I have to admit, I wish that other states used the cutout shields like California at least on US highways. Anyone know what the reason is that California uses them on the US highways and state highways? I know Interstate are cutout in any state they're in.
Quote from: thsftw on November 29, 2022, 04:40:11 PM
the reason
As far as I know, they simply never stopped.
Virginia also uses cutout US highway shields but they are not the same as ones in CA nor do they conform to any standard. You can find pictures of some in the Road Sign Uno thread (search US 52/460).
Otherwise there might be another state that uses cutout shields for their state route/highway design?
Quote from: kphoger on November 29, 2022, 05:11:00 PM
Quote from: thsftw on November 29, 2022, 04:40:11 PM
the reason
As far as I know, they simply never stopped.
Correct, California never did stop. The US Route shield and California State Route shield are close to the same spec as they were in 1964.
The green spade fared well in visibility tests in snow and fog. Said reason was even cited in a 1964 CHPW volume about what the spade changed from white. Apparently yellow also tested very well for visibility.
Quote from: Techknow on November 29, 2022, 05:13:12 PM
Virginia also uses cutout US highway shields but they are not the same as ones in CA nor do they conform to any standard. You can find pictures of some in the Road Sign Uno thread (search US 52/460).
Is Virginia still installing new cutout US Route markers?
Quote from: Techknow on November 29, 2022, 05:13:12 PM
Otherwise there might be another state that uses cutout shields for their state route/highway design?
Maine uses cutouts for their state route shields.
Here is an example (https://goo.gl/maps/cX5NkHa5Wr8SurVR8).
California's cut-out US shield design for sign posts is a bit different than the old cut-out shields formerly used in other states long ago. The treatments on big green signs are pretty unique looking too.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 29, 2022, 09:00:06 PM
California's cut-out US shield design for sign posts is a bit different than the old cut-out shields formerly used in other states long ago. The treatments on big green signs are pretty unique looking too.
Well, yes and no.
A vague timeline is as follows:
- 1926: the first US shields are created as a federal standard. state name/US/number, block font, cutout, 18"
- 1948: the 18" cutout shields are changed to use the modern FHWA Series round fonts but are otherwise the same in layout and content. At the same time, an "oversize" shield is introduced, 24", with just the number, with the shield outline on a white square blank. The guidance in the 1948 MUTCD suggests using the oversize shields at junctions and the cutout shields as reassurance markers.
- 1957: AASHO issues a supplemental document with guidance on Interstate System signage. This is where the cutout shield with US and number but no state name came from. Several states adopt it, including California, but notably also Colorado. California adopts the AASHO shield for all independent-mount contexts, not just the freeway usage it was intended for.
- 1961: the MUTCD eliminates the cutout shield, using the oversize shield in all contexts. Background color changes from white to black. California ignores this and keeps using the AASHO shield.
- 1970: the shield outline is adjusted to make the use of wider series fonts more practical. This is the shield that 49 states use today. Caltrans couldn't care less.
Quote from: thsftw on November 29, 2022, 04:40:11 PM
I know Interstate are cutout in any state they're in.
Wisconsin would like to have a word with you.
Yet Florida in 1994 caved into the feds an eliminated their colored route shields for the current 49.
California is because Caltrans wants to be different. See also: the cutout "one way" signs, the "XX ZONE AHEAD" speed reduction signs, and the fog line flare before interchanges in some places.
A lot of why California does certain signs differently is an artifact of signage standards dating back to the ACSC and CSAA signing highways. The Division of Highways was very resistant to a lot of the standards established in the early Federal MUTCD versions, especially signage with colors.
Quote from: kphoger on November 29, 2022, 06:52:25 PM
Quote from: Techknow on November 29, 2022, 05:13:12 PM
Virginia also uses cutout US highway shields but they are not the same as ones in CA nor do they conform to any standard. You can find pictures of some in the Road Sign Uno thread (search US 52/460).
Is Virginia still installing new cutout US Route markers?
As best I can tell, the most recent one was installed by the city of Hopewell a little less than a decade ago, as a carbon copy of the cutout that was in the same location before.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 29, 2022, 11:32:16 PM
A lot of why California does certain signs differently is an artifact of signage standards dating back to the ACSC and CSAA signing highways. The Division of Highways was very resistant to a lot of the standards established in the early Federal MUTCD versions, especially signage with colors.
This. I also get the impression that a lot of it is from Caltrans having had to invent a lot of their own standards, due to doing a lot of things years before any other state did (this is especially true of freeway signing). Since they were the first to do a lot of things, their way of doing things got adopted as the first pass at a national standard. Then, when the standards change, they don't feel much of a need to catch up with everyone else. And thus, you get the Caltrans Cinematic Universe™.
