The Worst of Road Signs

[PurdueBill]

As if the first sign gantry was bad... the second one is even worse:

How do they even get away with allowing something like that to be installed, much less manufactured in the first place?  Somehow they should be forced to replace it.

I need to find the pic from a few years back of a sign locally that was too ugly to live--it was actually replaced after ODOT said "uh, no" and made them redo it.  The other ODOT should demand a replacement here too--or who knows, maybe they were to blame for the mess?

Part of me hopes that this is a sabotage against Clearview; that it will be used as an example against Clearview and somehow contribute to the eradication of it.  (Unlikely, but I can still wish.....)

[Takumi]

For what exit was it destined? Maybe someone here can watch for it?

130A, which is in Fredericksburg. I remember seeing a Clearview exit tab and a sign for the University of Mary Washington with improperly sized letters. There were other signs on the truck, but I couldn't tell what. Maybe there was something on it that was actually in Petersburg.

[Scott5114]

Maybe we should have an Oklahoma compilation post:

No comment...


DSC07071 by okroads, on Flickr

Another "gem" from the same area as the last picture...


DSC01694 by okroads, on Flickr

As if the first sign gantry was bad... the second one is even worse:

Honestly, I sort of want to bitch about these sort of signs to the state government, but I have no idea what would work to actually change things for the better. I'm afraid I might be dismissed as a crackpot since the signs technically are all correct and do their job.

[Brandon]

I think we can safely rate Oklahoma as having the worst signage in the US.

[J N Winkler]

Honestly, I sort of want to bitch about these sort of signs to the state government, but I have no idea what would work to actually change things for the better. I'm afraid I might be dismissed as a crackpot since the signs technically are all correct and do their job.

You would have to take up ODOT signs with ODOT and OTA signs with OTA, but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with writing and expressing concern about the appearance of the signs.  While the messages may be correct, the odd admixtures of capitals and lowercase letters, as well as the seemingly random variation in letter size, make the signs harder to read at speed and distract the driver from the messages themselves.  In addition to photos of bad signs (many of which may have been fabricated in-house by ODOT or OTA), you could also include copies of plan sheets for bad signs, to make the point that the underlying quality assurance and quality control problems affect both design and construction.

My guess is that you would receive a bedbug letter in reply and see no immediate evidence that your concerns had been taken into consideration.  However, I would expect a tactful and properly worded letter to energize people within each organization who see the problems with the signs, realize that they make their respective agencies look shoddy and unprofessional, and want to impose more aggressive quality control.

I don't see Oklahoma getting out from under its bad signing unless the agencies change how things are handled at the design and construction phases.  MoDOT ensures that it has clean signing by having all signs statewide designed by an A-Team in Jefferson City, while Kansas DOT reviews both in-house and consultant signing plans with a fine-tooth comb.  (KDOT traffic reviewers are very picky; I have seen "use capital letter height between text and vertical border" on a sign design which otherwise looked acceptable for government work.)  ODOT often does quite good traffic sign design work in-house, and it uses some good consultants, but there are a few not-so-good consultants out there who get a share of ODOT's traffic sign design work.

I actually suspect most of the problems occur in the construction phase.  It is my understanding (via Randy Hersh) that ODOT deliberately subdivides work across many small contracts in order to maximize the chances of small contractors getting ODOT work, a practice which has less to do with promoting competition among bidders (qualified or otherwise) and more to do with patronage toward the small-business lobby in Oklahoma.  This is why signing contracts tend to be quite small (the one on I-40 east of Oklahoma City in 2006 is the only exception that comes to mind, and even that had only 40 sign panel detail sheets, unlike the more than 200 in some of the larger contracts TxDOT advertised as part of the reflective sheeting upgrade program, or the 350 in the Kansas I-70 sign upgrade of 1999).  It is also why the Crosstown was broken up among more than a dozen contracts.  To my knowledge, ODOT has never advertised a contract with a plans set having more than 1000 sheets, whereas KDOT typically has several each year.

