Often in my travels, I encounter highway ideas and scenarios that a certain state DOT implements that are pretty much exclusive to that state. Some of those ideas are so innovative, that they should be used more widely on a national level.
For example: At many highway junctions in Indiana, InDOT uses overhead signage denoting all upcoming signed route directions (aka sign salads) -- including the route(s) currently on. This would be helpful in places like Colorado, who are terrible at properly signing route junctions at off-freeway intersections.
Another state exclusive I encountered a long time ago in South Carolina on the non-freeway highways outside of the cities: SCDOT would place a JCT. Route xx assembly on the side roads leading up to the intersection with said route. I liked that extra touch for traveling county roads.
Others??
Texas's 85-mph speed limit.
California style highway shield/freeway entrance signage assemblies.
Nebraska's diagrammatic junction signage (http://www.alaskaroads.com/NE2+NE67-DSC_7909.jpg).
MA's SGSes. :D
California's discouraging of concurrencies.
Some roads have 4 concurrencies and some routes don't have significant standalone sections. Those should be fixed to reduce confusion and maintenance costs on signs and administrative tasks. Besides, with modern turn by turn navigation usage, "follow a route number to get to places" doesn't matter that much anymore.
Quote from: SeriesE on July 17, 2024, 12:34:42 PMCalifornia's discouraging of concurrencies.
Some roads have 4 concurrencies and some routes don't have significant standalone sections. Those should be fixed to reduce confusion and maintenance costs on signs and administrative tasks. Besides, with modern turn by turn navigation usage, "follow a route number to get to places" doesn't matter that much anymore.
I would amend that a bit too:
I feel like in Nevada, there are some state route through corridors that clearly would work better as one number, but assigned two because of a short US highway segment connecting them. (NV 379/NV 278, NV 376/NV 305)
Those are examples where a short concurrency actually would simplify things.
Of course, this is the type of thing where it should be on a case-by-case basis: the sign-salad "state inventory route number" concept seen in a few Southern states isn't phenomenal, the "let's adminstratively assign a US route to something that will not be signed" concept is also not great, etc.
Now, that being said, I also think that route numbers absolutely still do serve a purpose even in the GPS era - I think this is actually why US 101 overhead signage has significantly improved along the southbound Santa Ana Freeway since 2009. The Caltrans implied TO concept that had been in place there (signage pointing towards I-5 south) before then isn't so great if you get stranded on the shoulder and then have to read a California-style postmile to explain to roadside assistance what road you are on. (I can speak from personal experience after car trouble this year that even when you give out accurate details of the CalTrans postmile you see near you, the towing company may not be able to decipher it well!)
---
Since Max R. brought up Freeway Entrance signage (which I have seen in Nevada and West Virginia) as one California innovation that would be cool to see elsewhere, let me think of others:
- Cutout US shields! For that matter, while I don't like how the green state highway shield indirectly had an effect on the downgrading of US 99 to state route 99 here (I recall that being mentioned in old editions of CHPW at least once and I've cited that in threads on this forum)...there's something to be said about all the shields in California having distinct, non-shared colors, and all being cutouts (gold/blue county, white-on-green state, black-on-white US, and the Interstate red-white-blue). When I went to Texas in 2010 and then in 2021, the US and state routes all being painted black-on-white on rectangular or square signs really wasn't so great for visual acuity.
If the MUTCD is going to specify having mixed case on sign blades to help with immediate visual acquisition, I'll then argue that the same can be said for multi-colored cutout shields.
- Not sure if CalTrans still uses it, but the "notched shoulder marking" before an offramp is one of those subtle concepts that actually has merit, I recall those exist here as an aid in case of fog.
- Wasn't there a time when Route 73 tollway had different overhead signage background colors? Not sure this is still the case, but in my head having a different colored overhead sign for toll roads vs. free roads is another good visual indicator.
- In line with the Freeway Entrance concept, I do like those "TOLL CROSSING ENTRANCE" signs for ramps going to the Bay Bridge portion of I-80. It does conflate the idea of "freeway" with "toll-free road" even though I know those are not mutually exclusive, but I do get the idea of highlighting the toll crossings for the average motoring public too.
Virginia with its very high VA-9XXXX route numbers for certain roads. Also the SR-9XXX numbers for school district roads and entrances.
Also, Bridge-Tunnels. This is only last because I'd like Virginia to be the only state in the US with these.
I also like how ADOT signs dedicated turning lanes in Arizona.
IE. Instead of RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT they say RIGHT LANE <Right Arrow> ONLY. I think it sticks out more than the all-text signs.
Quote from: Hunty2022 on July 17, 2024, 02:05:11 PMAlso, Bridge-Tunnels. This is only last because I'd like Virginia to be the only state in the US with these.
Would you count the Bay Bridge here in California between San Francisco and Oakland as a bridge-tunnel setup? Or were you thinking specifically underwater tunnel?
There's the 1936 suspension bridge on the SF-Yerba Buena Island side, the Yerba Buena Tunnel, and the 2012 cable-stayed bridge on the Yerba Buena Island-Oakland poriton.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2024, 03:27:36 PMWould you count the Bay Bridge here in California between San Francisco and Oakland as a bridge-tunnel setup? Or were you thinking specifically underwater tunnel?
