Hey, there! Log in / Register
Citizen complaint of the day: Enough with the damn arrows on street signs already
By adamg on Wed, 04/15/2015 - 8:13pm
A disgusted citizen complains about the arrows on many Boston street signs, in this case on Centre Street in West Roxbury:
These overhead signs are useless. The text is so narrow that you can't read any of it. What's with the arrows taking up so much room? Is that even standard? Never seen that in any other city. These signs along Centre St are distracting and should be taken down. Too many drivers are going dangerously slow through intersections trying to get close enough to read them.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I've also seen signs like
I've also seen signs like this showing up where I live in Manchester, NH. Maybe it's a new standard (and IMO too, a stupid one). Several T-intersections have the sign for the street that ends at the T across from it, with an arrow pointing toward the street. Why not just place a standard sign on the correct corner, rather than across from the street?
Maybe it's a new standard
Why is it stupid to tell people where they're going?
Only in New England.... :facepalm:
And yes, they have these signs in other cities, and yes, they're valuable, especially when the name of a street changes from one side of an intersection to the other, or when a named street "turns the corner" at an intersection LIKE THEY DO ALL OVER THE FUCKING PLACE IN BOSTON!!
Sweet fucking Christ, y'all make the inbred rednecks in NC look like nuclear scientists sometimes.
Arrows on street signs are
Arrows on street signs are perfectly allowed and even fairly common.
However, the length of a sign is prescribed by the number of characters and other elements on the sign. It looks like here the city was trying to cheap out and use a smaller size sign, so horizontally compressed the text to fit on it.
A big no-no.
"dangerously slow"
I love it. In Boston, driving too slow creates a danger.
(...but I understand the point. If you're squinting at the sign while rolling forward, you're not looking at the road.)
When you put a street sign on the corner at the intersection of two streets, you hang the sign so it runs parallel to the street whose name it bears. The arrow is implied by the orientation of the sign.
When you put two street signs next to traffic lights (instead of on street corners,) you need to indicate the direction because it's ambiguous which sign refers to which street.
What if we dropped the city's seal and enlarge the letters on the sign? I think that'd be an improvement.
Since the left two lanes are straight on Centre St and the right lane turns onto to Belgrade Ave, they might consider swapping the two signs.
Hanging street signs near the traffic light is a good idea, imo. It just needs to be more readily readable.
A confused driver is an
A confused driver is an unsafe driver.
Agree
Really stupid waste of space needed for larger letters. Seal of Boston and arrow are a waste of space. Street you are on doesn't belong, just cross street.
In Boston, street you are on belongs
Because you may go miles before finding a sign that tells you what street it is! When I first moved up here, I remember being amazed walking from Central Sq. Cambridge to Mem Drive without ever finding out what street I was on.
It goes on the cross street
To see the name of the street you are driving on, look to the side street where the street you are on should be given, as it will be the street crossed by that side street.
If Boston had a normal street grid,
I'd agree with you. But our streets are notorious for changing names or direction at an intersection. There's no guarantee at the pictured intersection, for example, that it isn't Centre St. continuing to the right, with Belgrade Ave. shooting off straight ahead. Look at a map some time, and see whether you can follow Centre St. from beginning (in Roxbury) to end (in West Roxbury). I doubt you'd be able to do it without labels. These signs make it very clear to the driver how to avoid ending up on the wrong street.
Except when it doesn't, which is the complaint.
The whole point is that on some main roads, those side streets *don't* have a sign telling you what the main street is.
There should be standard
There should be standard street signs on corner poles for both streets.
There should not be an overhead sign on a traffic light facing you naming the street you're already on, unless the name changes at the intersection.
Do we want drivers looking ahead or at the sidewalk?
Signs on the corner divert the driver's attention from the road ahead, not the safest policy.
Signs labeling the street you
Signs labeling the street you're on, in a location and orientation that's normally used for the cross street's sign, will distract drivers. Overhead signs facing you on the traffic light poles should *only* be for the cross street. The street you're on should get a sign facing the cross street.
Overhead signs facing you on
And what are your credentials and qualifications as a traffic engineer?
It's really not that
It's really not that complicated.
If you're on Hollywood Boulevard, the sign facing you (which means it's parallel to the cross street) says Vine. And vice versa. http://goo.gl/maps/oo4WK
The name of the cross street is the information the majority of people might need in a hurry.
If someone is confused about what street they're on (which is unlikely, since there had to be a well-designed sign where they turned onto it), they can always look for the sign facing the side street, which will also be easy to spot.
Just because Massachusetts towns are notoriously bad for signing the bigger street doesn't mean every sign has to become two signs. Just put up a sign for each street, *in the appropriate place*.
To true
My best friend just realized that those are western ave and river street a few weeks ago. moar arrows (bigger signs)
Agree that using valuable
Agree that using valuable sign space for the city seal is ludicrous, but I have never understood the not-so-quaint New England of only signing the cross-streets. In no other part of the country is that the practice, and it makes the assumption that, of course, you know the name of the street you already are on. Which — when you are driving in a community for the first time and NEED THE SIGNS, is often not the case.
