Is it because it's simply cheaper and easier to manufacture a sign that is basically square in shape, or was it because AASHTO (or whoever publishes the MUTCD) only wanted Interstate shields to be cutout?
It's kind of a shame, really... I think cutout shields look much better, and luckily California still uses them.
Quote from: Quillz on August 30, 2010, 10:30:44 PM
Is it because it's simply cheaper and easier to manufacture a sign that is basically square in shape, or was it because AASHTO (or whoever publishes the MUTCD) only wanted Interstate shields to be cutout?
It's kind of a shame, really... I think cutout shields look much better, and luckily California still uses them.
cheaper, and more versatile. a 24" square with rounded corners can be a shield once and a DO NOT ENTER sign the next time around. A cutout shield is just a cutout shield.
check out this US-56 24" sign that has two sets of mounting holes - it can be made a square or a diamond as needed.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/KS/KS19680561i1.jpg)
cutouts are cool as hell, though!
I know they are. I hate driving on the 101 from CA to OR and seeing the ugly shield against a black background. It's just so... generic looking.
Yeah, I love cut-outs. California is the only state that still uses 100% cut-outs from my knowledge.
There are few out there in other states.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OR/OR19550971i1.jpg)
I'm not sure if this one still exists, but I love this. The font is more modern, but the style is something you'd see from the '40s.
Quote from: Quillz on August 30, 2010, 10:30:44 PM
Is it because it's simply cheaper and easier to manufacture a sign that is basically square in shape, or was it because AASHTO (or whoever publishes the MUTCD) only wanted Interstate shields to be cutout?
My guess is the squares are easier to read at faster speeds.
the simpler non-state-named cutouts are just as easy to read as the black squares.
the Oregon US 97 and eagle 39 are gone as of April, 2007. that was the last known Oregon US cutout. they were 1960s or early 70s signs - the slightly larger 18" version, not the older 16".
Is California the only state left using cutout state route markers? I've looked at the shield gallery here and it seems all the other states have moved to the generic and boring "shape on black square" look.
Quote from: Quillz on August 30, 2010, 11:26:53 PM
Is California the only state left using cutout state route markers? I've looked at the shield gallery here and it seems all the other states have moved to the generic and boring "shape on black square" look.
correct. not just the generic black square, but a lot of states have moved to the bloated 1970 spec black square.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NM/NM19790106i1.jpg)
compare the 70 and the 80. the 80 is the classic shield shape; I see nothing objectionable about it being used on the black square, but the more modern 70 is horrid.
Yeah, the 1970 spec doesn't look very good.
It's a shame... There was a time when almost every state had its own unique state route shield in a cutout design... Now it's all gone. Standards are nice, but so is unique identity.
I think Oklahoma might be unique in that each shield design used has been an improvement. (Yes, even the white square. Better than having your shield confused for a warning sign!)
California's got better over the years, too, I think. They went from an all-white shield to the now familiar green one. Although I do wish the '64 revision brought back the bear.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 01:25:32 AM
I think Oklahoma might be unique in that each shield design used has been an improvement. (Yes, even the white square. Better than having your shield confused for a warning sign!)
nope, that "state road" variety is boring as hell. "The OK State Highway" adds a lot of character. but yes, the cleaver beats the circle, which beats the square.
I wonder if the large square STATE ROAD design went with the white squares at junctions, while the smaller OK State Highway diamonds kept being used with the 16" OKLAHOMA/US cutout reassurance markers.
According to an OTA standard I have, it said "OKLAHOMA/#/STATE", not "STATE ROAD".
Has anyone ever contacted the FHWA to find out?
Quote from: US71 on August 31, 2010, 05:51:28 AM
Has anyone ever contacted the FHWA to find out?
I'm sure it would simply elicit one of the obvious answers posted here.
Another part of it might have to do with the way square markers were introduced. Prior to 1948, all of the cutout markers were 16x16. When the first 24x24 U.S. shield was introduced in the 1948 MUTCD, it was on a white square. It is possible that this is so because of possible problems at the time with fabricating larger markers, or simply a desire not to force the states to buy new collar dies* or upgrade their equipment to handle larger cutouts. From there, it's easy to see the black being added in 1961 for visibility reasons.
*I am not actually clear on what a collar die is, exactly, but have gleaned from Jake it is very expensive and a necessary part of the start-up set when manufacturing a new type of sign.
