Regional Boards > Northwest

Idaho

<< < (2/6) > >>

Rothman:
There were jokes about Montana being "sad Nixon" if you look at the border.

US 89:

--- Quote from: corco on May 05, 2020, 09:39:58 PM ---There were perhaps test versions of this shield posted on Idaho 55 in Nampa that are better, with a border and state name, which would have been an okay compromise.


--- End quote ---

In addition to the border and state name, that one is also better because the Idaho state outline is smaller, and the numbers are closer to the center of the shield (and may be bigger, too). Either way the route number is far more prominent on that shield than it is on the new standard.

rarnold:

--- Quote from: corco on May 05, 2020, 09:39:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: US 89 on May 05, 2020, 07:32:44 PM ---Apparently Idaho has a new state highway shield design, which they're using on both BGSs and standalone shields. Looks like it's been the new standard since Idaho updated their state MUTCD supplement in 2016.

Compare to the old BGS design:

And the old standalone design:

So essentially, they've inverted the colors and removed the state name, producing a shield that I think looks disgusting especially on a BGS. The numbers look like they're floating away. Maybe a border would help somewhat in that regard, but I still think this was a major step in the wrong direction for a state that has generally produced quite good signage overall.

--- End quote ---

This is terrible. I saw my first standalone shield when I went for a quick loop drive last weekend.


As 89 notes it's apparently been the standard since 2016- I only started noticing them in 2018 (on Idaho 55 as photoed above), and then started to see them very sporadically pop up over the last year or two, assuming it was just some weird contractor error and a lack of a robust inspection process.

Instead we've got this new monstrosity, where the numbers randomly float and one's eyes go to the big Idaho blob instead of to the numbers. Very disappointing, and I'm trying to figure out how to write a nicely worded e-mail to ITD to express concern about this design change. I understand the desire to have a unified shield for both independent and green sign applications, but this was the wrong direction to go IMO.

There were perhaps test versions of this shield posted on Idaho 55 in Nampa that are better, with a border and state name, which would have been an okay compromise.


--- End quote ---

For a standalone shield I'm okay with inverting the color. I'm okay with losing the "IDAHO" script since the state shape is on the shield it is redundant. The problem for me comes with the numbers (too small) and the shield not having a border.

On a BGS it doesn't look bad, and I get the want for uniformity, but it looks awful in the standalone format.

I think this fits in the "change for change's sake" category. D-/F

Road Hog:

--- Quote from: rarnold on August 27, 2019, 10:28:19 PM ---
--- Quote from: Bickendan on August 12, 2019, 10:07:25 PM ---Wish I had snapped a picture of it, but are the directional control signs that Idaho uses at route junctions unique to Idaho?
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9753562,-116.9139983,3a,37.5y,224.24h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgGZuVNH4bobZ1Djf7C7d1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

--- End quote ---

I have never seen signs in that design anywhere else. They also use that design at interstate interchanges, except with mixed-case. Clean look and I like having different directions on different signs.

--- End quote ---
Texas used that style of directional sign up until about 15 years ago (about the same time they switched to Clearview). Those signs were usually scrunched together with no space between them. Also each control city got a single sign no matter what direction.

Stephane Dumas:
There's some studies to upgrade the connection between I-15 and US-20 in Idaho Falls some alternatives include a realignement of I-15 and US-20 as well as a western beltway.
https://i15us20connector.com

the maps showing the alternatives begins at page 64. https://i15us20connector.com/files/I15US20_Level2_Analysis.pdf

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version