city names on freeway signs

[Neel]

I noticed that Caltrans has stopped putting city names on replacement signs. Before a sign would read "Grand Ave Glendora" now just reads "Grand Ave." I wonder what led them to stop this practice. It's kind of helpful when you drive through a new area (and have no navi) to know what cities you are near.

What I miss the most is them no longer having freeway names such as "San Bernardino Freeway" or "Riverside Freeway" on lot of the new signs. Calling freeways by their names had become a part of So Cal culture.

[J N Winkler]

The federal MUTCD, which Caltrans has now adopted through the mechanism of an interspersed supplement, does not allow mixing of street names and city names on freeway advance guide and exit direction signs.  One or the other must be signed and Caltrans has chosen to sign street names while leaving city names for supplementary guide signs, as in other states.

Caltrans' own guidance has deprecated freeway names on primary freeway guide signing since the mid-1960's at least.  The signs which still retain this information tend to be old, on surface streets, or installed and maintained by local agencies.

[Alps]

One case where I feel the MUTCD has erred.  I certainly don't believe in mixing street names and route numbers - usually this involves county routes and depends on the region (for example, N. Jersey would use names, S. Jersey would use numbers for the 6xx routes).  But destinations are vital and with the amount of information to pay attention to, it's easy to forget city names when you're looking for a particular route or street.  "There's Main Street.  Am I in Paterson yet?  I saw a sign for Lodi a couple of miles ago.  Probably the right one."

[Neel]

Once in a while, when they replace an old one with the green reflective sign, they will copy it word for word. I've see a couple when it will still read "San Bernardino Freeway" although only one new guide sign out of three will have it. Don't know if this inconsistency is done in error or what. Also, when they replaced the sign for Whitter Blvd on the 605, it reads "Whitter Blvd 72" but i don't think it's signed as CA 72 anymore (??) but they just copied the old sign.

Another pecularity was Mountain Ave on the 210. It reads "Mountain Ave Mt. Baldy." They briefly covered up the "Mount Baldy" then put it back, but now the "Mount Baldy" is centered under the "Mountain Ave." instead of being left justified under it. I know it's nitpicky, but us road geeks would notice stuff like that.

[J N Winkler]

Re. AlpsROADS' points--I agree it is useful to have signing on a consistent basis and not to expect drivers to look for route shields in one region and street names in another, but I basically agree with the MUTCD's prohibition on putting street and city names on the same guide sign.  Part of the justification is message loading.  Under old Caltrans practice the city name is nonessential information which has to be repeated on every sign for consistency's sake, while under the current MUTCD it needs to appear only once on a supplemental guide sign.  With increasing use of exit numbers on non-Interstate freeways, cities will become less important for localization anyway.

[roadfro]

I agree with the ban on city names and street names mixing on the same sign. Especially if the highway one is traveling is running through the city listed on the sign--in those instances, a city limits or "city next X exits" sign is more helpful.  When I'm driving in an unfamiliar urban area, I'm looking for the street/highway I need for my exit, and not necessarily a city somewhat distant. Increasing use of exit numbers, along with appropriate supplemental signage, definitely decreases the need to use city names for navigation on actual exit signage.

I did somewhat like CalTrans' use of freeway names on guide signs, even if it wasn't consistent. I imagine it could be somewhat cumbersome at interchanges where the named freeway switches highway. The names were much more prevalent when the highways were first built though, with references now seeming to prefer the numbers instead ("101" or "the 101", depending on location).  It's something that could be perpetuated on supplemental signage, but can be done without just as easily.

[mightyace]

One case where I feel the MUTCD has erred.  I certainly don't believe in mixing street names and route numbers - usually this involves county routes and depends on the region (for example, N. Jersey would use names, S. Jersey would use numbers for the 6xx routes).

I disagree, if the road has an assigned designation that is signed, it should be on the exit sign.  When looking at Rand-McNally style city maps, it is easier to figure out the route # than the street name.  And, I've run into many places where U.S. routes are given with street names, do you think the U.S. route number should not be shown?

