Interstate 2

[Bobby5280]

While the US-83 shield on the McAllen follow thru panel has plenty of negative space around it, there isn't enough space there to patch-in an Interstate 2 shield. The installers would need to re-apply the entire top line of graphics. That alone isn't a big deal; it's just cut reflective vinyl. The bigger expense is having a crane truck and its crew go out there to do the install work.

[Thegeet]

While the US-83 shield on the McAllen follow thru panel has plenty of negative space around it, there isn't enough space there to patch-in an Interstate 2 shield. The installers would need to re-apply the entire top line of graphics. That alone isn't a big deal; it's just cut reflective vinyl. The bigger expense is having a crane truck and its crew go out there to do the install work.

I disagree. I think there's enough room to insert a shield on the right side of "EAST". I don't assume it being significantly bigger than the US 83 shield, and placed there, I can't really see it looking much out of place. Sure, it looks odd to read "US 83 EAST I-2", it shouldn't really be that bad. For comparison, here's "I-69E SOUTH US 77": https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-69E+Frontage+Rd,+Texas+78380/@27.8543966,-97.6304803,3a,15y,174.59h,107.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-17.079563627552076%26panoid%3Dx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg%26yaw%3D174.58712065942606!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x86687e0b421fb26b:0xb48b613e2ebbe6b2!8m2!3d27.7328858!4d-97.7049434!16s%2Fg%2F11vprymk1j?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[kphoger]

For comparison, here's "I-69E SOUTH US 77": https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-69E+Frontage+Rd,+Texas+78380/@27.8543966,-97.6304803,3a,15y,174.59h,107.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-17.079563627552076%26panoid%3Dx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg%26yaw%3D174.58712065942606!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x86687e0b421fb26b:0xb48b613e2ebbe6b2!8m2!3d27.7328858!4d-97.7049434!16s%2Fg%2F11vprymk1j?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

There wasn't really room for that either.

[Bobby5280]

I disagree. I think there's enough room to insert a shield on the right side of "EAST".

I've been working in the sign industry doing design work for a long time. I'm a pretty good judge on what passes for enough negative space to patch-in additional elements. And it's not just a matter of fitting in an additional shield. The highway shields are supposed to have a certain amount of negative space surrounding them.

BTW, the I-69E/US-77 Robstown/Kingsville example you linked via Google Maps looks hideous. There is hardly any negative space at all between the highway route shields, the edge of the sign panel and the word "South". Obviously the agency cut corners installing a sign panel too damned small to hold the content. It almost looks like something a rank amateur would design, except the Clearview lettering isn't squeezed or stretched out of its normal proportions.

[kphoger]

[Scott5114]

The highway shields are supposed to have a certain amount of negative space surrounding them.

Sixteen inches, to be exact. Though most states get away with eight.

[Thegeet]

XD that makes me laugh so much, and the thing is...I'm already going to Kingsville for studying to TAMUK, so I'll bee seeing that sign again soon!

Anyways...I think that the future I-2 sign will then be an entire replacement.

[vtk]

I disagree. I think there's enough room to insert a shield on the right side of "EAST".

...it's not just a matter of fitting in an additional shield. The highway shields are supposed to have a certain amount of negative space surrounding them.

A hypothetical I-2 shield to the right of the "EAST" element could have exactly the same amount of negative space around it as the US-83 shield already does. What's sufficient for the US-83 shield would be sufficient for an I-2 shield, no?

[Bobby5280]

A hypothetical I-2 shield to the right of the "EAST" element could have exactly the same amount of negative space around it as the US-83 shield already does. What's sufficient for the US-83 shield would be sufficient for an I-2 shield, no?

It's usually standard practice to place route shields to the left of the cardinal direction lettering.

While it might look balanced to have the word "East" centered on the panel with US-83 and I-2 shields positioned to the left and right of the word, the arrangement would be backward. The Interstate shield should be on the left with the US highway shield to the right of it. That would give the Interstate route "top billing," followed by the US route.

If TX DOT has any plans to add I-2 to these signs, and do so with less cost, they'll have to make the changes sooner than later. Otherwise they'll have to replace the green background vinyl and all the graphics applied to it.

It doesn't take very long for that white reflective vinyl to get baked into the background. After a year or two it can be difficult to peel that stuff off the background without it cracking into little pieces. And it can leave ghosting on the green background after it is removed. Standard reflective vinyl is relatively cheap. The type 3 high intensity reflective vinyl used in the background costs quite a bit more.

[Thegeet]

A hypothetical I-2 shield to the right of the "EAST" element could have exactly the same amount of negative space around it as the US-83 shield already does. What's sufficient for the US-83 shield would be sufficient for an I-2 shield, no?

It's usually standard practice to place route shields to the left of the cardinal direction lettering.

While it might look balanced to have the word "East" centered on the panel with US-83 and I-2 shields positioned to the left and right of the word, the arrangement would be backward. The Interstate shield should be on the left with the US highway shield to the right of it. That would give the Interstate route "top billing," followed by the US route.

If TX DOT has any plans to add I-2 to these signs, and do so with less cost, they'll have to make the changes sooner than later. Otherwise they'll have to replace the green background vinyl and all the graphics applied to it.

It doesn't take very long for that white reflective vinyl to get baked into the background. After a year or two it can be difficult to peel that stuff off the background without it cracking into little pieces. And it can leave ghosting on the green background after it is removed. Standard reflective vinyl is relatively cheap. The type 3 high intensity reflective vinyl used in the background costs quite a bit more.

Just because it's unusual doesn't mean it can't happen. After all, this I-45 exit to US 59 has 59 1st and I-69 2nd. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7266185,-95.3344882,3a,26y,332.01h,101.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz3J0dQD1VezJiciPNim9Sg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-11.868778039315458%26panoid%3Dz3J0dQD1VezJiciPNim9Sg%26yaw%3D332.01288738365446!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[Scott5114]

After all, this I-45 exit to US 59 has 59 1st and I-69 2nd.

Which is against the MUTCD.

[Bobby5280]

Just because it's unusual doesn't mean it can't happen.

Just because you see an installed sign composed a certain way does not mean it was designed correctly.

Commercial landscapes across the country are littered with badly designed signs. The signs for bigger companies will often look better because they at least have brand guidelines they follow. Signs for small businesses often look like shit. There aren't any industry standards for quality of work and there aren't job requirement standards for hiring people to do the design work either. 40 years ago if someone wanted to be a "graphic designer" they usually needed quite a bit of formal training, if not a 2-year or 4-year degree, in order to do the work productively. Most of the tools were analog-based back then. In the years since computer-based tools arrived the hiring standards have declined.

Unfortunately traffic control signage is not immune from this problem. Despite the existence of "traffic engineers," supervising agencies and manuals like the MUTCD, signs still get badly botched. Not enough people care about doing the damned job correctly (just like the commercial sign industry). Add to that the issue of higher ups looking for any way to cut corners and reduce cost. That's how we get tiny green sign panels with the design elements crammed into them or the bad patch jobs we see frequently.