Based upon some wild whim i had been kicking around for quite a while, i took it upon myself to take this classic CONN 15 photo and work it a little bit on Photoshop....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FCT15-1.jpg&hash=c91678f089f0e226618b1d0303b05a06a4ca2871)
I showed the photoshopped examples to the guy in charge of the ConnDOT STate Sign Shop back in May and he liked what i had done...we discussed making prototypes and showing them to the Commissioners to see if they might go for a change from the Boring Square (trademarked by Dangermoose!) to something a bit more modern looking...and certainly a helluva lot different from Mass, Rhody and Maine!
Anyway, allow me to present my real life prototypes normally as well as under flash
Replica of the original 1970s design (engineering sheeting)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15rep.jpg&hash=61328b6d3157fef7e67e814a6e5f3591064ee732)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15repflash.jpg&hash=4778096d299c08aeb70522d869a744af390392c2)
Prototype A
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15prototype2.jpg&hash=aeedb7c7ce4261afd54850f4f9ecc13c5358cefe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15prototype2flash.jpg&hash=404293fec09049790686a4dadf3899fe99f57748)
Prototype B
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15prototype1.jpg&hash=de2941e984574705dcbe2a98e59673725d6ea9ed)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15prototype1flash.jpg&hash=f29ec7ed89490f51d0cd22925b6ae4212bfed9d4)
What design do you guys like best...and which do you think would be the best one for nighttime as well as day driving?
Results will be shared with the ConnDOT guys when i go back up in a few months...
PS to the Forum Editors....if this thread belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it...)
I'm liking prototype B.
I also like prototype B, but will take anything with the state shape over a plain square.
Make that 3 for prototype B, but I also like the black-and-white older style.
I like A the best.
The black and white might look better if the "CONN." were deleted and the state shape moved up a bit.
I feel you might have the most success if you try and market the black-and-white shield, as it would theoretically cost the same to create, whereas the blue versions would probably get objections of "blue ink costs more" (which is why LA is moving away from green-and-white shields).
Another thought... Connecticut looks kinda like Oklahoma upside down. Maybe a meat-cleaver-ish approach would look good? :D
I live in CT also, where is the CT Sign shop? And who would you talk to about getting signs? My experience with CDOT has always been a plentiful one. Always willing to explain things.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 10, 2009, 10:15:42 PM
I like A the best.
The black and white might look better if the "CONN." were deleted and the state shape moved up a bit.
I feel you might have the most success if you try and market the black-and-white shield, as it would theoretically cost the same to create, whereas the blue versions would probably get objections of "blue ink costs more" (which is why LA is moving away from green-and-white shields).
Another thought... Connecticut looks kinda like Oklahoma upside down. Maybe a meat-cleaver-ish approach would look good? :D
Ok, as far as the color choices....i picked blue as it is the State color....and other States use blue in their highway shields....Alabama and Georgia use blue for the APD highways and they seem to hold up pretty well....and Vermont seems to be pretty happy with their green shields..
i also think current reds dont hold up as well as blues or greens nowadays
and ConnDOT policy now seems to be "change the signs every 5-7 years"
as to cost, i can see why LA dropped green....it could be a hassle to stock three different sets of tabs and arrows...and being a small state still trying to get back on their feet from Katrina, it would be less costly. But for my shields, by going blue, in theory, they (CT) could use Interstate blue tabs and arrows
now, i didnt have the $$ to do it, but i also kicked around the idea of an alternate 24x30 sign, aka Tennessee...no state name, but a larger Connecticut shape that could encompass 3-di routes with ease (all routes would be marked with these 24x30 signs even if they were 1-di routes)
but if they wanted to avoid the expense of color, simply bringing back the 1970s classic would do nicely to get away from the Boring Square[(tm) by agentsteele53]...
but we shall see...ConnDOT commissioners seem to have their own minds....they dont want high-intensity sheet on route markers (too bright!)
Quote from: doofy103 on July 10, 2009, 10:55:32 PM
I live in CT also, where is the CT Sign shop? And who would you talk to about getting signs? My experience with CDOT has always been a plentiful one. Always willing to explain things.
Jeff's position is they dont give stuff away...he will chat up signs for hours and even show you old BGS plans from the 40s and 50s, but he cant give anything out....
I'd go with prototype A, but in black instead of blue, just to avoid using transparent process inks. I object to prototype B because it has black bordering blue and it is bad form to have two dark colors adjacent to each other.
I like prototype A, it's better legible.
I prefer A, for the reasons JN Winkler articulated... the blue adjacent to black is not as successful as I had hoped.
JN, what is the problem with transparent-process inks? More expensive? What about using sheeting instead of inks; is EG or prismatic blue more expensive than plain old non-reflective black?
and I would definitely keep the state name. As far as the three-digit shields go, I'd say just use a narrower series font in a 24x24 shield, as CONN has always done. But that is because I do not like stretched shields in general, and specifically not stretched state outlines.
