text-based guide signs instead of shields

[agentsteel53]

in another thread, HB posted this photo:

Here's a 395 for you. There are three text-based route number guide signs left in Kentucky. Two of them are at this exit...

Does anyone know what the rationale is to avoid shields and use the text-based number representation?  The idea shows up in the 1961 AASHO interstate signing guide, without explanation: on one page, a sign with a shield, and on the next one, a text-based sign.  So I am guessing the various states picked up the habit, but ... why?  Shields look so much better!

[hbelkins]

I can remember Kentucky using text-based route numbers on the Mountain Parkway, and in two other places. The KY 395 exit on I-64 in Shelby County, and northbound on I-75 at the KY 22 exit at Dry Ridge.

The Mountain Parkway signs got replaced in the mid-1970s (but one of the new signs, westbound at Exit 46, is still text-based).

The I-75 sign survived until a few years ago, when it was replaced when I-75 was widened in that area.

The westbound signs at KY 395 on I-64 were replaced several years ago with shields, but the eastbound text signs (including the one I posted in the contest thread) have survived the widening of I-64 in that area.

[agentsteel53]

New York and Pennsylvania really seem to like them; in fact New York seems to have used them exclusively after the outline-shield style (1958 AASHO spec) was remanded in 1961.  Pennsylvania used white-background US and state shields for a little bit of time and then switched to the text.

[mapman]

The only reason I can think of for doing this is space limitations.  Maybe a DOT feels it can't fit a standard highway shield on a sign, so it uses text instead?

I agree that it doesn't make much sense.  

I'll check the MUTCD at work tomorrow to see if it still allows this practice.

-----------

One of the few instances where I've seen this in California is in combination with the word "Junction," as in "Junction 85     3/4 mile" on advance guide signs.  These are on mostly older signs -- it doesn't appear to be current Caltrans practice.  Many of these signs have been upgraded to include shields.

[agentsteel53]

I think California introduced shields to large overhead black signs in 1955; before that, they were all spelled out.  I have photos of large overhead that say "U. S. 101" in text (with periods), as well as a 1955 manual showing an example "JUNCTION STATE-24" sign.  Then I have a 1955 photo of a black sign with a spade 71 outline shield, so I am thinking California decided (quite rightly) that shields were the way to go.

Interestingly, pole-mounted black signs had the shields as early as the 1930s; it was just the overheads that were spelled out... except for the JUNCTION STATE-24 example, that is a pole-mounted sign intended to be placed on the shoulder.  That's the only time I've seen a black sign specify a spelled-out name.  Pole-mounted green signs from the 1960s had the spelled-out designation a lot - there was a surviving "US 60-70-99" sign until several years ago, actually.

[roadfro]

Nevada DOT occasionally used text instead of shields in the past.  Every instance that I'm aware of is/was a freeway application, and was only on a three-line interchange sequence sign.  Although this is no longer a practice, many examples still exist.

In Reno on EB I-80, the two interchange sequence signs preceding the US 395 interchange both spell out "US 395".  Older interchange sequence signs on NB US 395 used to spell out "Interstate 80"; most of those signs were replaced a few years ago with new ones using shields, but one still remains.  There's also one on SB US 395 near the end of the freeway in Reno that says "Mt Rose Hwy SR 431", where nowadays a Nevada shield would be placed before the highway name.

On US 95 in Las Vegas, they did something interesting regarding the interchange sequence signs approaching I-15.  On the first one, they spelled out "Interstate 15" on the bottom line.  For the next two signs they used an I-15 shield centered between two lines (since there were two ramps), but instead of putting 'north' or 'south' on each line, they listed the control cities of "Salt Lake City" and "Los Angeles".  As a youngster, this gave me the impression that LA was only 1/4-mile from Salt Lake.  Such signs were replaced on the SB approach with the conclusion of US 95 widening, but are still present on the NB approach.

[J N Winkler]

New York and Pennsylvania really seem to like them; in fact New York seems to have used them exclusively after the outline-shield style (1958 AASHO spec) was remanded in 1961.  Pennsylvania used white-background US and state shields for a little bit of time and then switched to the text.

I don't think PennDOT was particularly consistent.  Every PennDOT signing plan I have seen from the 1960's and 1970's with text designations in place of shields has them just for US and state routes, and there is always a standard plan sheet which specifies US and state route shields for use on guide signs.  Typically there is consistency only at the project level.  If the contract calls for text designations, these will be used on advance guide and exit direction signs on the freeway mainline, as well as some conventional-road direction signs near the freeway.  However, gore signs will use shields.  If the contract calls for US and state route shields on advance guide and exit direction signs, these will be used throughout, with no text designations anywhere.  For Interstate routes on signs, shields are always used--there are no text designations.

