AARoads Forum

When did state names start disappearing from Interstate Shields? Was there a law / code change that allowed this?

Some states like Michigan and Ohio have not had state names for years, and states like Illinois and Texas have only recently started taking names off, and states like Kentucky and Arkansas still put the state names on the shields.

I think the 1961 spec first introduced alternate neutered shields, which more or less became the only spec by 1970.

I think Virginia dropped it in the 1980s. I know of 4 state name shields from the 1981 segment of I-95; most of the rest were replaced last year. Shields from the mid-late 80s that are still around are all neutered. There are older state name shields remaining for other interstates, too.

That said, you still see a new state name shield pop up every now and then:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F227514_2097160709852_1270395589_2602485_4813502_n.jpg&hash=cf5b8efe97b242dfa7ca95bbc9fbb8ae3ab10669)

Quote from: Quillz on March 25, 2012, 02:40:55 AM
I think the 1961 spec first introduced alternate neutered shields, which more or less became the only spec by 1970.

Wrong. Both specs still coexist. Some states like Maine or Mississippi always post the state name (that after years of not posting it, in MS's case). New Jersey does more than 50% of the time. Other states never do it (Ohio barely avoided having none in the entire state by making a few new ones recently before the last old ones were destroyed or collected).

As Steve mentioned, the most recent SHS book still contains two Interstate shield specifications, one with the state name and one without. DOTs are free to use whichever they please, and some DOTs even override the official specs with their own, which may or may not contain the state name. So the answer to your question varies from state to state. Oklahoma still specifies its own Interstate spec complete with the state name, so the vast majority of Interstate shields in Oklahoma contain the state name; the only time they don't is when a contractor blithely posts shields using the same specs they use everywhere else.

Missouri has had a lot of neutered ones popping up in the last couple of years around St. Louis; previously Missouri had the state name on them 99% of the time.

Florida installed two of em on FL 406 in Titusville, FL for I-95 and west of there at the FL 406 interchange with the interstate proper.  I believe there is a pair of state I-95 shields on FL 50 approaching I-95 from the west, but cannot be sure.

Fiske Road (SR 519) has a bunch of them, which is rare in Florida. Just saw a non-neutered shield along A1A yesterday, darned if I could recall the exact intersection (SR 802, I think).

Funny how the inverse is neighboring Georgia, where neutered Interstate shields are rare.

Overhead signs rarely have them nowadays, they have the massive number filling the lower part of the shield.

The state names are more common on the roadside "trailblazer" sign assemblies that are on Interstate mainline roadsides.

Funny thing is New Jersey ditched the state names in the 80s for I-78, but then later on brought them back.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 25, 2012, 10:17:59 AM
As Steve mentioned, the most recent SHS book still contains two Interstate shield specifications, one with the state name and one without.

Where are you finding two IH shield spec's?  At least as far as I've found, the 2004/2012 Supplement http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Guide.pdf (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Guide.pdf) has one style, sans state names (M1-1, Page 3-1, 2004 SHSM).

FWIW, Wisconsin uses their own spec (although I wouldn't be surprised if contracted commercial shops occasionally use the SHSM spec's instead--wouldn't be the first time).  The route marker assembly is on its 7^th revision according to the WisDOT state sign plate manual.  WisDOT's numerals are 2-3 inches larger, do not include the state name, and plates are not dimensioned above a 36-in shield height.  I have not regularly seen the state name on IH shields in Wisconsin for close to 20 years.

Colorado went away from them for a while, but now all Interstate Shields popping up have the name back in it:

Of course, the neutered shield still shows up here and there. From what I can tell, it's subcontractor installations that don't have the state name.

State-named interstate shields are almost completely gone from Oregon.  The only remaining posted in the field is this I-5 gem:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FOregonnamedI-5shield-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1332798414&hash=67c7959e3ead417d346cffb366449f37473446e4)

Unless you count this one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FInterstate%2520Routes%2FOregonnamedI-84shield-1.jpg%3Ft%3D1332798513&hash=393ae15641c41b7a9036bf7f63eceadb67e23221)

neutered shields were always part of the specification - for overhead-sign use. 

1957 spec:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19570901i1.jpg)

the 1957 and 1961 specifications clearly stated that the state name was to be used on the surface examples, and the neutered on guide signs.  Idaho was likely the first state to drop the state name, adopting the guide-sign style for all applications in the mid-1960s.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ID/ID19830901i1.jpg)

the 1970 AASHO interstate manual (whose designs were copied in the 1971 MUTCD) had the new designs, introduced by Pennsylvania around 1965, with the thinner margins and larger numbers.  this manual - if I recall correctly - made the state name optional on surface-level signs.  several states dropped based on their adoption of this manual, making 1970-spec state named shields a near-impossibility to find: Colorado comes to mind (until they brought it back in the early 2000s), as does New Hampshire. 

some states dropped the state name upon adopting the 1970 MUTCD in full, like Oregon in 1974, when they got rid of all state-named shields (interstate, US, state).  That said, the occasional 1970-spec state named Oregon was indeed made.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OR/OR19790051i1.jpg)

the 1978 MUTCD dropped the state name.  a lot of states complied, like Tennessee fairly quickly, Utah and Virginia not too much later, and Louisiana, Rhode Island, and others dropping the state name around the early 90s.  (Idaho randomly brought the state name back for a few years in the 80s before dropping it again.)

the 2002 MUTCD made the state name optional again, and certain states adopted it again - Colorado comes to mind as the best example, and now Mississippi and Texas as well. 

I am from Connecticut, and I travelled cross country by car about 6 months ago and at that time, started noticing the state name on the Interstate shields. Since then, everytime I am on the highway, I look at every reassurance shield to see if it is on there or not.

I believe it is up to the Department of Transportation in each state to decide their signs. Example, Interstate 84, in Connecticut all of the shields say Connecticut, but if you travel on I-84 through Massachusetts or New York, those states don't have the names on the signs.

My opinion, I don't like the state name on the sign. It is an U.S. Interstate, not a state road. The state shouldn't put their name on the sign. All the signs throughout the country should be consistent and look the same.

Quote from: highwayroads on April 01, 2012, 08:05:42 PM
It is an U.S. Interstate, not a state road. The state shouldn't put their name on the sign. All the signs throughout the country should be consistent and look the same.

There are not enough words in the dictionary to begin to describe how wrong these statements are.

It's worth noting that, in the photos r-dub posted, the I-225 shields are bubble shields.

I had noticed that as well.

Quote from: hbelkins on April 01, 2012, 09:22:23 PM

Quote from: highwayroads on April 01, 2012, 08:05:42 PM
It is an U.S. Interstate, not a state road. The state shouldn't put their name on the sign. All the signs throughout the country should be consistent and look the same.

There are not enough words in the dictionary to begin to describe how wrong these statements are.

There are. The only thing I disagree with is that the state shouldn't put their name on the sign. All signs SHOULD be consistent throughout the country. But you can do that with the state name by having the same font size, typeface, and placement on the shield.

Agreed!  States should consistently put their name on stand alone shields.  Neutered shields are fine for guide signs, IMO.  And as Jake noted, they were originally intended for them.

Interestingly enough, I've read FHWA documents that state the reason the US route shield (and one would assume, the interstate shield) is because it was thought that in some places (particularly the South) locals' acceptance of the US route system would depend upon it. Since the states had to pay for the signage and the road itself, it was thought that including the state name might help defray the potential opposition. It was also based off the US route system being possibly seen as the federal government intruding, forcing states to pay for new roads (the more things change the more they stay the same!). There was also the idea that maybe having the state name on there would help convince legislators to renumber legislatively designated routes in places like CA and MN...

(Source (http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/numbers.cfm))

Quote from: Steve on April 01, 2012, 10:45:02 PM

There are. The only thing I disagree with is that the state shouldn't put their name on the sign. All signs SHOULD be consistent throughout the country. But you can do that with the state name by having the same font size, typeface, and placement on the shield.

I took that comment to mean that all state route markers should be the same, as well.