Here's why stupid signs like these exist
I swear I read it on AdamG's own website but a few days ago. Someone complains about the lack of street signs in Boston. The problem with said complaint is that the City of Boston has good road signage. Poor street layout, perhaps, but at almost every intersection in the city, there are green signs pointing out the names of the streets.
However, pay a visit to some of the suburbs, and the reason behind the claim becomes clear. At a lot of intersections, only the name of the side street is shown. I'm going to pick on Dedham. I was driving down a road with the girlfriend (now Missus) and I decided to she her how messed up things are. I simply asked "what is the name of the street we are on." We drove a mile or so, passing side streets and even went through a light, but she couldn't figure it out. It was Bridge Street. Meanwhile, on the other side of town, the intersection of East and Eastern (I am not making ths up), the "sign" is a white wooden 2x2, with black lettering.
So parents come up from New York to visit their daughter at Wellesley, get lost, and bitch about "Boston". Mayor Urban Mechanic, with his thin skin, decides we need larger signs, that by putting things up like that, we will be "world class". Great, we are just as good as Indianapolis. Meanwhile, at the intersection of Washington Street, Firth Road, and South Street, there are ample signs for Washngton Street drivers telling them of the other streets. Despite that both roads are one way running into Washington Street.
Thanks suburbs.
Yeah, the suburbs suck
Quincy, in particular. There, I said it.
But Boston used to suck right along with the suburbs. One of Tom Menino's legacies was to get signs posted at intersections telling you what street you were on along with the street you're passing.
Malden Center
Years ago (but no longer) Malden held to the "no street signs on major roadways" localism that still plagues many areas.
Get to the center of town where all the major roads meet in complex intersections and ... NO SIGNS.
Talk about people slowing down to figure it out!
PS to Waquoit: signs aren't just about drivers. People who are walking and looking for cross streets and bus stops can use those signs on those one-way streets, since I presume the sidewalks are two way.
As for walkers
They don't need big signs. But yeah, every intersection should have signage.
I remember looking for a particular hotel in Helsinki one night. The signs at intersections have lettering 6 inches (or 15 cm) high, stuck on buildings. I don't know how people from, say, California woud ever find their way.
California
has those big signs because Californians lack the basic life skills to navigate the world without excessive assistance.
"Durr...does this go in my nose?"
"No it's a major six lane thoroughfare, you drive on it to get somewhere. CAUTION: Major six-lane thoroughfares are known to the State of California to contain carcinogens."
has those big signs because
Shut up, you fucking moron.
I agree with anon
I'm the first one to call out those towns outside of Boston who, perhaps for some civil defense reasons, refuse to post street names at intersections, but those stupid 2 foot high, sometimes illuminated signs they have in urbanized areas of California totally make me laugh.
Of course, you could make the lettering 5 feet tall, and some moron will still not know which street they are passing.
Okay
That must explain why California (and several other states and all Canadian provinces) forces all MA drivers to completely retest when they move, including a road test. The results (from a small sample of initial fails) are comical.
Because MA drivers know the rules and know how to drive better than Californians do. Right.
Try again. MA drivers are never fully tested before they are let loose, and they just cover for their exquisite lack of knowledge about anything but Junior Operator Fines by never leaving their 5-10 square mile area. Then they complain when a new stop sign is put up and demand a month or two amnesty to get used to it. (I'm not joking about this - they put a new one in at an intersection in Medford and this was the response).
And yet for all that
We Commonwealthers still have a far lower rate of injury-involving accidents (both per passenger mile traveled and per capita) than the Great White Whale State of the West.
(Btw, you're doing that thing again - that thing where when you're speaking positively about something New Englandish/Bostonian you tend use the first-person plural (ie "we") and when speaking negatively use the third person plural (ie "they"). You're not the only poster to do this of course, but as you post so often it really stands out.)
That is a myth
California does not require MA drivers to re-road test. When we moved from MA to CA in 2013, we did not have to re-road test when we changed our licenses to CA. Just a 20 question written quiz on road rules.
And because I've lived in California, I can verify that the Left Coast is gravely, gravely lacking in basic life skills. They haphazardly meander around like poorly programmed Roombas.
2013?
They may have had to restore reciprocity then, because at least 5 people I know who moved before that (1990-2010) had to completely retest.
Was your original license in MA? Or did you get your first license in a state with a comprehensive exam? When we considered a move in 2006, I know that I would not have to retest (initial license in OR), but my husband likely would.
LMGTFY
from www.dmv.org:
"...the California DMV will most likely waive your driving exam if you already hold a license* UNLESS your license is from another country (see our section on non-citizens below).
...
* Waived driving exams are at the discretion of the California DMV, so be prepared to take one if they ask you to."
Thanks
That has indeed changed. Good to know.
What happens if you fail that 20 question test?
I wouldn't call Boston's
I wouldn't call Boston's signs good. They're slightly better than the average city/town in eastern MA, but that's not saying much.
For example, do you see any street signs here? http://goo.gl/maps/gkoMB
I was looking for Washington Street. Even if Washington has visible signs, any intersection along the way which lacks signs (or has badly-placed signs) is a problem.
So I filed a complaint. The city wrote back and said, case closed, there's a sign.
