AARoads Forum

Just like it says, do you prefer to have the state name on the interstate shield or do you prefer to omit the state name from the shield?  I for one like the state name included, it looks better and lets you know what state you are in (if something were to happen).  I think neutered shields look ugly.  What do you think?

I don't have a preference, but since that wasn't an option on the poll, I chose non-neutered. :D


Be well,

Bryant

I chose non-neutered. Apparently like everyone (so far . . .)

Neutered...bring them back!

I'm OK with the neutered signs, but definitely prefer the ones with the state name on it.

I miss the "Pennsylvania" I-signs.  Now, Ohio, not so much, with only four letter that state name gets lost.

One benefit to leaving the state name off is that the numbers can be a bit larger, increasing visibility.  And really, the state name is not that necessary and I believe is simply included as a throwback to the old US highway shields that had the state names included.

Nevada DOT doesn't appear to be consistent in the use of state name shields versus their neutered counterparts.  From a practical standpoint, I it doesn't make a difference to me; from a roadgeek standpoint, I prefer the state name shields (despite what I said above)

ComputerGuy, you realize that your post contradicts itself, right?  :-/ Neutered means without the state name.

As for myself, I prefer them with the state names. Maybe because as a little kid I remember seeing them more often, or because then if I fall asleep on a road trip I can wake up and see where I am without having to bug the driver!  :-D

Oh...well then non-neutured!

Florida seems to be bringing them back, moreso in some areas than others there are a lot of state-name shields that look new.  NJ seems to be bringing them back but that may be up to the contractor (DOT does not install its own signs).  Anyone else's state going non-neutered?

i prefer non- neutured interstates :sombrero:

By the way, congrats on topic #666!

I want the state name on them!

Non neutered are my favorites. Most in California are like that.

Alabama is almost always installing state-named shields after a 1990s trend of neutering shields.

Mississippi is now using state-named shields here and there, with some examples found on the Interstate 55 mainline and two sets of I-10's in Gulfport.

New state-named shields are popping up in a few places in Florida, Freeport for I-10, Lake City for I-75, Lee County for I-75, a few for I-295 on US 90 in Jacksonville, I-275 shields installed by Pinellas County, and the ones in the Titusville area for I-95 from a few years back. I've not seen a single new entry for Interstate 4 however.

I think Kentucky may be using state-named shields again too.

Lastly, Colorado went from almost all neutered to all state-name in the mid-2000s.

Growing up, all I saw was interstate shields that has the state names on them. The only time I saw neutered signs were on overhead BGS.

I say . . . bring back the non-neutered shields.

QuoteFlorida seems to be bringing them back, moreso in some areas than others there are a lot of state-name shields that look new.

As aaroads stated, several areas are implementing state-named interstate shields, mainly along major arterials at intersections (usually miles from the interstate), not on the main lines of interstates themselves. I have looked at some in the Fort Myers area and some in Freeport and none were regulated by FDOT per say, but rather individual signing companies.

I would definitely welcome more of these signs though as I am getting tired of seeing neutered shields almost everywhere in Florida.

I think PA is the worst at putting state named shields.

No, Utah, Oregon, and Tennessee are...

i prefer state-names, thank you....

if you are going so fast you need a bigger number to see what road you are on, maybe you need to slow down a bit!  But for many of us roadgeeks, the best-looking I-shields are the 1961-spec shields...

so, lets do this....which looks better to you guys...

Cluster A

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-59ala.jpg&hash=932f4220462c39f840bab2487fc629bbd67f0a50)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-91mass.jpg&hash=b72e147db1e2aba3ef0313b2080387cf3d9d9078)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-90oh.jpg&hash=542ffa7014042e7e352656521e2d11d2614da452)

Cluster B

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-44mo.jpg&hash=4652f046f0b37da8c57f6c49a608cfbe60bc6901)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-20ga.jpg&hash=9c4f307205e4a578ca42797c0460943e432e5a37)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-25colo.jpg&hash=fb2d13599247bb7066aeef4b900ca99ef2616a91)

or Cluster C

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-73nc-neut.jpg&hash=5d91261edd4260eabf5d437636efe89dbb0df625)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-75oh.jpg&hash=33ef3b3c69308a8b2361cb38319c52d83a43ea80)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fi-270oh1.jpg&hash=b7d26362677baf355c9014e5a2f034ef94e39384)

My vote is for A

edit: sorry for the widely varying sizes of the piccys....

