AARoads Forum

The question above says it all ^

The extra-wide are more legible and kinda unique. I like them.

For those who are unfamiliar the extra wide: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/3230514740/in/set-72157613030881300

The extra wide county route shields on the guide signs in Suffolk County are certainly unique in New York.  There are other places in New York State that will post county route shields on guide signs, particularly in NYSDOT regions 6 and 8, but they use the more traditional shields.

The only other place that I've encountered an extra wide style of route shields posted on guide signs is in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.

I like the look of them - in fact they make county routes look like a legitimate designation that is actually expected to be used for navigation purposes.

I like the original sign for routes of 1-2 digits. 3-digit routes, the wider sign is acceptable and I think the MUTCD should standardize the wide design. (NY can provide the dimensions, so many of their counties use it.) I wish the MUTCD would accept the BGS shield without county name and correspondingly larger numerals.

Pentagon CR shields are hideous when done right. Overweight pentagon CR shields are even worse.

Then again, I've never been fond of county routes in general. They honestly seem like weeds to me. It's understandable that they exist, but signing them is just silly.

I like them, though they make more sense in more rural areas.  I don't like that the number often disappears at city or village lines though.  They should at least keep the number and sign them as a system like state highways (which don't have the number disappear if someone else maintains the road).

In fact, in Franklen and Ontario counties in NY these routes are only known by number.  Ironically neither county signs them with the pentagon shield; Ontario county has none and they're known simply as "Country Route X" and Franklin county has square green shields.

The only three-digit county highway shields I remember running across on BGSs are in Iowa, and those are always too small to read.  The two-digit ones I see in Minnesota are much more legible.  Frankly, I like the idea of a wide shield for three digits, but not the one pictured in this thread.  It's too cheesy, but I can't put my finger on why, exactly.

Quote from: Duke87 on March 02, 2012, 08:59:07 PM
They honestly seem like weeds to me. It's understandable that they exist, but signing them is just silly.

This would be a problem in NJ as the state secondary route system is county maintained. Whats interesting is the former New Jersey Highway Authority used a wide design for county route signing on Parkway BGSes. Even NJTP Exit 1 has a wide CR-540 shield posted on the sign.

I find the proportions of that BGS county route shield to be really strange but I like the fact that the county route is posted on the guide sign. It makes navigation via GPS much easier if you're following along route numbers instead of a mix of route numbers and road names.

Oswego County has been consistently posting county routes since the late 1980s and has always done a really good job of it, including cardinal directions and everything on sign assemblies. Many county routes are only known by the number, i.e. mailing addresses like "1234 County Route 2". Ironically, NYSDOT Region 3 has never included a county route designation on their freeway guide signs. I think this might change on the next round of sign updates on Interstate 81 but that's just speculation.

Chautauqua County in Region 5 has always been good about posting county route numbers as well, though they aren't as consistent with cardinal directions. Again NYSDOT has historically chosen not to the use the county route marker on freeway guide signs, perhaps this will change once they see the really good job that the neighboring Region 6 does with their signing practices.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 03, 2012, 03:27:34 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on March 02, 2012, 08:59:07 PM
They honestly seem like weeds to me. It's understandable that they exist, but signing them is just silly.

This would be a problem in NJ as the state secondary route system is county maintained. Whats interesting is the former New Jersey Highway Authority used a wide design for county route signing on Parkway BGSes. Even NJTP Exit 1 has a wide CR-540 shield posted on the sign.

New Jersey is unique in many ways and the county route structure is but one of them. The 500-series routes should really just be signed as state highways... I mean, they already keep their numbers across county lines, for crying out loud. And some of them are pretty damn long. The 600-series routes can stay lowly county routes but as elsewhere I see no point to signing them.

New Jersey also has a disease of state highways which just randomly end nowhere in particular. Dead ends dictated not by geography but rather by state doesn't feel like maintaining the road beyond this point and can't be arsed to sign the route across local or county maintenance to a more logical terminus, either. It's maddening.

Quote from: Duke87 on March 03, 2012, 07:10:28 PM

New Jersey also has a disease of state highways which just randomly end nowhere in particular. Dead ends dictated not by geography but rather by state doesn't feel like maintaining the road beyond this point and can't be arsed to sign the route across local or county maintenance to a more logical terminus, either. It's maddening.

