News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

CT Using Mass State Hwy Shields

Started by TMETSJETSYT, July 12, 2022, 08:33:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TMETSJETSYT

Ok, so I get that the Mass and CT state hwy shields look very similar, but there is one difference. It is that the CT signs have the black outline, and the Mass shields have either no outline, or they have a grey one. And CT uses both the no outline and grey outline then they do the black outline, and the black outline is what they are supposed to be using. Ill leave links to some examples on Google Maps below, but if anyone could answer this, that would be great. (you have to copy and paste the link in to your browser)

Wrong
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1708257,-73.1930036,3a,15.1y,68.86h,95.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sA6rGyb87Y9kit4PbAF4xfg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DA6rGyb87Y9kit4PbAF4xfg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D172.61414%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Wrong
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2314567,-73.1553055,3a,75y,144.36h,90.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sptyuoQaZTbJu1rg9fpBvfg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Right
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9154475,-73.0556798,3a,15.1y,345.93h,93.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLR7LCtJpPpyfD07Q3GWrog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Roads I have clinched- I-84 (MA-CT-NY-PA), I-78 (NY-NJ-PA), I-395 (DC-VA), I-695 (Both DC and NY), I-490 (NY), I 390 (NY), I-787 (NY), I-287 (NY-NJ), I-795 (NC), I-140 (NC), I-295 (Both VA and MD), I-270 (MD), And I am only 13 so I have much more to clinch.


hotdogPi

It's just an error. The reverse case (CT design in MA) also exists, but it's rarer.

A more unusual one is this NH 63 (from alpsroads.net). New Hampshire uses an entirely different design. While 63 does cross into Massachusetts, it should still use the New Hampshire design in this location.

Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

TMETSJETSYT

Well, then it must be a pretty bad error because where I live, (Trumbull, CT) all of the on ramp signs have the no outline shields, and some of the newer ones even have the grey outline, aka the Mass shields.
Roads I have clinched- I-84 (MA-CT-NY-PA), I-78 (NY-NJ-PA), I-395 (DC-VA), I-695 (Both DC and NY), I-490 (NY), I 390 (NY), I-787 (NY), I-287 (NY-NJ), I-795 (NC), I-140 (NC), I-295 (Both VA and MD), I-270 (MD), And I am only 13 so I have much more to clinch.

roadman

Massachusetts state route shields have either no border (normally on older BGS panels) or an inset border.  The border is black, not grey.  CT state route shields have a border with no inset.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

MATraveler128

This is pretty common in Rhode Island too. The standard design in Rhode Island is basically the same as Massachusetts but with R.I above the number. But every so often, you see Massachusetts shields in the state like this example at the RI 146/RI 99 split.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9471522,-71.480782,3a,63.5y,315.33h,88.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd9KvvI1WmOIkuSjzvKksmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then there's this example when RIDOT signs Connecticut's Exit 93 with RI shields instead of the Connecticut ones.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4455846,-71.7921179,3a,75y,229.81h,68.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWAl202-86wKbeXJQVD50GA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 56

TMETSJETSYT

When I said Mass had a grey border, I meant that they have an inset. However, CT is not supposed to have an inset border, but most of the newer overhead signs in the Bridgeport area of CT, specifically on Route 8, they do have the inset border which i find very weird.
Roads I have clinched- I-84 (MA-CT-NY-PA), I-78 (NY-NJ-PA), I-395 (DC-VA), I-695 (Both DC and NY), I-490 (NY), I 390 (NY), I-787 (NY), I-287 (NY-NJ), I-795 (NC), I-140 (NC), I-295 (Both VA and MD), I-270 (MD), And I am only 13 so I have much more to clinch.

jp the roadgeek

It really depends on the DOT region and signing contracts.  Most reassurance shields do have the black outline.  But I've noticed that most BGS's in the Hartford area (reflective button copy relics notwithstanding) do not have the black border (including the ridiculous CT 15 shield on the HOV lane signage that looks like it blends in with the sign itself).  It's as inconsistent as state and neutered Interstate shields.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

roadman

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2022, 12:23:02 PM
It really depends on the DOT region and signing contracts.  Most reassurance shields do have the black outline.  But I've noticed that most BGS's in the Hartford area (reflective button copy relics notwithstanding) do not have the black border (including the ridiculous CT 15 shield on the HOV lane signage that looks like it blends in with the sign itself).  It's as inconsistent as state and neutered Interstate shields.

