Utah's (Newer) Beehive Sign Types

[Rover_0]

I didn't know where exactly to put this, but since it's Utah-specific, I though I'd put it here.

Anyways, if you haven't noticed, there seem to be two newer types of the Utah beehive, and while I like some specifics of them, I don't like either design as-is.  Here's the more traditional (UT-118) with the newer, narrower outlined version (UT-119).

The other design there is, is the "blank beehive" design, not unlike the "puffy cloud" button-copy signs.

Here's my beef:

For the outlined version, it has less space than the already small traditional beehive, making the digits in signs for 3-digit routes, especially ones beginning with 2 or 3, especially narrow.  I do like the outline, however, as well as the white border.

For the blank version, it's just too plain.  The lines near the top are missing, though it does provide more room for digits.

However, I think a slight re-design is in store, maximizing the space found in the beehive for 3 digits while retaining the traditional beehive design.  Thoughts?

[corco]

Personally, I think the traditional is fine. The puffy one is too boring and always looks erroneous in the field, while the outline is way too complicated. I haven't personally had any problems reading the traditional one at a distance in the field.

Without going to a wider blank, I'm not sure how you'd make the traditional one show three digit routes better. How would you do that?

[agentsteel53]

eliminate all three-digit route numbers 

[CL]

I'm not sure why UDOT (or its contractors, whoever calls the shots) abandoned the traditional beehives. I mean, I'm not swayed either way for the most part, but at least the traditional shield was implemented in an incredibly consistent manner. In the last decade, however, we've seen the "blank" one come up first, followed by the hideous outline shield (which has been more popular the last half of this decade).

Personally, I've become partial to the "blank" shield. It's simple (which should be the aim of highway signs) and straightforward. If UDOT had to choose one to implement across the board, that would be the one. They've even experimented with a 3-di version (on SR-269 eastbound right after I-15) which is...unnecessary. The outline shield's a bust and should be avoided at all costs; it leaves very little room for numerals and just looks like an eyesore. No thanks, UDOT (or contractor...).

However, traditional shields have been (very sporadically) installed within the last five years (maybe less) on SR-26 and SR-171.

I too have been thinking a lot about this lately, especially as to why the shields vary. Does it vary between region (I doubt this as I've seen both versions in the same region) or contractor (I also doubt this as I believe UDOT itself has installed both versions)? I've been thinking about emailing UDOT about getting some standards implemented, but I think they hear from me too much anyway.   

[Scott5114]

I personally like the outlined shield. It seems like a throwback to the 1960s (like those US shields Wisconsin and a few other states used in that era).  Without the curved lines at the top, you lose some of the depth to the beehive; it's less apparent that you're looking at a round, conical structure. And it's not like you're going to be cramming any digits in up there anyway...

[golden eagle]

I'm not really a fan of the beehive signs. I do realize Utah is the Beehive State, but at the same time, it is unique. That and the George Washington head on Washington's highways.

[agentsteel53]

the "blank beehive" was the first style of beehive in the early 60s.  Here is a variant of it.



anyone know when they switched from the Big Letter U to the beehive?  My guess is 1961 because that's when a lot of states switched away from cutouts to black squares, and the letter U just wouldn't have worked well on a black square.

the reason the double-outline beehive doesn't work, while the style works for the Wisconsin US marker, is because the older double-outline shield styles are just cutouts placed on a black background (the WI is, for instance, a California-style cutout on a black square) and those were already tweaked and optimized for the cutout style.  Utah was using Big U cutouts and therefore never got around to optimizing a beehive cutout - therefore, the beehive cutout on a black square (which is what the double-outline beehive is) looks a bit pinched.

[Rover_0]

Well, you could think of the beehive as an arch of sorts.  The outlined beehive arches at steeper angle, while the blank and traditional designs arch out, then go down, like a narrow arch.  I've made a version (from a UT-165 photo on a BSG-like sign) that has a lower angle of arching, then falls out on the sides.

I'll post some examples soon.

EDIT:  Here are some comparisons; the redesigned shield is a little off when it comes to quality, but I hope you get the jist of what I'm saying.  Anyways, this beehive seems to allow more room than the traditional beehive, while providing the outline made by the newer style sign; for 3-digit routes (especially those beginning with 2 or 3 and without a 1 somewhere), only a downsizing to 90% is needed to fit all the numerals in.  I also added UT-186 and UT-260 into the mix for comparison.

UT-22


UT-257


UT-186


UT-260

[CL]

the "blank beehive" was the first style of beehive in the early 60s.  Here is a variant of it.



anyone know when they switched from the Big Letter U to the beehive?  My guess is 1961 because that's when a lot of states switched away from cutouts to black squares, and the letter U just wouldn't have worked well on a black square.

Interestingly enough, there's a variant of that shield with the two top lines off of SR-224. The sign is in poor condition and rather old (which, as many people know, is rare for UDOT). It hasn't been replaced presumably because the sign doesn't lie on state right-of-way and it's been forgotten about. Anyway, slight differences exist between the 1960s "blank" and the modern-day one, though they're mostly trivial.

As for that bottom SR-257 shield, I think it would be much more effective if the numerals were series-C.

[agentsteel53]

which 257 is this? the one on the shield gallery with US-6 and US-50 shields?

I don't think Series C will fit in the beehive blank.  Just B or A (which I've never seen used).

I'll have to find that SR-224 shield.  Where is SR-224?  I'll be heading to northeast NM for fourth of July weekend, so if it's in southern Utah I may be able to swing by.

[CL]

which 257 is this? the one on the shield gallery with US-6 and US-50 shields?

I don't think Series C will fit in the beehive blank.  Just B or A (which I've never seen used).

I'll have to find that SR-224 shield.  Where is SR-224?  I'll be heading to northeast NM for fourth of July weekend, so if it's in southern Utah I may be able to swing by.

I'm talking about the shield that Rover_0 drew above. If I'm not mistaken, those are D numerals that are a little too closely-spaced (for my taste, anyway).

Unfortunately, SR-224 is in northern Utah, around Park City. As I doubt any UDOT employees stalk this website, I think it's safe to reveal where the two shields are located (they're at the same intersection)... Here's No. 1 and No. 2.

[CL]

I like the bottom two, Rover. With that shield one can comfortably fit in three numerals using just series-C. It looks like it utilizes space more effectively than the "traditional" too.

[agentsteel53]

yeah, D isn't very sensible for that design, but C is very good.

the county signs look to be quite standard, at least on the street view.

[CL]

In my continued musing of the several types of beehives we now have, it turns out we have two types of the recent "blank" shield. The differences aren't all that noticeable, mind you, but they're there. You have the older one that popped up at the turn of this millennium:



...and the one that's been appearing the latter half of this last decade:


See the difference? More room for numerals in the first one, but I still prefer the second, more recent one (oh, and I've never seen an erroneous shield with this one either).