The CT, MA, RI and ME highway shield

[PHLBOS]

Forget any change along those lines.   When i was at the STC Sign Shop back in October, i was advised by Jeff (the Sign Shop boss) that Connecticut would be switching to the Mass style of shields including 24x30 for 3-di routes.....

i had tried to get a modified state outline shield pushed over the last few years, but he told me in the same breath that because of that decision by the higher-ups, that my project, while well-liked by many in the Department, was dead....

Ugh, so they are going to look exactly like the Massachusetts shields? Hopefully they don't standardize the 2dsr shields as well...

Looks like one MA sign replacement contract used CT-styled rectangular shields at the US 20/MA 148 intersection in Sturbridge for MA 148.

148 North D6 LGS "Paddle".

CT-style MA 148 reassurance marker.

Ctsignguy, will ConnDOT still maintain its black edge line for its SR shields vs. an offsetted black outline featured on MA SR shields?

[ctsignguy]

Ctsignguy, will ConnDOT still maintain its black edge line for its SR shields vs. an offsetted black outline featured on MA SR shields?

The answer i got when i inquired further was 'No".  The the black edge will be switched for a black outline as in the MA and ME shields....

[Zeffy]

Will it apply to the 2-digit state routes as well, or just the 3-digit ones?

[NE2]

Why would the number of digits make a difference?

[Pete from Boston]

Because Connecticut is apparently switching its 3d signs to a whole new width of sign. 

[Alps]

Ctsignguy, will ConnDOT still maintain its black edge line for its SR shields vs. an offsetted black outline featured on MA SR shields?

The answer i got when i inquired further was 'No".  The the black edge will be switched for a black outline as in the MA and ME shields....

I believe this is because all negative-contrast signs are supposed to have an outer reflective strip outside the dark border. However, route shields are allowed to have black edges to make the shape a square instead of a cutout, and there's no such rule. This strikes me as over-interpretation by CT.

[ctsignguy]

You are probably right, Steve, but the decisions were out of Jeff's hands...i think he would have preferred most anything else except the Mass squares, even staying with the old design..

(I kinda gave him some good-natured guff about Massachusetts taking over Connecticut and the route markers were the first step to this evil plan...)

[Duke87]

Honestly I don't think anyone who isn't a roadgeek particularly notices or cares that MA and CT shields aren't the same.

I do find it interesting though that Connecticut, a state which for decades has retained a lot of unique quirks about its signage, is all of a sudden scrambling to follow all MUTCD standards exactly and even excessively. Did someone get spooked about losing funding or something?

Of course Connecticut never replaces anything before it wears out, so we'll be seeing plenty of black border shields hanging around for the next 30 years.

[cl94]

I do find it interesting though that Connecticut, a state which for decades has retained a lot of unique quirks about its signage, is all of a sudden scrambling to follow all MUTCD standards exactly and even excessively. Did someone get spooked about losing funding or something?

Might be taking after New Jersey and changing over in case AASHTO and the FHWA decide to come knocking

[vtk]

Ctsignguy, will ConnDOT still maintain its black edge line for its SR shields vs. an offsetted black outline featured on MA SR shields?

The answer i got when i inquired further was 'No".  The the black edge will be switched for a black outline as in the MA and ME shields....

I believe this is because all negative-contrast signs are supposed to have an outer reflective strip outside the dark border. However, route shields are allowed to have black edges to make the shape a square instead of a cutout, and there's no such rule. This strikes me as over-interpretation by CT.

In my mind, that rule should ideally still apply to non-cutout route markers, and there should either be a thin black line inset just inside the main white whatever-shape, or a thin white line around the edge of the black square.

[ctsignguy]

Ctsignguy, will ConnDOT still maintain its black edge line for its SR shields vs. an offsetted black outline featured on MA SR shields?

The answer i got when i inquired further was 'No".  The the black edge will be switched for a black outline as in the MA and ME shields....

I believe this is because all negative-contrast signs are supposed to have an outer reflective strip outside the dark border. However, route shields are allowed to have black edges to make the shape a square instead of a cutout, and there's no such rule. This strikes me as over-interpretation by CT.

In my mind, that rule should ideally still apply to non-cutout route markers, and there should either be a thin black line inset just inside the main white whatever-shape, or a thin white line around the edge of the black square.

