Recently someone submitted a photo to another thread that was noticed by another user as having a record in number of sign panels in one place.
That gave me the idea of how I see a lot of places where there are just too many road signs for the driver to comprehend and yet are placed in places.
Example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/5043752272/in/photostream/
This is on the infamous Ross Clark Circle, a 13 mile at grade beltway, around Dothan, AL that carries all three US Route designations in its complete loop to bypass its city center. Then you have the old routes through town and its business routes added more shields as well as supplementary signage as well.
Anyone have photos or would like to share cases of where you might think one intersection or place has just too many signs whether needed or not needed?
Not quite as extreme, but this strikes me as something of an information overload.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wemgC-8Icd0/UGhPxARObuI/AAAAAAAAB7Y/o6GDfEiEKGE/s800/DSCN0712.JPG)
(OH 73 was moved onto a bypass after the photo was taken, so those might be gone now, but I can't imagine much else has changed.)
No, seriously, left turn must yield on green ball. VA 144 at I-95. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fs600x600%2F71612_10200121517781941_521382495_n.jpg&hash=e7a2330bfb7236bfa299c81cbb2162a4ec306519)
I-66 eastbound in Fairfax County, Virginia, between Va. 243 (Nutley Street) and I-495 qualifies.
Mostly because of the HOV restrictions that apply to all traffic east of I-495, with more signs recently added for the I-495 Express Toll Lanes.
Quote from: Takumi on December 23, 2012, 07:24:32 PM
No, seriously, left turn must yield on green ball. VA 144 at I-95.
On a similar note: Tired of people ignoring your first sign? Just put up 3 more!
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sMXZHu-3QDc/UNezyOTrqxI/AAAAAAAACH8/3Ch_p5cBlvE/s800/DSCF0209.JPG)
(OH 16 in Columbus, Ohio)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fus_9%2Fcurves.jpg&hash=e5581c3a971058ace0d3772aada336cfefe7ca21)
Context intentionally deleted; provided on this page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_9/2.html).
If I had to guess the context without clicking through to the page, I would guess that an idiot used curve warning signs in place of chevrons.
So is this basically a new Sine Salad thread?
Here's one I encountered recently: Sine Salad in Rushville, IN (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.606449,-85.44488&spn=0.02288,0.028152&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.606631,-85.444776&panoid=HRDv3OJT80O-AvDfRUBjOw&cbp=12,356.98,,1,-9.81). It seemed worse when I drove through the other day.
Here's one from Columbus that could reasonably be helped by employing Sign Spreading: Too Many Guide Signs in Columbus (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.975394,-83.000121&spn=0.011379,0.014076&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.975435,-83.000019&panoid=rUKercoDH9kTwm4sWC4yWg&cbp=12,56.8,,0,-9.05)
Quote from: vtk on December 24, 2012, 01:22:23 PM
Here's one from Columbus that could reasonably be helped by employing Sign Spreading: Too Many Guide Signs in Columbus (https://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.975394,-83.000121&spn=0.011379,0.014076&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=39.975435,-83.000019&panoid=rUKercoDH9kTwm4sWC4yWg&cbp=12,56.8,,0,-9.05)
The thing that annoyed me most about this (though I assume it will be or already has been changed) was that exit 5C suddenly became exit 5B further on. (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6WU4tR4WhkY/UGhHy3n__zI/AAAAAAAAB7s/dJrJQ3LSwEY/s0/DSCN3668.JPG)
Well right now it's 5C which becomes an unnumbered exit. When they open the new I-670 EB flyover, they'll have to rearrange that display, so it will probably match the actual exit – which I suspect will just be exit 5.
Quote from: vtk on December 24, 2012, 01:22:23 PM
So is this basically a new Sine Salad thread?
Not hardly. Sine Salads may have a number of signs, but usually they're all necessary for route directions (let's pardon GA's overlap routes for this, shall we?). This is for superfluous repetition.
Thanks for the clarification.
I think the signs have been revised, but I always thought the overhead huge BGS pull-throughs on the southbound Delaware Turnpike were massive overkill. Not because they provided too much info or were unclear–they weren't. They were very easy to follow. They just had way too many of them!
cpzilliacus is dead-on about all the signs on I-66. Out-of-area drivers are known to become bewildered by all the black-on-white notices through there.
Two of my pet peeves regarding sign "clutter" and overuse:
New signs are almost always placed on separate posts, even if they could be mounted with existing signs (for example, no parking signs with speed limit signs - or street name signs with stop signs).
Mounting of signs that aren't applicable to the situation. I often see "Left Turn Yield On Green (ball)" signs mounted with three section signals where there isn't a protected/permissive left turn phase - and in some cases, not even a dedicated left turn lane. One case near my house has been in place since the signal was installed ten years ago.