This has been an ongoing point of confusion.  The MUTCD has long called for 'cutout' shields on US and state shields mounted on BGS panels, and specifically references omitting the 'black outline' in such cases.  For a long time, some fabricators would omit the inset border on MA shelds when they were mounted on BGSes, considering them to be the 'black outline'.  In an attempt to correct this,. MA has specifcally had language in their MUTCD Amendments specifically requiring the inset border on shields mounted to BGS panels.  For the most part, the problem has largely goen away.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

hbelkins

Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2022, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2022, 12:23:02 PM
It really depends on the DOT region and signing contracts.  Most reassurance shields do have the black outline.  But I've noticed that most BGS's in the Hartford area (reflective button copy relics notwithstanding) do not have the black border (including the ridiculous CT 15 shield on the HOV lane signage that looks like it blends in with the sign itself).  It's as inconsistent as state and neutered Interstate shields.

This has been an ongoing point of confusion.  The MUTCD has long called for 'cutout' shields on US and state shields mounted on BGS panels, and specifically references omitting the 'black outline' in such cases.  For a long time, some fabricators would omit the inset border on MA shelds when they were mounted on BGSes, considering them to be the 'black outline'.  In an attempt to correct this,. MA has specifcally had language in their MUTCD Amendments specifically requiring the inset border on shields mounted to BGS panels.  For the most part, the problem has largely goen away.

This brings up an interesting observation. There are subtle differences in Indiana and Illinois route markers besides the state names, but they're for the most part the same. Yet Illinois posts state markers on guide signs without the black border, while Indiana uses the black border as if the sign could be independently mounted.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

shadyjay

The image linked above by TMETSJETSYT contains shields on a BGS that have been the standard on CT highway signs since the 1970s.  That particular sign at the I-95/CT 8 interchange in Bridgeport went up c 2000 during the rebuilding of the viaduct through Bridgeport. 

The outline shields (a la Mass) have appeared statewide as part of various projects on surface roads for the past 20 years or so, if not longer.  When CT 66 was rebuilt through Middlefield and Middletown, parts of it got the outline shield treatment.  Only within the past year or so has the outline shield made it onto guide signs on highways.  Part of the confusion may be the image files used in the sign plans... some show an outline border.  The CT 9 sign plans show the thick border (similar to I-395's sign replacement).  CT 8 got the outline treatment from Bridgeport to Shelton, not just on guide signs, but on reassurance shields as well. 

What the other projects get that are currently in progress (I-84, I-91, CT 40, CT 2) is anyone's guess.  I-691 is a design-build, so maybe we'll get circle shields or Alabama shields (haha - that happened in Mass years ago). 

PurdueBill

Quote from: hbelkins on July 12, 2022, 08:47:33 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2022, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2022, 12:23:02 PM
It really depends on the DOT region and signing contracts.  Most reassurance shields do have the black outline.  But I've noticed that most BGS's in the Hartford area (reflective button copy relics notwithstanding) do not have the black border (including the ridiculous CT 15 shield on the HOV lane signage that looks like it blends in with the sign itself).  It's as inconsistent as state and neutered Interstate shields.

This has been an ongoing point of confusion.  The MUTCD has long called for 'cutout' shields on US and state shields mounted on BGS panels, and specifically references omitting the 'black outline' in such cases.  For a long time, some fabricators would omit the inset border on MA shelds when they were mounted on BGSes, considering them to be the 'black outline'.  In an attempt to correct this,. MA has specifcally had language in their MUTCD Amendments specifically requiring the inset border on shields mounted to BGS panels.  For the most part, the problem has largely goen away.

This brings up an interesting observation. There are subtle differences in Indiana and Illinois route markers besides the state names, but they're for the most part the same. Yet Illinois posts state markers on guide signs without the black border, while Indiana uses the black border as if the sign could be independently mounted.

When you do see a sign for an Indiana route that has square corners and no border, it just screams that it is wrong....check out these "Illinois shields" for Indiana routes (a sign well into Indiana, just made with Illinois-style shields that say Indiana).  They just look wrong!!  https://goo.gl/maps/iMCkdYNt3vQ3YRtKA

The classic old Mass shields without border always seemed off somehow considering standalone shields would have the border.  The ones where a wide rectangle was used for 2-digit numbers, the more recent signs without borders too. 
There was a rash of shields with borders that started to peel and curl prematurely which I called the "TV screen shields" because of the particular shape the border would seem to adopt, like an old TV screen.  The image may appear to be an artifact of street view distortion, but it was a real thing and looked even weirder in person if you knew what it should look like.  https://goo.gl/maps/Gr2zhHrZ34nyNd6d9

SectorZ

Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2022, 04:28:21 PM
There was a rash of shields with borders that started to peel and curl prematurely which I called the "TV screen shields" because of the particular shape the border would seem to adopt, like an old TV screen.  The image may appear to be an artifact of street view distortion, but it was a real thing and looked even weirder in person if you knew what it should look like.  https://goo.gl/maps/Gr2zhHrZ34nyNd6d9

A few of those on US 3 around Lowell that are just about ready to get replaced. Seemed like an early-2000's-era problem for those signs.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6112504,-71.3270227,3a,75y,3.52h,117.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4jKcVADQqnd04l0oH6xkqQ!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192

You can see as far back as 2011 they had problems and weren't even ten years old at that point.

