One Of My BGS Pet Peeves...

[thenetwork]

Over the last week C-DOT has replaced a couple of "perfectly good" BGSs along I-70 just west of Glenwood Springs. 

The good news was that they were not replaced by Clearviews.   

What they did do that irks me is that instead of the final BGS saying:

       "EXIT 109"
"Canyon Creek" (right diagonal exit arrow)

as it use to say, it now says:

       "EXIT 109"
"Canyon Creek"
  "Next Right"

The only diagonal exit arrow that is seen for the exit is on the gore sign.

I have always hated when a State DOT would only give a text description for the actual exit on a BGS instead of using an actual diagonal arrow.  There are a few spots on I-70 in Colorado that do say "NEXT RIGHT", "RIGHT LANE" (which makes no sense because the right lane is technically a through lane and not the exit ramp.) or in some occurrences the only indication is a gore exit sign (mostly for access roads that have no outlet).   

Pennsylvania (at least 5-10 years ago) seemed to do that a lot by either noting an off ramp by saying "NEXT RIGHT" or "RIGHT LANE" just prior to the start of the exit ramp instead of a diagonal arrow.

Is it just me or does this form of text-only BG Exit Sign grate on others as well?    

[Quillz]

It comes down to aesthetic balance, I think. There are signs that are too big for the amount of text on them and thus would greatly benefit from a shield or graphic of some kind. But if it's a rather small sign, I'm fine with just text, because if you try to throw a graphic on it, the sign will look too busy.

[myosh_tino]

It comes down to aesthetic balance, I think. There are signs that are too big for the amount of text on them and thus would greatly benefit from a shield or graphic of some kind. But if it's a rather small sign, I'm fine with just text, because if you try to throw a graphic on it, the sign will look too busy.

I disagree.  The final BGS at the actual exit (sometimes called an "Exit Direction" sign) should always have an arrow included on the sign.  Using "NEXT RIGHT" instead of an arrow is not good enough IMO.  Besides, isn't there something in the MUTCD that requires the use of an arrow on exit direction signs?

California uses the term "NEXT RIGHT" or "NEXT EXIT" on advance guide signs but never on an exit sign.

[corco]

Yeah, I read an arrow to mean "Exit here" and "NEXT RIGHT" to mean "Hey, the exit is coming up"

There are certain instances where I'd rather have "NEXT RIGHT" on the final sign- on I-25 coming northbound towards Wheatland WY, for instance, the exit sign with arrow for WYO 34 is about half a mile before the actual gore, so in that instance "NEXT RIGHT" should be fine. With the arrow, you throw on your blinker thinking you're exiting right then and look like an idiot because it's half a mile to the actual exit.

I guess if it's more than a 1/4 mile from the gore, I'd rather see "NEXT RIGHT" but in all other instances an arrow makes more sense.

[Scott5114]

In my opinion, there is never a case when "Next Right" should be used on an Interstate. In the case of an exit direction sign, an arrow should be used. Auxiliary signs like directions to hospitals, tourist destinations, etc. should use the exit number at the bottom. ("Wfor Memorial Hospital/Exit 96") This makes things less ambiguous whenever you have a cloverleaf or two otherwise close-together ramps; otherwise you have to deal with "Next Right" and "Second Right" and it's easy to lose track of whether the first right has passed yet.

[myosh_tino]

"NEXT RIGHT" (and to some extent "SECOND RIGHT") are pretty common in California since we didn't start using exit numbers until the turn of the century.  It is still common to see roadside signs like "HP Pavilion/NEXT RIGHT" and "Santa Clara University/SECOND RIGHT" posted within a few hundred feet of one another before an interchange.

While California has adopted exit numbering (albeit implementation has been slow), most new roadside signs using NEXT RIGHT and SECOND RIGHT also include an exit number so you'd get signs saying...

"EXIT 2A/HP Pavilion/NEXT RIGHT" and
"EXIT 2B/Santa Clara University/SECOND RIGHT"

In fact Caltrans calls these types of roadside signs Supplemental Destination signs and have their own CA sign code (G86-12 and G86-13).  In addition to NEXT RIGHT, the following are also acceptable... NEXT EXIT, NEXT LEFT, SECOND RIGHT and SECOND LEFT.

[SignBridge]

As per the 2009 edition of the MUTCD (Section 2E-36) a "diagonally upward pointing arrow" is required on the "exit direction" sign. This is the sign that normally appears at the beginning of the deceleration lane or overhead at the split. There apparently is no provision for the words "next right" to be on an exit direction sign. However, if I remember right, older editions back in the 1970's did allow that wording if visibility was such that the exit alignment was not readily visible to approaching drivers. Though it does not appear in my old 1988 Manual.

Re: supplemental guide signs. This is the sign showing additional destinations that may appear between the advance guide sign and the exit direction sign. The Manual recommends ("should" vs. "shall") but doesn't require that the exit number be shown under the destination served. It allows the words "next right" on these signs only on highways without exit numbering.

[J N Winkler]

"NEXT RIGHT" instead of an arrow on exit direction signs, while now (and IMO rightly) strongly deprecated, is actually an old CDOT heirloom.  My guess is that the designer either messed up his or her time machine, or worked from construction plans two sign replacements ago.