Wait, if I'm not misunderstanding, that is applicable–if there's not a dedicated left turn lane, or a protected phase, then by definition it's always a permissive left...which (unless you live in FYA-land) is signaled with...a green ball. So the sign applies. The only case it wouldn't be is if there was a FYA (in which case the sign should be switched to "Left Turn Yield On Flashing (<-)") or if there was a protected left with no possibility of a permissive cycle (in which case it should be a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign or "(left arrow) ONLY").
Alabama is notorious for this. Here is a sign assembly in Hamilton, AL (http://goo.gl/maps/YNlkx) involving three US routes (one of which no longer goes through the intersection anymore) and two state routes (one is hidden at this intersection).
Here is another in Natural Bridge, AL (http://goo.gl/maps/ZRjzn) at the northern terminus of AL 5.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 29, 2012, 10:56:52 AM
Wait, if I'm not misunderstanding, that is applicable–if there's not a dedicated left turn lane, or a protected phase, then by definition it's always a permissive left...which (unless you live in FYA-land) is signaled with...a green ball. So the sign applies. The only case it wouldn't be is if there was a FYA (in which case the sign should be switched to "Left Turn Yield On Flashing (<-)") or if there was a protected left with no possibility of a permissive cycle (in which case it should be a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign or "(left arrow) ONLY").
Point taken. However, the problem I have with this is that some drivers seeing the "Left Turn Yield on Green Ball" sign might think there is a protected phase for the left turn - even if there's only three-section heads.
Now, if it was standard practice to install such signs at all signalized left turns (which defeats the purpose of the sign - to inform drivers of protected/permissive phasing), then there probably wouldn't be an issue. However, placing such signs at locations where they're not applicable violates a basic principle of traffic control - that of expectancy. Imagine an unfamiliar driver at such an intersection - instead of taking advantage of gaps in opposing traffic, they may sit in the lane waiting for a protected phase that will never come. While they'd probably figure it out within two or three cycles, it still backs up traffic.
And, apparently many drivers don't have an understanding of the rules at protected/permissive intersections - which is why we now have the flashing yellow arrow.
Quote from: roadman on December 29, 2012, 11:36:46 AM
Point taken. However, the problem I have with this is that some drivers seeing the "Left Turn Yield on Green Ball" sign might think there is a protected phase for the left turn - even if there's only three-section heads.
Now, if it was standard practice to install such signs at all signalized left turns (which defeats the purpose of the sign - to inform drivers of protected/permissive phasing), then there probably wouldn't be an issue. However, placing such signs at locations where they're not applicable violates a basic principle of traffic control - that of expectancy. Imagine an unfamiliar driver at such an intersection - instead of taking advantage of gaps in opposing traffic, they may sit in the lane waiting for a protected phase that will never come. While they'd probably figure it out within two or three cycles, it still backs up traffic.
The purpose of the sign is to remind drivers of the *permissive* nature of making left turns, not to imply protected/permitted phasing. If the sign were to advise drivers of PPLT phasing, I would think the signs would be worded differently.
I think the potential misunderstanding comes from the sign being used most often in conjunction with 5-section PPLT displays. I have seen the sign used a couple of times without PPLT phasing without drivers misunderstanding the meaning.
Yeah, here it's standard practice to include a Left Turn Yield on Green Ball sign in any sort of permissive situation. These are going away in Norman, however, due to Norman's aggressive uptake of the FYA.
I think there might be a crosswalk nearby, (or two or three): :pan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages52.fotki.com%2Fv644%2Fphotos%2F0%2F847780%2F10720305%2Fphoto-vi.jpg&hash=62b0ea76290966eedd29fa00b22289d11b565d25)
There was public outcry in a local paper, regarding the overabundance of the Ped Xing assemblies along this reconstructed stretch of highway near Port Washington, WI. Every crosswalk along this reconstructed corridor had the Ahead/Xing assemblies, and by no means are these crossings high volume nor unexpected. I've been told that since I snapped this photo, a few have been removed. :clap:
Having the signs makes sense, especially in WI where the pavement markings may be obscured by snow. The real problem here is that there's too many crosswalks. Distance might be compressed by the camera, but in that photo it looks like there's not even 100 feet between the first two crosswalks there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2012, 12:03:23 AM
Having the signs makes sense, especially in WI where the pavement markings may be obscured by snow. The real problem here is that there's too many crosswalks. Distance might be compressed by the camera, but in that photo it looks like there's not even 100 feet between the first two crosswalks there.