Signing off on shoddy signs may be another way ODOT helps the smaller contractors, though I have no hard proof this actually happens and in any case I am quite sure this would never be a codified policy.

[KEK Inc.]

Outclassed by a California-style sign; that's gotta sting

California's biggest problem is that they stick to that one-size fits all rule that crams the information rather than using differing heights for differing signs.  IDOT is just as guilty of that from time to time as well.  Otherwise, they're really not all that bad.  This on the other hand is fugly as all hell.

Ah, but in this case the actual sign looks far more "crammed" than the California-style sign I created.

The point still stands that many California signs are often compromised because of their "aesthetic" restriction.

[myosh_tino]

Outclassed by a California-style sign; that's gotta sting

California's biggest problem is that they stick to that one-size fits all rule that crams the information rather than using differing heights for differing signs.  IDOT is just as guilty of that from time to time as well.  Otherwise, they're really not all that bad.  This on the other hand is fugly as all hell.

Ah, but in this case the actual sign looks far more "crammed" than the California-style sign I created.

The point still stands that many California signs are often compromised because of their "aesthetic" restriction.

I always thought California's guide signs were pretty well laid out given the restrictions of the 120" max guide sign height and that all signs on a sign structure (gantry or overpass) be of uniform height.

Where I think things went wrong was when exit numbering program was implemented.  Not so much the exit numbering itself but more of the fact that Caltrans went with internal tabs instead of external tabs.  The fact that moving legend around just to accommodate an internal exit tab makes for some unusual looking signs.  The more I think about it, I wished Caltrans had just bit the bullet and used external tabs from the start.

[KEK Inc.]

Outclassed by a California-style sign; that's gotta sting

California's biggest problem is that they stick to that one-size fits all rule that crams the information rather than using differing heights for differing signs.  IDOT is just as guilty of that from time to time as well.  Otherwise, they're really not all that bad.  This on the other hand is fugly as all hell.

Ah, but in this case the actual sign looks far more "crammed" than the California-style sign I created.

The point still stands that many California signs are often compromised because of their "aesthetic" restriction.

I always thought California's guide signs were pretty well laid out given the restrictions of the 120" max guide sign height and that all signs on a sign structure (gantry or overpass) be of uniform height.

Where I think things went wrong was when exit numbering program was implemented.  Not so much the exit numbering itself but more of the fact that Caltrans went with internal tabs instead of external tabs.  The fact that moving legend around just to accommodate an internal exit tab makes for some unusual looking signs.  The more I think about it, I wished Caltrans had just bit the bullet and used external tabs from the start.

Agreed.  Not only does it cause less compromise, but it's cheaper to add exit tabs rather than make whole new signs for older signs that are in perfectly good condition.  When the tabs are internal, it tends to compress a lot of the information.  There's much better examples exhibiting CalTrans' awful implementation of exit tabs, but this does show some comrpession.


Honestly, I don't think they'd look bad small and external. 


Not sure about the big standard exit tabs though.



Now there's some signs in California where I think the sign designers were sniffing that green paint. 
http://goo.gl/maps/vk0pu


An external tab would be beneficial here.  If you use a normal internal tab, you'd have to omit 'Central Red Bluff', although it's really not important information to put on a BGS.

[Scott5114]

Honestly, I sort of want to bitch about these sort of signs to the state government, but I have no idea what would work to actually change things for the better. I'm afraid I might be dismissed as a crackpot since the signs technically are all correct and do their job.

You would have to take up ODOT signs with ODOT and OTA signs with OTA, but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with writing and expressing concern about the appearance of the signs.  While the messages may be correct, the odd admixtures of capitals and lowercase letters, as well as the seemingly random variation in letter size, make the signs harder to read at speed and distract the driver from the messages themselves.  In addition to photos of bad signs (many of which may have been fabricated in-house by ODOT or OTA), you could also include copies of plan sheets for bad signs, to make the point that the underlying quality assurance and quality control problems affect both design and construction.