Quote from: cl94 on November 29, 2022, 11:01:22 PM
California is because Caltrans wants to be different. See also: the cutout "one way" signs, the "XX ZONE AHEAD" speed reduction signs, and the fog line flare before interchanges in some places.
California is in their own universe in other ways to, but that's for a social media debate or on another forum, but they were the last to add exit numbers to interstates. They still won't use conventional mileposts and use black on white posts resetting at each county line with numbers displayed their own way. Then they have their own traffic lights set ups with all mast arms and back plates.
These say that they have their own set ways and I guess you can say that they're stubborn. However one can say that NJ is equally stubborn with their own jug handles and full serve gas.
I will say that California, for as unique as they are in some respects compared to other US states, still has standards that are very identifiably American in every single way. The differences, at the end of the day, are incredibly minor. It's ultimately why I don't think the FHWA will ever come after them (not anymore at least).
California also has a massive base of installed signage using their preferred standards. Even if FHWA did want to drop the hammer on them, it would take decades and a billion dollars to bring them into compliance.
It would also be pretty hard for FHWA to justify dinging Caltrans for their deviations from standard while turning a blind eye to TxDOT's use of Clearview against the terms of the 2011 Clearview circular and ODOT and NMDOT's everything.
I've noticed that SC has a unique way of signing its US routes, with the roads themselves getting the regulation shield with the black background, but on the freeway BGS's, the shields are somewhat similar to CA, with a black outline but no letters above the numbers. Could it be that someone from SCDOT was impressed with Caltrans' work, so they decided to adopt it as their own?
Quote from: Henry on November 30, 2022, 10:34:32 AM
I've noticed that SC has a unique way of signing its US routes, with the roads themselves getting the regulation shield with the black background, but on the freeway BGS's, the shields are somewhat similar to CA, with a black outline but no letters above the numbers. Could it be that someone from SCDOT was impressed with Caltrans' work, so they decided to adopt it as their own?
If I'm not mistaken, that is the MUTCD standard. For example:
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_07.gif)
No, Henry means something like this (photo courtesy of TheStranger, and ganked from another thread):
Quote from: TheStranger on March 13, 2022, 06:17:29 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935853585_b7156c5616_5k.jpg)
Note that the shield has a black outline. It also has a totally different shape and aspect ratio than the federal standard wide US route shield.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 03:19:18 PM
No, Henry means something like this (photo courtesy of TheStranger, and ganked from another thread):
Quote from: TheStranger on March 13, 2022, 06:17:29 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51935853585_b7156c5616_5k.jpg)
Note that the shield has a black outline. It also has a totally different shape and aspect ratio than the federal standard wide US route shield.
Ah. It's not the California stuff I was confused about, but the South Carolina stuff. When I was looking on Google Street View to see what Henry was talking about, I stumbled on one of the few signs that follows the MUTCD standard, or I didn't look closely enough to see that it didn't, and then went on from there.
FYI, this is a random interchange from SC that'll prove my point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9347128,-81.080524,3a,75y,116.86h,84.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snQK7B_6a_h0qjli1iVj2Xg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The similarities in the shields serve as evidence that Caltrans was the inspiration behind them. (But once again, the MUTCD shields are used on the highways themselves.)
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 02:16:23 AM
Then they have their own traffic lights set ups with all mast arms and back plates.
This is not unique to California at all. Arizona has a very similar standard right down to even the curved mast arms. Utah has also been full of curved mast arms and backplates for years though their traditional setup does look a little different. A ridiculous number of states are almost all mast arms with backplates if you include places that use straight mastarms - including almost all of the rest of the West and a lot of the Midwest too.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 04:41:55 AM
California also has a massive base of installed signage using their preferred standards. Even if FHWA did want to drop the hammer on them, it would take decades and a billion dollars to bring them into compliance.
It would also be pretty hard for FHWA to justify dinging Caltrans for their deviations from standard while turning a blind eye to TxDOT's use of Clearview against the terms of the 2011 Clearview circular and ODOT and NMDOT's everything.
Which ODOT? I'm assuming you meant Ohio and not Oregon?
Quote from: Bickendan on December 01, 2022, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 04:41:55 AM
California also has a massive base of installed signage using their preferred standards. Even if FHWA did want to drop the hammer on them, it would take decades and a billion dollars to bring them into compliance.
It would also be pretty hard for FHWA to justify dinging Caltrans for their deviations from standard while turning a blind eye to TxDOT's use of Clearview against the terms of the 2011 Clearview circular and ODOT and NMDOT's everything.
Which ODOT? I'm assuming you meant Ohio and not Oregon?
Probably Oklahoma, where Scott5114 lives.
Quote from: oscar on December 02, 2022, 08:17:52 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 01, 2022, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 04:41:55 AM
California also has a massive base of installed signage using their preferred standards. Even if FHWA did want to drop the hammer on them, it would take decades and a billion dollars to bring them into compliance.
It would also be pretty hard for FHWA to justify dinging Caltrans for their deviations from standard while turning a blind eye to TxDOT's use of Clearview against the terms of the 2011 Clearview circular and ODOT and NMDOT's everything.
Which ODOT? I'm assuming you meant Ohio and not Oregon?
Probably Oklahoma, where Scott5114 lives.
And known along with neighboring New Mexico to produce some of the strangest signs known to man.
I like California's distinctive signage, especially the cutout shields. If the sign is half covered in snow, you can at least tell which kind of shield it is from a distance, before it's close enough read the sign. Or maybe it's just from growing up with it.
Less of a thing nowadays, but it's still fun to see multiple shapes on a post, too. I don't think there's an alignment in California that currently signs a US highway, an Interstate and a state highway simultaneously, but there are plenty of twosies.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 02:16:23 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 29, 2022, 11:01:22 PM
California is because Caltrans wants to be different. See also: the cutout "one way" signs, the "XX ZONE AHEAD" speed reduction signs, and the fog line flare before interchanges in some places.
California is in their own universe in other ways to, but that's for a social media debate or on another forum, but they were the last to add exit numbers to interstates. They still won't use conventional mileposts and use black on white posts resetting at each county line with numbers displayed their own way. Then they have their own traffic lights set ups with all mast arms and back plates.
These say that they have their own set ways and I guess you can say that they're stubborn. However one can say that NJ is equally stubborn with their own jug handles and full serve gas.
Those are so hard to see and the 511 signs don't have mileage information (county postmiles, of course) like call boxes once did.
It does seem like the call boxes should have the mileage posted on them.
Probably way easier to reference a call box number as opposed to expecting the caller to give a Postmile Number.
Quote from: kkt on December 04, 2022, 02:46:39 PM
It does seem like the call boxes should have the mileage posted on them.
They often do, at least in So Cal.
Quote from: US 89 on December 02, 2022, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 02, 2022, 08:17:52 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 01, 2022, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 04:41:55 AM
California also has a massive base of installed signage using their preferred standards. Even if FHWA did want to drop the hammer on them, it would take decades and a billion dollars to bring them into compliance.
It would also be pretty hard for FHWA to justify dinging Caltrans for their deviations from standard while turning a blind eye to TxDOT's use of Clearview against the terms of the 2011 Clearview circular and ODOT and NMDOT's everything.
Which ODOT? I'm assuming you meant Ohio and not Oregon?
Probably Oklahoma, where Scott5114 lives.
And known along with neighboring New Mexico to produce some of the strangest signs known to man.
Ohio isn't that much better. They've gone from land of the dancing arrows to land of hostile compliance with the MUTCD. All four are worse than California IMO. The only gripe I have against Caltrans is squeezing shields into weird places to make signs smaller.
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2022, 09:01:07 PM
Ohio isn't that much better.
do you actually want to have this discussion
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 03, 2022, 06:11:13 PM
Less of a thing nowadays, but it's still fun to see multiple shapes on a post, too. I don't think there's an alignment in California that currently signs a US highway, an Interstate and a state highway simultaneously, but there are plenty of twosies.
Not concurrencies per se, but the BGS examples of 3 route types on one sign in this state:
50/99/(formerly Business 80) in downtown Sacramento
101 TO 5/10/60 along the Santa Ana Freeway in downtown Los Angeles (a signage change that occurred in the last few years)
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2022, 09:01:07 PM
The only gripe I have against Caltrans is squeezing shields into weird places to make signs smaller.
Lack of permissive lefts is a big issue for me.
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2022, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 02, 2022, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 02, 2022, 08:17:52 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 01, 2022, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2022, 04:41:55 AM
California also has a massive base of installed signage using their preferred standards. Even if FHWA did want to drop the hammer on them, it would take decades and a billion dollars to bring them into compliance.
It would also be pretty hard for FHWA to justify dinging Caltrans for their deviations from standard while turning a blind eye to TxDOT's use of Clearview against the terms of the 2011 Clearview circular and ODOT and NMDOT's everything.
Which ODOT? I'm assuming you meant Ohio and not Oregon?
Probably Oklahoma, where Scott5114 lives.
And known along with neighboring New Mexico to produce some of the strangest signs known to man.