A collar die holds the metal blank in place while it is stamped by the hammer and anvil dies.
The 24" x 24" marker was introduced specifically for conspicuity, so I suspect it was designed for use with Scotchlite retroreflective sheeting. The square shape allowed fabrication from blank sheet steel without waste and coverage of the entire panel with Scotchlite sheeting maximized target value at night. From that point on the use of a full black silkscreened background would have resulted in a cleaner, less busy design and better recognition of the route type at night.
Since the 1948 MUTCD, and other MUTCD editions up to at least the 1961 edition, allowed reversal of black and white on guide signs, an interesting question is how many states decided to go with the square 24" x 24" design, but in white against a black background, with button reflectors for the white foreground elements. I know Caltrans tried something like this in the late 1950's.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 05:51:02 AM
According to an OTA standard I have, it said "OKLAHOMA/#/STATE", not "STATE ROAD".
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19540663i1.jpg)
you were closer. it is OKLA/#/STATE. the fact that none of us can remember it should indicate something about its memorability.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 11:17:40 AM
you were closer. it is OKLA/#/STATE. the fact that none of us can remember it should indicate something about its memorability.
Not just its memorability, but its readability!
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 06:30:35 AM
Another part of it might have to do with the way square markers were introduced. Prior to 1948, all of the cutout markers were 16x16.
not quite. there have always been oversize markers, but on an ad hoc basis. Here is a 39x37 sign from California with a 1938 date.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19380991i1.jpg)
I believe Michigan was the first state to really formally start using oversize (24") markers at intersections, sometime around 1940. they did make a 24" MICHIGAN/US collar die. Oregon had 36" shields on their expressways as early as 1942. They were wood and had glass cateyes.
QuoteWhen the first 24x24 U.S. shield was introduced in the 1948 MUTCD, it was on a white square. It is possible that this is so because of possible problems at the time with fabricating larger markers, or simply a desire not to force the states to buy new collar dies* or upgrade their equipment to handle larger cutouts. From there, it's easy to see the black being added in 1961 for visibility reasons.
the collar die expense does explain why states no longer used
embossed shields - but the flat cutout was still in the 1961 MUTCD. It was only the 1970 that stated that all shields must be at least 24" in size... and standardized on one design, likely just for simplicity's sake. Why have two styles of shield to worry about?
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 31, 2010, 07:54:55 AM
A collar die holds the metal blank in place while it is stamped by the hammer and anvil dies.
close. there are only two dies - the hammer and anvil. When I say "collar die" I actually refer to a die pair - it is particular notches set in the anvil die that hold the blank in place, while the hammer comes down. Into blank spaces on the hammer and anvil one may place individual characters and symbols to form a complete legend.
for example, the US route marker collar die features just the outline and crossbar. Then there are two blank areas - a small one for a state name, and a large one for US and a number.
QuoteThe 24" x 24" marker was introduced specifically for conspicuity, so I suspect it was designed for use with Scotchlite retroreflective sheeting.
that is correct. though the first generation of Scotchlite, developed in 1938, was specifically made to be able to be applied to embossed surfaces. the heat and vacuum adhesive treatment allowed the material to expand where needed to cover the legend. In fact, old signs could be retrofitted with it.
Scotchlite didn't become popular in all applications until the mid-50s or so: a lot of states used glass-bead paint instead, and some went with distinct cateye or Stimsonite reflectors.
QuoteSince the 1948 MUTCD, and other MUTCD editions up to at least the 1961 edition, allowed reversal of black and white on guide signs, an interesting question is how many states decided to go with the square 24" x 24" design, but in white against a black background, with button reflectors for the white foreground elements. I know Caltrans tried something like this in the late 1950's.
hmm, I think here you are conflating individual 24x24 shields, with shields that appear on larger guide signs. I have never seen a black and white 24" 1948-spec outline shield, but I do have that green and white US-56 Kansas, and Rhode Island used red and white, and blue and white, all of the same basic pattern. Florida is the one who introduced the colored background solid shield with a white number, sometime before 1956. I actually have a photo from 1952 with what appears to be a light-colored US-90 and a darker US-27! By 1956 the color scheme was finalized.
