The Worst of Road Signs

[Ian]

You can't tell by looking at this photo, but the Mid-Hudson Bridge shield on the right side of the sign is in Clearview:

[kharvey10]

IMAG0242 by Kimmy1978, on Flickr

Guess what is missing on this sign on I-64 in Illinois

[ftballfan]

On northbound US-31 in Oceana County, there is a white I-31 sign in the construction zone at Monroe Rd.

[Brandon]

Guess what is missing on this sign on I-64 in Illinois

An IL-161 shield?

[kharvey10]

you got it, not to mention its in clearview and aligned very poorly on top of it.  It replaced a sign destroyed in a car accident earlier in the year.

[hobsini2]

you got it, not to mention its in clearview and aligned very poorly on top of it.  It replaced a sign destroyed in a car accident earlier in the year.

Signs destroyed by car accidents seem to happen way to often in Illinois.
Since IDOT/ISTHA finished the extension of 355 to 80, the exit gore sign on SB I-55 for Exit 269 has been replaced 3 times (just got hit again over the weekend) and the Exit 268 gore sign 2 times (also knocked down in the last month). Dumbass Cracker driving is thriving!

[Brandon]

you got it, not to mention its in clearview and aligned very poorly on top of it.  It replaced a sign destroyed in a car accident earlier in the year.

Signs destroyed by car accidents seem to happen way to often in Illinois.
Since IDOT/ISTHA finished the extension of 355 to 80, the exit gore sign on SB I-55 for Exit 269 has been replaced 3 times (just got hit again over the weekend) and the Exit 268 gore sign 2 times (also knocked down in the last month). Dumbass Cracker driving is thriving!

If it's not the cars and trucks, it's the wind.  The 2 mile warning for IL-53 on Nbd I-55 was blown down no less than 5 times (and replaced twice) within a year.

[geronimoabn]

This one is in Madson, WI at US151 and I39/90/94.  Guess they thought it would be cheaper to put up a blank rather than a sign for each of the 3 interstates.

[KEK Inc.]

Also, although not strictly a sign, apparently California has reverted to white center (centre?) lines:

Before 1976, yellow lines were only required for solid median lines.  Double-yellow would still exist, but on a passing zone, you'd have white in the middle.  This picture is confusing though, since the reflectors look Cal-transish, but there shouldn't be yellow on the shoulder, and the solid middle line should be yellow. 

[Brandon]

^^ Ireland or the UK, perhaps?

[KEK Inc.]

I just realized the reflectors should be on the inside of the yellow regardless.  It could be another state.  I'm not sure how much the standards have changed over the years in certain states or the UK/Ireland for that matter.  I do know that yellow is only used on the shoulder to indicate no parking in the UK.

It could be New Zealand.  I believe they use yellow for the shoulder, and the climate is practically identical to California. 

[agentsteel53]

I believe it was established to be South Africa.

it's the 1978 MUTCD that set up our current striping.  I also know that at some point CA used double-white in the context in which we currently see double-yellow - effectively an all-white color scheme.  (They also used white-black-white on light concrete.)  I think this was before 1962, but I'd have to check my old California documents to verify that.

[Scott5114]

This one is in Madson, WI at US151 and I39/90/94.  Guess they thought it would be cheaper to put up a blank rather than a sign for each of the 3 interstates.

This is what was there before:

[Alex]

Flaroads found this wretched assembly two days ago... Another 229 of similar design is around the corner.

[architect77]

Consciously or subconsciously, highway signage is the state speaking directly to you and leaves lasting impressions on citizens and visitors alike. With only a few standard shields, numbers and letters to place, there should few instances of anything less than perfect.

Huge urban areas are excused for piecemealing imperfections, because they've got other priorities.

But here in Georgia, mistakes must be mandatory....they appear again and again on newer signage. I do love the new oversized fat fonts and wide, short overheads through downtown on the 75/85 connector. It's what I've always wanted at the nucleus of the entire Southeast: fat, sturdy, oversized, (New Jersey-esqe) signage. I'm thrilled they abandoned that skinny-condensed font on tall, narrow signs. The Feds forced them because older drivers couldn't read them.

Georgia can't shake off it's "hee-haw" past.....


North Carolina's are consistently well-executed...(with trimmed edges, sturdy gantries, lights, correct shields, oversized text, etc.)

[agentsteel53]

North Carolina's are consistently well-executed...(with trimmed edges, sturdy gantries, lights, correct shields, oversized text, etc.)

the Business 85 shield omits the word "loop".  furthermore, the red-white-and-blue shields have a 1/2 ratio of number height to shield height, while the 85 is 5/12.

I consider 5/12 to look a lot better, and I'd argue it's more visible, too, because the numbers don't bleed into the white border, especially considering halation.  there's also a consideration of 1/2 Series C vs 5/12 Series D.

but, the point I'm making is ... the shields are inconsistent.  I'd actually omit the word "loop" (too much verbiage for high-speed green signs; it's why every spec going back to 1957 says to omit the state name from green-sign shields) as done there ... and resize the red-white-and-blue shields' digits to match the 85.

