight and right (current green)
NB-SB opposing left turns (you're NEXT!!!1!)
...
If that does not happen, if some other movement gets the green, the "they SKIPPED us" sensation is pretty strong.
In some areas with light rail transit that preempts the phases, it can actually reset the sequence to start further forward (or back) and then you truly have been skipped, and that's doubly frustrating.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 21, 2016, 06:33:16 PM
The thing TR69 mentions about the optional turn lane with weird light phasing can be dangerous. DC has that in a few places; the one I encounter most is at 18th and Constitution NW. The left-turn light is on first, with the straight light, and then the red turn arrow comes on but the straight traffic keeps the green. If you try to go left from the optional turn lane and you stop when the red arrow is on but the thru traffic has a green, you'll probably get rear-ended. Very bad design.
I was going to say this was not MUTCD compliant, particularly the Kentucky example, but it appears the use of separate left turn head manages to keep it compliant.
Quote from: MUTCD 4D.19 Paragraph 01A shared signal face shall not be used for protected only mode left turns unless the CIRCULAR GREEN and left-turn GREEN ARROW signal indications always begin and terminate together.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 21, 2016, 11:09:13 AM
- Watershed signs. Started with the Chesepeake Bay drainage. OK, that makes some sense as that bay does have unique environmental issues. But now it is getting copied all over. The WV Turnpike signs the Paint Creek Watershed. Paint Creek being a minor stream of no paricular scenic value with no enviornmental issues different from any other creek.
The purpose of watershed signs are to inform the public and emergency responders of drinking water protection zones where a contaminated spill could have significant negative impacts on public drinking water supplies in the area. The signs will alert them to wellhead and intake protection zones in the event of an accident causing a spill.
May have copied and pasted from an email I received. :)
Quote from: kurumi on December 21, 2016, 10:58:40 PM
the "they SKIPPED us" sensation is pretty strong.
This is one drawback of adaptive signals; drivers expect certain sequences and assume something is wrong if the algorithms select an alternate one. Apparently there are more customer complaints in these corridors. Sometimes I'm glad that my job doesn't revolve around taking public comments :)
One that bugs me is the "right lane must turn right" sign for a 100' tapered turn lane. I always assumed that sign was intended for a long through lane that finally ended. When you can see the beginning and end of the lane me thinks that sign is overkill.
Poorly maintained pavement.
Quote from: GaryV on December 21, 2016, 05:11:33 PM"Exit Only" lanes that don't indicate whether the next lane may exit as well (onto a 2-lane exit ramp). I was impressed with CA over 25 years ago when they labelled both lanes, especially when the exit ramp split (say for EB and WB directions). MI doesn't seem to ever label a permissive exit lane.
Since the 2009 edition of
MUTCD, this is by design except at exits equipped with APLs. It is a result of FHWA taking the position that it is worse to have through traffic changing lane unnecessarily to avoid an option lane than it is to have exiting traffic changing lane unnecessarily into the dropped lane.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
I never understand how people think that a cop has the power to tell his bosses that he's not going to do traffic enforcement, like he's assigned to do, or that's his actual job specification, and is supposed to just randomly do something else that he's not supposed to do, or even trained to do.
You can look at this two ways. Number one, the supervisors should be assigning the beat cops to other activities besides speed enforcement. Number two, the cop could voluntarily choose not to write any tickets while they're on patrol. But the existence of quotas -- yes, they deny they exist; and yes, they're lying when they do, because I've had it independently verified that quotas do exist, especially for federal programs like Click It or Ticket or Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over -- limits their ability to say, "Well, I worked these roads but didn't catch anyone speeding so I didn't write any tickets."
Quote from: Rothman on December 21, 2016, 01:31:52 PM
I don't know if people think the cop himself has the choice. I typically take such statements saying that the police in general have better things to do than traffic enforcement.
Me too. I'd much rather have the Lexington police patrolling the areas where there have been so many murders this year, or in areas with known drug or gang activity, than running radar on New Circle Road or I-75.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2016, 01:48:32 PM
Number two, the cop could voluntarily choose not to write any tickets while they're on patrol. But the existence of quotas -- yes, they deny they exist; and yes, they're lying when they do, because I've had it independently verified that quotas do exist, especially for federal programs like Click It or Ticket or Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over -- limits their ability to say, "Well, I worked these roads but didn't catch anyone speeding so I didn't write any tickets."
My understanding is that they don't have quotas, but they do have reviews like any other employee. And if during their review, they were found to be writing remarkably fewer tickets than other constables that patrolled the same stretch, that would reflect poorly on them, and they might be less likely to receive a pay raise or promotion.
That said, there is a little dilemma when it comes to ticketing expectations. If a constable is sitting on the side of the freeway doing radar, and he or she genuinely doesn't see anyone speeding, that would mean that they were doing their job (discouraging speeding through high visibility). But if "doing their job" means writing tickets, that would mean that drivers will always be speeding, and enforcement is pointless, because it never ends. Does that make any sense? Hard to explain.
Some of these have already been mentioned, but here are my top six. Why top six? Because I wanted to do a top five, but then I thought of another one that truly irked me.
1. Unstriped lanes on major roads, except in shared space designs. When traffic is moving faster than 20 or 30 MPH, there should be no ambiguity as to where the lanes are for same-direction parallel or diverging movements.
2. Absurdly low speed limits. Examples: 55 on a freeway where traffic can safely go 70, 45 on an expressway where the at-grade intersections aren't closely spaced, or 35 in a freeway construction zone unless something extremely dangerous is going on.
3. Traffic signals without at least two signal faces for the thru movement or main movement in each direction. It's not just wrong; it's also lazy.
4. Inconsistently signed routes. Either sign the whole route so anyone can follow it from beginning to end without prior knowledge, or don't sign it at all. Better yet, decommission it if you don't think it's worth signing consistently. Examples of this are all over the country, and it just looks sloppy and ugly when you're actually paying attention.
5. Poorly routed routes. These are sometimes influenced by a state law or mileage limit, but I think that's a lame excuse. Just change the law! If you want a state route in a certain place, designate one there. If you don't want one in another place, re-route it in a way that makes sense, or just truncate it or decommission it.
6. Inconsistent use of down arrows on overhead signs. Sometimes a down arrow really means "This lane is only for X," even if there is no "EXIT ONLY" panel, but other times it means "This is the lane you want to be in, in order to get to X," even if there are other reasons to use that lane. Pick one meaning and stick with it!
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2016, 03:48:23 PM
People who stick stubbornly to bogus roadgeek definitions such as Super 2 meaning a two-lane freeway.
My understanding was that "Super 2" meant a two-lane, undivided road that had all the other characteristics of a freeway (full grade separation) but couldn't be called a freeway because a freeway is divided by definition. And I thought "Super 2 Expressway" referred to a two-lane, undivided road that had grade separations and interchanges as well as some at-grade intersections. Of course, if you use the standard definitions of "freeway," "expressway," and "conventional road," both Super 2s and Super 2 Expressways fall into the "conventional road" category.
