This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

05/03/2023 08:22 AM

Consider Signage Redundancy


Prompted by Irving Schloss’ letter “The Importance of Bright Colors” (April 20), may I suggest that we consider a related factor: signage redundancy.

When driving south on River Street approaching Broad Street, drivers are faced with three signs announcing a crosswalk. Two are on both sides of the crosswalk itself (marked on the pavement), and another is placed about 100 feet before it announcing “crosswalk ahead.” A few paces before reaching Broad Street, there is another crossing where the West River comes near the road. Many go there to enjoy the calm scene, watching the geese and other waterfowl. At this location, another three signs (plus the ones at Broad Street in the near background) assault the viewer all at once. Does this confusion of signs really promote safety more effectively than one, strategically placed?

This section of River Street was an unspoiled “in town” stretch until these signs arrived unannounced in the spring of 2019. Standing at the corner of River and Broad Streets are the Caleb Stone house (1749) and the Abel Chittenden house (1804), both rare architectural treasures, both beautifully maintained. The constellation of signs assaulting the eye at River and Broad Streets is a blight in such a place. You will find similar visual pollution around our green and elsewhere in town.

At locations where a stop sign or pedestrian crossing sign is plainly visible, do the “ahead” warning signs do anything to promote pedestrian safety? Unspoiled New England towns conscious of the character of their streetscapes erect signs that are necessary yet manage to shun visual clutter. Here’s hoping the Safe Streets Task Force will conduct an inventory with a view to retaining signs that really matter while recommending the removal of those that don’t.

Thomas Murray

Guilford