Anyone know why cardinal direction goes above reassurance shield?

[1995hoo]

The subject line pretty much explains the question. I was stopped at a red light this morning and was staring at a reassurance shield with the "cardinal direction" located above the shield in the standard US practice. It made me pause and say, "I wonder why we do it that way" (other than "that's how the government says to do it," obviously). Part of the reason I thought of it was that in Canada they do it the opposite way (see pictures below from Quebec and Nova Scotia). From the standpoint of the way you describe the routing, the Canadian way seems to make more sense–you say "I'm on I-95 North," not "I'm on North I-95" (though I'm sure some people do say "I'm on northbound I-95"). The best rationale I could come up with is that the motorist is less likely to need reassurance of the road number so much as he is the direction he's going. That is, it seems like it might be more likely for a driver to know he's on I-95 but not be certain whether he went north or south, so the direction is considered the more important information and thus comes first. At least, that's the theory that came to mind. A Google search didn't reveal any explanation anywhere, so I figured maybe someone here knows.






Compare to US example found on Wikipedia:

[RoadWarrior56]

But when I drove through western Canada a few years ago, I recall seeing some of the reassurance shields with the cardinal direction on top.

[1995hoo]

But when I drove through western Canada a few years ago, I recall seeing some of the reassurance shields with the cardinal direction on top.

OK, then, my comment could be amended to say "in at least some parts of Canada," since I know that in New Brunswick they also put it on the bottom. I don't remember off the top of my head what they do in Ontario, BC, PEI, or Newfoundland, which are the other provinces I've visited. Either way, though, the question remains the same. I know the MUTCD says to put it on top, but what I'm wondering is why they chose to do it that way. (In other words, I'm not trying to say one way is better or worse–I just found myself wondering what the reason was.)

[hbelkins]

In most cases on guide signs, the direction goes to the right of the route marker if there is only one route marker involved:



Unless you're Indiana...



To me that sign on the right is unnecessarily tall and is a waste of metal and reflective material.

[1995hoo]

In most cases on guide signs, the direction goes to the right of the route marker if there is only one route marker involved:

....

I've seen a few with the direction to the left. See link below to a sign assembly on the Case Bridge in DC. These signs are ugly in several ways: (1) "North" to the left of the I-395 shield. (2) "Nationals Park" not centered (compare to "Capitol Hill"). (3) Arrows on the 12th Street sign are positioned oddly; they could have shoved the I-395 sign further left, adjusted its arrows, then centered the arrows on the 12th Street sign. (4) No "Exit Only" designation on the 12th Street sign for the right lane (a never-ending annoyance when you want to exit from the second lane and someone decides to go straight from the right lane).

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=14th+Street+Bridge,+DC&hl=en&ll=38.880318,-77.030994&spn=0.006373,0.016512&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.550571,135.263672&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.88047,-77.030797&panoid=Iq0ZifoWBprV9XBYvehJkg&cbp=12,41.45,,0,-0.41

But to me putting the direction to the right of the shield on the BGS makes sense in terms of how you read it: "I-95 North" or "I-164 East." I suppose in terms of the rationale I speculated about in my original post, the logic might be the same–when you're approaching an exit, the most important item is to identify the road to which the exit leads, and then the direction is of secondary importance (particularly if it's a cloverleaf with a barrier-separated weave area or another design where you choose your direction after you leave the main traffic lanes).

[huskeroadgeek]

I do see some places here in the US where the direction is placed beneath the shield, but it is non-standard.

[J N Winkler]

The subject line pretty much explains the question. I was stopped at a red light this morning and was staring at a reassurance shield with the "cardinal direction" located above the shield in the standard US practice. It made me pause and say, "I wonder why we do it that way" (other than "that's how the government says to do it," obviously).