[vtk]

Signage along US 33 in Athens, OH is kind of crappy.  I've driven through there on the job a couple of times recently.  Can't take pics while on the job, unfortunately.  Still, I've noticed the following problems...

On US 33 EB approaching Athens, some advanced guide signage was apparently made with an erroneous state route shield (perhaps OH 33).  That has been "corrected" by slapping a standalone US 33 shield on top of it, which is about a size too small to completely cover the OH shield behind it.

The US 33/50 split interchange (the one closer to Columbus & Belpre) has an exit number assigned to it, 16B*, which appear to be based on US 33's in-county mileage, but these exit numbers are applied to the through movements of US 33.  The surface-street exit that's also part of this interchange has an exit number, 16C*.  *I could be wrong about the suffixes of these.  Exit 17 is the OH 682 interchange.  There don't seem to be any exit numbers east/west of there.

Signage about which lane one should be in isn't always very clear.  (The stretch of highway has some weaving issues which would become problematic with more traffic...)  In particular, heading east/west respectively on US 33/50, (geographically south) approaching the split, there's a diagrammatic sign.  The sign indicates that, from four lanes, the left two lanes go west on US 50, and the right two lanes go east on US 33.  The problem is that there are only two lanes on the highway at this point, and there's no way to tell whether those two lanes become the left, right, or center two lanes indicated by the sign.  What actually happens is a third lane enters from the right, and then the center of those three lanes splits at the 33/50 diverge.  Really, the whole stretch should be re-signed with a lot more downward-pointing arrows.

Oh yeah, and the OH 682 guide signs have a roadside-type "TO OH 56" assembly tacked on above the main panel of the guide sign.  Typical ODOT afterthought, really: it seems like anytime ODOT wants to add information to a sign later, it gets stuck on top, often styled to look like an exit tab...

I don't remember being particularly impressed with the overall layout and appearance of the signs, either, though I can't remember any specific problems.  Most of the signage is button copy and probably dates to 80s through mid-90s, though some outside the multiplex is not button copy, which dates it to 2003 or later.

edit: fixed a mistake where I wrote one city but meant another, and reordered some words for clarity

[Quillz]

Apparently, TXDOT has a strange habit of using wide shields for 2di and standard shields for 3di. Because, you know, using both in the wrong way just makes so much sense.

[1995hoo]

There appears to be an inordinate amount of space between "Ft" and "Worth" on that sign as well.

[hobsini2]

Also needs a dash or comma between Ft Worth and Dallas

[1995hoo]

Also needs a dash or comma between Ft Worth and Dallas

Actually, there should NOT be such on that sign. I-35W goes to Fort Worth. I-35E goes to Dallas. A dash or comma would imply that the two spurs go to the same place. People not from Texas think of the two as a single place (much like outsiders think Raleigh and Durham in North Carolina are one city), but they are definitely separate places.

[twinsfan87]

Maybe there should be some sort of vertical divider to distinguish the two destinations instead?

[hobsini2]

Also needs a dash or comma between Ft Worth and Dallas

Actually, there should NOT be such on that sign. I-35W goes to Fort Worth. I-35E goes to Dallas. A dash or comma would imply that the two spurs go to the same place. People not from Texas think of the two as a single place (much like outsiders think Raleigh and Durham in North Carolina are one city), but they are definitely separate places.

I am sure it would not be the first time that if a dash was used, that a singular route went to one and not the other.
And no i was not lumping together DFW together. I just think visually there needs to be something between Dallas and Ft Worth. Maybe twinsfan is right. a verticle line seperating the two cities and the shields.

[Central Avenue]

Also needs a dash or comma between Ft Worth and Dallas

Actually, there should NOT be such on that sign. I-35W goes to Fort Worth. I-35E goes to Dallas. A dash or comma would imply that the two spurs go to the same place. People not from Texas think of the two as a single place (much like outsiders think Raleigh and Durham in North Carolina are one city), but they are definitely separate places.

That's interesting, because without any separator "Ft Worth Dallas" reads as one destination to me, where as with a dash I think I would interpret it as the intended meaning.

(Though perhaps if "Ft Worth" were more tightly spaced, as you suggested, the separation would be more obvious)

[1995hoo]

Also needs a dash or comma between Ft Worth and Dallas

Actually, there should NOT be such on that sign. I-35W goes to Fort Worth. I-35E goes to Dallas. A dash or comma would imply that the two spurs go to the same place. People not from Texas think of the two as a single place (much like outsiders think Raleigh and Durham in North Carolina are one city), but they are definitely separate places.

I am sure it would not be the first time that if a dash was used, that a singular route went to one and not the other.
And no i was not lumping together DFW together. I just think visually there needs to be something between Dallas and Ft Worth. Maybe twinsfan is right. a verticle line seperating the two cities and the shields.

I tend to agree with this idea–a vertical separator would make more sense. If this picture is northbound or southbound on I-35, it seems to me that the sign might make more sense if it said "Road Divides 1-1/2 Miles" with a horizontal line under that, and then a vertical line separating "I-35W Ft Worth" from "I-35E Dallas"–essentially, a sign divided into three "panes" or "frames."