3di shields: Bubble vs. standard (non-CalTrans)

Started by Bickendan, January 17, 2010, 03:16:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bickendan

ODOT is apparently very fond of bubble shields for its three I-x05's, I've found today while driving on I-105 in Eugene and seeing them all over on I-205 and I-405 on a regular basis.

This leads to the question: Which is more aesthetically pleasing? I vaguely recall (on m.t.r?) that the bubble shields weren't well liked though allegedly the best suited for I-H201 and possible 4dis...

Personally, I like the bubble shields over the standard design. The standard design looks as though the 2di shield got stretched from the top along the crown points while the bubble looks like the sides got stretched out -- a better representation of the 2di shape, if you will, as the 2di shield rounds the crown out.

(And then there are the CalTrans designs -- what were they thinking? -- and the Rand McNally abominations...)


froggie

Given the existing system, I-H201 is the only route suited for bubble shields.

There's occasional ones up here...mainly in the District.  Not a huge fan of them.

J N Winkler

"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

US71

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 17, 2010, 10:19:14 AM
I consider the bubble shield an error shield.

Kansas is guilty, too. Seems like I saw a bunch in I-135 a few years back.
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Alps

There's a reason that the FHWA created a separate 3di template that's not the 2di template.  It looks much better.

Ian

I am not a fan at all of bubble shields. They swarm I-495 in Delaware and there are many on the small BGS's at the entrances to I-295 in Maine. Too ugly.
UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

corco

I actually don't mind them as long as the shield is neutered. They started popping up on I-5 through Tacoma for I-705 as they've reconfigured the SR 16 and I-705/SR 7 interchanges with I-5, and I don't find them that bad. That said, in this case they were neutered shields which aren't too bad. I think it makes the numbers more legible.


Now, the ones on I-225/I-270 in Colorado are terrible. Having the state name on it makes it look terrible, I think

CL

I'm a strong proponent of the standard three-digit shield.
Infrastructure. The city.

mightyace

Quote from: corco on January 17, 2010, 01:17:32 PM
I actually don't mind them as long as the shield is neutered.

Yea, if they're neutered they can't reproduce!  :sombrero:  :rofl:

I saw my first one in person on I-180 in PA.  That puts the UG in ugly.  The only thing that would make it worse is if the numbers were in Clearview.
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

Truvelo

Excuse me for my ignorance but what exactly is a bubble shield?
Speed limits limit life

wytout

Quote from: Truvelo on January 17, 2010, 04:02:52 PM
Excuse me for my ignorance but what exactly is a bubble shield?

This is a bubble shield on I 291 in MA
It looks like a 2-di shield the sides pulled outward from about halfway up the height of the shield, but it curves back in to near-2di width at the top.



This is a regular 3-di shield on I 291 in CT
-Chris

MDRoads

Bubble shields are an abomination, and a sign of laziness. Using vector programs like Adobe Illustrator, it's too easy, too tempting, to just take a 2di shield and widen it 120-125%, instead of using the 3di shield template created by FHWA for the purpose.  It's the same as when you see compressed fonts being used.

agentsteel53

#12
I think the best wide shield design is the 42x36 (or 21x18, exactly proportional) design, with the 1970 specifications (15" numbers on the 42x36 shield) or 1961 (12" on the 42x36) specs.  For some reason, when they designed the wide shield to replace the original 1957 specification, they made the midsize shield 30x25, instead of the more logical 28x24, and the proportions got thrown off.

here is a classic 1961 spec wide shield (21x18 size):



and a 1970 spec (42x36 size):



both with state name of course - neutered shields in general suck.  The '61 is preferable for aesthetics, because of the wider white margins and generally better-balanced proportions between the legend text elements, but the '70 is more legible from a distance.

and yes, the bubble shield is an abomination born of laziness.  They indeed do match up with a stretched 24x24 or 36x36 shield shape.  

as for Hawaii H-201, here is the best one I have seen in the wild:



note the classic ('61 spec) margins.  It is actually a 30x25 shield, which turns out to look okay without the state name... but adding a state name would make it look even better ;)  here it is in the 21x18 scale. 



