Signage pet peeves

[Ian]

- Clearview showing up on shields. Oh, I wonder what DOT did that?

Just more to love! 

I will admit, PennDOT's first generation of clearview signs were really bad looking with unnecessarily large text, but they have gotten better. I think the states that do it the best may be Arizona or Michigan. For the worst, probably Virginia (though I do admire that they still round their BGS corners).

[cu2010]

I dunno...I actually like Virginia's use of Clearview...those signs look really sharp to me. I dunno why. Of course, I've never seen them in person, just pictures...so that might change.

Worst is NYSTA, hands down. The text is unnecessarily large (NYSTA's older Series E(M) signs had the same problem), the kerning tends to be wonky, and the whole sign just has a bad layout. There were a few on the WB Thruway near Buffalo that looked particularly bad (including new signs before the US219 interchange with the new multiple arrow (I forget what that's called offhand) layout...)

The newer PennDOT Clearview doesn't look as bad, but I hate how they're mixing and matching fonts on the sign...if they're going to use Clearview, the entire sign (minus the route shield) should be Clearview as well...

[Ian]

The new clearview signs on I-395 in Virginia look just awful. The text seems to large for such a squished sign.


And yeah, the NYSTA's clearview signs are really horrific. Talk about over sized text. And I may be the minority, but I don't mind PennDOT mix and matching fonts on the sign.

[Scott5114]

Texas's Clearview is as tastefully done as Clearview can be.

[Mergingtraffic]

NY's BGS signs seem to be oversized.  First, they seem to have metal plates for the signs rather than the usual "stacked" type sign (like the background of this board).

Plus their tabs look odd since NY uses curved edges on their BGSes.

I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

[Ian]

I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

But they are too boring. I used to think the borderless center exit tabs were really unique, but now that ConnDOT uses standard exit tabs, there isn't really anything special to the new signs  .

[Mergingtraffic]

I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

But they are too boring. I used to think the borderless center exit tabs were really unique, but now that ConnDOT uses standard exit tabs, there isn't really anything special to the new signs  .

Plus there are some new signage projects due this year, we'll see if the new tabs have borders.  
It's odd....in 2005, the new signs had centered non-bordered tabs.
In 2009 the new signs had side-alligned non-bordered tabs
Now in 2010, only the past year, it's fully MUTCD appropriate with side-alligned bordered tabs.

In fact, the side-alligned borderless tabs look really good with the square unshaved corners!! If anybody has a new pic..please post!

[J N Winkler]

138-221 has already been advertised.  Bordered tabs!

[architect77]

I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

My native NC has always avoided the raised first letter, however their new signage on I-40 through Raleigh now has it. Yuck....

My preferred treatment:

[architect77]

I've always wondered why Virginia has these two (state?) shields. Is one of them a county shield?

[NE2]

It's for secondary routes (in most counties VDOT maintains pretty much everything). West Virginia and North Carolina are similar, though the latter doesn't have any proper shields for secondaries.

[agentsteel53]

It's for secondary routes (in most counties VDOT maintains pretty much everything). West Virginia and North Carolina are similar, though the latter doesn't have any proper shields for secondaries.

I've always wondered the point of state secondary markers.  from a driver navigation perspective, having two styles is just confusing, especially given that for the most part there is no easy way to delineate primary from secondary.  can't be the maintenance - for just about every state, I can think of a primary route that is in far shoddier condition than the average secondary.

[NE2]

It's maintenance on a theoretical level - the two systems are funded differently.

[agentsteel53]

It's maintenance on a theoretical level - the two systems are funded differently.

yeah, but who gives a shit?  route markers are navigational aids; no driver cares how the road is funded, so long as it doesn't fall off a cliff after the next bend.

[OracleUsr]

I don't mind the raised initial caps on a sign...what I don't like is this new "LEFT" words in white-on-green lettering NC is starting to use.  I don't see how that's going to raise a driver's attention enough to warrant going to this trouble.

[Eth]

It's for secondary routes (in most counties VDOT maintains pretty much everything). West Virginia and North Carolina are similar, though the latter doesn't have any proper shields for secondaries.

I've always wondered the point of state secondary markers.  from a driver navigation perspective, having two styles is just confusing, especially given that for the most part there is no easy way to delineate primary from secondary.  can't be the maintenance - for just about every state, I can think of a primary route that is in far shoddier condition than the average secondary.