And the "US Interstate, not a state road" comment -- they are state roads. The states built them (albeit with a good chunk of federal money) and the states maintain them. If they aren't state roads, they are "federal roads" and we all know about that.  :-D

Quote from: hbelkins on April 03, 2012, 10:27:57 AM

Quote from: Steve on April 01, 2012, 10:45:02 PM

There are. The only thing I disagree with is that the state shouldn't put their name on the sign. All signs SHOULD be consistent throughout the country. But you can do that with the state name by having the same font size, typeface, and placement on the shield.

I took that comment to mean that all state route markers should be the same, as well.

And the "US Interstate, not a state road" comment -- they are state roads. The states built them (albeit with a good chunk of federal money) and the states maintain them. If they aren't state roads, they are "federal roads" and we all know about that.  :-D

I think there's a different between consistency and identical..ity..ness. All state route markers should be the same size and distinct from other highway markers (Wisconsin, this means you). County routes really should go to pentagons across the country, though I know that I will run up against opposition for even suggesting such a thing. But I'm firmly in favor of different designs - just like Interstate shields can have different state names on them, and so can US highways. (I wish.)

Quote from: Steve on April 03, 2012, 07:06:31 PM
and so can US highways. (I wish.)

good luck with that.  as far as I know, Kansas was the last state to drop the state name, in 1978.  (except for New Mexico, which randomly put up a few in 2009!)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 26, 2012, 06:21:32 PM

the 1957 and 1961 specifications clearly stated that the state name was to be used on the surface examples, and the neutered on guide signs.  Idaho was likely the first state to drop the state name, adopting the guide-sign style for all applications in the mid-1960s.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ID/ID19830901i1.jpg)

LOL at the oversized JUNCTION banner on top!  :rofl:

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 03, 2012, 07:32:43 PM

Quote from: Steve on April 03, 2012, 07:06:31 PM
and so can US highways. (I wish.)

good luck with that.  as far as I know, Kansas was the last state to drop the state name, in 1978.  (except for New Mexico, which randomly put up a few in 2009!)

Kansas was the last state to drop the state name? You'd certainly never know it now; ever since I've been alive it seems they always follow the latest MUTCD to the letter!

Quote from: Steve on April 03, 2012, 07:06:31 PM
I think there's a different between consistency and identical..ity..ness. All state route markers should be the same size and distinct from other highway markers (Wisconsin, this means you). County routes really should go to pentagons across the country, though I know that I will run up against opposition for even suggesting such a thing.

Good luck getting Wisconsin to change.

Not to get too far off-topic, while Wisconsin's state and county shields are similar, there are key differences.  The state shield is a combination/overlay of a rectangle and a triangle.  County shields are square with rounded corners.  When not drawn correctly (as many commercial manufacturers are gulty of sloppy replication), they do appear very similar.  The biggest difference is one is a number (state) and one is a letter (county).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FM1-6.jpg&hash=af833e5c588d9856d23273f37af8bd535bdc137f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FM1-5A.jpg&hash=cd09d0ad6073297cbd39d701fbc2601a3b8ac231)

I think he's saying that the state shield looks very similar to a U.S. Highway shield.

Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2012, 12:12:04 AM
I think he's saying that the state shield looks very similar to a U.S. Highway shield.

Yeah, I took a picture of a "WI 61" sign and didn't even realize it until I was reviewing my photos. Normally a sign goof like that jumps out at me, but the designs are so similar that it almost snuck by me.

Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2012, 12:12:04 AM
I think he's saying that the state shield looks very similar to a U.S. Highway shield.

Reading the post again, I think you're right...that's what I get for posting on an empty stomach. :pan:  Either way, I predict a difficult battle (especially in this economy) to persuade any DOT to change a long-standing design (WisDOT Design Evolution: http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/route_markers.html#State (http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/route_markers.html#State)).  In any case, I think it only really matters to us roadgeeks; I bet the general driving population doesn't even give it a second thought (unless tax dollars are suddenly used to fund a redesign). 

Quote from: DaBigE on April 08, 2012, 07:16:49 PM

Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2012, 12:12:04 AM
I think he's saying that the state shield looks very similar to a U.S. Highway shield.