While we're at it, I get annoyed when people stubbornly think an expressway cannot have driveways or private road access points, even though that isn't a universally accepted part of the definition of "expressway." The road categories should refer to physical characteristics, not legal ones.
Quote from: kurumi on December 21, 2016, 10:58:40 PM
This one is irrational and small but still irks, especially at the end of a long rush hour: signal phase for your left turn differs from expected.
Example: you're in a NB left turn lane at a 4-way signalized intersection. Cross traffic (EB-WB straight) has the green. The "usual" phases imply your turn is next:
...
NB-SB straight
EB-WB opposing left turns
EB-WB straight and right (current green)
NB-SB opposing left turns (you're NEXT!!!1!)
...
If that does not happen, if some other movement gets the green, the "they SKIPPED us" sensation is pretty strong.
In some areas with light rail transit that preempts the phases, it can actually reset the sequence to start further forward (or back) and then you truly have been skipped, and that's doubly frustrating.
On a related note, when a light late at night turns red in my direction just as I approach it despite no one being there on the cross street to trip it. Also, two consecutive lights where the second one turns red just as you approach it from the first light, which also was red (this happens at two lights near a supermarket in my town; if I catch the first light red, 90% of the time I'm going to catch the second light red).
Unnecessary speed limits.
Nobody goes at 40 MPH on NY 5 in Lackawanna, for example.
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 23, 2016, 12:31:58 AM
2. Absurdly low speed limits. Examples: 55 on a freeway where traffic can safely go 70, 45 on an expressway where the at-grade intersections aren't closely spaced, or 35 in a freeway construction zone unless something extremely dangerous is going on.
Like the 45 mph zone on the Garden State Parkway over the Driscoll Bridge. Who has EVER gone 45 on the Parkway when there isn't traffic?
/rant
Quote from: swiftdo on December 23, 2016, 06:38:48 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 23, 2016, 12:31:58 AM
2. Absurdly low speed limits. Examples: 55 on a freeway where traffic can safely go 70, 45 on an expressway where the at-grade intersections aren't closely spaced, or 35 in a freeway construction zone unless something extremely dangerous is going on.
Like the 45 mph zone on the Garden State Parkway over the Driscoll Bridge. Who has EVER gone 45 on the Parkway when there isn't traffic?
/rant
The 45 was someone necessary when the lanes were 10 feet wide with no shoulders. Why it was never raised on the new bridge...who knows.
I've never heard of anyone ranting they were stopped for speeding in the 45 either, so I'm guessing it goes unenforced.
There's an unsigned 55 mph at the end of the NJ Turnpike as well (on paper, the 65 mph limit starts at MP 1.0. There's never a posted 55 limit going southbound; going northbound the last speed limit sign one sees is an unnecessary 50 mph sign the DRBA posts. But again, it's doubtful even the police are aware of the actual speed limit limitations as the southern end of the Turnpike.
Traffic lights on a main street that are not sequential/timed properly, especially when the system exists on other streets in the city.
I don't mind the occasional red light, but if I'm travelling down a main thoroughfare, I shouldn't have to stop every 50 feet for a light at a minimally used side street.
Quote from: BamaZeus on December 23, 2016, 11:02:40 AM
Traffic lights on a main street that are not sequential/timed properly, especially when the system exists on other streets in the city.
I don't mind the occasional red light, but if I'm travelling down a main thoroughfare, I shouldn't have to stop every 50 feet for a light at a minimally used side street.
Try an entire state set up that way. Then go to Illinois and see it for yourself. :banghead:
It is the most annoying fucking thing I can think of on the road (other than the drivers).
Lights on a major road that aren't synchronized. WA 99 in Lynnwood is like this and I can't stand driving on it for this very reason. I avoid that road when I can.
Signs and shields that have faded.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 20, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
-Any signal with fewer than two indications for a particular movement.
I agree with this one. I'm more and more amazed at how many intersections only have one left turn arrow per direction of traffic, and I wonder what happens when that one green arrow burns out and nobody knows they have a protected left.
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 20, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
-Any signal with fewer than two indications for a particular movement.
I agree with this one. I'm more and more amazed at how many intersections only have one left turn arrow per direction of traffic, and I wonder what happens when that one green arrow burns out and nobody knows they have a protected left.
That's like 99% of all intersections in Washington and Oregon. It's embarrassing, especially when you visit California and see how well signalized their intersections are (despite all the protected lefts). My guess is that neither will get on their shit until the MUTCD makes more signals a requirement.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2016, 09:21:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2016, 03:59:39 PMAnother common one is W4-2 (warning) instead of R3-7 (regulatory).
R3-7 itself is one of my bugbears--it is usually impossible to read far enough in advance for smoothly maneuvering into the trap lane (or out of it, as the case may be). Agencies in snowbird states like Arizona often just use R3-5 for trap lanes, but even an appropriate member of the R3-8 family would be infinitely better than R3-7.
I agree that R3-7 is not the best, and R3-8 is better. But still, both of those are actually regulatory, whereas W4-2 is not. And I'm apparently not the only one who hates this. See below:
Quote from: GaryV on December 21, 2016, 05:11:33 PM
"Right Lane Ends" sign that really means, "Right Lane Must Turn Right". If I'm in an unfamiliar area and know I'm going to be turning right, do I gamble on whether the lane ends before my intersection?
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2016, 09:21:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2016, 03:59:39 PMMy other big pet peeve is exit-only lanes that just have regular dashed lines next to them instead of either dotted or solid.
Like here? (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.057943,-95.7463432,3a,75y,37.47h,85.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GFiEUNDX4g5XKo1VkrYWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) Weaving lanes from one interchange to the next are an uncomfortable gray area.
Yes, exactly like that. And I prefer signing weaving lanes with continuous dots, from merge point to gore point. I've seen this done extensively in Texas, and I like it (as I like a lot of things Texas does with its highways).
Tennessee, especially on I-24, multiple times places the "on ramp lane continues (no merge needed)" sign on a 1/4 mile on-ramp.
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 23, 2016, 12:31:58 AM
2. Absurdly low speed limits. Examples: 55 on a freeway where traffic can safely go 70, 45 on an expressway where the at-grade intersections aren't closely spaced, or 35 in a freeway construction zone unless something extremely dangerous is going on.
Like I-35E in St. Paul? Nobody goes 45 there, except for weirdos. I've always wanted to do a guerrilla campaign and paste fives over the fours to make the speed limit 55 instead (at least until MnDOT goes out and replaces all the signs I've defaced.) :bigass:
Super-2 discussion split to new thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19403.msg2194056
Quote from: stridentweasel on December 23, 2016, 12:31:58 AM
Some of these have already been mentioned, but here are my top six. Why top six? Because I wanted to do a top five, but then I thought of another one that truly irked me.
