The Worst of Road Signs

[Central Avenue]

I'm guessing there was an I-95 reassurance marker attached to the overhead, and VDOT decided to just toss it on the BGS for no apparent reason...

They probably thought "eh, it's gotta go somewhere" and figured they might as well just tack it up with the temporary sign since it belonged in that spot anyway.

[WillWeaverRVA]

According to this photo from Alex that's the case. The exit "tab" was what I thought was worst about it.

I feel really stupid now because I took that photo...oops.

[architect77]

New at the southern end of the Golden Gate Bridge. This wasn't a graft onto an existing sign structure that had to fit an old size; this is all-new. (Not my photo)

All of the cool things about this signage very much outweigh the capital "TH" mistake. The cantilever, doubled-up efficiency, low profile, and reluctance to raise the now-mandated tabs above the tops of all overheads, it's still very "california cool." among the best looking signage in the country. The complete opposite of here in Georgia where our signage is an utter embarrassment to the state, very "hee-haw".

[agentsteel53]

it's not bad for retroreflective stuff but the 101 is that weird off-spec shield that they insist on using way too often.

there are some 101 shields on the bay bridge westbound that are 1961 guide sign spec... two digit, but hey, not too bad.

[myosh_tino]

The cantilever, doubled-up efficiency, low profile, and reluctance to raise the now-mandated tabs above the tops of all overheads, it's still very "california cool." among the best looking signage in the country.

Actually, there is no mandate to use raised (separate) exit tabs in California.  The existing system of built-in tabs is still permitted under the 2012 edition of the California MUTCD.

[architect77]

Which photo speaks highly of America and the particular state it's in? Georgia vs. NC




This is why I love North Carolina...

[NE2]

Which photo speaks highly of America and the particular state it's in? Georgia vs. NC

None of them. The exit 120 has the 'to' route before the others (as well as space to the right of 120, but I assume that now has an A), and the exit 132 would look better with two lines of text. The express lane signs look the best of the four; I can't tell if the apparent crookedness is simply due to camera angle.

[PurdueBill]

None of them. The exit 120 has the 'to' route before the others (as well as space to the right of 120, but I assume that now has an A), and the exit 132 would look better with two lines of text. The express lane signs look the best of the four; I can't tell if the apparent crookedness is simply due to camera angle.

A justification for the one-line sign that I can think of is that two lines might make it appear that there is some destination that there really isn't, like if they broke it so "New Hope" and "Church Rd." were on separate lines.  (It might appear that "New Hope" is a destination.)  If just "Rd." were on its own line, that doesn't buy much in better spacing in this case either.

[Eth]

Bonus on the Exit 80 sign: That road changes names at I-20, but only one name is shown. 

[architect77]

Which photo speaks highly of America and the particular state it's in? Georgia vs. NC

None of them. The exit 120 has the 'to' route before the others (as well as space to the right of 120, but I assume that now has an A), and the exit 132 would look better with two lines of text. The express lane signs look the best of the four; I can't tell if the apparent crookedness is simply due to camera angle.

The Express Lane signage is that crooked. It's sloping many degrees differently from the roadway, the text of the local exits is significantly smaller than the new oversized standard, the sign itself is un-necessary because it repeating the same info on the right side of the highway (if Georgia's ridiculous elevated shoulder signs were supposedly legible enough for all lanes before, why is another sign now required merely by an HOV to HOT conversion?) Also almost all of these HOT Lane specific signs should be supported only by a center-divider pole that cantilevers just over the leftmost lane. That's how every other state would have erected them.

The North Carolina signs are supported by an absolutely perfect gantry, which nice-looking fat poles, not to mention being perfectly level. The signs' corners are curved, the signs are lit, the letters are huge, and the cantilevered exit sign wraps closely around the oversized text and its shorter profile conveys hierarchical relevance of the exit itself. It rocks.

[Ian]

If it weren't for the crooked gantry and the smallish "Jimmy Carter Blvd" in the first photo, the signs would look fine. I actually don't mind Georgia's freeway signs, both their new ones and the old ones with the wide exit tab.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

I've spotted this erroneous CA-156 shield along the US-101 duplex in San Benito County. I guess this is a 2di state route shield, right? Pretty strange.

[Quillz]

it's not bad for retroreflective stuff but the 101 is that weird off-spec shield that they insist on using way too often.

there are some 101 shields on the bay bridge westbound that are 1961 guide sign spec... two digit, but hey, not too bad.

