I went through today, and this vintage OR 126 eagle shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR126Eugenevintagesign1.jpg%3Ft%3D1336267619&hash=583e1ac970f2555817f84b2d750ca63469f041a4)
is now gone:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR126FormerVintageSignEugene1.jpg%3Ft%3D1336267838&hash=283c4a43517c37faed01b0c2e8dcbf160b013024)
I have no idea what happened to it, but I'm pretty sure this stretch of 11th Ave is city-maintained, which probably accounts for why the shield lasted as long as it did. But it was getting to be in pretty bad shape, cracking and peeling, so it looks like the city removed it when they replaced the guide sign above it, although I wonder why they didn't also replace the shield. Whatever the reasons, it's a damn shame. That leaves only one vintage eagle shield left in Oregon, to my knowledge.
Lord knows I saw that old 126 marker so many times on W. 11th. Eugene lost some character when that sign went to who-knows-where.
Bring Back The Eagle! Hey, these signs are a more endangered species than the actual bird is...LOL!
Rick
I wonder why the MUTCD hates cutout shields. Must be a cost issue.
Quote from: Quillz on June 01, 2012, 09:14:53 PM
I wonder why the MUTCD hates cutout shields. Must be a cost issue.
Go to your favorite sign supply company's website and compare the cost of a 24x24 inch diamond (square) warning sign to a 24" diameter railroad crossing sign. The round railroad crossing sign will cost almost twice as much, despite being the same size.
What's odd is that both the diamond and circle require cutting out the entire perimeter. Granted, 90% of the perimter of a diamond can be shared with other signs, but cutting isn't that amazing of an expenditure. Material is wasted for both signs, but I would expect that you basically pay for a 24x24 square of metal plus cutting, and then the cut is to whatever shape you require. The cost issue surprises me, although I'm well aware that you're right on it.
Some of the "wasted" material can be sold for scrap, as well, recovering at least part of the cost. If I can get a couple bucks from a bag of cans, imagine what a sign shop could get for all their scrap heavy-grade aluminum...
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 03, 2012, 01:21:10 AM
Some of the "wasted" material can be sold for scrap, as well, recovering at least part of the cost. If I can get a couple bucks from a bag of cans, imagine what a sign shop could get for all their scrap heavy-grade aluminum...
By that logic the circle signs should be cheaper...
This may be of interest:
http://youtu.be/mEXGIIzQe6k
My speculation is that the rectangular signs, as well as the octagon stop sign, require just straight cuts and rounded corners which are much easier to perform - and the same equipment can be used for different sizes of signs.
But each cutout route marker - and advance railroad crossing sign - requires a special die cut, for each size of sign. And since there's only one sign that uses each die, the cost of the die and the cutting equipment cost can only be amortized against the cost of that type of sign. Throw in that there are much fewer quantities of those signs...well, those cutout signs start to get pricey.
A 12x18 "No Parking" sign can be had for about $15. Simple, extremely common. A 24" stop sign, about $30-40. With those signs, the increase is cost is mostly due to which reflective material you want. The higher reflectivity and more durable reflective material, the higher the cost. A sign suitable for a private parking lot or corporate campus (where reflectivity is not a main concern), inexpensive. But a 24" cutout sign is around $75 or more.
True, you can sell the scrap pieces, but that won't result in a large amount of money and certainly nothing that would come close to recouping the cost of the more expensive sign. Frankly, I'm surprised the U.S. hasn't followed Canada in developing a diamond shaped railroad crossing sign, or allowed a circular image on a square sign (much like the non-cutout Interstate shields ODOT has started to use).
The only question this is raising for me is... if all this is true why don't Michigan and North Carolina use cutouts?? Or the circle sign states...that way you could amortize the cost of the RR sign across more types of sign.
Good thing I managed to see this sign while it lasted. Also I ate at that Carl's Junior.
damn!
yep, only one eagle left, and it's not even on the current highway. it is, coincidentally, another 126.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OR/OR19551261i1.jpg)
for those of you trying to figure out where that insurance company is ... it's in Redmond.
as for why square signs are cheaper - it is because they are ordered in larger quantities because they can be used in so many contexts. a route shield cutout is just a route shield - but a square sign can be a DO NOT ENTER, a warning (diamond), etc etc. if you look carefully at many square signs they have two sets of mounting holes - square and diamond.
Instead of here where railroad crossing advance signs are the only ones that are regularly cutout circles, in Europe there are oodles of them - making them much more economical to make. In Europe, circle cutouts include 'KEEP RIGHT/LEFT' (a blue disk with a 3/4 down-pointing white arrow - 'drive on this side of the sign' - something that I'd like to see here), speed and dimensional limits, parking and other driving restrictions and prohibitions, roundabout 'heads ups' and so forth.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 06, 2012, 10:48:30 AMin Europe there are oodles of them - making them much more economical to make....
Excellent point. But their route markers are awfully boring.
Germany and Switzerland's are the most creative route markers.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 10, 2012, 04:16:23 AM
Germany and Switzerland's are the most creative route markers.
Uh huh..............
In Europe.
