Why does California use its own US shield?

[yankee.peddler]

By never phasing out the 1957 spec shield for its U.S. Highways, California is the only state in which descriptive text appears in all freestanding highway shields: INTERSTATE, US, CALIFORNIA, and "X" COUNTY.  It's debatable whether the text adds any value to the U.S. and state highway shields; however, I appreciate the aesthetic consistency in this signing practice.

[Brandon]

Because Caltrans.

Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.

Vermont uses green shields

So does South Dakota.

And Louisiana used green shields for a very long time until switching to black/white recently.

Then there's Minnesota which uses gold on blue.

[SSOWorld]

Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)

[yankee.peddler]

Because Caltrans.

Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.

Vermont uses green shields

So does South Dakota.

And Louisiana used green shields for a very long time until switching to black/white recently.

Then there's Minnesota which uses gold on blue.

Speaking of Minnesota, a few state highways there feature signed business routes, the shields of which feature green and white instead of gold and blue, and "BUSiNESS" instead of "MINNESOTA". Most if not all of these routes are County State Aid Highways.

[Henry]

Because Caltrans.

Really that's it? I guess Caltrans is the rebel of the highway system. Not only different US route shield style but the only one with a green state route shield.

Vermont uses green shields

So does South Dakota.

And Louisiana used green shields for a very long time until switching to black/white recently.

Then there's Minnesota which uses gold on blue.

And SC recently switched to blue on white, which is an interesting take on the simple FHWA scheme.

[Scott5114]

It depends on how you run the cost analysis, I suppose.

Cutout saves on material cost. But a square blank can be used for multiple types of signs, reducing the different types of blanks that need to be kept in inventory.

[Road Hog]

I would think it would be a wash because the material saved in a cutout would be offset by the labor of making the cutout.

[corco]

I would think it would be a wash because the material saved in a cutout would be offset by the labor of making the cutout.

Depends on how the cut is made (I assume they basically have a template they basically just stamp down to get the shape), but I do wonder about waste

[agentsteel53]

Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)

as do Maine and Washington.

[US71]

I would think it would be a wash because the material saved in a cutout would be offset by the labor of making the cutout.

Depends on how the cut is made (I assume they basically have a template they basically just stamp down to get the shape), but I do wonder about waste

Sell it to the scrapyard?

I don't know if they still do, but once upon a time, highway departments (including AHTD) sold their damaged signs that couldn't be recycled, to the scrap yard.

[Alps]

Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)

as did Maine

FTFY. Yes, Washington still does. Philadelphia is rife. And, of course, you can find one in almost every state. I've seen some oddballs around Delaware.

[Brandon]

Then there's the other extreme - Unisigns (Wisconsin and Virginia use these for sure - the former even puts Interstate markers on them)

Like this:



And then there's this all blue one at I-88 and Eola Road in Illinois:

[Indyroads]

I prefer the cutout U.S.  Shields used by California as opposed to the U.S. yields with a black square or rectangular background.  I think the real question I would ask, instead of white California uses the cutout shield, is why do all the other states use than on cutout version of the shield.  Personally I think the look ugly and are not as professional looking as California's U.S. shield.

I don't think that it can be said that cost is a major factor as to why square shields or rectangular shields are used.  Manufacturing the cutout shields is still cost effective since it is very simple to use a die-cut press two cut out the U.S. shield shape from the sign.  Since California uses the shields, they would be readily available for any other state to be able to use to incorporate into their standards when ordering them from the sign manufacturer.

I also do not understand why some states used oversized route markers.  Some states use route marker size as large as 36"X36" when a much smaller route worker would suffice such as a 24"X24" or smaller marker.  This is especially true in situations where secondary routes are routed over a primary route.  Such as, U.S. routes that are routed over interstate route.  The interstate route shield would be the larger shield, and the U.S. route shields accompanying it should be smaller and placed underneath or next to the shield in order of prominence.

California seems to not use the practice of using oversized shields on their highways, even for some of the drawbacks that California's highway signing standards have, they seem to be the most logical layout for containing information relevant to travelers without having too much green space.

[on_wisconsin]

Another note on Wisconsin unishields: The vast majority of them are made of weatherproof laminated wood with layer of prismatic sheeting on top. (Many small guide signs are the same way as well.)

[Scott5114]

I prefer the cutout U.S.  Shields used by California as opposed to the U.S. yields with a black square or rectangular background.  I think the real question I would ask, instead of white California uses the cutout shield, is why do all the other states use than on cutout version of the shield.  Personally I think the look ugly and are not as professional looking as California's U.S. shield.

I don't think that it can be said that cost is a major factor as to why square shields or rectangular shields are used.  Manufacturing the cutout shields is still cost effective since it is very simple to use a die-cut press two cut out the U.S. shield shape from the sign.  Since California uses the shields, they would be readily available for any other state to be able to use to incorporate into their standards when ordering them from the sign manufacturer.

I also do not understand why some states used oversized route markers.  Some states use route marker size as large as 36"X36" when a much smaller route worker would suffice such as a 24"X24" or smaller marker.  This is especially true in situations where secondary routes are routed over a primary route.  Such as, U.S. routes that are routed over interstate route.  The interstate route shield would be the larger shield, and the U.S. route shields accompanying it should be smaller and placed underneath or next to the shield in order of prominence.

California seems to not use the practice of using oversized shields on their highways, even for some of the drawbacks that California's highway signing standards have, they seem to be the most logical layout for containing information relevant to travelers without having too much green space.

In a state such as Oklahoma, which does not use a cutout state route marker, as California does, the same 24×24 blank can be used for either a US route or a state route. That means the same dies can be used to manufacture the blanks, and if the sheeting and design is not applied at the same time as the die-cutting, then it means you can stamp out 100 square blanks instead of 50 US blanks and 50 state blanks. This is particularly important for states that have multiple types of highways, like Texas. The same square blank is used for US, TX, FM, RM, PR, Spur, Loop...

Oversize shields are used in situations where an increase in visibility is desired. A 24×24 will work fine on a two-lane rural highway. But it may not be as effectively seen from the #1 lane of a four-lane freeway carriageway at 70 MPH. That is where it makes sense to increase the size of the shield.

California is actually one of the worst states at allocating sign panel green space because of the asinine policy decision to make each of the sign panels on one gantry equal heights. This means that the signs are either designed around a comfortable height for the panel with the most information, with excess space on the other panels, or else something resembling an average is used and the legend on one or more panels is crammed into a confined space. Most other states sacrifice the minor aesthetic gain of the panels being the same height for the greater aesthetic, functional, and financial gain of having panels that have adequate, but not excessive, margins.

[mrsman]

CA's use of a cut-out US shield may also be due the the fact that they also do a cut-out of the miner's spade for state highways.  The miner's spade is a fairly easy shape to cut out, as it's basically a rounded triangle.

But most other states have their state outline as the shield.  It would probably be tricky to cut all the curves of every sign.  So once they get into the practice of superimposing their state border over a rectangular sign, I guess they figure there's no reason to do anything different for US highways.

[billtm]

Regular US highway shields are way too mainstream for California