As we all know from another topic on this forum that discusses the effect the change in policy for a NJ Toll Road, that the issue is taking away from what made that particular road what it is today. The tone of that particular thread seems that many on this forum seem to be a little worried that the end of an era (so to speak) is at hand.
I was wondering just how much we all feel about the MUTCD in general is robbing each state of their identity as we know it. To me growing up and seeing each state have their own way of signing roadways was interesting as the many different styles of clothing on each of us. It was interesting to see NYCDOT use "Geo Wash Br" to sign the George Washington Bridge, and NJDOT using LGSes to for auxillary signs and not afraid to use shields at exits on the side of the road in addition to the normal guide signs. Even Pennsylvania using text for route numbers and NYS still using directional suffixes on exits where other states use A, B, C, etc.
I think that things should be standardized, but the individual states should be able to interpret the way it is enforced. I think the NJTA should continue to use its current large letter exit numbers and overhead exit numbers instead of gore types and the Feds should not interfere with it at all! If it works and makes the point that they want it to make, then why waste toll revenue to do this thing, when the NJ Turnpike has other issues far more important to deal with.
As long as the signs stay consistant enough for the below-average driver, then good enough.
Many drivers don't even realize how the whole mileage-based exit system works. Green, Blue, Brown, Purple - doesn't mean a thing to them. Put in a "Only" lane, whether it be Exit Only or EZ Pass only, and motorists don't have a clue what "Only" means.
Something like the NJ Turnpike signs should've been low...way low...on the priority list.
Tell me about the EXIT ONLY thing. Nobody sees that, just like you can post many TOLL ROAD warnings on a toll road entrance ramp and still you will have someone enter a toll facility complaining to the toll collector "Why don't you post signs telling us this is a toll road."
No there are other things that the Feds could be more interested in. To me this is pork barrel stuff and the money could go to other much needed things. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
How about getting PA to rid the Breezewood connection for starters? That is more of a nuisance than having the NJTA change its signs, especially with fuel consumption and emissions at stake with that annoying traffic signal and zig zag you make in that small Pennsylvania town.
HOLY CRAP STATE'S RIGHTS
I don't know the financial specifics of the NJTPA, and if they're outright wasting funds or neglecting other issues while redirecting money to replacing otherwise serviceable signage, that certainly isn't a good thing. Funds need to be prioritized, and I don't think there's a single highway department in the country that shouldn't be watching every last cent.
But that's a completely different issue than the question in the heading.
As roadgeeks, we might get a kick out of the little differences that separate the states' signing practices, but the remaining 99.9% of the population just says "Gee, the highway signs really suck in [name of state]."
Signage isn't the place for local personality. In my experience, when states violate the MUTCD, the result is nearly always worse, not better. If a state has a practice that's better than the MUTCD standard, they should petition to have it added. And going forward, all new signage should comply with this evolving standard. I'm not suggesting that all existing non-standard signage should be scrapped immediately, but it should be replaced with more standard signage as replacement schedules allow.
We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?
I don't think the MUTCD is, on the whole, a threat to local identity in signing. There are many state-by-state variations in signing which are just not addressed by the MUTCD, or are allowed by divergent interpretations of various MUTCD provisions. What has happened to the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway is a special case: squeezing out of a sui generis toll road signing system. This has been going on for almost as long as there have been public-authority toll roads. I have managed to get copies of the original signing plans for the New England Thruway, the Kansas Turnpike, the Kentucky Turnpike (now part of untolled I-65), and the Oklahoma turnpikes, and in all cases the signing differs considerably in format from that now used.
I don't know the NJTPA's motivation for getting rid of its one-of-a-kind signing at this particular moment in time, but I would imagine a major consideration for them was the recent proliferation of MUTCD standards that are specific to toll roads. The 2003 MUTCD did not have a separate chapter dealing with toll roads, while the 2009 MUTCD has two (Chapter 2F deals with toll roads directly while Chapter 2G deals with managed lanes). For the NJTPA this raises two issues. First, it exposes them to the argument that their signing system provides an inferior level of service to drivers compared to the one recommended by the MUTCD. Second, if FHWA ever decides to propose expensive revisions to the toll road signing standards, NJTPA has more leverage to oppose them as part of a bloc of toll road authorities following existing FHWA standards than it does on its own.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 01, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
. . .
We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?
I'd like the signage to be consistent so that ONLY in Nevada means the same thing as ONLY in Arkansas, but don't deprive me of the joy in driving into Florida and saying, "Oh look - the signs have round corners."
Quote from: briantroutman on April 01, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?
For the average person, this goal was largely achieved decades ago.
There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different. (Other than perhaps sequential-based exit numbering.) Most of these issues are completely trivial and unnoticeable to anyone who isn't a roadgeek/highway-engineer.
Quote from: flowmotion on April 02, 2013, 12:56:02 AM
There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different.
Puerto Rico :sombrero:
Quote from: NE2 on April 02, 2013, 01:25:10 AM
Quote from: flowmotion on April 02, 2013, 12:56:02 AM
There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different.
Puerto Rico :sombrero:
Puerto Rico fits the MUTCD better than California.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 02, 2013, 07:52:53 AM
Puerto Rico fits the MUTCD better than California.
is there a special Spanish-language supplement to the MUTCD? if so, you are correct. if not, California is more in agreement.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 02, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 02, 2013, 07:52:53 AM
Puerto Rico fits the MUTCD better than California.
is there a special Spanish-language supplement to the MUTCD? if so, you are correct. if not, California is more in agreement.
but just barely..... right?
Quote from: flowmotion on April 02, 2013, 12:56:02 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 01, 2013, 04:57:44 PM
We should be working toward a future where you can drive from Maine to Los Angeles, and all the signs along the way look like they came from the same shop. Isn't that type of consistency part of the idea behind having a standardized Interstate system?
For the average person, this goal was largely achieved decades ago.
