Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.
This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 01, 2012, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.
This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.
A lot of exits in Massachusetts
still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.
PennDOT has followed that MUTCD criteria for some time. When I-476 (the Blue Route) first opened in late 1991, one of the biggest complaints (aside from the southern end being undersized lane-wise) was the signage for the Baltimore Pike interchange (then Exit 2, now Exit 3). The main signs simply list
Media - Swarthmore and
Swarthmore - Media with no reference to Baltimore Pike. PennDOT later provided supplemental signage containing
Baltimore Pike and even
Springfield in the messages.
IMHO, PennDOT should've just signed the exit as
Baltimore Pike - Media -Swarthmore with supplemental
Springfield signs and been done with it.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 01, 2012, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.
This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.
Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 03:53:50 PM
IMHO, PennDOT should've just signed the exit as Baltimore Pike - Media -Swarthmore with supplemental Springfield signs and been done with it.
I know I'm in the minority, but I like the way New York does it sometimes with the route name boxed and the destinations listed below it.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 01, 2012, 11:07:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 03:53:50 PM
IMHO, PennDOT should've just signed the exit as Baltimore Pike - Media -Swarthmore with supplemental Springfield signs and been done with it.
I know I'm in the minority, but I like the way New York does it sometimes with the route name boxed and the destinations listed below it.
This is a common practice on Australian signs, however the road name patch is black text on a white patch.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ozroads.com.au%2FNSW%2FRouteNumbering%2FDeccomissioned%2520Routes%2FSR69%2F08.JPG&hash=2a8cd4844a652eef72c0dd2b85369ba65de9de7a)
Quote from: Steve on June 01, 2012, 07:08:32 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on June 01, 2012, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.
This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.
Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.
It's a guidance statement, not a standard...thus not required but highly encouraged to not mix the two.
Quote from: roadfro on June 02, 2012, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 01, 2012, 07:08:32 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on June 01, 2012, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.
This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.
Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.
It's a guidance statement, not a standard...thus not required but highly encouraged to not mix the two.
Engineering justification? "How the hell do we sign a street that leads to two towns otherwise?" Done.
Quote from: Steve on June 02, 2012, 05:16:44 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 02, 2012, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 01, 2012, 07:08:32 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on June 01, 2012, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2012, 11:37:59 PM
Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.
This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.
Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.
It's a guidance statement, not a standard...thus not required but highly encouraged to not mix the two.
Engineering justification? "How the hell do we sign a street that leads to two towns otherwise?" Done.
Many places do it. TV Road near Florence, SC has two control points: Quimby & Florence. Both are in one direction, spite that usually there is one for each and here both cities are south of I-95 here.
ISTHA has a solution in the Chicago suburbs. They use an auxiliary sign with the suburbs reachable near the exit, i.e.:
Lisle
Naperville
Downers Grove
THIS EXIT
From Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.779537,-88.052588&spn=0.023586,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.779645,-88.052672&panoid=Bx4wYll6wrTD4kAMQUDX3w&cbp=12,10.34,,0,6.98
and,
Homer Glen
Lockport
Orland Park
THIS EXIT
From Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.59131,-88.00817&spn=0.023655,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.591443,-88.008252&panoid=XhuGeOtu7r9FabJnCVu-Kg&cbp=12,7.48,,0,3.3
Okay, I get that they don't want a BGS sign to have the street name *and* city name(s) in the same breath anymore, but to clarify:
If the exit is for a specific route number (i.e. Business Loop 70) *and* the road's name is known solely as the route number (Business Loop 70), then can you or can you not include a control city(ies) on the BGS per the latest rules??
What about I-495 in Maryland? You have, lets say, the MD 4 & Pennsylvania Avenue interchange listing it with both the route and street name with either Washington for WB and Upper Marlboro for EB among many other interchanges. Only the MD 214 & Central Avenue interchange has no control cities with the respective street name and MD route number on its signs.