Reading the post again, I think you're right...that's what I get for posting on an empty stomach. :pan:  Either way, I predict a difficult battle (especially in this economy) to persuade any DOT to change a long-standing design (WisDOT Design Evolution: http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/route_markers.html#State (http://www.wisconsinhighways.org/route_markers.html#State)).  In any case, I think it only really matters to us roadgeeks; I bet the general driving population doesn't even give it a second thought (unless tax dollars are suddenly used to fund a redesign). 

Only roadgeeks (and a few closet roadgeeks) complained when Kentucky changed the design of the parkway markers in 2005 or so. I didn't hear any complaints about the use of tax dollars.

Isn't South Carolina the most recent state to makeover its state route markers? Can anyone comment on how that endeavor went over?

Quote from: hbelkins on April 08, 2012, 09:29:21 PM
Only roadgeeks (and a few closet roadgeeks) complained when Kentucky changed the design of the parkway markers in 2005 or so. I didn't hear any complaints about the use of tax dollars.

While that may be true some places around the country, things are "touchy" to say the least around Wisconsin.  You can barely change a light bulb around here without someone armchair quarterbacking the decision.  I kid you not, changes to retroreflectivity standards and switching to title fonts for street name signs (as part of changes set forth by the MUTCD), created days of discussion/complaining on talk radio, not to mention numerous letters to the editor in papers across the state.  I don't personally see it changing in Wisconsin anytime soon, as I doubt the powers that be would see it as a high priority issue.

Last summer, I've noticed this neutered I-5 shield. This one is located at the SB onramp from Laval Road.

Here's another neutered I-5 shield located just nearby.

Has anyone seen neutered shields like these elsewhere in California?

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 22, 2012, 01:07:35 PM
Last summer, I've noticed this neutered I-5 shield. This one is located at the SB onramp from Laval Road.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8024%2F6956664916_568d172a69_c.jpg&hash=b2d912870e3ad52fae5065e2c9f68b8c07a12725)

Here's another neutered I-5 shield located just nearby.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7199%2F7102734731_a703baea2d_c.jpg&hash=448f8fd8141cbcc9ac39b91d47699a090fe0384a)

Has anyone seen neutered shields like these elsewhere in California?

Sadly, yes I have seen neutered I-80 and I-5 shields in northern California.  There are also some current FHWA spec (forgot what year, Jake would know) Interstate shields with no state name and a larger Series D "5" like those found in Oregon and Washington at on-ramps on I-5 in the central valley (I believe the ramp to north I-5 at CA-46 is one location).  I'm not sure if these are goofs or a lazy contractor but the one thing I noticed is the neutered reassurance shields are limited to one/two-digit interstates like I-5 and I-80.

Quote from: myosh_tino on April 22, 2012, 09:57:22 PM
(I believe the ramp to north I-5 at CA-46 is one location)

I have a picture of this. It's not on any ramp, but it's on the SB mainline.

Quote from: CentralCAroadgeek on April 22, 2012, 01:07:35 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8024%2F6956664916_568d172a69_c.jpg&hash=b2d912870e3ad52fae5065e2c9f68b8c07a12725)

Neutered shield in California. *twitch*

Quote

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7199%2F7102734731_a703baea2d_c.jpg&hash=448f8fd8141cbcc9ac39b91d47699a090fe0384a)

Neutered ugly shield in California. *twitch twitch*

Quote from: hbelkins on April 08, 2012, 09:29:21 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on April 08, 2012, 07:16:49 PM

Quote from: NE2 on April 08, 2012, 12:12:04 AM
I think he's saying that the state shield looks very similar to a U.S. Highway shield.

Isn't South Carolina the most recent state to makeover its state route markers? Can anyone comment on how that endeavor went over?

it would make sense as the BGS's have regular squares, but Route Shields are blue with "South Carolina" on top

Interesting about I-295 in NJ. It seems most state name shields are older except on the northern portion which was built in the 90s. That is liberally sprayed with state name shields at the entrances. And I believe the reassurance assemblies have them too. But most newer assemblies in NJ don't have them.

I think most of the ones in Minnesota now no longer have the state name, but there are a pair (494 and 394) off Carlson Parkway in Minnetonka that still have them.