That placement goes all the way back to the 1927 AASHO signing and marking manual.  Top mounting was reserved for "TEMPORARY," "DETOUR," "JUNCTION," etc. while bottom mounting was reserved for arrow tabs and turn indications ("R" or "L" within a smaller version of the US route marker).  Cardinal direction tabs were not used at the beginning.  When they were introduced much later (they were not in the 1935 MUTCD, but were in the 1948 MUTCD, only as "NORTH BOUND," "SOUTH BOUND," etc. in Series A instead of the present "NORTH," "SOUTH," etc. in Series C), top mounting created visually balanced assemblies (two small tabs on either side of a larger marker sign, instead of two small tabs on the same side of a large sign), continued the existing system of placing modifying verbiage to the top of the shield and direction-of-maneuver (as opposed to direction-of-travel) information to the bottom, and avoided conflict with the mounting position already mandated for arrow signs.

The 1949 Kansas MUTCD explicitly required top mounting and stipulated that cardinal direction tabs be used only when motorists were likely to be confused as to direction of route.  It identified cloverleafs and other types of interchange as locations where their use was "essential."

Not all states have had a stringent policy of requiring top mounting for cardinal direction tabs.  California, for example, frequently mounts the cardinal direction tab under the shield.

Part of the reason I thought of it was that in Canada they do it the opposite way (see pictures below from Quebec and Nova Scotia). From the standpoint of the way you describe the routing, the Canadian way seems to make more sense–you say "I'm on I-95 North," not "I'm on North I-95" (though I'm sure some people do say "I'm on northbound I-95").

With the old meaning--"NORTH BOUND" etc. rather than "NORTH"--and the assumption that the assembly is read top-down, either mounting position is plausible.  "I-95 northbound" and "Northbound I-95" are equally correct expressions.  Keep in mind also that the assumption of top-down reading is far from universal.  Some jurisdictions have promulgated sign design guidelines based on the assumption that information is read bottom-up, or from most important information (e.g., lane assignment) outward to less important (e.g., routes and destinations).

The best rationale I could come up with is that the motorist is less likely to need reassurance of the road number so much as he is the direction he's going. That is, it seems like it might be more likely for a driver to know he's on I-95 but not be certain whether he went north or south, so the direction is considered the more important information and thus comes first. At least, that's the theory that came to mind. A Google search didn't reveal any explanation anywhere, so I figured maybe someone here knows.

That rationale, though reasonable in its own terms, does not agree with the history of signing standards for intersections of numbered routes.  In the beginning, direction of travel was considered too unimportant to provide for in signing standards--the typical provision was, instead, route, destinations, and directions of maneuver.  Cardinal directions, though now considered important for navigation, began to be signed only comparatively late, and initial guidance called for their signing only at locations where motorists were likely to be confused, not as basic standard provision at all intersections of numbered routes.

I am not aware that reasons for preferring top mounting of cardinal directions were ever committed to paper (and certainly they were not universally accepted, as California's example shows), but I consider the theory that they were regarded as modifying verbiage of the same order as "DETOUR," "TEMPORARY," "ALTERNATE," "JUNCTION," "TRUCK," etc. to be the most plausible.  (BTW, "ALTERNATE" and "TRUCK" were also late developments.)

N.B.  The foregoing addresses only route marker assemblies--placement of cardinal direction words on guide signs (whether conventional-road or freeway/expressway) is a separate and somewhat larger issue.

[Central Avenue]

[snip]



To me that sign on the right is unnecessarily tall and is a waste of metal and reflective material.

What I find especially weird about that one is that the sign is plenty wide enough to put both shields on the same line and still have the "EAST" and "TO" beside them instead of above them.

[apeman33]

But when I drove through western Canada a few years ago, I recall seeing some of the reassurance shields with the cardinal direction on top.

Manitoba puts them on the bottom. And I recall that they're all in English and French, so you'll see
{75}
[SOUTH]
[SUD]

I've been to Ontario but I can't remember what they do. I don't recall seeing any in the area around Thunder Bay.

[1995hoo]

(J N Winkler's thorough discussion not quoted to save space)

Thanks for that thorough explanation. The idea of it balancing out the arrow makes sense, and then once you do that it does make sense to keep it on top regardless of whether there is an arrow simply for consistency. Obviously my prior musing about a rationale was solely a guess and had nothing to do with whether it might match up with the original rationale–it was strictly my musing about possible reasons.

