Replacing traffic signs to be retroreflective by 2015?

[J Route Z]

Will they be replacing if not all but most traffic signs including regulatory, warning, parking and recreational signs along roads nationwide to meet current standards by being retroreflective, as a requirement?  Or when the sign reaches the end of its life, such as being completely faded. See: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/policy_guide/sign_retro_reqs/

If this is true, I support this since 80% of the signs in my area are not up to current standards. When I shine my brights on them, I could tell if they are reflective enough when the light bounces back and blinds me, heh.  In New Jersey, the DOT did fairly well by replacing 97 percent of overhead street signs attached to the traffic lights. The other 3 percent are in certain locations where they missed replacing signs that are still 10+ years old non-reflective and practically hard to read at night. They have also replaced a number of ground mounted signs on state roads as well. But yet there is still more to be done, under jurisdiction of the DOT, counties, and local towns.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42444189@N04/9100848785/lightbox/
The white sign needs to be replaced, one of many examples.

[jp the roadgeek]

Which means CT will probably have to get rolling on replacing these beauties.   Once the buttons in the button copy wear out, you can't even see the route numbers at night.

[BrianP]

I wonder if these requirements are why Camden County NJ is doing this sign inventory:
Camden County studies road signs

During the first phase, a van equipped with cameras and GPS units will collect roadway images and data. That process is to be completed by mid-July, the county said.

In the next phase, a consultant will check each traffic sign at night to measure its capacity to reflect light. This work is to be done by mid-August.

[jeffandnicole]

I notice inventories such as the one in the article tend to leave out something important - signage that is missing.

[BrianP]

That also makes me wonder how often the solution to a sign that needs to be replaced will be to just remove the sign.  I doubt that can happen for safety signs. Otherwise: --Oh that reassurance route sign isn't necessary just remove it.--  Will more routes become unsigned or not well signed?  --Eh locals know the routes by the road names anyway.--   I'm not sure whether to be optimistic (new signs, yay) or pessimistic (less signs).  I'll stick with the positive for now.

[J Route Z]

To BrianP: Thanks for providing that link. I used to live in Camden County and is it really true they will be replacing their road signs? If this is true, I am very happy about it. First off, signs on many roads owned by the county are faded with the letters peeling or they are sun-bleached altogether. I have contacted them many times and they said the "township" or "borough" is responsible. Next, there is a lack of reassurance route markers, especially on major 500 series routes, such as 544, 537, 534, 561, and 536, just to name a few. These roads go by different names and referencing the route by installing more route shields with cardinal directions would be a fantastic thing to guide motorists. Not everyone is a local, though many assume they are.

Also found here at official site: http://www.camdencounty.com/county-news/camden-county-conducting-traffic-sign-inventory

[dgolub]

Which means CT will probably have to get rolling on replacing these beauties.   Once the buttons in the button copy wear out, you can't even see the route numbers at night.

They've already replaced most of the button copy signs on I-95 between New York and New Haven.  I assume that these will eventually get done as well.

[agentsteel53]

Which means CT will probably have to get rolling on replacing these beauties.   Once the buttons in the button copy wear out, you can't even see the route numbers at night.

as much as I love button copy... those signs are nearly useless.

[Alps]

The MUTCD specifies which types of signs have to be replaced to meet current standards, but I believe parking signs and all recreational (white on brown, white on blue) signs are exempt.

[Central Avenue]

ODOT seems to be aggressively replacing older button copy signs with new retroreflective signs as of late, at least in the Columbus area.

I feel somewhat conflicted: I love button copy from an aesthetic point of view, but as someone who does a lot of nighttime driving, I definitely appreciate the increased legibility offered by the new retroreflective signs. Doesn't help that all the remaining button copy signs are at least 10-20 years old and thus not in the best condition.

[Signal]

Here's a whole tree of them that have survived on a main stretch of 29, who knows how:

Old Sign by Signals Unlimited, on Flickr

The MUTCD specifies which types of signs have to be replaced to meet current standards, but I believe parking signs and all recreational (white on brown, white on blue) signs are exempt.

These relatively new street signs (that happen to be white on brown also) are not reflective...  ( )

Old-Looking Brown Street Signs by Signals Unlimited, on Flickr





And, just for fun, here's my favorite reflective sign picture:

Bike Sign with Rainbow by Signals Unlimited, on Flickr

[myosh_tino]

Doesn't help that all the remaining button copy signs are at least 10-20 years old and thus not in the best condition.

10-20 years old?  That's nothing compared to California's 30-50 year old button-copy signs!    While the ones in Los Angeles can be a bit grimy, the older button copy signs up here in northern California are still in pretty good shape.

