I'm not sure if this has been answered here and Google does not want to help on this. I'm just wondering why we use a different shield style.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F16%2Fdy2u6y7u.jpg&hash=f035ec8f8bf151db769c87ed91ffe264632c61d4)
Because Caltrans.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Rebel? Maybe. But you could also classify Caltrans as the "Old Fart that resists change". You have to understand, the US shield California uses today used to be the national standard. When the national standard changed, California didn't go along. This also applied to the Interstate shield. What Caltrans uses now (save for those hideous angular shields) was the national spec in 1957. When newer specs came out, California didn't adopt them. As for the reason why California didn't adopt the new standards, you'll need to talk to someone at Caltrans.
I love that California is the land of cutouts. That includes the numbered county routes, which use the standard blue-and-gold pentagons, as well as the Interstate/US/state routes managed by Caltrans.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 15, 2014, 09:20:51 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Rebel? Maybe. But you could also classify Caltrans as the "Old Fart that resists change". You have to understand, the US shield California uses today used to be the national standard. When the national standard changed, California didn't go along. This also applied to the Interstate shield. What Caltrans uses now (save for those hideous angular shields) was the national spec in 1957. When newer specs came out, California didn't adopt them. As for the reason why California didn't adopt the new standards, you'll need to talk to someone at Caltrans.
I heard it's that they're cheaper.
Quote from: oscar on September 15, 2014, 09:21:30 PM
I love that California is the land of cutouts. That includes the numbered county routes, which use the standard blue-and-gold pentagons, as well as the Interstate/US/state routes managed by Caltrans.
I guess it is cool that we are unique with those shields.
Wrong question.
Why did the other 47 states change?
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2014, 10:26:06 PM
Wrong question.
Why did the other 47 states change?
I was going to say "47?!?!? Am I missing something?" but then I realized Hawaii and Alaska don't have any US routes... :-D
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Vermont uses green shields
iPhone
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on September 15, 2014, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Vermont uses green shields
iPhone
Oh yeah my bad forgot about Vermont, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I remember because not only was I just there, I love the uniqueness of them
iPhone
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on September 15, 2014, 11:37:39 PM
I remember because not only was I just there, I love the uniqueness of them
iPhone
Oh they are pretty nice looking, they're really unique.
California probably uses green because laziness and making a simple button copy white outline on a guide sign look like a standalone shield (c.f. Connecticut).
I remember the color US shields in Florida.
Quote from: Road Hog on September 16, 2014, 12:26:24 AM
I remember the color US shields in Florida.
Ahh yes they we're nice, also heard Arizona had them.
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on September 15, 2014, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Vermont uses green shields
So does South Dakota.
Caltrans loves the old US shield yet despises the continued existence of US routes.
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2014, 10:26:06 PM
Wrong question.
Why did the other 47 states change?
Florida only gave in 21 years ago...
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2014, 10:26:06 PM
Wrong question.
Why did the other 47 states change?
Because they were supposed to be phased out.
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2014, 11:48:29 PM
California probably uses green because laziness and making a simple button copy white outline on a guide sign look like a standalone shield (c.f. Connecticut).
California used to value things (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=pEUYVOiFD8O7ogTOhIH4Bg&url=http://www.gbcnet.com/ushighways/history/1964_route_renumbering.pdf&cd=7&ved=0CDAQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNE-_hQeNFGYdD_TxjRuSIykPPqenw) other than expediency.
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2014, 11:48:29 PM
California probably uses green because laziness and making a simple button copy white outline on a guide sign look like a standalone shield (c.f. Connecticut).
California claims white on green is more legible than black on white or white on black.
There were studies done in the late 1950's regarding sign colors and styles. Perhaps having the shield in green isn't just "because".
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:01:33 PM
I'm not sure if this has been answered here and Google does not want to help on this. I'm just wondering why we use a different shield style.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F09%2F16%2Fdy2u6y7u.jpg&hash=f035ec8f8bf151db769c87ed91ffe264632c61d4)
Because its a nice shield.
Honestly, the new design that other states adopt look cheap.
It just looks so good!
