AARoads Forum

In this thread, you can post pictures of signs in and around airports. As I've seen, airports have a distinctive signage. We can share the different types of signage here. Could be any airport, not just your local one.

I like SJC signage because of the nice-looking curve at the bottom-right corner of the signs. Here's my pictures of airport signage at SJC (San Jose International Airport):
I particularly like this next sign the most, just because these are so many signs on this gantry.

I've shared mine, now you can share yours. Could be pictures from major airports, or simply just your local airport. Good luck!

I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Signs at Colorado Springs Airport are very dark purple. What does that communicate?

Indianapolis' airport has blue signs along the main entry road into the airport which had a new terminal opened in 2008. The font looks similar to the San Jose examples and I'm not sure what the font is. To avoid putting all the pictures of the highway, here's the link to the AARoads page for it: https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=weircookmemdrin

Not sure I like the curve at the bottom-right of the sign, it looks sloppy and unprofessional.

MUTCD guidance is something that could be hard to work with at Airports, because parking lots and terminals tend to be color coded. How do you redo the last picture in a MUTCD compliant way, while still preserving the color coded parking signs?

Here is the MUTCD guidance on color-coded things like airport terminals--actually specifically airport terminals.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2Fcolorcoded.png&hash=c53c4e5eba1aa09a27330fc04b2fa2684abbce74)

Standard:
Except where otherwise provided in this Manual, different color sign backgrounds shall not be used to
provide color coding of destinations. The color coding shall be accomplished by the use of different colored
square or rectangular sign panels on the face of the guide signs.
Option:
The different colored sign panels may include a black or white (whichever provides the better contrast with the
panel color) letter, numeral, or other appropriate designation to identify an airport terminal or other destination.
Support:
Two examples of color-coded sign assemblies are shown in Figure 2D-1.

Oh, in that case I am pleasantly surprised.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Then you need to visit General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee.  I am so used to seeing Helvetica used for airport signage around Chicago.  They actually used FHWA in Milwaukee, albeit on blue!  It was a pleasant surprise.

Quote from: Brandon on April 06, 2012, 11:55:49 PM
Then you need to visit General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee.  I am so used to seeing Helvetica used for airport signage around Chicago.  They actually used FHWA in Milwaukee, albeit on blue!  It was a pleasant surprise.

The first time I visited the new IND airport, I was so excited to see blue airport signage in FHWA lettering.  Then boom!  Wacky sign world.  
As I noted in the illustrations thread, CLE airport used to have signs that were an off color background, sorta reddish brown, but were otherwise ODOT button copy, including I-shields.  What wonderful airport signage.....

Found a link with a couple pics of the old CLE signage (http://www.roadfan.com/airport.html).  I knew it was there somewhere...

Quote from: Zmapper on April 06, 2012, 11:08:10 PM
Not sure I like the curve at the bottom-right of the sign, it looks sloppy and unprofessional.

MUTCD guidance is something that could be hard to work with at Airports, because parking lots and terminals tend to be color coded. How do you redo the last picture in a MUTCD compliant way, while still preserving the color coded parking signs?

For a strictly by-the-book approach, you can stretch Section 2D-50 (community wayfinding with color coded areas) to do what you need.

Or, you can be a bit more creative, and do something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMWjic.png&hash=2351788b773b428fd4263a720675d524d13d147d)
Part of the problem with these signs is they're so damn ambiguous...does Lane 1 on the left take me to Terminal B, or is that describing which "Rental Cars" I am going to? So I probably got something terribly wrong here, but you get the basic idea. You could also designate "Rental Cars" and the like as "services" and give those blue signs...but this is just a quick and dirty demo. [Edit: I overlooked that diagram somehow and yet struck on about the same solution as the MUTCD had after all!]

Incidentally, the font on the actual signs is Frutiger, which oddly enough is apparently the standard typeface on signs in Switzerland.

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 06, 2012, 10:12:44 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Signs at Colorado Springs Airport are very dark purple. What does that communicate?

The mountain majesty of the Front Range surrounding Colorado Springs, whist accenting the grandeur which the local metropolitan area has to offer the traveler.

This is fun; give me another one! :P

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2012, 12:24:15 AM
Or, you can be a bit more creative, and do something like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMWjic.png&hash=2351788b773b428fd4263a720675d524d13d147d)
Part of the problem with these signs is they're so damn ambiguous...does Lane 1 on the left take me to Terminal B, or is that describing which "Rental Cars" I am going to? So I probably got something terribly wrong here, but you get the basic idea. You could also designate "Rental Cars" and the like as "services" and give those blue signs...but this is just a quick and dirty demo.