While I agree about the potential for markings to be obscured by snow, I do not agree about using this assembly for every crossing in an
urban area. The AHEAD assemblies are completely unnecessary. The actual crosswalks are at intersections, which, normally, would be expected in an urban location. According to a rough GoogleMap (http://goo.gl/maps/5EvLX) measurement, there's about 400-ft between the downstream crosswalks.
Had these been mid-block crossings, I would have no issue, as mid-block crossings are not typically
expected.
Quote from: roadfro on December 29, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 29, 2012, 11:36:46 AM
Point taken. However, the problem I have with this is that some drivers seeing the "Left Turn Yield on Green Ball" sign might think there is a protected phase for the left turn - even if there's only three-section heads.
Now, if it was standard practice to install such signs at all signalized left turns (which defeats the purpose of the sign - to inform drivers of protected/permissive phasing), then there probably wouldn't be an issue. However, placing such signs at locations where they're not applicable violates a basic principle of traffic control - that of expectancy. Imagine an unfamiliar driver at such an intersection - instead of taking advantage of gaps in opposing traffic, they may sit in the lane waiting for a protected phase that will never come. While they'd probably figure it out within two or three cycles, it still backs up traffic.
The purpose of the sign is to remind drivers of the *permissive* nature of making left turns, not to imply protected/permitted phasing. If the sign were to advise drivers of PPLT phasing, I would think the signs would be worded differently.
I think the potential misunderstanding comes from the sign being used most often in conjunction with 5-section PPLT displays. I have seen the sign used a couple of times without PPLT phasing without drivers misunderstanding the meaning.
I, honestly, don't understand the need for the "Left Turn Yield on Green" auxillary sign, even with protective/permissive signals (e.g. five-light doghouse or vertical style signals). Numerous states don't use them in such cases (South Dakota comes to mind). A green arrow symbolizes a protected left turn, a green ball does not. Anybody who passes a driving test should be able to figure that out.
In Ohio, I've seen the "left turn yield on green" used in conjunction with permissive-only signals, at least in a few cases, when it's not immediately clear that there's conflicting traffic to yield to--for example, when two streets are offset slightly but signalized as a single intersection.
Of course, the city of Columbus seems to favor a simpler "yield on left turn" sign in those situations, presumably because it's pointless to specify "on green ball" when the ball is the only green indication.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UXIKo2Dzzpg/UN_oGBcGIUI/AAAAAAAACJg/Le_HpsjuL7c/s640/DSCF2023.JPG)
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 30, 2012, 02:17:43 AM
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UXIKo2Dzzpg/UN_oGBcGIUI/AAAAAAAACJg/Le_HpsjuL7c/s640/DSCF2023.JPG)
No. Just no. What's worse than getting punched on the driver side going left unprotected? This isn't overkill. This one's just plum stupidity far beyond overkill.
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 30, 2012, 02:17:43 AM
Of course, the city of Columbus seems to favor a simpler "yield on left turn" sign in those situations, presumably because it's pointless to specify "on green ball" when the ball is the only green indication.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-UXIKo2Dzzpg/UN_oGBcGIUI/AAAAAAAACJg/Le_HpsjuL7c/s640/DSCF2023.JPG)
That wording doesn't make sense. "Left turns yield" would be more clear...
Although I agree that the sign probably isn't even necessary at all...
It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all. You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.
Quote from: vtk on December 30, 2012, 11:12:08 AM
It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all. You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.
Exactly. Thank you.
I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's
usually obvious, there's
never an application where it's appropriate.
On the other hand, I can't completely disagree witht the argument that an offset intersection is itself a really stupid idea.
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 30, 2012, 03:07:47 PM
I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's usually obvious, there's never an application where it's appropriate.
Does an appropriate application exist for "do not stop on tracks"?
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 30, 2012, 03:07:47 PM
Quote from: vtk on December 30, 2012, 11:12:08 AM
It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all. You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.
Exactly. Thank you.
I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's usually obvious, there's never an application where it's appropriate.
These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 09:02:25 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 30, 2012, 03:07:47 PM
Quote from: vtk on December 30, 2012, 11:12:08 AM
It's necessary because at offset intersections, it may not be immediately obvious that there's any oncoming traffic at all. You see the sign, you think "yield? To whom?" Then you look around and notice to the left or right where the 'oncoming' traffic comes in, and you know you have to yield to that stream, even though they'll look more like cross traffic by the time they get to the conflict point.
Exactly. Thank you.
I'm getting tired of this attitude that because a sign states what's usually obvious, there's never an application where it's appropriate.
These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.
