AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: ekt8750 on August 27, 2017, 08:47:01 PM

Title: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: ekt8750 on August 27, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I bring this up living just outside the poster child city for this thread, Philadelphia. With the exceptions of US 1 and PA 611 (both of which run on three of the most important roads in the city and in PA 611's case stays on the same straight road throughout), reassurance signs are practically non existent. Sure there might be a token runner on a street blade or two that's erected in the past couple years but heaven help you if the route turns off the road you're cause more than likely there won't be directional signage to guide you at that intersection.

I challenge anyone to try to fully traverse US 13 in though Philly from border to border without a map or gps and do so without deviation and see how far you can make it. Good luck with that.

Any other cities like this?
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: hbelkins on August 27, 2017, 09:30:07 PM
Louisville and Lexington both used to be terrible, but Lexington's gotten somewhat better. Not quite sure about Louisville.

Tennessee's cities in generally are not good at all.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2017, 09:38:25 PM
San Jose comes to mind with the lack of signage for CA 130 Alum Rock Avenue.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Quillz on August 27, 2017, 09:44:09 PM
Ventura signage can't decide if CA-1 is concurrent with US-101, or doesn't exist at all. (It's legally the latter).
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 27, 2017, 09:49:06 PM
Stamford, CT is horrible.  Was trying to clinch US 1 in the days before GPS and finding where it turned was impossible. 
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Rothman on August 27, 2017, 09:50:03 PM
Holyoke, MA.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: US 89 on August 28, 2017, 12:43:51 AM
Anywhere in CO that is concurrent with an a Interstate. Or anywhere at all in NM.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Otto Yamamoto on August 28, 2017, 01:50:09 AM
Any surface road in NYC

STV100-2

Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: sparker on August 28, 2017, 01:55:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2017, 09:38:25 PM
San Jose comes to mind with the lack of signage for CA 130 Alum Rock Avenue.

Unfortunately, Caltrans relinquished most of Alum Rock -- and the concept of "continuation" signage in CA urban areas is at best a joke.  San Jose has no interest in taking up the slack, as they're actively discouraging through traffic along their street network, so as far as CA 130 is concerned, access to and from its current Mt. Hamilton Road alignment just isn't indicated.  The exit BGS on US 101 (both directions) still indicates CA 130 -- but once the ramp gets to the street itself, there's no further "to CA 130" directions given -- and I wouldn't anticipate such in the foreseeable future. 
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2017, 06:01:41 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2017, 01:55:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2017, 09:38:25 PM
San Jose comes to mind with the lack of signage for CA 130 Alum Rock Avenue.

Unfortunately, Caltrans relinquished most of Alum Rock -- and the concept of "continuation" signage in CA urban areas is at best a joke.  San Jose has no interest in taking up the slack, as they're actively discouraging through traffic along their street network, so as far as CA 130 is concerned, access to and from its current Mt. Hamilton Road alignment just isn't indicated.  The exit BGS on US 101 (both directions) still indicates CA 130 -- but once the ramp gets to the street itself, there's no further "to CA 130" directions given -- and I wouldn't anticipate such in the foreseeable future.

It evens says in the relinquishment definition that the the city of San Jose is supposed to maintain signage.  Too bad essentially Caltrans can't enforce that definition or put up reassurance shields since the city won't.  I know the situation has repeated throughout the state when the relinquishment calls for a route to still be signed at the local level.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on August 28, 2017, 06:37:42 AM
New Mexico!
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2017, 08:03:28 AM
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on August 28, 2017, 06:37:42 AM
New Mexico!

New Mexico isn't a city.  Signage does get wonky on a case by case basis with all the weird state routes but I wouldn't exactly attribute that to a municipality.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: silverback1065 on August 28, 2017, 10:18:11 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 27, 2017, 09:30:07 PM
Louisville and Lexington both used to be terrible, but Lexington's gotten somewhat better. Not quite sure about Louisville.