My guess is that you would receive a bedbug letter in reply and see no immediate evidence that your concerns had been taken into consideration.  However, I would expect a tactful and properly worded letter to energize people within each organization who see the problems with the signs, realize that they make their respective agencies look shoddy and unprofessional, and want to impose more aggressive quality control.

I don't see Oklahoma getting out from under its bad signing unless the agencies change how things are handled at the design and construction phases.  MoDOT ensures that it has clean signing by having all signs statewide designed by an A-Team in Jefferson City, while Kansas DOT reviews both in-house and consultant signing plans with a fine-tooth comb.  (KDOT traffic reviewers are very picky; I have seen "use capital letter height between text and vertical border" on a sign design which otherwise looked acceptable for government work.)  ODOT often does quite good traffic sign design work in-house, and it uses some good consultants, but there are a few not-so-good consultants out there who get a share of ODOT's traffic sign design work.

I actually suspect most of the problems occur in the construction phase.  It is my understanding (via Randy Hersh) that ODOT deliberately subdivides work across many small contracts in order to maximize the chances of small contractors getting ODOT work, a practice which has less to do with promoting competition among bidders (qualified or otherwise) and more to do with patronage toward the small-business lobby in Oklahoma.  This is why signing contracts tend to be quite small (the one on I-40 east of Oklahoma City in 2006 is the only exception that comes to mind, and even that had only 40 sign panel detail sheets, unlike the more than 200 in some of the larger contracts TxDOT advertised as part of the reflective sheeting upgrade program, or the 350 in the Kansas I-70 sign upgrade of 1999).  It is also why the Crosstown was broken up among more than a dozen contracts.  To my knowledge, ODOT has never advertised a contract with a plans set having more than 1000 sheets, whereas KDOT typically has several each year.

Signing off on shoddy signs may be another way ODOT helps the smaller contractors, though I have no hard proof this actually happens and in any case I am quite sure this would never be a codified policy.

You raise some good points. I'm not surprised that KDOT has such picky QA people, since their signs are generally the best-looking that I've seen (though this thread illustrates that they can occasionally have some pretty bad mishaps).

Part of the reason I am not exactly hopeful a letter will do anything is because back in 2006, I sent a polite notification to ODOT's main email address informing them of a sign that had been run over by a truck. I never received any acknowledgment at all from them, and the sign has yet to be replaced, seven years later.

[agentsteel53]

indeed, the complaints about California tend to come back to precisely two things:

1) exact sign replacements, when it is not appropriate.  for example, if an older sign has been patched so that the layout is compromised, the new sign should not maintain the same layout. 

2) extraordinarily awkward layout due to the internal exit tab program.  this is pathologically stupid on CalTrans's part.  it's like building a car missing the right front wheel and then coming up with an elaborate system of workarounds just to make it drivable. 

[agentsteel53]

I think we can safely rate Oklahoma as having the worst signage in the US.

maybe, but it's not an unambiguous 'victory' over the rival forces of New Mexico and Georgia.

[corco]

New Mexico's signage is awesome- it's so inconsistent that it leads to a lot of really unique stuff. Oklahoma's is just bad, but not bad enough to be interesting.

[formulanone]

You guys get extremely worked up about California exit tabs; maybe in 10-30 years when all the button copy is gone, I'll be less forgiving.

Florida does a good job of mangling half of what's out there, and treading a fine line between embarrassing and endearing. And replacing perfectly good stuff that isn't old or unreadable, but leaving pockets of interesting things that kind-of-sort-of shouldn't even still be standing.

[Billy F 1988]

indeed, the complaints about California tend to come back to precisely two things:

1) exact sign replacements, when it is not appropriate.  for example, if an older sign has been patched so that the layout is compromised, the new sign should not maintain the same layout. 