Nonetheless, this is showing the fact that you have numbered routes going to different places as well as their local names at the same time. This, I must say, works out well for the needs of the traffic along the busy Capital Beltway.
Quote from: thenetwork on June 03, 2012, 01:57:54 AM
Okay, I get that they don't want a BGS sign to have the street name *and* city name(s) in the same breath anymore, but to clarify:
If the exit is for a specific route number (i.e. Business Loop 70) *and* the road's name is known solely as the route number (Business Loop 70), then can you or can you not include a control city(ies) on the BGS per the latest rules??
There is nothing against that according to the MUTCD. That would be akin to signing any normal route shield with control cities. You wouldn't write out "Business Loop 70" on the BGS though, just the shield and the control cities.
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2012, 05:08:49 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on June 03, 2012, 01:57:54 AM
Okay, I get that they don't want a BGS sign to have the street name *and* city name(s) in the same breath anymore, but to clarify:
If the exit is for a specific route number (i.e. Business Loop 70) *and* the road's name is known solely as the route number (Business Loop 70), then can you or can you not include a control city(ies) on the BGS per the latest rules??
There is nothing against that according to the MUTCD. That would be akin to signing any normal route shield with control cities. You wouldn't write out "Business Loop 70" on the BGS though, just the shield and the control cities.
On the other hand, this guideline encourages unreadable shields with tiny text for named toll roads.
I-55 through Ridgeland, MS has two exits that sign both city and street name.
220 in Louisiana signs Airline Dr/ Bossier City although the not as populated Benton Rd. exit only says Benton/Bossier City
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 03:53:50 PM
A lot of exits in Massachusetts still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.
Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route. In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations. The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.
Massachusetts has been doing this since the late 1960s on BGSes. Futher, this practice has had the blessing of the local FHWA office since the late 1980s.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 03, 2012, 02:41:09 AM
What about I-495 in Maryland? You have, lets say, the MD 4 & Pennsylvania Avenue interchange listing it with both the route and street name with either Washington for WB and Upper Marlboro for EB among many other interchanges. Only the MD 214 & Central Avenue interchange has no control cities with the respective street name and MD route number on its signs.
Nonetheless, this is showing the fact that you have numbered routes going to different places as well as their local names at the same time. This, I must say, works out well for the needs of the traffic along the busy Capital Beltway.
That's pretty routine in Northern Virginia as well and it always seemed normal to me, probably because I grew up seeing signs like that. I think the way Virginia's signs are usually (unfortunately not always!) set up with the name in slightly smaller print than the destinations is a pretty good design.
I think part of the reason I like this system is that it's a real crapshoot around here as to what roads get referred to in what way. There's not a lot of consistency in terms of some roads being referred to by number, some by name, and in some cases it depends on the person to whom you're speaking. The sign in this picture is a good example–"236" and some form of "Little River" are both pretty common. But the road at the next interchange to the north is ALWAYS "Gallows Road" and is never referred to by its number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F93a4e46d.jpg&hash=dcadba441d5dd75880941cd59454d807b20e1edb)
Quote from: roadman on June 04, 2012, 12:59:48 PM
Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route. In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations. The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.
There are a few instances where Caltrans does exactly that (route shield, road name *and* control cities)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_nb_exit_022a_05.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images085/ca-085_nb_exit_022b_01.jpg)
from the AARoads Gallery (the second photo is an old porcelain sign)
On the other hand, Ontario encourages the use of road names with destinations... at least on non-overhead signs.
IMO it depends. I usually prefer destination names instead of road names, except in built-up areas, and sometimes the mix only seems to add unnecessary clutter.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 04, 2012, 01:25:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 03, 2012, 02:41:09 AM
What about I-495 in Maryland? You have, lets say, the MD 4 & Pennsylvania Avenue interchange listing it with both the route and street name with either Washington for WB and Upper Marlboro for EB among many other interchanges. Only the MD 214 & Central Avenue interchange has no control cities with the respective street name and MD route number on its signs.