Much agreed. There is little wrong with the five lamp signals (tower or doghouse) when Dallas phasing isn't used. Locally, I've identified a grand total of one intersection where a FYA would be a good addition: US-30 and IL-59 on the south side of Plainfield for the movement from SB IL-59 to EB US-30.
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 09:02:25 PM
These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.
...You lost me. Who said anything about FYA? I thought we were talking about poorly-designed offset intersections.
Quote from: vtk on December 30, 2012, 08:13:31 PM
On the other hand, I can't completely disagree witht the argument that an offset intersection is itself a really stupid idea.
That's a good point, though most such intersections I see are in older neighborhoods (like Franklinton) and weren't exactly designed with traffic control in mind.
Anyway, as for overkill:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7wT89y3AXwI/UOAH7B7ipCI/AAAAAAAACNc/duGYW88bsFg/s800/DSCF2340.JPG)
Not the gantry in the foreground, but in the background: why do they need US 23 reassurance shields on both sides of the road?
There are also a number of these "US 30 LEFT LANE" assemblies through here, which strike me as redundant because the overhead signage seems sufficient:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ht2u6pSVnXA/UOEeSIkPoPI/AAAAAAAACOA/6speKrwZukk/s400/DSCF2339.JPG)
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 30, 2012, 09:35:13 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 09:02:25 PM
These signs are definitely overused. Most of the applications of a flashing yellow arrow are identical to the use of a green ball, which makes me smack my head. The FYA has application to a lagging left (Dallas phasing) and little else.
...You lost me. Who said anything about FYA? I thought we were talking about poorly-designed offset intersections.
I got thinking about the "LEFT TURN YIELD ON ()" signs being used at every intersection, when it's perfectly obvious a green ball means yield, and my mind skipped about five steps to FYA. Sorry, my brain does that sometimes.
That's okay, I kinda muddled my own point as well.
What I'm really trying to say is this: Just because the rule itself is perfectly obvious doesn't necessarily mean it's obvious which rule applies in a given situation. Everyone of course knows that a green ball means to yield to oncoming traffic, but where the layout of the intersection means it's not immediately clear that there is oncoming traffic to yield to, it makes sense to give some kind of reminder.
Not to say that the signs aren't massively overused, just that in some cases they do serve a purpose.
(And yes, ideally such intersections should be designed better, but there's only so much you can do when accounting for real-world factors.)
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bridgeville,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.356089,-80.119193&spn=0.00077,0.001206&sll=41.117935,-77.604698&sspn=4.377622,9.876709&oq=Bridgevill&t=h&hnear=Bridgeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.356172,-80.119118&panoid=ec-UbyXzPJSzjw5lYnhsIg&cbp=12,76.86,,0,3.2 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bridgeville,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.356089,-80.119193&spn=0.00077,0.001206&sll=41.117935,-77.604698&sspn=4.377622,9.876709&oq=Bridgevill&t=h&hnear=Bridgeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.356172,-80.119118&panoid=ec-UbyXzPJSzjw5lYnhsIg&cbp=12,76.86,,0,3.2)
If you rotate around, you will see four "No Turn on Red" signs.
Quote from: MASTERNC on January 01, 2013, 09:28:40 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bridgeville,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.356089,-80.119193&spn=0.00077,0.001206&sll=41.117935,-77.604698&sspn=4.377622,9.876709&oq=Bridgevill&t=h&hnear=Bridgeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.356172,-80.119118&panoid=ec-UbyXzPJSzjw5lYnhsIg&cbp=12,76.86,,0,3.2 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bridgeville,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.356089,-80.119193&spn=0.00077,0.001206&sll=41.117935,-77.604698&sspn=4.377622,9.876709&oq=Bridgevill&t=h&hnear=Bridgeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.356172,-80.119118&panoid=ec-UbyXzPJSzjw5lYnhsIg&cbp=12,76.86,,0,3.2)
If you rotate around, you will see four "No Turn on Red" signs.
In this particular case, are the two "right turn signal" signs really needed? The signals are beyond the channelized turn, it seems obvious that these would apply to the right turn...although I suppose if they use the circular red then it *might* be more necessary.
I'm not sure if this would strictly be "overkill", but...
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RdS1orzShRw/UObrM7PU5bI/AAAAAAAACQk/NI0CnTZvQ1c/s640/DSCF2401.JPG)
There's not actually that much information on the sign, but the way it's laid out gives me feelings of "information overload" before I even read it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware050/i-095_sb_exit_006_08.jpg)
One of six overheads for Exit 6 / Delaware 4/9 on Interstate 95 south in Wilmington. I grew up thinking sign overkill like this was the norm throughout the country, but later realized it was just a DelDOT thing...