[The Premier]

The only things I can't stand is old BGS signs. And when I mean old, I literally mean it. The most notorious example is SR 8 Northbound. These signs are in dire need of replacement, especially due to the fact that it now has exit numbers:







The most infuriating part is the fourth photo; it has a new sign bridge, but two of the three signs that are all faded and such were just slapped on rather than replacing it.

[agentsteel53]

I for one am going to violently disagree.  Old green signs preserve history.

[r-dub]

Over the last week C-DOT has replaced a couple of "perfectly good" BGSs along I-70 just west of Glenwood Springs.

The good news was that they were not replaced by Clearviews.   

*sigh* Really? Colorado Springs is still playing with the neutered signage on I-25 left over from the Great Route Switch of 2008. Buncha BGSs with bunged on green tape over the state shields (or at least big blank spaces) and directionals. Plus, the whole cantilever arm for the westbound US 24 exit heading northbound has been missing since the end of COSMIX in 2007.

Bah! Bah, I say! Where's the equality? 

[KEK Inc.]

I for one am going to violently disagree.  Old green signs preserve history.

Why are the arrows patched up?

[agentsteel53]

Why are the arrows patched up?

the original standard was to have downward arrows all the way, but a federal standard (I believe 1961 but would have to double-check) dictated "up and away" arrows at the gore point where the roads finally divide.  this is the gore point gantry, so it was patched.  previous gantries along the approach (all brand new retroreflective, btw - amazing that this sign survived the reconstruction) are all double down-arrow for the two lanes that become 60.

[The Premier]

Old green signs preserve history.

That may be so, but at the very least, ODOT should slap in the exit tabs.

[vdeane]

If you think that's old...

[agentsteel53]

I think the US-60 sign may be a tad older than that.  1960 date stamp on the back.  the 15/220 gantry may very well be as old as 1957, but I think it's mid-60s.

[SignBridge]

On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?

And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.

[Brandon]

On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?

And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.

US-60.

[KEK Inc.]

On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?

And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.

US-60.

Yeah, usually California replaces decommed U.S. highways with the same number if they can, since they don't like to have duplicate numbers.   US-80 (due to I-80) and US-40 (due to I-40) didn't get state routes with the same number due to the Interstates.  Some exceptions are US-466, US-70, and US-399.  There is a CA-66, CA-91, CA-99, CA-299, CA-6, etc.

[Scott5114]

oh god you didn't just say f***ral route did you

is that why your post got edited

please say you didn't say fed***l route

He who shall not be named...

[The Premier]

When did they made that?

[CL]

I for one am going to violently disagree.  Old green signs preserve history.

Agreed. If there's one thing California's good at, it's preserving signs. Driving I-15, I-10, and US-101 up to San Jose really convinced me that there is value in maintaining old button-copy signs (driving 101 around Santa Barbara's now my favorite partly because of this). If anything, my pet peeve is BGSs in Utah usually having a twenty-year shelf life before they are pasted over with a brand new sign. The only consolation is that the old 1960s signs exist beneath the newer signs (you can see the backs of the old signs easily at the I-80/I-215/SR-186 interchange that has the famous still-surviving Salt Lake button-copy assembly).

[national highway 1]

On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?

And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.

US-60.

Yeah, usually California replaces decommed U.S. highways with the same number if they can, since they don't like to have duplicate numbers.   US-80 (due to I-80) and US-40 (due to I-40) didn't get state routes with the same number due to the Interstates.  Some exceptions are US-466, US-70, and US-399.  There is a CA-66, CA-91, CA-99, CA-299, CA-6, etc.

CA 6?! US 6 still exists in CA, it terminates at US 395 in Bishop. The remnants of US 6 were replaced by CA 14, I-5 & CA 11 (CA 110/I-110).

[Quillz]

On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?

And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.

US-60.

Yeah, usually California replaces decommed U.S. highways with the same number if they can, since they don't like to have duplicate numbers.   US-80 (due to I-80) and US-40 (due to I-40) didn't get state routes with the same number due to the Interstates.  Some exceptions are US-466, US-70, and US-399.  There is a CA-66, CA-91, CA-99, CA-299, CA-6, etc.

CA 6?! US 6 still exists in CA, it terminates at US 395 in Bishop. The remnants of US 6 were replaced by CA 14, I-5 & CA 11 (CA 110/I-110).

I could be wrong about this, but I do believe that CalTRANS maintains routes within the state in such a way that everything is a "state route." Thus, I-5 is also CA-5, etc. For example, with I-238, it's a non-chargeable Interstate and thus could have remained CA-238, because that's how it's still maintained, despite the Interstate notation.

I have no idea if that makes any sense at all...

[CL]

I could be wrong about this, but I do believe that CalTRANS maintains routes within the state in such a way that everything is a "state route." Thus, I-5 is also CA-5, etc. For example, with I-238, it's a non-chargeable Interstate and thus could have remained CA-238, because that's how it's still maintained, despite the Interstate notation.

I have no idea if that makes any sense at all...

That's what Utah does. Every road under state jurisdiction is defined in the state legislature as a state route - whether or not it's an interstate or U.S. highway - so UDOT route logs will sometimes refer to SR-15, SR-80, SR-89, etc when in reality they're I-15, I-80, US-89. It all has to do with the fact that the state legislature codifies the routes under law as such, though I'm not sure that's what California does.

[Removed errant quote tag. -S.]