Tennessee's cities in generally are not good at all.

i'd say it's hit or miss, us 31e/w isnt signed well, neither is us 150. 
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: silverback1065 on August 28, 2017, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 27, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I bring this up living just outside the poster child city for this thread, Philadelphia. With the exceptions of US 1 and PA 611 (both of which run on three of the most important roads in the city and in PA 611's case stays on the same straight road throughout), reassurance signs are practically non existent. Sure there might be a token runner on a street blade or two that's erected in the past couple years but heaven help you if the route turns off the road you're cause more than likely there won't be directional signage to guide you at that intersection.

I challenge anyone to try to fully traverse US 13 in though Philly from border to border without a map or gps and do so without deviation and see how far you can make it. Good luck with that.

Any other cities like this?

actually, DC is the king.  they have literally removed all signs for all us routes in the district.  i don't understand why either. 
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: paulthemapguy on August 28, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
Massachusetts is just generally Assachusetts in this regard
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: jemacedo9 on August 28, 2017, 10:35:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 27, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I bring this up living just outside the poster child city for this thread, Philadelphia. With the exceptions of US 1 and PA 611 (both of which run on three of the most important roads in the city and in PA 611's case stays on the same straight road throughout), reassurance signs are practically non existent. Sure there might be a token runner on a street blade or two that's erected in the past couple years but heaven help you if the route turns off the road you're cause more than likely there won't be directional signage to guide you at that intersection.

I challenge anyone to try to fully traverse US 13 in though Philly from border to border without a map or gps and do so without deviation and see how far you can make it. Good luck with that.

Any other cities like this?

In the early 90s all of the reassurance shields were updated in Philly...for all of the routes.  Since then, it seems as if, as signs went missing, vandalized, etc; they have not been replaced.  PA 3 is not very well marked either, even though most of it is a straight shot on Chestnut and Walnut Streets.  I haven't been to NE Phila in ages to know about PA 63 or PA 532 but I'll guess they are not signed either.

On the other side of the state...Pittsburgh seems to have their routes signed very well.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: HazMatt on August 28, 2017, 10:37:57 AM
Northwestern South Carolina.  Greenville, Clemson, and others in the area are terrible at signing through town in my experience.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: hotdogPi on August 28, 2017, 11:12:00 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 28, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
Massachusetts is just generally Assachusetts in this regard

I don't know what you're talking about. Signage isn't bad where I live.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: ekt8750 on August 28, 2017, 11:14:31 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 28, 2017, 10:35:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 27, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I bring this up living just outside the poster child city for this thread, Philadelphia. With the exceptions of US 1 and PA 611 (both of which run on three of the most important roads in the city and in PA 611's case stays on the same straight road throughout), reassurance signs are practically non existent. Sure there might be a token runner on a street blade or two that's erected in the past couple years but heaven help you if the route turns off the road you're cause more than likely there won't be directional signage to guide you at that intersection.

I challenge anyone to try to fully traverse US 13 in though Philly from border to border without a map or gps and do so without deviation and see how far you can make it. Good luck with that.

Any other cities like this?

In the early 90s all of the reassurance shields were updated in Philly...for all of the routes.  Since then, it seems as if, as signs went missing, vandalized, etc; they have not been replaced.  PA 3 is not very well marked either, even though most of it is a straight shot on Chestnut and Walnut Streets.  I haven't been to NE Phila in ages to know about PA 63 or PA 532 but I'll guess they are not signed either.

On the other side of the state...Pittsburgh seems to have their routes signed very well.

You wouldn't know that PA 63 left Woodhaven Rd after the Boulevard. 232 and 532 are poorly signed as well. There are no reassurance shields on either road save for a few sign blades that were recently updated. Both routes start at the Boulevard and the BGSs there are the only indication that those routes even begin.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Takumi on August 28, 2017, 11:23:28 AM
Virginia Beach
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: sparker on August 28, 2017, 11:52:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2017, 06:01:41 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2017, 01:55:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2017, 09:38:25 PM
San Jose comes to mind with the lack of signage for CA 130 Alum Rock Avenue.