(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware050/i-095_nb_exit_007_11.jpg)
There are five signs in a row for Exit 7 on northbound for Delaware 52, including a favorite of mine, this "reassurance" panel over the ramp itself.
My favorite part has got to be where they have
RIGHT LANE
MUST EXIT
Where a simple "EXIT ONLY" would have sufficed.
Quote from: Alex on January 04, 2013, 10:03:27 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware050/i-095_sb_exit_006_08.jpg)
Like that California example posted elsewhere, there's that use of Junction as a control city again! :-D
Quote from: Central Avenue on January 04, 2013, 08:42:28 PM
I'm not sure if this would strictly be "overkill", but...
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RdS1orzShRw/UObrM7PU5bI/AAAAAAAACQk/NI0CnTZvQ1c/s640/DSCF2401.JPG)
There's not actually that much information on the sign, but the way it's laid out gives me feelings of "information overload" before I even read it.
A perfect sign for your bathroom!
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Wilmington,+NC&hl=en&ll=34.234051,-77.96731&spn=0.009101,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=wil&t=m&hnear=Wilmington,+New+Hanover,+North+Carolina&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.23405,-77.967027&panoid=gtqg4DGT8-ZVHiNJ_LyN-Q&cbp=12,97.01,,0,0
I also pasted this one on another topic. Its taken along the US 17, 74, and 76 concurrency approaching the US 421 interchange from the west. Because of US 40 and I-140 it has two more routes in addition to the junctioning US 421 and US 17 Business. I would say the panel on the right that carries straight through US 17 & 74 has way too much for a driver to comprehend.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2013, 12:50:13 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.234051,-77.96731&spn=0.009101,0.021136&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=wil&t=m&hnear=Wilmington,+New+Hanover,+North+Carolina&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.23405,-77.967027&panoid=gtqg4DGT8-ZVHiNJ_LyN-Q&cbp=12,97.01,,0,0
FTFY. (Removed search-query string, which on many mobile devices will generate a search operation whose result overrides the specific location & view you meant to link to.)
Quote from: Central Avenue on December 31, 2012, 12:11:59 AM
Anyway, as for overkill:
Not the gantry in the foreground, but in the background: why do they need US 23 reassurance shields on both sides of the road?
Driving through that very stretch following US 30 frequently myself, I believe I recall that the US 23 shields are junk left over from work done north of there, I think signage about a width restriction. The shields were posted to clarify that the restriction was on 23, not 30. When they took down the construction signs, they left the shields. They are oddballs with being mounted lower than usual ODOT reassurances and they lack directional banners--not that ODOT _always_ uses them everywhere, but other more permanent signage in the area all does.
Also, the TO I-75 straight-ahead sign is fine for going to 75 NB, but would lead way, way out of the way heading toward 75 SB where one would want to use US 30.
Department of Redundancy Department.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_3091.jpg&hash=727c1cb667ada6ec931055e344a113c48e94e48f)
Southbound on Houbolt / Hollywood Road, Joliet, IL.
^ This is likely a temporary situation due to sign replacement.
This is a common occurrence with wholesale road sign replacement projects, especially if old signs are on now non-spec posts or mounting hardware. New signs are installed (left, in this case) before old signs (right) are removed, to avoid having a period of missing critical signage.
Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
^ This is likely a temporary situation due to sign replacement.
This is a common occurrence with wholesale road sign replacement projects, especially if old signs are on now non-spec posts or mounting hardware. New signs are installed (left, in this case) before old signs (right) are removed, to avoid having a period of missing critical signage.
It's been there for months now. I think someone forgot there is a second Speed Limit 40 sign at the location. Usually around here for sign replacement, they remove the old sign on the same day.
Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
^ This is likely a temporary situation due to sign replacement.
This is a common occurrence with wholesale road sign replacement projects, especially if old signs are on now non-spec posts or mounting hardware. New signs are installed (left, in this case) before old signs (right) are removed, to avoid having a period of missing critical signage.
So it's sort of like this.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-noQ-FFVasY8/UOM6P2DzHFI/AAAAAAAAFOY/hLQ8Z7UqKl0/s640/IMG_0784.JPG)
I posted the following in the "Signs With Design Errors" thread before this thread existed, but it fits here better:
Quote from: Michael on December 14, 2012, 09:11:35 PM
I saw this on Imgur a few days ago. It isn't a "true" design error, but I didn't think it warranted its own thread:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIumtE.jpg&hash=b551f6d70301398dade2f77532a7d244190c0684)
Original Page: http://imgur.com/IumtE (http://imgur.com/IumtE)
IMO, the "design error" is the fact that the sign replacement crew didn't remove the old sign. Based on the different shades of yellow, I'm thinking that it was replaced to meet the new retroreflectivity standards in the 2009 MUTCD.