Nonetheless, this is showing the fact that you have numbered routes going to different places as well as their local names at the same time. This, I must say, works out well for the needs of the traffic along the busy Capital Beltway.
That's pretty routine in Northern Virginia as well and it always seemed normal to me, probably because I grew up seeing signs like that. I think the way Virginia's signs are usually (unfortunately not always!) set up with the name in slightly smaller print than the destinations is a pretty good design.
I think part of the reason I like this system is that it's a real crapshoot around here as to what roads get referred to in what way. There's not a lot of consistency in terms of some roads being referred to by number, some by name, and in some cases it depends on the person to whom you're speaking. The sign in this picture is a good example–"236" and some form of "Little River" are both pretty common. But the road at the next interchange to the north is ALWAYS "Gallows Road" and is never referred to by its number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F93a4e46d.jpg&hash=dcadba441d5dd75880941cd59454d807b20e1edb)
I always liked how Maryland and Virginia do this. Especially in a metro area where road names are used by locals. Many locals dont even know the route numbers, but travelers and visitors know route numbers from maps.
I know here in Jax most BGS just have shields and road names.
Quote from: roadman on June 04, 2012, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 03:53:50 PM
A lot of exits in Massachusetts still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.
Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route. In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations. The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.
I believe the OP's referring to the practice of many highway interchanges w/
unnumbered streets having BGS panels featuring either control desitnation(s)
or the street name as opposed to both (like many interchange signs in Massachusetts).
I don't believe anyone was even referring to BGS panels having all three (route number, street name, control destinations) all on the same board until 1995hoo's above-posted example in Virginia.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 06, 2012, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 04, 2012, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 01, 2012, 03:53:50 PM
A lot of exits in Massachusetts still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.
Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route. In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations. The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.
I believe the OP's referring to the practice of many highway interchanges w/unnumbered streets having BGS panels featuring either control desitnation(s) or the street name as opposed to both (like many interchange signs in Massachusetts).
I don't believe anyone was even referring to BGS panels having all three (route number, street name, control destinations) all on the same board until 1995hoo's above-posted example in Virginia.
I posted that picture in response to the comment from roadman65 about that sort of signage in Maryland because I thought an example would be useful to people not from this area.
I see Street Names signed with Destinations, as well as government buildings (such as DMVs) signed with Destinations.
Aiken County has such a sign on the JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY near North Augusta.
What gets me is the fact, the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey has placed the control city BEFORE the road name instead of after it on its 90's era or later signage! Even in Irvington, a very urban city, for Lyons Avenue( NB Exit 143 and SB Exits 143A & B) it does not use "EAST" or WEST" to denote the directions! The one signed for Exit 143A is Maplewood (Underlined) then Lyons Avenue. The other for Exit 143B that has Hillside (underscored) followed by Lyons Avenue.
Two things wrong with the way it is, first of all both exits access either direction of Lyons Avenue. Then the other is why you need control points for Lyons Avenue in the first place anyway! The best way into Maplewood is by exiting at the previous Exit 143 (Southbound Parkway uses Exit 143 for Springfield Avenue) and go west on Springfield. Lyons Avenue does meet Springfield Avenue to complete the journey into Maplewood, so its pointless. Then the fact Hillside is used at all, being that Lyons Avenue goes no where near it. Although one may argue that Union Avenue, the road that 143B exits onto, does go there; however it would be more useful to stay on the GSP to Exit 141 to US 22 East or use the new I-78 ramp that was just opened.
Bottom line is this is rural type signing in a highly urban envorniment and no one else, that I have seen, uses the control city on top of the street name anywhere. Even, GA changed the GA 99 exit on I-95 to put Eulonia beneath Townsend Road after new signing was added few years back. Previously, it was GA 99- Eulonia- Townsend Road.
G.S. Parkway has always used that sign format even going back to their original signs from the 1950's and 60's. As a kid years ago, I remember seeing the sign "E. Orange Newark CENTRAL AVE, NEXT RIGHT". G.S. Parkway had a few other unique sign designs also, incuding the arrow enclosed in a circle on the "exit-gore" sign.
