Sign on overpass saying what road that is (county XX)

[tman]

I was wondering if anyone knows what the signs are called that MNDOT often posts on overpasses which are denied access to a freeway- they look just like distance signs, but say "County 20", or "County 16". I couldn't find any pictures of them, nor could I find them in the MUTCD. I remember seeing a similar sign in Virginia- "S.R. 600".  Anybody know anything about them?

[roadman]

I was wondering if anyone knows what the signs are called that MNDOT often posts on overpasses which are denied access to a freeway- they look just like distance signs, but say "County 20", or "County 16". I couldn't find any pictures of them, nor could I find them in the MUTCD. I remember seeing a similar sign in Virginia- "S.R. 600".  Anybody know anything about them?

MassDOT refers to such signs, which fall under the category of General Information Signs (MUTCD Section 2H.04), as Overpass Street Name Signs.  There was a statewide project back in 2004-2005 to place such signs on or next to most overpasses on Massachusetts Interstates and freeways.  Massachusetts standard for these signs is to include both the route/street name and the community on the panel (i.e. "Route 62 Burlington",  "Forest St Methuen").  To minimize the panel height, and improve legibility, routes are given in text, and not with shields.

Similar to the enhanced reference markers most DOTs have increasingly been using, the purpose of these signs is to provide drivers with greater orientation.  While the signs are primarily for greater accuracy in reporting locations of crashes and other incidents, they are also considered to be an aid to navigation.  Like most states that provide these signs, Massachusetts installs the panels on overpasses even if there is an adjacent exit at the location.

[roadfro]

It has become standard practice in Nevada (within the last ~10 years or so) to mark the street name for all freeway overpasses, including those with interchanges, onto the side of said bridge overpass.

NDOT doesn't use a reflective street name sign for this purpose–although the first application of this that I'm aware of (on US 95 in northwest Las Vegas) did use a more typical street name panel sign, just oversized for freeway application. Currently, the street name is usually etched into the side of the bridge wall during construction with the aesthetic treatment–for existing bridges getting aesthetic upgrades, a pre-formed panel is attached to the bridge instead.


No sign or acknowledgement is made when the freeway passes over a side street. Regular guide signs are often used when a freeway crosses over a river.

[cl94]

NYSDOT and NYSTA typically post cross streets. The latter only posts them when another road crosses over. Some NYSDOT regions do not post them at all, others only in certain areas. Region 1, for example, doesn't post names in Warren or Essex Counties (even in the very suburban part of the former), but everything is signed in the other counties with limited-access highways.

[sparker]

This is a practice that I wish Caltrans would do (or, probably more accurately, have the $$ to do!); the current posting of non-access overcrossings & undercrossings via small low-height white info signs (with print size hardly readable at speed) at roadside is hit-and-miss at best (different districts have different locations for the signs in relation to the crossing structures).  Some sort of SGS posted on the overcrossing structure itself -- or at a readable height roadside in relation to undercrossings -- would be helpful, particularly if the road ID was accompanied by a mileage marker keyed to the overall route mileage (i.e., mileposts/exit #) so that some calculation would be made as to more or less where that road would be on the grid if access from the nearest interchange was required.  The county-by-county mileage figures as posted on the small white signage may be useful to maintenance personnel (and us CA natives who've learned to use that info -- when readable), but to the general driving public, more prominent and familiar signage formats would help. 

[roadfro]

This is a practice that I wish Caltrans would do (or, probably more accurately, have the $$ to do!); the current posting of non-access overcrossings & undercrossings via small low-height white info signs (with print size hardly readable at speed) at roadside is hit-and-miss at best (different districts have different locations for the signs in relation to the crossing structures).  Some sort of SGS posted on the overcrossing structure itself -- or at a readable height roadside in relation to undercrossings -- would be helpful, particularly if the road ID was accompanied by a mileage marker keyed to the overall route mileage (i.e., mileposts/exit #) so that some calculation would be made as to more or less where that road would be on the grid if access from the nearest interchange was required.  The county-by-county mileage figures as posted on the small white signage may be useful to maintenance personnel (and us CA natives who've learned to use that info -- when readable), but to the general driving public, more prominent and familiar signage formats would help.