For clarification, in SJC, the rental cars have been relocated to the top floors of the parking garage for the new Terminal B, as you can see on the left of my third picture. The terminal is directly across the street from the garage.

Ah. Probably the way I would handle the situation would be a ground-mounted sign like:

Quote[TERMINAL B] PARKING [P]
USE
Hourly Lot 3
Hourly Lot 5
Daily Lot 6

Then people choose one and follow the signs for whichever. I'd keep the TERMINAL B placard reserved for the way that actually leads to the terminal.

Quote from: Brandon on April 06, 2012, 11:55:49 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Then you need to visit General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee.  I am so used to seeing Helvetica used for airport signage around Chicago.  They actually used FHWA in Milwaukee, albeit on blue!  It was a pleasant surprise.

I've been there! We visited it at the 2008 Chicago Meet. I seem to recall there was even a limited amount of button copy on a piece of blueout.

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 06, 2012, 10:12:44 PM
Signs at Colorado Springs Airport are very dark purple. What does that communicate?

Smoke on the water.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Airports have a large number of closely spaced exits, and traffic speed is generally much lower than highway speeds. Did MUTCD's creators do any testing under these conditions? If not, how can one say their rules apply?

Also, the fact that airport signage generally 'works' (is effective) casts in doubt MUTCD rules about color/font/etc. I'm not saying we should give up Highway Green & FHWA/Clearview, but I think it's probably a minimal safety factor in the big picture. It was probably chosen mostly for the aesthetics of standardization.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2012, 12:42:17 AM
Ah. Probably the way I would handle the situation would be a ground-mounted sign like:

Quote[TERMINAL B] PARKING [P]
USE
Hourly Lot 3
Hourly Lot 5
Daily Lot 6

Then people choose one and follow the signs for whichever. I'd keep the TERMINAL B placard reserved for the way that actually leads to the terminal.

Quote from: Brandon on April 06, 2012, 11:55:49 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Then you need to visit General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee.  I am so used to seeing Helvetica used for airport signage around Chicago.  They actually used FHWA in Milwaukee, albeit on blue!  It was a pleasant surprise.

I've been there! We visited it at the 2008 Chicago Meet. I seem to recall there was even a limited amount of button copy on a piece of blueout.

It's still there as of late (December) 2011.

Of course, all private roads have this potential for non-compliance (see Disney World's signage for instance).

Most UK airports are typically compliant with the UK signage standards, though there are a few quirks/non standard things: most universally are non-standard diagrammatic signage (which also applies to the National Exhibition Centre).

At Heathrow things referring to terminals, such as the word 'Terminal' and numbers are white text on black patches on signs. Also, gantry signs have a green (and not your typical Warboys green, but corporate BAA green) border.

Manchester Airport has non-standard coloured patches (white-on-red T1 for terminal 1, white-on-green T2, white-on-black T3) actually on the public road network - unlike all the other major UK Airports.

East Midlands Airport is actually a bit rebellious - only airport to have branding (other than Heathrow's green borders on gantries) on signs that attempt compliance (the branded version of the name, rather than the airport name in normal Transport-font letters in keeping with the sign). Then you have directional signs like this (http://maps.google.com/?ll=52.825192,-1.325161&spn=0.005426,0.009645&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=52.825557,-1.325226&panoid=ym9MVzIJHGOqgf3t2jp2vw&cbp=12,38.05,,1,5.46) that look as if you are on-foot in some tourist attraction, college, or mall.

Belfast International Airport has completely non-standard signage (http://maps.google.com/?ll=54.664319,-6.212665&spn=0.010387,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=54.664319,-6.212665&panoid=khJ_tSeZFbG4h6ZSCTgsxw&cbp=12,170.94,,3,-0.25) that makes it look like a large garden centre, rather than a major airport.

Bluewater has signs that meet standards in everyway, other than being (mostly) white-on-purple, rather than black-on-white.