There's no part of the United States where the signage feels non-standard or different. (Other than perhaps sequential-based exit numbering.) Most of these issues are completely trivial and unnoticeable to anyone who isn't a roadgeek/highway-engineer.
Don't forget lawyers.
I would think Puerto Rico's "same signs but in Spanish" is more compliant than California's "cram everything in where we can fit it".
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:08:38 PM
I would think Puerto Rico's "same signs but in Spanish" is more compliant than California's "cram everything in where we can fit it".
sloppy signage with too much information placed into too small a space is not uniquely a California phenomenon. ever been to Oklahoma?
"Is the MUTCD taking away the identities of each state?"
Yes, absolutely. The Federal MUTCD needs to be scaled back, quite a bit.
For instance, Wisconsin. The 2009 MUTCD mandates one signal head per lane at all intersections with a speed limit above...45mph, I believe it is.
Result? Wisconsin's unique signal installation design is now giving way to a standard mast arm with vertical signals. Read: Anywhere, USA.
For...what? Very few nations in the world have one signal head per lane. Plenty of countries still don't even have overhead signals. Those that do usually only use one overhead signal, regardless of number of lanes. It's utterly ridiculous.
^^ Yes, 45 MPH or over
Guidance:
07 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on an approach to a signalized location is 45 mph or higher, signal faces should be provided as follows for all new or reconstructed signal installations (see Figure 4D-3):
The minimum number and location of primary (non-supplemental) signal faces for through traffic should be provided in accordance with Table 4D-1.
If the number of overhead primary signal faces for through traffic is equal to the number of through lanes on an approach, one overhead signal face should be located approximately over the center of each through lane.
Except for shared left-turn and right-turn signal faces, any primary signal face required by Sections 4D.17 through 4D.25 for an exclusive turn lane should be located overhead approximately over the center of each exclusive turn lane.
All primary signal faces should be located on the far side of the intersection.
In addition to the primary signal faces, one or more supplemental pole-mounted or overhead signal faces should be considered to provide added visibility for approaching traffic that is traveling behind large vehicles.
All signal faces should have backplates.
Table 4D-1. Recommended Minimum Number of Primary Signal Faces for Through Traffic on Approaches with Posted, Statutory, or 85th-Percentile Speed of 45 mph or Higher Number of Through Lanes
on Approach
Total Number of Primary Through Lanes / Signal Faces for Approach* / Minimum Number of Overhead-Mounted Primary Through Signal Faces for Approach
1 2 1
2 2 1
3 3 2**
4 or more 4 or more 3**
Notes:
* A minimum of 2 through signal faces is always required (see Section 4D.11). These recommended numbers of through signal faces may be exceeded. Also, see cone of vision requirements otherwise indicated in Section 4D.13.
** If practical, all of the recommended number of primary through signal faces should be located overhead.
But it should be noted that WisDOT started installing the vertical overhead signals as soon as 2004, but is now done everywhere.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on April 02, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
For instance, Wisconsin. The 2009 MUTCD mandates one signal head per lane at all intersections with a speed limit above...45mph, I believe it is.
Result? Wisconsin's unique signal installation design is now giving way to a standard mast arm with vertical signals. Read: Anywhere, USA.
That's a guidance statement, not a standard (therefore, not mandatory). Wisconsin doesn't have to do one overhead signal per lane...but being guidance, it's highly encouraged.
The principle at hand, from the MUTCD perspective, is to make the experience for the road user better by increasing uniformity and expectations. Better driver expectation (i.e. what an "only" panel means, where you can find the right signal head for your lane, uniform symbol signs, etc.) and uniformity means less confusion or interpretation for the driver and generally leads to safer roadways in general.
Another consideration: compliance with MUTCD provisions is often quite poor when they are not highly visible. One example that comes to me forcefully now that I am engaged in a guide-sign shield drawing project is the minimum height of digits in route markers. For freeways the MUTCD requirement is uniformly 18" in 36" shields except for state and US routes at minor interchanges, for which values as low as 12" are permitted. This is a "Shall" condition: the minimum height values themselves are tabulated, but an accompanying "Shall" statement directs that the dimensions given in the table shall be used.
So what do various states do? A selection of states whose route markers I have recently drawn:
MN: Uniformly 15" (does not comply). Minnesota uses its own manual, but the verbiage dealing with height of guide-sign shield digits is word for word the same as that in the federal MUTCD, so Minnesota is not even complying with its own manual, let alone the national one.
OR: 18" in two-digit shields (complies) but 16" in three-digit shields (does not comply).
SD: 18" for all state routes (complies; SD uses the same shield outline for both two- and three-digit routes).
WI: 18" for all state routes (complies).
MT: 18" for primary state routes (complies), but 12" maximum for state secondary routes (does not comply--and the shield has to be an obscenely large 40" x 42" to access the 12" digit height).
This one I have not drawn, but studied:
NV: No 18" height available for any size of shield (does not comply)--largest size available is 15", which necessitates 36" x 48" (two digits) or a truly humongous 40" x 48" (three digits).
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2013, 08:31:59 AM
As we all know from another topic on this forum that discusses the effect the change in policy for a NJ Toll Road, that the issue is taking away from what made that particular road what it is today. The tone of that particular thread seems that many on this forum seem to be a little worried that the end of an era (so to speak) is at hand.
I was wondering just how much we all feel about the MUTCD in general is robbing each state of their identity as we know it. To me growing up and seeing each state have their own way of signing roadways was interesting as the many different styles of clothing on each of us. It was interesting to see NYCDOT use "Geo Wash Br" to sign the George Washington Bridge, and NJDOT using LGSes to for auxillary signs and not afraid to use shields at exits on the side of the road in addition to the normal guide signs. Even Pennsylvania using text for route numbers and NYS still using directional suffixes on exits where other states use A, B, C, etc.
