Which states used text instead of shields?

[PHLBOS]

One that was text, but is now a shield.  Central Square, Stoneham:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.478957,-71.100188,3a,75y,289.47h,89.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shEg2lsufT6BhffjmW-6bUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Ugh.  Every time I pass that sign, I wish somebody would hit it (because of the 128 shield, which should be I-95).

Similar 90s-vintage signage in Wyoma Square in Lynn had TO 95-1 references (sample) on its MA 129 westbound signs but were changed back to the old TO 1-128 (both in shields) within a year.

Further west along 129, a sample using RTE. 1 and RTE. 128 text.

[roadman]

Reliable sources tell me that the Wyoma Square signs were changed back to 128 shields because the City of Lynn insisted on it.  And that D6 sign on Lynnfield Street was likely replaced by the District as a 'one off'.  Although, IMO, there is no justification for having a full D6 sign at that location (intersecting road is a very minor street).  A simple 129 trailblazer assembly would suffice.

[PHLBOS]

Reliable sources tell me that the Wyoma Square signs were changed back to 128 shields because the City of Lynn insisted on it.

I figured as such; this is the same city that was supposed to be connected/served by the original I-95.  What should have been done is have all 3 routes (I-95/US 1/MA 128) on the sign (yes, such would make for a taller D6 panel) listed given that Goodwin's Circle is within a mile of the I-95/MA 128 split.

Apparently, not every City of Lynn official is completely against using 95 on signs directing people to I-95/MA 128.  Note: this sign along Chestnut St., just off MA 1A/129 (Broad/Lewis Sts.).  There's one or two more further up Chestnut St. prior to MA 107/129A (Western Ave.).

And that D6 sign on Lynnfield Street was likely replaced by the District as a 'one off'.  Although, IMO, there is no justification for having a full D6 sign at that location (intersecting road is a very minor street).  A simple 129 trailblazer assembly would suffice.

For as long as I can remember, there has always been a D6 LGS there.  The earliest generation was from the mid-60s green-on-white cut-corner (LeHay(?) font) that simply read:

-----129--->
TO ROUTES
  1 & 128

My guess is that the sign was erected due to residents in the area requested it.

Looking at an aerial, the connecting road appears to be one of the entrances to Lynn Woods.

[vtk]

https://twitter.com/ODOT_Columbus/status/624248050068926464

1958 - Creating a sign big enough to see. This one has reflective dots instead of modern reflective material. #TBT

1958  BIG ENOUGH TO SEE  (Photo 4-II)  Here's Bob H. Sheppard of the Ohio Department of Highways Sign Shop assembling one of the big reflectorized signs that will tell motorist to follow the arrow -- to be posted on the new Interstate Route 70 west of Springfield -- to State Route 202.  There's no missing this turn.  (Ohio Department of Highways Photo)

[mwb1848]

Does anyone know if there's a clear reason why South Carolina uses text instead of a shield for this signage at the junction of I-26 and I-126 in Columbia? It's only on I-26 EB; WB signage uses standard shields.

https://goo.gl/maps/8rVXd

https://goo.gl/maps/ZnY4e

[cl94]

Most ODOT districts in Ohio use text for the route number on distance signs.  Ohio also generally spells out county road numbers rather than using shields.

District 6 seems to have switched to using shields on distance signs about the same time as discontinuing button copy at the earliest, or as adopting Clearview at the latest.  So, fairly recently.

Seems to be a statewide thing. If it's in Clearview, it has a shield. Those wonderful travel time signs along I-70 and I-71 also use shields. Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

[NE2]

Does anyone know if there's a clear reason why South Carolina uses text instead of a shield for this signage at the junction of I-26 and I-126 in Columbia? It's only on I-26 EB; WB signage uses standard shields.

https://goo.gl/maps/8rVXd

https://goo.gl/maps/ZnY4e

Because people are dumb and confuse I-26 with 126. Same for 129 at Sioux City.

[vtk]

Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

I'm not terribly impressed.  They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful.  Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?

[1995hoo]

I meant to post this last week but never got around to it. I thought of this thread last weekend on our way out to Fox Meadow Winery when we passed this sign on I-66 near Delaplane:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8900971,-77.9083356,3a,75y,344.2h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7JkcHM-AVqh3tnJqfzsCAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[cl94]

Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

I'm not terribly impressed.  They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful.  Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?

Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.

[vtk]

Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

I'm not terribly impressed.  They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful.  Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?

Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.

Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...

[cl94]

Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

I'm not terribly impressed.  They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful.  Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?

Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.

Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...

That's when I would listen to the radio and figure out where it is. Part of ITS is balancing traffic on parallel routes so travel times are equal, which is part of the reason such signage exists.

