Signage pet peeves

[agentsteel53]

my problem with exit signage is having a gore sign placed before the off-ramp, as opposed to on the gore where it belongs.  there was an example of this on CA-85 in the mid-2000s that, combined with poor lighting and lane striping, nearly caused me to climb a berm!

[twinsfan87]

Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

that is a very Minnesota thing to do as well.  I believe US-52 exists entirely under I-94 and there are signs at each end of the state to reflect that.

I'm pretty sure there isn't even a sign like that on the Moorhead end, either, so US 52 basically just disappears when you cross the state line. There is one on US 52 northbound at Concord Ave stating that US 52 traffic should follow I-94 west. What's more interesting is that on I-94 westbound, the BGSs refer to US 52 South but no mention of US 52 North following I-94, and on I-94 eastbound the BGSs just say US 52 without a directional banner.

US 12 on the other hand gets a little more attention. As you enter on I-94 from Wisconsin there is a "US 12 follow I-94" sign, on I-394 east there is a sign that US 12 should follow I-94 east, and the signage on I-94 at the I-394 interchange shows US 12.

I'm not a big fan of how MnDOT handles these longer concurrencies. US 12 is certainly important enough in Minnesota to deserve signage along I-94 (and the concurrency is only about 27 miles). I can understand why they MnDOT doesn't want to sign US 52 between St. Paul and Moorhead (~250 miles), but maybe they could update some signage at the I-94/I-35E/US 52 interchange (and/or other major interchanges along the concurrency) and at the ND state line to acknowledge US 52's presence.

[ftballfan]

MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

[mcdonaat]

LA DOTD's auxiliary shield policies. The DOTD has a history of signing north-south aligned routes with an east-west number, then putting banners on the sign to reflect the number. Example is LA 472, below Winnfield, which runs north-south instead of east-west... Street View shows LA 472 at the northern terminus, going south, with a West banner... although the highway is, for a moment, going east. So you look away from the sunset at a West banner. However, on LA 123 in Dry Prong, LA 123 is signed east-west.

[deathtopumpkins]

my problem with exit signage is having a gore sign placed before the off-ramp, as opposed to on the gore where it belongs.  there was an example of this on CA-85 in the mid-2000s that, combined with poor lighting and lane striping, nearly caused me to climb a berm!

A very obnoxious practice that's a very dangerous one as well, seeing as 99.999999% of the time these signs are done correctly.
The only example of the gore sign placed before the ramp that I know of is on the MassPike westbound in Newton. Exits 16/17 I believe.

[bulkyorled]

This shit. This pisses me the hell off. Trying not to spam with it but it goes in 2 boards 

[Central Avenue]

Also, ODOT is bad at recognizing when they need to be more specific about the locations of entrance ramps.  Sometimes there's another street right before the ramp, and it's not obvious whether that right-turn-only lane is for the ramp or for the side street.

This one isn't like this anymore thanks to construction, but...Cleveland Avenue northbound at I-670. The overhead sign for the eastbound onramp is styled like an exit direction sign, but it's placed downstream of the gore. The first couple times I drove this way I missed the ramp because I assumed the sign was pointing to another ramp beyond the overpass.

[PHLBOS]

A very obnoxious practice that's a very dangerous one as well, seeing as 99.999999% of the time these signs are done correctly.
The only example of the gore sign placed before the ramp that I know of is on the MassPike westbound in Newton. Exits 16/17 I believe.

Correct.  Exit 37 off I-95 in Bensalem, PA (for PA 132 Street Road) does similar as well.

[pctech]

This shit. This pisses me the hell off. Trying not to spam with it but it goes in 2 boards 

Not sure why they even bother with illuminated street name signs here in Louisiana. When the lamps fail they are never replaced.

Mark

[Special K]

MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

Above is where it's supposed to be.

[PHLBOS]

MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

Above is where it's supposed to be.

That depends.  Does the sign in question read END (which is the accepted MUTCD standard) or indeed ENDS (MDOT standard, perhaps)?  If it's the former; then, yes it should go above the route shield.  OTOH, if it's the latter; then it would make more sense to place it below the shield.

[Special K]

MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

Above is where it's supposed to be.

That depends.  Does the sign in question read END (which is the accepted MUTCD standard) or indeed ENDS (MDOT standard, perhaps)?  If it's the former; then, yes it should go above the route shield.  OTOH, if it's the latter; then it would make more sense to place it below the shield.

Just checked the MiDOT MUTCD.  "ENDS" is an M6 series sign, which would be installed below the route shield.  Good catch.

[bulkyorled]

This shit. This pisses me the hell off. Trying not to spam with it but it goes in 2 boards 

Not sure why they even bother with illuminated street name signs here in Louisiana. When the lamps fail they are never replaced.

Mark

That's weird. They fix them around here it just depends, sometimes it takes a while. There was one broken a few streets away that was missing the front panel and had been for nearly a year but they just put it back a few weeks ago. But then there was another one that was busted and was fixed in a week. The one pictured has been broken for a few months but its kind of facing a spot where it's likely to be over looked

They probably take a while to fix your guys' cause they are rather expensive to keep up... or they dont report that they're broken. Or someone isnt reporting it. Most cities don't deal with these themselves I've found out. Ive been trying to get my hands on a used one and that's how I found out a little bit about who deals with it

[pctech]

I seen some newer versions of the illuminated street name signs that appear to be LED lit. They are thin panels. Maybe they will hold up better?

Mark

[bulkyorled]

They are LED. They hold up way better and the lights last years where as the florescent ones don't last nearly as long. They're able to take a better beating to weather than the old style too.

[flowmotion]

Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

that is a very Minnesota thing to do as well.  I believe US-52 exists entirely under I-94 and there are signs at each end of the state to reflect that.

