Signing street name with destinations

[flowmotion]

Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.

This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.

[PHLBOS]

Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.

This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.

A lot of exits in Massachusetts still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.

PennDOT has followed that MUTCD criteria for some time.  When I-476 (the Blue Route) first opened in late 1991, one of the biggest complaints (aside from the southern end being undersized lane-wise) was the signage for the Baltimore Pike interchange (then Exit 2, now Exit 3).  The main signs simply list Media - Swarthmore and Swarthmore - Media with no reference to Baltimore Pike.  PennDOT later provided supplemental signage containing Baltimore Pike and even Springfield in the messages. 

IMHO, PennDOT should've just signed the exit as Baltimore Pike - Media -Swarthmore with supplemental Springfield signs and been done with it.

[Alps]

Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.

This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.

Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.

[hbelkins]

IMHO, PennDOT should've just signed the exit as Baltimore Pike - Media -Swarthmore with supplemental Springfield signs and been done with it.

I know I'm in the minority, but I like the way New York does it sometimes with the route name boxed and the destinations listed below it.

[national highway 1]

IMHO, PennDOT should've just signed the exit as Baltimore Pike - Media -Swarthmore with supplemental Springfield signs and been done with it.

I know I'm in the minority, but I like the way New York does it sometimes with the route name boxed and the destinations listed below it.

This is a common practice on Australian signs, however the road name patch is black text on a white patch.

[roadfro]

Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.

This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.

Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.

It's a guidance statement, not a standard...thus not required but highly encouraged to not mix the two.

[Alps]

Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.

This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.

Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.

It's a guidance statement, not a standard...thus not required but highly encouraged to not mix the two.

Engineering justification? "How the hell do we sign a street that leads to two towns otherwise?" Done.

[roadman65]

Keeping up with the times... I think the MUTCD disallows control cities and street names on the same signs now.

This MUTCD rule makes me a sad panda. Exits for town centers are a useful navigational aid in the middle of endless suburbia.

Most DOTs blatantly ignore the MUTCD on that point.

It's a guidance statement, not a standard...thus not required but highly encouraged to not mix the two.

Engineering justification? "How the hell do we sign a street that leads to two towns otherwise?" Done.

Many places do it.  TV Road near Florence, SC has two control points: Quimby & Florence.  Both are in one direction, spite that usually there is one for each and here both cities are south of I-95 here.

[Brandon]

ISTHA has a solution in the Chicago suburbs.  They use an auxiliary sign with the suburbs reachable near the exit, i.e.:

Lisle
Naperville
Downers Grove
THIS EXIT

From Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.779537,-88.052588&spn=0.023586,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.779645,-88.052672&panoid=Bx4wYll6wrTD4kAMQUDX3w&cbp=12,10.34,,0,6.98

and,

Homer Glen
Lockport
Orland Park
THIS EXIT

From Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.59131,-88.00817&spn=0.023655,0.038581&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.591443,-88.008252&panoid=XhuGeOtu7r9FabJnCVu-Kg&cbp=12,7.48,,0,3.3

[thenetwork]

Okay, I get that they don't want a BGS sign to have the street name *and* city name(s) in the same breath anymore, but to clarify:

If the exit is for a specific route number (i.e. Business Loop 70) *and* the road's name is known solely as the route number (Business Loop 70), then can you or can you not include a control city(ies) on the BGS per the latest rules??

[roadman65]

What about I-495 in Maryland?  You have, lets say, the MD 4 & Pennsylvania Avenue interchange listing it with both the route and street name with either Washington for WB and Upper Marlboro for EB among many other interchanges.  Only the MD 214 & Central Avenue interchange has no control cities with the respective street name and MD route number on its signs. 

Nonetheless, this is showing the fact that you have numbered routes going to different places as well as their local names at the same time. This, I must say, works out well for the needs of the traffic along the busy Capital Beltway.

