The Worst of Road Signs

[Ian]

New PIP shields on NY 59 East on the Nanuet/West Nyack line:

I don't love them, but at the same time, I don't really hate them either.

[thenetwork]

New PIP shields on NY 59 East on the Nanuet/West Nyack line:

I don't love them, but at the same time, I don't really hate them either.

I never understood why New York insists on using so much unnecessary metal backing (cross-bars, supports, etc...) for all of their ground-based signs.

[Zeffy]

Okay, something clearly went wrong here:

[Kacie Jane]

Not as much as you think.  All the weird greenspace on the right panel is in advance of the I-95/276 interchange being completed.  When that interchange is done, this sign will read "I-95 SOUTH TO I-276 WEST, Penn Turnpike, Philadelphia", making the sign look a lot more normal.

That said, there's something very wrong with that arrow, even for a custom NJTP sign.  It's way too big, and way too close to both the right edge and the e in Turnpike.

[sammi]

Okay, something clearly went wrong here:

Hmm, it seems that Street View has a particular aversion to the letter 'e'.

Also, I always thought the NJTP arrow was more curved than that.

[J N Winkler]

Also, I always thought the NJTP arrow was more curved than that.

In NJTA terminology, the upward-pointing curved arrow is a Type D arrow.  The curves are radiused so that the arrowshaft actually thickens from the bottom to the back of the arrowhead, whose barbs end in sharp points and are almost horizontal on their bottom edges, unlike the MUTCD standard arrowhead.

The designer of this sign and several other signs due to be installed as part of the 6-9 widening used the arrow from the standard reverse-curve warning sign to "fake" the true Type D arrow.

Edit:  Type reference changed (the curved upward-pointing arrow is Type D, not Type A), and description of barb refined.

[Kacie Jane]

Also, I always thought the NJTP arrow was more curved than that.

In NJTA terminology, the upward-pointing curved arrow is a Type A arrow.  The curves are radiused so that the arrowshaft actually thickens from the bottom to the back of the arrowhead, whose barbs end in sharp points and are horizontal on their bottom edges, unlike the MUTCD standard arrowhead.

The designer of this sign and several other signs due to be installed as part of the 6-9 widening used the arrow from the standard reverse-curve warning sign to "fake" the true Type A arrow.

Are you sure?  Even for one of those warning sign arrows, it seems more angular than normal.

[J N Winkler]

Are you sure?  Even for one of those warning sign arrows, it seems more angular than normal.

I am pretty sure; it is not a perfect match of the MUTCD illustration for W1-4, which is indeed less angular, but the design--shaft of uniform width, with two curves of equal sharpness connected by a straight length oriented at a 45° angle off the vertical--is identical at a conceptual level.  It may also be dimensionally identical at one of the approved sizes; I don't know if the W1-4 graphic is identical (except for scale factor) at all sizes.

I actually have a copy of the NJTA plan sheet for this sign, and it says quite clearly that this is intended to be a Type D arrow.  I have other plan sheets in the same folder which use the correct Type D arrow with unrounded barbs and variable-width shaft.  It is possible that the designer expected the contractor to refer to NJTA standard plans for the correct dimensions of the Type D arrow, and the contractor instead fabricated the sign exactly as it appeared on the plan sheet.

Edit:  Interestingly, the same designer has produced other plan sheets for NJTA which show the correct Type B arrow, which is very similar to Type D (variable-width curvy shaft, pointed barbs) except it points off to the side rather than straight up.

[Revive 755]

I don't believe I've nominated this one before:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.834102,-88.008803&spn=0.006803,0.016512&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.833797,-88.01085&panoid=UWo4Vkz4WW7mkCDAfrBzeQ&cbp=12,11.29,,0,-2.67

Aerial of area:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.834861,-88.0106&spn=0.003401,0.008256&t=k&z=18

It really should be replaced with a sign bridge doesn't try to get drivers to drive the wrong way onto WB I-88, nor indicate a phantom triple left turn.

[Billy F 1988]

And that sign you just posted should be also a prime candidate for the Redesign this! topic because that is the ugliest APL assembly I've seen. The sign violates MUTCD specifications in a lot of areas. The blue and white cardinal supplement signs are one clue. They should never be installed on a guide sign for whatever reason.

[ET21]

I don't believe I've nominated this one before:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.834102,-88.008803&spn=0.006803,0.016512&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.833797,-88.01085&panoid=UWo4Vkz4WW7mkCDAfrBzeQ&cbp=12,11.29,,0,-2.67

Aerial of area:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.834861,-88.0106&spn=0.003401,0.008256&t=k&z=18

It really should be replaced with a sign bridge doesn't try to get drivers to drive the wrong way onto WB I-88, nor indicate a phantom triple left turn.

It's not "Worst Signs", just a little cluttered. Redesign thread is a better place for it 

[Kacie Jane]

It's not "Worst Signs", just a little cluttered. Redesign thread is a better place for it 

I disagree.  I mean, it's not the absolute worst of the worst, but...