Connecticut had some of their US shields like that, but the sheeting is engineering sheet, and not the newer stuff....

[roadman]

Forget any change along those lines.   When i was at the STC Sign Shop back in October, i was advised by Jeff (the Sign Shop boss) that Connecticut would be switching to the Mass style of shields including 24x30 for 3-di routes.....

i had tried to get a modified state outline shield pushed over the last few years, but he told me in the same breath that because of that decision by the higher-ups, that my project, while well-liked by many in the Department, was dead....

Ugh, so they are going to look exactly like the Massachusetts shields? Hopefully they don't standardize the 2dsr shields as well...

Looks like one MA sign replacement contract used CT-styled rectangular shields at the US 20/MA 148 intersection in Sturbridge for MA 148.

148 North D6 LGS "Paddle".

CT-style MA 148 reassurance marker.

I believe those signs were replaced as part of a signal upgrade project at this intersection.  Could be that the sign fabricator was from CT and instinctively used the CT spec.  And I'm not surprised that the Mass R/E didn't pick up on the error.

[doogie1303]

I think it all depends on the contractor who put up the signs IMO. Since CT/RI/MA are all within close proximity, the likelyhood is very high that a contractor will bid on jobs and do business in all three states. I think it's probably more of the fact of lazy contractors using the same sign blanks for multiple states (and the three state DOTs not catching the errors or letting them get away with it).

Case in point look at this example:


Clearly this looks like MA style shields with just "R.I." added to the top. Real RI state shields have the numbers offcenter towards the bottom to allow room for the "R.I"

[AMLNet49]

I don't like that they are ditching the thick black border and going to the Mass style border, but what really bugs me is the switch to wide 3 digit shields. I think I could tolerate the chance to Mass shields if they still kept the squared for 3 digits as opposed to rectangles, because it would allow Connecticut to retain some identity, but alas the wide shields appear to be coming either way.

[dcbjms]

Out of curiosity, what do you guys think of some of these concepts in lieu of the current shields?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9795.msg2038611#msg2038611

That RI shield actually looks good, honestly.  Though I doubt anyone at RIDOT would use it - it would be too confusing with the Interstate shields, as many of them have faded to the point where only the lower blue "95", "195", or "295" bit shows.

Forget any change along those lines.   When i was at the STC Sign Shop back in October, i was advised by Jeff (the Sign Shop boss) that Connecticut would be switching to the Mass style of shields including 24x30 for 3-di routes.....

i had tried to get a modified state outline shield pushed over the last few years, but he told me in the same breath that because of that decision by the higher-ups, that my project, while well-liked by many in the Department, was dead....

Ugh, so they are going to look exactly like the Massachusetts shields? Hopefully they don't standardize the 2dsr shields as well...

Maybe Connecticut could add a state abbreviation to it like the Rhode Island shields currently.

[NE2]

"C.T." is not a sensical abbreviation.

[dcbjms]

"C.T." is not a sensical abbreviation.

Right, CT scans and all that.    Fixed.

[ctsignguy]

"C.T." is not a sensical abbreviation.

Right, CT scans and all that.    Fixed.

Connecticut DID signs like that once, but dropped them because they couldnt make the numbers fit in specified sizes without some major distortions

[dcbjms]

Connecticut DID signs like that once, but dropped them because they couldnt make the numbers fit in specified sizes without some major distortions

Well, the font doesn't have to be big for it, which seems to be the problem with that shield (pre-CAD?) - it could be as small as the Rhode Island state abbreviation, such as here.

[Bickendan]

The above picture is Portland, Oregon, but the credit is for ABC channel 4 in Seattle? (KOMO-TV?)

This. Not sure why Seattle cares what Portland's freeways are up to.

I grew up near eastern I-84 and should be a homer, but: just Google I-84 Columbia River. Or better yet, take a drive out there. Western I-84 is awesome.

Where it hasn't been destroyed to build I-84, the old road is even better.

Completely true. And the drive on WA 14 on the other side of the river isn't bad either!

[yakra]

I would consider changing the "black digits on a white square" route shields, not because they look too much like neighboring states' route shields, but because they look too much like speed-limit signs.

http://garycrocker.com/sound/22mph-grandmother.mp3