I have always liked how Caltrans posted these "structure info" signs (don't know if they have an actual name) at even the most minor of structures, such as a short bridge over a small creek. What was more interesting to me was how each structure typically had a unique name.

In some areas, these signs are/were pretty visible and readable from the roadway and widely posted. Other areas, not so much... It seems like posting these signs is a practice that has fallen by the wayside a bit more in recent years as funding priorities have shifted.

[sparker]

The "structure info" signs (the small white squares generally posted slightly above ground level) are interesting and informative, but the physical location of that signage respective to the main roadway and the overcrossing/undercrossing structure is what varies from district to district.  Along I-5 (IIRC, in Fresno & Kings counties) the sign is usually directly underneath the overcrossing; on other sections of that same road, the sign may be located well to the side of the road, often near the corner of the supporting berm.  Overcrossings are usually consistent regardless of location; the sign is most often on the leading side of the bridge railing, slightly above the guard rail.  Sometimes the sign is absent, but replaced by stenciling on the side of the bridge (again, the leading edge of the railing is the most likely deployment spot).  But for navigational purposes, the county-by-county mileage signs are largely useless (I do know they use such mileage indicators for incident location and maintenance purposes, but for most drivers they serve no purpose); IMHO, the concept of SGS's on the overheads indicating the crossing road and the overall in-state mileposting is one that deserves at least some exploratory research. 

[roadfro]

^ I doubt Caltrans will actually entertain this idea though, given the prevalence of "structure info" signs. Even if such signs were to be adopted, incorporating the total in-state mileage reference is not likely to happen, unless Caltrans also gives consideration to adopting MUTCD-standard mileposts on a route. Even with CalNExUS going on 14 years of exit numbering, standard mileposts haven't even been given much thought.

For the record, I don't disagree with the idea of these signs including mileage. It's something I think NDOT should look into as well.


Somewhere on the forum, I recall seeing an example of this type of sign that included intersecting road/feature and mileage reference–can't recall which DOT this was though.

[sparker]

Yeah...having dealt with Caltrans on several occasions, there seems to be a "not invented here" prevailing attitude among staff and engineers (they're still patting themselves on the back over Botts Dots!).  That being said, mileposts seem to be something that is in an "experimental" stage, as evidenced by the mileposting of CA 58 along the Mojave bypass that opened in 2003;  however, I wouldn't be surprised if that was instigated by the local district rather than any directive from Sacramento HQ.     

[cl94]

Yeah...having dealt with Caltrans on several occasions, there seems to be a "not invented here" prevailing attitude among staff and engineers (they're still patting themselves on the back over Botts Dots!).  That being said, mileposts seem to be something that is in an "experimental" stage, as evidenced by the mileposting of CA 58 along the Mojave bypass that opened in 2003;  however, I wouldn't be surprised if that was instigated by the local district rather than any directive from Sacramento HQ.     

Caltrans is basically the west coast version of NYSDOT. Own particular way of doing everything and huge opposition to adopting anything invented elsewhere.

[freebrickproductions]

ALDOT uses these signs on every overpass over an Interstate:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0947498,-86.8663467,3a,15y,209.66h,99.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdkLInHiwX7OyBq1e9ynqrg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdkLInHiwX7OyBq1e9ynqrg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.39165%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6724329,-86.8300978,3a,15y,219.36h,106.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHnBr6FSgcrrYFJanqaJd_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[sparker]

Now THAT is what I'm talking about!  Only thing missing -- a number in the Interstate shield.  Maybe sometime (likely well after I'm pushing up daisies!) it'll be adopted as a MUTCD standard, if not by other states one at a time.  Kudos to ALDOT! 