1. Unstriped lanes on major roads, except in shared space designs. When traffic is moving faster than 20 or 30 MPH, there should be no ambiguity as to where the lanes are for same-direction parallel or diverging movements.
2. Absurdly low speed limits. Examples: 55 on a freeway where traffic can safely go 70, 45 on an expressway where the at-grade intersections aren't closely spaced, or 35 in a freeway construction zone unless something extremely dangerous is going on.
3. Traffic signals without at least two signal faces for the thru movement or main movement in each direction. It's not just wrong; it's also lazy.
4. Inconsistently signed routes. Either sign the whole route so anyone can follow it from beginning to end without prior knowledge, or don't sign it at all. Better yet, decommission it if you don't think it's worth signing consistently. Examples of this are all over the country, and it just looks sloppy and ugly when you're actually paying attention.
5. Poorly routed routes. These are sometimes influenced by a state law or mileage limit, but I think that's a lame excuse. Just change the law! If you want a state route in a certain place, designate one there. If you don't want one in another place, re-route it in a way that makes sense, or just truncate it or decommission it.
6. Inconsistent use of down arrows on overhead signs. Sometimes a down arrow really means "This lane is only for X," even if there is no "EXIT ONLY" panel, but other times it means "This is the lane you want to be in, in order to get to X," even if there are other reasons to use that lane. Pick one meaning and stick with it!
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2016, 03:48:23 PM
People who stick stubbornly to bogus roadgeek definitions such as Super 2 meaning a two-lane freeway.
My understanding was that "Super 2" meant a two-lane, undivided road that had all the other characteristics of a freeway (full grade separation) but couldn't be called a freeway because a freeway is divided by definition. And I thought "Super 2 Expressway" referred to a two-lane, undivided road that had grade separations and interchanges as well as some at-grade intersections. Of course, if you use the standard definitions of "freeway," "expressway," and "conventional road," both Super 2s and Super 2 Expressways fall into the "conventional road" category.
While we're at it, I get annoyed when people stubbornly think an expressway cannot have driveways or private road access points, even though that isn't a universally accepted part of the definition of "expressway." The road categories should refer to physical characteristics, not legal ones.
#2 especially bothers me. There are a lot of roads in the Appleton, WI, area that are 25 mph that could easily be 30 (Kensington Drive between Calumet/County KK and College/County CE; and also Spencer Street east of Nicolet Road). 25 is unenforceable and frequently ignored (people regularly go 30-32 on the latter), and besides, Casaloma Drive between Spencer and Prospect (County BB) is even more residential than parts of Spencer and has a 35 limit. I'm just asking for reasonable, consistent speed limits.
And when I come across a freeway with a 55 or lower limit when it could (and should) be 65 or higher, my only reaction is this:
#4 - very annoying. Sometimes when I'm keeping route logs of my little drives around the area or whatever, I'll see a sign for a highway I didn't know I was on, and because any arterial really could have a highway designation, I've probably failed to record several dozen highway miles this year alone. (Yes, I keep track of all my county/state/federal highway miles on significant trips in a spreadsheet.) It's simple, people: sign the whole route, from start to finish, and place a reassurance marker after every major intersection.
#5 - I totally agree. There are so many poorly routed highways it's insane, and they keep coming up with silly routings: not too long ago, US 45 was routed out of downtown Fond Du Lac, WI, onto a new routing involving US 151 S (really west), US (I) 41 N, and WI 23 E before meeting back up with its original routing along the shore of Lake Winnebago. They should have just done US 151 S to US(I) 41 N to the existing 41/45 interchange in Oshkosh, and turned the section of 45 between Oshkosh and Fond du Lac into a state highway. Make the route easy to understand, people.
When ODOT screws up their own signage. There are signs on US-127 that are actually OH-127 signs (there is no OH-127 as Ohio does not allow route numbers to be duplicated across Interstate, US, and state routes). There was a sign at the entrance to I-71 in Norwood, that had a OH-71 logo on it for a couple years. They fixed it before I got around to bugging them about it :-D
When they widened US-22/OH-3 in northern Hamilton and southern Warren counties, they got a number of the directional signs wrong. For example, it is supposed to say EAST US-22/NORTH OH-3, but several places is says NORTH US-22/EAST OH-3.
I am sure this happens in other states, too.
I'm going to add another one: not posting END signs at the termini of routes. I realize not all states do this, but those that do, need to do so consistently always. I get sad when I go hunting to take a picture of an END marker, only to find there isn't one. :-/
Quote from: frankenroad on December 29, 2016, 02:26:50 PM
When ODOT screws up their own signage.
I'd be more worried if ODOT started screwing up someone else's signage...
Toll pricing on the one mile advance guide for a toll plaza in Florida has been yellowed out and only the sign that lists the price is just before the toll plaza. Why did they even do that? Send out a work order to cover up the price of the toll which needs to be said, and only have it at the plaza proper is beyond me.
We get a lot of people here complaining about that one and even though if it were done again we still would have many ask as well, but its the principal of it. Even before I became a collector, on the Polk Parkway in Lakeland it used to make me wonder why the one mile advanced had a yellow cover up over what was once the needed to know price of the upcoming toll. Even if its because FDOT likes to raise tolls a lot and it may be a measure to avoid future work orders to change the numbers, its still needed as many in our nation do not even expect a toll booth despite Florida using TOLL on all route shields while driving here.
Then the signal timings irk me and the fact you have protected left turns give out arrows holding up the traffic on the other straight through roads. One time all four directions at one intersection I stopped at near my house had cars waiting for a red light to turn green in three different directions with no one moving because the loop failed in one direction with no traffic at all that made an indefinite wait for the others. Plus here in Orange County, FL our engineers do not know squat about making signals all work together and giving them the best timing especially the ones with the cameras for light running. Of course the latter is obvious because they make money from fines and what better way to get them by tempting people to run it, but its still wrong!
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 08:00:08 AM
....the best timing especially the ones with the cameras for light running. Of course the latter is obvious because they make money from fines and what better way to get them by tempting people to run it, but its still wrong!
No the wonderful people in out city and county governments are looking out for our safety...
If you dont want a ticket dont run the red light
(Sarcasm)
LGMS428
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 30, 2016, 01:35:27 PM
I'm going to add another one: not posting END signs at the termini of routes. I realize not all states do this, but those that do, need to do so consistently always. I get sad when I go hunting to take a picture of an END marker, only to find there isn't one. :-/
Doubly irritating when the numbered route ends but the physical road continues. Some poor sap following a route can suddenly find himself lost out in the middle of nowhere.
A big one: lack of traffic enforcement by officers.
Drivers on their phones, drivers using bike lanes and sidewalks, drivers using bus lanes during rush hour and holding up thousands of commuters, drivers ignoring pedestrian right-of-way, etc etc.
