Department of Redundancy Department

[Big John]

^^ The road closed sign is supposed to be used only for a temporary road closure.

[okroads]

DSC01025 by okroads, on Flickr

Picture taken by me on 3-15-14

[mcdonaat]

LA 3144 West shows Alexandria, Winnfield as an option. http://goo.gl/maps/lRVoq

Turn away from Alexandria, going north, and what is the FIRST EXIT YOU SEE? http://goo.gl/maps/2cvwF

[jeffandnicole]

I'm not sure that's a redundancy, especially since we're talking two different routes. 

It appears they used the same destinations for US 165 regardless if you're going North or South on US 167.  While Alexandria may not make too much sense on 165 North since Alexandria is south of the area, there probably wasn't any other applicable destination that was worthwhile for this interchange.  IMO, I'd rather take consistancy for an interchange's control cities.

[roadman65]

Both signs are along FL 417 SB near 5 miles from its southern  terminus.  The mileage sign with the exit listings is before FL 535 and the "TO Tampa" sign is after FL 535.

[hotdogPi]

Maybe the second sign is there to tell you that no distance has passed since the first sign.

[Zeffy]

Regarding the Tampa signs, maybe it was installed to provide information on where I-4 went, since the destination sign did not have any destination but I-4 WEST.

[jakeroot]

Regarding the Tampa signs, maybe it was installed to provide information on where I-4 went, since the destination sign did not have any destination but I-4 WEST.

That's also what I was thinking, but the distance should have changed. This seems more erroneous than anything else.

[JoePCool14]

The road closed sign is supposed to be used only for a temporary road closure.

Is the road closed sign necessary?

Personally I disagree with that statement, because it is a regulatory sign (black-on-white) so I think  it can be allowed to remain there. I've seen WisDOT use ROAD CLOSED signs like that at the end of US 12 at the Wis.-Ill. border.

[roadfro]

The road closed sign is supposed to be used only for a temporary road closure.

Is the road closed sign necessary?

Personally I disagree with that statement, because it is a regulatory sign (black-on-white) so I think  it can be allowed to remain there. I've seen WisDOT use ROAD CLOSED signs like that at the end of US 12 at the Wis.-Ill. border.

While there is nothing in the MUTCD that states use of the "Road Closed to Thru Traffic" sign can only be used for temporary traffic control situations, I've never seen it used outside of a construction-related purpose. "Road Closed to Thru Traffic" to me implies that at some point (i.e. if the sign weren't there) through traffic would be able to pass along the road.

For a road that doesn't allow any sort of through traffic by permanent design, you're not really closing the road at all--rather there is no way out. Thus, there is no need to use a regulatory sign to 'officially' close the road, but a warning to motorists that there is no way out along the roadway suffices. The only reasonable exception to this I can think of would be a road that used to allow through traffic but was closed off (like a neighborhood traffic calming measure preventing through cars but letting pedestrians through), which could benefit from a "Road Closed" sign at the point of closure but not other regulatory devices.

[hbelkins]

While there is nothing in the MUTCD that states use of the "Road Closed to Thru Traffic" sign can only be used for temporary traffic control situations, I've never seen it used outside of a construction-related purpose.

There's an example in my home county. A bridge was permanently closed and demolished and never replaced. The "Road Closed to Thru Traffic X Miles Ahead, Local Traffic Only" sign is used to notify drivers of the status.

[roadman]

Regarding the Tampa signs, maybe it was installed to provide information on where I-4 went, since the destination sign did not have any destination but I-4 WEST.

That's also what I was thinking, but the distance should have changed. This seems more erroneous than anything else.

Presuming that the milemarker at the "TO Tampa" sign is correctly placed, it seens that the distance sign is the one that needs to be changed.

[jeffandnicole]

That's really stretching people's knowledge of road symbols and their meanings - I doubt most poeple would translate a green keystone shield to mean a toll road.  Nor does the PA Turnpike symbol or even the PA Turnpike wording absolutely mean there will be a toll to pay.  There are some short stretches of the PA Turnpike where one can ride toll free.

[jeffandnicole]

There's a short stretch on the northern part of the NE Extension that doesn't require a toll, and when the 95/Turnpike interchange is completed between there and Jersey won't be a toll either (or will be an all-electronic toll and/or one direction toll...can't recall right now).