New York DOT has long used BGS with a road name and 2 destinations, where the road is not numbered. Especially common on the L.I. Expwy in Nassau County.
I've always wondered why the FHWA discouraged the use of a street name and city name on the same sign. New York has proved for at least 50 years that this format works fine.
Here's a photo of ISTHA's method (at North Ave and I-355):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2011.jpg&hash=8c099b7cb2d39a5cf56dad3138b91e6ff6e79923)
Quote from: Brandon on June 13, 2012, 11:37:38 PM
Here's a photo of ISTHA's method (at North Ave and I-355):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2011.jpg&hash=8c099b7cb2d39a5cf56dad3138b91e6ff6e79923)
Is 'Pleasant Ln' the road name at the exit mentioned on the previous sign, or is referring to the overpass above it?
Anyway, it's hard to tell from this picture, but usually on NSW overpasses the road name is affixed to the overpass. The road name is 'Yellow Creek Rd'.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ozroads.com.au%2FNSW%2FRouteNumbering%2FNational%2520Routes%2F25%2Fnt13.JPG&hash=a2a9304b603e29f94226f9392749238df018457c)
Pleasant Lane is the overpass.
Some states do attach the sign to the overpass; KS usually does. Though they tend to attach the sign to the actual cross beams as opposed to the railing.
It's referring to the overpass. Many (most?) states do it that way on overpasses. Some (Michigan being one example) post the road name on the overpass itself in the fashion shown in your picture (not on the railing though).
From what I've noticed here in California, the only way you know what street the overpass is from one of those small white signs, as well as on the technical information on the overpass itself. Though on I-5 in Stockton, the temporary signs there show what street is below you. Don't know if they were there before the construction though...
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 13, 2012, 11:50:11 PM
Is 'Pleasant Ln' the road name at the exit mentioned on the previous sign, or is referring to the overpass above it?
"Pleasant Ln" is the overpass. The exit is for North Avenue (IL-64).
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 04, 2012, 01:25:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 03, 2012, 02:41:09 AM
What about I-495 in Maryland? You have, lets say, the MD 4 & Pennsylvania Avenue interchange listing it with both the route and street name with either Washington for WB and Upper Marlboro for EB among many other interchanges. Only the MD 214 & Central Avenue interchange has no control cities with the respective street name and MD route number on its signs.
Nonetheless, this is showing the fact that you have numbered routes going to different places as well as their local names at the same time. This, I must say, works out well for the needs of the traffic along the busy Capital Beltway.
That's pretty routine in Northern Virginia as well and it always seemed normal to me, probably because I grew up seeing signs like that. I think the way Virginia's signs are usually (unfortunately not always!) set up with the name in slightly smaller print than the destinations is a pretty good design.
I think part of the reason I like this system is that it's a real crapshoot around here as to what roads get referred to in what way. There's not a lot of consistency in terms of some roads being referred to by number, some by name, and in some cases it depends on the person to whom you're speaking. The sign in this picture is a good example–"236" and some form of "Little River" are both pretty common. But the road at the next interchange to the north is ALWAYS "Gallows Road" and is never referred to by its number.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F93a4e46d.jpg&hash=dcadba441d5dd75880941cd59454d807b20e1edb)
Tennessee does this quite a bit with BGS signs. I've also seen it in Kentucky and around Mobile, AL.
<rant>I always wonder why ALDOT can't use consistent standards across the state. Sure the differences between divisions makes for interesting driving, but can't there be some guide signing practices that are the same throughout the state? This method of signing street names and route numbers should be used throughout Alabama, but for some reason you only see it in Division 9. I have seen it once in Birmingham for US 78/Arkadelphia Rd, but not anywhere else.