I think that things should be standardized, but the individual states should be able to interpret the way it is enforced. I think the NJTA should continue to use its current large letter exit numbers and overhead exit numbers instead of gore types and the Feds should not interfere with it at all! If it works and makes the point that they want it to make, then why waste toll revenue to do this thing, when the NJ Turnpike has other issues far more important to deal with.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I drive in NYS often and the directional exits are incredibly helpful, I think the NYS standard is much clearer and aids the average motorist more so than an and B exit. I think the practice is especially helpful with meeting highways. I mean Exit 26E- I-287 E Rye is a lot more helpful than Exit 26A. I also think bridges are helpful like a trucker may not be familar with White Plains, NY, however he might be familiar with the Tappan Zee. I think signage is less a problem than lane and traffic control practices (length of acceleration lanes, left exits, style of ramps, speed enforcement, etc.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 03, 2013, 12:02:17 PM
Another consideration: compliance with MUTCD provisions is often quite poor when they are not highly visible. One example that comes to me forcefully now that I am engaged in a guide-sign shield drawing project is the minimum height of digits in route markers. For freeways the MUTCD requirement is uniformly 18" in 36" shields except for state and US routes at minor interchanges, for which values as low as 12" are permitted. This is a "Shall" condition: the minimum height values themselves are tabulated, but an accompanying "Shall" statement directs that the dimensions given in the table shall be used.
While Tables 2E-2 and 2E-4 (Minimal Letter and Numeral Sizes for Expressway/Freeway Guide Signs) are retained in the California 2012 MUTCD, California inserted Table 2D-101(CA) which also spell out route shield sizes *and* numeral heights. In this table, route shield sizes are determined by the letter heights of the primary legend on the guide sign. Route numeral heights are determined by the shield size and, in some cases, whether the digit "1" is part of the route number.
Interstate Shields
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FShields-Interstate_CA-spec.png&hash=9d2702951b257f190f10204e79ef0ad5c920d925)
US Route Shields
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FShields-USRoute_CA-spec.png&hash=a4fde0635a8f1b195ccdc1e27d4378b4ecdfc010)
California State Route Shields
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FShields-CalifSR_CA-spec.png&hash=d8a00d7fabecca17143bd2e53b60e8a06ffb5e7a)
So basically, Caltrans utilizes 15-inch numerals for all overhead guide sign route shields except when 3-digit Interstate and California State Route numbers
do not contain a "1" in which case 12-inch numerals are used. So while it does violates the 2009 National MUTCD, it does not violate the California MUCTD because of changes Caltrans made to Section 2D.11 referencing Table 2D-101(CA).
Note...
The use of 12-inch numerals on the 3-digit Interstate and California route shields is not terribly common, especially on newer signs. Older, button copy signs often use 12-inch Series E numerals for 3-digit shields but newer signs are using 15-inch numerals with reduced intercharacter spacing for 3-digit Interstate and California route shields. See the below drawing...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FShields-Alts_CA-spec.png&hash=b1479c305e511edc9a09d2725e16e21bfba141ce)
On a related note, I am seeing a disturbing trend where new sign installations are using 12-inch numerals on the 36x36 2-digit Interstate and California route shields. Way too small IMO.
Quote from: spmkam on April 03, 2013, 11:26:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 01, 2013, 08:31:59 AM
As we all know from another topic on this forum that discusses the effect the change in policy for a NJ Toll Road, that the issue is taking away from what made that particular road what it is today. The tone of that particular thread seems that many on this forum seem to be a little worried that the end of an era (so to speak) is at hand.
I was wondering just how much we all feel about the MUTCD in general is robbing each state of their identity as we know it. To me growing up and seeing each state have their own way of signing roadways was interesting as the many different styles of clothing on each of us. It was interesting to see NYCDOT use "Geo Wash Br" to sign the George Washington Bridge, and NJDOT using LGSes to for auxillary signs and not afraid to use shields at exits on the side of the road in addition to the normal guide signs. Even Pennsylvania using text for route numbers and NYS still using directional suffixes on exits where other states use A, B, C, etc.
I think that things should be standardized, but the individual states should be able to interpret the way it is enforced. I think the NJTA should continue to use its current large letter exit numbers and overhead exit numbers instead of gore types and the Feds should not interfere with it at all! If it works and makes the point that they want it to make, then why waste toll revenue to do this thing, when the NJ Turnpike has other issues far more important to deal with.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I drive in NYS often and the directional exits are incredibly helpful, I think the NYS standard is much clearer and aids the average motorist more so than an and B exit. I think the practice is especially helpful with meeting highways. I mean Exit 26E- I-287 E Rye is a lot more helpful than Exit 26A. I also think bridges are helpful like a trucker may not be familar with White Plains, NY, however he might be familiar with the Tappan Zee. I think signage is less a problem than lane and traffic control practices (length of acceleration lanes, left exits, style of ramps, speed enforcement, etc.)
This actually varies by region. NYSTA and most regions use them. Regions 4, 5, and 6 don't. Region 2 doesn't use exit numbers period. Region 7 continues to use directional suffixes even on I-781 which has mileage based numbers, so it's not like they haven't read the MUTCD.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2013, 03:30:15 AM
US Route Shields
[2dus and 3dus]
so where did this shield ever come from??
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4138%2F4931387680_5c14f418b6.jpg&hash=33d5730435849ca30a2cead24b7234240bfed30c)
It is almost '61 spec with the outer white margin removed, but the bottom point is a bit too pointy. it looks pretty garish, but is seen all over California.
also, I have noticed a stretched 2dus being used as a 3dus but do not have a photo offhand. I believe it is I-15 northbound at US-395, but I tried not to look at it for so long, fearing blindness.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2013, 03:30:15 AM
On a related note, I am seeing a disturbing trend where new sign installations are using 12-inch numerals on the 36x36 2-digit Interstate and California route shields. Way too small IMO.
that is actually the 1957 specification, so it isn't totally wrong.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19570901i1.jpg)
I certainly prefer that to neutered "triangle shields". I don't have a photo of a neutered triangle, but here is a state-named one. it is a standard 1961 45x36 shield compressed to 36x36.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19902102i1.jpg)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
so where did this shield ever come from??