I got a few replies from people who thought that posting multiple signs was to ensure that there was at least one sign in place. Click the quote to go to the thread and scroll down to see the replies.
Quote from: Takumi on January 12, 2013, 07:57:31 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 12, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
^ This is likely a temporary situation due to sign replacement.
This is a common occurrence with wholesale road sign replacement projects, especially if old signs are on now non-spec posts or mounting hardware. New signs are installed (left, in this case) before old signs (right) are removed, to avoid having a period of missing critical signage.
So it's sort of like this.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-noQ-FFVasY8/UOM6P2DzHFI/AAAAAAAAFOY/hLQ8Z7UqKl0/s640/IMG_0784.JPG)
The "WORK ZONE" plaque likely lets the driver know that special work zone laws are in effect (extra speeding fines etc.). Perhaps it was just as easy to drive the post as it would have been to find some other way of attaching the plaque to the existing sign–especially if they would have to move it to a different location later in the project.
Quote from: Takumi on January 12, 2013, 07:57:31 PM
So it's sort of like this.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-noQ-FFVasY8/UOM6P2DzHFI/AAAAAAAAFOY/hLQ8Z7UqKl0/s640/IMG_0784.JPG)
This kind of signing scenario is typically done in a construction zone in Florida. Even if the construction speed limit does not change the regular speed limit, or if the construction speed limit end coincides with the regular speed limit resumption, contractor based speed limit signs follow regular speed limit signs.
I have also noted this practice on some ALDOT construction zones, most recently on a portion of I-10 in Baldwin County that is to be resurfaced. You get a set of contractor 70 mph speed limit signs just as you exit the construction area, followed immediately by ALDOT-posted 70 mph signs.
I live in Indianapolis, where we're trying to become more bicycle-friendly. The main road off my subdivision was repaved last year and "Share the Road" signs went up about every 100 feet on the road. You turn onto the road and along the right it's a neat row of these signs as far as the eye can see. Seems like they could have gotten away with them far, far less frequently.
Quote from: mobilene on January 14, 2013, 12:02:15 PM
I live in Indianapolis, where we're trying to become more bicycle-friendly. The main road off my subdivision was repaved last year and "Share the Road" signs went up about every 100 feet on the road. You turn onto the road and along the right it's a neat row of these signs as far as the eye can see. Seems like they could have gotten away with them far, far less frequently.
Let the bill come in to pay for those signs & they probably will be spread out! :pan:
I-35E northbound in St. Paul, where it gets away from the I-94 multiplex:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8407/29731515422_5bd0248184_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MigMGS)
(This photo was taken with a 55mm lens, which is not a zoom lens.)
Quote from: formulanone on January 14, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
I-35E northbound in St. Paul, where it gets away from the I-94 multiplex:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FInt35En-Exit242B-MultipleBGSigns.jpg&hash=db581d076d47e5ad343b437bc839e84b2c679af0)
(This photo was taken with a 55mm lens, which is not a zoom lens.)
I've actually driven through this area - my best friend used to live in the Twin CIties. And I can't decide what's worse here - the number of identical sign assemblies or the duplicate "EAST 94 10" on all of the pull thrus.
Also note that on the Exit 242B signs, the fabricator failed to square off the upper left corner of the main sign panel border where it meets the exit tab - a pet peeve of mine when it comes to sign design.
As an outsider who occasionally drives through downton MSP, I am never annoyed at having a lot of reassurance as to which lane I need to be in. I'm always constantly checking my mirrors, changing lanes, all while trying to not end up in an exit-only lane.
Quote from: roadman on January 15, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: formulanone on January 14, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
I-35E northbound in St. Paul, where it gets away from the I-94 multiplex:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FInt35En-Exit242B-MultipleBGSigns.jpg&hash=db581d076d47e5ad343b437bc839e84b2c679af0)
(This photo was taken with a 55mm lens, which is not a zoom lens.)
I've actually driven through this area - my best friend used to live in the Twin CIties. And I can't decide what's worse here - the number of identical sign assemblies or the duplicate "EAST 94 10" on all of the pull thrus.
Also note that on the Exit 242B signs, the fabricator failed to square off the upper left corner of the main sign panel border where it meets the exit tab - a pet peeve of mine when it comes to sign design.
I'm assuming the reasoning for that is likley due to the Exit panel was added either just after the main sign was fabricated or after the main sign was erected.
Quote from: roadman on January 15, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Also note that on the Exit 242B signs, the fabricator failed to square off the upper left corner of the main sign panel border where it meets the exit tab - a pet peeve of mine when it comes to sign design.