</rant>
That Illinois supplemental sign is interesting. 5 destinations shown. The MUTCD (Sec. 2E-35-03) says there should not be more than 2 destinations shown, though I've seen other states show 3 in some cases. But again that's just guidance, not a standard.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 13, 2012, 10:35:01 PM
G.S. Parkway has always used that sign format even going back to their original signs from the 1950's and 60's. As a kid years ago, I remember seeing the sign "E. Orange Newark CENTRAL AVE, NEXT RIGHT". G.S. Parkway had a few other unique sign designs also, incuding the arrow enclosed in a circle on the "exit-gore" sign.
New York DOT has long used BGS with a road name and 2 destinations, where the road is not numbered. Especially common on the L.I. Expwy in Nassau County.
I've always wondered why the FHWA discouraged the use of a street name and city name on the same sign. New York has proved for at least 50 years that this format works fine.
I also remember exit numbers were just posted on top of the sign without the word "EXIT."
You know some parts of NY, like on I-81 uses capital letter street names (look at Exit 51 on street view) where Island Road is not only in caps, but inside a square while the control point is standard mixed case.
Yes Roadman, I remember those top-mounted number tabs you described. Interesting that GSP's original practice from the 1950's was a forerunner to the now almost everywhere standard exit tabs that began in the 1960's.
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 14, 2012, 12:26:36 AM
It's referring to the overpass. Many (most?) states do it that way on overpasses. Some (Michigan being one example) post the road name on the overpass itself in the fashion shown in your picture (not on the railing though).
South Carolina does NOT put the Street Name for overpasses. Instead, SC puts the Secondary Road, State Highway, US Highway or Interstate Highway to refer to the overpass.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2012, 10:25:31 PM
You know some parts of NY, like on I-81 uses capital letter street names (look at Exit 51 on street view) where Island Road is not only in caps, but inside a square while the control point is standard mixed case.
That format is on the way out though, right? I thought that those were being replaced or greened out to have the street name in regular text.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m5rp5qf1Ua1rob8r8o1_500.png&hash=7a765d78cdb011db9bf5349d467ff0c8c5d96bf5)
Another example, there seems to be a lot off US101... although Barham's name changes to Olive when it gets into Burbank. This was the only one I could think of but I think there's others.
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 17, 2012, 09:47:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2012, 10:25:31 PM
You know some parts of NY, like on I-81 uses capital letter street names (look at Exit 51 on street view) where Island Road is not only in caps, but inside a square while the control point is standard mixed case.
That format is on the way out though, right? I thought that those were being replaced or greened out to have the street name in regular text.
They are, though the only case of a green out I know of is I-81 south at Taft Rd (exit 28).
Interestingly, exit 52 (Island Rd/DeWolf Pt) fixed the problem by removing "Island Rd" from the sign altogether when it was replaced.
This combination (road name + destination) is not limited to older California signage. There's an example of a newer exit direction sign on eastbound I-580 in Livermore that has both the road name and destination on the same sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F580e_52b.png&hash=df531fe2c4eeaf43f3cf4347f8a141939e544bc5)
Wow, I have never heard of 'Dwntn' as an abbreviation for 'Downtown'. :hmm:
Quote from: national highway 1 on June 17, 2012, 08:54:59 PM
Wow, I have never heard of 'Dwntn' as an abbreviation for 'Downtown'. :hmm:
I've seen "DWTN" used from time to time.
I'm sure this sign along I-680 north used to say "Contra Costa Blvd" (it's the next exit) at the top line where the exit number now is. One of the many greenout absurdities I found along 680 in Contra Costa County.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5234%2F7396938428_45106850cf_c.jpg&hash=7a60332c789e0df161739d0c1c1c69b2f1967418)
I was noticing that in New Jersey along NJ 36 in Middletown Township that NJDOT has changed their small lgses to mixed case instead of the capital letters that have been used in NJ for years. Even the "ALL TURNS" banner is now within the newer signs. In the past at all jughandles, "ALL TURNS" was in a black on white placecard below the street names, destination, etc. in the gore. Now it is still black on white, but within the green sign.