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4138%2F4931387680_5c14f418b6.jpg&hash=33d5730435849ca30a2cead24b7234240bfed30c)
It is almost '61 spec with the outer white margin removed, but the bottom point is a bit too pointy. it looks pretty garish, but is seen all over California.
I have seen those types of US shields popping up all over California on newer guide signs and, like you, have no idea where these shields came from. I want to say this is a contractor's error but these shields are so prolific, it can't possibly be an error.
I'm not entirely familiar with how signs are fabricated in California. Does Caltrans have sign fabrication consolidated into a couple of shops?
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 03, 2013, 12:02:17 PM
Another consideration: compliance with MUTCD provisions is often quite poor when they are not highly visible. One example that comes to me forcefully now that I am engaged in a guide-sign shield drawing project is the minimum height of digits in route markers. For freeways the MUTCD requirement is uniformly 18" in 36" shields except for state and US routes at minor interchanges, for which values as low as 12" are permitted. This is a "Shall" condition: the minimum height values themselves are tabulated, but an accompanying "Shall" statement directs that the dimensions given in the table shall be used.
I would guess it is impossible for Colorado to comply with this requirement, since the digits are confined to the lower half of the route marker (the state flag occupying the top half).
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 04, 2013, 01:59:23 PMI would guess it is impossible for Colorado to comply with this requirement, since the digits are confined to the lower half of the route marker (the state flag occupying the top half).
If the digit height requirement were relaxed so that any digit height in any FHWA alphabet series could be used as long as the legibility distance were equal to or greater than that of 18" Series D digits, Colorado would come close to meeting such a loosened standard since it uses Series E by default and probably could go up to Series F in the same message space without too much difficulty. (The old guide-sign marker standard, which consisted of "COLO" at the top of a white square with digits below, could have met the 18" digit height requirement handily, though I don't recall at the moment whether 18" digits were in fact specified. This marker design was abandoned in favor of the current one in the mid-1960's.)
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2013, 01:37:16 PMI have seen those types of US shields popping up all over California on newer guide signs and, like you, have no idea where these shields came from. I want to say this is a contractor's error but these shields are so prolific, it can't possibly be an error.
same with the interstate "triangle shields". they are everywhere, so it can't be an isolated contract that flubbed it.
QuoteI'm not entirely familiar with how signs are fabricated in California. Does Caltrans have sign fabrication consolidated into a couple of shops?
JNW is probably the right person to ask on how contracts are let in CA. I just know that a variety of companies provide their services... Safeway, Maneri, Zumar, Hawkins come to mind offhand.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 04, 2013, 02:34:02 PM(The old guide-sign marker standard, which consisted of "COLO" at the top of a white square with digits below, could have met the 18" digit height requirement handily, though I don't recall at the moment whether 18" digits were in fact specified. This marker design was abandoned in favor of the current one in the mid-1960's.)
1969, IIRC.
It would be, I think, a good compromise to have the old-style COLO shields appear on guide signs, and the state-flag variant be the reassurance marker.
unless that is deemed too confusing by more recent MUTCD updates. I know the '61 MUTCD (which is really the last one I pay any attention to!) had split designs acceptable, especially for intersection vs. reassurance.
Illinois comes to mind as having an era with 24x24 square ILLINOIS/123 shield at an intersection, and 12x18 state-outline shields as reassurance: about 1953-1972.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2013, 02:38:45 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 04, 2013, 02:34:02 PM(The old guide-sign marker standard, which consisted of "COLO" at the top of a white square with digits below, could have met the 18" digit height requirement handily, though I don't recall at the moment whether 18" digits were in fact specified. This marker design was abandoned in favor of the current one in the mid-1960's.)
1969, IIRC.
You're not old enough to recall correctly, sorry. I traveled here with my parents in 1968, and the current flag design was already predominant. There were a lot of the older COLO signs still around.
QuoteIt would be, I think, a good compromise to have the old-style COLO shields appear on guide signs, and the state-flag variant be the reassurance marker.
I don't think reviving the COLO signs for guide sign usage would be consistent signage. Maybe if the flag were compressed to only cover the top 1/4 of the route marker for guide sign use.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 04, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
You're not old enough to recall correctly, sorry. I traveled here with my parents in 1968, and the current flag design was already predominant. There were a lot of the older COLO signs still around.
hm. then maybe you can fact-check another one for me? that CO switched from COLORADO/US/123 16" cutouts to the 24" cutout, with just US and the number, in 1966?
QuoteI don't think reviving the COLO signs for guide sign usage would be consistent signage. Maybe if the flag were compressed to only cover the top 1/4 of the route marker for guide sign use.
maybe so. I can whip up a design at some point; would be a fun little project.
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2013, 01:37:16 PM
I'm not entirely familiar with how signs are fabricated in California. Does Caltrans have sign fabrication consolidated into a couple of shops?
I believe each Caltrans district has a sign shop. The department also uses a couple of different vendors to fabricate signs. On construction projects, the state used to furnish signs - either made in the district sign shop or obtained through the vendors. A few years ago, the department changed its policies and now requires contractors to furnish the signs, usually through those same vendors. This is why you see so much information on the quantity sheets on the signin portion of project plans. Contractors are supposed to reference the California and federal sign specifications for most signs, and for guide signs, there are layout sheets (sign detail sheets) provided in the plans that show letter sizes and spacing, etc.
As has been discussed in other threads on the forum, California hasn't usually used pattern accurate plans on the sign detail sheets. With the advent of contractor-furnished signing, I felt like pattern accurate details was something that Caltrans should be providing in the contract plans. I did this on one particular project (the Harbor Blvd interchange reconstruction project on Business 80/US-50 in West Sacramento) and I believe it was the first set of such pattern-accurate plans in the district. I think it caught on with other designers in the district, because I've seen several project plans since then that include pattern accurate sign details.