Signs that only AASHTO and roadgeeks could love.

Rather than a invisible route to fulfill technocratic requirements, they should just decommission the stupid thing and take it off the maps. That's one of my pet peeves anyway.

I'm not a big fan of how MnDOT handles these longer concurrencies. US 12 is certainly important enough in Minnesota to deserve signage along I-94 (and the concurrency is only about 27 miles). I can understand why they MnDOT doesn't want to sign US 52 between St. Paul and Moorhead (~250 miles), but maybe they could update some signage at the I-94/I-35E/US 52 interchange (and/or other major interchanges along the concurrency) and at the ND state line to acknowledge US 52's presence.

I don't really like how 12 disappears along I-394. However, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin, at least until you get to Baraboo, so there's no real point in signing it along I-94. I suppose MnDOT wishes WisDOT would give it the hidden route treatment as well.

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma likes to cover its butt in cases like this by posting a BGS like "{270} EAST FOLLOW (40) EAST NEXT ## MILES".

that is a very Minnesota thing to do as well.  I believe US-52 exists entirely under I-94 and there are signs at each end of the state to reflect that.

Signs that only AASHTO and roadgeeks could love.

Rather than a invisible route to fulfill technocratic requirements, they should just decommission the stupid thing and take it off the maps. That's one of my pet peeves anyway.

Not always possible to do; in Oklahoma's case with US 270, 270 is a fairly important highway through NW OK, and becomes important again in SE OK, it is just that the middle segment linking the two is a lengthy concurrency with I-40. I suppose arguably the middle segment could be deleted and half of the route renumbered to something else, but it seems like the "invisible route" works without requiring any numbering changes.

[vtk]

Also, ODOT is bad at recognizing when they need to be more specific about the locations of entrance ramps.  Sometimes there's another street right before the ramp, and it's not obvious whether that right-turn-only lane is for the ramp or for the side street.

This one isn't like this anymore thanks to construction, but...Cleveland Avenue northbound at I-670. The overhead sign for the eastbound onramp is styled like an exit direction sign, but it's placed downstream of the gore. The first couple times I drove this way I missed the ramp because I assumed the sign was pointing to another ramp beyond the overpass.

I sort of get why they did it that way – it's not a traditional right-angle intersection, but two streamlined curves that merge to form the entrance ramp, and they wanted to put both signs on a single post – but because of the (shared) location of the sign, they really should have used a (horizontal) right-pointing arrow like they would at a typical intersection.  But ODOT actually considered "ramp from Cleveland Ave NB to I-670 EB" and "ramp from Cleveland Ave SB to I-670 EB" to be distinct, even though they were only separate for about 20 or 30 feet.  I personally considered it to be one ramp with something like a backwards splitter island due to 60's-style turn channelization, and I think most drivers did too.  I believe that peculiar feature will not be restored when the construction is done.

[roadfro]

MDOT putting "ENDS" on top of a route sign at a terminus when it used to go below the route sign.

That's actually MUTCD practice, although their banner is "End" (without the 's').


EDIT: Didn't see the additional discussion upthread before responding...

[flowmotion]

Not always possible to do; in Oklahoma's case with US 270, 270 is a fairly important highway through NW OK, and becomes important again in SE OK, it is just that the middle segment linking the two is a lengthy concurrency with I-40. I suppose arguably the middle segment could be deleted and half of the route renumbered to something else, but it seems like the "invisible route" works without requiring any numbering changes.

I'm suggesting that if it's not important enough to sign, the route shouldn't appear on maps. Neither part needs to be renumbered, the route should be officially defined as two discontinuous segments to reflect how it unofficially exists.

[Scott5114]

Not always possible to do; in Oklahoma's case with US 270, 270 is a fairly important highway through NW OK, and becomes important again in SE OK, it is just that the middle segment linking the two is a lengthy concurrency with I-40. I suppose arguably the middle segment could be deleted and half of the route renumbered to something else, but it seems like the "invisible route" works without requiring any numbering changes.

I'm suggesting that if it's not important enough to sign, the route shouldn't appear on maps. Neither part needs to be renumbered, the route should be officially defined as two discontinuous segments to reflect how it unofficially exists.

Yet a route with an actual gap in the middle is likely more confusing than one with a concurrency with a few missing signs here and there. At least a "270 FOLLOW 40 WEST" sign provides guidance for how to continue (i.e. "follow this road until you see signs stating otherwise").

[on_wisconsin]

However, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin

Anyone who lives in the Menomonie/ Eau Claire metro area would strongly disagree with you.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Pet Peeve: Pretty much anything that comes out of the WisDOT SE region's sign department.

[flowmotion]

However, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin

Anyone who lives in the Menomonie/ Eau Claire metro area would strongly disagree with you.

If US 12 was moved to a hidden duplex along I-94, and replaced with a state route, I doubt 90% of them would even notice much less care. (And 12 appears to be duplexed through the entire Menomonie "metro area".)

[DaBigE]

Pet Peeve: Pretty much anything that comes out of the WisDOT SE region's sign department.

Agreed.  I really wish the guy in charge there would have elected early retirement.

[on_wisconsin]

However, US 12 is not a very important route in western Wisconsin

Anyone who lives in the Menomonie/ Eau Claire metro area would strongly disagree with you.

If US 12 was moved to a hidden duplex along I-94, and replaced with a state route, I doubt 90% of them would even notice much less care. (And 12 appears to be duplexed through the entire Menomonie "metro area".)

Okay, then what about that long, congested, 6-lane urban arterial in Eau Claire? (locally known as Clairemont Ave BTW) (and yes Google has 12 going through downtown like its still 1935)