Do you prefer highway markers w tabs or a single sign

[OCGuy81]

I've been driving up in Washington a lot lately, and I've really started to like how their highway markers are just one solid sign containing the direction tab and the highway.  I think I prefer it over a separate tab.

I know when I've visited friends and family in Wisconsin recently, that Wisconsin also seems to use single signs heavily.  (They also use black background Interstate shields, which I like)

What's your preference?

[wanderer2575]

For guiding purposes while driving, I have no preference.

For photos, I prefer separate direction tabs.  I think all the separate elements make for a busier-looking assembly, and I think that makes for a better photo.  Especially if it's sine salad.

Edit:  Having said that, I concede that a single sign may be easier to read and comprehend while driving.

[epzik8]

Direction tabs in all cases in the field.

[Max Rockatansky]

Whatever is most unpopular with the MUTCD crowd these days regarding tabs is my preference.

[Rothman]

Whatever is most unpopular with the MUTCD crowd these days regarding tabs is my preference.

^High Five!

[Amaury]

Just for the sake of reference, can you provide an example of each? I know you're talking about exit signs. but I don't completely understand which signs specifically you're referring to. As a Washington resident, I know Washington has two kinds of exit signs. The one just before the exit with detailed info about what's there, like a highway or city (which is also a mile back and the exact same thing, with the addition of saying it's ahead in one mile), and then an exit sign at the gore point for reassurance.

[StogieGuy7]

The only issue I see with the single sign concept (as used in WI) - aside from aesthetics - happens when one of these is damaged.  One 'sign salad' type of unisign near my house was damaged during a storm and the damage resulted in the laminated surface peeling off parts or all of 2/3 of the badges and 2/3 of the directional tab locations. With individual tabs, it's more likely that such damage would be limited.  Also, it doesn't help that Wisconsin uses wooden signs as if it's still the 1950s.  Easier to damage.

[machias]

There was time in the 60s and 70s that NYSDOT occasionally used individual signs with tabs mounted on green BGSes on two lane roads and I always liked the look of them.  Both of these examples are in R3, but I remembering seeing them elsewhere in the state on a rare occasion.  It looks like R3 has maintained the original installs with sign rehabs; I can easily remember the first one below with a US 104 shield in the early 1970s.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4596377,-76.2312683,3a,37.5y,314.41h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb3y6a169MMaTDzonMTSWbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1100611,-76.1479994,3a,15y,212.62h,95.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stb3AhKgI7Mtx5fpflxvP9A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[hbelkins]

Virginia's use of unisigns seems confined to certain districts and also with independent city signs. They're rare in the southwestern part of the state, but very common in the northwest.

[J N Winkler]

Just for the sake of reference, can you provide an example of each? I know you're talking about exit signs . . .

He isn't--he's actually talking about route shield and tab assemblies.  WSDOT tends to combine them into single sign panels ("unisigns") under Washington-specific sign codes (see the Sign Fabrication Manual), and other states have variations on the same concept.

. . . but I don't completely understand which signs specifically you're referring to. As a Washington resident, I know Washington has two kinds of exit signs. The one just before the exit with detailed info about what's there, like a highway or city (which is also a mile back and the exact same thing, with the addition of saying it's ahead in one mile), and then an exit sign at the gore point for reassurance.

The MUTCD terminology for these signs is as follows:

*  Sign at the gore--exit gore sign.

*  Sign that gives route(s) and destination(s) with an arrow--exit direction sign.

*  Sign that gives route(s) and destination(s) with a distance expression--advance guide sign.



As to the question in the OP, I don't have a strong preference in any particular direction as long as the signs are in good condition and are neatly mounted.  I particularly hate creases in the signface (these often result from impacts or heavy winds bending sheet aluminum around the post), crooked mounting, sign panels lapped over each other, and obvious weathering.

While I confess to some partiality to WisDOT's unisign approach, I do not think the flat black paint used with plywood substrates holds up well.  It's also been six years since I last visited, but I recall there being some permutations involving borders, with some tabs having an inset border (as shown in the MUTCD and Standard Highway Signs) and others not.

[roadfro]

I'm fine with either, but an just more used to the traditional style.

I'm really curious if there is a long term benefit or cost savings of unisigns over posting the traditional individual junction/trailblazer sign elements. Unisigns seem like they'd be more complex to manufacture while traditional likely needs more mounting hardware.

And I've always thought that if you're gonna go through the trouble of designing a unisign to look like a bunch of separate signs, why not use a BGS instead?

[ran4sh]

Georgia sometimes uses substandard unisigns. To be honest idk why Georgia has a standard size guide sign that they then apply legend to in various orientation or format - those obviously do not comply with the size standards in the MUTCD. The Athens GA area has a bunch of these substandard unisigns due to the concurrencies of US routes 29, 78, and especially 129/441, as well as associated state route numbers.