Mergingtraffic

 I read somewhere CT is phasing out the thick black border. I thought I read that here
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Ted$8roadFan

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2022, 01:12:05 AM
I read somewhere CT is phasing out the thick black border. I thought I read that here

If so, that would be too bad. It's something distinctive that sets CT apart.

Alps

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2022, 01:12:05 AM
I read somewhere CT is phasing out the thick black border. I thought I read that here
Latest signs I've seen still have it. Moreso than those a few years ago.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 14, 2022, 04:40:45 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2022, 01:12:05 AM
I read somewhere CT is phasing out the thick black border. I thought I read that here

If so, that would be too bad. It's something distinctive that sets CT apart.

From West Virginia? :bigass:
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PurdueBill

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 14, 2022, 11:17:00 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 14, 2022, 04:40:45 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2022, 01:12:05 AM
I read somewhere CT is phasing out the thick black border. I thought I read that here

If so, that would be too bad. It's something distinctive that sets CT apart.

From West Virginia? :bigass:

At least WV and CT are separated by a few states.  Having Mass route 10 become Conn route 10 with totally identical shields on either side of the state line is kinda weird.  The Delaware River keeping same-numbered routes from crossing from DE to NJ is all that has saved us from confusion or ambiguity there.  Conversely, DE 896, 273, et al. changing shields at the state lines helps sort things out especially when the state line signage is small or lacking.


Quote from: SectorZ on July 13, 2022, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2022, 04:28:21 PM
There was a rash of shields with borders that started to peel and curl prematurely which I called the "TV screen shields" because of the particular shape the border would seem to adopt, like an old TV screen.  The image may appear to be an artifact of street view distortion, but it was a real thing and looked even weirder in person if you knew what it should look like.  https://goo.gl/maps/Gr2zhHrZ34nyNd6d9

A few of those on US 3 around Lowell that are just about ready to get replaced. Seemed like an early-2000's-era problem for those signs.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6112504,-71.3270227,3a,75y,3.52h,117.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4jKcVADQqnd04l0oH6xkqQ!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192

You can see as far back as 2011 they had problems and weren't even ten years old at that point.

The way that the outline started to curve on those has always seemed very odd.  The border material must have shrank so as to become curved to give the TV screen shape, but I don't know enough about what would do that or why.  Definitely not one of the greatest hits.  No border at all would have been better than the TV screen shape.

Rothman

MA 10 and CT 10 had the same shield a long time ago (New England highway system)...I see that returning as a good thing.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 14, 2022, 04:40:45 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2022, 01:12:05 AM
I read somewhere CT is phasing out the thick black border. I thought I read that here

If so, that would be too bad. It's something distinctive that sets CT apart.
Not really.
West Virginia uses the same design.

fwydriver405

A bit off-topic, but ME Route 15 in Bangor, Maine from Exit 4 on I-395 to Exit 185 on I-95 used to have Connecticut-styled Route 15 shields throughout its multiplex on I-95 and I-395 as shown below. Believe the signs were replaced with the current MaineDOT spec around 2018-19ish.

I-95:
South
North

I-395:
West (North on 15)
East (South on 15)

TMETSJETSYT

I know this is late but I have been on the road for a while this week and I have noticed pretty much any new CT shield has the Mass shield, instead of the Black border. I don't get why they are doing this. It has to mean that they are changing the shields to look more like the Mass shields. I don't get why they even changed them in the first place from the signs that had the state outlines. The ones now are just basic and plain.
Roads I have clinched- I-84 (MA-CT-NY-PA), I-78 (NY-NJ-PA), I-395 (DC-VA), I-695 (Both DC and NY), I-490 (NY), I 390 (NY), I-787 (NY), I-287 (NY-NJ), I-795 (NC), I-140 (NC), I-295 (Both VA and MD), I-270 (MD), And I am only 13 so I have much more to clinch.

SectorZ

Quote from: TMETSJETSYT on August 15, 2022, 04:36:26 PM
I know this is late but I have been on the road for a while this week and I have noticed pretty much any new CT shield has the Mass shield, instead of the Black border. I don't get why they are doing this. It has to mean that they are changing the shields to look more like the Mass shields. I don't get why they even changed them in the first place from the signs that had the state outlines. The ones now are just basic and plain.

The state got so broke they can't even afford the black outline anymore.

Alps

Quote from: TMETSJETSYT on August 15, 2022, 04:36:26 PM
I know this is late but I have been on the road for a while this week and I have noticed pretty much any new CT shield has the Mass shield, instead of the Black border. I don't get why they are doing this. It has to mean that they are changing the shields to look more like the Mass shields. I don't get why they even changed them in the first place from the signs that had the state outlines. The ones now are just basic and plain.
Technically, the MUTCD would like your outer panel to be reflective, so a black outline is supposed to be inset.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.