[rickmastfan67]

and PA used to

They still do occasionally.

Saw this on I-81 SB on my recent trip to Pocono. https://goo.gl/maps/qIw45  Would have taken my own picture, but it was too dark already.

[cpzilliacus]

Maryland once used text quite a lot. Not so much any more, except to show the distance to a crossing numbered route.  Even then, shield(s) are often installed instead of text.

[SidS1045]

They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit)

Not always.  As far as I can determine, the "GoTime" signs in Massachusetts are set up to show actual times.  A few months ago I saw one on the MassPike which said "27 Miles / 24 Minutes" to a certain point.  That calculates out to 67.5 mph in a 65 zone.

The problem with these is that they can only display calculations based on their input at any given moment.  If something happens after you pass one but before you reach the endpoint displayed on it, the time will not be accurate, and you'd have no way of knowing that in advance (absent any other input such as a radio station's traffic report or a crowd-sourced app like Waze).

[cl94]

They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit)

Not always.  As far as I can determine, the "GoTime" signs in Massachusetts are set up to show actual times.  A few months ago I saw one on the MassPike which said "27 Miles / 24 Minutes" to a certain point.  That calculates out to 67.5 mph in a 65 zone.

The problem with these is that they can only display calculations based on their input at any given moment.  If something happens after you pass one but before you reach the endpoint displayed on it, the time will not be accurate, and you'd have no way of knowing that in advance (absent any other input such as a radio station's traffic report or a crowd-sourced app like Waze).

I ran a calculation on one of the times and it gave an average speed of 67. Given the construction on this stretch, that's pretty close to 70.

[cjk374]

Does anybody know the answer to this question:  Which sign is cheaper to manufacture...one with text or one with a shield?

[jeffandnicole]

Does anybody know the answer to this question:  Which sign is cheaper to manufacture...one with text or one with a shield?

Honestly, it doesn't matter. If they were looking for lowest costs, there would be small non-reflective signs on the shoulder.

It stands to reason text would be cheaper than a shield, although the difference is probably a few dollars on a sign that costs thousands.

[jeffandnicole]

Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

I'm not terribly impressed.  They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful.  Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?

Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.

Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...

If you use the road everyday, they are very useful. On NJ's signs, they list 3 points. If the first 2 destination times seem normal and the last is much longer than normal, you know where the issue is.

Sometimes it takes a little thought. If you don't know where the issue is, but then you slow down, you have an approximate idea how long it'll take to get thru the jam, and then you can determine if you want to bail or not.

I'll rather take the timed message over a general "accident ahead" or no message whatsoever. But it sometimes takes a little critical thinking to make them useful.

[cl94]

Going on a tangent, the long-distance travel time signs are one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

I'm not terribly impressed.  They overestimate the travel time (like, they assume you'll go no faster than about 65 MPH, despite the 70 MPH limit) and I'm having trouble imagining a common situation where that kind of information is even useful.  Like, if the travel time is shown significantly longer than usual, what can a driver actually do about it?

Take the ones on I-70. I'd use US 40 if there was a major disturbance. It's a tad harder on I-71, but knowing what lies ahead provides reassurance to drivers. As someone who has to deal with the public, it's something they want.

Except you don't know specifically where the slowdown is, and skipping the whole segment is likely going to take at least as long due to small towns and other traffic doing the same thing...

If you use the road everyday, they are very useful. On NJ's signs, they list 3 points. If the first 2 destination times seem normal and the last is much longer than normal, you know where the issue is.

Sometimes it takes a little thought. If you don't know where the issue is, but then you slow down, you have an approximate idea how long it'll take to get thru the jam, and then you can determine if you want to bail or not.

I'll rather take the timed message over a general "accident ahead" or no message whatsoever. But it sometimes takes a little critical thinking to make them useful.

Ohio's list 2. If you aren't familiar with the area, you likely have a GPS in this day and age, so you can easily get around it. The one on SB I-71 near I-271 and I-76 lists US 30 and US 42 along with the mileage. I think there's one later that lists I-270. If traffic is crawling, you'd know where to get off to avoid the jam.

[roadman]

Does anybody know the answer to this question:  Which sign is cheaper to manufacture...one with text or one with a shield?

Depending on the panel format, signs that use all text legends would typically be 10 to 15 percent less in area than identical signs with shields.  While this cost savings could add up quickly on a large sign update project, the tradeoff is reduced sign recognition.

[TheStranger]

A brand new one in San Francisco on US 101 (from another thread) -

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16152.0

(courtesy AndyMax25)

[TravelingBethelite]

Here's an example on Interstate 80 in Illinois, frome the AARoads/Interstate Guide archives:


Nice sign, I might add.