I don't really have a preference.

Cluster A, I have always felt the '61 specs have the nicest look about them. I don't know where MS dug up the specs, but the newest state-named shields are the '72 specs (which is '61 spec type on a freeway mainline, i.e. 36x36").

Is it really froggie? I can read each just fine.

I do drive you know... :angry:

I had the same problem with the advent of Clearview signs... The original versions are perfectly legible, whether it be the numbers of a shieldor words on a sign.

It turns out that this it topic 666, i.e. the Post of the Devil!!!!!!!!!
:no:
:banghead:
:wow:

And thus, Clearview is declared to be the Font of the Devil!!!!    :eyebrow:

But this topic is over a month old... it's NOT the 66th.

No, but it does have 666 as its ID number.

I like having neutered on overhead signs, and unneutered on reassurance shields alongside the freeway.  In addition, I like when there isn't much space between the number and the state name, like Nevada's or Arizona's shields. 

I agree with mrivera.  Names on reassurance shields, "neutered" for BGS displays.

Minnesota's non-neutered shields are disappearing quickly. There are only a couple left on I-35 north of the Forest Lake split...I wish they would bring the non-neutered ones back.

I think having the state name on the Interstate signs suck. First of all, these are U.S. Interstates, they aren't state roads so why should the state be included into the sign? Second of all, these signs are like official memorabilia. They should be consistent through the US. If you ever wanted to collect these signs (1 for each interstate), why have it be so difficult by having the state name stuck on it?

why on earth did you resurrect this topic?

Quote from: highwayroads on April 05, 2012, 07:16:56 PM
I think having the state name on the Interstate signs suck. First of all, these are U.S. Interstates, they aren't state roads so why should the state be included into the sign? Second of all, these signs are like official memorabilia. They should be consistent through the US. If you ever wanted to collect these signs (1 for each interstate), why have it be so difficult by having the state name stuck on it?

Someone else explained a theory for this in another thread.

But you are wrong about the status of these roads. They are very much state highways. They were built by the states, although with mostly federal funding, and they are maintained by the various states, not any federal agency. U.S. routes aren't federal routes, either.

Are you a closet viatologist?  :-D (And I did hit "preview" to see if the filters change the v-word to anything else.)

Quote from: highwayroads on April 05, 2012, 07:16:56 PM
I think having the state name on the Interstate signs suck. First of all, these are U.S. Interstates, they aren't state roads so why should the state be included into the sign? Second of all, these signs are like official memorabilia. They should be consistent through the US. If you ever wanted to collect these signs (1 for each interstate), why have it be so difficult by having the state name stuck on it?

I wont address the first part, it has been done elsewhere....

As for your second concern, for us sign collectors, our reasons for collecting Interstate shields are as varied as the signs themselves.  Some of us want a one-sign per state collection, some focus on the early 57 and 61 spec shields with state names, others dont care about that as long as they have 1-per.  Some want an example or two of every current I-route, and others want to collect all the states an I-route passes/passed through (I am trying to assemble a Circle Tour of I-95.....from Maine to Florida).  And sometimes each state has its own style (such as Maine's current I-95s) that make them unique to collectors.....

I have no opinion one way or the other for reassurance markers, but I prefer neutered shields for use on BGSes, simply because there's more room for the number.  Once you're actually on your highway, you have little need for a large number.

Massachusetts discontinued the use of the state name on Interstate shields in the mid-1970s. AAFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to resume the practice.

Doesn't matter to me because I don't feel that there's any need for the state name, but I do think the numbers themselves look better on the "Cluster A" signs shown above, and if you use those numbers there's too much blue space if you omit the state name. So I'll vote for non-neutered.

The "Cluster A" signs shown on the previous page all use the classic 1957 interstate shield specification (which, correct me if I'm wrong, Jake, but didn't that spec disallow omitting the state name?). The "Cluster B" uses a variety of implementations of the 1970 spec. The neutered Ohio shields in cluster C (the I-75 and the 3di whose number I already forgot) follow a 1960's-era spec–sort of a midpoint between the '57 and the modern-day '70.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 07:13:41 PM
The "Cluster A" signs shown on the previous page all use the classic 1957 interstate shield specification (which, correct me if I'm wrong, Jake, but didn't that spec disallow omitting the state name?). The "Cluster B" uses a variety of implementations of the 1970 spec. The neutered Ohio shields in cluster C (the I-75 and the 3di whose number I already forgot) follow a 1960's-era spec–sort of a midpoint between the '57 and the modern-day '70.

