News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Are extruded or increment signs better?

Started by tolbs17, December 27, 2021, 03:07:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which type of signs do you prefer?

Extruded
7 (21.2%)
Increment
13 (39.4%)
Don't care
13 (39.4%)

Total Members Voted: 33

tolbs17



Scott5114

If one was actually better or worse, all the states would use the better one.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

wriddle082

#2
I have always felt like extruded was better, especially when they place finishing caps on the vertical edges.  GA, IL, and KY pretty consistently do this, among others.  I personally prefer extruded because that's what I grew up seeing in TN and KY, and I truly cannot stand how NC does their incremental signage because when they feel the need to add something to a sign they put up a little auxiliary sign above or below the main sign.

FL appears to use extruded for service logo signage along the mainlines, and flat panels for everything else.  Also, VA appears to be transitioning to extruded after using only flat panel signage for years, but I think there are still instances of new flat panel signage going up. So I'm thinking that with them going from using one type to using both types, they are either experimenting or they feel that one may be better.



ran4sh

To me the finishing caps used in those states look like a 2nd border outside the sign's actual border.
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

tolbs17


Henry

If incremental/flat signs are supposed to be the superior type, then why aren't more states using it? (AFAIK, only four of them actively use the flat kind on their highways: FL, NY, NC and VA, plus NJ for its toll roads; also, this is also the type of sign that is seen in the MUTCD.)

That being said, I strongly prefer extruded signs because they are the more familiar type, and also because they look more complete than the flat ones do.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

hbelkins

Quote from: Henry on December 28, 2021, 10:16:50 AM
If incremental/flat signs are supposed to be the superior type, then why aren't more states using it? (AFAIK, only four of them actively use the flat kind on their highways: FL, NY, NC and VA, plus NJ for its toll roads; also, this is also the type of sign that is seen in the MUTCD.)

That being said, I strongly prefer extruded signs because they are the more familiar type, and also because they look more complete than the flat ones do.

I think Montana uses them as well.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

1995hoo

I couldn't care less in general except that I think the real rounded corners look better.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

ran4sh

#8
Quote from: Henry on December 28, 2021, 10:16:50 AM
If incremental/flat signs are supposed to be the superior type, then why aren't more states using it? (AFAIK, only four of them actively use the flat kind on their highways: FL, NY, NC and VA, plus NJ for its toll roads; also, this is also the type of sign that is seen in the MUTCD.)

That being said, I strongly prefer extruded signs because they are the more familiar type, and also because they look more complete than the flat ones do.

You forgot Washington, Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, etc

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 28, 2021, 12:07:30 PM
I couldn't care less in general except that I think the real rounded corners look better.

Which is related but not completely the same thing. Rounded corners are not possible with extruded panel signs, but even with incremental panel signs some/most states don't bother to round the corners.
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

CtrlAltDel

I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
Interstates clinched: 4, 57, 275 (IN-KY-OH), 465 (IN), 640 (TN), 985
State Interstates clinched: I-26 (TN), I-75 (GA), I-75 (KY), I-75 (TN), I-81 (WV), I-95 (NH)

tolbs17


Pink Jazz

I prefer extruded because they are more durable and are easier to expand. This is especially crucial for logo signs (which I think is the reason why Florida uses extruded panels for them).

BTW Puerto Rico also uses flat incremental signage

roadfro

At least for overhead signs, Nevada appears to use increment/flat panel signs, but a more durable frame mounting method. All the sign panels are mounted to a rigid frame, and that frame is attached to the sign structure. It also helps that overhead signs are almost always mounted so the lower edge of the sign is not mounted any lower than the lower chord of the sign structure.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

J N Winkler

My choice was "Don't care"--my main concern is that the sign should be designed with satisfactory space padding around the legend.  Besides extruded aluminum and increment panel/extrusheet, laminated panels are still used (in California and Pennsylvania), as are formed panels (California and Nevada, if I understand Roadfro correctly).  They all have their pros and cons in terms of cost, durability, the difficulty or otherwise of message revision, and so on.
"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

JoePCool14

I also chose "Don't care". I think both look nice, and as a roadgeek, I can appreciate the variety. I definitely care more about whether the sign is appropriately designed, over the type of panel. And I have to say, Florida and North Carolina are decent in this area.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

tolbs17

Note to the @Mods/Admins, how do you add "Change your vote" option to this? I was hoping for other members to change their vote since most of them don't care whether a sign is extruded or increment. Thanks.