It would be nice to have a crackdown on bad driver behaviors for even a month or two just to see how different it would make the city.
For today, I hate signage in New Jersey. Small signs, small fonts, incomplete information, inadequate advance signage (e.g., for the GSP coming southbound on NJ 17)...
...and they got rid of the squiggly exit arrows on the NJT.
Quote from: Bruce on January 04, 2017, 10:40:08 PM
A big one: lack of traffic enforcement by officers.
Drivers on their phones, drivers using bike lanes and sidewalks, drivers using bus lanes during rush hour and holding up thousands of commuters, drivers ignoring pedestrian right-of-way, etc etc.
It would be nice to have a crackdown on bad driver behaviors for even a month or two just to see how different it would make the city.
I'll throw out some additional people generated road hazards:
1. People who don't turn off their damn sprinklers when the temperature dips below freezing and ice up neighborhood streets with black ice.
2. People who slow way down in tunnels or whenever a source of light changes, even if there isn't any traffic around.
3. People who are going to turn but slow way down in advance. The worst is on high capacity ramps where someone blows by you at 15 MPH over on the freeway just to cut you off and go 10 MPH under the limit to slog in front of you for half a mile.
4. People who tailgate in the rain or after a storm has cleared up.
Some winter stuff that can be frustrating:
1. DOTs that use sand instead of salt, always seemed to me the salt worked better.
2. Park Service roads in general in areas prone to snow. Really at best they are just a scraping attempt with a plow that often just leads to a compacted snow driving surface.
Quote from: Bruce on January 04, 2017, 10:40:08 PM
drivers using bus lanes during rush hour
This one gets me too, since I take the bus almost daily. Don't see it often though where I am.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2017, 12:47:52 AM
1. DOTs that use sand instead of salt, always seemed to me the salt worked better.
Except when the temperature outside is almost constantly below the point where salt is effective, such is the case in my frigid climate :-P
http://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/thermoscope/when-does-salt-work-and-when-does-it-not
http://globalnews.ca/news/1060218/temperatures-too-cold-for-salt-making-roads-slick/
Quote from: SignGeek101 on January 05, 2017, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 04, 2017, 10:40:08 PM
drivers using bus lanes during rush hour
This one gets me too, since I take the bus almost daily. Don't see it often though where I am.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2017, 12:47:52 AM
1. DOTs that use sand instead of salt, always seemed to me the salt worked better.
Except when the temperature outside is almost constantly below the point where salt is effective, such is the case in my frigid climate :-P
http://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/thermoscope/when-does-salt-work-and-when-does-it-not
http://globalnews.ca/news/1060218/temperatures-too-cold-for-salt-making-roads-slick/
Which definitely wasn't that cold on the Rim Country in Arizona or least it wouldn't stay that way once the sun came up. People usually find that strange when I tell them how much snow some of the cities up there could get, Flagstaff got 100 inches every year. Show Low was about 30 from what I remember and even Payson got about two feet. Just imagine drivers coming from Phoenix into those environments and you can get the gist of how things could get at times. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2017, 11:03:59 PM
For today, I hate signage in New Jersey. Small signs, small fonts, incomplete information, inadequate advance signage (e.g., for the GSP coming southbound on NJ 17)...
I don't want to take this too far off-topic, but I've honestly found New Jersey's signage to be much better overall than signage in many other states, especially some western and midwestern states. Sure, it's not always perfect, but I've usually found it to be quite legible and informative, especially when it comes to signing jughandles. It looks like the MUTCD basically adopted New Jersey's style of jughandle signage, and, frankly, I'm glad, because I've often found jughandles in other states (even though they're rare outside of the northeast) to have disappointing signage.
Quote
...and they got rid of the squiggly exit arrows on the NJT.
This does make me sad. There were some inconsistencies in the application of the older style of New Jersey Turnpike signage, but I would have rather seen the New Jersey Turnpike apply its own signage style guide and use it consistently, and maybe even influence some other freeways/toll roads to adopt that style. It would have been nice to see the MUTCD adopt New Jersey Turnpike-style signage someday, instead of the New Jersey Turnpike discontinuing its own style in favor of what was already in the MUTCD.
Quote from: stridentweasel on January 05, 2017, 02:05:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2017, 11:03:59 PM
For today, I hate signage in New Jersey. Small signs, small fonts, incomplete information, inadequate advance signage (e.g., for the GSP coming southbound on NJ 17)...
I don't want to take this too far off-topic, but I've honestly found New Jersey's signage to be much better overall than signage in many other states, especially some western and midwestern states. Sure, it's not always perfect, but I've usually found it to be quite legible and informative, especially when it comes to signing jughandles. It looks like the MUTCD basically adopted New Jersey's style of jughandle signage, and, frankly, I'm glad, because I've often found jughandles in other states (even though they're rare outside of the northeast) to have disappointing signage.
https://goo.gl/maps/fxWMophAuoD2 : No advance warning that right lane is exit only.
https://goo.gl/maps/A4vs7Q6WGJQ2 : It's this small BGS stuff that bugs me in NJ.
https://goo.gl/maps/vgjkuhvGQ6M2 : Smaller sign and no advance sign that this is coming up.
I know these are all along NJ 17, but this crap is pretty darned typical.
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2017, 08:48:11 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on January 05, 2017, 02:05:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 04, 2017, 11:03:59 PM
For today, I hate signage in New Jersey. Small signs, small fonts, incomplete information, inadequate advance signage (e.g., for the GSP coming southbound on NJ 17)...
I don't want to take this too far off-topic, but I've honestly found New Jersey's signage to be much better overall than signage in many other states, especially some western and midwestern states. Sure, it's not always perfect, but I've usually found it to be quite legible and informative, especially when it comes to signing jughandles. It looks like the MUTCD basically adopted New Jersey's style of jughandle signage, and, frankly, I'm glad, because I've often found jughandles in other states (even though they're rare outside of the northeast) to have disappointing signage.
https://goo.gl/maps/fxWMophAuoD2 : No advance warning that right lane is exit only.
https://goo.gl/maps/A4vs7Q6WGJQ2 : It's this small BGS stuff that bugs me in NJ.
https://goo.gl/maps/vgjkuhvGQ6M2 : Smaller sign and no advance sign that this is coming up.
I know these are all along NJ 17, but this crap is pretty darned typical.
Now that you point those examples out, I do tend to agree with you. In some instances, they went overboard with signage, such as this overhead coming from a local county road with a low traffic count: https://goo.gl/maps/v6u45dEnZMk , but yet whenever I've brought up that they need much better signage on 73 between 295 and the NJ Turnpike where the ADT approaches 60,000 vehicles a day to know what lane to be in, they've fought and argued with me on it that small green signs on the shoulder are more than adequate for that section of roadway.
