Ideas Exclusive To One State That Should Epand Cross-Country...

[formulanone]

One thing ALDOT is excellent at is marking merge/merging lanes with stippled lines almost everywhere. I think a few other scattered states do it too, but they're surprisingly reliable at it.

FDOT's line markings and object marker reflectivity standards are par excellence. It helps that they don't have freeze/thaw/snow but it's very helpful when there's limited to no lighting.

[Big John]

Near-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin.  Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.

[CoreySamson]

Perhaps not exclusive to Texas, but they seem to have more interstate frontage roads than other states who would benefit from them.

Texas U-turns on those frontage roads at interchanges would also be great to see expand to more of the nation.

[Hunty2022]

Also, Bridge-Tunnels.  This is only last because I'd like Virginia to be the only state in the US with these.

Would you count the Bay Bridge here in California between San Francisco and Oakland as a bridge-tunnel setup?  Or were you thinking specifically underwater tunnel?

Underwater only (ex. CBBT).

[hobsini2]

Near-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin.  Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.

I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?

[Big John]

Near-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin.  Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.

I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aW3ExUvSzjkU9G2z6
The signal heads ahead of the cross street.

[hobsini2]

Near-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin.  Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.

I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aW3ExUvSzjkU9G2z6
The signal heads ahead of the cross street.

Ok. I think I get what you mean. You are talking about the near right and near median signals. Right? If so, yes I agree with you on that.

[TheStranger]

Maryland's practice of using both road names and exit destinations on exit signage in urban areas should definitely be implemented nationwide. Why choose one or the other when you can have both?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GryNnjSSafCKtgn66
https://maps.app.goo.gl/z9RysDyEgG9WVamE9

California did this for years...until more recent MUTCD editions started discouraging it, with most modern exit signage only mentioning the road name.

I guess this is the precarious balance that will never be fully answered:

- Do you want as much info on the sign, but then force the driver to spend an extra moment reading the extra info?
- Do you want the bare minimum of info to reduce message loading, but then that means the driver has to look at an extra sign before or after that one that tells you the destination?

This also applies to the usage of freeway names and control cities too.

Now, there are obvious instances (Ave, Blvd, St for route suffixes, N/S/E/W for directionals) where message loading can naturally be reduced, but then there are also times that the abbreviations become more proprietary (i.e. CalTrans using "Cyn" for Canyon, which to me is intuitive, but which might not be commonplace elsewhere)

earlier in the thread Henry pointed out the Chicago-area usage of tiny expressway name text on the BGSes and in a way, I actually see the value of it now - large enough that if you need the reassurance of route name, it's there, but not designed to dominate visually compared to direction/control city. 

[1995hoo]

For all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):

(image omitted)

To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless. Another nearby example would be the Dulles Toll Road (VA-267), which is technically the "Hirst–Brault Expressway" but is likewise never called that; there used to be some LGSs posted along the side of the road with that honorific name (may still be, I don't know), but it's never appeared on a BGS and there would be no reason to do it.

But in places like New York and Chicago where people do use the highway names, including in giving directions, there's a good reason for posting that information.

[chrisdiaz]

Near-side "stop bar" traffic signals extensively used in Wisconsin.  Gives another perspective if the far-side signals are blocked, such as by a semi-truck blocking the view.

I'm trying to picture what you mean John but nothing is coming to mind. Do you have an example?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aW3ExUvSzjkU9G2z6
The signal heads ahead of the cross street.

SCDOT does this quite frequently (at least in District 5) https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nsg2T3KL8y7Jkqpb7

[vdeane]

MDOT's US/Canada flags on signs approaching border crossings

https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i94&state=MI&file=102_7451.JPG

[webny99]

For all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):

(image omitted)

To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.

My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:

Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.

That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.

[hobsini2]

For all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):

(image omitted)

To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.

My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:

Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.

That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.

Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos

[1995hoo]

Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. ....
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. ....

That's why I wrote my comment the way I did to refer to what's actually done in local use. I was thinking of how in Chicago and New York people refer to the Interstates by name and often not by number unless, perhaps, a road doesn't have a name. For example, I remember when I was a kid my cousin, who lived on Staten Island, had no idea what we meant if we referred to I-278 but instantly knew how to get to the Staten Island Expressway (which, of course, was I-278). That sort of thing is very common there. But it's not common everywhere and I would suggest that if people in a given area do not routinely use a highway name, then it doesn't make sense to put it on the sign (hence the example I gave of I-66 inside the Capital Beltway). There's no benefit to anyone in posting a name nobody knows or uses.