That's typically only done for separate-panel installations in West Virginia. (Massachusetts at least seems to be unipanel.)
Quote from: Steve on January 15, 2013, 11:32:37 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 15, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Also note that on the Exit 242B signs, the fabricator failed to square off the upper left corner of the main sign panel border where it meets the exit tab - a pet peeve of mine when it comes to sign design.
That's typically only done for separate-panel installations in West Virginia. (Massachusetts at least seems to be unipanel.)
Actually, exit tabs in Massachusetts are fabricated separately and attached to the main sign when the sign panel is installed on the structure. Older Mass. exit tabs (so-called "integral' design) appear to be unipanel because the top border of the main sign panel was omitted beneath the exit tab (this allowed the number to overlap onto the main sign - so 18 inch high panels could be used instead of 24 inch), however, the fabrication and installation methods were identical to the present-day (since 2004) full exit tabs.
And I personally know of at least one new "full tab" sign in Massachusetts where the intersecting border isn't squared off - this was apparently a fabricator error.
Quote from: formulanone on January 14, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
I-35E northbound in St. Paul, where it gets away from the I-94 multiplex:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FInt35En-Exit242B-MultipleBGSigns.jpg&hash=db581d076d47e5ad343b437bc839e84b2c679af0)
(This photo was taken with a 55mm lens, which is not a zoom lens.)
This is similar to what I was referring to in Delaware earlier in this thread, although in their case all the BGSs were pull-through signs bigger than the ones shown here.
I just stumbled on this huge monotube for some turn lane signs (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.0351,-76.067044&spn=0.001355,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.0351,-76.067044&panoid=phs59ivODaAxLOUM7uUP7g&cbp=12,325.12,,1,-2.25) on NY 92 just west of the western end of the NY 5/92 duplex in DeWitt.
Quote from: Michael on January 18, 2013, 01:46:19 PM
I just stumbled on this huge monotube for some turn lane signs (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.0351,-76.067044&spn=0.001355,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.0351,-76.067044&panoid=phs59ivODaAxLOUM7uUP7g&cbp=12,325.12,,1,-2.25) on NY 92 just west of the western end of the NY 5/92 duplex in DeWitt.
Interesting that there is a center two-way turn lane adjacent to a left turn lane. Usually the center two-way turn lane becomes a left turn lane at intersections.
Quote from: formulanone on January 14, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
I-35E northbound in St. Paul, where it gets away from the I-94 multiplex:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2FInt35En-Exit242B-MultipleBGSigns.jpg&hash=db581d076d47e5ad343b437bc839e84b2c679af0)
(This photo was taken with a 55mm lens, which is not a zoom lens.)
If they had made the sign a little higher, MnDOT could have put a line under a single EAST 94/10 pair. This is a good example of how major interstate junctions in the Twin Cities often have no control cities.
EDIT: (Is the record for interval between posting and edit?) I failed to adequately analyze the comment above about exit tab and sign borders. The exit tabs on these signs used to be in the center, like they were all Minnesota interstate exit signs. They have since begun to move them to the right or left side of the sign as appropriate.
Quote from: roadman on January 18, 2013, 05:46:10 PM
Quote from: Michael on January 18, 2013, 01:46:19 PM
I just stumbled on this huge monotube for some turn lane signs (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.0351,-76.067044&spn=0.001355,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.0351,-76.067044&panoid=phs59ivODaAxLOUM7uUP7g&cbp=12,325.12,,1,-2.25) on NY 92 just west of the western end of the NY 5/92 duplex in DeWitt.
Interesting that there is a center two-way turn lane adjacent to a left turn lane. Usually the center two-way turn lane becomes a left turn lane at intersections.
It's no longer adjacent to it at the intersection. That should probably be a "center lane
ends" sign.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on January 18, 2013, 08:54:26 PM
This is a good example of how major interstate junctions in the Twin Cities often have no control cities.
It is indicative, though, of how people in the area navigate. They religiously refer to highways by number–even down to the county road level.
Are the "35 M.P.H." signs underneath every chevron sign really necessary? This is on the ramp from I-476 south to I-95 north near Chester, PA.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8476%2F8396485549_00df19ac4f_z.jpg&hash=cc73e61cb180376c825d9f82f58c1e558b1f2076)
Quote from: PennDOTFan on January 20, 2013, 12:38:18 AM
Are the "35 M.P.H." signs underneath every chevron sign really necessary? This is on the ramp from I-476 south to I-95 north near Chester, PA.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8476%2F8396485549_00df19ac4f_z.jpg&hash=cc73e61cb180376c825d9f82f58c1e558b1f2076)
Judging by the difference in color, those
35 MPH advisory panels are likely recent additions (I don't believe those were there the last time I used that ramp a month or two ago). I'm guessing that PennDOT erected those speed advisory panels in reaction to somebody taking that turn too fast and going off the road recently. Are there any guiderail replacements outside of your photo?