2) extraordinarily awkward layout due to the internal exit tab program.  this is pathologically stupid on CalTrans's part.  it's like building a car missing the right front wheel and then coming up with an elaborate system of workarounds just to make it drivable.

If Cali had just followed the national MUTCD instead of their cooky-assed "Caltrans UTCD", or whatever their manual of traffic devices is titled as, all of California's signage would look at lot more better with external tabs instead of internal. I'm not too fond of the signing practices that Caltrans partakes in. I'm not fond of the layouts of some Caltrans BGSes. It breaks the fundamental rules of shield placement and text allignment per national MUTCD requirements, not what's in Caltrans traffic control device manuals.

I think the FHWA should do a mass overhaul of all Caltrans signage to conform them to the national MUTCD with external tabs and proper usage of the "EXIT ONLY" tabs just to name a couple out of a multitude of things that would make road signage in the state of California better asthetically.

In response to corco, New Mexico needs to get their act together. I don't know if they're part of the national MUTCD, but if they are, they're violating a lot of key fundamentals on their signage. Georgia's no exception to this as well. Oklahoma can definitely use some corrections in their signage practices, despite that they're not as worse as NM and GA.

You guys get extremely worked up about California exit tabs; maybe in 10-30 years when all the button copy is gone, I'll be less forgiving.

Not sure where that logic is coming from. I'm just observing what I know about Caltrans signage in general from seeing pictures and examples of Caltrans exit tabs and such.

[agentsteel53]

New Mexico's signage is awesome- it's so inconsistent that it leads to a lot of really unique stuff. Oklahoma's is just bad, but not bad enough to be interesting.

indeed.

Georgia, on the other hand, is just shit-ugly and replaced far too frequently to have any historic value.

[agentsteel53]

If Cali had just followed the national MUTCD instead of their cooky-assed "Caltrans UTCD", or whatever their manual of traffic devices is titled as, all of California's signage would look at lot more better with external tabs instead of internal. I'm not too fond of the signing practices that Caltrans partakes in. I'm not fond of the layouts of some Caltrans BGSes. It breaks the fundamental rules of shield placement and text allignment per national MUTCD requirements, not what's in Caltrans traffic control device manuals.

Caltrans gets a lot of leeway because they did write a lot of the national reference manuals...

the 1957 interstate manual and 1961 MUTCD, anyway. 

but the whole "let's not do exit numbers until well into the 2000s" is patently dumb; second in dumbness only on insisting that California weather conditions are so uniquely extreme that external tabs do not handle wind loading within the state. 

[J N Winkler]

Part of the reason I am not exactly hopeful a letter will do anything is because back in 2006, I sent a polite notification to ODOT's main email address informing them of a sign that had been run over by a truck. I never received any acknowledgment at all from them, and the sign has yet to be replaced, seven years later.

My guess is that that email got routed to the maintenance department by whoever empties that particular inbox, and was buried by a county-garage type who could barely read.  I don't think it is necessarily indicative of the response you would get if you wrote an actual paper letter with one or two pages of text and some photo print-outs, which takes some effort to write, print, pack into an envelope, and mail.  (This is one reason people who really want a response are advised to use snail mail--it sends a signal that you are taking the matter seriously and is less easily dismissable than an email.)

ODOT, if it is anything like KDOT, will be overseen by two legislative committees having transportation in their remit--one in each chamber of the Oklahoma legislature.  One strategy you could pursue is to write in the first instance to the ODOT secretary, and if three months pass without a response or visible evidence of constructive action, you can send each committee chair a copy of your letter to ODOT with a covering letter saying that, in the absence of a reply from ODOT, you do not know what action is being taken, and asking the Legislature to ensure that action is indeed taken.  Legislative committees have the power to compel testimony from senior officials in any Oklahoma government department (not just ODOT) and agency brass hate getting caught with their trousers around their ankles when they show up to testify.

In both the original letter and the follow-up letter to the legislators (if necessary), you could also mention that the cost burden of implementing better quality control is nil because shoddy signs cost just as much as proper signs (both are paid for by the square foot).

