Signage pet peeves

[agentsteel53]

turning maintenance over to the counties.

sure, why the hell not?  I'm a big fan of federalism!

I'd put the minimum length of a numbered state highway at 5 or 10 miles, actually.  If I am following a numbered route, I want to go somewhere.  sure, not all routes are going to be US-20 but I don't much see the need to slap shields on a half-mile connector.

[deathtopumpkins]

turning maintenance over to the counties.

sure, why the hell not?  I'm a big fan of federalism!

I'd put the minimum length of a numbered state highway at 5 or 10 miles, actually.  If I am following a numbered route, I want to go somewhere.  sure, not all routes are going to be US-20 but I don't much see the need to slap shields on a half-mile connector.

Are you offering to pay for these counties who have never maintained their own roads to buy all the necessary equipment, build the necessary facilities, and go through the logistics of taking over and entirely renumbering and reclassifying a highway system? If you are, I'll support you wholeheartedly.

Although there are quite a few highways less than 5 or 10 miles that I think should remain state-maintained (for example, VA 278, which connects US 258 with Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, and VA 406, an expressway that connects I-564 with Norfolk International Terminals and Hampton Blvd in Norfolk). Hell, there are interstates shorter than that that are important!

[froggie]

- END signs being posted on the BGSs, it wastes space.

I don't see this one being a problem, especially on major routes where the ending route in question ties seamlessly into another route (such as at a freeway-to-freeway interchange).  Reinforces the fact that "Route x" ends.

I have no idea why Virginia reuses state secondary numbers.  it's not like there's a finite number of integers...

DTP said it best...there's a finite limit on the number of digits you can put on a shield.  We're already into the 10xxx's in Fairfax County alone.

[Eth]

Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

yes, more information is generally helpful, but in this case I think it is diluting the value of a numbered state highway system.  I expect state highways to go places and connect locations of relative importance.  I think small spur roads should not receive shields at all.  (I-375 in Florida, anyone?)

Heh, you think that's bad?  While we're talking about Virginia, let it be noted that the state secondary system includes things such as school parking lots.  And that, at least in some parts of the state, these are actually signed from the main road with shields.  I've seen this east of Fredericksburg as well as all along the US 29 corridor - actual full assemblies with a number such as 9252 in a circle secondary route shield and an arrow pointing directly into a school parking lot.  (Google Street View example - picture quality sucks, sorry)  How is this helpful to anybody?  Even if such facilities need numbers for some reason, why confuse the motorists?

[agentsteel53]

indeed - you do not need to post your inventory numbers in the field!

as for county vs. state maintenance - that issue is actually independent of the quantity of routes that need signing; if it's too much of a logistical hassle then don't do it.  but, again, not every parking lot access ramp needs a full junction assembly.  routes that get numbers and shields should be of some importance beyond the local, because one figures that the locals just remember the number by name.

I think California has an ideal system in this regard - even the county routes tend to go about 5-10 miles and connect something to somewhere.  we have very few state highways that are only a brief ramp or whatnot (I-980 notwithstanding) and most of our routes persist for quite a while.  it isn't a shame to link together a whole slew of short connector routes to form a single named route - even if no one ever drives highway 20 from, say, Nevada City to Fort Bragg, it is still useful to know that a single route number runs east-west across the state connecting the two.

[Quillz]

Two of the three shields on this gantry are extremely ugly. I believe the I-515 shield is using compressed Series D on a 2di template, while US-95 gained a lot of weight.

[national highway 1]

Does the 93 shield look like a '61 spec?

[Quillz]

Does the 93 shield look like a botched '61 spec?

It appears accurate to me, and botched or not, it's certainly much better than the other two shields.

[froggie]

I'm likely a minority here, but I like the US 95 shield...moreso than the US 93.  But I also prefer Series D numerals over Series C for 2-digit routes.

[agentsteel53]

the 93 to me looks like completely correct '61 spec.  is that still around?  if so, it may very well be the last '61 spec shield in Nevada.  I didn't see any on my 6/50 run a few months ago.

and yes, the 515 is compressed D where B or C should've been used (well, that or a wider shield).  the 95 has a nonstandard 9 and a standard 5.  the 9 is Nevada's custom font.  the fact that the stroke thickness is ever-so-slightly bolder is what makes the shield look a tad off-kilter.

[Ian]

I like all 3 of the Nevada shields. Of course, the I-515 shield could use a state name...

[Quillz]

I'm likely a minority here, but I like the US 95 shield...moreso than the US 93.  But I also prefer Series D numerals over Series C for 2-digit routes.