When INDOT does crap like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.317831,-85.7529605,3a,51.7y,169.87h,73.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sizzHyY83VHnD55ODuKXLRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Instead of creating a smooth surface between the overpass and the roadway and maintaining it, they either pour too much asphalt in the gap or purposely raise the asphalt into a hump. Traveling over this feels like you've hit a pothole or speed bump.
Quote from: ukfan758 on January 11, 2017, 02:51:54 AM
When INDOT does crap like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.317831,-85.7529605,3a,51.7y,169.87h,73.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sizzHyY83VHnD55ODuKXLRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Instead of creating a smooth surface between the overpass and the roadway and maintaining it, they either pour too much asphalt in the gap or purposely raise the asphalt into a hump. Traveling over this feels like you've hit a pothole or speed bump.
That just looks like a bridge end settling. Those are hard to fix if the fill at the end of the bridge keeps settling.
It's just odd that I've only seen it occur in that area of 65, on the Kentucky side I don't see the raised humps from settling. Different bridge designs, geography, patching methods?
Quote from: ukfan758 on January 11, 2017, 02:51:54 AM
When INDOT does crap like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.317831,-85.7529605,3a,51.7y,169.87h,73.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sizzHyY83VHnD55ODuKXLRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Instead of creating a smooth surface between the overpass and the roadway and maintaining it, they either pour too much asphalt in the gap or purposely raise the asphalt into a hump. Traveling over this feels like you've hit a pothole or speed bump.
I think this was done to temper a problem that was even worse to begin with--a huge gap opened between the deck and the approach, and they tried to temper it with some makeshift patchwork.
Quote from: ukfan758 on January 11, 2017, 10:41:00 AM
It's just odd that I've only seen it occur in that area of 65, on the Kentucky side I don't see the raised humps from settling. Different bridge designs, geography, patching methods?
It probably was caused based on what is under the ground at that point. Just a few feet can make a big difference. If they didn't test exactly at the same point as the bridge foundation or footers, they may not have designed the sub-base of the bridge properly.
Quote from: ukfan758 on January 11, 2017, 10:41:00 AM
It's just odd that I've only seen it occur in that area of 65, on the Kentucky side I don't see the raised humps from settling. Different bridge designs, geography, patching methods?
New bridges around here are terrible for settling. It's not uncommon for our crews to have to go in and wedge them with cold mix several times. It can take years for them to quit settling.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 20, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
Traffic signals with a weak presence, so you hardly notice them. If one person fails to notice a red light, that's a recipe for a crash. This includes:
-A lack of overhead signal heads (i.e. all are post-mounted)
-A lack of signal backplates
-Any 8-inch sections. The old-timey feel of 12-8-8s is nice, but practicality is more important.
-Signals strung up on wires instead of mast arms. That's right. That's basically every signal in the eastern time zone. Mast arms have a stronger presence and are easier to foresee from an earlier distance imo.
-Any signal with fewer than two indications for a particular movement.
In short, I have a disdain for any signal that fails to meet Illinois DOT's basic standards (except doghouses are ok).
One time, I was driving on US35 in western Ohio and nearly blew right through a red light, because I didn't notice that the signal WAS THERE. It was a bunch of cable-mounted 8-inch signals, go figure. (it may have been this signal https://goo.gl/maps/FEFRXZFtHwT2 )
downtown Tulsa is the worst with that. I blew threw a red light one time and nearly t boned someone and slammed on my brakes got out to confront the person who hit theirs and was screaming at me and then noticed how stupid I was for not noticing the light. Well, it was pretty hard to spot anyways.
Left turn exits on freeways with the exception of HOV or hot lane entrances and exits.
Gantries that have no signage on them.
Abandoned rest stops or no rest stops in general.
Expressways that have too many at grade crossings and traffic lights like NW "Expressway"
Roads that are designed for high speeds with low speed limits then always have police hidden along them
Quote from: ukfan758 on January 11, 2017, 02:51:54 AM
When INDOT does crap like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.317831,-85.7529605,3a,51.7y,169.87h,73.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sizzHyY83VHnD55ODuKXLRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Instead of creating a smooth surface between the overpass and the roadway and maintaining it, they either pour too much asphalt in the gap or purposely raise the asphalt into a hump. Traveling over this feels like you've hit a pothole or speed bump.
That looks like a pavement control joint at the end of a bridge approach slab. Many DOTs are getting away from using expansion joints at the end of bridge decks and instead using an integral or semi-integral abutment design. Such designs have the benefit of not requiring expansion joints (which can leak, causing premature bridge deterioration) but require this type of control joint which is designed to allow pavement to deflect some of the stresses on the abutment from expansion and contraction.
Quote from: Eth on January 27, 2017, 07:57:40 AM
Ossining -> G*ville
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Fsign_photos%2Fnames%2Fgainesville.jpg&hash=485ad913be57fdefc128060016d066a457a2b27b)
I cross-posted this from another thread because it illustrates three of my pet sign design peeves. First is the practice of 'squeezing' lane assignment arrows into a narrow panel width, instead of designing the panel to have the arrows properly align over the lanes they apply to. Second is the practice of requiring all panels on a sign gantry to be the same height, even if one or more panels have excessive green area (like the I-85 panel). Third is exit tabs that extend the full width of the sign panel, instead of being left or right justified per MUTCD standard. In this case, the second and third points likely resulted in a more complex sign gantry than would otherwise be required.
Tree cutting operations in mountain roads. I'm in one presently and basically they are almost always a complete disaster in terms of organization and wait times with flag men.
I think GA DOT is going to make an OAPL at the I-985 interchange and the design plan I seem to recall had the directonal tabbing scheme that Georgia's neighboring states use, including a yellow LEFT Banner.
As another poster said about the distinctive signage of the NJTP. I do miss it, even though the NJTP is not in my top 10 road list.
From Mass:
-Constant "studies" regarding new road construction.
-There are few signs telling motorists where state maintenance ends and town maintenance begins (I'm sure some places in MA are great about putting these signs up.)
- Sequential exits. Just go with the rest of the country: mileage based.
-The Cape Cod Commission getting their fingers in projects here on the cape.
This is US 422 east of Youngstown.
Notice anything about this intersection?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0909004,-80.6107281,78m/data=!3m1!1e3
Two things I notice:
422 becomes McCartney Road just west of the intersection.
The road narrows from 2 travel lanes in each direction to one travel lane in each direction as you go east. In looking at street view, it confirmed my suspicion that the left east-bound lane becomes a left-turn only lane at the intersection. Is that what irks you?
Was either of those what you wanted us to notice?
Quote from: frankenroad on January 29, 2017, 04:18:20 PM
Two things I notice:
422 becomes McCartney Road just west of the intersection.