Unfortunately, Caltrans relinquished most of Alum Rock -- and the concept of "continuation" signage in CA urban areas is at best a joke.  San Jose has no interest in taking up the slack, as they're actively discouraging through traffic along their street network, so as far as CA 130 is concerned, access to and from its current Mt. Hamilton Road alignment just isn't indicated.  The exit BGS on US 101 (both directions) still indicates CA 130 -- but once the ramp gets to the street itself, there's no further "to CA 130" directions given -- and I wouldn't anticipate such in the foreseeable future.

It evens says in the relinquishment definition that the the city of San Jose is supposed to maintain signage.  Too bad essentially Caltrans can't enforce that definition or put up reassurance shields since the city won't.  I know the situation has repeated throughout the state when the relinquishment calls for a route to still be signed at the local level.

Heh -- even if District 4 were to actually install 130 shields on Alum Rock, the chances are that they'd rank among the ugliest green spades in the state system (mismatched numbers haphazardly placed on shields, crappy kerning, etc.).  Just drive along CA 85 for examples! 
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: roadman on August 28, 2017, 12:03:34 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 28, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
Massachusetts is just generally Assachusetts in this regard
Massachusetts is inconsistent in this regard, as it depends on whether the road the route is on is state or local jurisdiction when it goes through a community (this is very inconsistent from town to town).  Some cities and towns acknowledge the importance of good route signing, while most others consider any and all signing to be a blight that detracts from the "streetscape", and will provide only minimal route signs at best.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: ekt8750 on August 28, 2017, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 28, 2017, 11:23:28 AM
Virginia Beach

This. I was down there in June and and got turned around badly at the merge of US 58 and BUS 58 cause the signing was so bad. Also you'd think US 13 ended at the foot of the Bridge-Tunnel if you went by VA Beach's signing.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Eth on August 28, 2017, 12:35:49 PM
Atlanta is surprisingly good in this regard. Even in places where I'd honestly expect the signage to suck, such as where GA 14 ends at Ted Turner Dr while concurrent with GA 154 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7504972,-84.3972021,3a,75y,76.81h,87.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2DGTRNdeAJrIbtJqbNq4kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), they get it right. Then again, there are no clues in either direction at the end of Trinity Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7471356,-84.3892206,3a,75y,179.34h,89.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s58Bx5HZQYSuubJXineCd1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) where 154 then turns onto Memorial Dr, so it's not perfect.

Neighboring Decatur, meanwhile, has numerous issues. From here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7713199,-84.292608,3a,37.5y,195.41h,88.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4qFWz_Q0FJtL9iwTjtzo7w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), yes, northbound 155 is to the left, but there's no mention of southbound 155 straight ahead. This assembly (http://ten93.com/2017/sign_photos/ga155n_us29.jpg) gets US 29/78's routing wrong (should be straight across along with GA 8). And if you're trying to follow southbound GA 155, good luck: the left turn at this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.778265,-84.2963985,3a,75y,202.85h,87.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stcqHe1Ez2z6zCLQIFXXdHQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtcqHe1Ez2z6zCLQIFXXdHQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D124.038414%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) has been unsigned since before I moved to the area in 2013. (In fact, that actually did trip me up a couple years earlier when I was trying to drive the route; I proceeded straight through, unaware of the turn.)
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: PHLBOS on August 28, 2017, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 28, 2017, 10:35:52 AMPA 3 is not very well marked either, even though most of it is a straight shot on Chestnut and Walnut Streets.
Despite PA 3 crossing I-76 near/adjacent to the 30th St. Station interchange (via JFK Blvd. (3 Eastbound Westbound) & Market St. (3 Westbound Eastbound)); there's no PA 3 shields on the interchange signage... but there are Amtrak & SEPTA shields on the BGS'.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: ekt8750 on August 28, 2017, 02:12:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 28, 2017, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 28, 2017, 10:35:52 AMPA 3 is not very well marked either, even though most of it is a straight shot on Chestnut and Walnut Streets.
Despite PA 3 crossing I-76 near/adjacent to the 30th St. Station interchange (via JFK Blvd. (3 Eastbound) & Market St. (3 Westbound)); there's no PA 3 shields on the interchange signage... but there are Amtrak & SEPTA shields on the BGS'.