In other news, I'm secretly praising the circle shield of Iowa and New Jersey. :pan:
Quote from: Bickendan on June 15, 2012, 08:09:29 AM
In other news, I'm secretly praising the circle shield of Iowa and New Jersey. :pan:
but not Kentucky?
Why not the square, like Montana (for primary routes...for some reason they saved the arrowhead for secondary highways...)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 15, 2012, 09:30:42 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 15, 2012, 08:09:29 AM
In other news, I'm secretly praising the circle shield of Iowa and New Jersey. :pan:
but not Kentucky?
Forgot KY. D'oh.
Quote from: sp_redelectricWhy not the square, like Montana (for primary routes...for some reason they saved the arrowhead for secondary highways...)
Only if it doesn't have the state name. Sorry, Texas.
but not Rmooney City?
Iowa, New Jersey, and Kentucky were the three states with fairly plain circles during the cutout era.
New Mexico also had a circular shield, but with a red zia element. Colorado had a white, orange, and black circle.
I can buy that the cut-out might be a more-expensive, less-reusable shape. But how much of a cost issue would features like the eagle, border, and state name have been on route shields? Other states have printed text and/or graphic designs on their route shields; some even have multiple colors. Are they very much more expensive signs than the states with very generic shields, like Oregon?
Of course, I think the main reason Oregon changed to the modern, boring design is that they started using it on BGS's for increased readability, then went to that for all their route markers for the sake of consistency. Does anyone more knowledgeable on that change know of different reasons? I'm kind of curious.
Quote from: xonhulu on June 18, 2012, 02:37:20 PM
I can buy that the cut-out might be a more-expensive, less-reusable shape. But how much of a cost issue would features like the eagle, border, and state name have been on route shields?
next to none. once a screen print is set up, it is usable over and over, regardless of the complexity of the design.
QuoteOf course, I think the main reason Oregon changed to the modern, boring design is that they started using it on BGS's for increased readability,
almost all states had abstract shields on guide signs at the same time as more ornate surface-level shields. this goes back to the 1920s.
the reason Oregon switched away from cutouts in 1974 was to comply with the 1970 MUTCD. boring.
Quote from: xonhulu on May 05, 2012, 09:39:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR126FormerVintageSignEugene1.jpg%3Ft%3D1336267838&hash=283c4a43517c37faed01b0c2e8dcbf160b013024)
Arrow should be on left side.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 18, 2012, 03:08:59 PM
the reason Oregon switched away from cutouts in 1974 was to comply with the 1970 MUTCD. boring.
Thank god California had the backbone to stand up to the federal MUTCD and keep their green cutout state route shields (and cutout US route shield?). If California had complied, the route shield would have looked like an upside-down Oregon shield... very boring indeed!
California, pointing up to Oregon.
Oregon, pointing back down to California (and telling them to go back south!!!).
Right now Oregon doesn't know which way it's pointing...
If you're referring to those ugly OR 99E shields up on the MLK/Grand Viaduct, I'd agree.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 20, 2012, 05:16:25 AM
If you're referring to those ugly OR 99E shields up on the MLK/Grand Viaduct, I'd agree.
Those ones, the ones in Salem, the ones in Albany...I think there's some even as far south as Harrisburg. Fortunately it seems to be contained to 99E and hasn't spread to any other roads I'm aware of.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 21, 2012, 12:32:32 AM
Those ones, the ones in Salem, the ones in Albany...I think there's some even as far south as Harrisburg. Fortunately it seems to be contained to 99E and hasn't spread to any other roads I'm aware of.
I thought I saw one on 99W in Tigard, but I'm not sure exactly where I thought I saw it. I'll have to look again.
Quote from: xonhulu on June 21, 2012, 02:38:55 AMI thought I saw one on 99W in Tigard, but I'm not sure exactly where I thought I saw it. I'll have to look again.
They've been replaced, quite thankfully. They were at Hall Boulevard and installed as part of a widening/signal project over a year ago.
Thanks to that project, there's also several fewer annoying "Interstate 99W" signs that were installed by the city. I cannot stand Tigard's sign shop, looking at a city spec sign makes me want to scream.
Now if only these sign shops were to screw up and make US 99[E/W] signs with these reconstruction projects, like they did on I-5 between Albany and south Salem about 15 years ago...
or if they could accidentally make a state-named shield...
Or Oregon could install "Historic Route" signs, like are now installed on the Historic Columbia River Highway between Troutdale and Bonneville Dam.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 21, 2012, 10:52:12 PM
Thanks to that project, there's also several fewer annoying "Interstate 99W" signs that were installed by the city. I cannot stand Tigard's sign shop, looking at a city spec sign makes me want to scream.
The fonts on Tigard's recent speed signs make my eyes bleed. Did they hire a bunch of people from Yamhill County's sign department or something?
Quote from: Tarkus on June 23, 2012, 03:11:35 AMThe fonts on Tigard's recent speed signs make my eyes bleed. Did they hire a bunch of people from Yamhill County's sign department or something?
My thoughts exactly. Which is strange, Washington County has a decent sign shop. So does Clackamas County. Beaverton and Tualatin don't seem to have issues with their signs, but Tigard...................
Another great thing about Tigard is using non-reflective lettering on reflective sign blanks. It's just great to look at a sign at night time and it's solid green.