In the case of Virginia (as opposed to, say, Tennessee), secondary route numbers can be reused in different counties.  I think this distinction in the numbering system makes it a good idea to use a different marker to emphasize that.  When you see a VA 236 marker, you can be sure that there's only one VA 236 it can be referring to; however, there may be numerous SR 648s.  (And the average motorist isn't going to know rules like "numbers over 600 aren't unique".)

[Duke87]

I prefer the way CT does it....by the way now CT uses border tabs that are alligned.  Every new sign I see has a bordered tab.  They aren't too big and not too small.

But they are too boring. I used to think the borderless center exit tabs were really unique, but now that ConnDOT uses standard exit tabs, there isn't really anything special to the new signs  .

Well, the good news is, at the rate ConnDOT replaces things, it will be 50 years by the time all the old unique signs are gone. And by then what's normal and boring now will be old and unique and still hanging around.

[Ian]

Well, the good news is, at the rate ConnDOT replaces things, it will be 50 years by the time all the old unique signs are gone. And by then what's normal and boring now will be old and unique and still hanging around.

Yeah I mean who knows? In 50 years, signs could be hot pink with comic sans font. They we'll be taking those clearview signs we see today for granted! Speaking of, are those new signs on I-84 between New York and the Housatonic River going to be clearview?

[realjd]

yeah, but who gives a shit?  route markers are navigational aids; no driver cares how the road is funded, so long as it doesn't fall off a cliff after the next bend.

Says the guy who is obsessed with the intricate details, vintages, shapes, and sizes of said navigation aid! 

[agentsteel53]

Says the guy who is obsessed with the intricate details, vintages, shapes, and sizes of said navigation aid! 

certainly, but from the perspective of navigational aid, having a classification between primary and secondary adds little.  people can be trained to expect that an interstate shield means a certain quality (sorry, Breezewood), that a US route can keep its number for many states, and that a state highway ... well ... it likely won't fall off a cliff and take you with it. 

I have no idea why Virginia reuses state secondary numbers.  it's not like there's a finite number of integers...

[deathtopumpkins]

There is a finite number of ones that can be easily squeezed into a shield. Considering that typically routes from 600 into the 1000s or higher in densely developed counties get the full signage treatment, with hundreds more going unsigned (or only mentioned on little white rectangles), this means that each county would need, say, 2000 route numbers dedicated to it, and at 95 counties that's 190,000 unique route numbers. That could probably be dropped down to 150,000 to accommodate more rural counties and multi-county routes needing only one number. Now I don't know about you, but I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed. And then there's the issue of which counties get the smaller, easier-to-remember numbers.

I like Virginia's system (though I may be biased as a Virginian) because I like being able to distinguish the two systems. 95% of the time a primary highway will at least have a centerline and be full-width wide, whereas most of the 600-1000 SRs might have such a centerline, and in heavily developed suburban areas may even be a full 6-lane divided arterial, but more often than not they will be narrow, of relatively low quality, and lack things like a centerline and warning signs. Even without this though, you can assume that a primary highway will be of higher quality because it receives more money. This is a well-known fact. While most locals around here anyway may not know the difference, almost everyone knows that by default routes with a circular shield are minor.

[agentsteel53]

I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed.

in that case, why bother to sign them at all?  how does the average motorist benefit from a "644" shield on a 0.2 mile long dead-end road?

[deathtopumpkins]

I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed.

in that case, why bother to sign them at all?  how does the average motorist benefit from a "644" shield on a 0.2 mile long dead-end road?

Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

[agentsteel53]

Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

yes, more information is generally helpful, but in this case I think it is diluting the value of a numbered state highway system.  I expect state highways to go places and connect locations of relative importance.  I think small spur roads should not receive shields at all.  (I-375 in Florida, anyone?)

[deathtopumpkins]

I would tend to agree with you there, but the problem becomes determining WHICH roads should get shields. Would there be an arbitrary length limit, of, say 1 mile? What about dead-ends that are 1.5 miles long, or important connecting routes that are 0.5 miles? What about routes that are actually well-known by the locals, or not known as anything else?
Already most roads that are short and not worth signing AREN'T, but they still have numbers, that are usually still found on little white rectangles.

On top of that, there still has to be SOME sort of inventory for VDOT to keep track of roads it maintains (whether it be 150,000 unique numbers or ones that duplicate between counties), and this is greatly simplified if you have numbers that actually line up with those in the field, which means one of these options must be used.

In all honesty, I really don't think there is any better way you could do Virginia's system, besides maybe turning maintenance over to the counties.