Examples:

https://goo.gl/maps/UxHFi1cr42F4bQPVA - With the through route about to make a turn from a multilane roadway, this is clearly insufficient notice of that movement
https://goo.gl/maps/9Fo5UirsCgB4bPSz7 - This is better but still substandard. And the sign uses extruded panels as if it were a BGS in Georgia
https://goo.gl/maps/6sXpjP6o8rK7dMcd6 - Also substandard (but at least this is a local road rather than a state route)
https://goo.gl/maps/7PHXnsVzA7dhqRPj9 - Substandard unisigns for a complex interchange area, but at least there is one on each side



So obviously in Georgia I would prefer separate route markers that are often still substandard, but at least larger.

As for an MUTCD-compliant unisign being compared to MUTCD-compliant route marker assemblies, I don't think I have a strong preference

[LilianaUwU]

I prefer the one that's been the standard for a century.

[Scott5114]

Unisigns seem like they would increase labor and manufacturing cost–for every junction you need to pay someone to design a set of unisigns. Sure, it's basically paint-by-numbers work, but there is some degree of work in figuring out the panel size and mounting details as well. This also leads to a small delay when a knockdown replacement is needed, because that has to be designed and manufactured before it can be installed. 

Meanwhile, for the traditional separated-panel approach, you can just run off a hundred I-40 shields on standard Interstate blanks and a thousand "WEST" plates on standard rectangular blanks. Then, when you need to replace an assembly that got mangled by a truck, the crew grabs one of each out of the warehouse and off they go. 

[J N Winkler]

Unisigns seem like they would increase labor and manufacturing cost–for every junction you need to pay someone to design a set of unisigns. Sure, it's basically paint-by-numbers work, but there is some degree of work in figuring out the panel size and mounting details as well. This also leads to a small delay when a knockdown replacement is needed, because that has to be designed and manufactured before it can be installed.

This all depends on the specific design of the unisign and the production workflow within the sign shop.

With a typical WSDOT M1-series unisign, for example, you have to order by permutation of cardinal direction word and shield, because the two are screened onto a single blank:



With the older WisDOT unisigns, however, you can stock shields and tabs separately, because the unisign is confected by arranging them onto black-painted plywood substrates that come in standard sizes according to number of shields (determines width) and whether arrow tabs are used (determines panel height).  This WisDOT standard plan sheet (included in the Sign Plate Manual and many, many WisDOT construction plans sets) shows how all this works:



States that use unisigns also often use guide signs in lieu of "sign salad" assemblies at junctions, and simply custom-print knockdown replacements when they are needed instead of keeping them in stock.  WSDOT does both; their M8-series signs are really guide signs rather than marker signs per se.



Example of guide sign used in lieu of sign salad

These are just two examples of how to slice the sausage.  Besides the agencies already mentioned in this thread, I think Ohio DOT still has unisigns in its Standard Sign Design Manual, though I am not sure they are still installed in the field.

[kirbykart]

There was time in the 60s and 70s that NYSDOT occasionally used individual signs with tabs mounted on green BGSes on two lane roads and I always liked the look of them.  Both of these examples are in R3, but I remembering seeing them elsewhere in the state on a rare occasion.  It looks like R3 has maintained the original installs with sign rehabs; I can easily remember the first one below with a US 104 shield in the early 1970s.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4596377,-76.2312683,3a,37.5y,314.41h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb3y6a169MMaTDzonMTSWbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1100611,-76.1479994,3a,15y,212.62h,95.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stb3AhKgI7Mtx5fpflxvP9A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I don't like those at all.

[hbelkins]

Unisigns seem like they would increase labor and manufacturing cost–for every junction you need to pay someone to design a set of unisigns. Sure, it's basically paint-by-numbers work, but there is some degree of work in figuring out the panel size and mounting details as well. This also leads to a small delay when a knockdown replacement is needed, because that has to be designed and manufactured before it can be installed. 

Meanwhile, for the traditional separated-panel approach, you can just run off a hundred I-40 shields on standard Interstate blanks and a thousand "WEST" plates on standard rectangular blanks. Then, when you need to replace an assembly that got mangled by a truck, the crew grabs one of each out of the warehouse and off they go.

Good point. When I toured KYTC District 4's sign shop, they had an existing inventory of a handful of every route marker used in that district. When it comes time to replace, they just grab the sign they need and go with it. Often, that's only one sign out of several on the assembly. It's easier to replace the KY 55 sign in an assembly for US 68/KY 55/KY 70/KY 210 than it is to order a whole new assembly.

[SectorZ]

I have no preference, but that being said New Hampshire over the past years has moved away from unisigns for any roadway that carries two or more route numbers on it, along with upcoming junctions.

I would be in favor of Massachusetts before forced to use unisigns just because of the state's nature to not sign everything on a concurrency, or do weird shit like this, https://goo.gl/maps/xhKT2x18CPJDaLUg8 (each shield is here, but a couple hundred feet apart for unclear reasons).

[Dough4872]

I prefer highway markers with tabs, since it's what is familiar to me. The single sign on a green background just doesn't have the same vibe, since it's missing the background on the shield and the standard color of the tabs

[Henry]

I prefer highway markers with tabs, since it's what is familiar to me. The single sign on a green background just doesn't have the same vibe, since it's missing the background on the shield and the standard color of the tabs

Same here!