Ohio isn't that much better. They've gone from land of the dancing arrows to land of hostile compliance with the MUTCD. All four are worse than California IMO. The only gripe I have against Caltrans is squeezing shields into weird places to make signs smaller.
Caltrans isn't the only one putting shields into strange places either. NYCDOT (as opposed to NYSDOT) and MDOT (the one in MI) do it too, although for the latter, if two freeways meet at an interchange, then the regular signage is used instead.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 05, 2022, 05:27:28 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 03, 2022, 06:11:13 PM
Less of a thing nowadays, but it's still fun to see multiple shapes on a post, too. I don't think there's an alignment in California that currently signs a US highway, an Interstate and a state highway simultaneously, but there are plenty of twosies.
Not concurrencies per se, but the BGS examples of 3 route types on one sign in this state:
50/99/(formerly Business 80) in downtown Sacramento
101 TO 5/10/60 along the Santa Ana Freeway in downtown Los Angeles (a signage change that occurred in the last few years)
Right, but there's no reassurance shields for these; they're just on BGSes, as you say.
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2022, 09:08:01 AM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2022, 09:01:07 PM
The only gripe I have against Caltrans is squeezing shields into weird places to make signs smaller.
Lack of permissive lefts is a big issue for me.
Living in a country now where permissive signals are pretty much the only type used, I would concur. I cannot imagine waiting for a green arrow just to make a simple turn across traffic.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2022, 12:50:36 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 05, 2022, 09:08:01 AM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2022, 09:01:07 PM
The only gripe I have against Caltrans is squeezing shields into weird places to make signs smaller.
Lack of permissive lefts is a big issue for me.
Living in a country now where permissive signals are pretty much the only type used, I would concur. I cannot imagine waiting for a green arrow just to make a simple turn across traffic.
I third this, close to my residence there's a green left arrow with a sign that says no turn on red light, so yeah no permissive signal. This is also one of those left turn lanes that are short so it's possible there are too many cars on the adjacent lane for me to be able to get in the lane to turn left.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 05, 2022, 09:08:58 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 05, 2022, 05:27:28 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 03, 2022, 06:11:13 PM
Less of a thing nowadays, but it's still fun to see multiple shapes on a post, too. I don't think there's an alignment in California that currently signs a US highway, an Interstate and a state highway simultaneously, but there are plenty of twosies.
Not concurrencies per se, but the BGS examples of 3 route types on one sign in this state:
50/99/(formerly Business 80) in downtown Sacramento
101 TO 5/10/60 along the Santa Ana Freeway in downtown Los Angeles (a signage change that occurred in the last few years)
Right, but there's no reassurance shields for these; they're just on BGSes, as you say.
50/99/Business 80 trio signposts did exist along W and X Streets in Sacramento for a while, though not on the WX Freeway itself as far as I can remember - I feel like in the time I lived in Sacramento, there weren't any trailblazer shields along the WX at all (but some on the West Sacramento portion of what was Business 80 and is now just solely US 50).
I-5 and I-10 at the East Los Angeles Interchange might be the other example of a concurrency whose entire signage was relegated to BGSes with no trailblazer usage, but that would not be easy to prove unless there were 1960s-1970s Caltrans photos of that southernmost part of the Golden State Freeway. (This can be contrasted with the Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley, which has always had a concurrency of some sort: US 40/Route 17, US 40/Route 17/I-80, Route 17/I-80, and now I-580/I-80 - the latter of which is DEFINITELY signed with trailblazers)
When was the last three-route-type concurrency with reassurance shields in CA - the old 15/18/91/395 setup near Colton (now 215)?
There is an occasional I-80BL shield to still be found on the WX:
https://flic.kr/p/2jVgzm5
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2022, 11:08:13 AM
There is an occasional I-80BL shield to still be found on the WX:
https://flic.kr/p/2jVgzm5
That's on the West Sacramento segment actually if I'm recognizing the spot correctly (so at Jefferson Boulevard and the former US 40/99E alignment towards the baseball park and Tower Bridge).
the WX segment is just simply the portion that carries 99, if I am not mistaken
Quote from: TheStranger on December 07, 2022, 05:48:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2022, 11:08:13 AM
There is an occasional I-80BL shield to still be found on the WX:
https://flic.kr/p/2jVgzm5
That's on the West Sacramento segment actually if I'm recognizing the spot correctly (so at Jefferson Boulevard and the former US 40/99E alignment towards the baseball park and Tower Bridge).
the WX segment is just simply the portion that carries 99, if I am not mistaken
You're right, I looked at the album that photo was from and it is further west.