Is the MUTCD taking away idenities of each state?

[The High Plains Traveler]

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).

[J N Winkler]

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).

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.)

[agentsteel53]

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.

same with the interstate "triangle shields".  they are everywhere, so it can't be an isolated contract that flubbed it.

I'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.

[agentsteel53]

(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.

[The High Plains Traveler]

(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.

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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 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.

[jrouse]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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...


versus what the shield is supposed to look...


is the fault of the Caltrans-approved sign vendors?

[The High Plains Traveler]

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 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. 

[agentsteel53]

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?

[froggie]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

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. 

I believe it was Matthew Salek who said something about 1966.  might that be the year that the COLORADO-US shield was made unavailable?

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.

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.

[The High Plains Traveler]

^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.

[agentsteel53]

^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.

[D-Dey65]

To me signs like this are harmless:











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.

[kendancy66]

Must ... Push ... Sky ... Back .. to where .. it ... Belongs (whew)

[D-Dey65]

Oops, I forgot some others;

The only thing wrong with this one is that it's old.



And this one is just shaped like a Denny's, or Duncan Hines, or Peat Freans logo. No big deal.

[D-Dey65]

Must ... Push ... Sky ... Back .. to where .. it ... Belongs (whew)

Did that last edit work for you?

[agentsteel53]

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.)

[The High Plains Traveler]

^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.

[agentsteel53]

and 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.

[agentsteel53]

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".

[jeffandnicole]

Oops, I forgot some others;

The only thing wrong with this one is that it's old.



And this one is just shaped like a Denny's, or Duncan Hines, or Peat Freans logo. No big deal.

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.

[D-Dey65]

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.