Quote from: jrouse on April 04, 2013, 04:48:56 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 04, 2013, 01:37:16 PM
I'm not entirely familiar with how signs are fabricated in California. Does Caltrans have sign fabrication consolidated into a couple of shops?
I believe each Caltrans district has a sign shop. The department also uses a couple of different vendors to fabricate signs. On construction projects, the state used to furnish signs - either made in the district sign shop or obtained through the vendors. A few years ago, the department changed its policies and now requires contractors to furnish the signs, usually through those same vendors. This is why you see so much information on the quantity sheets on the signin portion of project plans. Contractors are supposed to reference the California and federal sign specifications for most signs, and for guide signs, there are layout sheets (sign detail sheets) provided in the plans that show letter sizes and spacing, etc.
So the off-spec US Route shield like the one...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4138%2F4931387680_5c14f418b6.jpg&hash=33d5730435849ca30a2cead24b7234240bfed30c)
versus what the shield is supposed to look...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FShields-USRoute_CA-spec.png&hash=a4fde0635a8f1b195ccdc1e27d4378b4ecdfc010)
is the fault of the Caltrans-approved sign vendors?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2013, 03:06:57 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 04, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
You're not old enough to recall correctly, sorry. I traveled here with my parents in 1968, and the current flag design was already predominant. There were a lot of the older COLO signs still around.
hm. then maybe you can fact-check another one for me? that CO switched from COLORADO/US/123 16" cutouts to the 24" cutout, with just US and the number, in 1966?
QuoteI don't think reviving the COLO signs for guide sign usage would be consistent signage. Maybe if the flag were compressed to only cover the top 1/4 of the route marker for guide sign use.
maybe so. I can whip up a design at some point; would be a fun little project.
My perceptual bias at that time is that, being from California, a cutout U.S. shield wasn't noteworthy. It was my first time in Colorado so I was interested in what the state route marker would be. If you look at the shield gallery, there is what looks like a sheet from a state MUTCD from what I would guess is mid 60s (?) showing the cutouts as standard for reassurance markers. Since I've lived here (2002), I have only seen one, on the south side of Leadville.
On the topic of the California-style cutout U.S. shields, what other states have used them? I have seen them in Minnesota (only for marking concurrent U.S. routes on interstates, back when Minnesota actually did that), and Texas.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 04, 2013, 07:30:33 PM
On the topic of the California-style cutout U.S. shields, what other states have used them? I have seen them in Minnesota (only for marking concurrent U.S. routes on interstates, back when Minnesota actually did that), and Texas.
it was actually a federal standard from 1961-1970, for indeed that purpose: 36" interstate shields to go with 24" US.
however, they have appeared in other locations as well.
I have seen them in: AR, CA, CO, CT, IL, IA, KS, MO, MT, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, WI.
and now I can add MN to that list. do you have any photos?
Virginia as well (full-size cutouts and not just the "traditional Virginia cutouts"), albeit pretty rare. I know of examples for US 11 and US 460.
Quote from: jrouse on April 04, 2013, 04:48:56 PMAs has been discussed in other threads on the forum, California hasn't usually used pattern accurate plans on the sign detail sheets. With the advent of contractor-furnished signing, I felt like pattern accurate details was something that Caltrans should be providing in the contract plans. I did this on one particular project (the Harbor Blvd interchange reconstruction project on Business 80/US-50 in West Sacramento) and I believe it was the first set of such pattern-accurate plans in the district. I think it caught on with other designers in the district, because I've seen several project plans since then that include pattern accurate sign details.
I thank you for being an activist in favor of pattern-accurate sign detail sheets.
The situation has improved considerably in the last few years, to the extent that a set of Caltrans contract plans that includes designable signs can generally be counted on to include pattern-accurate sign detail sheets for the permanent signing, regardless of district. The main exception to this general observation is District 4 (San Francisco), which is still spitting out a lot of plans with placeholder fonts in the sign detail sheets. I don't know if these are newly produced plans sets or if they have been sitting on the shelves since the mid-noughties, since District 4 does produce some pattern-accurate sign detail sheets on some contracts.
The latest frontier is pattern-accurate detail sheets for designable temporary signs. District 8 does this all the time, District 12 does it some of the time, and Districts 4 and 11 hardly ever do. These are the Caltrans districts that are most likely to use such signs (practice is hardly uniform across Caltrans in this area).
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 04, 2013, 02:50:29 PMI don't think reviving the COLO signs for guide sign usage would be consistent signage. Maybe if the flag were compressed to only cover the top 1/4 of the route marker for guide sign use.
I don't think reviving "COLO" markers would comply with the
MUTCD either, since I believe it now requires that the guide-sign shield look substantially like the independent-mount shield, with allowances for variations such as omission of borders and black background in the guide-sign context.
In regard to rejigging the present flag marker to comply with the 18" requirement, one possible approach is to jettison all the black borders, both within the flag design and just inside the shield edge. A thin white border could be left around the top and sides of the flag design to comply with the rule of tincture (no blue stripes against green guide-sign background), and the message space at the bottom would be able to accommodate 18" digits. The main design decision that then remains is how much to compress the flag design to obtain a reasonable amount of padding above and below the digits.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2013, 03:06:57 PMQuote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 04, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
You're not old enough to recall correctly, sorry. I traveled here with my parents in 1968, and the current flag design was already predominant. There were a lot of the older COLO signs still around.
hm. then maybe you can fact-check another one for me? that CO switched from COLORADO/US/123 16" cutouts to the 24" cutout, with just US and the number, in 1966?
I can confirm (working from my notes) that the flag design was introduced in 1968. Answering the question about cutouts is harder. The 24" cutout with "US" only was introduced circa 1962 (the same standard plan sheet shows the square white state route marker with "COLO" only--previously it had been "COLORADO"). However, 16" x 16 1/2" "COLORADO-US" remained available for use. I think black-background US route markers were introduced in the same year (they are also shown on this standard plan sheet): tight scrolling, square designs for both two- and three-digit routes. All of these markers were still available for use as of 1963. By 1970, Colorado was using the modern, minimally scrolled US route marker design, specified in terms of a "basic design" with an "inner line" (intended for use on independent-mount shields) and an "outer line" (intended for use on guide-sign shields); the basic design was available in separate widths for two- and three-digit routes. I have not found definitive proof yet, but it is my suspicion that Colorado rolled out this design for the US marker at the same time as the flag design for the state route marker, and it was probably also at this time that the earlier variants of the US route marker--"COLORADO-US" cutout, "US" cutout, and black-background square with tightly scrolled shield--became unavailable for use.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 04, 2013, 08:31:30 PM
I can confirm (working from my notes) that the flag design was introduced in 1968.
I think I misremembered something you had told me. was off by a year. looks like there was some very heavy adoption of the new route marker, based on High Plains Traveler's recollection. this is in contrast to Louisiana introducing state-named interstate shields. the legislation was there by 2011, and only now are they starting to appear in any noticeable quantity.
QuoteAnswering the question about cutouts is harder. The 24" cutout with "US" only was introduced circa 1962 (the same standard plan sheet shows the square white state route marker with "COLO" only--previously it had been "COLORADO"). However, 16" x 16 1/2" "COLORADO-US" remained available for use. I think black-background US route markers were introduced in the same year (they are also shown on this standard plan sheet): tight scrolling, square designs for both two- and three-digit routes. All of these markers were still available for use as of 1963.
I believe it was Matthew Salek who said something about 1966. might that be the year that the COLORADO-US shield was made unavailable?
QuoteBy 1970, Colorado was using the modern, minimally scrolled US route marker design, specified in terms of a "basic design" with an "inner line" (intended for use on independent-mount shields) and an "outer line" (intended for use on guide-sign shields); the basic design was available in separate widths for two- and three-digit routes. I have not found definitive proof yet, but it is my suspicion that Colorado rolled out this design for the US marker at the same time as the flag design for the state route marker, and it was probably also at this time that the earlier variants of the US route marker--"COLORADO-US" cutout, "US" cutout, and black-background square with tightly scrolled shield--became unavailable for use.
1970 would be very, very early adoption for the 1970-spec shield. it was first used in Pennsylvania, 1965, and was first made a federal standard in 1970 (AASHO interstate manual) and 1971 (MUTCD). I have not heard of any state other than Pennsylvania using it before 1971.
I've heard 1971 (from Matthew Salek, again) is when the state name on the interstate shields went away, as Colorado adopted the neutered, large-number 1970-spec interstate shield for their own use.
^Colorado would have therefore rolled out those flag route markers quickly in 1968, since as I observed there were plenty of them by what I think was August of that year. As far as the Minnesota U.S. cutouts, I think they were replaced with standard square markers by about 1980. Sorry, no photos.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 05, 2013, 10:15:24 AM
^Colorado would have therefore rolled out those flag route markers quickly in 1968, since as I observed there were plenty of them by what I think was August of that year.
I wonder how fast that is compared to, say, the California green route marker rollout of 1964, or South Carolina's fairly lackadaisical approach to their blue shields. I haven't been to South Carolina since 2010, but the last time I was there, there were plenty of black and white shields left.
To me signs like this are harmless:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey050/i-095_nj_tpk_nb_exit_015_08.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey050/i-095_nb_exit_007_04.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey050/i-095_nb_exit_008a_05.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fgsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9ca3f10126e6ada1002cd9b037b98dd6c0769e96)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnjtp_%26amp%3B_gsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9cf8c15aa686acc858f504e9e57a78d0a2aa1b7b)
It's not like they're blue stop signs, or anything like that.
As for California, I always thought they had special conditions that made them use the signs that they've got.
Must ... Push ... Sky ... Back .. to where .. it ... Belongs (whew)
Oops, I forgot some others;
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F05%2FFlashing_Big_Red_Do_Not_Enter_Sign%2528Maryland_House%2529.JPG&hash=888c8fdb425d70dac6e6f68ad0c2624240614f9b)
The only thing wrong with this one is that it's old.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F250.jpg&hash=67c5240c7f825e0bb3295e5571360d83e3287cb9)
And this one is just shaped like a Denny's, or Duncan Hines, or Peat Freans logo. No big deal.
Quote from: kendancy66 on April 05, 2013, 10:52:23 AM
Must ... Push ... Sky ... Back .. to where .. it ... Belongs (whew)
Did that last edit work for you?
why does that Exxon gas station have prices on the back of the sign, to serve wrong-way traffic?
I feel like it should be a courtesy to black out that side of the sign, to further the perception that this is not a direction one should be going in.
(I've driven down a one-way street the wrong way precisely once in my life, and it was because there were several signs still serving wrong-way traffic dating back to when the road was two-way. it was Beacon Street under the Citgo sign in Boston, and the wrong-way road still had an ancient EAST banner, and a $50 penalty for littering sign, as late as 2007.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2013, 10:31:35 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 05, 2013, 10:15:24 AM
^Colorado would have therefore rolled out those flag route markers quickly in 1968, since as I observed there were plenty of them by what I think was August of that year.
I wonder how fast that is compared to, say, the California green route marker rollout of 1964, or South Carolina's fairly lackadaisical approach to their blue shields. I haven't been to South Carolina since 2010, but the last time I was there, there were plenty of black and white shields left.