as for shields on guide signs - bear in mind that the 1927 signing manual did make note of this style of guide sign:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19270501i1.jpg)
Michigan did, at least once, invert the colors. And where the hell is that picture?? California by 1931 was using large black guide signs, but while their text was white legend, the shields themselves remained white background with black legend.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19501271i1.jpg)
only in 1955 did California start using white outline shields on a black background. The 1957 AASHO interstate manual which first specified green guide signs to be used on the interstates also adopted white outline shields, simply as an extension of the 1948 specification in use at the time - a contrasting foreground color to go on a default background, which happened to be changing from white to green. That, I think, was the first real mention of a dark-colored background, though I will have to look in the 1948 MUTCD again as I have seen quite a few states use outline shields on black guide signs as early as 1951.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NE/NE19510061i1.jpg)
hastily colorized by Michael Summa, that is a 1951 photo.
but as for an independent mount shield that is black background, white shield outline, and white number? Nope, never seen that.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 11:35:01 AMbut as for an independent mount shield that is black background, white shield outline, and white number? Nope, never seen that.
But in the 1950's Caltrans did have white-on-black button-reflectorized rectangular tab signs which had white borders on only three sides. I think these were intended to be affixed to other sign panels which had just a route marker (in outline, probably), or possibly a route marker superimposed over an arrow. Unlike modern tab signs, which are all-uppercase, these were mixed-case.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 31, 2010, 12:35:16 PM
But in the 1950's Caltrans did have white-on-black button-reflectorized rectangular tab signs which had white borders on only three sides. I think these were intended to be affixed to other sign panels which had just a route marker (in outline, probably), or possibly a route marker superimposed over an arrow. Unlike modern tab signs, which are all-uppercase, these were mixed-case.
I do wonder about those. Especially the ones with a cardinal direction. I don't recall seeing in that giant heap of specifications any sign that was just a shield on a black background. at the very least, it had an arrow through it each time.
and yes, CA liked its mixed-case banners from around 1950 to 1958. the "great modernization" of mid'58 that gave us 3:4 letter heights, rounded-corner white rectangle borders on guide signs, the new shield shapes, etc ... also gave us all-uppercase banners.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 05:51:02 AM
According to an OTA standard I have, it said "OKLAHOMA/#/STATE", not "STATE ROAD".
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19540663i1.jpg)
you were closer. it is OKLA/#/STATE. the fact that none of us can remember it should indicate something about its memorability.
ftp://ftp.pikepass.com/Original%20Construction%20Drawings/HE%20Bailey/cont271/SH009.tif
Have some specs. These say "OKLAHOMA" is spelled out.
(Incidentally that has to be the most infuriating way to store construction drawings. Just put all of them in folders corresponding to the contract number! That way people looking for something specific like signs will certainly know they need to click the "271" folder and not just guess randomly at where it is. I swear, they have like 25 contracts just for guardrails in here...)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 11:17:40 AM
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19540663i1.jpg)
you were closer. it is OKLA/#/STATE. the fact that none of us can remember it should indicate something about its memorability.
Either that or we're not old enough to remember ;)
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 02:38:15 PM
Have some specs. These say "OKLAHOMA" is spelled out.
can you please email me that? my browser is having a hell of a time with the FTP protocol.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:21:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 02:38:15 PM
Have some specs. These say "OKLAHOMA" is spelled out.
can you please email me that? my browser is having a hell of a time with the FTP protocol.
Try this: ||ftp://ftp.pikepass.com/Original%20Construction%20Drawings/HE%20Bailey/cont271/SH009.tif||
I managed to bring that up. Very interesting! 1961 US shields photocopied directly out of the AASHO manual. as for the state route: that one has a border, so it's gotta be different than the older style. I believe that is to be an independent-mount sign, as opposed to one on a green sign, mainly because OK was using button copy at the time (see, again, those 1961 US shields) and there would be no point in the outer margin and inner border, as well as the words OKLAHOMA STATE, on a button copy shield.
do you have any idea what year that spec is from?
I read and article for the mid 1960's about the upgrading of Texas route marker assemblies. It stated that the black background on the US and Farm Road signs would improve their visibility, making them stand out better against whatever was behind them. This upgrade also took the arrows out of the trailblazers and placed them on seperate plaques that you see today. This was in my opinion the more important factor to improving legibility.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 05:38:37 PMdo you have any idea what year that spec is from?
Go to SH001.tif (same FTP directory). The plans approval date is 1963-04-26. Also, take a look at what the road is called and whose name is in the consultant's signature block . . .