There are many street name/route numbers in the Nashville area and they area a mix of US Routes, TN Primary and TN Secondary routes.  And, IMHO most of them are helpful, maybe not to a resident like me but I would like to see them there if I was from out of town.

On I-24:
Exit 40: TN Secondary 45 - Old Hickory Blvd.
Exit 52: US 70S/US 41 - Murfreesboro Pike
Exit 59: TN 254 - Bell Road
Exit 61: TN Secondary 171 - Old Hickory Blvd.

On I-40:
Exit 199: TN Secondary 251 - Old Hickory Blvd.
Exit 201: US 70 - Charlotte Pike
Exit 204: Future "A": TN 155 North - Briley Parkway (Freeway)
Exit 204: Future "B": TN Secondary 155 South - White Bridge Road
Exit 209: US 70/US 70S - Charlotte Ave., Broadway
Exit 210C: US 31A/US 41A - 2nd and 4th Ave.
Exits 216B-C: TN Secondary 255 - Donelson Pike
Exit 221: TN Secondary 45 - Old Hickory Blvd.

On I-65:
Exits 61 - TN Secondary 248 - Peystonsville Rd., Spring Hill
Exit 69 - TN Secondary 441 - Moores Lane
Exit 71 - TN Secondary 253 - Concord Rd.
Exits 74A-B - TN 254 - Old Hickory Blvd.
Exit 78 - TN Secondary 255 - Harding Place
Exit 85 - US 41A - Rosa L Parks Blvd
Exit 87 - US 431 - Trinity Lane
Exit 89 - US 31W/US 41 - Dickerson Pike
Exit 91 - TN Secondary 45 - Old Hickory Blvd.

On I-440:
Exits 1A-B: US 70S - West End Ave.
Exit 3: US 431 Hillsboro Pike
Exit 6: US 31A/US 41A - Nolensville Pike

On TN 155 Briley Parkway:
Exit 4: US 70S/US 41 - Murfreesboro Pike
Exit 8: US 70 - Lebanon Pike
Exit 14: US 31 North - Gallatin Pike
Exit 16B: US 31W/US 41 - Dickerson Pike
Exit 19: US 431 - Whites Creek Pike
Exit 21: US 41 - Clarksville Pike
Exit 24: TN 12 - Ashland City Highway

[SSOWorld]

Moved from Pacific Southwest.

[Duke87]

Sometimes a city name is justified. Obviously, things like "Main Street" are very ambiguous and unhelpful without it. That said, sometimes it is unnecessary and best omitted.

As for what combination of shields+street name, shields+destination(s), street name+destination(s) or just street name is appropriate, it varies from case to case and this is something it's best not to force consistency on.

[deathtopumpkins]

I guess VDOT's just decided to ignore that little bit of the MUTCD then.  Even recently replaced signs still mix city names and street names. For example, on I-664 southbound in Suffolk, VA, the exit for VA 337 says "Portsmouth Blvd / Portsmouth" That's one that could obviously be omitted... yet, is still there.

[SSOWorld]

Wisconsin has also ignored this in some places - a sign on WIS 29 near Owen (between Wausau and Eau Claire) signs Owen and Cardinal Ave.

[myosh_tino]

On a recent sign replacement on CA-85 in Mountain View, Caltrans decided to include the city names on the guide sign. On these exit and advance guide signs for CA-82/El Camino Real, you'll find the route number, road name and cities on each sign panel.  Of course, this has resulted in a horribly laid-out sign.

Google Streetview of this sign...
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=37.389254,-122.068714&spn=0,359.998227&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.388505,-122.068871&panoid=-KYhEY7YbYkCXcjZLsJwww&cbp=12,183.83,,1,-2.56

[SignBridge]

The 2009 MUTCD does not actually prohibit using a street name and city name on the same sign. I don't think the earlier versions did either. Sec. 2E-10.01 states: A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided. It's only Guidance, not a standard. Having clarified that, I for one don't understand the reason why this practice is discouraged. I don't see why it would be a problem to show a road name next to/or instead of a route shield along with 2 destinations, one for each direction. As other posters above have noted, some states widely disregard that recommendation, anyway. Add New York DOT to the list.

It's common in New York State, especially on Long Island to have a named county road (some counties do not number their highways) and 2 destinations displayed. Some of these county roads are wider and more heavily travelled than some state highways and are located in suburban areas. It's been done this way here for the last 50 years and there is no problem with this practice that I know of. And the street names are not boxed either. They are shown using the same size and type of mixed case lettering as the destinations.

So I ask: Why does the MUTCD discourage using road and city names on the same sign?

[deathtopumpkins]

That's (road name next to route number above destinations) what I've seen done occasionally in Virginia, and I like it. For instance, here is the exit I get off I-64 at on my morning commute: https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia064/i-064_wb_exit_262b_01.jpg

[mightyace]

That's (road name next to route number above destinations) what I've seen done occasionally in Virginia, and I like it.

Tennessee does it occasionally as well.


20091222 I-65 N @ Exit 53-C by mightyace, on Flickr

BTW Most people down here, myself included, simply refer to the freeway stub as Saturn Parkway and not by number.

[roadfro]

The 2009 MUTCD does not actually prohibit using a street name and city name on the same sign. I don't think the earlier versions did either. Sec. 2E-10.01 states: A city name and a street name on the same sign should be avoided. It's only Guidance, not a standard. Having clarified that, I for one don't understand the reason why this practice is discouraged. I don't see why it would be a problem to show a road name next to/or instead of a route shield along with 2 destinations, one for each direction. As other posters above have noted, some states widely disregard that recommendation, anyway. Add New York DOT to the list.

It's common in New York State, especially on Long Island to have a named county road (some counties do not number their highways) and 2 destinations displayed. Some of these county roads are wider and more heavily travelled than some state highways and are located in suburban areas. It's been done this way here for the last 50 years and there is no problem with this practice that I know of. And the street names are not boxed either. They are shown using the same size and type of mixed case lettering as the destinations.

So I ask: Why does the MUTCD discourage using road and city names on the same sign?

The primary reason has to do with message loading. Especially in cases such as indicated by the last two replies where the street name is put next to the route shield in addition to having two destinations. In these cases, the route name is really superfluous information that is not essential to guiding the long-distance traveler.  Adding extra information to a freeway sign assembly means more time for the driver to process that information, which can take away from decision time necessary to merge for associated movements.

It is also MUTCD guidance that no more than three "blocks" of legend be used on a freeway sign, again for message loading reasons. In these examples, there's four (the route shield and street name are separate blocks of legend). For similar reasons, other guidance suggests that no more than three overhead signs be used in one assembly (at which cases legends should be reduced to two blocks if possible).

[mightyace]

The primary reason has to do with message loading. Especially in cases such as indicated by the last two replies where the street name is put next to the route shield in addition to having two destinations. In these cases, the route name is really superfluous information that is not essential to guiding the long-distance traveler.

That may be true in general, but the specific case I showed, the route name is not superfluous information as "Saturn Parkway" is what the road is most commonly known as.  If anything, I'd remove one or both control cities from that sign with Columbia being the first to go.

Or, we could get rid of the TN 396 sign as no one really uses that to identify the road.

[shoptb1]

That may be true in general, but the specific case I showed, the route name is not superfluous information as "Saturn Parkway" is what the road is most commonly known as.  If anything, I'd remove one or both control cities from that sign with Columbia being the first to go.

Or, we could get rid of the TN 396 sign as no one really uses that to identify the road.

I particularly like the way that Tennessee and Kentucky show the Route Name and the Route Number on their signs.  I find this very useful to the traveler as people can refer to either.

[J N Winkler]

Another reason not to use city names in the advance guide signing sequence is that relatability tends to be poor when there are multiple exits for the same city.  In cases such as this, a person giving directions will usually say something like "Take the Agua Linda Road exit" rather than "take the Amado exit" in order to avoid confusion.  Moreover, in cases such as this, relatability with regard to large-scale mapping (e.g., a single-sheet state map of the kind circulated by state DOTs or tourism departments at welcome centers) does not supply an argument in favor of using city names on advance guide signs.  The reason for this is that, without detailed knowledge of the state DOT's policies regarding use of cities on signs, a driver studying the map will not know, for example, whether a given exit close to Amado is close enough for "Amado" to appear on the signs.  Navigation will therefore be by exit number (where used) even though the name of the crossroad won't necessarily appear on the map.

It has never been the intention of the MUTCD compilers to eliminate city name signing entirely in urbanized areas.  The preferred approach is to identify cities on boundary signs, supplemental guide signs (e.g., "Amado EXIT 32"), or "NEXT EXITS" signs (e.g., "Amado NEXT 3 EXITS").  This means that the city needs to be identified just once on one sign, and not multiple times on every advance guide and exit direction sign for every exit considered to lead to the city.  It also allows the highway agency to differentiate between exits which offer immediate access to the city and others which are more distant from the freeway.

In regard to the SR 396/Saturn Parkway example, it would be safe to eliminate "Saturn Pkwy" on the main sign.  People actually using it in conjunction with maps to reach a destination will be looking for the SR 396 designation and the linestyle indicating a freeway.  People following spoken directions could easily be served by a supplemental guide sign reading "Saturn Parkway EXIT 53."  The difficult case with regard to mixing road and city names on advance guide signs is not Saturn Parkway, but rather the expressway system in Chicago, because expressway names are embedded in the local vernacular, there are expressways with no explicit numerical designation (think Elgin-O'Hare Expressway or the Chicago Skyway), and there is often no direct correlation between expressway name and numerical designation.

P.S.  The "Agua Linda Rd" and "Amado" examples above are taken from real life--I-19 in Arizona.  The 1981 signing plans mixed city and crossroad names on signs, while the 1998 signing plans turfed the city names out to supplemental guide signs.  I disagree with the approach the 1998 plans took to metric units, but where city names on advance guide signs are concerned, they are spot-on.

[SignBridge]

Re: whether to show the highway name along with the route shield. The above Chicago area problems apply to New York (and probably Los Angeles) as well. Many NYC area expressways were built in the 1950's as named routes with no (or little known) numbers. Then with the coming of the Interstate system, many of those highways were incorporated into the system (even though they didn't meet Interstate standards) and assigned Interstate route numbers. Some examples are the Cross Bronx Expwy, I-95 and the Brooklyn Queens Expwy, I-278. The new signing of the early 1960's used route numbers only, causing a public outcry that was big media news in New York for years. Finally in about 1970 NYC reached a compromise with NYS DOT that is still in place today. Within the 5 boroughs of NYC, virtually all directional signs show both the name and route number on the top line of the signs. (Similar to Virginia state routes in the Metro Wash. D.C. area) This satisfied New Yorkers, but does  lead to excessive amount of legend on some signs.  And quick readability is an issue. There are no easy answers here. A good case can be made for either viewpoint.

The Triple-A Auto Club has been encouraging this number/name practice region wide for many years but NYS DOT will not implement it ouside of New York City. Consequently, roads like the Long Island Expwy, outside of the city are signed only as I-495 and the NY Thruway as I-87/287

[roadfro]

The primary reason has to do with message loading. Especially in cases such as indicated by the last two replies where the street name is put next to the route shield in addition to having two destinations. In these cases, the route name is really superfluous information that is not essential to guiding the long-distance traveler.

That may be true in general, but the specific case I showed, the route name is not superfluous information as "Saturn Parkway" is what the road is most commonly known as.  If anything, I'd remove one or both control cities from that sign with Columbia being the first to go.

Or, we could get rid of the TN 396 sign as no one really uses that to identify the road.