US 89

Quote from: roadfro on December 29, 2021, 01:58:36 AM
At least for overhead signs, Nevada appears to use increment/flat panel signs, but a more durable frame mounting method. All the sign panels are mounted to a rigid frame, and that frame is attached to the sign structure.

If I'm understanding right, this is the case in Utah as well. The few extruded panel signs in the state are not mounted by UDOT (NPS comes to mind).

Scott5114

Quote from: tolbs17 on January 04, 2022, 09:15:13 PM
Note to the @Mods/Admins, how do you add "Change your vote" option to this? I was hoping for other members to change their vote since most of them don't care whether a sign is extruded or increment. Thanks.

Click "Edit Poll":


Then "Allow users to change vote":
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

tolbs17


tolbs17

Quote from: Henry on December 28, 2021, 10:16:50 AM
If incremental/flat signs are supposed to be the superior type, then why aren't more states using it? (AFAIK, only four of them actively use the flat kind on their highways: FL, NY, NC and VA, plus NJ for its toll roads; also, this is also the type of sign that is seen in the MUTCD.)

That being said, I strongly prefer extruded signs because they are the more familiar type, and also because they look more complete than the flat ones do.
I would leave Virginia out. They still actively post new extruded signs:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8038682,-76.1972984,3a,39y,37.18h,98.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slGTLngG2t-8BAtXtBLsRGw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

However, if you scroll back to the previous date, you can see they used to be increment.

tolbs17

#20
This sign is square and is incremental. It was installed in 2002 or 2003. This is a unique sign i have to say!

US-23
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4tB1S8aU1LBCLgMZ9

Other sign

US-23
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QhfyGasMLkEPQB4g9

Scott5114

uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

tolbs17

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 06, 2022, 01:35:24 PM
Look at the backs of them–it would appear they put another layer of panels over an older rounded-corner incremental sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8504338,-82.5275154,3a,19.8y,330.26h,112t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEqPaPxQv1f85C0F-4ajeXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I guess that's for extra durability I guess. But many of the square signs here are like that.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Henry on December 28, 2021, 10:16:50 AMIf incremental/flat signs are supposed to be the superior type, then why aren't more states using it? (AFAIK, only four of them actively use the flat kind on their highways: FL, NY, NC and VA, plus NJ for its toll roads; also, this is also the type of sign that is seen in the MUTCD.)

I think recent editions of the MUTCD have used illustrations with rounded sign corners primarily for reasons of good draftsmanship.

If a sign illustration has rounded corners, then the black outer outline--which is necessary to allow the white border to be seen against the white of the page--is against white on both sides throughout.  If corners are left unrounded and the background color is extended out beyond the border, then the outer outline needs to be changed to the background color (sacrificing uniform contrast) or black has to appear against dark background color on one side at the corners, which is a rule-of-tincture violation.

This consideration doesn't come into play for the actual physical signs since they are seen in the field without bounding outlines.  Agencies are simply told that untrimmed corners are acceptable in general, which frees them to adopt the substrate designs that make the most sense for them in terms of other criteria such as cost, durability, ease of mounting in the field, etc.
"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

Scott5114

Quote from: tolbs17 on February 06, 2022, 01:38:58 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 06, 2022, 01:35:24 PM
Look at the backs of them–it would appear they put another layer of panels over an older rounded-corner incremental sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8504338,-82.5275154,3a,19.8y,330.26h,112t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEqPaPxQv1f85C0F-4ajeXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I guess that's for extra durability I guess. But many of the square signs here are like that.

I would imagine it has less to do with durability and more to do with not wanting to pay to remove the old sign and dispose of it before installing the new one. Sort of like how people stick license plate stickers over top of the old one rather than peeling the old one off. Doesn't make it more durable (in fact, it's the opposite when it comes to stickers), just takes less time.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef



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.