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 01, 2010, 03:51:08 PM
Go to SH001.tif (same FTP directory). The plans approval date is 1963-04-26.
great! so we've narrowed down the switch from squares to circles to have taken place between 1963 and 1970. (though on that page 1 diagram, the state routes are drawn with ... circles.
QuoteAlso, take a look at what the road is called and whose name is in the consultant's signature block . . .
unfortunately, that is meaningless to me. I am not an Oklahomageek so I would not be able to discern the date from that info.
but I do wonder if the US-277 sign (1961 spec, Series A numbers) that ScottN photographed the other day dates back to this project!
I think he was referring to the fact that it's called "Southwestern Turnpike" in there. And signed off on by some guy named H.E. Bailey.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 01, 2010, 04:32:13 PM
I think he was referring to the fact that it's called "Southwestern Turnpike" in there. And signed off on by some guy named H.E. Bailey.
that means very little to me. I have a vague recollection that there is (was?) a Bailey Turnpike in Oklahoma, and I can even infer from the fact that it's a point of discussion that said turnpike is indeed the 62-277... but from there I would not be able to divine that the plans for it were from 1963.
You're not supposed to infer anything from it but "Haha. That's hilarious, that some guy would sign off on a turnpike plan, and that turnpike would later be named after him! Oklahoma politics sure are weird!"
Okay, so the square was still in use on 1963-04-26, this is certain. The 1962 official state map uses diamonds as the route marker, while the 1963 is the first to use circles for that purpose. (This could be of no consequence. Most states don't actually change the map markers when the actual marker changes; ODOT is still using circles on the current maps.) The 1966 official state map, however, shows the title "Oklahoma" surrounded by an Interstate shield, U.S. route shield, and circle, which wouldn't make much sense unless circles were actually being posted. So I'd say this narrows things down to between April 1963 and 1966.
Another thing I miss about the cut-out shields is that they had the state name and U S along with the number. Those are more impressive. :coffee:
Quote from: Tom on September 20, 2010, 04:58:32 PM
Another thing I miss about the cut-out shields is that they had the state name and U S along with the number. Those are more impressive. :coffee:
signs have to be dumbed down or else people won't understand them. same with the bloated shield shapes - if you don't get the number as huge as possible, distorting the frame, then you're doing something wrong.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 02:38:15 PM
(Incidentally that has to be the most infuriating way to store construction drawings. Just put all of them in folders corresponding to the contract number! That way people looking for something specific like signs will certainly know they need to click the "271" folder and not just guess randomly at where it is. I swear, they have like 25 contracts just for guardrails in here...)
There's a government agency I know of with a file structure like that, although at the very least the project numbers have descriptive names. Once you get inside the project folder, though, it's up to whoever used it, so a lot of times you have to wade through random numbered and lettered folders to get to your prize.
Quote from: US71 on August 31, 2010, 05:51:28 AM
Has anyone ever contacted the FHWA to find out?
Well, actually, I did. Although my question was not "why" the cut-out shield was abandoned but rather if the MUTCD would consider amending their guidelines to establish the California style as standard. I cited the appealing appearance and, most of all, the fact that the characters "US" were missing from the current MUTCD design. I stated that the characters "INTERSTATE" are included in Interstate Highway shields, so, shouldn't "US" be included in U.S. Highway shields?
Their response was some riggamarole about me having to supply them with "data" to support my contention. If I had no data then they would not even consider the suggestion. I thought this was rather stupid since how much "data" to you have to have to prove that the letters "US" are missing from the current shields?
I waited a few years and wrote again. They still had my original correspondence on file and stated emphatically that
NOTHING had changed. That last time was back in 2012, I think. So, I decided that I wouldn't make a nuisance out of myself and keep pestering them.
It might be neat, though, if someone else on this forum would take the initiative to write and see what they say. You never know. "The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the grease".
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
There's nothing stopping any state from adopting California's standard and using cutouts.
However, I'd think that cost would be a prohibitive factor, especially since taxpayers are demanding more and more fiscal responsibility from governments. You're going to have the same cost for materials vs. a square marker, plus the labor in trimming the excess from the cutout and then you have to deal with the wasted material. Even recycling it would incur a cost.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
There's nothing stopping any state from adopting California's standard and using cutouts.
<snip>
This is true. It is my understanding that the MUTCD guidelines are just that, "guidelines" that are not necessarily enforced. However, if those guidelines were ever to be changed, I think that would encourage a lot of states to take a look at it. As far as I'm concerned, they wouldn't necessarily have to adopt the California design but I would like to see a new U.S. Highway shield. Simply adding the four characters "U.S." would be nice. A few years ago I saw a picture online where Rhode Island was actually doing that. I don't know if I could find it again or not. In any event, they took it upon themselves to do that and that's fine. However, I don't think that an adoption by MUTCD would be a bad idea.
Here is a link to a page that shows the MUTCD guideline for U.S. Numbered Highway markers (scroll down three frames).
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Guide.pdf
I assume that most of the folks on this list have already seen this.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
The California US shields are definitely the nicest, but the regular one wouldn't be quite as bad if it had "US" in the crown.
I almost feel like the current regular US shields are more like BGS plates as opposed to standalone shields, despite the fact that the actual BGS plates are indeed cutouts (in most states)! How can the BGS plate be more odd-shaped and better-looking than the standalone version? It's the only shield I know of where thats the case. Usually the standalone version is more intricate and the BGS version is simplified.
On another note, I love that California and a few other states outline the BGS versions in black, I like the cutouts either way, but it really looks like a cutout shield when you add in the black border. The only complaint I have about California is that I wish the BGS version of 3DUS shields was actually the correct shape, but I also appreciate that they kept the shape from the button copy days and it has a throwback character in itself.
I had a feeling it was so should they make too many signs, they could easily be rebranded as State Highway shields or other similarly shaped signs
Oklahoma has used cut-out style signs in the past for some Bannered Routes.
Quote from: fredmcain on May 23, 2018, 08:45:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
There's nothing stopping any state from adopting California's standard and using cutouts.
<snip>
This is true. It is my understanding that the MUTCD guidelines are just that, "guidelines" that are not necessarily enforced. However, if those guidelines were ever to be changed, I think that would encourage a lot of states to take a look at it. As far as I'm concerned, they wouldn't necessarily have to adopt the California design but I would like to see a new U.S. Highway shield. Simply adding the four characters "U.S." would be nice. A few years ago I saw a picture online where Rhode Island was actually doing that. I don't know if I could find it again or not. In any event, they took it upon themselves to do that and that's fine. However, I don't think that an adoption by MUTCD would be a bad idea.
Here is a link to a page that shows the MUTCD guideline for U.S. Numbered Highway markers (scroll down three frames).
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Guide.pdf
I assume that most of the folks on this list have already seen this.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Well FL had to give up the colored route shields for fear of the feds not reimbursing them for the replacement costs when they fail or need replacement. So I imagine then Caltrans is funding their shields solo, or the fact that the black on white can last longer than those FL colored shields did as that also was an issue. Colored shields in the Sunshine State used to have a short life as the sun would bleach them so bad (especially the yellow ones for US 17, 231, 301, and 319).
However, does not Virginia still have some around in the independent cities? If I am not mistaken VDOT won't maintain highways that are not freeway in the cities except for Arlington of course only because Arlington is not an independent city due to it being an unincorporated county run by a county level government. Therefore the cities do not follow higher up guidelines and keep the tradition of before.
Quote from: fredmcain on May 23, 2018, 08:45:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
There's nothing stopping any state from adopting California's standard and using cutouts.
<snip>
This is true. It is my understanding that the MUTCD guidelines are just that, "guidelines" that are not necessarily enforced. However, if those guidelines were ever to be changed, I think that would encourage a lot of states to take a look at it. As far as I'm concerned, they wouldn't necessarily have to adopt the California design but I would like to see a new U.S. Highway shield. Simply adding the four characters "U.S." would be nice. A few years ago I saw a picture online where Rhode Island was actually doing that. I don't know if I could find it again or not. In any event, they took it upon themselves to do that and that's fine. However, I don't think that an adoption by MUTCD would be a bad idea.
Here is a link to a page that shows the MUTCD guideline for U.S. Numbered Highway markers (scroll down three frames).
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Guide.pdf
I assume that most of the folks on this list have already seen this.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Yet, Arkansas mostly uses the older style square US shields.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2018, 06:00:16 PM
However, does not Virginia still have some around in the independent cities? If I am not mistaken VDOT won't maintain highways that are not freeway in the cities except for Arlington of course only because Arlington is not an independent city due to it being an unincorporated county run by a county level government. Therefore the cities do not follow higher up guidelines and keep the tradition of before.