[Mr_Northside]

I guess this caught my attention more for the fact that this is the only shield along the Expressway that I've seen in either direction with the "TOLL" sign.

Yeah... they're only on the most recent section, around the new Mon River bridge.  There is also pictures of where they used the "Toll" banner over I-376 on their Beaver Valley sections of highway as well.

I'm kind of curious to see if they start doing that with any new signage (especially with new reconstruction projects) for I-76 on the mainline.

[SignGeek101]

There are seven traffic signals at this one intersection in North Vancouver. Five of them are for going straight (hence why they are yellow), two for left turns (the red lights). I don't think one needs to have five traffic lights to be able to know when to proceed through the intersection.



GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/emF9W

[wisvishr0]

There are seven traffic signals at this one intersection in North Vancouver.

GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/emF9W

Eight. You missed a third, black, left turn signal on the left side of the intersection (not in the screenshot). It's kinda hard to see.

Overkill?

[jeffandnicole]

Not overkill at all. The 4 overhead lights = one light per lane. The lower right sided light is useful for traffic intending on turning right, putting it in a driver's line of sight. The 3 left turn lane lights are fine as well, especially if a light is out.

I've seen 4 or 5 lights for a single lane.

[wisvishr0]

Not overkill at all. The 4 overhead lights = one light per lane. The lower right sided light is useful for traffic intending on turning right, putting it in a driver's line of sight. The 3 left turn lane lights are fine as well, especially if a light is out.

I've seen 4 or 5 lights for a single lane.

That makes sense. Here in DC, we like the minimalist approach: 2 signals for 3 lanes. I much prefer Vancouver's set-up, though.

[jakeroot]

I'm still convinced that the majority of the Vancouverite population is following their ancestral traditions by installing many traffic signals for only one movement. For example, we have three signal heads just for this left turn slip in Hertfordshire, England. Unless the slip lane is un-signalized (which is rare), three signal heads appear to be the standard for slip lanes. I don't think four is unheard of, though I couldn't find a photo:



And as far as redundancy goes, here's an intersection in Tacoma, Washington. There's only one lane at this T-intersection, and yet there are four heads... I have to wonder why they even posted a mast arm here...side mounted signals for this movement would have been sufficient IMO:

[english si]

I'm still convinced that the majority of the Vancouverite population is following their ancestral traditions by installing many traffic signals for only one movement. For example, we have three signal heads just for this left turn slip in Hertfordshire, England. Unless the slip lane is un-signalized (which is rare), three signal heads appear to be the standard for slip lanes. I don't think four is unheard of, though I couldn't find a photo:

Typically only when they have a pedestrian crossing attached, IIRC.

And even then this junction has only two, despite being in the traffic signal capital of the UK.

Though this is rather overkill (and gives you a four).

PS: I can see you've paid a visit (virtual or otherwise) to the Magic Roundabout in Hemel.

[NE2]

what

[Ian]

Old Town, ME on US 2A.

[SignGeek101]

http://goo.gl/maps/wbSwJ

To [7] Highway 7

[bing101]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=933539406675607&set=oa.729573993798215&type=3&theater

It looks redundant but its on CA-244 in Sacramento, CA.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=943366289026252&set=oa.737541586334789&type=3&theater

In Natomas, CA I-5 for odd reasons is signed Twice even though there is a Hidden CA-99 Between the Sacramento Airport to the US-50, I-305, Business 80 interchange.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=918572491505632&set=pb.100000586708549.-2207520000.1416976520.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xap1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F1013255_918572491505632_3803793875769487917_n.jpg%3Foh%3Dc212351525cce0eee2a7844259e2a0da%26oe%3D54D17016%26__gda__%3D1427790687_689bb2596c11bcf63dd466a55c01dad6&size=744%2C744

US-50 in Downtown Sacramento To I-5 interchange

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=866569640039251&set=pb.100000586708549.-2207520000.1416976540.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xpf1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F10444715_866569640039251_628509996852983936_n.jpg%3Foh%3D91f2025e3c478cf364e559188dacde43%26oe%3D54D96F6A&size=526%2C237 West of CA-99 and CA-51 Interchange on US-50.