I cannot find anything in the MUTCD about this, but I believe it looks sloppy when signs with shields and auxiliary plaques ("TO", arrow, "NORTH", etc) are of different colors. See the photos below in Baltimore city. Are there any regulation on this? Any other user photos with mismatched colors?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7351/14070574586_fe9b240559_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nrnnBy)
Shield with White Plaques (https://flic.kr/p/nrnnBy) by Elliott Plack (https://www.flickr.com/people/88483799@N00/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5491/13907053507_0fdbacaa90_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nbVhuB)
Shield with White Plaques (https://flic.kr/p/nbVhuB) by Elliott Plack (https://www.flickr.com/people/88483799@N00/), on Flickr
I don't think it matters too much, but this is a common occurrence in New Jersey, especially with County Routes (I've seen Interstates signed with the white on black banners too).
I have seen state routes with blue banners.
MUTCD says the colors are supposed to match, but i forget how strongly it says so.
2D.12.03:
QuoteThe background, legend, and border of a route sign auxiliary should have the same colors as those of the route sign with which the auxiliary is mounted in a route sign assembly (see Section 2D.29). For a route sign design that uses multiple background colors, such as the Interstate route sign, the background color of the corresponding auxiliary should be that of the background area on which the route number is placed on the route sign.
It's a "should" and not a "shall", so I guess it's technically not a violation when they're mismatched.
Did this happen with Florida's colored US shields, too?
Quote from: Milepost61 on May 03, 2014, 10:44:50 PM
2D.12.03:
QuoteThe background, legend, and border of a route sign auxiliary should have the same colors as those of the route sign with which the auxiliary is mounted in a route sign assembly (see Section 2D.29). For a route sign design that uses multiple background colors, such as the Interstate route sign, the background color of the corresponding auxiliary should be that of the background area on which the route number is placed on the route sign.
It's a "should" and not a "shall", so I guess it's technically not a violation when their mismatched.
Thanks! This forum could definitely use a "Like" or "Thanks" button.
I'm guessing that "TO" banner might be from before I-95, when an older highway ran there, perhaps US-1?
When that occurs in California, that's generally the reason. (I believe there are still some very old guide signs around the valley from when CA-118 used the white spades.)
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2014, 11:11:03 PM
I'm guessing that "TO" banner might be from before I-95, when an older highway ran there, perhaps US-1?
Given that it is obviously reflective, it must be of somewhat recent vintage. Certainly newer than I-95 being finished through Baltimore (1985).
QuoteDid this happen with Florida's colored US shields, too?
Florida was very inconsistent about this, at least back in the 90's. for example, most of the East-West Expwy signs had blue-on-white plaques, but a few had white-on-blue.
This contractor error occurred in Denton, TX in 2010. It was quickly fixed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2F42410slr013.jpg&hash=f8c6aae9f376829e5e088fa4ea43f9c4bcd64924) (http://s1209.photobucket.com/user/Brian5561/media/42410slr013.jpg.html)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6526432781_15691cee11_z_d.jpg)
Most likely fixed now that I-49 has replaced 540
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/9305270684_78b8782b92_z_d.jpg)
Big Rock Interchange at Little Rock.
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2014, 11:11:03 PM
I'm guessing that "TO" banner might be from before I-95, when an older highway ran there, perhaps US-1?
That's an all-in-one sign (note the black background), so I'm thinking not. This sort of sign is common in Maryland.
Quote from: talllguy on May 03, 2014, 10:28:56 PM
Any other user photos with mismatched colors?
Found this one in California. Sorry about the shadow, but it's under an overpass.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FIMG_2548_zps685b1ce2.jpg&hash=15d6db23c692d027027a391787f4fc8186481a50)
Quote from: 1 on May 03, 2014, 10:49:32 PM
Did this happen with Florida's colored US shields, too?
In most cases, yes. But there's lots of arrow and/or banner mismatches in Florida...usually from trailblazers that have state road shield on one side, and a county route shield on the other.
There's examples of "arrow conservation" on assemblies with varying colors/shapes, but I've also seen that in many different states.
Quote from: Eth on May 04, 2014, 07:57:15 AM
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2014, 11:11:03 PM
I'm guessing that "TO" banner might be from before I-95, when an older highway ran there, perhaps US-1?
That's an all-in-one sign (note the black background), so I'm thinking not. This sort of sign is common in Maryland.