Ok, so there is one here: http://goo.gl/maps/iK51b . But as I said in my complaint, maybe there is one somewhere, but it's not even close to visible to drivers on the Comm Ave center roadways.
Then when I arrived at Washington, I somehow figured out that it was it, despite a similar tiny poorly placed sign. http://goo.gl/maps/4Jy89
Uh oh, no right turn. How was I supposed to know? I guess it would ruin the thrill of driving in Boston if they had posted a sign here: http://goo.gl/maps/F08vw directing people to use the carriage road to get to Washington northbound.
GPS with lifetime map updates
GPS with lifetime map updates costs $75 today. Everyone today has GPS. Should we still care about road signs?
Yes
n/t
Everyone today has a GPS?
You sure about that fact?
Also, what happens when satellite reception is poor?
. Everyone today has GPS.
Shut up, you fucking moron.
I like this trend.
It's a surprisingly apt response to most anon comments here. Could this become UHub's very own "Christ, what an asshole"?
I stand with Scratchie.
Okay
When was the last time you were faced with a complicated intersection and would know what street to get on if you didn't have confirmation from the street signs?
Can't wait to see the news story where you drive off a now defunct on ramp, nearly crash into the dead end on my street that isn't recognized as being a dead end by GoogleMaps, drive through a house on "unnamed road", or end up stuck on a railroad or light rail track.
Or onto a golf course fairway
Or onto a golf course fairway
I don't walk around with a GPS device
do you, all the time? Are you in an official state monitoring program?
The arrows stay, BTD says pointedly
The city closed this case this morning:
BTD regulations
Perhaps. MUTCD regulations, which the CIty is legally obligated to follow - per Chapter 85, Section 2, of the MGL - nope.
I'm pro-sign
Boston (and most of Massachusetts) has had a well-earned reputation for having non-existent signage. ("What are you doing here, if you don't know how to get around?") So now they add a few signs to help out and people go to the trouble of taking a photo and complaining. Now I've seen everything.
So you don't care that the
So you don't care that the signs are misplaced, and in a tiny illegible font that doesn't meet government standards?
Oh, Boston. Can we just go
Oh, Boston. Can we just go one day without giving the rest of NE a reason to make fun of us?
Dump the seal
Why does the city need to put the official city seal on every street sign? It takes up space that would be better served for making the letters bigger and easier to read.
Many cities and towns in Massachusetts
have taken to including their seal on street signs. The rationale is so they can "better establish their identity" with drivers.
The reality is that the seal is wasted space, is totally illeglible to most road users, and will wear out long before the sign reaches the end of its servicable life.
Since they ditched the
Since they ditched the "Entering [town name]" signs, the city seals are often the only way to know what town you're even in anymore.
Not even kidding a little bit.
Missing name
At least they didn't put the mayor's name on the signs along with the seal.
Shhsh
Don't give them any ideas.
It looks like the city seal
It looks like the city seal is taking up just as much room but the arrow is what we're bitching about?
Complaint is more about font size, IMO
My take on the complaint is less that there are signs with street names on them and more that said signs cannot be safely read while driving due to the font size and shape. Original complainant is suggesting that maybe removing the city seal and arrow(s) may allow more room on the sign for the actual lettering. Or possibly using bigger signs.
With the example shown, I can't really make out that the sign on the left says "Belgrade Ave"...I only know that that's what it says because I grew up in the area, my brothers still live there and I see that particular sign with some regularity.
With the example shown, I can
Yes, but you're also looking at a cell-phone picture where the sign is at an angle. The fact that you can make out the name at all in such a picture could be used as an argument that the sign is extremely legible.
The sign is at an angle
not because of the cell phone picture, but because it is mounted directly to the mast arm, which is at an angle.
And it's still too damm small to be properly legible.
If you want to argue that it
If you want to argue that it should be larger, I won't necessarily disagree, but I'm just saying that it's impossible to judge its legibility in the real world from a crappy cellphone pic.
You have a point there
However, note that the "NO TURN ON RED" sign on the pole supporting the mast arm is in full focus and perfectly legible. So I would consider it reasonable to judge the legibility (or lack thereof) or the other signs based on the photo.
The No Turn on Red sign is
The No Turn on Red sign is facing directly at the camera. The street signs should probably be reoriented on the mast arm so they do the same, rather than being refabricated.
And another thing...
At the intersection shown above, why is the sign with right-hand arrow placed on the left side of the crossarm? The two signs should be swapped.
Some great examples
Say you're driving along Beacon St, or Comm, and stop at a light in Kenmore Sq. A visitor to the city (or anyone not used to Kenmore Sq) used to have no idea whatsoever whether to take the Right or Left side of the fork. The teeny little green signs were in odd places and easily hidden if a bus or truck was anywhere nearby. When they redid the T station, they put up some clear signs. Well done.
Try giving someone directions from Boston Common to The South End, then to Rox Community College. It's all Tremont St (or is it Columbus Ave?) , but it turns at Shawmut, and then Columbus and Tremont join one another near Ruggles. It's a complete f'ricken joke. We need the most clear signs possible.
* Agree, the city seal is useless and waste of space.