Which states used to use text for route numbers instead of shields?
I know NY
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5279/14116077827_3231e192b7_z.jpg)
and PA used to
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/438/18277406288_3520e21e32_z.jpg)
I believe I've seen some pictures of old signs in Maryland that were like that, including for Interstates. I think there was a sign on the Beltway at old Exit 18 that said "I-70S," but it's not one I ever remember seeing in person given my age when the change was made.
I know I've seen signs like that when I've driven in Pennsylvania, though I do not recall where. I think there was one on I-70 near Breezewood when I last went that way in December 2010 en route to the Winter Classic in Pittsburgh. (I normally avoid Breezewood, but that trip was an exception.)
New Jersey used to use text for things like "US 46" or "ROUTE 3" IIRC.
I-80 in the Pocono Mountain Region was using them even after the change from sequential to milepost exit numbering. I have seen signs on other road geek sites that showed PA 715 at Tannersville, PA using text.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 18, 2015, 03:16:45 PM
New Jersey used to use text for things like "US 46" or "ROUTE 3" IIRC.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 18, 2015, 03:16:45 PM
New Jersey used to use text for things like "US 46" or "ROUTE 3" IIRC.
Some county installed guide signs still use the "RTE" especially in Northern New Jersey.
Louisiana still uses text also.
I can remember "Hwy 123" on BGSes in Wisconsin in my first trip out there in 1984.
^^ WI 123 is a very short highway in Baraboo. And is not connected to a freeway/expressway. :confused:
The only one in Wisconsin I remember was the Hwy 67 exit on US 41, but was replaced 20 or so years ago.
I was doing an image search and came up with a previous thread that went down many of the same avenues...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2102.0
Quote from: Big John on July 18, 2015, 06:02:18 PM
^^ WI 123 is a very short highway in Baraboo. And is not connected to a freeway/expressway. :confused:
The only one in Wisconsin I remember was the Hwy 67 exit on US 41, but was replaced 20 or so years ago.
I should have indicated that I was using Hwy 123 as an example. Indeed, I remember a "Hwy 67" exit on US 41. We were on our way to Oshkosh in 1984.
Connecticut Turnpike and Merritt Parkway; some good examples on Alpsroads' I-95 CT page (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/i-95/n1.html) with photos from Michael Summa.
When we all get time machines, while everyone else is trying to kill Hitler, I'm going to be roadtripping with Mr. Summa and my Canon G12
Quote from: kurumi on July 18, 2015, 08:13:13 PM
When we all get time machines, while everyone else is trying to kill Hitler, I'm going to be roadtripping with Mr. Summa and my Canon G12
If only we had known when we were younger about the changes the future had in store for us, I'm sure would have been taking all kinds of pictures with any camera that would work. So much is gone, never to be seen again. :-(
Ontario will write out county road numbers if the county road doesn't also have a proper name:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_401_images%2F401_dv_250_east_Jul12.jpg&hash=67dfb279f8ee73c627897b9cc14138c6e089211b)
When I was little around 1975 or so I remember the ecits BGS on i295 in Jacksonville did not have SR shields. Fla 228 was where the shield was a few years later
Most ODOT districts in Ohio use text for the route number on distance signs. Ohio also generally spells out county road numbers rather than using shields.
Kentucky did. Last vestiges on the interstate system were on I-75 at KY 22 and I-64 at KY 395. The only such sign left now is on the Mountain Parkway at Exit 46 for Ky 191.
For the most part Texas doesn't use shields on county routes... they are often signed as CO RD X, on BGS and street blade alike.
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 18, 2015, 11:46:17 PM
Most ODOT districts in Ohio use text for the route number on distance signs. Ohio also generally spells out county road numbers rather than using shields.
District 6 seems to have switched to using shields on distance signs about the same time as discontinuing button copy at the earliest, or as adopting Clearview at the latest. So, fairly recently.
Nevada typically uses text for the route numbers only on distance signs along conventional roads and highways. Shields are always used for distance signs on freeways.
Quote from: roadfro on July 19, 2015, 01:58:02 AM
Nevada typically uses text for the route numbers only on distance signs along conventional roads and highways. Shields are always used for distance signs on freeways.
The current distance signs on the MassPike, which were installed as part of the mid-1990s sign update projects, use text instead of shields for the routes. The replacement distance signs scheduled to be installed next year as part of MassDOT's West Stockbridge to Auburn and Auburn to Boston sign projects will use shields instead, per current MassDOT standard.
The "hybrid" travel time signs (ground-mounted guide signs with LED inserts for the travel times) currently being installed will also use route shields instead of text.