I looked at google maps to get a sense of what this route actually serves.  A case could be made to sign the exit with the route shield and Saturn Pkwy legend only. Spring Hill could be moved to a supplemental guide sign (next exit, or next two exits). In the northbound direction (seen in the photo), Columbia as a destination city makes no sense, as those drivers would likely have turned off I-65 earlier.

However, I would still contend that for most travelers not familiar with the area, having "Saturn Pkwy" on the current sign is still a bit superfluous.

[mightyace]

However, I would still contend that for most travelers not familiar with the area, having "Saturn Pkwy" on the current sign is still a bit superfluous.

I don't think I'll ever agree with you guys on that.

Nevertheless, it might well be time to retire "Saturn Parkway" anyhow.  The road was originally built to serve the then new Saturn automobile plant near Spring Hill.  If you don't exit the road at US 31 you head onto the plant grounds.

(Ironic side note, the plant is actually within the city limits of Columbia!)

But, as the Saturn brand is now defunct (and in recent years only the Vue, IIRC, was built there) and the plant is currently operating at a minimal activity level, it would probably work to just get rid of Saturn Parkway as a name.  If that would happen, I wouldn't have a problem with it being off the BGS.

[SignBridge]

We all acknowledge that the MUTCD theory on signing is that it should be oriented to the out-of-town traveler. However I think there's more to this story.

Would it make sense to sign major roads like the New Jersey Turnpike only as I-95? I don't think so. Fortunately it is usually signed for both using the Interstate shield and either the NJ Turnpike logo shield or spelling the name out.  Ditto for the Pennsylvania Tpk. and the New York Thruway, which in different parts of the states are different numbered routes.  Should those only be signed using their Interstate numbers? That would confuse a lot of drivers who are looking for those very well known road names.

The sign system should not ignore the local driver either, as was done in New York during the road expansion and erecting of new route shield only signs in the 1960's which I mentioned earlier in this thread. It might be a reasonable compromise to both types of drivers for both the route shield and common name of the road to be displayed. Agreed, this can (in some cases) lead to excessive legend on the sign, but what good are the signs if they don't also help local people find their road. Again, this is the position of the Auto Club of NY for the last 40 years at least. They are attuned to common sense. 

[TheStranger]

The sign system should not ignore the local driver either, as was done in New York during the road expansion and erecting of new route shield only signs in the 1960's which I mentioned earlier in this thread. It might be a reasonable compromise to both types of drivers for both the route shield and common name of the road to be displayed. Agreed, this can (in some cases) lead to excessive legend on the sign, but what good are the signs if they don't also help local people find their road. Again, this is the position of the Auto Club of NY for the last 40 years at least. They are attuned to common sense. 

Sometimes any name or destination is a major improvement: California (SoCal in particular) has plenty of examples of advance exits for a route where other than the shield, the only identifiers are cardinal directions and "Freeway," which doesn't do much to identify where the route goes or what segment of that route it is!

[thenetwork]

I would give Ohio's ODOT a very poor grade as far as helping non-locals finding numbered routes:

Cleveland's Innerbelt for the most part uses street names only, and not the route numbers (Chester Ave w/ no US 322 designation, Superior Avenue w/ no US 6 designation, etc...)

SR-8 in Akron fails to list SR-261 in the signage for Tallmadge Road nor does it fail to indicate Second Avenue as the exit for North/East SR-59 traffic although SR-59 South/West (it's randomly listed either way, depending on ODOT's mood) mysteriously appears as early as Graham Road -- 2 miles NORTH of Second Avenue!!!

I-77/US 62 in Canton is very sporadic on listing Fulton Avenue as SR-687 (Although ODOT has added a few SR-687 shields as stand alone shields atop the BGSs.

Same thing for Columbus on I-71 @ Polaris Parkway -- The SR-759 shields were added as separate reassurance shields above the BGS...Even in recent sign upgrades, ODOT continued to snub SR 759 shields within the BGSs -- EPIC FAIL!

And for the most part, all the aforementioned signs list only the street names on a single line and aren't even close to already having "too much information" on them.  

Just plain laziness on ODOT's part.