There's the 1936 suspension bridge on the SF-Yerba Buena Island side, the Yerba Buena Tunnel, and the 2012 cable-stayed bridge on the Yerba Buena Island-Oakland poriton.
I-90 in Seattle emerges from a tunnel onto the Murrow bridge. On the other side, it goes into a tunnel, but it's really just a cut-and-cover lid, of which there are quite a few in the Seattle area.
Similar to Indiana, Minnesota putting LGS on stoplights when you cross a numbered route. It would help especially when there are clusters of stoplights to pick out which one is the route you want.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on July 17, 2024, 07:48:15 PMSimilar to Indiana, Minnesota putting LGS on stoplights when you cross a numbered route. It would help especially when there are clusters of stoplights to pick out which one is the route you want.
I've seen a few of this in the Puget Sound region in Washington (i.e SR 509 near the ferries in Seattle, SR 166 in Port Orchard) and a few examples like that in the Bay Area, and generally think that this is absolutely how it should be done everywhere (looking at you, San Francisco, with the decreasing references to US 101 along Van Ness since the bus lanes opened a few years back).
The mentality I've brought up here for over a decade remains the same, especially seeing California's piecemeal route decommissioning - the originaly point of route numbering is navigational help, and using it specifically for that purpose should be more important than using numbering to show who maintains a road.
^^^^
I think CA should contract with the two auto clubs, ACSC and CSAA to sign our highways again like they used to many many years ago.
Another possibility is county level signage to contineu the route number on some sign if the miner's spade isn't good for non-state maintained roads.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2024, 01:48:20 PM- Wasn't there a time when Route 73 tollway had different overhead signage background colors? Not sure this is still the case, but in my head having a different colored overhead sign for toll roads vs. free roads is another good visual indicator.
Similarly, I like ON 401's practice of using different background colors for overhead signs on the local and express lanes - blue background for local, green for express. It really helps tell which signs are "yours" from a distance, especially when the highway curves and signs aren't directly over the lanes when you can first see them. https://maps.app.goo.gl/ef7J9h7JBrevfbua6
I know, I know, it's not MUTCD-compliant, and Ontario isn't a "state." :D
For all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7451/9179559699_ed9d42a3af_z.jpg)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2024, 08:19:47 PMThe mentality I've brought up here for over a decade remains the same, especially seeing California's piecemeal route decommissioning - the originaly point of route numbering is navigational help, and using it specifically for that purpose should be more important than using numbering to show who maintains a road.
That said, I think it's fine to stop signing the decommissioned route if the decommissioned part is at the ends of a route
Quote from: SeriesE on July 17, 2024, 12:34:42 PMCalifornia's discouraging of concurrencies.
Some roads have 4 concurrencies and some routes don't have significant standalone sections. Those should be fixed to reduce confusion and maintenance costs on signs and administrative tasks. Besides, with modern turn by turn navigation usage, "follow a route number to get to places" doesn't matter that much anymore.
I feel the opposite way about this - I kinda want every state to take Wisconsin's approach of putting concurrencies on everything. The reason we have route numbers is so that you can follow them to get places - if not, we could just put up signs with the road's classification instead.
On a different note, I love the look of Michigan's yellow box signage in intersections, and it would nice to see more states try something similar.
Quote from: SeriesE on July 17, 2024, 09:45:35 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2024, 08:19:47 PMThe mentality I've brought up here for over a decade remains the same, especially seeing California's piecemeal route decommissioning - the originaly point of route numbering is navigational help, and using it specifically for that purpose should be more important than using numbering to show who maintains a road.
That said, I think it's fine to stop signing the decommissioned route if the decommissioned part is at the ends of a route
Examples either way:
Route where the decommissioned segment leaves us with a logical terminus: Route 82 now ending at I-880 on the west side of San Jose, instead of at US 101/Blossom Hill Road in south San Jose. (That being said, there are still plenty of references to the downtown SJ Route 82 routing - much of which was never US 101 - off of Route 87 and I-280!)
Route where piecemeal downloading to municipal entities results in awkward signage situation and really isn't great: Route 1 in parts of Los Angeles County
Perhaps not exclusive to Texas, but they seem to have more interstate frontage roads than other states who would benefit from them.
I know it's not exclusive to Iowa but I wish at highway junctions more states would put up the distance to the city when changing routes. https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6293204,-91.3550231,3a,18.6y,27.2h,85.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKh160qSizIKdhHe-Hxrs0w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DKh160qSizIKdhHe-Hxrs0w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D27.198918145789285%26pitch%3D4.1194329052307666%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu
I find that helpful on road trips. Too many state don't do this.
Maryland's practice of using both road names and exit destinations on exit signage in urban areas should definitely be implemented nationwide. Why choose one or the other when you can have both?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GryNnjSSafCKtgn66
https://maps.app.goo.gl/z9RysDyEgG9WVamE9
Quote from: Hunty2022 on July 17, 2024, 02:05:11 PMVirginia with its very high VA-9XXXX route numbers for certain roads. Also the SR-9XXX numbers for school district roads and entrances.
Also, Bridge-Tunnels. This is only last because I'd like Virginia to be the only state in the US with these.
That was done at the insistence of the USNavy, so that ships would not be trapped in port if a crossing were to be destroyed.
Mike
Wisconsin's lettered county highways.
But they should be used on blue pentagon signs...including in Wisconsin.