[agentsteel53]

(This is one reason people who really want a response are advised to use snail mail--it sends a signal that you are taking the matter seriously and is less easily dismissable than an email.)

generally speaking, this is great advice.  I always write snail-mail letters when I have a customer-service complaint, and get a really good response rate.  my latest problem was Aeromexico booking me an impossible itinerary (1 hour transfer between planes in Mexico City?  okay, yeah, that turned out not to be doable.) - so I was forced to buy an extra ticket for the missed leg.  I wrote them a letter the next day, and within about three weeks of the extra flight, I had received an apology and a refund in full.

[corco]

When applying for jobs a couple months ago, of about 25 jobs nationwide that I applied for this was the rough ratio:

Got interview request from 1 of 20 jobs I emailed/used form online application.
Got interview request from 3 of 5 jobs I snail mailed. All 5 of those jobs accepted e-mailed applications.

So yes.

[codyg1985]

This isn't near as bad as Oklahoma's Hookd' on Phonics signs, but here we have a new Clearview sign where the capital letters are way too large (or the lowercase letters are too small) Apologies for the phone camera and the picture being dark.



Also the exit tab in the middle is wrong. It should only mention Exit 19B.

[Takumi]

I think we can safely rate Oklahoma as having the worst signage in the US.

maybe, but it's not an unambiguous 'victory' over the rival forces of New Mexico and Georgia.

Virginia has to be up there as well, despite all the cutouts and white-borders still left.

[busman_49]

Way too small advance signage:
http://goo.gl/maps/EOiUB

[thenetwork]

Way too small advance signage:
http://goo.gl/maps/EOiUB

On the flip side, ODOT replaced a couple of simple I-71 KEEP LEFT signs at the intersection of SR-3 north of Medina with Big-Assed signs that could've fit 6-8 of the replaced sign's size.

Indiana's DOT has always been real good with good sized signs...Until I-469 was finished in Fort Wayne:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=fort+wayne,+in&hl=en&ll=41.143473,-85.01476&spn=0.001643,0.00327&sll=41.192963,-81.792492&sspn=0.000584,0.001635&t=h&hnear=Fort+Wayne,+Allen,+Indiana&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.143143,-85.014756&panoid=794d6xQwC0CiT8UFPKuR4Q&cbp=12,1.73,,0,-4.56

[myosh_tino]

I'm not fond of the layouts of some Caltrans BGSes. It breaks the fundamental rules of shield placement and text alignment per national MUTCD requirements, not what's in Caltrans traffic control device manuals.

You lost me there.  Are you saying California is "doing it wrong" because route shields are placed next to the legend instead of being placed above the legend?  If so, I don't see what the big deal is...

I don't see what the advantage of the bottom sign has over the top sign.  If anything, the top sign has an advantage because it makes more efficient use of the sign panel.

I think the FHWA should do a mass overhaul of all Caltrans signage to conform them to the national MUTCD with external tabs and proper usage of the "EXIT ONLY" tabs just to name a couple out of a multitude of things that would make road signage in the state of California better asthetically.

I think we've been down this road before but I'll comment anyways.  To advocate that the FHWA force a state like California to replace everything (signs, shields, sign structures, etc) just to be totally 100% compliant with the federal MUTCD would require a ton of money given how extensive the freeway network is and that's money California doesn't have.  Would you be willing to have the federal government send some of your tax dollars to California so our freeways would have 100% FHWA-standard signage?  Also, would you require that Caltrans dump it's '57-spec Interstate shields, cutout US route shields and non-black and white state route shields?

[KEK Inc.]

but the whole "let's not do exit numbers until well into the 2000s" is patently dumb; second in dumbness only on insisting that California weather conditions are so uniquely extreme that external tabs do not handle wind loading within the state. 

Does anyone know why they bullshitted that?  Is it really an aesthetics thing, since they didn't want little tabs on the signs?