The Channel Tunnel terminal has a mix of UK and French standards, coupled with some branding. (http://maps.google.com/?ll=51.093328,1.12141&spn=0.00564,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.093299,1.121222&panoid=xRgYVcYhDjVtiSpjna_wpw&cbp=12,58.78,,3,3.79) The Port of Dover has its own sign standards (http://maps.google.com/?ll=51.126373,1.326986&spn=0.005636,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.126373,1.326986&panoid=JBHYUe-IiDZOPRDqJzTHhw&cbp=12,40.77,,2,-4.38), as does Portsmouth's port (http://maps.google.com/?ll=50.813343,-1.086385&spn=0.011348,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=50.813343,-1.086385&panoid=gc3WaVjw1wwvXgU3zLKSRA&cbp=12,272.34,,2,-1.32) (though Portsmouth is more like standard signage and, though it pains me to say it, more tasteful)

Other places that are big enough to have their own signage typically try and follow standards outside of car parks (where there's no standards anyway). They often fail, using the wrong font (sadly I can't show you an example).

However there is one place, outside of EMA, BIA, Dover and car parks where standards go completely out the window that people driving on the road are very likely to come across: Service Areas on motorways - http://www.cbrd.co.uk/indepth/motoservices/ shows how bad they are (OK, much of the service area would be car park, but they use branded signage throughout). Given that these are Government regulated places (have to provide certain functions or they don't get signed), surely one of the regulations could be decent signage? Moto is the worst brand, but others are little better and the rot of those sorts of signs has now started to carry through to supermarket car parks :(.

Quote from: flowmotion on April 07, 2012, 02:51:15 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Airports have a large number of closely spaced exits, and traffic speed is generally much lower than highway speeds. Did MUTCD's creators do any testing under these conditions? If not, how can one say their rules apply?

Also, the fact that airport signage generally 'works' (is effective) casts in doubt MUTCD rules about color/font/etc. I'm not saying we should give up Highway Green & FHWA/Clearview, but I think it's probably a minimal safety factor in the big picture. It was probably chosen mostly for the aesthetics of standardization.

In this situation the idea is not so much safety as it is consistency–doing the least surprising thing. If one were really to focus on how to do airport sign design right, one could have blue panels for service-oriented stuff like car rentals and such, and green signage to direct traffic to and from the main terminals and access roads. Plus, having the "road sign feel" keys one into the fact that it is important navigational information–your brain is used to the idea that "green and white with Series EM = guide sign", and having guide information in purple and white with Frutiger, at the very least, makes no advantage of this knowledge. We are used to road signs being laid out in a certain manner, that it is almost processed like a language... looking at that middle sign in the middle image with the shields at the bottom temporarily bewilders me in much the same way as reading a Yoda-like sentence does–you can pick out the information, but it's not as easily done as it is when your brain is in autopilot sign-reading mode.

Additionally, so much engineering and research has been done with the standard fonts that we basically have their visibility behavior under different circumstances (day, night, night with different reflectivity materials) down to a science. We don't have all that data on Frutiger/Helvetica, and it would cost money to obtain. And what would spending that money get us? We have the FHWA fonts and Clearview, do we really need to know everything there is about a third font? And once we have this data, we can use it to do things like figure out the optimum reading distances for signs, so we can intelligently design the signs to handle things like closely spaced destinations and other peculiarities.

In short, there's a lot of benefits to doing things the standard road-sign way: pre-existing visibility research and pre-existing knowledge about what the sign is trying to say, since you've seen all the design cues before. The benefit to doing it the other way is that some graphic designer gets to be creative and some corporate executive gets his brand image enhanced–exactly why do I care about either of those?

Quote from: english si on April 07, 2012, 09:35:17 AM
Of course, all private roads have this potential for non-compliance (see Disney World's signage for instance).

Which are actually public roads (maintained by the Reedy Creek Improvement District). Similarly, the main roads in Universal are Orlando city streets but have nonstandard signs.

Quote from: Brandon on April 06, 2012, 11:55:49 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
I really do wish airports would at least attempt MUTCD compliance. There is a good reason it says gantries should have a max of only 3 signs on them... as well as the benefit of having consistent fonts and color schemes, as opposed to corporate bullshit like "this slate blue speaks to our investors and illustrates the dynamics of our metro area, complemented by the taupe stripe at the top which suggests agility and emphasizes logistics"

Then you need to visit General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee.  I am so used to seeing Helvetica used for airport signage around Chicago.  They actually used FHWA in Milwaukee, albeit on blue!  It was a pleasant surprise.

I must say, I didn't like it (the Helvetica font on the Chicago signs) at first, but it has grown on me since.

I know the junctions around CLT have signs with a picture of a jet whose nose points towards the airport. Any other airports use this method?