You have those backwards. 3 West is JFK and 3 East is Market St. Nonetheless the point still stands. I forget sometimes that 3 runs into the city. Hell I wasn't sure where the one way pairs transition from Chestnut & Walnut Sts to Market St till I looked at a map (turns out it's 38th St which means it has a 3 block concurrency with US 13).
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: plain on August 28, 2017, 02:36:52 PM
Richmond notoriously sucks at signing. I can post literally dozens of intersections where signage is wrong or missing but I'm gonna deal with this one

https://goo.gl/maps/eA3mRSqFurF2

For starters, the two US 60 unisigns are both facing the wrong direction (supposed to be facing 14th St as US 60 is on Main St, not 14th).

The unisign with US 60 and VA 147 on it is erroneous: the arrow for US 60 is pointing left when it's supposed to point straight ahead. Maybe it would've been better if it said US 60 TRUCK with the left arrow but I'm not sure if this is really where the truck route begins. Also, VA 147 doesn't begin here but several blocks ahead at 8th St instead. It would've been better if it said TO VA 147.

There's no signs for EB Main St here indicating that US 60/360 EB continues east on Main while US 360 WB follows 14th St south of the intersection.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 29, 2017, 11:38:33 AM
Quote from: plain on August 28, 2017, 02:36:52 PM
Richmond notoriously sucks at signing. I can post literally dozens of intersections where signage is wrong or missing but I'm gonna deal with this one

https://goo.gl/maps/eA3mRSqFurF2

For starters, the two US 60 unisigns are both facing the wrong direction (supposed to be facing 14th St as US 60 is on Main St, not 14th).

The unisign with US 60 and VA 147 on it is erroneous: the arrow for US 60 is pointing left when it's supposed to point straight ahead. Maybe it would've been better if it said US 60 TRUCK with the left arrow but I'm not sure if this is really where the truck route begins. Also, VA 147 doesn't begin here but several blocks ahead at 8th St instead. It would've been better if it said TO VA 147.

There's no signs for EB Main St here indicating that US 60/360 EB continues east on Main while US 360 WB follows 14th St south of the intersection.

I could speak for days about the horrific quality of signage in Richmond. I've brought it up with them numerous times and they just don't think it's important.

One thing they do find important apparently is the removal of cutouts...a VA 6 cutout at the Richmond city limits near Three Chopt Road was recently removed and replaced with one of their ugly unisigns.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: plain on August 29, 2017, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 29, 2017, 11:38:33 AM
Quote from: plain on August 28, 2017, 02:36:52 PM
Richmond notoriously sucks at signing. I can post literally dozens of intersections where signage is wrong or missing but I'm gonna deal with this one

https://goo.gl/maps/eA3mRSqFurF2

For starters, the two US 60 unisigns are both facing the wrong direction (supposed to be facing 14th St as US 60 is on Main St, not 14th).

The unisign with US 60 and VA 147 on it is erroneous: the arrow for US 60 is pointing left when it's supposed to point straight ahead. Maybe it would've been better if it said US 60 TRUCK with the left arrow but I'm not sure if this is really where the truck route begins. Also, VA 147 doesn't begin here but several blocks ahead at 8th St instead. It would've been better if it said TO VA 147.

There's no signs for EB Main St here indicating that US 60/360 EB continues east on Main while US 360 WB follows 14th St south of the intersection.

I could speak for days about the horrific quality of signage in Richmond. I've brought it up with them numerous times and they just don't think it's important.

One thing they do find important apparently is the removal of cutouts...a VA 6 cutout at the Richmond city limits near Three Chopt Road was recently removed and replaced with one of their ugly unisigns.

