The Worst of Road Signs

[ctsignguy]

How about this one?

[Quillz]

That doesn't look too bad.

[agentsteel53]

How about this one?
[Business Loop 75]

what's wrong with it?  okay, there are minor kerning issues (L in LOOP is too close compared to the spacing of the other letters, 75 is too far to the right, and "BUSINESS" is clearly laid out by hand but the margin of error is no more than 1/8 of an inch, if not 1/16...) but, apart from that, that is a perfect 1958 specification Business Loop shield.

[xonhulu]

Here's one I recently saw in Eugene, OR:



This is the intersection of Belt Line Road and Gateway Blvd just east of I-5.  They're reconfiguring the intersection, so a lane closure to the far right appears to have caused them to re-purpose what would normally be the right through-lane into the right turn lane, thus requiring them to cover the pull-through arrow on the overhead sign.  However, instead of using a green-out plate, they covered it with what appears to be a cut-out state route shield turned backward?

On a related note, there used to be an "END 569" on the right side of this sign bridge, as seen in the pictures below:





Regrettably, this is now gone.  Not really sure why, as this is still the end of OR 569.  But, comparing the two photos, they have replaced all the overheads, so the end sign was probably removed at the same time.

[agentsteel53]

is 569 supposed to be a signed route?  it seems awful high of a route number by Oregon standards.

[xonhulu]

is 569 supposed to be a signed route?  it seems awful high of a route number by Oregon standards.

It was originally designated OR 69 to match its hidden hwy designation, but that was thought to be too sexually suggestive (I'm not kidding), so they added the "5," following their policy of starting the route # with a 5 when the hwy number is already in use on a previous state route.

[agentsteel53]

It was originally designated OR 69 to match its hidden hwy designation, but that was thought to be too sexually suggestive (I'm not kidding), so they added the "5," following their policy of starting the route # with a 5 when the hwy number is already in use on a previous state route.

what other reason would they have to number a route the same as another already extant state route.  Say you already had OR-82 (to pick a random example), and wanted to make a new number; why would you even consider 82 again and resort to 582, as opposed to... [insert unused number below 217 or so here]?  there are no US/state conflicts, so no downgrade of a US route would result in a 5xx.  what, then, would?

[xonhulu]

what other reason would they have to number a route the same as another already extant state route.  Say you already had OR-82 (to pick a random example), and wanted to make a new number; why would you even consider 82 again and resort to 582, as opposed to... [insert unused number below 217 or so here]?  there are no US/state conflicts, so no downgrade of a US route would result in a 5xx.  what, then, would?

Going back to 2002, when these unsigned highways were given their Route Numbers, the stated reason was to eliminate the confusion between Route Numbers and the hidden Highway Numbers.  Of course, this is bureaucrat-ese:  the Average Joe probably never had this confusion as the Highway #'s were never posted, and if anything the new policy only adds further complication by overlaying a new route numbering scheme on top of the older (1935) system.

Anyway, some of the highway numbers were the same as existing routes, so they had their first digit replaced by 5's.  Those are the numbers in the 500s Oregon has now.

I agree with you; they should've just stuck with the old system and created new designations in the 200's.  There were still plenty of numbers available.

[NE2]

Oregon recently assigned signed route numbers to most of their unsigned highways. In most cases, they used the same number, but conflicts arose. For example, OR 240 was already in use, so Highway 240 became OR 540. Since the highway numbers go up into the 450s (by county; Oregon has 36 counties, each getting a range of 10 for three-digit numbers), 5 was the first available hundreds digit that would not cause conflicts (there were apparently no cases where two highway numbers would get the same 5xx).

In before complaints about the existence of unsigned highway numbers...

[xonhulu]

Oregon recently assigned signed route numbers to most of their unsigned highways. In most cases, they used the same number, but conflicts arose. For example, OR 240 was already in use, so Highway 240 became OR 540. Since the highway numbers go up into the 450s (by county; Oregon has 36 counties, each getting a range of 10 for three-digit numbers), 5 was the first available hundreds digit that would not cause conflicts (there were apparently no cases where two highway numbers would get the same 5xx).

One can only wonder if that would've resulted in 6xx's.