In regard to shields versus text designations generally, I think part of the motivation may have been saving sign panel area.  A shield is 36" high and by itself adds 48" to the height of the sign (36" height of the shield plus 12" allowance for spacing from top of shield to the upper sign border).  In contradistinction, PennDOT's standard for text designations called for "US" or "PA" 12" high and digits 15" high, so by themselves they added 27" to sign panel height (15" for digits, which control sizing, plus 12" spacing allowance).  This is a savings of 21" on sign panel height.  The digit height in PennDOT's standard for text designations usually matched the digit height which would be used in shields, so from the standpoint of driver comprehension, the only loss was the removal of a recognizable shape.  This, it could be argued, was partly compensated for by color consistency between text color and reflectorization (i.e., no button reflectors in black digits).

[Dougtone]

New York used all text to note a route for an exit for quite some time.  In fact, during the 1970s, it seemed like it was common practice.  While NYSDOT uses the route shields now on the guide signs, occasionally you'll see an all text NY route number on a newer sign, since sometimes the sign is replaced in kind.

[J N Winkler]

On US 95 in Las Vegas, they did something interesting regarding the interchange sequence signs approaching I-15.  On the first one, they spelled out "Interstate 15" on the bottom line.  For the next two signs they used an I-15 shield centered between two lines (since there were two ramps), but instead of putting 'north' or 'south' on each line, they listed the control cities of "Salt Lake City" and "Los Angeles".  As a youngster, this gave me the impression that LA was only 1/4-mile from Salt Lake.

This kind of ambiguity is a problem on interchange sequence signs in general.  Nebraska DOR tackles it by adding "EXIT" (in small caps) when a shield and a town appear on the same line but the exit being signed is quite far from the town.  E.g. "[N-370 shield] Bellevue EXIT  2," when Bellevue itself is about 12 miles away.

I'll check the MUTCD at work tomorrow to see if it still allows this practice.

The current (2003) edition of the MUTCD still provides dimensions for text designations.  For example, for advance guide signs at a category (b) major interchange, text elements of the designation are 12" high, digits are 15" high, while main sign legend is 16" uppercase/12" lowercase (these dimensions BTW are followed exactly in the old PennDOT signing plans I have).  Identical dimensions are also provided in the previous edition of the MUTCD, which is the Millennium edition published in 2000/01.  However--and this is a big however--signs with text designations are no longer shown in the MUTCD.  Figure 2E-13 in the Millennium MUTCD is almost completely identical to Figure 2E-15 in the 2003 MUTCD (beyond the incidentals like correct-shape shields, pattern-accurate fonts, etc. in the latter), except for two things:  in the 2003 figure the advance guide sign without word "EXIT" on the main sign panel has an exit tab, and the former example sign with text designation now has a shield.  These differences (1) emphasize to agencies that exit numbering is now required on non-Interstates and (2) hint that at some future point FHWA will ban text designations.

It is worth noting that the Millennium edition of the MUTCD is the last edition which would have had to provide for continuing installation of new button copy signs.  The revision process that led to the 2003 MUTCD would have been oriented more toward an orderly phaseout of button copy.  As argued above, I think the use of button copy was a driver for text designations in many states.  At night a text designation is superior to an unframed button-copy shield because the route class is made explicit.  Although route class can be communicated by framing the shield with button copy (a practice which was not universal in all button-copy-using states), the use of reflectors in black digits in negative-contrast shield designs "breaks up" the digits visually and makes them more difficult to read by day.

[US71]

There's one in Baton Rouge:

[Brandon]

Illinois (IDOT) seems to only use all text signs on the small signs for overpasses and underpasses or for distance signs noting the distances to the next exit and the next two control cities.  Then, they tend to use the following verbage, "Illinois XX", "US XX", and "Interstate XX" where "XX" is the route number.  The Tollway (ISTHA) tends to use all text only for the small signs for overpasses and underpasses.  They're now in the habit of using shields on distance signs.

[rawmustard]

The Tollway (ISTHA) tends to use all text only for the small signs for overpasses and underpasses.  They're now in the habit of using shields on distance signs.

But the Illinois 173 interchange signage from the Addams Tollway is all text (at least it was when I passed through at the end of February).

[Truvelo]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned PA 60 near New Castle which is covered in them.

[agentsteel53]

saving sign panel area. 

I think that might very well be it.  It sounds quite plausible, anyway.

[Mr_Northside]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned PA 60 near New Castle which is covered in them.

I imagine in the next few months most of those will be replaced as part of the I-376 renumbering.  I would expect them to have shields.  We'll see.

[J N Winkler]

I imagine in the next few months most of those will be replaced as part of the I-376 renumbering.  I would expect them to have shields.  We'll see.

The contracts have already been let (76609, 76610) for the PennDOT-maintained portion.  The signs will have shields, unless they do a really big change order at the absolute last minute.

[Brandon]

The Tollway (ISTHA) tends to use all text only for the small signs for overpasses and underpasses.  They're now in the habit of using shields on distance signs.

But the Illinois 173 interchange signage from the Addams Tollway is all text (at least it was when I passed through at the end of February).

Now that I think of it, I think you're right.  I also think those were in Clearview (of all things).  They may have been temporary as the interchange was built, and then they started widening the tollway.

Just looked, and here's a Google Map View of the rarity: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.364886,-88.964925&spn=0,359.928074&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.365142,-88.964966&panoid=fzDwcIVcWUTdvz-6nZVPTQ&cbp=12,29.7,,0,3.98

The other side seems to have already been replaced with a shield ( {173} West Lake Road).

[mightyace]

I don't think PennDOT was particularly consistent.  Every PennDOT signing plan I have seen from the 1960's and 1970's with text designations in place of shields has them just for US and state routes, and there is always a standard plan sheet which specifies US and state route shields for use on guide signs.  Typically there is consistency only at the project level.  If the contract calls for text designations, these will be used on advance guide and exit direction signs on the freeway mainline, as well as some conventional-road direction signs near the freeway.  However, gore signs will use shields.  If the contract calls for US and state route shields on advance guide and exit direction signs, these will be used throughout, with no text designations anywhere.  For Interstate routes on signs, shields are always used--there are no text designations.

That's pretty much what I remember from traveling I-80 in the 70s.  Once exception was at the Lake Harmony (Current Exit 277, Old Exit 42) which is the exit to access the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  See image below from AA Roads Shield Gallery:



This sign has since been replaced but it was the original sign from the construction of this section of I-80.  You can see it has a button-copy PA 940 shield and a Penna Turn Pike Shield (I think it was button copy, too, but I don't remember for sure.)  This sign even predates the designation of the Northeast Extension as PA 9 and IIRC the PA 9 sign was where the I-476 sign is in the image.  As an aside, why they never stuck the PA 9 or I-476 on the main sign is beyond me as there was plenty of room and even unbalanced, it would look better than the 476 shield handing around the bottom.

Also, note that the border of the BGS is not complete and there is a pole sticking up in the middle.  This was because the exit number was center-tabbed before the renumbering.

[jdb1234]

Here's one from Alabama:



This is one of two that I know of.  The other was I-20 @ US 431, which had US 78 shielded.  I am not sure that one is still there.

Other than that, I mostly see text-based guide signs when a highway is used as a destination or marked on a freeway overpass here in Alabama

[agentsteel53]

with extra-small lowercase letters, even! 

[barcncpt44]

This is one of two that I know of.  The other was I-20 @ US 431, which had US 78 shielded.  I am not sure that one is still there.

Other than that, I mostly see text-based guide signs when a highway is used as a destination or marked on a freeway overpass here in Alabama

The I-20 signs where us 431 is in text were replaced about a year ago

[jdb1234]

This is one of two that I know of.  The other was I-20 @ US 431, which had US 78 shielded.  I am not sure that one is still there.

Other than that, I mostly see text-based guide signs when a highway is used as a destination or marked on a freeway overpass here in Alabama

The I-20 signs where us 431 is in text were replaced about a year ago

Oh.  I have not been out that way in a long time, so I was not sure if they were still there.

Actually, I forgot one more.  County Road 33 in Marion County appears in text at its interchange with Corridor X.

[OracleUsr]

Northbound I-85 in Hillsborough has an all-text sign for the NC 751 connector/US 70 Business exit, Exit 170.  It says "TO NC 751/Durham/Duke Univ"

[mapman]

The current (2003) edition of the MUTCD still provides dimensions for text designations.  ...  However--and this is a big however--signs with text designations are no longer shown in the MUTCD.  ... These differences (1) emphasize to agencies that exit numbering is now required on non-Interstates and (2) hint that at some future point FHWA will ban text designations.

J N, you're probably right that the MUTCD will ban text designations in future versions.  However, it currently does NOT outright ban them.  Section 2E.25 of the 2003 MUTCD states that "Route signs (see Figure 2E-11) should [emphasis added] be incorporated as cut-out shields or other distinctive shapes on large directional guide signs."  As the MUTCD uses "should" instead of "shall," they've effectively grandfathered in text designations of route numbers, at least for now.

[Jim]

Here's one from US 20 in New York near Cherry Valley.