The road narrows from 2 travel lanes in each direction to one travel lane in each direction as you go east. In looking at street view, it confirmed my suspicion that the left east-bound lane becomes a left-turn only lane at the intersection. Is that what irks you?
Was either of those what you wanted us to notice?
No.
It's not as apparent on the satellite view, but notice the alignment of the white and yellow lines for the eastbound turn lane. And, slightly, the westbound approach to the intersection doesn't line up with the west side of the intersection.
GSV hasn't been through to update what it looks from the driver's perspective. But, if you follow the lines, they don't go straight. At all. The EB left turn lane should have yellow hashmarks, since the right lane suddenly gets wider and then narrows right at what would be the stop line.
The city repaved it recently (it was pothole nirvana before that), but the line painters didn't seem to know what they were doing.
A similar thing happens here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2206241,-80.5190136,140m/data=!3m1!1e3
But, at least the excuse is that it's right near a state line. WB US 62 is two narrow lanes in PA. When you cross the interection, note that the center yellow curls to the east, instead of straight. And the lanes in Ohio are a bit wider. So, if you're in the left lane heading WB on US62, you have to job over a bit for your lane, and avoid the fact that you can't use the yellow endi a a reference since it immediately angles you back toward the right. But, the white dashed lines don't line up with the lane you were just in.
To tell better, remove labels, and follow the black tar line between the WB left lane and the WB left turn lane. See where it ends up across the state line.
Something that I have seen more and more of, missing overhead street name signs attached to traffic signals. A couple of examples: https://goo.gl/maps/UgNSvMqf2xq
https://goo.gl/maps/yzZ3VAnTkYK2
along with dozens more here in NJ. I realize at some intersections may have signage on each signal arm, I find it better to be posted on both for drivers in both directions to see clearly what street they are intersecting.
What could be the cause for these missing? I doubt it's theft but you never know in this crazy world.
Quote from: J Route Z on March 02, 2018, 02:12:15 AM
Something that I have seen more and more of, missing overhead street name signs attached to traffic signals.
In Tacoma (WA), where I spend much of my time, it's not particularly uncommon for one or more approaches to lack a street blade. Not sure if the setup was intentional (no way theft could be an issue -- the street blades are mounted on mast arms), but it's not my favorite. I too prefer one street blade per mast arm (as I'm sure most roadgeeks do).
Quote from: J Route Z on March 02, 2018, 02:12:15 AM
Something that I have seen more and more of, missing overhead street name signs attached to traffic signals. A couple of examples: https://goo.gl/maps/UgNSvMqf2xq
https://goo.gl/maps/yzZ3VAnTkYK2
along with dozens more here in NJ. I realize at some intersections may have signage on each signal arm, I find it better to be posted on both for drivers in both directions to see clearly what street they are intersecting.
What could be the cause for these missing? I doubt it's theft but you never know in this crazy world.
NJDOT generally did one blade per direction; some counties did two blades per direction.
It's highly unlikely someone bypassed a whole bunch of easy-to-get-to signs to get an overhead sign. Those overhead signs generally have simply fallen off over the years, sometimes wind, rusty brackets, etc.
The main thing I can think of that irks me about roads the most is when there are violations or less-than-optimally numbered highways in the grid, since I am a grid nazi. :sombrero:
This includes roads like I-180 (WY), I-99, I-97, I-238, I-82, and more. I just wish the latter four interstates were not numbered like that, and that "Interstate" 180 in Wyoming wasn't actually designated as an interstate (as it is nowhere close - it is a surface street). :-D :pan: :banghead:
This stuff bothers me a good bit. :ded:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
This includes roads like I-180 (WY), I-99, I-97, I-238, I-82, and more. I just wish the latter four interstates were not numbered like that, and that "Interstate" 180 in Wyoming wasn't actually designated as an interstate (as it is nowhere close - it is a surface street). :-D :pan: :banghead:
Well, I can tolerate I-99, since it is going to eventually connect Altoona, PA to Rochester, NY. I-97 and I-238 I can agree with, as the former should've been an extension of I-70 or I-83, or perhaps I-995, and the latter should be renumbered to I-480 (although I can see why nobody in the Bay Area wants it back because it once belonged to the despised Embarcadero Freeway that damn near ruined San Francisco). I-82 is a remnant from when I-84 was still known as I-80N, so that also gets a pass from me. But yeah, I-180 is one huge pain in the ass.
As for my own pet peeves about highways, it's stretches of urban freeway where there are no working streetlights. This makes nighttime driving dangerous, and I've always hated when they don't turn on because of a number of factors (light burnout, stolen copper wire, etc.) Hell, I'd even take the orange sodium-vapor lights over no lighting any night, although I'm liking the white of the new LEDs as well.
Quote from: Henry on March 02, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
I-82 is a remnant from when I-84 was still known as I-80N, so that also gets a pass from me.
If it was an odd number, there would be no problem.
If there were no duplicated even numbers near 82, it also would not be a problem.
Both of these combined make it a problem.
Quote from: Henry on March 02, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
This includes roads like I-180 (WY), I-99, I-97, I-238, I-82, and more. I just wish the latter four interstates were not numbered like that, and that "Interstate" 180 in Wyoming wasn't actually designated as an interstate (as it is nowhere close - it is a surface street). :-D :pan: :banghead:
Well, I can tolerate I-99, since it is going to eventually connect Altoona, PA to Rochester, NY. I-97 and I-238 I can agree with, as the former should've been an extension of I-70 or I-83, or perhaps I-995, and the latter should be renumbered to I-480 (although I can see why nobody in the Bay Area wants it back because it once belonged to the despised Embarcadero Freeway that damn near ruined San Francisco). I-82 is a remnant from when I-84 was still known as I-80N, so that also gets a pass from me. But yeah, I-180 is one huge pain in the ass.
As for my own pet peeves about highways, it's stretches of urban freeway where there are no working streetlights. This makes nighttime driving dangerous, and I've always hated when they don't turn on because of a number of factors (light burnout, stolen copper wire, etc.) Hell, I'd even take the orange sodium-vapor lights over no lighting any night, although I'm liking the white of the new LEDs as well.
I-238 distracts everyone from how unnecessary the I-980 designation is. IMO it should still be part of CA 24.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2018, 12:04:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 02, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
This includes roads like I-180 (WY), I-99, I-97, I-238, I-82, and more. I just wish the latter four interstates were not numbered like that, and that "Interstate" 180 in Wyoming wasn't actually designated as an interstate (as it is nowhere close - it is a surface street). :-D :pan: :banghead:
Well, I can tolerate I-99, since it is going to eventually connect Altoona, PA to Rochester, NY. I-97 and I-238 I can agree with, as the former should've been an extension of I-70 or I-83, or perhaps I-995, and the latter should be renumbered to I-480 (although I can see why nobody in the Bay Area wants it back because it once belonged to the despised Embarcadero Freeway that damn near ruined San Francisco). I-82 is a remnant from when I-84 was still known as I-80N, so that also gets a pass from me. But yeah, I-180 is one huge pain in the ass.