Cluster A is all '57 spec indeed.  The AASHO manual clearly stated that the surface-level shields were to include state name, and the ones on green sign were to omit it - and the diagrams were consistent with this. 

But "disallow" is a strong word.  There was no warning in size 72 bold that if you omitted the state name, your federal funds would be withdrawn and you'd be stabbed repeatedly with a cucumber. 

Cluster B.  The Missouri US 44 has an inexplicably tall crown, but the narrow white margin of '70 spec.  The Colorado and Georgia are bog-standard '70 spec.

Cluster C.  The 73 is '78 spec.  ('70 spec called for Series C numerals.  I think the '78 spec may have as well... honestly I've never paid much attention to MUTCDs more recent than 1961!)  The Ohio 75 is '61 spec neutered - intended for green sign use per the '61 MUTCD, but Ohio, Idaho, and others adopted it for surface use.  In fact, Ohio had this by 1959, and California had it by 1958.  Not sure who made it first, but the Feds adopted it for the '61 MUTCD.  The 270 is a slightly oddly-shaped variant (insufficiently pointy bottom) of '61 spec neutered three-digit.  Again, Ohio decided to use it for all contexts starting in '68 or so.  They still do, to this day.

Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2012, 05:11:23 PM
Massachusetts discontinued the use of the state name on Interstate shields in the mid-1970s. AAFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to resume the practice.

that explains why they were comparatively rare even by 1986.  there are still a handful left, if you know where to look.

Neutered is fine. Makes for a cleaner and more consistent look, and as others have said more room for the digits. Who doesn't know what state they are in anyway? One standard I'd like to see is control cities + postal state code. Yes, that means elimination of non-city control points, but it seems there isn't much of a standard right now.

Quote from: connroadgeek on April 06, 2012, 08:08:58 PM
Neutered is fine. Makes for a cleaner and more consistent look, and as others have said more room for the digits. Who doesn't know what state they are in anyway? One standard I'd like to see is control cities + postal state code. Yes, that means elimination of non-city control points, but it seems there isn't much of a standard right now.

Having the overly-large digits that many western states use (Utah especially) is good for visibility, but aesthetically aren't so good, at least in my opinion. There's value to having blank space on signs; it helps you focus on the information. The purpose of the state name is not to "remind you" what state you're in–

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 02, 2012, 11:07:55 AM
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))

Further disagreeing with you, I don't think the state name after control cities is necessary. Control cities should be well-recognizable cities–anyone should know Chicago is in Illinois, St Louis is in Missouri, etc. The problem only occurs when you use things like "Bloomsburg" or "Hazleton" that are too small for most people to recognize–and those sorts of control cities should be avoided in favor of more well-known destinations.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 06, 2012, 07:53:06 PM
Missouri US 44

wat

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:09:32 PM

Having the overly-large digits that many western states use (Utah especially) is good for visibility, but aesthetically aren't so good, at least in my opinion. There's value to having blank space on signs; it helps you focus on the information. The purpose of the state name is not to "remind you" what state you're in–

oddly, no - at long distances, the overly large white numbers bleed into the border due to halation.  

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:09:32 PM
Further disagreeing with you, I don't think the state name after control cities is necessary. Control cities should be well-recognizable cities–anyone should know Chicago is in Illinois, St Louis is in Missouri, etc. The problem only occurs when you use things like "Bloomsburg" or "Hazleton" that are too small for most people to recognize–and those sorts of control cities should be avoided in favor of more well-known destinations.

This use of a state on a guide sign (on I-64 westbound in Illinois) is about the silliest thing I've seen.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2121%2F5792131102_ae79ebcd59.jpg&hash=d94bc1d4609f11a24190ce7f8bc3c9f0bba99b79)

As if anyone traveling toward St. Louis is going to confuse Nashville, IL with any other Nashville?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 06, 2012, 09:00:13 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 06, 2012, 08:09:32 PM

Having the overly-large digits that many western states use (Utah especially) is good for visibility, but aesthetically aren't so good, at least in my opinion. There's value to having blank space on signs; it helps you focus on the information. The purpose of the state name is not to "remind you" what state you're in–

oddly, no - at long distances, the overly large white numbers bleed into the border due to halation. 