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_bus_sb_ukiah_app_ca-253_02.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridgeandtunnelclub.com%2Fbigmap%2Foutoftown%2Fcalifornia%2Fus101%2F05-19-12%2F6005-19-12.jpg&hash=bad3b006016faa1ac910561d7ae419835acb46ae)
as opposed to
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/oregon999/cr-784_wb_at_us-101.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/washington101/us-101_nb_exit_364_03.jpg)
Quote from: sdmichael on September 16, 2014, 12:38:31 PM
There were studies done in the late 1950's regarding sign colors and styles. Perhaps having the shield in green isn't just "because".
Yup. Green exit signs with white letters trumped Blue/White and Black/White.
By never phasing out the 1957 spec shield for its U.S. Highways, California is the only state in which descriptive text appears in all freestanding highway shields: INTERSTATE, US, CALIFORNIA, and "X" COUNTY. It's debatable whether the text adds any value to the U.S. and state highway shields; however, I appreciate the aesthetic consistency in this signing practice.
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 16, 2014, 04:21:55 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on September 15, 2014, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Vermont uses green shields
So does South Dakota.
And Louisiana used green shields for a very long time until switching to black/white recently.
Then there's Minnesota which uses gold on blue.
Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)
Quote from: Brandon on September 16, 2014, 09:34:03 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 16, 2014, 04:21:55 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on September 15, 2014, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Vermont uses green shields
So does South Dakota.
And Louisiana used green shields for a very long time until switching to black/white recently.
Then there's Minnesota which uses gold on blue.
Speaking of Minnesota, a few state highways there feature signed business routes, the shields of which feature green and white instead of gold and blue, and "BUSiNESS" instead of "MINNESOTA". Most if not all of these routes are County State Aid Highways.
Quote from: Brandon on September 16, 2014, 09:34:03 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on September 16, 2014, 04:21:55 AM
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on September 15, 2014, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: KG909 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 15, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Because Caltrans.
Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.
Vermont uses green shields
So does South Dakota.
And Louisiana used green shields for a very long time until switching to black/white recently.
Then there's Minnesota which uses gold on blue.
And SC recently switched to blue on white, which is an interesting take on the simple FHWA scheme.
It depends on how you run the cost analysis, I suppose.
Cutout saves on material cost. But a square blank can be used for multiple types of signs, reducing the different types of blanks that need to be kept in inventory.
I would think it would be a wash because the material saved in a cutout would be offset by the labor of making the cutout.
Quote from: Road Hog on October 02, 2014, 08:16:29 PM
I would think it would be a wash because the material saved in a cutout would be offset by the labor of making the cutout.
Depends on how the cut is made (I assume they basically have a template they basically just stamp down to get the shape), but I do wonder about waste
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 17, 2014, 06:12:34 AM
Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)
as do Maine and Washington.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ME/ME19630021i1.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19900021i1.jpg)
Quote from: corco on October 02, 2014, 08:53:08 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on October 02, 2014, 08:16:29 PM
I would think it would be a wash because the material saved in a cutout would be offset by the labor of making the cutout.
Depends on how the cut is made (I assume they basically have a template they basically just stamp down to get the shape), but I do wonder about waste
Sell it to the scrapyard?
I don't know if they still do, but once upon a time, highway departments (including AHTD) sold their damaged signs that couldn't be recycled, to the scrap yard.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 02, 2014, 08:58:56 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 17, 2014, 06:12:34 AM
Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)
as did Maine
FTFY. Yes, Washington still does. Philadelphia is rife. And, of course, you can find one in almost every state. I've seen some oddballs around Delaware.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 17, 2014, 06:12:34 AM
Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)
Like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_4326_zps5892e924.jpg&hash=21b72324e86531e5c73394fa1bc5a3000665e866) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_4326_zps5892e924.jpg.html)
And then there's this all blue one at I-88 and Eola Road in Illinois:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2479.jpg&hash=b9c23e8583c4ae0ec6e03ca2f981e903ee146d1f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_2479.jpg.html)
I prefer the cutout U.S. Shields used by California as opposed to the U.S. yields with a black square or rectangular background. I think the real question I would ask, instead of white California uses the cutout shield, is why do all the other states use than on cutout version of the shield. Personally I think the look ugly and are not as professional looking as California's U.S. shield.