1990s example of MA's D6/Paddle LGS using RTE. 1A text. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.520042,-70.898269,3a,75y,169.83h,79.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4ar2gWD9o4GJNpEUabyBKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
Similar-vintaged example along MA 127 at MA 62 in Beverly (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beverly,+MA/@42.550046,-70.868635,3a,75y,304.32h,92.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s34GDevELLSekYtvvrp3h8w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D34GDevELLSekYtvvrp3h8w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D69.577133%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e3166bea667b97:0xc7b7a37ab06fa14e!6m1!1e1).
Another similar-vintage example using RTE. 127 text. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beverly,+MA/@42.554362,-70.881744,3a,75y,48.5h,87.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOPrcON7FzWJfO97WW5aW-A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DOPrcON7FzWJfO97WW5aW-A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D108.23895%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e3166bea667b97:0xc7b7a37ab06fa14e!6m1!1e1)
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 18, 2015, 08:59:39 PM
Ontario will write out county road numbers if the county road doesn't also have a proper name:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2Fhwy_401_images%2F401_dv_250_east_Jul12.jpg&hash=67dfb279f8ee73c627897b9cc14138c6e089211b)
Since Indiana doesn't use shields for county roads, they have to spell them out:
County Rd 17 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.665951,-85.895073,3a,75y,83.65h,90.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simE7xrJwjwz1_c-Mnb4izw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 20, 2015, 11:50:04 AM
1990s example of MA's D6/Paddle LGS using RTE. 1A text. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.520042,-70.898269,3a,75y,169.83h,79.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4ar2gWD9o4GJNpEUabyBKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
Similar-vintaged example along MA 127 at MA 62 in Beverly (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beverly,+MA/@42.550046,-70.868635,3a,75y,304.32h,92.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s34GDevELLSekYtvvrp3h8w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D34GDevELLSekYtvvrp3h8w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D69.577133%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e3166bea667b97:0xc7b7a37ab06fa14e!6m1!1e1).
Another similar-vintage example using RTE. 127 text. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beverly,+MA/@42.554362,-70.881744,3a,75y,48.5h,87.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOPrcON7FzWJfO97WW5aW-A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DOPrcON7FzWJfO97WW5aW-A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D108.23895%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e3166bea667b97:0xc7b7a37ab06fa14e!6m1!1e1)
This is still accepted practice for presenting trailblazing information on Massachusetts D6 and D8 signs. From the MassDOT
Guide Sign Policy For Secondary State Highways:
QuoteRoute shields shall be used for all intersecting numbered routes on signs, and should be used for "trailblazer" information as well. However, on D6 and D8 signs, text (i.e. "˜To Route 202') may be used for "trailblazer" information to conserve space where necessary.
One that was text, but is now a shield. Central Square, Stoneham:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.478957,-71.100188,3a,75y,289.47h,89.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shEg2lsufT6BhffjmW-6bUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 21, 2015, 11:25:13 AM
One that was text, but is now a shield. Central Square, Stoneham:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.478957,-71.100188,3a,75y,289.47h,89.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shEg2lsufT6BhffjmW-6bUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Ugh. Every time I pass that sign, I wish somebody would hit it (because of the 128 shield, which should be I-95). And, IIRC, the previous sign at this location did not trailblaze to Route 128.
And I believe this sign would qualify under the "department of redundancy department" thread as well (the "TO RTE" legend).
NJ Turnpike is curious in its absence of any GS Parkway shields, instead spelling it out with "PARKWAY" in big letters. They are now owned by the same company, but there isn't a single parkway shield anywhere on the Turnpike.
Quote from: roadman on July 21, 2015, 11:43:14 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 21, 2015, 11:25:13 AM
One that was text, but is now a shield. Central Square, Stoneham:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.478957,-71.100188,3a,75y,289.47h,89.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shEg2lsufT6BhffjmW-6bUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Ugh. Every time I pass that sign, I wish somebody would hit it (because of the 128 shield, which should be I-95).
Similar 90s-vintage signage in Wyoma Square in Lynn
had TO 95-1 references (sample) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.480003,-70.955463,3a,75y,62.85h,78.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGsP5vsD4Oyf8foggZ24vPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) on its MA 129 westbound signs but were changed back to the old
TO 1-128 (both in shields) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.485132,-70.960281,3a,75y,319.48h,88.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOW1om6LxfDUQ0eB5pvUyGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) within a year.
Further west along 129, a sample using
RTE. 1 and
RTE. 128 text (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.491471,-70.971992,3a,75y,277.17h,72.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3K6VmhjQcAJPgZ-5mYenRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
Reliable sources tell me that the Wyoma Square signs were changed back to 128 shields because the City of Lynn insisted on it. And that D6 sign on Lynnfield Street was likely replaced by the District as a 'one off'. Although, IMO, there is no justification for having a full D6 sign at that location (intersecting road is a very minor street). A simple 129 trailblazer assembly would suffice.
Quote from: roadman on July 22, 2015, 01:44:57 PM
Reliable sources tell me that the Wyoma Square signs were changed back to 128 shields because the City of Lynn insisted on it.
I figured as such; this is the same city that was supposed to be connected/served by the original I-95. What
should have been done is have all 3 routes (I-95/US 1/MA 128) on the sign (yes, such would make for a taller D6 panel) listed given that Goodwin's Circle is within a mile of the I-95/MA 128 split.
Apparently, not every City of Lynn official is completely against using
95 on signs directing people to I-95/MA 128. Note: this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.464479,-70.934657,3a,75y,16.6h,83.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZLFae-YzSSn49a7JDO2rkw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) along Chestnut St., just off MA 1A/129 (Broad/Lewis Sts.). There's one or two more further up Chestnut St. prior to MA 107/129A (Western Ave.).
Quote from: roadman on July 22, 2015, 01:44:57 PMAnd that D6 sign on Lynnfield Street was likely replaced by the District as a 'one off'. Although, IMO, there is no justification for having a full D6 sign at that location (intersecting road is a very minor street). A simple 129 trailblazer assembly would suffice.
For as long as I can remember, there has always been a D6 LGS there. The earliest generation was from the mid-60s green-on-white cut-corner (LeHay(?) font) that simply read:
-----129--->
TO ROUTES
1 & 128My
guess is that the sign was erected due to residents in the area requested it.
Looking at an aerial, the connecting road appears to be one of the entrances to Lynn Woods.
https://twitter.com/ODOT_Columbus/status/624248050068926464
Quote from: @ODOT_Columbus
1958 - Creating a sign big enough to see. This one has reflective dots instead of modern reflective material. #TBT
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKnGSyvVEAATbvz.jpg)
1958 BIG ENOUGH TO SEE (Photo 4-II) Here's Bob H. Sheppard of the Ohio Department of Highways Sign Shop assembling one of the big reflectorized signs that will tell motorist to follow the arrow -- to be posted on the new Interstate Route 70 west of Springfield -- to State Route 202. There's no missing this turn. (Ohio Department of Highways Photo)
Does anyone know if there's a clear reason why South Carolina uses text instead of a shield for this signage at the junction of I-26 and I-126 in Columbia? It's only on I-26 EB; WB signage uses standard shields.
https://goo.gl/maps/8rVXd
https://goo.gl/maps/ZnY4e
Quote from: vtk on July 19, 2015, 01:13:14 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 18, 2015, 11:46:17 PM
Most ODOT districts in Ohio use text for the route number on distance signs. Ohio also generally spells out county road numbers rather than using shields.
District 6 seems to have switched to using shields on distance signs about the same time as discontinuing button copy at the earliest, or as adopting Clearview at the latest. So, fairly recently.
Seems to be a statewide thing. If it's in Clearview, it has a shield. Those wonderful travel time signs along I-70 and I-71 also use shields. Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
Quote from: mwb1848 on August 09, 2015, 08:49:38 PM
Does anyone know if there's a clear reason why South Carolina uses text instead of a shield for this signage at the junction of I-26 and I-126 in Columbia? It's only on I-26 EB; WB signage uses standard shields.
https://goo.gl/maps/8rVXd
https://goo.gl/maps/ZnY4e
Because people are dumb and confuse I-26 with 126. Same for 129 at Sioux City.
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2015, 08:54:40 PM
Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
I'm not terribly impressed. They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful. Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?
I meant to post this last week but never got around to it. I thought of this thread last weekend on our way out to Fox Meadow Winery when we passed this sign on I-66 near Delaplane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8900971,-77.9083356,3a,75y,344.2h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7JkcHM-AVqh3tnJqfzsCAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2015, 08:54:40 PM
Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
I'm not terribly impressed. They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful. Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?
Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.
Quote from: cl94 on August 10, 2015, 09:51:20 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2015, 08:54:40 PM
Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
I'm not terribly impressed. They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful. Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?
Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.
Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 10, 2015, 09:51:20 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2015, 08:54:40 PM
Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
I'm not terribly impressed. They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful. Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?
Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.
Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...
That's when I would listen to the radio and figure out where it is. Part of ITS is balancing traffic on parallel routes so travel times are equal, which is part of the reason such signage exists.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 18, 2015, 02:30:52 PM
and PA used to
They still do occasionally.
Saw this on I-81 SB on my recent trip to Pocono. https://goo.gl/maps/qIw45 Would have taken my own picture, but it was too dark already.
Maryland once used text quite a lot. Not so much any more, except to show the distance to a crossing numbered route. Even then, shield(s) are often installed instead of text.
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 09:42:17 PMThey overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit)
Not always. As far as I can determine, the "GoTime" signs in Massachusetts are set up to show actual times. A few months ago I saw one on the MassPike which said "27 Miles / 24 Minutes" to a certain point. That calculates out to 67.5 mph in a 65 zone.
The problem with these is that they can only display calculations based on their input at any given moment. If something happens after you pass one but before you reach the endpoint displayed on it, the time will not be accurate, and you'd have no way of knowing that in advance (absent any other input such as a radio station's traffic report or a crowd-sourced app like Waze).
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 12, 2015, 02:22:01 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 09:42:17 PMThey overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit)
Not always. As far as I can determine, the "GoTime" signs in Massachusetts are set up to show actual times. A few months ago I saw one on the MassPike which said "27 Miles / 24 Minutes" to a certain point. That calculates out to 67.5 mph in a 65 zone.
The problem with these is that they can only display calculations based on their input at any given moment. If something happens after you pass one but before you reach the endpoint displayed on it, the time will not be accurate, and you'd have no way of knowing that in advance (absent any other input such as a radio station's traffic report or a crowd-sourced app like Waze).
I ran a calculation on one of the times and it gave an average speed of 67. Given the construction on this stretch, that's pretty close to 70.
Does anybody know the answer to this question: Which sign is cheaper to manufacture...one with text or one with a shield?
Quote from: cjk374 on August 12, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
Does anybody know the answer to this question: Which sign is cheaper to manufacture...one with text or one with a shield?
Honestly, it doesn't matter. If they were looking for lowest costs, there would be small non-reflective signs on the shoulder.
It stands to reason text would be cheaper than a shield, although the difference is probably a few dollars on a sign that costs thousands.
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 10, 2015, 09:51:20 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2015, 08:54:40 PM
Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
I'm not terribly impressed. They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful. Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?
Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.
Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...
If you use the road everyday, they are very useful. On NJ's signs, they list 3 points. If the first 2 destination times seem normal and the last is much longer than normal, you know where the issue is.
Sometimes it takes a little thought. If you don't know where the issue is, but then you slow down, you have an approximate idea how long it'll take to get thru the jam, and then you can determine if you want to bail or not.
I'll rather take the timed message over a general "accident ahead" or no message whatsoever. But it sometimes takes a little critical thinking to make them useful.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2015, 04:23:45 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 10:01:31 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 10, 2015, 09:51:20 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 10, 2015, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 09, 2015, 08:54:40 PM
Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
I'm not terribly impressed. They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful. Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?
Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.
Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...
If you use the road everyday, they are very useful. On NJ's signs, they list 3 points. If the first 2 destination times seem normal and the last is much longer than normal, you know where the issue is.
Sometimes it takes a little thought. If you don't know where the issue is, but then you slow down, you have an approximate idea how long it'll take to get thru the jam, and then you can determine if you want to bail or not.
I'll rather take the timed message over a general "accident ahead" or no message whatsoever. But it sometimes takes a little critical thinking to make them useful.
Ohio's list 2. If you aren't familiar with the area, you likely have a GPS in this day and age, so you can easily get around it. The one on SB I-71 near I-271 and I-76 lists US 30 and US 42 along with the mileage. I think there's one later that lists I-270. If traffic is crawling, you'd know where to get off to avoid the jam.
Quote from: cjk374 on August 12, 2015, 03:51:54 PM
Does anybody know the answer to this question: Which sign is cheaper to manufacture...one with text or one with a shield?
Depending on the panel format, signs that use all text legends would typically be 10 to 15 percent less in area than identical signs with shields. While this cost savings could add up quickly on a large sign update project, the tradeoff is reduced sign recognition.
A brand new one in San Francisco on US 101 (from another thread) -
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16152.0
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F08%2F09%2Fc58b4b2ae66057a6fd1a1aea8f0200cb.jpg&hash=32ec7cd37c33861cd206445925340345c8f51769) (courtesy AndyMax25)
Here's an example on Interstate 80 in Illinois, frome the AARoads/Interstate Guide archives:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages180%2Fi-180_il_nt_07.jpg&hash=8c2806325f77d3638c43964e8c4c792efbe7dd72)
Nice sign, I might add. :)