IIRC, California initially only put the green markers up on newly redesignated routes and didn't replace the older black on white markers for at least a couple of years. How fast did Oklahoma roll out the meat cleavers? Seems that was a pretty fast process.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 05, 2013, 12:02:00 PMand didn't replace the older black on white markers for at least a couple of years
I think the black-and-white shields for routes which kept their numbers were replaced mostly on an as-needed basis. several green signs had patches placed even where the white shields were serviceable (I-5 at CA-134 comes to mind), while others had the white shields remain (CA-170 at CA-134, the last white shield in the state, around as of several weeks ago).
I've heard the last independent-mount white shield anyone knew of was a 49 which was gone sometime in the early 90s. I've certainly never found any.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 05, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on April 05, 2013, 10:52:23 AM
Must ... Push ... Sky ... Back .. to where .. it ... Belongs (whew)
Did that last edit work for you?
I thought it was a joke using the expression "the sky is falling". (oh no, traffic control device standardization! heaven help us!)
btw, a friend of mine argues that it was indeed the MUTCD which took away the identities of each state: the 1961 edition, that is. I think everyone pines for the "good old days".
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 05, 2013, 11:13:16 AM
Oops, I forgot some others;
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F05%2FFlashing_Big_Red_Do_Not_Enter_Sign%2528Maryland_House%2529.JPG&hash=888c8fdb425d70dac6e6f68ad0c2624240614f9b)
The only thing wrong with this one is that it's old.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F250.jpg&hash=67c5240c7f825e0bb3295e5571360d83e3287cb9)
And this one is just shaped like a Denny's, or Duncan Hines, or Peat Freans logo. No big deal.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2013, 11:24:11 AM
why does that Exxon gas station have prices on the back of the sign, to serve wrong-way traffic?
I feel like it should be a courtesy to black out that side of the sign, to further the perception that this is not a direction one should be going in.
The NJ Turnpike Authority posts the price on both sides of the service area signs, on both the Turnpike & Parkway (this particular one is on the Parkway). Seems useless, as you point out.
Sign #2: The sign, which was for the Delaware I-95 Service Area sign, is long-gone. It was replaced as part of the new service area project that opened up a few years ago.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2013, 11:24:11 AM
why does that Exxon gas station have prices on the back of the sign, to serve wrong-way traffic?
Maybe because people who are in the parking areas might want to read those too.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 05, 2013, 10:48:45 AM
To me signs like this are harmless:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey050/i-095_nj_tpk_nb_exit_015_08.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey050/i-095_nb_exit_007_04.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey050/i-095_nb_exit_008a_05.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fgsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9ca3f10126e6ada1002cd9b037b98dd6c0769e96)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnjtp_%26amp%3B_gsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9cf8c15aa686acc858f504e9e57a78d0a2aa1b7b)
I love that overhead Exit 7 gantry, except for that rinky-dink arrow. That's the only thing odd I see, other than that, it looks like something that other state could potentially adopt.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on April 06, 2013, 03:01:09 PM
I love that overhead Exit 7 gantry, except for that rinky-dink arrow. That's the only thing odd I see, other than that, it looks like something that other state could potentially adopt.
But the "rinky-dink" arrow is the best part!
The above photos show the reason the NJ Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway should have signs kept the way they currently are! There is nothing wrong with having an exit gantry, flip signs, and entry signs like the ones above. The one thing I do like is the new pull-through signs with the NJ Turnpike logo along with the control city.
Quote from: amroad17 on April 07, 2013, 03:37:47 AMThere is nothing wrong with having an exit gantry, flip signs, and entry signs like the ones above.
Those will likely be replaced w/LED signs (whole or partial) since those flip-types serve as semi-VMS'.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2013, 10:31:35 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 05, 2013, 10:15:24 AM
^Colorado would have therefore rolled out those flag route markers quickly in 1968, since as I observed there were plenty of them by what I think was August of that year.
I wonder how fast that is compared to, say, the California green route marker rollout of 1964, or South Carolina's fairly lackadaisical approach to their blue shields. I haven't been to South Carolina since 2010, but the last time I was there, there were plenty of black and white shields left.
By the end of 2012, black and white shields are still around, but quite rare. I'd peg it at "number of East/West US 1 shields in Connecticut in 2003" levels, maybe 20% old and 80% new.
Why are the standalone route markers mounted on guide signs, a la New Jersey, eliminated from the new MUTCD? What's the big deal?
Quote from: Steve on April 08, 2013, 07:32:27 PM
By the end of 2012, black and white shields are still around, but quite rare. I'd peg it at "number of East/West US 1 shields in Connecticut in 2003" levels, maybe 20% old and 80% new.
your definition of rare is more inclusive than mine. :sombrero:
California black and white shields are rare! (one known.) Colorado black and white shields are, as far as I know, extinct. SC seems to be even more common than Idaho outline shields, which I think are getting accidentally posted to this day.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2013, 11:44:13 AM
Why are the standalone route markers mounted on guide signs, a la New Jersey, eliminated from the new MUTCD? What's the big deal?
indeed. this seems a bit finicky.
that said - while we're at it, can we eliminate black borders on the surface shields too? :sombrero:
Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2013, 11:44:13 AM
Why are the standalone route markers mounted on guide signs, a la New Jersey, eliminated from the new MUTCD? What's the big deal?
I think those were out of the MUTCD for some time now - you sure they weren't proscribed in 2003? All it does is add dead non-reflective space to the sign at night that doesn't do anything to convey a message.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 10, 2013, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 10, 2013, 11:44:13 AM
Why are the standalone route markers mounted on guide signs, a la New Jersey, eliminated from the new MUTCD? What's the big deal?
indeed. this seems a bit finicky.
that said - while we're at it, can we eliminate black borders on the surface shields too? :sombrero:
I have far too many examples to quote, but I'm positive you mean, "can we eliminate black borders that don't match the shape of the shield?"
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 05, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: kendancy66 on April 05, 2013, 10:52:23 AM
Must ... Push ... Sky ... Back .. to where .. it ... Belongs (whew)
Did that last edit work for you?