Good point. I hadn't considered halation because the only time I have to deal with Utah-type Interstate shields is on Wikipedia!

Quote from: hbelkins on April 06, 2012, 10:22:27 PM
This use of a state on a guide sign (on I-64 westbound in Illinois) is about the silliest thing I've seen.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2121%2F5792131102_ae79ebcd59.jpg&hash=d94bc1d4609f11a24190ce7f8bc3c9f0bba99b79)

As if anyone traveling toward St. Louis is going to confuse Nashville, IL with any other Nashville?

:confused: I don't see the problem with this. It's only 46 miles from the junction with I-57, which leads generally towards Nashville TN. If using a very small amount of sign area prevents confusion, it was a good decision.

And for small towns that share names with more famous cities, that's life.

Quote from: flowmotion on April 07, 2012, 03:09:02 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on April 06, 2012, 10:22:27 PM
This use of a state on a guide sign (on I-64 westbound in Illinois) is about the silliest thing I've seen.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2121%2F5792131102_ae79ebcd59.jpg&hash=d94bc1d4609f11a24190ce7f8bc3c9f0bba99b79)

As if anyone traveling toward St. Louis is going to confuse Nashville, IL with any other Nashville?

:confused: I don't see the problem with this. It's only 46 miles from the junction with I-57, which leads generally towards Nashville TN. If using a very small amount of sign area prevents confusion, it was a good decision.

And for small towns that share names with more famous cities, that's life.

Two problems:
1) Clearview
2) "Il" should be "IL" anyway, unless this is Nashville II
2A) Clearview

I'm fine with distinguishing. Washington PA gets it inside the state because I-70's next major destination eastward is Washington DC. Sometimes it's worth the extra "redundant" letters for disambiguation.

The Nashville exit used to be my neck of the woods.  OK, so maybe the 'IL' isn't needed westbound, but it is certainly a good idea to include it eastbound, as Saint Louis–Tennessee traffic would be exiting just three exits later; I would rather leave the control cities the same westbound and eastbound, to err on the side of caution.

It should read 'Nashville, IL'.  Yes, there should be a comma, by Jove!  Or, maybe it should read.....

Carlyle
Nashville, IL
Pinckneyville Bypass War Memorial
:evilgrin:

As everyone else, I like interstate shields with the state name on them (non-neutered). Especially because I'm where these shields are in abundance, along with old porcelain signs.

However, last summer, I've spotted a neutered I-5 shield on the freeway entrance to 5 south from Laval Road, just before the Grapevine. I've also seen some on the freeway itself. I'll try to put pictures up sometime.

Quote from: Steve on April 07, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
Two problems:
1) Clearview
2) "Il" should be "IL" anyway, unless this is Nashville II
2A) Clearview

Even if it was Nashville II, it would have to be two capitol 'I's...no matter how you slice it, the way it's on the sign is wrong.  And if you want to get really picky about the sign, the green doesn't match above/below the bottom of the Nashville text.

Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2012, 02:44:32 PM
It should read 'Nashville, IL'.  Yes, there should be a comma, by Jove!

NO, it shouldn't.  Commas have no place on guide signs, at least according to the MUTCD, § 2A.13(04)! 

QuoteWord messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.

Granted, it's only a should condition, and not "proper" grammar/english...

Nashville II: Revenge of Nash

The odd "one letter capitalized but not the other" convention on postal codes has showed up in Missouri, too–I've seen signs for "Fort Smith Ar" and "Tulsa Ok".

Really, I'd prefer that signs use the traditional, non-postal abbreviations– "Nashville, Ill", "Fort Smith, Ark" and "Tulsa, Okla". I have seen Kansas do this on at least one mileage sign on US-81–"Hebron, Neb." I don't know whether it's standard for KS or not.

I voted for non-neutered too! The I-shield looks much better that way.

Quote from: Steve on April 07, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
I'm fine with distinguishing. Washington PA gets it inside the state because I-70's next major destination eastward is Washington DC. Sometimes it's worth the extra "redundant" letters for disambiguation.

Even though I-70 doesn't go anywhere near the nation's capital.

No, but it does have a 3di (I think I-270) that splits off from I-70 that does. Someone looking for that road to Washington DC might well mistakenly get off at Washington PA.

Quote from: Steve on April 07, 2012, 08:22:00 PM
Nashville II: Revenge of Nash

I wish
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peoples.ru%2Fsport%2Fhockey%2Frick_nash%2Fnash_2.jpg&hash=963c7c9992c1051f53dc5245c494c4e412216cf0)

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2012, 08:57:54 PM
No, but it does have a 3di (I think I-270) that splits off from I-70 that does. Someone looking for that road to Washington DC might well mistakenly get off at Washington PA.

You are absolutely correct!

The IL 127 guide sign was shot with a flash, so that may account for the differences in color showing up in the photo.

As for Nashville, it's not signed anywhere in Mt. Vernon, to the best of my knowledge. I-57 south is signed for Memphis there and I don't recall any mention of Nashville until you get to I-24.

Travelling eastbound on I-64 from Saint Louis, Nashville TN seems like a more logical destination than Memphis despite the I-shields. Both probably should be signed.

This will get real entertaining when I-69 is built-out, as it could be the more direct route from Illinois to Memphis.

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 07, 2012, 08:35:03 PMReally, I'd prefer that signs use the traditional, non-postal abbreviations– "Nashville, Ill", "Fort Smith, Ark" and "Tulsa, Okla". I have seen Kansas do this on at least one mileage sign on US-81–"Hebron, Neb." I don't know whether it's standard for KS or not.

I prefer the traditional abbreviations too, but I fear the train has already left the station on this particular issue.  The problem is partly generational (for young people nowadays, states are two-letter abbreviations), but it can also be difficult to distinguish an abbreviated state name from other legend, especially since commas and periods are deprecated, which leaves minor variations in spacing as the only remaining way to make the distinction.  Steve does raise a good point in this connection, though in this specific case it would have more meaning if the legend were in Series E Modified rather than Clearview and so the l did not have a curved tail.

I have lost track of the times I have seen signing plans specify legend like "St Meinrad IN" as replacement for "St Meinrad Ind".

Kansas does use the traditional abbreviations, but with a twist--the abbreviations are all in uppercase only, at a smaller type size than the primary destination legend, and centered vertically on the town name.  To my knowledge, however, this is done only on conventional-road guide signs (D series) and some expressway signs (the "Hebron NEB" sign you mention--which I photographed years ago at an angle to demonstrate the standoff of demountable copy--is one example of the latter).  I have never known it to be done on freeway guide signs.  I have done mockups (e.g. "[I-70 shield]/Hays/Limon COLO/1 MILE"), and I have to say I like the effect a lot less there than on conventional-road guide signs--even in guide-sign "small caps" (capital letter height matching the loop height of the primary destination legend) it looks shouty.

I can think of an interesting instance of an out-of-state destination losing the state name; on US 30 WB just west of Van Wert, Ohio, the previous button copy sign for US 224 WB had a control city of "Decatur Ind" while its reflective replacement (not Clearview) just says "Decatur".  Smaller signs (http://g.co/maps/3muce) at the US 224/US 127 interchange pointing to US 30 have "Decatur Ind" and even "Fort Wayne Ind", the latter of which is interesting because any BGS mentions of Fort Wayne on or entering US 30 WB don't specify a state for Fort Wayne. 

On the I-shields thing, I like the state name on them....being from Massachusetts originally, I always hated having to go out of state to see many of them. 

With sign replacement projects running rampant in VT in recent years, the state name in an interstate shield is quite difficult to come by.  You can still find them on I-91 between Exits 1 & 10 in places, but they're fading fast.

Connecticut, on the other hand, has expanded on the use of the state name in the shields.  Not just on reassurance signs, but also in BGSs.  In the Hartford area, some button copy shields have been replaced with the shield as on a reassurance sign, darker blue and all, complete with state name.  Plus, there were a few installations in New London (I-95) and Hartford (CT 15) which saw the state name used in a button copy interstate marker. 

Then there's Maine, which has replaced some BGS interstate route markers with CT style ones (with state name).  Though I don't think I've ever seen them on the Maine Turnpike portion.

Personally I can go either way on a reassurance shield, but on a BGS, it should be neutered.