Phoenix: "Mountain" 510, SR 217 ever posted in the field?

[J N Winkler]

I have been told that in Phoenix in the mid-1980's, what is now SR 51 (then Squaw Peak Parkway, later Squaw Peak Freeway, now Piestewa Freeway) was intended to be marked by a special shield consisting of the number 510 against a mountain graphic, while SR 217 was the original number for what is now Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway).  Were shields corresponding to these route designations ever erected?

[agentsteel53]

I have never seen such a thing - neither executed in the field, nor even as a concept.

do you have any diagrams?

[J N Winkler]

I have a couple of pattern-accurate images, both taken from sign panel layouts for interchange sequence signs on I-10 leading into what is now the SR 51/Loop 202 interchange complex:





Both details are taken from the construction plans for Arizona DOT TRACS H008904C (most plan sheets have dates in or near April 1986).  The lines across each detail are part of cancel lines covering the entirety of the plan sheets.  The revised sheets which replaced these cancelled sheets have "510" crossed out and say "Route number to be determined" in regard to the "Mountain" 510 shield, while the SR 217 shield and accompanying cardinal direction word are both crossed out.

[agentsteel53]

look at that!

that 510 shield looks to be a bit poorly designed - the edges of the number are touching the border of the mountains.  would be interesting to see what it looked like in its execution.

[Billy F 1988]

It's not only poor choice of design execution, it's poor choice of FHWA type facing. I don't believe the FHWA will approve the "Mountain" shield because of how its designed.

[NE2]

I don't believe the FHWA will approve the "Mountain" shield because it's not being proposed.

[Henry]

Maybe it's a good thing that the Mountain shield was never posted in the field. I've been through AZ many times, and never seen it anywhere in that state.

[Billy F 1988]

No state within the Rocky Mountain region should ever use the Mountain shield for any purpose. If you're going to propose to the FHWA a Mountain type shield, do it right! AzDOT fails for this dubious attempt and that sign plan should be stamped with a red F

[formulanone]

I think it looks okay; seems like nothing that slightly smaller numerals wouldn't have fixed.

Seems no different than a scenic shield or equivalent, warning you that "the view is scenic, it might be icy in the winter, and you won't be making up any time on this route".

[NE2]

Should have stuck to the original name: Interstate Penetration Route.

Seems no different than a scenic shield or equivalent, warning you that "the view is scenic, it might be icy in the winter, and you won't be making up any time on this route".

It's a freeway, so yeah.

[Thing 342]

I think it looks okay; seems like nothing that slightly smaller numerals wouldn't have fixed.

Seems no different than a scenic shield or equivalent, warning you that "the view is scenic, it might be icy in the winter, and you won't be making up any time on this route".

Indeed, isn't AZ 51 classified as a scenic route? I made this (hastily done) mockup of other state scenic routes in the 'mountain' shield.

[hm insulators]

I think it looks okay; seems like nothing that slightly smaller numerals wouldn't have fixed.

Seems no different than a scenic shield or equivalent, warning you that "the view is scenic, it might be icy in the winter, and you won't be making up any time on this route".

Indeed, isn't AZ 51 classified as a scenic route? I made this (hastily done) mockup of other state scenic routes in the 'mountain' shield.

Not as far as I know. The freeway does travel up and over the Phoenix Mountains, a small range within the city of Phoenix (I live just a couple of miles from the 51), but that stretch is maybe two miles long; the rest of the freeway is pretty much your typical urban/suburban freeway, just like thousands of miles of other such routes.

[myosh_tino]

It's not only poor choice of design execution, it's poor choice of FHWA type facing. I don't believe the FHWA will approve the "Mountain" shield because of how its designed.

Wait.  Do state route shield designs need FHWA approval?

[Billy F 1988]

Yes, because that mountain shield is not part of the MUTCD. Any new state designed prepared for use needs FHWA approval.

[myosh_tino]

Yes, because that mountain shield is not part of the MUTCD. Any new state designed prepared for use needs FHWA approval.

The only relevant section regarding state route shields in the MUTCD is Sec 2D.11/Design of Route Shields and even then, they're only guidelines.  No where does it say that state route shield designs need to be approved by the FHWA.

To take things a step further, I don't believe *any* state route shield other than the generic circle shield appear in the national MUTCD.

[mapman1071]

I have been told that in Phoenix in the mid-1980's, what is now SR 51 (then Squaw Peak Parkway, later Squaw Peak Freeway, now Piestewa Freeway) was intended to be marked by a special shield consisting of the number 510 against a mountain graphic, while SR 217 was the original number for what is now Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway).  Were shields corresponding to these route designations ever erected?

I-410/I-510 were originally assigned to what is now I-10 between the I-17/I-10 Split and the I-10/AZ 51/Loop 202 Short Stack. the I-510 shield was on BGS in the 1960's & 70's for the short segment from the then Trumpet I-10 E/I-17 W to Buckeye Road/16th Street