Yes the vertical on all those pictures of NJ Turnpike is now looking much better. I thought the problem was my web browser. Thank You.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 04, 2013, 07:30:33 PMOn the topic of the California-style cutout U.S. shields, what other states have used them? I have seen them in Minnesota (only for marking concurrent U.S. routes on interstates, back when Minnesota actually did that), and Texas.
Iowa uses that as S.O.P. for state circles and US shields on their BGSes.
One thing not yet brought up in this discussion is a musing that I saw a couple of years ago (no reference handy, though) where the writer posited that the over much of the past century and especially since WWII, the MUTCD and its predecessors has actually had a very strong positive effect on overall USA national unity - in that all of the familiar signage is consistent across the USA, but with enough state-by state differences allowed to maintain identities - ie, state route shields (plus Wisconsin's county signs) and minor differences on how things are presented.
Any thoughts?
Mike
Quote from: Steve on April 10, 2013, 10:20:35 PM
I have far too many examples to quote, but I'm positive you mean, "can we eliminate black borders that don't match the shape of the shield?"
yeah, "black backgrounds" is probably a more accurate descriptor - but then we'd have to throw in black borders, to get to shields like this which are the classic surface-mount cutouts I am angling for.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VA/VA19560012i1.jpg)
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 05, 2013, 07:52:09 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 05, 2013, 11:24:11 AM
why does that Exxon gas station have prices on the back of the sign, to serve wrong-way traffic?
Maybe because people who are in the parking areas might want to read those too.
I always wondered if it is a requirement to post prices on both sides of a sign. I've seen it on the NY Thurway, where prices from one plaza to another may be different, therefore posting prices for westbound traffic on an eastbound area seems a bit odd... and in the Thurway's case, typically the price pylon signs are even with the gas station. Before the new service areas on the Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike/I-476, the two plazas had four gas pylon signs, all with prices, and if I recall correctly, always posted on all four sign faces.
One story on posting prices is here http://cbsn.ws/GPn7Db * which seems to indicate it is almost tradition to post prices, vs. anything else (and no answer to the "both sides" question)
*If you prefer the full link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43144153/why-do-gas-stations-post-their-outrageous-prices-because-well-they-always-have/
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 10, 2013, 12:07:56 PM
Colorado black and white shields are, as far as I know, extinct.
By now, that's probably true. The last of the old "COLO" black and white signs that I knew of were in two places in the Colorado Springs area:
1) Along CO-83 just south of downtown Colorado Springs, near it's intersection with I-25. However, that was back in the early 1990s - before they extended CO-115 northward and shortened 83 by a bit. That would have certainly meant the end for them;
2) There were some other old "COLO" black and white shields (again in the early 90s) along CO-67 in the Cripple Creek-Victor area. I'd bet anything that those old signs have been gone for at least 20 years now.
There are still quite a few old circle (and maybe a couple of old square) badges along Vermont's state highway system. From the time before VT traded those in for those green not-an-oval-not-a-circle-not-a-rectangle UFO-style badges.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 19, 2013, 08:49:30 PM
I'd bet anything that those old signs have been gone for at least 20 years now.
quite likely. the last two COLO shield signs that I know of were this one, gone around 2004:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19610252i1.jpg)
and this one in Pueblo, with one shield, gone by 2007:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19520961i1.jpg)
I do have a photo, taken in 2008, of a white guide sign on US-160 for state route 184, that appears to have had a new-style flag shield bolted onto an older COLO shield. so there may very well be a COLO shield left - it's just not visible.
QuoteThere are still quite a few old circle (and maybe a couple of old square) badges along Vermont's state highway system. From the time before VT traded those in for those green not-an-oval-not-a-circle-not-a-rectangle UFO-style badges.
the circle is still in use. town-maintained as opposed to state-maintained road. the squares are much more rare. as far as I know, there are no shields in VT older than '61 spec.
this one exists and I think it may be a goof, reflecting NH standard of the time. the fact that it is placed with '61 spec US shields implies it is probably an attempt at '61 spec.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19600141i1.jpg)
this is the large '61 spec, used until 1973 or so before they went to the circle:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19630121i1.jpg)
and this is the much rarer small '61 spec, used as a reassurance until the mid-'60s when all the shields were made large.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19550301i1.jpg)
as far as I know, there are none of these left - neither the '50s style small-state-name rectangle, and certainly not the embossed US cutout:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19290042i1.jpg)
there are several of these floating around, in varying states of disrepair. 1961 spec US shield, small size.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19580891i1.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VT/VT19550022i1.jpg)
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 05, 2013, 12:02:00 PM
How fast did Oklahoma roll out the meat cleavers? Seems that was a pretty fast process.
The announcement was made in early 2006, with a goal to get them all replaced by 2007 (which was the year of Oklahoma's centennial). This was largely done, with a few random circles left by the close of 2006 (probably no more than 10% circles, and that's on the high end). That number has only gone down since.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2013, 01:52:37 AM
The announcement was made in early 2006, with a goal to get them all replaced by 2007 (which was the year of Oklahoma's centennial). This was largely done, with a few random circles left by the close of 2006 (probably no more than 10% circles, and that's on the high end). That number has only gone down since.
I assume that independent-mount was more quickly replaced than guide sign?
how many did we find in our Nov '09 journey? any apart from that wacky OK-3 circle on a 21x18 shield on an old alignment?
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 19, 2013, 08:49:30 PMThere are still quite a few old circle (and maybe a couple of old square) badges along Vermont's state highway system. From the time before VT traded those in for those green not-an-oval-not-a-circle-not-a-rectangle UFO-style badges.
You can find plenty of '61 spec large and small squares if you know where to look. Even though I've only been to 2 counties in Vermont I've found probably at least a dozen. Grafton's full of them, for example. Just find some out-of-the way town that maintains its own roads.