I don't think that it can be said that cost is a major factor as to why square shields or rectangular shields are used. Manufacturing the cutout shields is still cost effective since it is very simple to use a die-cut press two cut out the U.S. shield shape from the sign. Since California uses the shields, they would be readily available for any other state to be able to use to incorporate into their standards when ordering them from the sign manufacturer.
I also do not understand why some states used oversized route markers. Some states use route marker size as large as 36"X36" when a much smaller route worker would suffice such as a 24"X24" or smaller marker. This is especially true in situations where secondary routes are routed over a primary route. Such as, U.S. routes that are routed over interstate route. The interstate route shield would be the larger shield, and the U.S. route shields accompanying it should be smaller and placed underneath or next to the shield in order of prominence.
California seems to not use the practice of using oversized shields on their highways, even for some of the drawbacks that California's highway signing standards have, they seem to be the most logical layout for containing information relevant to travelers without having too much green space.
Another note on Wisconsin unishields: The vast majority of them are made of weatherproof laminated wood with layer of prismatic sheeting on top. (Many small guide signs are the same way as well.)
Quote from: Indyroads on October 09, 2014, 02:20:05 PM
I prefer the cutout U.S. Shields used by California as opposed to the U.S. yields with a black square or rectangular background. I think the real question I would ask, instead of white California uses the cutout shield, is why do all the other states use than on cutout version of the shield. Personally I think the look ugly and are not as professional looking as California's U.S. shield.
I don't think that it can be said that cost is a major factor as to why square shields or rectangular shields are used. Manufacturing the cutout shields is still cost effective since it is very simple to use a die-cut press two cut out the U.S. shield shape from the sign. Since California uses the shields, they would be readily available for any other state to be able to use to incorporate into their standards when ordering them from the sign manufacturer.
I also do not understand why some states used oversized route markers. Some states use route marker size as large as 36"X36" when a much smaller route worker would suffice such as a 24"X24" or smaller marker. This is especially true in situations where secondary routes are routed over a primary route. Such as, U.S. routes that are routed over interstate route. The interstate route shield would be the larger shield, and the U.S. route shields accompanying it should be smaller and placed underneath or next to the shield in order of prominence.
California seems to not use the practice of using oversized shields on their highways, even for some of the drawbacks that California's highway signing standards have, they seem to be the most logical layout for containing information relevant to travelers without having too much green space.
In a state such as Oklahoma, which does not use a cutout state route marker, as California does, the same 24×24 blank can be used for either a US route or a state route. That means the same dies can be used to manufacture the blanks, and if the sheeting and design is not applied at the same time as the die-cutting, then it means you can stamp out 100 square blanks instead of 50 US blanks and 50 state blanks. This is particularly important for states that have multiple types of highways, like Texas. The same square blank is used for US, TX, FM, RM, PR, Spur, Loop...
Oversize shields are used in situations where an increase in visibility is desired. A 24×24 will work fine on a two-lane rural highway. But it may not be as effectively seen from the #1 lane of a four-lane freeway carriageway at 70 MPH. That is where it makes sense to increase the size of the shield.
California is actually one of the worst states at allocating sign panel green space because of the asinine policy decision to make each of the sign panels on one gantry equal heights. This means that the signs are either designed around a comfortable height for the panel with the most information, with excess space on the other panels, or else something resembling an average is used and the legend on one or more panels is crammed into a confined space. Most other states sacrifice the minor aesthetic gain of the panels being the same height for the greater aesthetic, functional, and financial gain of having panels that have adequate, but not excessive, margins.
CA's use of a cut-out US shield may also be due the the fact that they also do a cut-out of the miner's spade for state highways. The miner's spade is a fairly easy shape to cut out, as it's basically a rounded triangle.
But most other states have their state outline as the shield. It would probably be tricky to cut all the curves of every sign. So once they get into the practice of superimposing their state border over a rectangular sign, I guess they figure there's no reason to do anything different for US highways.
Regular US highway shields are way too mainstream for California :coffee: