Quotedo you have a more specific history of the Minnesota route markers? I know they switched to the 1970-spec interstate shield in 1973 as well. When did they use the Minnesota/US, and the MINN/number on white square, the cutouts, etc?
All I have is when the present-day markers were approved. I could ask some of the people I know at MnDOT, if desired.
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2010, 04:36:23 PM
All I have is when the present-day markers were approved. I could ask some of the people I know at MnDOT, if desired.
when you say "present-day marker", does that mean the blue and gold state route shield in general, or the specific variant with white numbers that is used today? an older variant uses gold numbers, and I had thought that to be a late 60s development, but I do not know for sure.
if you could get me some info, that would be great!
The blue and gold shield in general. The gold numbers are an anomaly...the standard as approved in 1973 always called for white numbers.
Through the 1960s and into the early '70s, Minnesota used a black-and-white marker somewhat similar to Maryland's, with the state name above a horizontal line.
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2010, 06:37:19 PM
The blue and gold shield in general. The gold numbers are an anomaly...the standard as approved in 1973 always called for white numbers.
Through the 1960s and into the early '70s, Minnesota used a black-and-white marker somewhat similar to Maryland's, with the state name above a horizontal line.
yep, I've seen the black and white shield. Didn't know that was around as late as the early 70s.
All the blue and gold with gold numbers seem to be older than the ones with white numbers. When did they switch away from the north star? I've seen the Maryland-style rectangle in 16" format paired with a Minn-US white square.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19510611i1.jpg)
1958 photo. Note also the slightly fatter shield shape, which isn't quite as fat as the 1970 federal spec - it resembles the spec that I believe California invented in 1956 in cutout form.
Both US cutouts and the star markers were abandoned sometime in the mid-1950s.
Also did some digging, it's possible that the present-day marker with gold numbers was around prior to 1973, but there was definitely a switch to a white number standard in 1973.
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2010, 08:20:22 PM
Both US cutouts and the star markers were abandoned sometime in the mid-1950s.
Also did some digging, it's possible that the present-day marker with gold numbers was around prior to 1973, but there was definitely a switch to a white number standard in 1973.
that is the educated guess that Michael Summa and I have come up with, that the gold was too prone to fading so they changed the digits to white. I've seen only a brief handful of gold routes, including a 210. If the US-210 to state 210 switch occurred at the same time as the change from gold to white, then that shield is, technically, an error.
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2010, 08:20:22 PMAlso did some digging, it's possible that the present-day marker with gold numbers was around prior to 1973, but there was definitely a switch to a white number standard in 1973.
I have signing plan sheets from the late 1960's which show a design very similar to the current marker, except that the two-digit square was also used for three-digit routes. They don't notate color of digits (this would have been controlled through a standard plan sheet). These plan sheets predate the start of the keyline era in MnDOT signing plans, which was sometime in the early 1970's.
Edit: Now found: an example is SP 2781-161. Blue-gold shields, 30" x 30" size, paired with Interstate shields at 36" x 36" size (for I-35W, N.B.) and US route shields at 35" x 30" size for two-digit and 45" x 30" for three-digit. One interchange sequence sign lists I-335 (!) using MnDOT's then three-digit shield proportions (30" x 25"), and has the exit numbers in a left-hand column. Most sheets in this contract are undated but there is a change order sheet with a date of 1972-09-20. On some signs (mainly ground-mounted signs which I think were installed on surface streets leading to the freeway), I-35W does get a three-digit shield design at the 30" x 25" size (US routes in general, both two- and three-digit, get 28" x 24" on these signs, while state routes get 24" x 24").
This is actually fairly baroque. Earlier, in the lined-shield era (early 1960's), it was 36" shields all the way down the line for mainline signs--Interstate, US, and state routes. SP 1981-15 is a case in point. Oh, and pull-through signs said "THRU TRAFFIC" and had the misleading single downward-pointing arrow.
The only element of my contention above for which I cannot now furnish an illustrative example is the claim that the square two-digit shape was used for three-digit state routes. I know I have seen examples for SR 100 and possibly SR 280, but I am not having much luck finding examples from the pre-keyline era. With 7240 sheets to look through, finding these sheets is a needle-in-haystack job.
Edit II: I pulled up my socks and quit expecting Hennepin and Dakota Counties to bail me out. Case in point re. the three-digit state routes with two-digit shields: SP 6242-49, the three-digit route in question being SR 280.
But the sign illustrations tell bare-faced lies. The shields as shown in the plans are patently squares. But the dimension callouts say 45" x 36"--i.e., three-digit size. Old "wide shield" art is used for two-digit US routes as well but the dimension callouts say 36" x 36" (the callouts appropriate for "wide shield" would be, as noted above, 35" x 30"). Many sheets in this job bear revision dates of 1971-04-01: your choice whether to be fooled or not.
Found it a little tough to follow your listing. Were you referring to guide signage shields, or standalone reassurance/trailblazer shields? Because MnDOT has long had different standards for both when it comes to 3-digit routes.
here's a photo of a gold-colored two-digit-wide three-digit shield.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19682001i1.jpg)
this state park appears to have been forgotten by the highway department - look what's at the other exit!
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19680711i1.jpg)
both signs are early 70s vintage, as far as I can tell. (question for the reader: guess which state park!)
I'll have to post my photo of the gold-number route 210 shield - it looks to be 30x30 in my picture.
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2010, 07:05:28 AMFound it a little tough to follow your listing. Were you referring to guide signage shields, or standalone reassurance/trailblazer shields? Because MnDOT has long had different standards for both when it comes to 3-digit routes.
I was talking about guide sign shields only--I have absolutely nothing to do with independent-mount shields, largely because they are not generally counted as designable signs and so don't give rise to sign design sheets within contract signing plans.
I see. FWIW, then, MnDOT's standard has long been to use 3-digit sized shields for 3-digit routes on guide signage.
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2010, 01:49:27 PM
I see. FWIW, then, MnDOT's standard has long been to use 3-digit sized shields for 3-digit routes on guide signage.
now that I think about it, I don't think Minn uses (or has ever used) wide shields for pole-mounted signs. Neither for US nor state, in my observation. Froggie, do you know of any counterexamples?
then again, the only three-digit US routes I've observed in Minn are 169, 212, and 218 and all of those are "two and a half digits" and can be fit into a square shield without trouble. I'm pretty sure the last 210 and 371 shields used this standard too, though I've only seen older-spec 371s and have never seen a 210 in any form.
As for the state routes, given the rectangular area for the number, a three-digit can be fit with no difficulty there either.
Officially, MnDOT uses 2-digit sized shields for 3-digit state and US routes for independent markers. I've known of two "counterexamples"...on MN 210 near Fergus Falls (along the multiplex with I-94/US 59) about 10 years ago...and, until it was turned back to Anoka County last year, on MN 242 in Coon Rapids. But given MnDOT's standard, these two examples would by the book be "error shields".
The problem with two-digit for three-digit is that you often have to drop an alphabet series, with a consequent penalty in legibility, in order to fit three digits (especially if they are "wide" digits). MnDOT compensates for this, perhaps deliberately, by using green-background guide signs for decision-critical signing on conventional-road state highways to a much greater extent than most other states except California and Washington state. On such signs the guide-sign shields are used instead and these provide for three-digit width for three-digit routes, so that route numbers always appear in Series D at a consistent height.
This is a thoroughly consistent and professionally responsible way of doing things. The real anomaly, IMO, would be a three-digit route on a two-digit guide sign shield.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2010, 02:56:23 AM
The problem with two-digit for three-digit is that you often have to drop an alphabet series, with a consequent penalty in legibility, in order to fit three digits (especially if they are "wide" digits). MnDOT compensates for this, perhaps deliberately, by using green-background guide signs for decision-critical signing on conventional-road state highways to a much greater extent than most other states except California and Washington state. On such signs the guide-sign shields are used instead and these provide for three-digit width for three-digit routes, so that route numbers always appear in Series D at a consistent height.
This is a thoroughly consistent and professionally responsible way of doing things.
Your conclusion is thoroughly illogical. I'll grant you that they're doing it consistently, but how is it professionally responsible? Professionally responsible would be to use the damn three-digit width shields for assemblies! Signs would certainly come out cheaper that way, saving the DOT precious money that could add up to an extra project or more maintenance over the course of a year.