When I passed through DFW in '06, I liked how guide signs – both for auto traffic outside and foot traffic inside the terminals – used one consistent font (Clearview I think).

Quote from: vtk on April 08, 2012, 08:20:57 PM
When I passed through DFW in '06, I liked how guide signs – both for auto traffic outside and foot traffic inside the terminals – used one consistent font (Clearview I think).

The new white-on-blue signs do use Clearview.  I like the signage much better than the white-on-brown (almost wood-like, like a city/state/national park sign background) that they used to use at DFW...I don't remember, but I don't think the old signs were very reflective (they used a side-mounted inlaid florescent tube on some of them for illumination).  Some of the blue Clearview signs could use some word/lettering/kerning work, but they're not completely hideous.

Here's what BUF's look like: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.931668,-78.731321&spn=0.004823,0.006899&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.931727,-78.731023&panoid=EItli-z_9vdNUnxu31TC3w&cbp=12,31.27,,1,-5.95

I have an example of SFO signage that really isn't the best. Do you how hard it is to take pictures from the middle row while having all the planes to distract you (I'm an aviation enthusiast as well)?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5452%2F6916275518_dbda221cf0_c.jpg&hash=2c3e5fd08bb02c42300a7a8f3b0e68fcf1194ec6)
SFO signage is pretty nice-looking in my opinion. I'm pretty sure this is the same font (Frutiger) used on SJC's signs.

Of all the complaints and inconsistencies about airport signage, the one thing nobody's mentioned but really bugs me is when the rental car returns are poorly marked! Even if they're off property like in STL, LGA, or LAX, they tend to be clustered together and there's absoultely no reason why a major airport should neglect having wayfinding signs to the major rental agencies.

This thread needs more button copy...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FATL_ButtonCopy.jpg&hash=020fab4c84400b2f02e27f955e95f05863c40e77)

This seemed to be the last of its kind on the outskirts of ATL (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.630879,-84.450461&spn=0.002824,0.003449&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.150864,56.513672&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=33.630786,-84.451488&panoid=igH_cuyYCccXk-BTe200Pw&cbp=12,225.52,,0,6.17), and it's located at the exit of the airport parking and rental car lots (although now, there's a huge multi-story rental garage). Raleigh Durham International Airport uses a similar gray background scheme, but without the demountable copy.

I'm with you on the rental car return signage; it's usually hidden off to one side, or it's an afterthought. I always allow myself more time the first time I have to return a car to an airport I've never entered to before. But I suppose some of that stuff is hard to read at night or during early-morning hours. I can understand why there's a little bit of chaos at my home airport every Monday morning at around 6am (FLL is an Arial on light or dark blue, but I've seen it for years so I never question it).

DTW (Detroit) is quite legible, as is MSP (Minneapolis-St. Paul), the latter using traditional Highway Gothic on blue guide signs. Most of the smaller airports are easy enough to figure out.

(CHM) Columbus has an sharp choice of font for their airport get-me-to-the-nearest-Interstate (http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.999084,-82.893476&spn=0.007348,0.013797&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.999433,-82.893436&panoid=7L2CTp5ukuC-rAU76blBhA&cbp=12,10.37,,0,3.26) signage:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2FCHM-airport-InterstateSignage.jpg&hash=cd8affc7ecc38fca21185005521c03a333c4e161)

(Hmmm...it's changed since then.)

Imperfect kerning on "Sawyer" , but not too shabby for a non-standard font, in my opinion.

Quote from: formulanone on April 09, 2012, 09:47:15 PM
This thread needs more button copy...

[image]

This seemed to be the last one, and it's located at the exit of the airport parking and rental car lots (although now, there's a huge multi-story rental garage). Raleigh Durham International Airport uses a similar gray background scheme, but without the demountable copy.

well, I certainly have a physiological condition which is inappropriate for the office environment.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2012, 09:49:30 PM

Quote from: formulanone on April 09, 2012, 09:47:15 PM
This thread needs more button copy...

[image]

This seemed to be the last one, and it's located at the exit of the airport parking and rental car lots (although now, there's a huge multi-story rental garage). Raleigh Durham International Airport uses a similar gray background scheme, but without the demountable copy.

well, I certainly have a physiological condition which is inappropriate for the office environment.

You should shower more often.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F2eygarn.jpg&hash=eaf0439fcf7a01192bbccec8f00486f95991d316)

Heres a slightly unusual one at the Burbank Airport (california), there's a couple of these in metric for some reason. They look like they've been there for a while but I never noticed them for some reason but I suppose it's easy to miss, if anyone is from around here you'd know there's pretty much no reason to go down Vanowen St...

I wonder when that dates from.  1970s?

also... damn Helvetica.  Who ever decided that, of all fonts, was appropriate to use on traffic signage?

QuoteI wonder when that dates from.  1970s?

I was thinking the same, probably when we dipped in the metric system. Other than freeway signs that have both systems here, that's the only other sign I've ever seen with metric I think...

It was only named after Bob Hope in 2003.

I'm sure one of our resident anal metric fans will tell you that the One True Way to write that distance is 500 m.

Yea I was thinking that it was probably in the mid 00s since they redid the train station there in 2004 or 2005 a bit. But the sign looked aged so I went with 70s haha

What interests me is (I have no photo yet) is at Newark Airport in New Jersey is the fact leaving the facility there was once a time (it still maybe as we speak) when I-95 Southbound and the NJ Turnpike Southbound were directed by two different roadways.  As we all know, I-95 and the NJ Turnpike are the same road here.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Newark,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.692971,-74.183593&spn=0.0164,0.042272&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.082817,86.572266&oq=newark&hnear=Newark,+Essex,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.693115,-74.183248&panoid=cnAAoTQvNToYpWXOlAWCVw&cbp=12,225,,0,0

Both directions of I-95 are posted to the right and the SB Turnpike is via US 1& 9 to the left, and the NB NJT is to the right with I-95.

Here is a video showing all signage entering MCO in Orlando, FL.  Like someone here did point out, some places have too many airlines to read on assemblies.  This is one of those places as you will see.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/18QW4oixKvw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Driving by PHX in one of their maintenance parking lots, there was brand new overhead guide signs get unloaded off 2 flat bed's.

D/FW Airport originally had all brown guide signage. they now have all blue. I think these should have the cities on them like the next set of overheads, which are TxDot's.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2FBLUEOVERHEADS.jpg&hash=192f6ac298ab8a9c23e916423d4ea2a5c6fd6368)

These are at Love Field in Dallas. Notice the odd U-TURN PERMITTED symbol sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc395%2FBrian5561%2F81509016.jpg&hash=22ca2c9b84f36b708a4cc201802e05649bc0f31d)

SNA (John Wayne/Orange County Airport) has all their signage in italics.  Apologies for the bad Google Map link.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.676685,-117.862648&spn=0.005045,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.6766,-117.8627&panoid=pHjESWdqUdXkQyWjWV5ExA&cbp=12,186.22,,0,-29.51 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.676685,-117.862648&spn=0.005045,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.6766,-117.8627&panoid=pHjESWdqUdXkQyWjWV5ExA&cbp=12,186.22,,0,-29.51)

Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2012, 02:13:56 AM
Here is a video showing all signage entering MCO in Orlando, FL.  Like someone here did point out, some places have too many airlines to read on assemblies.  This is one of those places as you will see.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/18QW4oixKvw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But GOAA is pretty consistent with the FL 436 cut-outs.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portofportland.com%2FNotices%2Fimages%2FPDX_Dms_01.jpg&hash=5352660bf03e72019a8cc7228be0c4c223113d41)

Portland Airport's older signs can be seen in the background.  Not really sure what font it was, but it was a blue borderless sign. 

Here's another one.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fairport_way_portland_oregon_poster-r62eed30d87ed4d06b9a88de4d3d6cc79_w7w_400.jpg&hash=fdf400e8c7fc8b3217e5dd01806ea65df5c02837)

More current Clearview sign (installed 2008ish). 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg6.imageshack.us%2Fimg6%2F7991%2Fpdx8ev6.jpg&hash=5404c1c56dec025630a9931da42c48e98f81f098)

LAX has some signage off Sepulveda which is in what appears to be Franklin Gothic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Gothic).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FCA1-LAXbridgeSingage.jpg&hash=943e295bbd7f21172d7a5c3b68f8f853f7aef00a)

that photo somehow looks like it is a screen shot from a video game. 

and yes, I have seen those signs in person.  they need to go under the "worst of road signs".

Little Rock, Arkansas had only one button copy sign left, from what I could see.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FInt440-LITbuttonCopy.jpg&hash=b7090bba8e64b304fbe314fe3ac3e47c1ad763f4)