Assuming you're talking about the one on the light pole WB just before Three Chopt then all I can say is damn... another one bites the dust. That was indeed the last cutout for VA 6 in the city. I wish I was there when it happened so I could try and get it after they removed it. For some reason I was hoping they left it up since they replaced all the cutouts on Patterson except that one, but then again they probably just overlooked it until now being that it was on that light pole.

The only other vintage signs I know of is a VA 147 cutout on Cary St just after Boulevard, and a sign on Saunders St SB just after Laburnum that's not a cutout but one of those mostly white unisigns and it's for VA 197
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on August 29, 2017, 01:27:03 PM
PA 3 is also signed very poorly at it's other end in West Chester. It's quite hard to find where it begins and ends.

Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: dfnva on August 29, 2017, 09:45:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 29, 2017, 11:38:33 AM
Quote from: plain on August 28, 2017, 02:36:52 PM
Richmond notoriously sucks at signing. I can post literally dozens of intersections where signage is wrong or missing but I'm gonna deal with this one

https://goo.gl/maps/eA3mRSqFurF2

For starters, the two US 60 unisigns are both facing the wrong direction (supposed to be facing 14th St as US 60 is on Main St, not 14th).

The unisign with US 60 and VA 147 on it is erroneous: the arrow for US 60 is pointing left when it's supposed to point straight ahead. Maybe it would've been better if it said US 60 TRUCK with the left arrow but I'm not sure if this is really where the truck route begins. Also, VA 147 doesn't begin here but several blocks ahead at 8th St instead. It would've been better if it said TO VA 147.

There's no signs for EB Main St here indicating that US 60/360 EB continues east on Main while US 360 WB follows 14th St south of the intersection.

I could speak for days about the horrific quality of signage in Richmond. I've brought it up with them numerous times and they just don't think it's important.

One thing they do find important apparently is the removal of cutouts...a VA 6 cutout at the Richmond city limits near Three Chopt Road was recently removed and replaced with one of their ugly unisigns.

The worst city in Virginia for route signage is, hands down, Manassas Park. No postings whatsoever for the two state primary routes (VA 28 and VA 213) that go through the city.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: SidS1045 on September 01, 2017, 11:37:15 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2017, 12:03:34 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 28, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
Massachusetts is just generally Assachusetts in this regard
Massachusetts is inconsistent in this regard, as it depends on whether the road the route is on is state or local jurisdiction when it goes through a community (this is very inconsistent from town to town).  Some cities and towns acknowledge the importance of good route signing, while most others consider any and all signing to be a blight that detracts from the "streetscape", and will provide only minimal route signs at best.

...and then there was the contractor which, simply put, f**ked it up.  A few years ago, a large number of new shields with directional panels were erected in Boston, and most of them were wrong.  Don't know whether those were contracted by the city or the state, but the contractor had to make them right and probably took a loss on the whole thing.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: thenetwork on September 01, 2017, 09:09:02 PM
Someone can either confirm or deny that this is still an issue, but the last times I went through Cincinnati and Columbus on the surface streets (about 10-15 years ago), many route street changes were poorly/not marked in the downtown areas where most routes did make at least 1 or 2 turns due to one-way streets, so it was pretty easy to miss a turnoff. 

Cleveland was pretty bad in signing multiplexed routes coming in and out of downtown up until the mid-2000s when they finally updated and added signs where needed (also resulting in the removal of the last of the cut-out shields).   They still have issues with not recognizing most routes on BGS exit signs from the interstates in Downtown.  Yes, some of the exits can have 2 or 3 routes on a multiplex, but that doesn't excuse those exits with only one route running on them (I'm looking at you Chester & Superior Aves. -- unsigned US-322 and US-6, respectively). 

Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: hbelkins on September 02, 2017, 04:34:16 PM
Cincinnati's worst failings are on US 27 and US 52 in the portion that runs along the riverfront in the vicinity of where Riverfront Stadium used to be, and where US 42 and US 127 cross the river into the state. Other than that, during my forays into downtown Cincy, I've found the routes to be marked fairly well.