Untrue. NJ has taken over random bridges (13, 59, 64, 152, 162) or else leaves old alignments in place (163, 167). Otherwise, the network is well-connected. There's nothing like you get in other states where the route ends partway through just because. In fact, quite the opposite - NJ 29 is signed to NJ 12 despite state maintenance ending at the town line.

Quote from: Steve on March 03, 2012, 07:23:26 PM
Untrue. NJ has taken over random bridges (13, 59, 64, 152, 162) or else leaves old alignments in place (163, 167). Otherwise, the network is well-connected. There's nothing like you get in other states where the route ends partway through just because. In fact, quite the opposite - NJ 29 is signed to NJ 12 despite state maintenance ending at the town line.

I can think of a few exceptions: 23, 63, 87. But yes, most do end at logical places. Even 7, which officially ends at the county line, is signed to 3.

Quote from: NE2 on March 03, 2012, 08:00:05 PM

Quote from: Steve on March 03, 2012, 07:23:26 PM
Untrue. NJ has taken over random bridges (13, 59, 64, 152, 162) or else leaves old alignments in place (163, 167). Otherwise, the network is well-connected. There's nothing like you get in other states where the route ends partway through just because. In fact, quite the opposite - NJ 29 is signed to NJ 12 despite state maintenance ending at the town line.

I can think of a few exceptions: 23, 63, 87. But yes, most do end at logical places. Even 7, which officially ends at the county line, is signed to 3.

23: Ends at the former 9.
63: Yes, county line. I give you that one.
87: Was planned to continue on a never-built bridge to another state route (which I'm not sure was ever in state jurisdiction, now a mostly-town maintained road).

7: No one has any clue what's going on there, at any end except the eastern.

5, 10, 18, 26, 133, 168, 172, 185...

Quote from: Duke87 on March 04, 2012, 11:42:34 AM
5, 10, 18, 26, 133, 168, 172, 185...

Yes, 10 and 26 (and 91) are valid. 5 ends at the shore. 18 and 133 end where the freeway ends. 168 and 172 are old 42 and 18. 185 ends where the new road ends.

I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, the pic at Exit 55 on Sunrise is more visible. On the other hand, besides being non-MUTCD compliant, it doesn't leave room for adding street names.

Quote from: NE2 on March 04, 2012, 12:41:08 PM
5 ends at the shore.

Valid reason for a dead end if you have a peninsula or an island. But not when the route could logically continue or there could logically be a perpendicular state highway for it to end at.

Quote18 and 133 end where the freeway ends.

But not at another state highway. 133 ends at a county route and 18 just goes poof. So they are nonetheless dead ends and "the freeway ends" is no excuse. State highways can extend beyond the end of a freeway.

Quote168 and 172 are old 42 and 18.

Irrelevant what they used to be, point is that they dead end.

Quote185 ends where the new road ends.

My issue with 185 is less the circumstances it ends under and more why the hell is it signed when it goes nowhere?

Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 03, 2012, 05:56:09 PM
I find the proportions of that BGS county route shield to be really strange but I like the fact that the county route is posted on the guide sign. It makes navigation via GPS much easier if you're following along route numbers instead of a mix of route numbers and road names.

I believe that this is why Oneida County (also also Warren County) recently started posting pentagon county route shields, due to the popularity of GPS devices giving directions by county route number.

Quote from: Duke87 on March 04, 2012, 09:43:13 PM

Quote from: NE2 on March 04, 2012, 12:41:08 PM
5 ends at the shore.

Valid reason for a dead end if you have a peninsula or an island. But not when the route could logically continue or there could logically be a perpendicular state highway for it to end at.

Quote18 and 133 end where the freeway ends.

But not at another state highway. 133 ends at a county route and 18 just goes poof. So they are nonetheless dead ends and "the freeway ends" is no excuse. State highways can extend beyond the end of a freeway.

Quote168 and 172 are old 42 and 18.

Irrelevant what they used to be, point is that they dead end.

Quote185 ends where the new road ends.

My issue with 185 is less the circumstances it ends under and more why the hell is it signed when it goes nowhere?

All of this does not speak to the idea you stated that (paraphrased) "the state doesn't feel like maintaining more of the road" - with the exception of 10, where that was very much the case (i.e. a truncation of the route back to where state maintenance ends, instead of extending state maintenance).