H201 is an awkward number - I had to take out the hyphen so I didn't have to make the number in Series B.  Maybe just signing it "201" would be the way to go?  I know the children of *suffixed* routes dropped the letter, like I-180 in Boise.  But that's a discussion for a different thread.

in conclusion ... down with bubble shields, down with mis-proportioned fonts, down with the 30x25 shield size ... down with non-proportional scaling in general  :sombrero:
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

jdb1234


Bickendan

Quote from: AgentSteele53in conclusion ... down with bubble shields,
Had FHWA issued this design instead of the standard back in '61, I've the feeling we'd be partial to the bubble design.
Quotedown with mis-proportioned fonts,
Hear hear!
Quotedown with the 30x25 shield size ... down with non-proportional scaling in general  
And amen.

Quote
Could this be the best hybrid of the standard spec and the bubble? If so, if this were the generally adopted 3di spec, would it be acceptable or still eschewed for the standard spec?

Corco: Addressing your comment on neutered/non-neutered bubbles: As a rule, like AgentSteele said, neutered shields are annoying. They're fine on BGSs, but not as reassurance markers. However, wtf was Colorado doing with that shield? Talk about misproportioned -- the font for both 'Colorado' and for 'Interstate' are too small and barely legible.

How about these? These are my creation, and obviously not up to FHWA spec.



Ian

Quote from: jdb1234 on January 17, 2010, 08:08:07 PM
I'm guessing this is a bubble shield:



Yup, and that is one hell of a marker next to it!

Here is Maine's version of the bubble shield...
UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

Ian

Hey I gotta ask this, what do we call a 3di shield with a 2di number inside like this one?

(though, this shield covers I-495, so this one can't help it)
UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

agentsteel53

dunno but it's nothing new.  this shield dates to about 1963.  21x18

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

corco


Quote
Corco: Addressing your comment on neutered/non-neutered bubbles: As a rule, like AgentSteele said, neutered shields are annoying. They're fine on BGSs, but not as reassurance markers. However, wtf was Colorado doing with that shield? Talk about misproportioned -- the font for both 'Colorado' and for 'Interstate' are too small and barely legible.

Regrettably, that seems to now be the "standard" Colorado 3di shield, with several examples of that type on both 225 and 270

agentsteel53

#19
Quote from: Bickendan on January 17, 2010, 08:09:11 PM
Had FHWA issued this design instead of the standard back in '61, I've the feeling we'd be partial to the bubble design.

FHWA has, as far as I know, ever used an elliptical (as opposed to circular) arc in any standard shield design since 1926.  The thought of a bubble shield would not have ever crossed their mind.

QuoteCould this be the best hybrid of the standard spec and the bubble? If so, if this were the generally adopted 3di spec, would it be acceptable or still eschewed for the standard spec?

that is a standard 30x25 shield shape.  The main thing wrong with the state-named 30x25 is the extra inch of height that puts too much space between the state name and the number.  In this neutered one, this is not a problem.  

The 1961 spec did have this shield shape, but with the state name of course - here the numbers are moved up some to accommodate the width.  For a four-digit shield it looks perfectly acceptable, and may very well have been made a standard if the possibility of four-digit routes were discussed back then.

QuoteHow about these? These are my creation, and obviously not up to FHWA spec.

the elliptical!  the goggles, they do nothing!
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Bickendan

lol
How about the font spacing and proportions? Or the mixed case in the words?

agentsteel53

what font is that?  the "405" seems to be a bit wide of a font and a bit more far-apart spaced than standard
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

US71

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
dunno but it's nothing new.  this shield dates to about 1963.

Texas uses them a lot
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

J N Winkler

Quote from: US71 on January 17, 2010, 10:51:42 AM
Kansas is guilty, too. Seems like I saw a bunch in I-135 a few years back.

Both KDOT and the KTA use them, although the KTA has so far been the biggest offender on I-335 and I-470.  There are some enhanced location reference markers on I-235 in Wichita which have bubble shields.  (I am not going to set myself up as a defender of guide signing in Kansas--for starters, I really hate the Arial-digit shields which KDOT uses as knockdown replacements.)

I think it is valuable to differentiate between the true bubble shields, which Jake calls "elliptical" because they do not have fixed-radius curves and are clearly a result of horizontally stretching a 24" x 24" shield to fit in a 24" x 30" space, and the standard 21" x 18", 25" x 30", etc. shields which were used in various states back in the 1960's and are designed with fixed-radius curves.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

J N Winkler

Quote from: US71 on January 17, 2010, 09:12:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
dunno but it's nothing new.  this shield dates to about 1963.

Texas uses them a lot


Not quite the same--what the picture shows is a standard 24" x 30" three-digit shield with two digits.  It was TxDOT policy for many years to use three-digit shields for two-digit routes and vice versa on guide signs, though not on independent-mount signs such as those shown in the picture.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.