Interesting side note relating to the idea that direction was once considered unimportant is that the Brits do not use compass points on most of their signs, and I've had British friends tell me that American signs are confusing because in their opinion we emphasize the compass point more than a list of cities.

Regarding California putting the direction underneath the shield, that is one state I've never visited, so I was unaware of that. Thanks.

[NE2]

Direction is still unimportant on many states' state highways (Kentucky for example).

[SSOWorld]

MUTCD specifies direction on top in the US.  I have no clue what the standards of other countries are.

California is notorious for putting cardinal direction banners on the bottom of the assembly.

[1995hoo]

MUTCD specifies direction on top in the US. ....

Right. As I said in my first post, I was wondering why that was. "MUTCD says so" is the same as "the government says so"–that is, true as far as it goes, but not a real reason. J N Winkler gave a good explanation of how the standard apparently evolved.

[Dr Frankenstein]

But when I drove through western Canada a few years ago, I recall seeing some of the reassurance shields with the cardinal direction on top.

Manitoba puts them on the bottom. And I recall that they're all in English and French, so you'll see
{75}
[SOUTH]
[SUD]

I've been to Ontario but I can't remember what they do. I don't recall seeing any in the area around Thunder Bay.

Manitoba does not always sign bilingually. Ontario also does sign bilingually in areas that have French speakers.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

[snip]



To me that sign on the right is unnecessarily tall and is a waste of metal and reflective material.

What I find especially weird about that one is that the sign is plenty wide enough to put both shields on the same line and still have the "EAST" and "TO" beside them instead of above them.

Sort of like the signage for I-71 SB approaching the Polaris exit (north of Columbus)

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

And other times, ODOT can have a sense of humor

This was along US 224 in Canfield, Oh.

[US71]

And other times, ODOT can have a sense of humor

So can MoDOT

[agentsteel53]

And other times, ODOT can have a sense of humor

So can MoDOT
[62/NN/J]

what is so humorous about that one?  is NN/J an acronym for a very, very dirty thing that is not in my vocabulary?

Jerry: "NN!  J!"
George: *confused look*
Kramer: "OH!  THE NN! J!"
Jerry: "the NN!  the J!"
Kramer: "gotta have the J"
George: *retains confused look*
Jerry: "it would not be an NN without the J"
Kramer: "no! NO!" *typical epileptic hand gesture*
George: *still confused*

[US71]

what is so humorous about that one?  is NN/J an acronym for a very, very dirty thing that is not in my vocabulary?

I was thinking of the arrow being on top.

*Never mind*

[J N Winkler]

Jake--it is a "meat and two vegetables" kind of thing.

[agentsteel53]

Jake--it is a "meat and two vegetables" kind of thing.

I think the Kentucky/Iowa/New Jersey shield shape would be more appropriate for the vegetables.

[Central Avenue]

For some reason I find it amusing that both "sense of humor" examples involved a poorly placed US 62 shield.

[thenetwork]

Here is my possible answer for why the cardinal direction is usually on top in the US...

In the days when there were more routes with directional letters in them (like US-25E and US-25W, for example), having the actual direction before the highway number and suffix would sound less confusing.

Reading the sign top to bottom with the cardinal direction on top, you would say:  "North US-25E(ast)", which would sound better than "US-25E(ast) North".

Just my logical guess.

[mukade]

[snip]



To me that sign on the right is unnecessarily tall and is a waste of metal and reflective material.

What I find especially weird about that one is that the sign is plenty wide enough to put both shields on the same line and still have the "EAST" and "TO" beside them instead of above them.

I have no official knowledge, but the "TO I-64" line is the where the control city belongs. That sign will probably say "Washington" on that line next year. Someday, it will say "Indianapolis", hopefully. I'm not sure what the eventual route number there will be, but I doubt that it will stay I-164.

[Ian]

I recall seeing a few cardinal direction banner below the shield assemblies in New Hampshire. Here is one along US 3 in Weirs Beach: