The Worst of Road Signs

[ethanhopkin14]

And then there is this piece of crap found at the Interstate 630 and Interstate 430 intersection in western Little Rock, AR

[Molandfreak]

what

[mcdonaat]

US shields? Louisiana and Alabama have the Slimfast shields, California uses a design unlike the other 47 continental states (Louisiana doesn't put any of the Slimfast up, we use MUTCD-specs), and Arkansas likes to put that B inside for Business routes. If we are going to blast the acorn shields, we should blast cutout shields for not conforming to the specs that every other state uses (except Hawaii and Alaska, of course).

Just my two pennies!

[myosh_tino]

California uses a design unlike the other 47 continental states ... If we are going to blast the acorn shields, we should blast cutout shields for not conforming to the specs that every other state uses

Except the cutouts used in California were, at one time, the standard nationwide unlike the "acorn" shields... 

[national highway 1]

And then there is this piece of crap found at the Interstate 630 and Interstate 430 intersection in western Little Rock, AR

This isn't bad, it's just using the wrong font. Shields and all-caps text should always use the FHWA fonts.

[ethanhopkin14]

And then there is this piece of crap found at the Interstate 630 and Interstate 430 intersection in western Little Rock, AR

This isn't bad, it's just using the wrong font. Shields and all-caps text should always use the FHWA fonts.

Yeah, it is bad.  Clearview on an interstate shield is the ugliest of them all.   Clearview on any shield is disgusting, but the worst here.

[Molandfreak]

It's pretty bad, but I wouldn't say horrendous. The only problem I have with clearview numbers is when there's a 9 involved.

[bassoon1986]

Call me Ishmael!  I found a wonderful White Whale on the west side of Houston on south bound Texas State Highway 99 (Grand Parkway)  One of the very few instances of Highway Gothic and Clearview on the same sign.  I recently also found one in San Antonio but didn't get photographic evidence.

The North Dallas burbs on I-35E have these a few times. The greenout replacing exit names are Clearview.


DSCN1332 by GeoJosh, on Flickr

[Zeffy]

Yeah, it is bad.  Clearview on an interstate shield is the ugliest of them all.   Clearview on any shield is disgusting, but the worst here.

Clearview on a US shield (or most other state shields) is far, far, worse, because it's negative contrast Clearview, and that is the worst there is. Of course, Clearview numerals are yuck in any instance IMO.

[hbelkins]

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by negative contrast Clearview?

[vdeane]

I don't get the hate on the interstate shield, though I'm in the minority in that I don't mind Clearview numerals.

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by negative contrast Clearview?

No.

[jbnv]

I don't get the hate on the interstate shield, though I'm in the minority in that I don't mind Clearview numerals.

I really think that some people have this inherent need to hate. Or it's a sign of having too much time on one's hands. Certainly having time to whine about a simple construction sign on an Internet forum is a first-world problem,

[1995hoo]

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by negative contrast Clearview?

Doesn't bother me at all. I see it a couple of times a week, so maybe I'm used to it.

[ethanhopkin14]

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by negative contrast Clearview?

Doesn't bother me at all. I see it a couple of times a week, so maybe I'm used to it.

I see it every day living in Texas, and I hate Clearview. The letters are not so much the problem, but I hate the numbers.

[thenetwork]

I don't have any problems with Clearview...My problem is that when I grew up in Northern Ohio, there were many BGS in my old stomping grounds that were 20-30 years old.  When a state highway department, like ODOT, insists on replacing perfectly good Highway Gothic BGSs that are only 5-7 years old just so they can jump on the latest fad known as the Clearview Bandwagon to be "hip", that's when I have a problem.  Spend the money on other highway signage that is older and is in more need of replacement.  There are plenty of older BGS still out there that are still button copy from the 80s and 90s -- you don't need to replace non-button copy BGSs from the early 21st century yet!

[hbelkins]

Michigan is the worst state that I know of for replacing good, relatively-new signage with Clearview. I know states do reflectiity evaluations at night, but I didn't see any indication during daylight hours that the signage needed to be replaced when I was on I-196 a few years ago in the middle of a sign replacement project.

[agentsteel53]

Slimfast shields

the what now?

[bassoon1986]

Slimfast shields

the what now?

I'm guessing one of these

[agentsteel53]

probably, given "Alabama and Louisiana".  I've also seen them in Virginia, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

[jbnv]

Michigan is the worst state that I know of for replacing good, relatively-new signage with Clearview.

Given the sign replacement efforts I've seen here in Louisiana and elsewhere, I'm wondering how much of that federal "stimulus" money went into replacing signs. (There's "shovel-ready" work right there.)

[Pete from Boston]

I would actually consider an arrow inside an Interstate shield "best of". Erroneous is usually fun.

I agree, because tell me where you'll find another arrow lodged inside of an Interstate shield. Or any shield for that matter (one-pieces DO NOT COUNT).

In Sullivan Square.

[hbelkins]

Here are just a few that I saw over the weekend:

[J N Winkler]

Given the sign replacement efforts I've seen here in Louisiana and elsewhere, I'm wondering how much of that federal "stimulus" money went into replacing signs. (There's "shovel-ready" work right there.)

I collect signing plans and track signing work, and I don't think I have seen a single sign replacement contract with an ARRA funding code.  FHWA published apportionment tables showing ARRA funding levels for the various states in March 2009, and states were required to have all highway ARRA funds obligated (which typically requires award of a contract) by September 2010, with a secondary deadline of March 2010 for redistribution of unobligated funds.

It actually took me a considerable amount of searching just now to find a single example of a signing contract that might have been paid for with ARRA funds--TxDOT CCSJ 0924-00-067, let in September 2009 to replace guide signs around El Paso.  This CCSJ appears on a list (hosted by ENR, but apparently compiled by TxDOT) of projects which had plans on the shelf and were therefore available for obligation under the ARRA.  In the end, however, the project was actually let under a STP funding code.  Per FHWA guidance, a state using ARRA funds for a given project could choose the proportion of federal match for that project (up to 100%), and it is possible that some states had a practice of not assigning ARRA numbers to projects that had less than 100% federal funding.  I don't think much ARRA money "masked" in this way was spent on signs, however.  Per the GAO report on ARRA highway spending, only $3.3 billion (12.5%) out of the $26.2 billion obligated under ARRA for highways fell into an "other" category that could have included pure sign replacement contracts.

My recollection is that the March 2009-September 2010 obligation cycle for ARRA highway projects was actually fairly dry in terms of signing work, and ARRA projects in general split rather sharply between major projects (with, e.g., TxDOT resorting to design-build for the NTE and LBJ Express to get around the obligation deadline without a final design in hand) and minor resurfacing jobs (which are generally proposal-only, with few if any plans, and thus very quick to put together in a design office and get out the door).

In the case of Louisiana, most of the major Clearview sign replacement contracts were proposal-only (the proposal books included bad scans of previous sign replacement contracts, essentially inviting the contractor to carbon-copy, and were pretty poorly put together even by the low standard of LaDOTD signing plans), but were advertised for lettings in late 2010, outside the ARRA obligation window.  ARRA money cannot have been spent on these signing jobs unless LaDOTD applied to FHWA for a one-year extension on the obligation deadline.  To do so successfully, it would have had to be able to prove a challenging bidding environment.

Probably the majority of Michigan DOT's sign replacement activity occurred outside the ARRA obligation window, too--for example, the big I-75 Detroit-Flint sign replacement (Michigan DOT contract number 63174-80569) was advertised in late 2008.

The only unusual activity regarding signing contracts I can recall occurring within the ARRA obligation window is Arizona DOT's decision to award, through its supply-chain procurement mechanism rather than through the statewide construction letting, seven sign rehabilitation contracts.  The award split the seven contracts between two companies and was made in September 2010, just in time for the ARRA obligation deadline.  I eventually got hold of the construction plans for all seven and none of them has an ARRA funding code, but this does not necessarily mean ARRA money wasn't used to pay for them.  I do know, however, that the award was made before plans for several of the contracts had been finalized.  The seven contracts had about 250 sign panel detail sheets in total, and converted the signing to Clearview on about 150 miles of freeway, a little over 10% of Arizona's total freeway mileage.

[Takumi]

Here are just a few that I saw over the weekend:

VDOT's South Hill residency loves itself some Series B. I'll post some of my "findings" once I'm not swamped with work and car business.

[amroad17]

WOW!!!  Virginia is becoming the Oklahoma of the East Coast.  Inconsistent fonts, inaccurate directions, and DERP!  The middle photo has VA 166 continuing south on US 17.  VA 166's southern end is at this intersection.