But prior to 2002, the only 3-digit routes that weren't 2xx's were OR 126, OR 138, and OR 140.  There would've been potential conflicts with all three, as there were already routes 226, 238, and 240.  However, there weren't any highways then with hidden numbers 126 or 138, but there is a hidden highway 140; fortunately, it already had a route designation (actually, two designations, as the highway is split between OR 219 and OR 214).  So ODOT was spared all potential double 5xx's.

I suppose you could consider US 197, US 199, and US 395 as potential problems, too, but there are no hidden highways with these numbers, and it's likely Oregon wouldn't care about a state route duplicating a US route, since they let the I-82/OR 82 and I-205/OR 205 pairs stand.

Before anyone jumps in on it, yes, there is now a highway 138, but that was the reverse of the 2002 route creations: the two prior highways comprising OR 138 were merged into one and given the same number as the already existent Route 138.

[hbelkins]

Finally had reason to visit that page I have with the fugly Tennessee shields.

[agentsteel53]

Going back to 2002, when these unsigned highways were given their Route Numbers, the stated reason was to eliminate the confusion between Route Numbers and the hidden Highway Numbers.  Of course, this is bureaucrat-ese:  the Average Joe probably never had this confusion as the Highway #'s were never posted, and if anything the new policy only adds further complication by overlaying a new route numbering scheme on top of the older (1935) system.

indeed, this is all bureaucratic horse excrement.  the driving public cares about the signed routes - having different underlying systems is just a waste of tax dollars spent by the clerical staff as they try to convert between two systems, when one system would be sufficient.

seriously, what idiot decided that Legislative Route Numbers (the California term) would be a good idea??  and how many idiots decided to copy him?

[Scott5114]

Probably the same idiot that thought the legislature should have any business with the numbered highway system at all.

[mightyace]

Probably the same idiot that thought the legislature should have any business with the numbered highway system at all.

Of course, the legislators know everything they have to tell us dumb peasants voters what we should do.

[Brandon]

Probably the same idiot that thought the legislature should have any business with the numbered highway system at all.

Of course, the legislators know everything they have to tell us dumb peasants voters what we should do.

Which is why diapers and legislatures have something in common.  Both should be thoroughly changed when shitty.

[froggie]

Some states are pretty particular about the legal basis behind their state highway routes.  Minnesota is one of them...though in their case, it's doubly so since the first 70 routes in the Minnesota system were Constitutionally designated.  And done so before the US highway system came about.  Unless they wanted to propose Constitutional amendments every time there was a highway change (which brings its own set of inefficiencies), they had to give MnDOT the leeway to adjust signed route numbers as needed.

[Quillz]

The 2di shield isn't really an error, but it's just that the 82 is WAY too big. And then they used 3dus shields for 2dus route numbers.

[hbelkins]

This shield shape has been showing up all over Kentucky:

[cjk374]

This shield shape has been showing up all over Kentucky:

The 2di shield isn't really an error, but it's just that the 82 is WAY too big. And then they used 3dus shields for 2dus route numbers.

I think these are some of the ugliest US hwy shields I've seen yet!  

[US71]

Don't remember if I posted this one yet

[xonhulu]

I think these are some of the ugliest US hwy shields I've seen yet!  

These should speak for themselves:







. . . though the last isn't so much ugly as it is stupid.

[Quillz]

It's amazing that the US shield has been standardized since 1970 and yet so many shields are just... wrong. It's incredible when you think about it.

[Bickendan]

The 2di shield isn't really an error, but it's just that the 82 is WAY too big. And then they used 3dus shields for 2dus route numbers.

Gah, I'll take the 3dus shields for the 2dus routes over that obnoxiously large number in the interstate shield.

[Central Avenue]

Not only is the shield hideous, but somehow US 101 goes "west" now.

[Quillz]

The 2di shield isn't really an error, but it's just that the 82 is WAY too big. And then they used 3dus shields for 2dus route numbers.

Gah, I'll take the 3dus shields for the 2dus routes over that obnoxiously large number in the interstate shield.

As would I. I hate the current '70 Interstate spec shield that calls for giant, oversized numbers on a shield that already has extremely thin borders.

Having little white space to the left and right is important for visibility. I actually find that I-82 shield less readable from a distance than a '57 spec shield simply because from far away, the numbers completely overwhelm the blue background.