For local street names, I absolutely think having both the name and number (assuming there is a number) is helpful, especially in places where people use both. Here in Northern Virginia, for example, some people refer to a portion of US-50 as Arlington Boulevard and other people call it Route 50. The BGS lists both.

[Rothman]

For all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):

(image omitted)

To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.

My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:

Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.

That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.

Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos

https://youtu.be/DzRqVclai54?si=3RN_0ak_X6Pa4HA2

[hobsini2]

For all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):

(image omitted)

To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.

My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:

Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.

That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.

Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos

https://youtu.be/DzRqVclai54?si=3RN_0ak_X6Pa4HA2

That just made me smile. Thanks.

[Rover_0]

A couple I can think of from Utah:

1. The close link between legislative and signed routes. It's kind of hard to describe, but it seems like other states have more of a separation between routes in the law books and what's posted, even for states that do not allow duplicate route numbers. Route numbers are not only tied to UDOT management but actual state law. Yes, I don't like how concurrencies involving state routes aren't acknowledged, but signage for concurrencies involving Interstates and US Routes have been improving, and the number of implied SR/SR overlaps can be counted on your hands.

2. Similar to 1, how anything state-maintained is given a route number. There's some refinement here, but it's nice to see all state-maintained routes on a public record.

3. Business routes, with a couple exceptions, are state-maintained.

[andrepoiy]

Ontario's extensive usage of A-4 Parclo interchanges

[hotdogPi]

1. The close link between legislative and signed routes. It's kind of hard to describe, but it seems like other states have more of a separation between routes in the law books and what's posted, even for states that do not allow duplicate route numbers. Route numbers are not only tied to UDOT management but actual state law. Yes, I don't like how concurrencies involving state routes aren't acknowledged, but signage for concurrencies involving Interstates and US Routes have been improving, and the number of implied SR/SR overlaps can be counted on your hands.

I feel the exact opposite way. In Massachusetts (and Rhode Island), state maintenance and numbering have nothing to do with each other. This allows the state to maintain whatever segments they want without having to have a pointless 1-mile route that leads nowhere or have a gap in a route, as well as maintain busy arterial streets in urban areas that wouldn't benefit from having a number. The numbering system in Massachusetts is logical with almost no pointless routes.

[mrsman]

Maryland's practice of using both road names and exit destinations on exit signage in urban areas should definitely be implemented nationwide. Why choose one or the other when you can have both?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GryNnjSSafCKtgn66
https://maps.app.goo.gl/z9RysDyEgG9WVamE9

California did this for years...until more recent MUTCD editions started discouraging it, with most modern exit signage only mentioning the road name.

I guess this is the precarious balance that will never be fully answered:

- Do you want as much info on the sign, but then force the driver to spend an extra moment reading the extra info?
- Do you want the bare minimum of info to reduce message loading, but then that means the driver has to look at an extra sign before or after that one that tells you the destination?

This also applies to the usage of freeway names and control cities too.

Now, there are obvious instances (Ave, Blvd, St for route suffixes, N/S/E/W for directionals) where message loading can naturally be reduced, but then there are also times that the abbreviations become more proprietary (i.e. CalTrans using "Cyn" for Canyon, which to me is intuitive, but which might not be commonplace elsewhere)

earlier in the thread Henry pointed out the Chicago-area usage of tiny expressway name text on the BGSes and in a way, I actually see the value of it now - large enough that if you need the reassurance of route name, it's there, but not designed to dominate visually compared to direction/control city.

The MD practice is really good about this.  It tells you the information that you need to know, and it is basically all of it.

For an exit onto a street:  Number, name, City 1, City 2 for one exit ramp interchanges [like diamonds and parclo a4] and Number, direction, name, City 1 for each side of two exit ramp interchanges [like cloverleaf and parclo b4].

This is basic information and it is not really message loading.

For exits onto highways:  Number, direction, Control City 1, Control City 2 generally suffices.  Yes, in some cases you should also include the highway name if it is used extensively in local parlance like in NY and Chicago.  The highway names also used to be common in LA, and many of the traffic reports still use it for the highways near Downtown LA, but it is going out of style and Caltrans is trying to wipe out use of the name on most signage, except for the memorial signage that happens occasionally along the side of the road.

You have to be smart about message loading and I feel that the MUTCD standard is too strict.  The MD signs are perfectly fine.

This sign in NJ is an overload:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5268961,-74.2709969,3a,37.5y,298.51h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0BHko-n9lnLDR4wwQ5lC6g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0BHko-n9lnLDR4wwQ5lC6g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D305.54718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu

[webny99]

1. The close link between legislative and signed routes. It's kind of hard to describe, but it seems like other states have more of a separation between routes in the law books and what's posted, even for states that do not allow duplicate route numbers. Route numbers are not only tied to UDOT management but actual state law. Yes, I don't like how concurrencies involving state routes aren't acknowledged, but signage for concurrencies involving Interstates and US Routes have been improving, and the number of implied SR/SR overlaps can be counted on your hands.

