The Worst of Road Signs

[ET21]

It would be less ridiculous if the arrow were at the right instead of making the sign even taller by hanging out at the bottom.

All it would take would be a decent wind and *boom*... Such wasted space honestly when they do tall signs like that

[NE2]

pooing is cool

[Alps]

No more yawns. No more "We've already discussed this ad nauseam and there's no point in going through the motions again." If that's all you have to say, then don't say it. Otherwise it will be deleted on sight.

To elaborate: From now on, you cannot just say "this has already been discussed." You must provide a link to the actual discussion. Yes, it requires effort. Too bad.

[mukade]

The one on the right:

As noted, the same comment from the same poster was made for the northbound sign a while ago. Seeing that picture is mine from another thread and is not from the poster at all, I will weigh in. The sign is to INDOT specification and has no design or installation errors that I can see. Some people have negative opinions on that design, but if that particular sign belongs in the "worst" then any shot I take of a sign in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Michigan, etc. in Clearview could be posted because I happen to dislike that font. I don't think that is the intention. As for wasted space, I would say that a wider and slightly shorter sign would require just about the same amount of material.

All it would take would be a decent wind and *boom*... Such wasted space honestly when they do tall signs like that

I haven't seen one fall from a gantry yet. I think a couple of shorter signs fell in Ohio recently, though.

[NE2]

As for wasted space, I would say that a wider and slightly shorter sign would require just about the same amount of material.

So we are going through the motions again.


Simple copy-paste job from your photo. The space saved is obvious.

(But no, not worst by far.)

[J N Winkler]

I have looked at the "stacked shields" discussion upthread and also followed the link to the US 31 Kokomo thread.  In the latter it is said that stacked shields are an Indiana DOT standard.  My question is:  where is this standard written down?  It is not, as far as I can tell, in any recent edition of the Indiana MUTCD or in Indiana DOT's design memoranda.  If Indiana DOT has a separate traffic engineering manual where this and related issues are discussed, it does not seem to be online.

[mukade]

I have no idea if it is documented, but below are examples. Stacked signs are usually used when there are two intersecting routes, but one only goes in one direction and for route "TO" route situations.

I-69 at SR 9/SR 67
I-69 at SR 9/SR 109
I-69 at SR 28/US 35
I-69 at SR 22/US 35
I-69 at I-469
I-69 at SR 127
I-69 at SR 57/SR 68
I-65 at I-265/SR 265
I-65 at the Borman
I-74 at I-465
I-74/US 421
I-465 at I-865
I-70 at I-465
I-70 at US 35
US 24 at SR 9
US 24 at I-69
I-469 at I-69 (south)
I-469 at I-69 (north)
Borman Expy

When two routes are crossed, even if going in different directions, the markers are side by side.

I-69 at SR 5/SR 218 (both ways)
I-65 at US 24/US 231 (both ways)
I-69 at SR 56/SR 61 (both ways)
I-69 at US 50/US 150 (both ways)
I-65 at the Borman (both ways)

Exceptions

I-465 at Pendleton Pike (an exception)
The Borman at Indianapolis Blvd (an exception)
I-69 at US 30/US 33 and US 27/SR 3 (an exception)

[J N Winkler]

Mukade--many thanks for this, especially the link to examples.

There has been a lot of headbutting about whether the occasional diseconomy in sign panel area that results from stacking shields is justified by the navigational benefit to motorists.  By asking about documentation, I am trying to approach the issue from a different angle:  i.e., does Indiana DOT explain in writing its reasons for choosing this method of laying out signs?  It has been my experience that when a layout method is chosen that leaves a considerable amount of empty space, this is usually the result of a deliberate decision, often justified in terms of either better guidance for the motorist or enhanced target value.

The practice is sufficiently prevalent statewide (multiple examples, in all Indiana DOT districts) that I am 90% sure there is a controlling document somewhere.  I will see if I can track it down.

[vtk]

I know I posted about this sign layout issue some time ago.  I don't remember what specific example I had at the time, if any. If it seems repetitive, I apologize.  But that's not the only complaint I have about the sign.  The exit plaque treatment is far from my ideal, though it's probably perfectly within modern specs.  And I think I see that weird strip of exposed metal on the left and right edges, though from this angle it's more apparent on the left edges. 

I'll concede the sign did some things right. It used the correct fonts, in the right sizes, not stretched or compressed, and with no strange glyph substitutions.  It has adequate spacing between sign elements.  I'm going to assume the materials are within tolerance for color and retroreflectivity.  These are things which should be expected of every sign, but these expectations are occasionally not met, as illustrated many times before in this thread.

[Jim]

Amid perfectly nice examples such as



in eastern Kansas, we get some of these:



Taken July 1, 2013.

[agentsteel53]

I've always wondered what That Font is, as Kansas has been using it off and on for years.  this is the first interstate I've seen it on; I have spotted several state routes and do not recall a US route.

it seems to be a bastardization of their 1950s custom font:

[1995hoo]

I've seen a very similar-looking font in DC (another such shield appears on outbound I-395 itself on the Case Bridge). At least Kansas remembered to include the word "Interstate" in the red portion!