• Different font sizes for "Frontage Road" and "Highland Avenue"
• Frontage Road is bottom-aligned, Highland Avenue is top-aligned, East 56 is bottom-aligned
• The banners, not just the white-on-blue ones.
• There should be a TO on the 56/88/355 panel.  Often I'll call a TO optional, but given that there are two more signals between here and the interstate, it probably needs to be included.
• The fact that it's an APL sign, but the arrows aren't centered over the lanes... exacerbated by the fact that where the sign is hung, there are still only five lanes. http://goo.gl/maps/5Rtoi
• That there's no indication that Frontage Road and West 56 are two completely different left turns, or that lanes 2 and 3 do not actually turn left at this intersection.

Yeah, it's pretty bad.

[Roadgeek Adam]

CR 501 in Metuchen NJ has this little gem, clearly installed by Metuchen, because even the county is pretty good at signing State routes.

[PHLBOS]

Not as much as you think.  All the weird greenspace on the right panel is in advance of the I-95/276 interchange being completed.  When that interchange is done, this sign will read "I-95 SOUTH TO I-276 WEST, Penn Turnpike, Philadelphia", making the sign look a lot more normal.

Additionally, there will also be (if if isn't currently/temporarily greened out) a I-95 shield placed to the left of that NJTP shield on that northbound pull-through BGS.

[1995hoo]

What's with the arrow placement? The Front Royal sign looks way too small next to the other sign as well (both of them appear to be an effort to make the signs as small as practical). These may be found on the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) at, obviously, I-66.

[sammi]

What's with the arrow placement?

Looks a lot to me like a TxDOT style sign.

[J N Winkler]

Yes, this is typical TxDOT arrow placement.  Personally I would have centered the arrow under "Washington," to the right of the "I-66 East/Washington" legend block, or between "EXIT" and "ONLY" on the bottom panel (as MUTCD 2009 now requires for new installs; in this case this is the most efficient solution in terms of sign panel area), but I don't count arrow placement on this sign as a fault.  The use of a bottom white border for the green and a top black border for the yellow are, however, a major fault.

[Kacie Jane]

Not as much as you think.  All the weird greenspace on the right panel is in advance of the I-95/276 interchange being completed.  When that interchange is done, this sign will read "I-95 SOUTH TO I-276 WEST, Penn Turnpike, Philadelphia", making the sign look a lot more normal.

Additionally, there will also be (if if isn't currently/temporarily greened out) a I-95 shield placed to the left of that NJTP shield on that northbound pull-through BGS.

I thought so, and the top line is off-center enough that the I-95 shield is probably already there. What throws me off though, is that the roadway to the north is already I-95. (Technically, the Pennsylvania Extension is already I-95 south, too. But unlike there, I don't think it would be at all confusing to sign I-95 northbound here now. There's no reason to wait for the interchange to be completed to reveal the shield.)

[dfnva]

What's with the arrow placement? The Front Royal sign looks way too small next to the other sign as well (both of them appear to be an effort to make the signs as small as practical). These may be found on the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) at, obviously, I-66.

The worst thing to me about these signs are the really small numbers on the interstate shields.... kind of ugly.  Some new BGS's on US-29 at I-66 (Gainesville interchange) have interstate shields with the same specs.

[agentsteel53]

The worst thing to me about these signs are the really small numbers on the interstate shields.... kind of ugly.  Some new BGS's on US-29 at I-66 (Gainesville interchange) have interstate shields with the same specs.

those look to possibly be '57 spec with 10" numbers.  anyone got a non-tiny non-distorted photo?

[1995hoo]

I'll look at the video again tomorrow to see if a closer screen capture might be clearer....or, failing that, I need to get my putter regripped and there's a golf store near there so I could just swing past it again (although tomorrow's forecast is 80% chance of rain, so I doubt I'd get a better image).

[PHLBOS]

Not as much as you think.  All the weird greenspace on the right panel is in advance of the I-95/276 interchange being completed.  When that interchange is done, this sign will read "I-95 SOUTH TO I-276 WEST, Penn Turnpike, Philadelphia", making the sign look a lot more normal.

Additionally, there will also be (if if isn't currently/temporarily greened out) a I-95 shield placed to the left of that NJTP shield on that northbound pull-through BGS.

I thought so, and the top line is off-center enough that the I-95 shield is probably already there. What throws me off though, is that the roadway to the north is already I-95. (Technically, the Pennsylvania Extension is already I-95 south, too. But unlike there, I don't think it would be at all confusing to sign I-95 northbound here now. There's no reason to wait for the interchange to be completed to reveal the shield.)

I agree.  BTW, at the Joyce Kilmer Service Plaza; there's already a recently installed ground-mounted BGS leading motorists back to the orthbound Turnpike that reads (95 & NJTP are in shield form):

NORTH
95  NJTP
<------

[Thing 342]

Some ugly US 1 & 2 shields from Maine. http://goo.gl/maps/zEJbi

[Ian]

Some ugly US 1 & 2 shields from Maine. http://goo.gl/maps/zEJbi

That's just the old style Maine US route shield, complete with the classic LeHay font. Not that bad if you ask me. 

[agentsteel53]

that shield shape is pretty lame.