As for my own pet peeves about highways, it's stretches of urban freeway where there are no working streetlights. This makes nighttime driving dangerous, and I've always hated when they don't turn on because of a number of factors (light burnout, stolen copper wire, etc.) Hell, I'd even take the orange sodium-vapor lights over no lighting any night, although I'm liking the white of the new LEDs as well.
I-238 distracts everyone from how unnecessary the I-980 designation is. IMO it should still be part of CA 24.
Interstate 238 must really be a distraction, because apparently I don't think I even knew that I-980 existed until just now. :-D
And now that I know about it, not only is it unnecessary, but it looks like Interstate 980 itself is even a numbering violation, since it has an odd first number (as a 3di, and it is supposed to be a spur), but it ends at interstates on both ends. :hmm:
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2018, 09:34:00 AM
Quote from: Henry on March 02, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
I-82 is a remnant from when I-84 was still known as I-80N, so that also gets a pass from me.
If it was an odd number, there would be no problem.
If there were no duplicated even numbers near 82, it also would not be a problem.
Both of these combined make it a problem.
I think I-82 got it's even number because o it's function of taking traffic from the East to Seattle region( and vice versa) . The overall corridor is east west... Like i4 takes traffic between the east and west coast of Florida but for much of it's route and through the busy Orlando metro it is due North-south for the most part
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on March 02, 2018, 12:49:29 PM
I think I-82 got it's even number because o it's function of taking traffic from the East to Seattle region( and vice versa) .
Things like I-82, US-52, and MN-23 make me wish there were NW/SE/NE/SW directional banners in the MUTCD. That way DOTs don't have to shoehorn diagonal routes into one or the other.
Quote from: jwolfer on March 02, 2018, 12:49:29 PM
I think I-82 got it's even number because of it's function of taking traffic from the East to Seattle region( and vice versa) .
This has been my understanding as well. Obviously, Inland Empire residents use I-82 for travel between (eg) the Tri-Cities, Selah, or Yakima, but more traffic is bound for cross-pass travel than anything else (and thus a more east-west movement). I can't support that assertion with data, however. Just a hunch.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
The main thing I can think of that irks me about roads the most is when there are violations or less-than-optimally numbered highways in the grid, since I am a grid nazi. :sombrero:
This includes roads like I-180 (WY), I-99, I-97, I-238, I-82, and more. I just wish the latter four interstates were not numbered like that, and that "Interstate" 180 in Wyoming wasn't actually designated as an interstate (as it is nowhere close - it is a surface street). :-D :pan: :banghead:
This stuff bothers me a good bit. :ded:
Preach!
Quote from: epzik8 on December 20, 2016, 04:22:10 AM
Intersections without advance warning signs for the cross street, like we have all over Maryland.
Pennsylvania is one of the worst at this. When I drive in MD and NY I feel like I'm going into the future.
Nexus 6P
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
The main thing I can think of that irks me about roads the most is when there are violations or less-than-optimally numbered highways in the grid, since I am a grid nazi. :sombrero:
This includes roads like I-180 (WY), I-99, I-97, I-238, I-82, and more. I just wish the latter four interstates were not numbered like that, and that "Interstate" 180 in Wyoming wasn't actually designated as an interstate (as it is nowhere close - it is a surface street). :-D :pan: :banghead:
This stuff bothers me a good bit. :ded:
Same here. US 30 being north of 26 and both being north of US20 and all 3 being north of US 6.
Also heavy (20 MPH or more) drops in the speed limit bugs me. Improper/too little warning for upcoming streets/exits and lane ending then comes back in a mile bugs me.
For me, it's the Interstate system in general. I don't care so much about numbering violations, but slapping Interstate numbers where they don't belong is becoming more common. Such reasons include:
-Interstates with stoplights: I-70 PA, I-676 PA, I-180 WY, etc.
-Incomplete Interstates that disappear in the middle of nowhere: I-73 NC, I-74 NC, I-69 IN, etc.
-Interstates that terminate without any way to continue on the Interstate system: I-72 IL, I-180 IL, etc.
-Interstates entirely covered by a US route: I-41 WI, I-865 IN, etc.
Honestly, if time isn't a concern, I'd stay off of them. The traffic is heavy, the drivers are mostly dumb, the cops patrol them a lot more, there is no escape if there is a traffic jam, and there is nowhere to pull aside (like a parking lot, etc.) if I want to answer a text quickly.
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 04, 2018, 09:57:26 PM
For me, it's the Interstate system in general. I don't care so much about numbering violations, but slapping Interstate numbers where they don't belong is becoming more common. Such reasons include:
-Interstates with stoplights: I-70 PA, I-676 PA, I-180 WY, etc.
-Incomplete Interstates that disappear in the middle of nowhere: I-73 NC, I-74 NC, I-69 IN, etc.
-Interstates that terminate without any way to continue on the Interstate system: I-72 IL, I-180 IL, etc.
-Interstates entirely covered by a US route: I-41 WI, I-865 IN, etc.
Honestly, if time isn't a concern, I'd stay off of them. The traffic is heavy, the drivers are mostly dumb, the cops patrol them a lot more, there is no escape if there is a traffic jam, and there is nowhere to pull aside (like a parking lot, etc.) if I want to answer a text quickly.
Stoplights: For I-70, it's a problem with the interchange, not a problem with the Interstate designation. The other two are genuine problems.
Disappear in the middle of nowhere: This happened a lot when they were being created (first 10-20 years of the system's existence or so). Also, I-73 doesn't have any gaps.
Terminate without any way to continue: Spurs are supposed to be spurs. As for I-72, just truncate it to the last Interstate if absolutely necessary.
Covered by a US route: Except for I-25, I agree with you here.
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 04, 2018, 09:57:26 PM
For me, it's the Interstate system in general. I don't care so much about numbering violations, but slapping Interstate numbers where they don't belong is becoming more common......
Honestly, if time isn't a concern, I'd stay off of them. The traffic is heavy, the drivers are mostly dumb, the cops patrol them a lot more, there is no escape if there is a traffic jam, and there is nowhere to pull aside (like a parking lot, etc.) if I want to answer a text quickly.
I found the bolded statement mildly amusing.
I can't say I've ever heard an anti-interstate argument like this made before. It made me think a little bit. I've decided most of those points are pretty debatable, and could also apply to other types of roads, too. For example, traffic can be bad everywhere, drivers can certainly be bad everywhere, police in NY patrol small towns just as much as interstates, passengers can answer texts, and so on.
Besides the well-known problems (Breezewood, etc.) I think the interstste system serves its function quite well, and it certainly isn't something I find irksome. What do you think should be done differently?