The green backgrounds have more target value. Cardinal direction words can appear in Series E rather than Series C as on tab signs. Arrow and cardinal direction word can appear on the same line (using the "spade" arrow instead of the "standard" arrow) without the need to use two tab signs. The shield has to be used just once for both directions. There is probably some slight diseconomy in using green background but, because of these considerations, it is not large.
I'd agree it would be more sensible to use three-digit shields for three-digit routes on confirmation assemblies, but confirmation is not decision-critical.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2010, 02:56:23 AM
The problem with two-digit for three-digit is that you often have to drop an alphabet series, with a consequent penalty in legibility, in order to fit three digits (especially if they are "wide" digits). MnDOT compensates for this, perhaps deliberately, by using green-background guide signs for decision-critical signing on conventional-road state highways to a much greater extent than most other states except California and Washington state. On such signs the guide-sign shields are used instead and these provide for three-digit width for three-digit routes, so that route numbers always appear in Series D at a consistent height.
what about Nebraska? they also tend to have large green decision-making signs at junctions. Also, Massachusetts comes to mind.
I tend to be generally opposed to the three-digit variants for aesthetic reasons. Arkansas and Alabama state route shields become badly distorted (Alabama already is on the two-digit shields!) and the 1970-spec three-digit US shield is even uglier and more bloated than the 1970-spec two-digit US shield.
about the only three-digit shields that look decent are the 1961 spec ones: California-style US cutout, green sign US shield, and interstate shield.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19564661i1.jpg)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2010, 12:47:34 PMwhat about Nebraska?
I am quite fond of NDOR's junction diagrammatics, but I would not like to try to defend them on efficiency grounds. The design criteria are also a little strange--IIRC they use 18" (instead of 24") shields. They look large from inside the car but when you stand up right next to them, they are
almost the right size for stealing (if you have a pickup truck).
QuoteAlso, Massachusetts comes to mind.
I like MassHighway's "little green signs," but I think they have historically suffered from lack of conspicuity. However, design guidance for them has recently changed. Proper shields now have to be used: nowadays you can't get away just with the route number(s) superimposed over a broken arrow. Pretty much the only thing that has survived is the use of long arrows. MassHighway also uses 18" (not 24") shields with 6" destinations. IIRC the old standard provided for distances to destinations, but these have now been eliminated.
QuoteMnDOT compensates for this, perhaps deliberately, by using green-background guide signs for decision-critical signing on conventional-road state highways to a much greater extent than most other states except California and Washington state.
Very deliberately, especially at freeway/expressway junctions.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2010, 02:56:23 AM
MnDOT compensates for this, perhaps deliberately, by using green-background guide signs for decision-critical signing on conventional-road state highways to a much greater extent than most other states except California and Washington state. On such signs the guide-sign shields are used instead and these provide for three-digit width for three-digit routes, so that route numbers always appear in Series D at a consistent height.
Out of curiosity, is a "decision-critical" signage area something like, say, a junction of two numbered roads? I'm just wondering what a good point of comparison is between the Minnesota and California standards to the rest of the US...
A junction of two numbered roads is one example--an exit ramp is another, etc. In general, it is anyplace the motorist has to make a decision to turn or exit.
MnDOT has a guide sign design which is very similar to Caltrans G77 (route shield in middle, cardinal direction word paired with arrow at both top and bottom) except that MnDOT uses full-width ruled lines to separate the arrows and cardinal direction words from the shield. MnDOT also does not have the distinction Caltrans used to have (but may have eliminated with adoption of the MUTCD supplement) where a full-width horizontal ruled line behind the shield indicated that the road leading to the other highway was divided.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2010, 02:25:53 PMa full-width horizontal ruled line behind the shield indicated that the road leading to the other highway was divided.
you mean above and below the shield, separating the cardinal directions from the shield?
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 23, 2010, 01:05:57 PM
IIRC they use 18" (instead of 24") shields.
really? I've never noticed that in Nebraska. I could've sworn they were 24. They're definitely 1970-spec shields.
Yup, 18". That's what their sign design sheets say.
Quoteexcept that MnDOT uses full-width ruled lines to separate the arrows and cardinal direction words from the shield.
When you say full-width, are you referring to the same width as the arrow and directional word, or the full width of the sign?
The former is MnDOT's standard, as shown in their Guide Sign Design Manual (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/guidesigndesign/2010_Manual-FINAL.pdf) (page 67, or 4-29), and a couple (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us169/nb-i90_02.jpg) examples (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/freeborn-co/csah46e-i90.jpg) in the field.
Erm. Actually, I meant the latter, as shown in various plan sheets from the 1960's onward (which, it seems, reflect a standard that has since changed).
Edit: I just checked the sign design sheets for SP 2782-161 (as a typical specimen of a 1960's signing job) and it shows horizontal ruled lines running the width of the cardinal direction word and arrow, not the full width of the sign. I now think I misremembered, and "stretched" the horizontal ruled lines to the full width of the sign panel, but if I find any examples to that general design in other signing projects, I will post again.
I want to say I recall seeing the latter (full width of the sign) over the years, but I haven't found any examples within my photo collection yet.
I cannot find any full-width in my photo collection either, just this style that is as wide as the cardinal direction and arrow.
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MN19700901
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19700901i1.jpg)
The same thing I noted in my two examples earlier...
It's possible the full-width examples I'm thinking of were from back during my childhood...well before I started taking photos. The memory's a bit weird in those ways...
QuoteOfficially, MnDOT uses 2-digit sized shields for 3-digit state and US routes for independent markers. I've known of two "counterexamples"...on MN 210 near Fergus Falls (along the multiplex with I-94/US 59) about 10 years ago...and, until it was turned back to Anoka County last year, on MN 242 in Coon Rapids. But given MnDOT's standard, these two examples would by the book be "error shields".
Forgot earlier where else I'd seen these: MN 336.
Minnesota doesn't have a standard business-route version of the state route marker with "MINNESOTA" replaced by "BUSINESS," does it? So any instance of such a route marker would be pretty damn unusual, wouldn't it?
They do. M1-5AB (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mnstdsigns/M%20Series/M1-5AB.pdf) for independent markers, and M1-5bb (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mnstdsigns/M%20Series/M1-5bb.pdf) for guide signs.
Indeed, pretty unusual, especially since there's only one such route on the state highway system (BUSINESS 371 in Brainerd). Though I'm aware of two other locally-designated routes that are signed...BUSINESS 23 in Willmar (which also uses NON-standard signage) and BUSINESS 60 in St. James.
The Business SR 371 signs in Brainerd were installed by contract in 2001 (SP 8823-23)--which in itself is highly unusual because MnDOT hardly ever contracts out small-sign work except for railroad crossings. (I think MnDOT does nearly all of its small-sign work in-house, possibly through sign shops at district level.)
Are the Brainerd signs green and white as called for in the specs you linked to, or blue and gold? Notwithstanding the age of the Brainerd signs, it seems very recent that the business shields have become standard--the independent-mount version has an approval date of 2009-04-01 while the guide-sign versions have an approval date of 2009-01-01. (The plans for SP 8823-23 really should have specified the colors and design details for the business shield. Instead, there is a note: "Contact D3 office for sign design.")
I saw green US-14 shields with a BUSINESS banner inside the shield around 2006 in Dodge.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19800142i1.jpg)
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 25, 2010, 08:08:31 AM
Are the Brainerd signs green and white as called for in the specs you linked to, or blue and gold?
they are green and white. I don't have a photo on the shield gallery but I've seen them somewhere else on the internet. Can't find the link, though.
I have some photos (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn-ends/bus371.htm) of BUSINESS 371.
Regarding the photo Jake just posted, MnDOT also has specs for BUSINESS US routes, M1-4ab (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mnstdsigns/M%20Series/M1-4ab.pdf) for guide sign overlays, and M1-4B (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mnstdsigns/M%20Series/M1-4B.pdf) for independent markers. I've heard of that BUSINESS US 14 in Dodge Center, but haven't seen it personally...it's also not "official". The only official one is BUSINESS US 2 in East Grand Forks, which has been around for several decades, but I'm not sure how it's signed. There's a signed BUSINESS US 71 in Willmar (which uses at least 3 different varieties of route shield), but that's a local designation and not on the state highway system.
I don't remember there being anything distinctive about business US 2 in East Grand Forks - I think it was just standard black and white US-2 shields with a separate business banner.
do you have photos of the 71 business loop in Willmar? I've never been there.