[roadfro]

Okay, I get that they don't want a BGS sign to have the street name *and* city name(s) in the same breath anymore, but to clarify:

If the exit is for a specific route number (i.e. Business Loop 70) *and* the road's name is known solely as the route number (Business Loop 70), then can you or can you not include a control city(ies) on the BGS per the latest rules??

There is nothing against that according to the MUTCD. That would be akin to signing any normal route shield with control cities. You wouldn't write out "Business Loop 70" on the BGS though, just the shield and the control cities.

[NE2]

Okay, I get that they don't want a BGS sign to have the street name *and* city name(s) in the same breath anymore, but to clarify:

If the exit is for a specific route number (i.e. Business Loop 70) *and* the road's name is known solely as the route number (Business Loop 70), then can you or can you not include a control city(ies) on the BGS per the latest rules??

There is nothing against that according to the MUTCD. That would be akin to signing any normal route shield with control cities. You wouldn't write out "Business Loop 70" on the BGS though, just the shield and the control cities.

On the other hand, this guideline encourages unreadable shields with tiny text for named toll roads.

[golden eagle]

I-55 through Ridgeland, MS has two exits that sign both city and street name.

[bassoon1986]

220 in Louisiana signs Airline Dr/ Bossier City although the not as populated Benton Rd. exit only says Benton/Bossier City

[roadman]

A lot of exits in Massachusetts still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.

Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route.  In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations.  The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.

Massachusetts has been doing this since the late 1960s on BGSes.  Futher, this practice has had the blessing of the local FHWA office since the late 1980s.

[1995hoo]

What about I-495 in Maryland?  You have, lets say, the MD 4 & Pennsylvania Avenue interchange listing it with both the route and street name with either Washington for WB and Upper Marlboro for EB among many other interchanges.  Only the MD 214 & Central Avenue interchange has no control cities with the respective street name and MD route number on its signs. 

Nonetheless, this is showing the fact that you have numbered routes going to different places as well as their local names at the same time. This, I must say, works out well for the needs of the traffic along the busy Capital Beltway.

That's pretty routine in Northern Virginia as well and it always seemed normal to me, probably because I grew up seeing signs like that. I think the way Virginia's signs are usually (unfortunately not always!) set up with the name in slightly smaller print than the destinations is a pretty good design.

I think part of the reason I like this system is that it's a real crapshoot around here as to what roads get referred to in what way. There's not a lot of consistency in terms of some roads being referred to by number, some by name, and in some cases it depends on the person to whom you're speaking. The sign in this picture is a good example–"236" and some form of "Little River" are both pretty common. But the road at the next interchange to the north is ALWAYS "Gallows Road" and is never referred to by its number.

[myosh_tino]

Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route.  In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations.  The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.

There are a few instances where Caltrans does exactly that (route shield, road name *and* control cities)...


from the AARoads Gallery (the second photo is an old porcelain sign)

[Dr Frankenstein]

On the other hand, Ontario encourages the use of road names with destinations... at least on non-overhead signs.

IMO it depends. I usually prefer destination names instead of road names, except in built-up areas, and sometimes the mix only seems to add unnecessary clutter.

[jwolfer]

What about I-495 in Maryland?  You have, lets say, the MD 4 & Pennsylvania Avenue interchange listing it with both the route and street name with either Washington for WB and Upper Marlboro for EB among many other interchanges.  Only the MD 214 & Central Avenue interchange has no control cities with the respective street name and MD route number on its signs. 

Nonetheless, this is showing the fact that you have numbered routes going to different places as well as their local names at the same time. This, I must say, works out well for the needs of the traffic along the busy Capital Beltway.

That's pretty routine in Northern Virginia as well and it always seemed normal to me, probably because I grew up seeing signs like that. I think the way Virginia's signs are usually (unfortunately not always!) set up with the name in slightly smaller print than the destinations is a pretty good design.

