The Worst of Road Signs

[formulanone]

Not only is the shield hideous, but somehow US 101 goes "west" now.

It's probably (hopefully?) along the long stretch of US 101 between Forks, running through Port Angeles and a few miles south of Port Townsend in Washington where most of the route actually runs east/west. We can be pedantic about it, but it makes much more sense to visitors and travellers. Having visited there on several occasions, it does aid in actual navigation.

But the shield is ugly.

[Scott5114]

As would I. I hate the current '70 Interstate spec shield that calls for giant, oversized numbers on a shield that already has extremely thin borders.

Having little white space to the left and right is important for visibility. I actually find that I-82 shield less readable from a distance than a '57 spec shield simply because from far away, the numbers completely overwhelm the blue background.

That's not a 70-spec shield. This is what a proper 70-spec shield would look like:


The basic shield is the same, but those huge digits aren't part of the spec.That's just something a lot of states have been doing for some reason.

[hbelkins]

West Virginia uses a shield design that I absolutely hate, even worse than that new pointy shield Kentucky uses.

[NE2]

Not only is the shield hideous, but somehow US 101 goes "west" now.

It does on the north side of the Olympic Peninsula.

[Quillz]

hbelkins, it looks like a '70-spec US Route shield but with a flatter bottom to give more white space.

[NE2]

I only like my U.S. shields going uphill both ways in the snow.

[agentsteel53]

oddly, WV's 1961-spec shields are also very slightly misshapen to have a bit of extra room at the bottom.  I'll have to dig up a picture.

[Ian]

Does WVDOH still use those slightly misshapen US shields? I saw a set of newish looking shields of those style near Wheeling a few weeks ago.

[agentsteel53]

That's not a 70-spec shield. This is what a proper 70-spec shield would look like:
[82]

The basic shield is the same, but those huge digits aren't part of the spec.That's just something a lot of states have been doing for some reason.

no, the 12" numbers on the 24" blank are part of the '70 spec.  '70 calls for state-named shield with 10" numbers on posts, neutered and 12" for the guide signs.  Interestingly, it calls for Series C, not D, for the 12" numbers.

there is a provision for "smaller numbers may be used if larger does not fit -step one size down" - so this implies the three-digit route shields, which call for 10" on the 25" blank, can use 8" as needed.  But some states seem to have inferred that this means "drop from 12" to 10" on the green-sign shields".  So, technically, the more correct-looking 1970 spec neutered shield isn't even the most official interpretation of the spec!

1978 is the spec that forced the surface-mount shields to green sign spec, btw.

[cjk374]

Not only is the shield hideous, but somehow US 101 goes "west" now.

Ok....THIS is now the ugliest I've ever seen!  

Where is this sign located?  I'm curious as to who doesn't know north/south from east/west.   

[agentsteel53]

Where is this sign located?  I'm curious as to who doesn't know north/south from east/west.   

Washington has two sets of cardinal direction changes as 101 winds around the Olympic Peninsula.

starting from Olympia, the way to get to Los Angeles is to take 101 north.

[Eth]

To me, it's not necessarily just the fact that the numbers in the I-82 shield are huge; it's more the fact that the number is also a little bit off center.  And it appears the reason that it's off center is specifically so that the text could be made as enormous as possible; they can gain more space to cram it in by putting the curvature of the 8 damn near flush against the edge of the shield.

[agentsteel53]

routes which end in '9' are notorious for this.





ick.  

at this point, if you want maximum number size, why not just make the shield square?  oh, wait ...

[cjk374]

. . . though the last isn't so much ugly as it is stupid.

I kinda like these unique signs.   Somewhere on another thread, US 71 posted a combo shield of US 79/80.  Those are just down the road from me in Minden and Shreveport.  IMHO, it helps reduce sign clutter in places you don't have room for the clutter.   

[myosh_tino]

Here are three I-82 shields all drawn to the current spec (is the '70 spec, the current one?)....

#1: Neutered, 15-in numerals (current spec)


#2: State Named, 15-in numerals (current spec)


#3: Neutered, 18-in numerals (the shield in the photo posted by Quillz)


Does anyone know why some states used 18-inch digits on the 36-inch interstate shield?  My theory is because the current 36-inch US shield also utilizes 18-inch digits, the states wanted consistent sizing for route numerals.  Another theory I have is 2 simple words... size matters! 

Personally, I'm partial to 12-inch digits on a 36-inch state-named interstate shield (current California spec... see my avatar).

[agentsteel53]

indeed, that is '70 spec.  I believe those are correct: the middle one has always seemed like the numbers are a bit too high, squeezing the state name in, but it may be the case that the variant which I find aesthetically more pleasing is actually incorrect.



the reason why some states used 18" is because that is what the federal spec dictated - except it said to use C, not D.  I have no idea where 18/D came into play - maybe because it is the US standard, or maybe because it is the biggest number that fits.

[ftballfan]

Square I-290 shield? Just downright ugly.

[myosh_tino]

indeed, that is '70 spec.  I believe those are correct: the middle one has always seemed like the numbers are a bit too high, squeezing the state name in, but it may be the case that the variant which I find aesthetically more pleasing is actually incorrect.

I agree with you that the numerals on the non-neutered shield are too high.  Setting the numerals a little lower like the I-95 shield in your post is more pleasing to the eye.  Then there is Nevada which looks like they follow the spec exactly when it comes to state-named shields (neutered shields on I-80 between California and Reno look like they use 18-inch digits)...


BTW, is 18-inch digits on a 36-inch interstate shield a "former" standard or a current one?

[agentsteel53]

I kinda like these unique signs.   Somewhere on another thread, US 71 posted a combo shield of US 79/80.  Those are just down the road from me in Minden and Shreveport.  IMHO, it helps reduce sign clutter in places you don't have room for the clutter.   

I like this variant much better:

[cjk374]

I kinda like these unique signs.    Somewhere on another thread, US 71 posted a combo shield of US 79/80.  Those are just down the road from me in Minden and Shreveport.  IMHO, it helps reduce sign clutter in places you don't have room for the clutter.   

I like this variant much better:

  I completely agree.  I like 2dus shields much better than 3dus for anything.

[Quillz]

To me, it's not necessarily just the fact that the numbers in the I-82 shield are huge; it's more the fact that the number is also a little bit off center.  And it appears the reason that it's off center is specifically so that the text could be made as enormous as possible; they can gain more space to cram it in by putting the curvature of the 8 damn near flush against the edge of the shield.

This is what I like older shields... Aesthetics were important just as much as maximum legibility from a distance.

[Quillz]

And when it comes to Interstate shields, the original 1957 and neutered 1961 variants are still the best ones. You can't beat them.

[Brandon]

at this point, if you want maximum number size, why not just make the shield square?  oh, wait ...
{Square I-290 shield}

WTF did you ever find that fugly-ass sign? 

[cu2010]

WTF did you ever find that fugly-ass sign?  

It's in Tonawanda, NY. If I remember correctly, there's also a Boring Square used for a NY route in the same area. Both are town signs.

And that square 290 is just as hideous in person!

[xonhulu]

I like this variant much better:

Ah, I miss the old US shields . . .  The classic shape more than makes up for the clutter of route numbers.