Ian, since you & I were up in New England this past Christmas; the erection of those signs & related accident may have taken place while we were both up north.
I believe that the ramp for I-684 north to I-84 east in Brewster, NY has a lot more chevrons w/speed (20 mph) advisory panels than that Chester ramp.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 20, 2013, 05:38:51 PM
Judging by the difference in color, those 35 MPH advisory panels are likely recent additions (I don't believe those were there the last time I used that ramp a month or two ago). I'm guessing that PennDOT erected those speed advisory panels in reaction to somebody taking that turn too fast and going off the road recently. Are there any guiderail replacements outside of your photo?
Ian, since you & I were up in New England this past Christmas; the erection of those signs & related accident may have taken place while we were both up north.
I believe that the ramp for I-684 north to I-84 east in Brewster, NY has a lot more chevrons w/speed (20 mph) advisory panels than that Chester ramp.
I actually took this photo this past summer, but when even when I took the photo, those advisory speed signs couldn't have been more that a few months old. I didn't recall seeing any guardrail replacements these past several times I've whizzed by on this curve, but the idea that they were erected after a few rollovers is a good theory.
While browsing in Street View last night, I stumbled on a sign I was aware of, and I can't believe I never posted it! I-690 westbound near the NY Fairgrounds has two signs for Exit 7. One is ground-mounted (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.07035,-76.202851&spn=0.002692,0.005681&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.070205,-76.202615&panoid=OO4tWiLqhHGYEgbtatogYg&cbp=12,326.88,,0,2.63), and one is on a sign bridge at the gore (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.070992,-76.204036&spn=0.002692,0.005681&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.071076,-76.204209&panoid=bqfopy3oVeF2JtR4FjsJBg&cbp=12,300.58,,1,-8.92). Note the sign bridge in the background of the first Street View link. The sign bridge at the gore was replaced in the mid-2000s (2004 if the EXIF data on Doug's photos I linked below is correct), and the sign from the original sign bridge was moved to temporary posts next to the sign bridge. When the sign bridge was replaced several years later, the temporary sign was moved to permanent posts further east. If I remember correctly, there was a period of time when both the temporary and gore signs were installed, but I can't remember if it was with the old or new sign bridge.
Here's links to Doug's photos of the old signs:
Old sign bridge (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4290765228)
Temporary sign (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4290022397)
At the east end of I-690, I-481 northbound has duplicate signs for the I-690 exit. Here's Street View links to the first (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.047129,-76.05069&spn=0.001354,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.047129,-76.05069&panoid=hv4BIa08Omclz3eEB8lF3g&cbp=12,4.28,,1,-4.53) and second (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.048563,-76.050405&spn=0.001354,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.048563,-76.050405&panoid=k01Rxjc7hmXE-YKUb-h_vg&cbp=12,8.36,,1,-6.14) signs. Again, note the second set of signs in the background of the first Street View link. This interchange goes even further by having a third set of signs at the gore (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.051699,-76.049909&spn=0.001354,0.00284&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=43.051884,-76.049929&panoid=xhYsNPrk0NkfFIjdXM_1yQ&cbp=12,352.93,,1,-11.66), which are visible in the background of the second Street View link. The only difference between the signs at the gore point and the other two sets of signs is the usage of up/left arrows instead of down arrows on the I-690 exit sign.
Lastly, I found this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=35.827898,-78.893302&spn=0.001056,0.00142&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=35.82781,-78.893321&panoid=N6LB--PMoA_aRrfyptg7jg&cbp=12,145.51,,2,4.67) double-sided sign on NC 540. At first, I thought it belonged in the "Signs With Design Errors" thread since it's on the right shoulder, but I decided to look in the median and on the right shoulder in the other direction. I found another double-sided sign on the right shoulder in the other direction (https://maps.google.com/?ll=35.827721,-78.893339&spn=0.001056,0.00142&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=35.827552,-78.893373&panoid=qww_3Lb7bQRkwZfbmCCyTw&cbp=12,298.02,,3,2.15).
NYSDOT seems to do this a lot. Along I-84, there are ground-mounted BGS's installed along with sign bridge BGS's at Exits 3 and 4. A similar occurrence happens at Exit 29N southbound on I-81 where the ground-mounted BGS is around 1/4 mile from the gore.