VDOT does not maintain the roads in Arlington or Henrico Counties other than interstates. VDOT sends each county a check every year and they maintain their own roads.
Cutouts in Virginia are just about gone. I can report that as of April this year, Covington and Clifton Forge are still full of them.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2018, 06:00:16 PM
Colored shields in the Sunshine State used to have a short life as the sun would bleach them so bad (especially the yellow ones for US 17, 231, 301, and 319).
A problem Minnesota still struggles with for its state highway markers. Although it's supposed to be "gold" and not yellow, they still struggle with finding an ink that doesn't fade terribly.
Quote from: US71 on June 14, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
Yet, Arkansas mostly uses the older style square US shields.
I assume you're talking about the shape of the shield on the US Route marker? Minnesota used the original 1961 design for the longest time, too. I have a US-59 shield made in 1990 that still used the tighter curves on the sides, while I also have a US-10 shield from 1999 that uses the more modern, broad style. Compare here. (https://i.imgur.com/4lSbzEA.jpg) I'm not sure exactly when the shape officially was changed, but Minnesota was definitely a holdout for quite a while. Not precisely certain when they switched it up, either.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 14, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2018, 06:00:16 PM
However, does not Virginia still have some around in the independent cities? If I am not mistaken VDOT won't maintain highways that are not freeway in the cities except for Arlington of course only because Arlington is not an independent city due to it being an unincorporated county run by a county level government. Therefore the cities do not follow higher up guidelines and keep the tradition of before.
Cutouts in Virginia are just about gone. I can report that as of April this year, Covington and Clifton Forge are still full of them.
Falls Church still has some cutouts. However, none of them are new. Some of them have been replaced with regular route markers. Others have been completely removed, like a beautiful cutout assembly replaced with a stupid "Arts in the Little City" banner.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 14, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
VDOT does not maintain the roads in Arlington or Henrico Counties other than interstates. VDOT sends each county a check every year and they maintain their own roads.
Cutouts in Virginia are just about gone. I can report that as of April this year, Covington and Clifton Forge are still full of them.
Rather substantial intergovernmental transfers from the state to the municipalities for road maintenance.
Are you referring to US shield cutouts being rare? There are Interstate shield cutouts on Thompson Street in Richmond for I-95 and I-195 and I-64, near my church.
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2018, 06:44:23 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 14, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
VDOT does not maintain the roads in Arlington or Henrico Counties other than interstates. VDOT sends each county a check every year and they maintain their own roads.
Cutouts in Virginia are just about gone. I can report that as of April this year, Covington and Clifton Forge are still full of them.
Rather substantial intergovernmental transfers from the state to the municipalities for road maintenance.
Are you referring to US shield cutouts being rare? There are Interstate shield cutouts on Thompson Street in Richmond for I-95 and I-195 and I-64, near my church.
Yes...referring to non-interstate cutouts. Interstate cutouts are widespread in Virginia except for District 4 although I believe the unisigns are going away slowly there. Conversely, unisigns are on the rise in District 8 for all types of routes.
I think the only non-interstate cutouts left in Richmond are the set on Main at VA 161 (the 147 has been missing from the assembly for awhile though). Most of the other ones have been replaced within he past couple years.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 14, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
VDOT does not maintain the roads in Arlington or Henrico Counties other than interstates. VDOT sends each county a check every year and they maintain their own roads.
That's not quite correct, at least in Arlington County.
VDOT
does maintain everything in Arlington that carries a Virginia primary system route number, such as VA-27 (Washington Boulevard), VA-110 (Jefferson Davis Highway), VA-120 (Glebe Road), VA-123 (Chain Bridge Road), VA-124 (one long block of Spout Run Parkway), VA-237 (Washington Boulevard west of VA-120), U.S. 1 (also Jefferson Davis Highway), U.S. 29 (mostly Lee Highway), U.S. 50 (Arlington Boulevard) and a few others that I am drawing a blank on right now.
But unlike most other Virginia counties, Arlington County also operates and maintains its own ITS (including traffic cameras not on Interstates) and signal infrastructure (there were once a lot of 12-8-8 signal heads there, now most or maybe all of them are gone).