Quote from: webny99 on March 04, 2018, 10:30:22 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on March 04, 2018, 09:57:26 PM
For me, it's the Interstate system in general. I don't care so much about numbering violations, but slapping Interstate numbers where they don't belong is becoming more common......
Honestly, if time isn't a concern, I'd stay off of them. The traffic is heavy, the drivers are mostly dumb, the cops patrol them a lot more, there is no escape if there is a traffic jam, and there is nowhere to pull aside (like a parking lot, etc.) if I want to answer a text quickly.
I found the bolded statement mildly amusing.
I can't say I've ever heard an anti-interstate argument like this made before. It made me think a little bit. I've decided most of those points are pretty debatable, and could also apply to other types of roads, too. For example, traffic can be bad everywhere, drivers can certainly be bad everywhere, police in NY patrol small towns just as much as interstates, passengers can answer texts, and so on.
Besides the well-known problems (Breezewood, etc.) I think the interstste system serves its function quite well, and it certainly isn't something I find irksome. What do you think should be done differently?
While I myself am definitely an incredibly huge fan of the Interstate Highway System, I have definitely seen people who aren't as much a fan of it.
I don't remember the specific reasons, but my uncle (mother's brother) might avoid interstates at all costs (and my grandfather (mother's father) is exactly the same way, but even more so), if I heard my mom correctly. He lives near Cedartown, Georgia, which isn't that close to any interstate, so he can get away with it at home. When most of that side of my family (including my mom, brother, and I) went to Cadiz, Kentucky in October 2013, we had no choice but to take the interstates most of the way (including him), but I think he tries to avoid interstates whenever possible. He likes divided highways much better. As I said, I forget the reasons with him, but it may very well be for things like liking traffic signals (stops) better than non-stop driving with occasional rests, lower speed limits in general, less traffic in general, less police to be stopped by in general, less accidents in general, more places and easier to stop and pull off, and more.
I love interstates, but there are understandably definitely some people who are less fond of them.
The late CBS journalist Charles Kuralt had this to say about the interstate system:
Quote"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel across the country from coast to coast without seeing anything."
The more I travel, the more I have come to believe this is a true statement.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2018, 04:23:26 AM
Quote"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel across the country from coast to coast without seeing anything."
The more I travel, the more I have come to believe this is a true statement.
Could you suggest a route for us that would accomplish this?
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2018, 08:07:23 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2018, 04:23:26 AM
Quote"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel across the country from coast to coast without seeing anything."
The more I travel, the more I have come to believe this is a true statement.
Could you suggest a route for us that would accomplish this?
I'm not sure what your question is.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2018, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2018, 08:07:23 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2018, 04:23:26 AM
Quote"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel across the country from coast to coast without seeing anything."
The more I travel, the more I have come to believe this is a true statement.
Could you suggest a route for us that would accomplish this?
I'm not sure what your question is.
I'm guessing he's trying to find the most boringest route.
In that, I think people's interest levels will differ. Many long-distance routes will have miles of nothing, followed by miles of wonderful mountain and river views. But that miles of 'nothing' may be of great interest to some people, and for others, just seeing those mountains will overload them with their fear of heights.
For me, the most boring roads are those I've already traveled a few times. Unless something new pops up, it's doing to be a long, boring ride. Yes, the first time I drove that route, it was full of interesting, new sights.
It seems as though I'm one of the few roadgeeks who prefers to look around cities for cool stuff (old and new), not necessarily drive for hours in-between them.
If I'm trying to enjoy the drive, you'll likely find me on a back-road where I can hit the apex.
I've noticed that many cities have an enormous amount of stuff, that even going back for a tenth time, you still see something new every time.
In regards to those interstate signs on Interstate routes that disappear or have stoplights: This was even more commonplace when I was a kid and the system was not built out yet. Just going through another one of those phases.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
The main thing I can think of that irks me about roads the most is when there are violations or less-than-optimally numbered highways in the grid, since I am a grid nazi. :sombrero:
This includes roads like I-180 (WY), I-99, I-97, I-238, I-82, and more. I just wish the latter four interstates were not numbered like that, and that "Interstate" 180 in Wyoming wasn't actually designated as an interstate (as it is nowhere close - it is a surface street). :-D :pan: :banghead:
This stuff bothers me a good bit. :ded:
For the grid, I'd try to follow it when possible, but when it's not, I don't worry about it too much (I-99).
I-238 would make a good I-480 now, but since number 480 wasn't available until after I-238 was built it's understandable. I don't think changing the number now would be a good use of finite road funds.
For I-980, it's an interstate route built with interstate funds, so it gets an interstate number. As soon as we decided to have a separate numbering system for interstates because of how they were funded, this sort of thing became inevitable. (I-580 Nevada?)
When they aren't even freeways, it bothers me (I-180 Wyo.)
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2018, 02:14:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2018, 08:07:23 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 05, 2018, 04:23:26 AM
Quote"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible to travel across the country from coast to coast without seeing anything."
The more I travel, the more I have come to believe this is a true statement.
Could you suggest a route for us that would accomplish this?
I'm not sure what your question is.
jeffandnicole is correct - my question was referencing the bolded statement, which you seem to agree with. In order for me to understand your agreement, I must first know of some corridors where one can travel from coast to coast without seeing anything.
"anything" is hyperbole, commenting on how you aren't free to pull over anywhere you want and look at the view, and don't see homes, businesses, or landmarks next to the road.
Quote from: kkt on March 05, 2018, 04:18:38 PM
"anything" is hyperbole, commenting on how you aren't free to pull over anywhere you want and look at the view, and don't see homes, businesses, or landmarks next to the road.
I understand that "anything" is an exaggeration. Even still, you will see plenty of stuff of interest on any cross-country road trip. The position that you will not, needs more explaining, IMO.
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2018, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 05, 2018, 04:18:38 PM
"anything" is hyperbole, commenting on how you aren't free to pull over anywhere you want and look at the view, and don't see homes, businesses, or landmarks next to the road.
I understand that "anything" is an exaggeration. Even still, you will see plenty of stuff of interest on any cross-country road trip. The position that you will not, needs more explaining, IMO.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of the Kuralt quote, which the full version (my grandfather actually owned the book where Kuralt made this statement, so I have read it) goes on to expand on how everything looks, smells, and feels the same everywhere you go when you're travelling on interstates. I mean I'm not saying I'm going to stop using interstates myself, just that I've discovered I learn and see so much more when I get away from them.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 05, 2018, 03:27:11 PM
It seems as though I'm one of the few roadgeeks who prefers to look around cities for cool stuff (old and new), not necessarily drive for hours in-between them.
If I'm trying to enjoy the drive, you'll likely find me on a back-road where I can hit the apex.
I've noticed that many cities have an enormous amount of stuff, that even going back for a tenth time, you still see something new every time.
I'm the exact same way; endless seas of the same few types of trees repeating over and over again like a broken record get boring fast.