'Lettering' county highways, like here in Wisconsin. OTOH, I have never liked the MUTCD 'pentagon' route markers.
Mike
One thing ALDOT is excellent at is marking merge/merging lanes with stippled lines almost everywhere. I think a few other scattered states do it too, but they're surprisingly reliable at it.
FDOT's line markings and object marker reflectivity standards are par excellence. It helps that they don't have freeze/thaw/snow but it's very helpful when there's limited to no lighting.
Near-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin. Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 18, 2024, 05:46:00 AMPerhaps not exclusive to Texas, but they seem to have more interstate frontage roads than other states who would benefit from them.
Texas U-turns on those frontage roads at interchanges would also be great to see expand to more of the nation.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2024, 03:27:36 PMQuote from: Hunty2022 on July 17, 2024, 02:05:11 PMAlso, Bridge-Tunnels. This is only last because I'd like Virginia to be the only state in the US with these.
Would you count the Bay Bridge here in California between San Francisco and Oakland as a bridge-tunnel setup? Or were you thinking specifically underwater tunnel?
Underwater only (ex. CBBT).
Quote from: Big John on July 18, 2024, 09:51:46 AMNear-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin. Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.
I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 18, 2024, 10:55:31 AMQuote from: Big John on July 18, 2024, 09:51:46 AMNear-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin. Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.
I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aW3ExUvSzjkU9G2z6
The signal heads ahead of the cross street.
Quote from: Big John on July 18, 2024, 10:58:38 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on July 18, 2024, 10:55:31 AMQuote from: Big John on July 18, 2024, 09:51:46 AMNear-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin. Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.
I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aW3ExUvSzjkU9G2z6
The signal heads ahead of the cross street.
Ok. I think I get what you mean. You are talking about the near right and near median signals. Right? If so, yes I agree with you on that.
Quote from: webny99 on July 18, 2024, 08:54:29 AMMaryland's practice of using both road names and exit destinations on exit signage in urban areas should definitely be implemented nationwide. Why choose one or the other when you can have both?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GryNnjSSafCKtgn66
https://maps.app.goo.gl/z9RysDyEgG9WVamE9
California did this for years...until more recent MUTCD editions started discouraging it, with most modern exit signage only mentioning the road name.
I guess this is the precarious balance that will never be fully answered:
- Do you want as much info on the sign, but then force the driver to spend an extra moment reading the extra info?
- Do you want the bare minimum of info to reduce message loading, but then that means the driver has to look at an extra sign before or after that one that tells you the destination?
This also applies to the usage of freeway names and control cities too.
Now, there are obvious instances (Ave, Blvd, St for route suffixes, N/S/E/W for directionals) where message loading can naturally be reduced, but then there are also times that the abbreviations become more proprietary (i.e. CalTrans using "Cyn" for Canyon, which to me is intuitive, but which might not be commonplace elsewhere)
earlier in the thread Henry pointed out the Chicago-area usage of tiny expressway name text on the BGSes and in a way, I actually see the value of it now - large enough that if you need the reassurance of route name, it's there, but not designed to dominate visually compared to direction/control city.
Quote from: Henry on July 17, 2024, 09:38:04 PMFor all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):
(image omitted)
To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless. Another nearby example would be the Dulles Toll Road (VA-267), which is technically the "Hirst–Brault Expressway" but is likewise never called that; there used to be some LGSs posted along the side of the road with that honorific name (may still be, I don't know), but it's never appeared on a BGS and there would be no reason to do it.
But in places like New York and Chicago where people do use the highway names, including in giving directions, there's a good reason for posting that information.
Quote from: Big John on July 18, 2024, 10:58:38 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on July 18, 2024, 10:55:31 AMQuote from: Big John on July 18, 2024, 09:51:46 AMNear-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin. Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.
I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aW3ExUvSzjkU9G2z6
The signal heads ahead of the cross street.
SCDOT does this quite frequently (at least in District 5) https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nsg2T3KL8y7Jkqpb7
MDOT's US/Canada flags on signs approaching border crossings
https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i94&state=MI&file=102_7451.JPG
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2024, 01:43:49 PMQuoteFor all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):
(image omitted)
To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.
My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:
Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name
and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.
That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.
Quote from: webny99 on July 19, 2024, 08:50:56 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2024, 01:43:49 PMQuoteFor all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):
(image omitted)
To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.
My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:
Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.
That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.
Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 19, 2024, 10:20:42 AMPart of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. ....
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. ....
That's why I wrote my comment the way I did to refer to what's actually done in local use. I was thinking of how in Chicago and New York people refer to the Interstates by name and often not by number unless, perhaps, a road doesn't have a name. For example, I remember when I was a kid my cousin, who lived on Staten Island, had no idea what we meant if we referred to I-278 but instantly knew how to get to the Staten Island Expressway (which, of course, was I-278). That sort of thing is very common there. But it's not common everywhere and I would suggest that if people in a given area do not routinely use a highway name, then it doesn't make sense to put it on the sign (hence the example I gave of I-66 inside the Capital Beltway). There's no benefit to anyone in posting a name nobody knows or uses.
For local street names, I absolutely think having both the name and number (assuming there is a number) is helpful, especially in places where people use both. Here in Northern Virginia, for example, some people refer to a portion of US-50 as Arlington Boulevard and other people call it Route 50. The BGS lists both.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 19, 2024, 10:20:42 AMQuote from: webny99 on July 19, 2024, 08:50:56 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2024, 01:43:49 PMQuoteFor all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):
(image omitted)
To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.
