State Name On Interstate Signs

[deathtopumpkins]

But this topic is over a month old... it's NOT the 66th.

[mightyace]

No, but it does have 666 as its ID number.

[mrivera1]

I like having neutered on overhead signs, and unneutered on reassurance shields alongside the freeway.  In addition, I like when there isn't much space between the number and the state name, like Nevada's or Arizona's shields. 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree with mrivera.  Names on reassurance shields, "neutered" for BGS displays.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Minnesota's non-neutered shields are disappearing quickly. There are only a couple left on I-35 north of the Forest Lake split...I wish they would bring the non-neutered ones back.

[highwayroads]

I think having the state name on the Interstate signs suck. First of all, these are U.S. Interstates, they aren't state roads so why should the state be included into the sign? Second of all, these signs are like official memorabilia. They should be consistent through the US. If you ever wanted to collect these signs (1 for each interstate), why have it be so difficult by having the state name stuck on it?

[agentsteel53]

why on earth did you resurrect this topic?

[hbelkins]

I think having the state name on the Interstate signs suck. First of all, these are U.S. Interstates, they aren't state roads so why should the state be included into the sign? Second of all, these signs are like official memorabilia. They should be consistent through the US. If you ever wanted to collect these signs (1 for each interstate), why have it be so difficult by having the state name stuck on it?

Someone else explained a theory for this in another thread.

But you are wrong about the status of these roads. They are very much state highways. They were built by the states, although with mostly federal funding, and they are maintained by the various states, not any federal agency. U.S. routes aren't federal routes, either.

Are you a closet viatologist?  (And I did hit "preview" to see if the filters change the v-word to anything else.)

[ctsignguy]

I think having the state name on the Interstate signs suck. First of all, these are U.S. Interstates, they aren't state roads so why should the state be included into the sign? Second of all, these signs are like official memorabilia. They should be consistent through the US. If you ever wanted to collect these signs (1 for each interstate), why have it be so difficult by having the state name stuck on it?

I wont address the first part, it has been done elsewhere....

As for your second concern, for us sign collectors, our reasons for collecting Interstate shields are as varied as the signs themselves.  Some of us want a one-sign per state collection, some focus on the early 57 and 61 spec shields with state names, others dont care about that as long as they have 1-per.  Some want an example or two of every current I-route, and others want to collect all the states an I-route passes/passed through (I am trying to assemble a Circle Tour of I-95.....from Maine to Florida).  And sometimes each state has its own style (such as Maine's current I-95s) that make them unique to collectors.....

[kphoger]

I have no opinion one way or the other for reassurance markers, but I prefer neutered shields for use on BGSes, simply because there's more room for the number.  Once you're actually on your highway, you have little need for a large number.

[roadman]

Massachusetts discontinued the use of the state name on Interstate shields in the mid-1970s. AAFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to resume the practice.

[1995hoo]

Doesn't matter to me because I don't feel that there's any need for the state name, but I do think the numbers themselves look better on the "Cluster A" signs shown above, and if you use those numbers there's too much blue space if you omit the state name. So I'll vote for non-neutered.

[Scott5114]

The "Cluster A" signs shown on the previous page all use the classic 1957 interstate shield specification (which, correct me if I'm wrong, Jake, but didn't that spec disallow omitting the state name?). The "Cluster B" uses a variety of implementations of the 1970 spec. The neutered Ohio shields in cluster C (the I-75 and the 3di whose number I already forgot) follow a 1960's-era spec–sort of a midpoint between the '57 and the modern-day '70.

[agentsteel53]

The "Cluster A" signs shown on the previous page all use the classic 1957 interstate shield specification (which, correct me if I'm wrong, Jake, but didn't that spec disallow omitting the state name?). The "Cluster B" uses a variety of implementations of the 1970 spec. The neutered Ohio shields in cluster C (the I-75 and the 3di whose number I already forgot) follow a 1960's-era spec–sort of a midpoint between the '57 and the modern-day '70.

Cluster A is all '57 spec indeed.  The AASHO manual clearly stated that the surface-level shields were to include state name, and the ones on green sign were to omit it - and the diagrams were consistent with this. 

But "disallow" is a strong word.  There was no warning in size 72 bold that if you omitted the state name, your federal funds would be withdrawn and you'd be stabbed repeatedly with a cucumber. 

Cluster B.  The Missouri US 44 has an inexplicably tall crown, but the narrow white margin of '70 spec.  The Colorado and Georgia are bog-standard '70 spec.

Cluster C.  The 73 is '78 spec.  ('70 spec called for Series C numerals.  I think the '78 spec may have as well... honestly I've never paid much attention to MUTCDs more recent than 1961!)  The Ohio 75 is '61 spec neutered - intended for green sign use per the '61 MUTCD, but Ohio, Idaho, and others adopted it for surface use.  In fact, Ohio had this by 1959, and California had it by 1958.  Not sure who made it first, but the Feds adopted it for the '61 MUTCD.  The 270 is a slightly oddly-shaped variant (insufficiently pointy bottom) of '61 spec neutered three-digit.  Again, Ohio decided to use it for all contexts starting in '68 or so.  They still do, to this day.

[agentsteel53]

Massachusetts discontinued the use of the state name on Interstate shields in the mid-1970s. AAFAIK, MassDOT has no plans to resume the practice.

that explains why they were comparatively rare even by 1986.  there are still a handful left, if you know where to look.

[connroadgeek]

Neutered is fine. Makes for a cleaner and more consistent look, and as others have said more room for the digits. Who doesn't know what state they are in anyway? One standard I'd like to see is control cities + postal state code. Yes, that means elimination of non-city control points, but it seems there isn't much of a standard right now.