I feel the exact opposite way. In Massachusetts (and Rhode Island), state maintenance and numbering have nothing to do with each other. This allows the state to maintain whatever segments they want without having to have a pointless 1-mile route that leads nowhere or have a gap in a route, as well as maintain busy arterial streets in urban areas that wouldn't benefit from having a number. The numbering system in Massachusetts is logical with almost no pointless routes.

This is a really interesting argument. It is definitely worth noting that this makes more sense in New England than it does elsewhere in the country due to the lack of county governments. Since there are (presumably) no county-maintained roads there, it does make sense for roads that would be county roads in other states to be state-maintained instead.

[mrsman]

This is a great thread, but  I recommend that people should post example photos of what you are discussing (or a link to GSV) so that people on the other side of the country can determine what feature you are discussing.

[1995hoo]

This is a great thread, but  I recommend that people should post example photos of what you are discussing (or a link to GSV) so that people on the other side of the country can determine what feature you are discussing.

Here's mine.




In all serious, regarding the other discussion about BGSs giving the route number, a street name, and destinations, here's an example from Northern Virginia. The road referenced on the sign is one where some people call it by name and some call it by number (and then I recall a friend's father referring to it as "Lert," as in the initials "LRT"), so having both the name and number is helpful.

[hobsini2]

For all of IDOT's faults, I like the freeway name going under the cardinal direction on BGS's (although the letters could be a bit larger):

(image omitted)

To me this is somewhat similar to posting both the road name and route number. I see the value of that if the road name (or highway name, in the Chicago example) is one that's actually known and used. To give an example, I-66 inside the Beltway is also called the "Custis Memorial Parkway," but nobody calls it that. When it first opened in December 1982, the BGSs had a small brown badge next to the I-66 shield that had a woman's head in profile and the name "Custis Memorial Parkway" underneath in print that was so small you couldn't really read it unless you already knew what it said. That name never caught on and the brown badges are no longer on the signs. I think that's a good example of place where posting the road name would be kind of pointless.

My preference based on how route numbers/road names tend to be used in NY is as follows:

Urban areas: Route number (where applicable) and road name only
Suburban areas: Route number (where applicable) and both road name and local exit destination(s)
Rural areas: Route number (where applicable) and local exit destination(s) only.

That's because we almost never use route numbers for non-freeways in urban areas, sometimes do in suburban areas, and almost exclusively do in rural areas. Meanwhile, local exit destinations are of greatest importance in rural areas and least important in urban ones, unless there's a need to sign particular neighborhoods or subdivisions of a city. However, I acknowledge that this may vary in different parts of the country.

Part of the other problem is that the local traffic reports here in Chicago will always refer to the expressway name. Only in the suburbs do you sometimes get the route number used instead.
I am of the belief that if a highway is in an urban area, use the name and the route number side by side and the destination below. If you are out in a more rural area but the city has multiple exits (say I-10 at Ft Stockton with its 4 exits), use the street name for the direction of the city and use a destination for the opposite side. So, for example, I would first have a sign about a mile outside of town saying "Ft Stockton NEXT 4 EXITS".
Each exit signed as follows:
Exit 261 - Bus I-10/US 385 SOUTH - E Dickinson Blvd/Marathon
Exit 259 A - FM 1053 - Imperial Hwy/Imperial
Exit 259 B - Texas 18 - Front St/Monhanas
Exit 257 - US 285 - Ft Stockton/Sanderson/Pecos

Here are mine.
City advance: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9664697,-88.5827768,3a,75y,27.74h,85.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sApBm1FCzWZhKp_wV3ymt7w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DApBm1FCzWZhKp_wV3ymt7w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D27.74067045752768%26pitch%3D4.5129786720136025%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Exit series list:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9821491,-88.5826173,3a,75y,356.91h,77.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZixD0u-Dq8MsTvzWNofblw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZixD0u-Dq8MsTvzWNofblw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D356.90737431211005%26pitch%3D12.092874

[hobsini2]

I also like what WisDOT does for smaller cities that have multiple exits. I know a lot of state do this but that should be in every state doing it.
Sign: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4698148,-88.9949365,3a,15y,35.84h,90.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLHsNP7TpPt-556jlAyO6-Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D35.84121754094059%26pitch%3D-0.395321557667188%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

And yes the sign is in Illinois but it is a WisDOT sign.