I only like the fat shields when they're cutout, like how California and Virginia used to make them. There's just too much unused white space when putting the same style onto a black background. (And yet that's the very reason the '70 spec is the way it is.)

[agentsteel53]

I only like the fat shields when they're cutout, like how California and Virginia used to make them. There's just too much unused white space when putting the same style onto a black background. (And yet that's the very reason the '70 spec is the way it is.)

those are three different shapes: California '57, Virginia late 50s, federal '70.

[Quillz]

Late 50's Virginia was the best shield style I've seen.

[agentsteel53]

Late 50's Virginia was the best shield style I've seen.

it does the job.  my favorite shield shape, other than 1926 standard, is this 1956 California three-digit:

[froggie]

There's just too much unused white space when putting the same style onto a black background. (And yet that's the very reason the '70 spec is the way it is.)

Depends on the numerals used.  IMO, the bulging makes it easier to see those numerals which are rounded near the bottom...namely 3, 5, 6, and 8.  Easier to use D-series font with it.  That US 93 shield is atrocious.

[architect77]

Since so much discussion is about shields here (I don't care much about them at all), I thought I'd show you some decent Georgia shields at Buckhead-Atlanta's newly made over crossroads, Peachtree Rd./Piedmont Ave. intersection.

[architect77]

I think route 142658 might be a bit hard to parse at freeway speed.

in that case, why bother to sign them at all?  how does the average motorist benefit from a "644" shield on a 0.2 mile long dead-end road?

Because it is a bit helpful to have a number for the route. If you happen to not know that that road is called "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd" but saw it on a map as 644, you'd be good. Plus they're a good idea to have for identification purposes for VDOT.

I think laws passed related to 911 service and GPS navigation in North Carolina prompted the state to give every rural route (formerly "Route 2 Box 103" for mailing addresses) a specific name like "E. Tiny Backwater Nowhere Rd". In my native Franklin County, NC, every last country road now has a name like this.

[agentsteel53]

that is so not what the state of Georgia is shaped like.

[cu2010]

yeah...some route shields are better suited for wideness than others. Georgia is one of the "others".

I like most of the shields done in the shape of their respective states, but when they get used on a wide shield, the state shape gets horribly distorted...they should just squeeze three digits of Series C into a two-digit shield.

(Of course, then there's Alabama, whose shape is distorted in the regular two-digit shield!)

[architect77]

Well, at the risk of upsetting some of you, I don't Washington State's "bust" of George's head. The face side and the hair are too similar so it looks like the same shape mirrored. Texas's use of it's shape is about the only one that looks fantastic.

[Quillz]

Well, at the risk of upsetting some of you, I don't Washington State's "bust" of George's head. The face side and the hair are too similar so it looks like the same shape mirrored. Texas's use of it's shape is about the only one that looks fantastic.

I thought the old style shield looked much better:



Also interesting to note it's one of the very few signs I've ever seen with a white border to also have a black outer border, as the MUTCD generally does not recommend an additional border beyond the white.

[ctsignguy]

yeah...some route shields are better suited for wideness than others. Georgia is one of the "others".

I like most of the shields done in the shape of their respective states, but when they get used on a wide shield, the state shape gets horribly distorted...they should just squeeze three digits of Series C into a two-digit shield.

(Of course, then there's Alabama, whose shape is distorted in the regular two-digit shield!)

South Dakota looks best as a 3-di (it seems scrunched as a 2-di).....Pennsy is good-lookingl regardless of 2 or 3-di width

[Quillz]

yeah...some route shields are better suited for wideness than others. Georgia is one of the "others".

I like most of the shields done in the shape of their respective states, but when they get used on a wide shield, the state shape gets horribly distorted...they should just squeeze three digits of Series C into a two-digit shield.

(Of course, then there's Alabama, whose shape is distorted in the regular two-digit shield!)

South Dakota looks best as a 3-di (it seems scrunched as a 2-di).....Pennsy is good-lookingl regardless of 2 or 3-di width

Shields that have relatively abstract shapes, like CA, PA and NY tend to look decent at either 2di or 3di width. That's why I'm not a huge fan of shields that have the shape of the state, because they are going to look awkward at one size or both.

[NE2]

Well, at the risk of upsetting some of you, I don't Washington State's "bust" of George's head. The face side and the hair are too similar so it looks like the same shape mirrored. Texas's use of it's shape is about the only one that looks fantastic.

Florida seems to do a good job because they don't try to cram the numbers into the state outline.