[PHLBOS]

I've always wondered what That Font is

Looks like a narrow helvetica or arial font.

[J N Winkler]

I've always wondered what That Font is

Looks like a narrow helvetica or arial font.

I think it is either one of those or something similarly computer-generated and generic.  I don't think it is an old custom font at all.  KDOT has pruned a lot of its in-house sign fabrication capacity, and I am pretty sure the agency no longer has anyone in current employment who would have worked with a custom font at the time it was used.  I think a more likely story is a defective job lot which KDOT decided to accept rather than reject, perhaps to cut a contractor a break.

In the Wichita area, the Helvetica-ish font has been used for knockdown replacements.  Until recently, for example, there were two for I-235 within and in the near vicinity of the Zoo Boulevard interchange.  KDOT has since replaced at least one of them with a new sign that uses the correct FHWA alphabet series, for which I applaud them.

[hbelkins]

Taken July 1, 2013.

You beat me to it. I too noticed and photographed that during my recent trip and fully intended to post it here.

Guess I'll have to make do with these, also from the same trip but in a different state:

[route56]

Taken July 1, 2013.

You beat me to it. I too noticed and photographed that during my recent trip and fully intended to post it here.

Guess I'll have to make do with these, also from the same trip but in a different state:

They did not appear in your post. Perhaps you meant:


2013 Kansas Trip Day 1 - 013 by hbelkins, on Flickr


2013 Kansas Trip Day 1 - 016 by hbelkins, on Flickr

[hbelkins]

I did. they showed up fine when I hit "preview" but I don't know why they didn't show up when I hit "post."

[route56]

I did. they showed up fine when I hit "preview" but I don't know why they didn't show up when I hit "post."

I think Flickr wants you to cut and paste their code when you click the "share" button.

Looks like a narrow helvetica or arial font.

I think it is either one of those or something similarly computer-generated and generic.  I don't think it is an old custom font at all.

I concur. Also, the 25-petal K-63 shield agentsteel suggests as an example of a State Highway Commission "custom" font looks like Series C

In the Wichita area, the Helvetica-ish font has been used for knockdown replacements.  Until recently, for example, there were two for I-235 within and in the near vicinity of the Zoo Boulevard interchange.  KDOT has since replaced at least one of them with a new sign that uses the correct FHWA alphabet series, for which I applaud them.

I've seen them on signs here in the Northeast Kansas district as well. Again, they appear to be used as knockdown replacements.

[Scott5114]

It's Helvetica Narrow.

[hbelkins]

Found this when I was searching for some four-digit-in-a-circle sign pr0n for Steve.



There are a couple more like this along the river between New Albany and the casino.

[ET21]

Font coordination is off for whoever made that...

[Central Avenue]

This is one of the more blatant instances of carelessness I can recall.



Though I do find it amusing that whomever posted it took the effort to make sure the legend was more-or-less level, rather than just using the existing holes.

[Revive 755]

I'll nominate this one in Chicago:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.967851,-87.747674&spn=0.013513,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.967948,-87.747663&panoid=gBwUKpP3MAFl70BypQ4UCg&cbp=12,4.81,,2,-8.01

IIRC, there used to be a 'left on green arrow only' sign here.  But for some reason this custom sign had to be installed instead of the more standard 'left turn yield on green.'

The intersection is photo enforced as well.

[PurdueBill]

If Chicago would get with the rest of the universe and use green balls the same way as everyone else, they wouldn't have to worry about that.  I still don't get how they manage to have those "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" signs in so many places, especially like Michigan Ave.  A little over a week ago while in Chicago I got to watch as a CTA bus driver blasted their horn repeatedly at someone stopped in front of them in the left turn lane dutifully waiting for the next arrow despite there being plenty of break in the oncoming traffic to turn left; the driver of the car was pointing to the sign but the bus driver was blasting the horn and even yelling anyway.  Chicago should really either allow permitted turns like a green ball is supposed to mean or else install proper signals if they want only protected turns.  Their half-assed solution really violates expectations and conventions.

[Brandon]

I'll nominate this one in Chicago:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.967851,-87.747674&spn=0.013513,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.967948,-87.747663&panoid=gBwUKpP3MAFl70BypQ4UCg&cbp=12,4.81,,2,-8.01

IIRC, there used to be a 'left on green arrow only' sign here.  But for some reason this custom sign had to be installed instead of the more standard 'left turn yield on green.'

The intersection is photo enforced as well.

If Chicago would get with the rest of the universe and use green balls the same way as everyone else, they wouldn't have to worry about that.  I still don't get how they manage to have those "LEFT ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" signs in so many places, especially like Michigan Ave.  A little over a week ago while in Chicago I got to watch as a CTA bus driver blasted their horn repeatedly at someone stopped in front of them in the left turn lane dutifully waiting for the next arrow despite there being plenty of break in the oncoming traffic to turn left; the driver of the car was pointing to the sign but the bus driver was blasting the horn and even yelling anyway.  Chicago should really either allow permitted turns like a green ball is supposed to mean or else install proper signals if they want only protected turns.  Their half-assed solution really violates expectations and conventions.

Welcome to the strange and convoluted world of CDOT (Chicago Department of transportation) lights and signage.