Those shields are off-spec? I've seen them defined in California's supplement to the MUTCD, the 3dus shields are supposed to be overly wide.

[myosh_tino]

I've spotted this erroneous CA-156 shield along the US-101 duplex in San Benito County. I guess this is a 2di state route shield, right? Pretty strange.

To echo what Quillz said, that US 101 shield is a standard 3dus California cutout shield.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

I've spotted this erroneous CA-156 shield along the US-101 duplex in San Benito County. I guess this is a 2di state route shield, right? Pretty strange.

To echo what Quillz said, that US 101 shield is a standard 3dus California cutout shield.

No, what I'm pointing out is that the 156 shield, not the 101 shield is the erroneous one.

[myosh_tino]

No, what I'm pointing out is that the 156 shield, not the 101 shield is the erroneous one.

Oops!  I thought Quillz was referring to your post.  My mistake.

Regarding that 156 shield, I see two goofs.  First is the use of a 2-digit shield for a 3-digit route.  Second is the use of Series E (or E-modified) for the '5' while the other two digits ('1' and '6') are Series D.

[Sanctimoniously]

Series Derp? (27th Street and Hampton Blvd. in Norfolk.)



I wouldn't call this a candidate for "Worst of", but there seems to be a lot of Arial/Helvetica-on-signs hate around this board, so here. (Hampton Blvd. and Terminal Blvd.)

[Alps]

Series Derp? (27th Street and Hampton Blvd. in Norfolk.)

So far from I-37...

I wouldn't call this a candidate for "Worst of", but there seems to be a lot of Arial/Helvetica-on-signs hate around this board, so here. (Hampton Blvd. and Terminal Blvd.)

Worst of sign, best of shields.

[Michael]

I tried to find the VA 337 shields in Street View, but I was on 35th St, not 27th.  While I was looking, I spun around 180º from what I thought was the view in Sanctimoniously's picture, and found an ugly "Speed Limit 25" sign.

As an aside, Street View "jumped" to the side with the sign when I moved closer to it, coming from the intersection just to the west.  I think this is the first time that the "jump" actually helped me!

[Central Avenue]

I wouldn't call this a candidate for "Worst of", but there seems to be a lot of Arial/Helvetica-on-signs hate around this board, so here. (Hampton Blvd. and Terminal Blvd.)

Personally I'm less annoyed by the use of Helvetica there than I am the poor alignment for everything.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

Speaking of Helvetica, there's a sign on NB 101 just near Gilroy that looks to me as it is in that font.


Further up the road just past the city limits, I've spotted this fugly 101 shield just before the Monterey Rd. exit.

[Sanctimoniously]

I tried to find the VA 337 shields in Street View, but I was on 35th St, not 27th.

I looked at 27th Street and Hampton Boulevard (or if you want to be technical, VA 337 and VA 247) on Street View and found their image for that location is from July 2007. So, it's obvious the signs are a fairly new installation.

(If the Street View doesn't work for you like it isn't for me, go to the Street View, click back twice and look right once and you'll see what I'm talking about. )

[Kacie Jane]

I wouldn't call this a candidate for "Worst of", but there seems to be a lot of Arial/Helvetica-on-signs hate around this board, so here. (Hampton Blvd. and Terminal Blvd.)

Personally I'm less annoyed by the use of Helvetica there than I am the poor alignment for everything.

Me as well.  Also, the lack of outline on the Interstate shields.  It could just be the photo, but the lack of contrast with the blue on dark green just isn't doing it for me.

[Sanctimoniously]

I think the "Terminal Blvd." portion probably had "Intl." to the left of it, on second look, it looks like there's a plain greenout on there. But you're right, the rest of the sign isn't very well aligned. The shields look to me like something that would be installed around an airport.

[KEK Inc.]

Speaking of Helvetica, there's a sign on NB 101 just near Gilroy that looks to me as it is in that font.


Further up the road just past the city limits, I've spotted this fugly 101 shield just before the Monterey Rd. exit.

There's another one on US-101 SB approaching Masten Ave.  Caltrans probably got lazy and let whatever company is in charge of Bonfante/Gilroy Gardens do it (Bonfante Gardens also had those signs).  Those signs can be seen on Santa Teresa Rd and CA-152.