My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:
Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.
That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.
Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos
https://youtu.be/DzRqVclai54?si=3RN_0ak_X6Pa4HA2
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2024, 01:14:43 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on July 19, 2024, 10:20:42 AMQuote from: webny99 on July 19, 2024, 08:50:56 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2024, 01:43:49 PMQuoteFor all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):
(image omitted)
To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.
My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:
Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.
That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.
Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos
https://youtu.be/DzRqVclai54?si=3RN_0ak_X6Pa4HA2
:clap: That just made me smile. Thanks.
A couple I can think of from Utah:
1. The close link between legislative and signed routes. It's kind of hard to describe, but it seems like other states have more of a separation between routes in the law books and what's posted, even for states that do not allow duplicate route numbers. Route numbers are not only tied to UDOT management but actual state law. Yes, I don't like how concurrencies involving state routes aren't acknowledged, but signage for concurrencies involving Interstates and US Routes have been improving, and the number of implied SR/SR overlaps can be counted on your hands.
2. Similar to 1, how anything state-maintained is given a route number. There's some refinement here, but it's nice to see all state-maintained routes on a public record.
3. Business routes, with a couple exceptions, are state-maintained.
Ontario's extensive usage of A-4 Parclo interchanges
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 21, 2024, 02:36:57 AM1. The close link between legislative and signed routes. It's kind of hard to describe, but it seems like other states have more of a separation between routes in the law books and what's posted, even for states that do not allow duplicate route numbers. Route numbers are not only tied to UDOT management but actual state law. Yes, I don't like how concurrencies involving state routes aren't acknowledged, but signage for concurrencies involving Interstates and US Routes have been improving, and the number of implied SR/SR overlaps can be counted on your hands.
I feel the exact opposite way. In Massachusetts (and Rhode Island), state maintenance and numbering have nothing to do with each other. This allows the state to maintain whatever segments they want without having to have a pointless 1-mile route that leads nowhere or have a gap in a route, as well as maintain busy arterial streets in urban areas that wouldn't benefit from having a number. The numbering system in Massachusetts is logical with almost no pointless routes.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 18, 2024, 01:25:19 PMQuote from: webny99 on July 18, 2024, 08:54:29 AMMaryland's practice of using both road names and exit destinations on exit signage in urban areas should definitely be implemented nationwide. Why choose one or the other when you can have both?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GryNnjSSafCKtgn66
https://maps.app.goo.gl/z9RysDyEgG9WVamE9
California did this for years...until more recent MUTCD editions started discouraging it, with most modern exit signage only mentioning the road name.
I guess this is the precarious balance that will never be fully answered:
- Do you want as much info on the sign, but then force the driver to spend an extra moment reading the extra info?
- Do you want the bare minimum of info to reduce message loading, but then that means the driver has to look at an extra sign before or after that one that tells you the destination?
This also applies to the usage of freeway names and control cities too.
Now, there are obvious instances (Ave, Blvd, St for route suffixes, N/S/E/W for directionals) where message loading can naturally be reduced, but then there are also times that the abbreviations become more proprietary (i.e. CalTrans using "Cyn" for Canyon, which to me is intuitive, but which might not be commonplace elsewhere)
earlier in the thread Henry pointed out the Chicago-area usage of tiny expressway name text on the BGSes and in a way, I actually see the value of it now - large enough that if you need the reassurance of route name, it's there, but not designed to dominate visually compared to direction/control city.
The MD practice is really good about this. It tells you the information that you need to know, and it is basically all of it.
For an exit onto a street: Number, name, City 1, City 2 for one exit ramp interchanges [like diamonds and parclo a4] and Number, direction, name, City 1 for each side of two exit ramp interchanges [like cloverleaf and parclo b4].
This is basic information and it is not really message loading.
For exits onto highways: Number, direction, Control City 1, Control City 2 generally suffices. Yes, in some cases you should also include the highway name if it is used extensively in local parlance like in NY and Chicago. The highway names also used to be common in LA, and many of the traffic reports still use it for the highways near Downtown LA, but it is going out of style and Caltrans is trying to wipe out use of the name on most signage, except for the memorial signage that happens occasionally along the side of the road.
You have to be smart about message loading and I feel that the MUTCD standard is too strict. The MD signs are perfectly fine.
This sign in NJ is an overload:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5268961,-74.2709969,3a,37.5y,298.51h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0BHko-n9lnLDR4wwQ5lC6g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0BHko-n9lnLDR4wwQ5lC6g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D305.54718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
Quote from: hotdogPi on July 21, 2024, 09:47:53 AMQuote from: Rover_0 on July 21, 2024, 02:36:57 AM1. The close link between legislative and signed routes. It's kind of hard to describe, but it seems like other states have more of a separation between routes in the law books and what's posted, even for states that do not allow duplicate route numbers. Route numbers are not only tied to UDOT management but actual state law. Yes, I don't like how concurrencies involving state routes aren't acknowledged, but signage for concurrencies involving Interstates and US Routes have been improving, and the number of implied SR/SR overlaps can be counted on your hands.