AFAIK, there are no plans to do a mass-replacement of California's button-copy signs so if there is a 2015 deadline, I don't think it'll get met.

[jp the roadgeek]

Which means CT will probably have to get rolling on replacing these beauties.   Once the buttons in the button copy wear out, you can't even see the route numbers at night.

They've already replaced most of the button copy signs on I-95 between New York and New Haven.  I assume that these will eventually get done as well.

Stretches in CT that still have button copy/really old school reflective:

I-84: Exits 22-25 (to be done with widening project), 30-32, 36, 38-65.
I-91: Exits 16-22, 26-MA line
I-95: Exits 54-76, 86-RI Line
I-291: Entire length
I-384: Entire length
I-395/CT 695: Entire length (to be done with exit renumbering)
I-684: Done
I-691: Exits 5-11
US 6: Willimantic bypass
US 7: Exit 2 only
CT 2: Entire length
CT 2A: Westbound only (to be done with exit renumbering)
CT 8: Entire length except through Naugatuck
CT 9: Entire length
CT 11: Entire (built) length
CT 15: Exits 54-55, Berlin Turnpike, exits 85-91
CT 20: Bradley Connector
CT 25: Entire length
CT 40: Entire length
CT 72: Exit 7 only.

[shadyjay]

A few corrections to the last post:

I-91: Exits 16-22, 26-MA line

Exits 21-22 (installed 1989) and Exits 29-MA line (installed between late 1980s and early 90s).

I-95: Exits 54-76, 86-RI Line

Exits 54-59 (second generation signage, replaced all text original 1958 signage), Exits 68-70 (installed 1993), Exit 85-RI line)

I-691: Exits 5-11

Exits 1-3 dates back to the opening of I-691 in the mid/late 1980s, so probably not up to standards.  Right up there with I-84 in Vernon.

CT 8: Entire length except through Naugatuck

also except through Waterbury up to Thomaston

CT 20: Bradley Connector

up to standards - signage just replaced last year


Of course this list doesn't include sporadic new signage installed as a result of spot assembly replacements. 

[J Route Z]

An update as of October 1, 2013, Camden County, NJ, as well as other NJ counties (Monmouth, Hudson, Essex, Middlesex, etc), has not made any effort in replacing any signs yet. Hopefully, next year with a new budget. There are hundreds if not thousands of signs that need to be replaced, and many which are missing altogether. If there is a fire station on a road, there are locations where a sign is posted southbound but not northbound. Same with a sharp curve. No sign in one direction, but one posted in the other. I hope they do something soon.

In NYC, I am not too fond of these older signs:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.596619,-74.002876&spn=0.034802,0.084543&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.596684,-74.003003&panoid=K1j9_8oRB3Sst2nsF458Uw&cbp=12,116.82,,1,-4.82

https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.707775,-73.819113&spn=0.035004,0.084543&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.707686,-73.819015&panoid=676jzqnISED8UVeMS2UZxA&cbp=12,350.53,,1,-5.24

https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.587364,-73.991718&spn=0.035067,0.084543&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.588132,-73.992196&panoid=tVLE4jmR1GUf_dvpho9bZQ&cbp=12,144.78,,1,-2.79

They should all be like this: https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.6047,-74.022639&spn=0.008765,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.604749,-74.022976&panoid=s_I3w0FJ1Bf-lsiYFYIfgA&cbp=12,112.23,,0,-4.53

[ctsignguy]

Which means CT will probably have to get rolling on replacing these beauties.   Once the buttons in the button copy wear out, you can't even see the route numbers at night.

as much as I love button copy... those signs are nearly useless.

The main reason they are useless is because button copy on reflective backgrounds dont really work....if ConnDOT and the STC had been on the ball, a slightly darker green that was non-reflective would have made the button copy far more legible...

i'll miss them when they go, however....another semi-unique Connecticut signing style relegated to the history books by the Feds......

[mjb2002]

Barnwell County, S.C. has been replacing the street name signs at a snails pace. Before June 2012, I found that there were only three signs countywide that is under the county's jurisdiction that met the federal standards.  Now, there are more to be sure, but still, around 90% of all signs are still out of compliance, including 96% of all signs in the towns of Williston and Elko.  By contrast, SCDOT has already replaced most of the Destination and Distance signs in the county.  I found only two of those sign (one in Blackville and one in Barnwell) that failed.  Most of the jurisdictional signs in the county already meet the basic federal standards, which means those signs can remain until the early 2020s.

It's basically the same story in Allendale and Bamberg counties: SCDOT's guide signs are being installed to federal standards, county street name signs, unfortunately, are not up to code.