Having said that, the only routes I've driven in their entirety are US 27, US 50, US 52 and US 127. I don't know how well US 22 and US 42 are signed.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: amroad17 on September 04, 2017, 02:26:39 AM
^ Both are signed very well.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: 1995hoo on September 04, 2017, 08:39:37 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 28, 2017, 10:19:11 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 27, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
I bring this up living just outside the poster child city for this thread, Philadelphia. With the exceptions of US 1 and PA 611 (both of which run on three of the most important roads in the city and in PA 611's case stays on the same straight road throughout), reassurance signs are practically non existent. Sure there might be a token runner on a street blade or two that's erected in the past couple years but heaven help you if the route turns off the road you're cause more than likely there won't be directional signage to guide you at that intersection.

I challenge anyone to try to fully traverse US 13 in though Philly from border to border without a map or gps and do so without deviation and see how far you can make it. Good luck with that.

Any other cities like this?

actually, DC is the king.  they have literally removed all signs for all us routes in the district.  i don't understand why either. 

That's an exaggeration. I regularly walk past a US-29 shield located on K Street on the east side of 14th at Farragut Square. There are various other US shields throughout the District, including a couple on BGSs. Then there is at least one that is misleading (a nicely-done US-29 unisign inexplicably located on New Hampshire Avenue just south of Dupont Circle).

But certainly if you planned to use signs as your only information to try to follow a US route through the city, you would be unsuccessful.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: jbnv on September 07, 2017, 11:13:41 AM
Haven't seen a city in Louisiana that fails to sign its routes but they don't really care that the signs look good.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: roadman on September 12, 2017, 10:28:11 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 01, 2017, 11:37:15 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2017, 12:03:34 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 28, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
Massachusetts is just generally Assachusetts in this regard
Massachusetts is inconsistent in this regard, as it depends on whether the road the route is on is state or local jurisdiction when it goes through a community (this is very inconsistent from town to town).  Some cities and towns acknowledge the importance of good route signing, while most others consider any and all signing to be a blight that detracts from the "streetscape", and will provide only minimal route signs at best.

...and then there was the contractor which, simply put, f**ked it up.  A few years ago, a large number of new shields with directional panels were erected in Boston, and most of them were wrong.  Don't know whether those were contracted by the city or the state, but the contractor had to make them right and probably took a loss on the whole thing.
That project was entirely City of Boston, and it was their designer who f**ked it up.  The story goes that, in laying out the sign plans, the designer had the directional orientation of the base plan 180 degrees opposite of what it was supposed to be.  They also created a non-existent extension of MA 2A from Commonwealth Avenue to Melina Cass Boulevard.  Somehow, nobody from the designer or the City noticed these errors before the signs were installed

As this was a City-funded project, MassDOT had no involvement in the project design or review.  However, District 6 stepped in to provide assistance to the City in correcting errors once the signs were installed.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: cl94 on September 16, 2017, 09:42:13 PM
New York City might take the cake in this part of the country. Good luck following the surface routes if you don't know what streets they run on. Turns are rarely signed and reassurance markers are lacking. The exception here is NY 9A, whose surface portion had a major reconstruction not too long ago and, as it was a NYSDOT project, signs went up everywhere. Several routes are not signed where they intersect other routes. While NY 22 ends at US 1 in the Bronx, I don't think there's a single NY 22 shield inside city limits.

Syracuse is easily the worst in Upstate New York. Excluding NY 5, it is impossible to follow any surface routes through the city because they generally are not signed.

Agree with Massachusetts being bad in cases of local maintenance (good luck getting through Holyoke or the Boston area).
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: DandyDan on September 17, 2017, 03:59:20 AM
Omaha strikes me as inconsistent. The highways are signed, but if you come to an intersection where 2 highways meet, you wouldn't generally know it without looking at a map. Freeways are well-signed.
Title: Re: Cities That Absolutely Suck at Signing State & US Highways
Post by: hbelkins on September 17, 2017, 02:09:01 PM
I made a wrong turn in either downtown Scranton or Wilkes-Barre (can't remember which) because US 11 was so poorly signed.