I think part of the reason I like this system is that it's a real crapshoot around here as to what roads get referred to in what way. There's not a lot of consistency in terms of some roads being referred to by number, some by name, and in some cases it depends on the person to whom you're speaking. The sign in this picture is a good example–"236" and some form of "Little River" are both pretty common. But the road at the next interchange to the north is ALWAYS "Gallows Road" and is never referred to by its number.

I always liked how Maryland and Virginia do this.  Especially in a metro area where road names are used by locals.    Many locals dont even know the route numbers, but travelers and visitors know route numbers from maps. 

I know here in Jax most BGS just have shields and road names.

[PHLBOS]

A lot of exits in Massachusetts still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.

Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route.  In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations.  The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.

I believe the OP's referring to the practice of many highway interchanges w/unnumbered streets having BGS panels featuring either control desitnation(s) or the street name as opposed to both (like many interchange signs in Massachusetts).

I don't believe anyone was even referring to BGS panels having all three (route number, street name, control destinations) all on the same board until 1995hoo's above-posted example in Virginia. 

[1995hoo]

A lot of exits in Massachusetts still have street names and controls cities on the same signs... even the new ones.

Current MassDOT practice is to use a street name with destinations on Interstate and freeway BGS panels only where the intersecting street or road is not a numbered route.  In other words, they would not have a BGS with a route shield, street name, and destinations.  The rationale is that the street name provides drivers with the same guidance that a route shield would.

I believe the OP's referring to the practice of many highway interchanges w/unnumbered streets having BGS panels featuring either control desitnation(s) or the street name as opposed to both (like many interchange signs in Massachusetts).

I don't believe anyone was even referring to BGS panels having all three (route number, street name, control destinations) all on the same board until 1995hoo's above-posted example in Virginia. 

I posted that picture in response to the comment from roadman65 about that sort of signage in Maryland because I thought an example would be useful to people not from this area.

[mjb2002]

I see Street Names signed with Destinations, as well as government buildings (such as DMVs) signed with Destinations.

Aiken County has such a sign on the JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY near North Augusta.

[roadman65]

What gets me is the fact, the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey has placed the control city BEFORE the road name instead of after it on its 90's era or later signage!  Even in Irvington, a very urban city, for Lyons Avenue( NB Exit 143 and SB Exits 143A & B) it does not use "EAST" or WEST" to denote the directions!  The one signed for Exit 143A is Maplewood (Underlined) then Lyons Avenue.  The other for Exit 143B that has Hillside (underscored) followed by Lyons Avenue. 

Two things wrong with the way it is, first of all both exits access either direction of Lyons Avenue.  Then the other is why you need control points for Lyons Avenue in the first place anyway!  The best way into Maplewood is by exiting at the previous Exit 143 (Southbound Parkway uses Exit 143 for Springfield Avenue) and go west on Springfield. Lyons Avenue does meet Springfield Avenue to complete the journey into Maplewood, so its pointless.  Then the fact Hillside is used at all, being that Lyons Avenue goes no where near it.  Although one may argue that Union Avenue, the road that 143B exits onto, does go there; however it would be more useful to stay on the GSP to Exit 141 to US 22 East or use the new I-78 ramp that was just opened.

Bottom line is this is rural type signing in a highly urban envorniment  and no one else, that I have seen, uses the control city on top of the street name anywhere.  Even, GA changed the GA 99 exit on I-95 to put Eulonia beneath Townsend Road after new signing was added few years back. Previously, it was GA 99- Eulonia- Townsend Road.

[SignBridge]

G.S. Parkway has always used that sign format even going back to their original signs from the 1950's and 60's. As a kid years ago, I remember seeing the sign "E. Orange Newark CENTRAL AVE, NEXT RIGHT".  G.S. Parkway had a few other unique sign designs also, incuding the arrow enclosed in a circle on the "exit-gore" sign.

New York DOT has long used BGS with a road name and 2 destinations, where the road is not numbered. Especially common on the L.I. Expwy in Nassau County.

I've always wondered why the FHWA discouraged the use of a street name and city name on the same sign. New York has proved for at least 50 years that this format works fine.