[roadfro]

Somewhere on the forum, I recall seeing an example of this type of sign that included intersecting road/feature and mileage reference–can't recall which DOT this was though.

ALDOT uses these signs on every overpass over an Interstate:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0947498,-86.8663467,3a,15y,209.66h,99.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdkLInHiwX7OyBq1e9ynqrg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DdkLInHiwX7OyBq1e9ynqrg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D128.39165%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6724329,-86.8300978,3a,15y,219.36h,106.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHnBr6FSgcrrYFJanqaJd_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's what I was referring to! Thanks for posting these examples.

[empirestate]

NYSDOT and NYSTA typically post cross streets. The latter only posts them when another road crosses over. Some NYSDOT regions do not post them at all, others only in certain areas. Region 1, for example, doesn't post names in Warren or Essex Counties (even in the very suburban part of the former), but everything is signed in the other counties with limited-access highways.

I-390 in southern Monroe and northern Livingston County has had this treatment longer than any other location I can think of. The rest of the route has gotten it more recently as it came into vogue elsewhere in the state, but for some reason the practice has never infiltrated the Wayland-to-Dansville stretch.

For what it's worth, the oldest signage is posted at both over- and under-crossings, whereas newer stuff is only on overpasses.


iPhone

[cl94]

The rest of the route has gotten it more recently as it came into vogue elsewhere in the state, but for some reason the practice has never infiltrated the Wayland-to-Dansville stretch.

Region 6 doesn't typically post cross streets

[empirestate]

The rest of the route has gotten it more recently as it came into vogue elsewhere in the state, but for some reason the practice has never infiltrated the Wayland-to-Dansville stretch.

Region 6 doesn't typically post cross streets

That explains Wayland, but not Dansville. (It also doesn't explain Cohocton to Avoca, which is marked.)

For that matter, isn't I-86 pretty well marked throughout? What freeways does that leave to be typical of the region?

iPhone

[cl94]

The rest of the route has gotten it more recently as it came into vogue elsewhere in the state, but for some reason the practice has never infiltrated the Wayland-to-Dansville stretch.

Region 6 doesn't typically post cross streets

That explains Wayland, but not Dansville. (It also doesn't explain Cohocton to Avoca, which is marked.)

For that matter, isn't I-86 pretty well marked throughout? What freeways does that leave to be typical of the region?

iPhone

I-86 is marked sporadically and all signs are pretty recent. NY 415 has a sign, but a bunch of major cross streets do not. The new section east of Elmira has nothing.

The Region 4/6 line is just south of the southern Dansville exit. I can't remember if I-99 is marked.

[empirestate]

The rest of the route has gotten it more recently as it came into vogue elsewhere in the state, but for some reason the practice has never infiltrated the Wayland-to-Dansville stretch.

Region 6 doesn't typically post cross streets

That explains Wayland, but not Dansville. (It also doesn't explain Cohocton to Avoca, which is marked.)

For that matter, isn't I-86 pretty well marked throughout? What freeways does that leave to be typical of the region?

iPhone

I-86 is marked sporadically and all signs are pretty recent. NY 415 has a sign, but a bunch of major cross streets do not. The new section east of Elmira has nothing.

The Region 4/6 line is just south of the southern Dansville exit. I can't remember if I-99 is marked.

I can't either; it looks like the Presho exit is the only place there's an overpass anyway.

Besides the signage where I-390 was recently renovated, there's also new signage around Painted Post where work was recently done, and at Horseheads too. I think it's safe to say there is no typical practice in R6, at least not anymore, since all examples seem tied to recent projects (even if not all recent projects are tied to examples).

[vdeane]

It might depend on which engineer is in charge of Traffic; it sounds like Region 6 historically didn't post the signs, started posting them, and then stopped.

