Why is California the only state that still cares about cutout shields?

[Voyager]

I found an old photo on Facebook from another state (Missouri) in the 70's and it looks like they used the same cutout interstate with state name in the shield and US highway sign (for 66) as we do for 101/97/395/95. Is there a specific reason (asking you CalTrans employees) why California is the only state that seems to take pride in maintaining those original cutout designs for all routes (even state highways), when every other state seems to be pretty lazy about it and uses black cutouts or irregular sized shields everywhere?

[Road Hog]

Arkansas (for one) used cutout shields until about 1970, when they switched to the square ones for U.S. and state highways. (Rectangular in the case of 3-digit routes.) I'm sure savings in labor and machinery had a lot to do with it.

I think the old, old State Road cutouts are pretty iconic and I wish the state would bring them back for a one-off, like the upcoming state bicentennial.

[ClassicHasClass]

Virginia did too until relatively lately, didn't they?

[Max Rockatansky]

The better question is how did the obese looking current US Route shield become the MUTCD standard?  The design is fuck ugly and sacrificed all aesthetics to make numbers more legible.   

[Henry]

During my time in Los Angeles, I've come to truly appreciate how Caltrans preserves its cutout shields, while the other states have phased them out over the years. And...

The better question is how did the obese looking current US Route shield become the MUTCD standard?  The design is fuck ugly and sacrificed all aesthetics to make numbers more legible.   

...I agree that the US shields we have now look ass-ugly (especially the 3-digit variant), especially compared to the ones used in CA, and on BGS's in SC as well. The one thing that makes them hideous is the lack of a proper border, and the black background doesn't do them justice either. I'm sure they were designed to improve the number legibility, but still, I now prefer the CA version over the standard one, as well as their uniform freeway signing methods.

[Scott5114]

I found an old photo on Facebook from another state (Missouri) in the 70's and it looks like they used the same cutout interstate with state name in the shield and US highway sign (for 66) as we do for 101/97/395/95. Is there a specific reason (asking you CalTrans employees) why California is the only state that seems to take pride in maintaining those original cutout designs for all routes (even state highways), when every other state seems to be pretty lazy about it and uses black cutouts or irregular sized shields everywhere?

Although I am not the source on the inside you're asking for, the simplest explanation is that the federal MUTCD adopted the square markers in 1961, and most states just adopted the federal standard at that point. Since California kind of led the nation in freeway building in the 1950s, the standards they adopted after years of trial and error (seriously, look at the 1950s freeway signage, it's wild) have been considered good enough that when the federal standards change out from under them, they stick with what they know. Also, California is large enough that they can kind of afford to go their own way and not use the same thing everyone else does. This explains why it took them until, what, 2023 to come up with a gantry that could handle the same sort of exit tab every other state had been using since 1956?

I think most roadgeeks like the California US shield better than the 1961 and certainly the 1970 version. It was actually briefly a national standard; AASHO cribbed it from the Caltrans book for an MUTCD supplement for Interstate System signage that was used the before the 1961 MUTCD (the first to address freeway signage) was ready. So you did briefly see it in a few other states; Colorado in particular seemed to take a shine to it.

The better question is how did the obese looking current US Route shield become the MUTCD standard?  The design is fuck ugly and sacrificed all aesthetics to make numbers more legible.   

I think you answered your own question here—the bigger open space allows the use of Series D numerals, which are more legible than Series C numerals of the same height.

[CtrlAltDel]

The better question is how did the obese looking current US Route shield become the MUTCD standard?  The design is fuck ugly and sacrificed all aesthetics to make numbers more legible.   

I don't know. I don't think that the 1970 US route shield looks too bad, except when you look at it and the 1960 version side by side. Then, I agree with you.


I am partial to the California version, although, as you can see the numbers are smaller than in both the other versions.

That said, I think the California version complements the Interstate shield fairly well.

[Max Rockatansky]

For some reason the widened California spec G26-2 never seemed bloated to me:

https://flic.kr/p/RTSn4P

[Bobby5280]

Virginia did too until relatively lately, didn't they?

If Virginia used cut-outs for its spade-shaped state highway marker they must have done that a very long time ago. When I lived there in the 1980's state highway markers were on square panels with black backgrounds.

[CoreySamson]

I don't know. I don't think that the 1970 US route shield looks too bad, except when you look at it and the 1960 version side by side. Then, I agree with you.

Doesn't Arkansas still use the 1960 spec? Or at least up until fairly recently?

[formulanone]

I don't know. I don't think that the 1970 US route shield looks too bad, except when you look at it and the 1960 version side by side. Then, I agree with you.

Doesn't Arkansas still use the 1960 spec? Or at least up until fairly recently?

You tend to still see 1960-spec US shields in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. There's also 1970-spec shields in places, mainly because contractors can come from anywhere.

[Voyager]

This is the original photo I was referencing, by the way, I was able to find it again.