This is a new sign, yes. Note the Clearview SNS. This is a new pole assembly.
Quote from: Brian556 on May 04, 2014, 12:04:05 AM
This contractor error occurred in Denton, TX in 2010. It was quickly fixed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2F42410slr013.jpg&hash=f8c6aae9f376829e5e088fa4ea43f9c4bcd64924) (http://s1209.photobucket.com/user/Brian5561/media/42410slr013.jpg.html)
Fixed, yes. http://goo.gl/maps/aeMTQ
But still
large print!!Someone would have to be blind (or blindfolded) to miss those I-35 shields.....
Quote from: txstateends on May 04, 2014, 03:45:09 PM
Someone would have to be blind (or blindfolded) to miss those I-35 shields.....
Or texting.
Quote from: txstateends on May 04, 2014, 03:45:09 PM
Someone would have to be blind (or blindfolded) to miss those I-35 shields.....
Those look like 48x48 shields. On conventional roads, such as the one that sign is on, they should be 24x24 or 36x36.
Quote from: talllguy on May 03, 2014, 10:57:32 PM
Thanks! This forum could definitely use a "Like" or "Thanks" button.
There's a topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11356.0) for that.
Quote from: Milepost61 on May 03, 2014, 10:44:50 PM
2D.12.03:
QuoteThe background, legend, and border of a route sign auxiliary should have the same colors as those of the route sign with which the auxiliary is mounted in a route sign assembly (see Section 2D.29). For a route sign design that uses multiple background colors, such as the Interstate route sign, the background color of the corresponding auxiliary should be that of the background area on which the route number is placed on the route sign.
It's a "should" and not a "shall", so I guess it's technically not a violation when they're mismatched.
There are assemblies, especially if there are multiplexed routes of different types, where it would be difficult to use the right color for everything without adding extra banners and arrows. Example from Wikipedia:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1d%2FI-93_frontage_road_NB_at_Haul_Rd.jpg%2F162px-I-93_frontage_road_NB_at_Haul_Rd.jpg&hash=7ec17ad09ccb3400b465b171421b4c8e68af53ca)
If I had to guess, that has something to do with why it's not a "shall".
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2F42410slr013.jpg&hash=f8c6aae9f376829e5e088fa4ea43f9c4bcd64924)
They are 36 inch signs. I don't know why, but I've seen several instances around here of contractors installing large shields instead of standard sized ones. The contractors are just following what's in the plans. I don't know why TxDOT would specify for contractors to do something different that they do.
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6143/5940236802_a6cb665bea_z.jpg)
Something similar in size was installed in Kentucky a few years ago.
Quote from: getemngo on May 04, 2014, 06:41:08 PM
Quote from: talllguy on May 03, 2014, 10:57:32 PM
Thanks! This forum could definitely use a "Like" or "Thanks" button.
There's a topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11356.0) for that.
Quote from: Milepost61 on May 03, 2014, 10:44:50 PM
2D.12.03:
QuoteThe background, legend, and border of a route sign auxiliary should have the same colors as those of the route sign with which the auxiliary is mounted in a route sign assembly (see Section 2D.29). For a route sign design that uses multiple background colors, such as the Interstate route sign, the background color of the corresponding auxiliary should be that of the background area on which the route number is placed on the route sign.
It's a "should" and not a "shall", so I guess it's technically not a violation when they're mismatched.
There are assemblies, especially if there are multiplexed routes of different types, where it would be difficult to use the right color for everything without adding extra banners and arrows. Example from Wikipedia:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1d%2FI-93_frontage_road_NB_at_Haul_Rd.jpg%2F162px-I-93_frontage_road_NB_at_Haul_Rd.jpg&hash=7ec17ad09ccb3400b465b171421b4c8e68af53ca)
If I had to guess, that has something to do with why it's not a "shall".
I think these look fine, though. The direction banner uses the Interstate color, while the "TO" banner uses the white from the US route shields, which balances out the look.
When designing such signage, for route concurrencies of different types (i.e. Interstate/U.S., etc) I have used the color scheme of the higher-order route (in my example, Interstate) for both directional banner and arrow panel. The trick is to specify which one to use, as the default seems to be the black-on-white version when it is not clear.
Another one I saw today:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2934/14150916241_18091b20dc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nyt9ov)TO 270 (https://flic.kr/p/nyt9ov) by Elliott Plack (https://www.flickr.com/people/88483799@N00/), on Flickr