I feel the exact opposite way. In Massachusetts (and Rhode Island), state maintenance and numbering have nothing to do with each other. This allows the state to maintain whatever segments they want without having to have a pointless 1-mile route that leads nowhere or have a gap in a route, as well as maintain busy arterial streets in urban areas that wouldn't benefit from having a number. The numbering system in Massachusetts is logical with almost no pointless routes.
This is a really interesting argument. It is definitely worth noting that this makes more sense in New England than it does elsewhere in the country due to the lack of county governments. Since there are (presumably) no county-maintained roads there, it does make sense for roads that would be county roads in other states to be state-maintained instead.
This is a great thread, but I recommend that people should post example photos of what you are discussing (or a link to GSV) so that people on the other side of the country can determine what feature you are discussing.
Quote from: mrsman on July 22, 2024, 08:30:03 AMThis is a great thread, but I recommend that people should post example photos of what you are discussing (or a link to GSV) so that people on the other side of the country can determine what feature you are discussing.
Here's mine. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mhqwpL3ztw3U6zbG7)
:bigass:
In all serious, regarding the other discussion about BGSs giving the route number, a street name, and destinations, here's an example from Northern Virginia (https://maps.app.goo.gl/nQYpyJZ8SBdiB4a98). The road referenced on the sign is one where some people call it by name and some call it by number (and then I recall a friend's father referring to it as "Lert," as in the initials "LRT"), so having both the name and number is helpful.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 19, 2024, 10:20:42 AMQuote from: webny99 on July 19, 2024, 08:50:56 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2024, 01:43:49 PMQuoteFor all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):
(image omitted)
To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.
My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:
Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.
That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.
Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos
Here are mine.
City advance: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9664697,-88.5827768,3a,75y,27.74h,85.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sApBm1FCzWZhKp_wV3ymt7w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DApBm1FCzWZhKp_wV3ymt7w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D27.74067045752768%26pitch%3D4.5129786720136025%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Exit series list:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9821491,-88.5826173,3a,75y,356.91h,77.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZixD0u-Dq8MsTvzWNofblw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZixD0u-Dq8MsTvzWNofblw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D356.90737431211005%26pitch%3D12.092874
I also like what WisDOT does for smaller cities that have multiple exits. I know a lot of state do this but that should be in every state doing it.
Sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4698148,-88.9949365,3a,15y,35.84h,90.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D35.84121754094059%26pitch%3D-0.395321557667188%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
And yes the sign is in Illinois but it is a WisDOT sign.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 22, 2024, 09:10:12 AMIn all serious, regarding the other discussion about BGSs giving the route number, a street name, and destinations, here's an example from Northern Virginia (https://maps.app.goo.gl/nQYpyJZ8SBdiB4a98). The road referenced on the sign is one where some people call it by name and some call it by number (and then I recall a friend's father referring to it as "Lert," as in the initials "LRT"), so having both the name and number is helpful.
Kentucky does something similar that I really, really like too, maybe a bit more Chicago-inspired in its small text for the road name (maybe so that the control city can be emphasized)
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1180045,-85.7418641,3a,19.7y,276.86h,94.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sa4P7_y6oRwjB4_wlpewXVQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Da4P7_y6oRwjB4_wlpewXVQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D276.8591371930399%26pitch%3D-4.494966443478191%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 22, 2024, 03:11:27 PMI also like what WisDOT does for smaller cities that have multiple exits. I know a lot of state do this but that should be in every state doing it.
Sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4698148,-88.9949365,3a,15y,35.84h,90.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D35.84121754094059%26pitch%3D-0.395321557667188%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
And yes the sign is in Illinois but it is a WisDOT sign.
and no mention that the Wis 81 exit is also for I-43?????? :no:
They're not states, but I really like how in Ontario and Quebec the exits to the US list the Interstate highways they connect to across the border on the exit signs. Ok the US side they should do the same - I-94 TO ON-402, I-190 TO ON-405, the Gordie Howe Bridge exit should have an ON-401 shield and the Peace Bridge a QEW shield.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2024, 08:19:47 PMThe mentality I've brought up here for over a decade remains the same, especially seeing California's piecemeal route decommissioning - the originaly point of route numbering is navigational help, and using it specifically for that purpose should be more important than using numbering to show who maintains a road.
The problem is that cities generally can't be trusted to competently sign state routes. So even if you did say "state routes can be maintained by cities"...well, they probably still wouldn't be signed as numbered routes because the cities won't maintain the signs.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 22, 2024, 03:11:27 PMI also like what WisDOT does for smaller cities that have multiple exits. I know a lot of state do this but that should be in every state doing it.
Sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4698148,-88.9949365,3a,15y,35.84h,90.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D35.84121754094059%26pitch%3D-0.395321557667188%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
And yes the sign is in Illinois but it is a WisDOT sign.
Isn't there a sign like that in the MUTCD? Here's one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4788423,-74.9818616,3a,75y,259.18h,84.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snnkLlr5X7gwrH3G3mmy0YQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DnnkLlr5X7gwrH3G3mmy0YQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D259.17625995564913%26pitch%3D5.690287380828238%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) from New York. Pennsylvania is full of them too.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 22, 2024, 08:27:01 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2024, 08:19:47 PMThe mentality I've brought up here for over a decade remains the same, especially seeing California's piecemeal route decommissioning - the originaly point of route numbering is navigational help, and using it specifically for that purpose should be more important than using numbering to show who maintains a road.
The problem is that cities generally can't be trusted to competently sign state routes. So even if you did say "state routes can be maintained by cities"...well, they probably still wouldn't be signed as numbered routes because the cities won't maintain the signs.
I feel like California's usual solution is "just get rid of the street-running state route" (i.e. Routes 209 and 274 in San Diego). I can see that as an alternative to, say, how NV 604 used to be signed on the old Las Vegas paper maps from the California State Automobile Association, yet was not reflective of real-life at all.
that being said:
- can't really do that with US 101, regardless of SFMTA/MUNI's neglect of the old trailblazer shield postings since 2020
- California's "signs denote maintenance" means that route and navigational importance for surface roads can become wacky, i.e. why does Route 221 - an important connector in the Napa area - have less trailblazer signing than Route 77 in Oakland, an oft-forgotten short segment of an otherwise canceled freeway project.
The one amusing counter-example here to the "cities won't sign routes" deal is how Fairfield has plastered so many Historic US 40 signs along Texas Street! (And arguably the community-provided historic US 66 signage along Foothill Boulevard in San Bernardino County thereabouts surpasses the level of signage of most non-freeway state routes as well)
Quote from: rhen_var on July 22, 2024, 07:46:03 PMThey're not states, but I really like how in Ontario and Quebec the exits to the US list the Interstate highways they connect to across the border on the exit signs. Ok the US side they should do the same - I-94 TO ON-402, I-190 TO ON-405, the Gordie Howe Bridge exit should have an ON-401 shield and the Peace Bridge a QEW shield.
While we're on the subject of Canada, I like how ON plasters its tourism logo on the top right corner of its VMS's:
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.2919780.1421775878!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/highwaysign.jpeg)
That's definitely something I'd like to see here in America!
Ick. I've always thought Canadian signage is pretty lousy.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 22, 2024, 09:25:45 PMThe one amusing counter-example here to the "cities won't sign routes" deal is how Fairfield has plastered so many Historic US 40 signs along Texas Street!
I noticed that recently. It's the case in Vallejo, Cordelia, Rockville, Fairfield, Vacaville, and Dixon. I didn't see much signage in Davis or further east. But the signs all have tags below them saying "In memory of", "Sponsored by", etc., so it's clear that it's because people are paying to put them up. It may even be done by some historical society, and not the cities. I also noticed that they are all black and white, not brown and white.
(Added note: This is in California.)
I like the way CA uses thick "elephant tracks" to denote a lane that will force a turn at some soon point.
While this seems to be a relatively common application, I do appreciate that in several places, there is a lot of warning distance, and that seems to be unique to CA.
A similar application involves the "THRU TRAFFIC MERGE LEFT" sign which also doesn't appear everywhere.
Here is an old picture of La Brea Ave in L.A. (pre-bus lane) showing warnings of the right turn lane coming to an end at Sunset Blvd, 1/4 mile away.:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.094581,-118.3440457,3a,75y,3.2h,78.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sI3tCwSQxNxAncQ4h5hXOJw!2e0!5s20211101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
Here are elephant tracks on Jefferson Blvd in L.A. warning that the left lane will force a left onto the freeway onramp in about 1/2 mile.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9851211,-118.4031152,3a,75y,63.49h,104.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3f4quwEpZ5r2aygVRX9xFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu
In my area, I wish there were similar warnings that the left lane on Georgia Ave forces a turn onto MD-200 (a toll road) in advance, but the only signs are a short distance before the interchange. Not enough time to merge away when it is busy.
I've never heard of "elephant tracks". MUTCD calls them dotted lane lines, which provide "warning of a downstream change in lane function." I think that such lanes are long in places where they have long backups in rush hour. That's certainly what I've observed on freeways. It's more to encourage people to get into the lane early enough, rather than to get out of the lane.
Quote from: Big John on July 22, 2024, 04:40:07 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on July 22, 2024, 03:11:27 PMI also like what WisDOT does for smaller cities that have multiple exits. I know a lot of state do this but that should be in every state doing it.
Sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4698148,-88.9949365,3a,15y,35.84h,90.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D35.84121754094059%26pitch%3D-0.395321557667188%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
And yes the sign is in Illinois but it is a WisDOT sign.
and no mention that the Wis 81 exit is also for I-43?????? :no:
Well considering that 81 is the way into Beloit and 43 is not, I can see why they did not put it on there. They did the same thing in Madison ages ago for 30/94. And they did not change it when they put the new sign in.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0284901,-89.2572928,3a,75y,332.55h,88.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTGB27URWUnMBgrk0NUN7sw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DTGB27URWUnMBgrk0NUN7sw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D332.5542001914858%26pitch%3D1.3796492438782053%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2024, 08:48:05 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on July 22, 2024, 03:11:27 PMI also like what WisDOT does for smaller cities that have multiple exits. I know a lot of state do this but that should be in every state doing it.
Sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4698148,-88.9949365,3a,15y,35.84h,90.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D35.84121754094059%26pitch%3D-0.395321557667188%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
And yes the sign is in Illinois but it is a WisDOT sign.
Isn't there a sign like that in the MUTCD? Here's one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4788423,-74.9818616,3a,75y,259.18h,84.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snnkLlr5X7gwrH3G3mmy0YQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DnnkLlr5X7gwrH3G3mmy0YQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D259.17625995564913%26pitch%3D5.690287380828238%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) from New York. Pennsylvania is full of them too.
It may be. But I know it is not as widely used as it should be. For instance, I know Indiana does not do this for places like Lafayette and South Bend when they should.
I imagine there are a few other cities that are like this, so "exclusive" might be overselling it, but I really wish more cities would adopt backlit street signage to the extent Las Vegas has. I'm used to only seeing them in select corridors, but in Vegas they are used at just about every single signalized intersection.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 09:07:27 AMI imagine there are a few other cities that are like this, so "exclusive" might be overselling it, but I really wish more cities would adopt backlit street signage to the extent Las Vegas has. I'm used to only seeing them in select corridors, but in Vegas they are used at just about every single signalized intersection.
As long as the backlighting is maintained!
We have some formerly backlit BGSes from the 1960s in San Francisco for I-80 east...that have not had their lighting adjusted at all in decades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779028,-122.4002709,3a,75y,348.73h,97.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D348.7255161774147%26pitch%3D-7.155781090405995%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 23, 2024, 08:37:22 AMIt may be. But I know it is not as widely used as it should be. For instance, I know Indiana does not do this for places like Lafayette and South Bend when they should.
It might be spreading; I know the locations in New York that have them are relatively recent (within the last decade).
Quote from: TheStranger on July 23, 2024, 03:00:17 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 09:07:27 AMI imagine there are a few other cities that are like this, so "exclusive" might be overselling it, but I really wish more cities would adopt backlit street signage to the extent Las Vegas has. I'm used to only seeing them in select corridors, but in Vegas they are used at just about every single signalized intersection.
As long as the backlighting is maintained!
We have some formerly backlit BGSes from the 1960s in San Francisco for I-80 east...that have not had their lighting adjusted at all in decades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779028,-122.4002709,3a,75y,348.73h,97.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D348.7255161774147%26pitch%3D-7.155781090405995%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
That sign must have looked amazing when it was brand new! I agree, the problem is that such signs are not maintained properly in the USA. Other countries, on the other hand, do take good care of backlit signs and they look sharp.
Quote from: Henry on July 22, 2024, 10:14:06 PMQuote from: rhen_var on July 22, 2024, 07:46:03 PMThey're not states, but I really like how in Ontario and Quebec the exits to the US list the Interstate highways they connect to across the border on the exit signs. Ok the US side they should do the same - I-94 TO ON-402, I-190 TO ON-405, the Gordie Howe Bridge exit should have an ON-401 shield and the Peace Bridge a QEW shield.
While we're on the subject of Canada, I like how ON plasters its tourism logo on the top right corner of its VMS's:
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.2919780.1421775878!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/highwaysign.jpeg)
That's definitely something I'd like to see here in America!
That's the (now former) logo of the government of Ontario.
Here's the current one:
(https://i.imgur.com/I8pwOte.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Yv1ss44.png)
This is the tourism logo:
(https://i.imgur.com/HzJmJQt.png)
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 23, 2024, 03:06:40 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 23, 2024, 03:00:17 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 09:07:27 AMI imagine there are a few other cities that are like this, so "exclusive" might be overselling it, but I really wish more cities would adopt backlit street signage to the extent Las Vegas has. I'm used to only seeing them in select corridors, but in Vegas they are used at just about every single signalized intersection.
As long as the backlighting is maintained!
We have some formerly backlit BGSes from the 1960s in San Francisco for I-80 east...that have not had their lighting adjusted at all in decades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779028,-122.4002709,3a,75y,348.73h,97.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D348.7255161774147%26pitch%3D-7.155781090405995%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
That sign must have looked amazing when it was brand new! I agree, the problem is that such signs are not maintained properly in the USA. Other countries, on the other hand, do take good care of backlit signs and they look sharp.
Vegas is pretty good at maintaining ours. I've only seen one or two signs not working in the time I've been living here.
Besides, these days, with LEDs, the maintenance required is pretty low.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 10:10:31 PMQuote from: StogieGuy7 on July 23, 2024, 03:06:40 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 23, 2024, 03:00:17 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 09:07:27 AMI imagine there are a few other cities that are like this, so "exclusive" might be overselling it, but I really wish more cities would adopt backlit street signage to the extent Las Vegas has. I'm used to only seeing them in select corridors, but in Vegas they are used at just about every single signalized intersection.
As long as the backlighting is maintained!
We have some formerly backlit BGSes from the 1960s in San Francisco for I-80 east...that have not had their lighting adjusted at all in decades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779028,-122.4002709,3a,75y,348.73h,97.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D348.7255161774147%26pitch%3D-7.155781090405995%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
That sign must have looked amazing when it was brand new! I agree, the problem is that such signs are not maintained properly in the USA. Other countries, on the other hand, do take good care of backlit signs and they look sharp.
Vegas is pretty good at maintaining ours. I've only seen one or two signs not working in the time I've been living here.
Besides, these days, with LEDs, the maintenance required is pretty low.
In my neck of the woods, my town recently scrapped all of their back-lit overhead street blades with oversized reflective street blades. One, because they now sport the city's new logo, and two, because most of the back-lit signs were well over 20 years old. They even scrapped the newer LED lit signs.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 24, 2024, 07:52:42 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 10:10:31 PMQuote from: StogieGuy7 on July 23, 2024, 03:06:40 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 23, 2024, 03:00:17 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 09:07:27 AMI imagine there are a few other cities that are like this, so "exclusive" might be overselling it, but I really wish more cities would adopt backlit street signage to the extent Las Vegas has. I'm used to only seeing them in select corridors, but in Vegas they are used at just about every single signalized intersection.
As long as the backlighting is maintained!
We have some formerly backlit BGSes from the 1960s in San Francisco for I-80 east...that have not had their lighting adjusted at all in decades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779028,-122.4002709,3a,75y,348.73h,97.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D348.7255161774147%26pitch%3D-7.155781090405995%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
That sign must have looked amazing when it was brand new! I agree, the problem is that such signs are not maintained properly in the USA. Other countries, on the other hand, do take good care of backlit signs and they look sharp.
Vegas is pretty good at maintaining ours. I've only seen one or two signs not working in the time I've been living here.
Besides, these days, with LEDs, the maintenance required is pretty low.
In my neck of the woods, my town recently scrapped all of their back-lit overhead street blades with oversized reflective street blades. One, because they now sport the city's new logo, and two, because most of the back-lit signs were well over 20 years old. They even scrapped the newer LED lit signs.
Every signalized intersection except for the I-55 ramps have backlit overhead street blades in Bolingbrook. And I do know they replace the bulbs and the sign stickers regularly. They recently did it at Route 53 and Briarcliff Rd because it was showing cracks.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 24, 2024, 07:52:42 AMIn my neck of the woods, my town recently scrapped all of their back-lit overhead street blades with oversized reflective street blades. One, because they now sport the city's new logo, and two, because most of the back-lit signs were well over 20 years old. They even scrapped the newer LED lit signs.
Your town sounds kinda lame.
Some of Las Vegas's units date back to at least the late 1980s, based on historical photographs. They remain in good working order; the biggest problem they face is the panels starting to crack and fade, so they just replace those periodically and keep the housing. (Clark County seems to have replaced just about all of the panels under county jurisdiction to follow the 2009 MUTCD.)
Quote from: Big John on July 22, 2024, 04:40:07 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on July 22, 2024, 03:11:27 PMI also like what WisDOT does for smaller cities that have multiple exits. I know a lot of state do this but that should be in every state doing it.
Sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4698148,-88.9949365,3a,15y,35.84h,90.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D35.84121754094059%26pitch%3D-0.395321557667188%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
And yes the sign is in Illinois but it is a WisDOT sign.
and no mention that the Wis 81 exit is also for I-43?????? :no:
I-43 does not go into Beloit from NB I-39-90.
Mike
^^ I feel those signs are indications of the following 3 exits and the top line was just additional info that those exits also serve that city. My view is that they should have the full info of each exit, even if part of it doesn't directly serve the city mentioned on the tab.
Quote from: Big John on July 24, 2024, 10:41:00 AM^^ I feel those signs are indications of the following 3 exits and the top line was just additional info that those exits also serve that city. My view is that they should have the full info of each exit, even if part of it doesn't directly serve the city mentioned on the tab.
The top line is not additional info; it indicates the purpose of the entire sign: These are the exits to use to access Beloit. If the purpose of the sign were to indicate all upcoming exits regardless of where they serve, the top line would be omitted altogether.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 10:10:31 PMQuote from: StogieGuy7 on July 23, 2024, 03:06:40 PMQuote from: TheStranger on July 23, 2024, 03:00:17 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 23, 2024, 09:07:27 AMI imagine there are a few other cities that are like this, so "exclusive" might be overselling it, but I really wish more cities would adopt backlit street signage to the extent Las Vegas has. I'm used to only seeing them in select corridors, but in Vegas they are used at just about every single signalized intersection.
As long as the backlighting is maintained!
We have some formerly backlit BGSes from the 1960s in San Francisco for I-80 east...that have not had their lighting adjusted at all in decades:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7779028,-122.4002709,3a,75y,348.73h,97.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dx_Jurvr-6005ShBiPvu65w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D348.7255161774147%26pitch%3D-7.155781090405995%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
That sign must have looked amazing when it was brand new! I agree, the problem is that such signs are not maintained properly in the USA. Other countries, on the other hand, do take good care of backlit signs and they look sharp.
Vegas is pretty good at maintaining ours. I've only seen one or two signs not working in the time I've been living here.
Besides, these days, with LEDs, the maintenance required is pretty low.
The implementation and design may vary by jurisdiction, but internally lit street name signs at traffic signals seems to have become a standard statewide in Nevada. And most jurisdictions are using the thinner LED units for new installations/replacements now, instead of the fluorescent tube housings.
They are widespread in Reno, Sparks and Carson City...although not at every signal like in the Vegas area (some older ones don't have them, but any new installations always do). They're common enough in smaller urban environments like Elko, Fallon and Fernley, and NDOT & the counties do tend to use them when installing signals at rural intersections.
North Las Vegas had been a long a hold out on this, preferring a static sign attached to the mast arm...this was a tell-tale sign that a signal was maintained by NLV instead of LV or Clark County. But on my recent trip to the Vegas area last month, I recall going through one or two newer signals in NLV that had lit SNS's (similar implementation to the current Henderson standard) and I was quite surprised to see it.
But yes, I agree that this would be a great practice to expand elsewhere. Especially the current iteration in the Las Vegas area that uses really big lettering with direction & block number (example (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cboh1B91sFh6fLtu8)).