[Scott5114]

Neutered is fine. Makes for a cleaner and more consistent look, and as others have said more room for the digits. Who doesn't know what state they are in anyway? One standard I'd like to see is control cities + postal state code. Yes, that means elimination of non-city control points, but it seems there isn't much of a standard right now.

Having the overly-large digits that many western states use (Utah especially) is good for visibility, but aesthetically aren't so good, at least in my opinion. There's value to having blank space on signs; it helps you focus on the information. The purpose of the state name is not to "remind you" what state you're in–

Interestingly enough, I've read FHWA documents that state the reason the US route shield (and one would assume, the interstate shield) is because it was thought that in some places (particularly the South) locals' acceptance of the US route system would depend upon it. Since the states had to pay for the signage and the road itself, it was thought that including the state name might help defray the potential opposition. It was also based off the US route system being possibly seen as the federal government intruding, forcing states to pay for new roads (the more things change the more they stay the same!). There was also the idea that maybe having the state name on there would help convince legislators to renumber legislatively designated routes in places like CA and MN...

(Source)

Further disagreeing with you, I don't think the state name after control cities is necessary. Control cities should be well-recognizable cities–anyone should know Chicago is in Illinois, St Louis is in Missouri, etc. The problem only occurs when you use things like "Bloomsburg" or "Hazleton" that are too small for most people to recognize–and those sorts of control cities should be avoided in favor of more well-known destinations.

Missouri US 44

wat

[agentsteel53]

Having the overly-large digits that many western states use (Utah especially) is good for visibility, but aesthetically aren't so good, at least in my opinion. There's value to having blank space on signs; it helps you focus on the information. The purpose of the state name is not to "remind you" what state you're in–

oddly, no - at long distances, the overly large white numbers bleed into the border due to halation.  

[hbelkins]

Further disagreeing with you, I don't think the state name after control cities is necessary. Control cities should be well-recognizable cities–anyone should know Chicago is in Illinois, St Louis is in Missouri, etc. The problem only occurs when you use things like "Bloomsburg" or "Hazleton" that are too small for most people to recognize–and those sorts of control cities should be avoided in favor of more well-known destinations.

This use of a state on a guide sign (on I-64 westbound in Illinois) is about the silliest thing I've seen.



As if anyone traveling toward St. Louis is going to confuse Nashville, IL with any other Nashville?

[Scott5114]

Having the overly-large digits that many western states use (Utah especially) is good for visibility, but aesthetically aren't so good, at least in my opinion. There's value to having blank space on signs; it helps you focus on the information. The purpose of the state name is not to "remind you" what state you're in–

oddly, no - at long distances, the overly large white numbers bleed into the border due to halation. 

Good point. I hadn't considered halation because the only time I have to deal with Utah-type Interstate shields is on Wikipedia!

[flowmotion]

This use of a state on a guide sign (on I-64 westbound in Illinois) is about the silliest thing I've seen.



As if anyone traveling toward St. Louis is going to confuse Nashville, IL with any other Nashville?

I don't see the problem with this. It's only 46 miles from the junction with I-57, which leads generally towards Nashville TN. If using a very small amount of sign area prevents confusion, it was a good decision.

And for small towns that share names with more famous cities, that's life.

[Alps]

This use of a state on a guide sign (on I-64 westbound in Illinois) is about the silliest thing I've seen.



As if anyone traveling toward St. Louis is going to confuse Nashville, IL with any other Nashville?

I don't see the problem with this. It's only 46 miles from the junction with I-57, which leads generally towards Nashville TN. If using a very small amount of sign area prevents confusion, it was a good decision.

And for small towns that share names with more famous cities, that's life.

Two problems:
1) Clearview
2) "Il" should be "IL" anyway, unless this is Nashville II
2A) Clearview

I'm fine with distinguishing. Washington PA gets it inside the state because I-70's next major destination eastward is Washington DC. Sometimes it's worth the extra "redundant" letters for disambiguation.

[kphoger]

The Nashville exit used to be my neck of the woods.  OK, so maybe the 'IL' isn't needed westbound, but it is certainly a good idea to include it eastbound, as Saint Louis–Tennessee traffic would be exiting just three exits later; I would rather leave the control cities the same westbound and eastbound, to err on the side of caution.

It should read 'Nashville, IL'.  Yes, there should be a comma, by Jove!  Or, maybe it should read.....

Carlyle
Nashville, IL
Pinckneyville Bypass War Memorial

[CentralCAroadgeek]

As everyone else, I like interstate shields with the state name on them (non-neutered). Especially because I'm where these shields are in abundance, along with old porcelain signs.

However, last summer, I've spotted a neutered I-5 shield on the freeway entrance to 5 south from Laval Road, just before the Grapevine. I've also seen some on the freeway itself. I'll try to put pictures up sometime.

[DaBigE]

Two problems:
1) Clearview
2) "Il" should be "IL" anyway, unless this is Nashville II
2A) Clearview

Even if it was Nashville II, it would have to be two capitol 'I's...no matter how you slice it, the way it's on the sign is wrong.  And if you want to get really picky about the sign, the green doesn't match above/below the bottom of the Nashville text.

It should read 'Nashville, IL'.  Yes, there should be a comma, by Jove!

NO, it shouldn't.  Commas have no place on guide signs, at least according to the MUTCD, § 2A.13(04)! 

Word messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.

Granted, it's only a should condition, and not "proper" grammar/english...