Scenic brown Idaho shields going away :(

[corco]

After seeing a bunch of disappearing scenic shields in Idaho, I emailed ITD. The result is no more brown shields:

Mr. Corcoran,

You can give yourself a gold star for being observant.  What you have noticed is a planned phase out of the brown and white scenic shields.  While the use of the shields were not totally understood by the traveling public, they did stand out as different and were noticeable.  There are a number of factors that were considered when deciding to go away from the brown and white shields:

1)      The Shields are not a Standard for the nation as shown in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices which controls the design and placement of traffic control devices.

2)      Not all motorists were aware of the information that the shields were trying to impart.

3)      The Brown inks and sheeting fade faster than the colors of the standard shields, requiring more frequent replacement.

4)      Designating Byway Routes with Brown and White shields required our Department to match all shields, arrows, directional plates, etc. which made for a lot of signs to replace if a route were designated as a scenic byway.  This was especially true in communities where our crews had to replace as many as 150 signs at intersections within a community.

5)      At $7 per sq ft. for each sign the costs were astronomical and our funding sources have been strained in recent years, not to mention the additional labor and equipment costs to do the changeovers.  The added time it took our crews to change all of the signs took away from other work and gave them increased exposure to the dangers of roadway traffic.

6)      The larger Scenic Byway signs with the logo and name of the byway are used to designate the byway in areas outside of a community and are placed at approximately 5 mile increments, a new sign was devised that would replace all of the shields on a sign assembly by designating the route as scenic byway in those areas where the motorists were making a change in direction and were required to follow the continuing route.    I have included a picture of both signs below, which you should see as they are used on the highways and in the communities where the brown and white shields are replaced.

7)      In order to save money we are letting the brown and white shields be replaced as they wear out rather than replace signs which are still functional.  This may take a few years to complete, but the savings to the taxpayers is worth it.

[xonhulu]

It doesn't seem like there should've been much difference of the cost of the brown shields vs. black/white, but reasons #2 and #3 seem like the most significant reasons.  I'd add that the colored shield was also unnecessary, as separate signage specific to the particular byway is still needed.

That being said, I might be in the minority but I actually didn't like the brown shields, so I'm not really sad to see them go.

[Rover_0]

This is a shame, but I wondered exactly why these signs were brown the first time I saw them, as well.  If anything, route markers need more color.

[agentsteel53]

I have included a picture of both signs below, which you should see as they are used on the highways and in the communities where the brown and white shields are replaced.

can you upload this picture for us please?

that's not good that the brown shields are going away.  They were a very distinct part of Idaho signage history.  (And a source for so much variety - brown on white, white on brown, white on brown on white outline, brown on white on brown outline, brown cutout, etc etc etc!)  Can you please ask them what year they started with them?  This is the oldest I have seen - I believe it is a 1949.

[xonhulu]

The uniqueness of the brown signs is one point in their favor, but the color was bland and indistinct.  If the purpose is to call attention to the fact the driver is on a scenic route, the shield needs to stand out more; otherwise, it's not really serving any purpose, as the ITD explanation says.

At least Idaho stuck with it for a while.  Arizona's colored shields for the loop routes were a comparative flash-in-the-pan.

[agentsteel53]

the scenic routes also appear to have been designated in a fairly arbitrary fashion.  Damn near all of Idaho is scenic.  30 heading out of Twin Falls is designated scenic despite being generally filled with cows and farmland - which certainly beats suburbia, but it isn't nearly as jaw-dropping as, say, US-93 heading across Lost Trails Pass, which is only intermittently signed as scenic, though the whole damn route is an awesome mountain excursion.

[corco]

I-93

the scenic routes also appear to have been designated in a fairly arbitrary fashion.

I think some of the urban ones are extended by cities for beautification (like 30 in Twin Falls or 12 in Lewiston). My cousin opened a business along Idaho 55 a couple years ago, and ITD had to approve all sorts of signage and things like that before he could open his doors. Old businesses are grandfathered in, I think, but any new changes along scenic byways have to be up to a certain beautification standard.

From what I understand, it also becomes easier for city governments to get road beautification grant money if they're on a scenic byway.

Right now, in McCall, there's a bit of controversy because a local restaurant on the highway did some landscaping without getting a permit from ITD first, which is only required since 55 is a scenic byway, and now they're being fined a bit of money for not getting a permit ahead of time.  

[agentsteel53]

I-93

oops.  they must've moved Franconia Notch while I was half-asleep.  I edited it.  But this brings up a major point - are interstates, by definition, not scenic?  Monida Pass would beg to differ.



not that I want the state-named shield to go away, but a red and brown shield with SCENIC in the crown, Idaho, and 15, would probably look quite good. 

Right now, in McCall, there's a bit of controversy because a local restaurant on the highway did some landscaping without getting a permit from ITD first, which is only required since 55 is a scenic byway, and now they're being fined a bit of money for not getting a permit ahead of time.

what a hassle.  "you made our scenic byway more scenic - you will die!"

[corco]

By the way, for those who may be interested, these are the attached images
with the caption: "Mainline Byway Sign" (these have been around for at least a decade)
with the caption: "Smaller sign for use at intersections instead of the brown and white shields." (so I guess they're going to post these with the black shields, which is interesting)

[corco]

So, for those interested I saw my first "Idaho Byway" signs out in the wild on US-20 in Carey today. This was the signage (and the only two signs). Oddly, the US-20 shields have never been brown through there, so maybe this is a brand new byway



(which, for the record- this is what that bottom sign looked like exactly one year ago)


I think it is new because these signs also popped up in a few places that I have no record of from last year

Disgruntling thing about that- this is 20/26/93, but it looks like some (not all- maybe 20%) of the 20/26/93 shield assemblies have been replaced with that, which is bad (the second instance in the entire state I know of where a concurrency isn't signed on the mainline, the other being one missing US-30 reassurance shield just after Eagle Rd on eastbound I-84)- I hope Idaho isn't also going to stop signing concurrencies well just to save a few bucks

[national highway 1]

It looks like they changed the US 93 shield from series D to series C...

[national highway 1]

Here's one with US 30 & BL I-84...

[Quillz]

Are those shields melting or is just a blurry pic?

[agentsteel53]

that is a picture that was resized using a naive "nearest-neighbor" interpolation routine.