[GenExpwy]

I-390 in southern Monroe and northern Livingston County has had this treatment longer than any other location I can think of. The rest of the route has gotten it more recently as it came into vogue elsewhere in the state, but for some reason the practice has never infiltrated the Wayland-to-Dansville stretch.

For what it's worth, the oldest signage is posted at both over- and under-crossings, whereas newer stuff is only on overpasses.

That's quite different from what I see.

The older signs in Monroe and Livingston (which are about the size of intersection blades, and look overdue for a replacement) were only at bridges over I-390. The only undercrossing that's marked is at West Rush Rd. in southern Monroe, a sign that was added later.

In Steuben County the signs (which are better designed for freeways) were added just a few years ago, basically in one fell swoop from the Livingston/Steuben line all the way past Corning, and to Hornell on I-86. They cover over- and underpasses equally, but a few were never installed ; it seems mostly near exits where they would perhaps add clutter to the exit signage.

In the Wayland to Dansville stretch (I live in Wayland) the Steuben CR 46 and 90 bridges, one over and one under, are both signed. The NY 21 and Mill Creek bridges in and next to exit 3 are unsigned. On the Livingston County side, there are no signs for any bridge until Presbyterian Rd., near the Sonyea exit – because everything else is an undercrossing, which R4 never signed.



As a tangential note, the bridgework between Rochester and Corning changes character around the salt mine at exit 7. From the salt mine to the Thruway, I count 19 places where 390 passes under a road, and 4 where 390 has a pair of bridges over something. From the salt mine to I-99, along 390 and 86, I count 10 underpasses and 48 pairs of overpasses. This might affect one's perception of overpass vs. underpass signage.

[empirestate]

I-390 in southern Monroe and northern Livingston County has had this treatment longer than any other location I can think of. The rest of the route has gotten it more recently as it came into vogue elsewhere in the state, but for some reason the practice has never infiltrated the Wayland-to-Dansville stretch.

For what it's worth, the oldest signage is posted at both over- and under-crossings, whereas newer stuff is only on overpasses.

That's quite different from what I see.

The older signs in Monroe and Livingston (which are about the size of intersection blades, and look overdue for a replacement) were only at bridges over I-390. The only undercrossing that's marked is at West Rush Rd. in southern Monroe, a sign that was added later.

The sign at West Rush Road was replaced, but as I recall it was marked back before there were overpass markers anywhere else in the area–the big project to mark them came to Monroe County in the late 90s. I remember commuting from one side of town to the other and seeing their progress as they were installed on I-490 and other roads.

The reason West Rush Road is the only marked underpass is, I think, because it's the only one in the area. (Fishell Road could be marked but I believe it gets overlooked as part of the Honeoye Creek crossing–which isn't marked.) Farther north, we're no longer in the area I'm referring to; I don't think it ever reached outside of Rush.

In Steuben County the signs (which are better designed for freeways) were added just a few years ago, basically in one fell swoop from the Livingston/Steuben line all the way past Corning, and to Hornell on I-86. They cover over- and underpasses equally, but a few were never installed ; it seems mostly near exits where they would perhaps add clutter to the exit signage.

In the Wayland to Dansville stretch (I live in Wayland) the Steuben CR 46 and 90 bridges, one over and one under, are both signed. The NY 21 and Mill Creek bridges in and next to exit 3 are unsigned. On the Livingston County side, there are no signs for any bridge until Presbyterian Rd., near the Sonyea exit – because everything else is an undercrossing, which R4 never signed.

It wasn't quite one fell swoop; I remember signs going up near exits 1-2 before they existed at exit 3. But if you're saying they go all the way to the Livingston line now, that just means it's been that long since I've passed through there. I am positive that the two CRs you mentioned were not marked on my last trip through.

Also of note, you're right that there are some under-crossings of I-86 marked. On my last trip through, this was restricted only to waterways, so again, I'm intrigued to hear that it's been expanded to roads. :-)