Single Overheads Requiring 4+ Shields

[Scott5114]

I like the practice done in some places in Johnson County–interstates only on the overheads, and directions for the associated US routes down on the legs of the gantry. What most people are looking for gets the most prominent location without a bunch of clutter, but if you're one of the rare souls actually interested in what US 50 or US 56 is doing, you still get that information.

[agentsteel53]

I like the practice done in some places in Johnson County–interstates only on the overheads, and directions for the associated US routes down on the legs of the gantry. What most people are looking for gets the most prominent location without a bunch of clutter, but if you're one of the rare souls actually interested in what US 50 or US 56 is doing, you still get that information.

that sounds related to this 1950s CA practice: freeway names on the guide signs, route shields on the gantry leg.



however, I do not know why 66 warranted its own shield on the black sign.

[national highway 1]

[Scott5114]

Obviously the wind is about to send that gantry crashing to the ground any minute now.

[Kniwt]

however, I do not know why 66 warranted its own shield on the black sign.

I'm guessing that, perhaps, the "66 Pasadena" is an early sort of black-out/green-out since it doesn't align with the upper word "Freeway" on the right. I'll bet it said "Arroyo Seco" before that, and that wasn't the original routing of 66.

[NE2]

It was 66 when the Four-Level opened. Perhaps there were problems with people following 66 keeping to the right and then cutting left when they realized they needed to take the left fork.

[agentsteel53]

It was 66 when the Four-Level opened. Perhaps there were problems with people following 66 keeping to the right and then cutting left when they realized they needed to take the left fork.

that's a good possibility.

as for the blackout: I think the sign said "Pasadena Freeway" originally, with no shield.  the word Pasadena has a Series EM capital letter, while the other capitals on that sign are Series D.  I'd have to look up when the changeover was made, but I recall 1956 or so.  that also coincides with when shields were first used on green signs.  so that patch might date to ~1956, bolstering the idea that it was a retrofit of a ~1952 guide sign.

(the question is: what sign existed before the Santa Ana Freeway through sign?  that also has Series EM capitals, implying that it is a 1956 or later sign.)

[kphoger]

A bit of sine salad at the transition from 29th St North to Hydraulic

That one is made harder to understand by a left arrow on the right side of the assembly. That would be a no-no, right? It seems that the left-turn routes should logically be shown to the left of the through routes.

I don't think much of the pole-mounted signs in general. Too many places to look.

While this particular assembly was only tangentally related to the OP, I figured I'd mention this, just to keep the AREs satisfied:

I verified yesterday that what exists in the field is the correct layout–left-turn routes on the left, through routes on the right.  It's hard to believe that I shouldn't have noticed that error before, since it's not all that uncommon of a path for me to take.  The GMSV is from July 2011, and shows black-on-white arrows; I seem to recall seeing white-on-blue arrows yesterday which looked shiny, but I'll have to check again next time I'm through there.

[kphoger]

A bit of sine salad at the transition from 29th St North to Hydraulic

Verified, and mystery solved.  The arrows (at least) were replaced in November, and the assembly was presumably switched to the correct configuration at that time.

Photos taken about 30 minutes ago:





[end boring tangent subthread]

[Scott5114]

Did Kansas get a new sticker for the back of their signs? Is this the end of "ERECTION DATE:" ?

[US12]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[colinstu]

U.S. 12/18 at I 39/90 by Steve Schar, on Flickr

Just remembered this example!

[Ian]

Another example, this time on I-95 northbound approaching the I-395 interchange (exits 182A-B) in Bangor, ME. This one's even complete with atrocious shields!

[MDOTFanFB]

Another example which I passed yesterday, this one on I-96 east approaching the "Mixing Bowl" interchange in metro Detroit.


I-96 EB approaching I-275/I-696/M-5 by MichSignalBoy, on Flickr

[Big John]

^^  North 5 and East 5?

[NE2]

Yes.

[Ian]

^^  North 5 and East 5?

It happens...

[PurdueBill]

I was trying to think of examples in Mass of signs with 4 shields and the only one I could think of offhand was an historic example that I only wish I'd taken a picture of back then.  Southbound on I-95 approaching exit 50 back in the late 80s when the road was closed south of there due to construction of the tie-in to 128 (with the prior and current I-95 SB to US 1 SB ramp carrying NB 1 to 95 traffic, thus nowhere for SB traffic to go other than exit 48, Centre St., which certainly couldn't handle that), the existing sign for exit 50 had a 95 shield tacked on, resulting in 4 shields.  The extremely tacky, somewhat-inaccurate cartoon below shows the idea...the I-95 shield was tacked on to the right of the US 1 shield as I recall, and at the time the exit for US 1 was posted as TO 62 and 114.  Today it is only posted as TO 62 despite there still not being direct access to 114 southbound.  I can't remember if the exits had gotten their exit numbers and tabs yet then or not....I think so but the panels originally had no tabs and the word EXIT was down with the distance. The subsequent replacement eliminated the redundant EXIT wording.

Like I said, it's a crummy cartoon, but I do recall the 95 being fudged in to the right of US 1, and the sign being relatively tall vertically and starting with 3 shields and then going to 4 during the detour.  I also seem to recall the 114 being a square shield, as was done sometimes in Mass, like 110 and 113 on 93 signage from a previous era.

[PurdueBill]

^^  North 5 and East 5?

It happens...

Beltways are indeed common examples of changing cardinal directions and it's not uncommon to see something like that picture at the inflection point.  Non-circular roads like M-5 that change in direction are a little more rare and the signage with non-matching directions is a little more attention-getting. 

On the four-shields topic, I thought of another in New England:

From Steve's NH I-93 page.

[kurumi]

Another example, this time on I-95 northbound approaching the I-395 interchange (exits 182A-B) in Bangor, ME. This one's even complete with atrocious shields!

Ah, the Maine Route 15 interchange ... for which there's no room on the sign

[bjrush]

This one looks pretty nice in Little Rock, AR


(Not my image, from Wikipedia)

[PHLBOS]

I was trying to think of examples in Mass of signs with 4 shields and the only one I could think of offhand was an historic example that I only wish I'd taken a picture of back then.  Southbound on I-95 approaching exit 50 back in the late 80s when the road was closed south of there due to construction of the tie-in to 128 (with the prior and current I-95 SB to US 1 SB ramp carrying NB 1 to 95 traffic, thus nowhere for SB traffic to go other than exit 48, Centre St., which certainly couldn't handle that), the existing sign for exit 50 had a 95 shield tacked on, resulting in 4 shields.  The extremely tacky, somewhat-inaccurate cartoon below shows the idea...the I-95 shield was tacked on to the right of the US 1 shield as I recall, and at the time the exit for US 1 was posted as TO 62 and 114.  Today it is only posted as TO 62 despite there still not being direct access to 114 southbound.  I can't remember if the exits had gotten their exit numbers and tabs yet then or not....I think so but the panels originally had no tabs and the word EXIT was down with the distance. The subsequent replacement eliminated the redundant EXIT wording.

Like I said, it's a crummy cartoon, but I do recall the 95 being fudged in to the right of US 1, and the sign being relatively tall vertically and starting with 3 shields and then going to 4 during the detour.  I also seem to recall the 114 being a square shield, as was done sometimes in Mass, like 110 and 113 on 93 signage from a previous era.

The BGS that you speak & illustrated of was originally erected in the mid-1970s when the I-95 extension between Topsfield & Peabody (Exit 46) was fully completed.  IIRC, the Exit 50 tab (center-mounted) was added either during the 80s southbound detour or just after (when I-95 between Exits 46 & 45 (MA 128)) opened.

BTW, it's worth noting that the control destinations for the original BGS' from I-95 South were Middleton & Danvers (MA 62 control destinations) not Danvers & Topsfield (which are what's listed on the current BGS').  The original MA 62 & MA 114 shields did not sport outlines as well.  The US 1 shield would later (mid-80s) be replaced with one that featured a white square background.

Additionally, the I-95 shield that was temporarily thrown on that BGS had the numerals in an (ugly IMHO) experimental font that the DPW & even RIDOT featured on many of their 80s-vintage Interstate shields.

The original pull-thorugh BGS for I-95 South (covered during that detour) listed Lynn along w/Boston as a control destination despite the fact that it was fabricated years after it was long-since known that I-95 proper wasn't going to continue south of MA 128 into Lynn.

Another example that might not exist now (not 100% sure) is the approach BGS' for Exit 60 along I-295 Southbound;  I-195, I-95, NJ 29, NJ 129 and/or NJTP shields were all crammed onto the same BGS'.

[cpzilliacus]

What to do when up to 6 shields are required for a single route/exit? Go Up! These are definitely unique-looking and accurately describe where you're headed: The large but loosely defined northern half of Raleigh. "North" in this case isn't referring to direction but rather a destination.

Here's a panel that is almost exactly a year old (since it was uncovered).  North bound I-95 in Prince George's County, Maryland between Md. 212 (Powder Mill Road) and Md. 200 (ICC).  Most of the signage on Md. 200 only mentions I-270, not I-370, so this one is a little unique in that way.

[Roadsguy]

I think they should have just decommissioned I-370 and replaced it all with 200, including the little piece of non-freeway beyond 270. Or maybe make the whole thing either I-370, or just turn 200 into MD 370 to avoid possible confusion.

[cpzilliacus]

I think they should have just decommissioned I-370 and replaced it all with 200, including the little piece of non-freeway beyond 270. Or maybe make the whole thing either I-370, or just turn 200 into MD 370 to avoid possible confusion.

One of the loudest (and most-obnoxious, a self-admitted member of Earth First!) opponents of the Md. 200 project for many years had a Web site on which he insisted that Maryland was going to number the InterCounty Connector as I-370.

Archive.org has a link to that site (it is now defunct) here from 2000, which was not long after then-Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening (D) announced that he was cancelling the project.

I think there are institutional issues regarding a possible decommissioning of I-370, even though Md. 200 actually pre-dates I-370 (Md. 200 was in state documents many years before I-370).  For one thing, I-370 was built using Interstate dollars, which may complicate matters as far as changing it to Md. 200.  Very nearly all of Md. 200 was built to Maryland Interstate standards, the one exception being the eastern end (now under construction), which will be an at-grade signalized intersection at U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue), not exactly Interstate-standard.  I believe an at-grade intersection was selected because just beyond U.S. 1 is the CSX Capital Subdivision railroad line (2 tracks), so building a trumpet-type interchange there would have been complex and expensive.