To have the state name on one size and no state name on the other would be a source of confusion to the Motoring Public of Average Intelligence ("hey Elmer, why's this one say CONN and this one doesn't? Is one not a state route?")
So I'd say just go with the 24x24 size, and, if needed, put in a narrower font.
I love "A" that blue and white looks just gorgeous IMHO.
And, to me, it is more legible than "B".
I disagree. I find B to be more legible as the white numerals have the illusion of having a sharper contrast against the blue state, whereas the blue numerals of A -- and the blue portion of the shield surrounding the state outline -- have a feeling of 'bleeding' into the white. That makes the state name in A the sharpest portion of the sign, and it isn't the focus, the route number is.
B follows the format that the Interstate shields, the California and Minnesota shields use: Colored background, white numeric font. Perhaps a concern is that with a blue state and a white number, there can be some confusion that it's an Interstate shield (as has happened with the Minnesota shields), but that will quickly pass. Obviously, going with B to join the bandwagon isn't the reason to use that option, but it also means that the design works. The black casing in B works, but it's a little too thick, too obtrusive. If that were scaled back, it'd be more effective.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2009, 12:58:38 PMJN, what is the problem with transparent-process inks? More expensive? What about using sheeting instead of inks; is EG or prismatic blue more expensive than plain old non-reflective black?
All process inks, except for opaque black, fade under the sun. This is perhaps not a big problem for Connecticut given its latitude and climate, but in Arizona this led ADOT to kill off the colored Loop shields. It is certainly possible to cut the colored elements out of retroreflective sheeting, which will not fade, but this adds to the cost and complexity of the fabricating process.
Minnesota does use a multi-colored shield design and I think they do use process inks for it, but they can get away with it because of their latitude and their extremely aggressive sign replacement program. Colorado . . . yuck. Unfaded Colorado SR shields are extremely rare. I actually like the new South Carolina SR marker, but I have to question its practicality unless they are actually using sheeting for the blue elements.
I like Prototype B a lot, it really makes the number and the state outline pop, and gives it some distinction over RI and MA. Prototype A looks too much like those ARC signs on US Highway 72.
thanks for the clarification about the process inks. I do not know much about them, as the vast majority of my highway sign replica designs are old non-reflective styles, and the occasional reflective one is served well through the vinyl-cut process, for which my company charges less than to screen-print.
wow, looks like so far the vote is 5-5....
while i personally do like the contrast of the black outline along the blue State on Prototype B (especially under flash), i also think it might not be feasible for mass production as it does add an extra step that State bean-counters may not see as necessary...and i am not sure if a non-outlined blue shield would have the same impact at night or in bad weather.
My personal take is A is the cooler sign, but B is the better choice for bad weather and night driving
I like Prototype A because I like how the numbers are colored along with everything else except for the part. I'm fine with blue being the color but wouldn't mind of different portions of the routes in different counties couldn't have different colors.
Quote from: ctsignguy on July 13, 2009, 01:06:23 AM
wow, looks like so far the vote is 5-5....
while i personally do like the contrast of the black outline along the blue State on Prototype B (especially under flash), i also think it might not be feasible for mass production as it does add an extra step that State bean-counters may not see as necessary...
"Here's to the pencil pushers... may they all get lead poisoning."
I'm leaning towards A
A is better, just make sure the blue is sufficiently dark so it doesn't appear too washed out when headlights shine on it.
Quote from: ctsignguy on July 13, 2009, 01:06:23 AM
My personal take is A is the cooler sign, but B is the better choice for bad weather and night driving
I think A is just as good for night driving. The state outline is not for identification purposes; it is an aesthetic touch... since the number is dark against a light background, it is as good as it gets for the purpose of identifying the route.
well, the real determiners are the CT highway department. Let us know what they say!
Quote from: Duke87 on July 14, 2009, 08:53:35 PM
A is better, just make sure the blue is sufficiently dark so it doesn't appear too washed out when headlights shine on it.
I do not know if that is a possibility. The standard shade of reflective blue is ... that.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 14, 2009, 08:54:31 PM
well, the real determiners are the CT highway department. Let us know what they say!
Aye, aye, mon capitan! I shall die trying!
Seriously, i plan on contacting Jeff late this week and seeing what is happening...and if necessary, shipping the shields to him to show his overseers...seeing the real thing might make more impression than photos would!
On a related note, check out what's still kicking on High Ridge Road just south of the Parkway in Stamford:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg136.imageshack.us%2Fimg136%2F6707%2Fdscn4770.jpg&hash=1d553a83652e2d21da34df1e42c7495eeb6bf69e)
whoa, holy crap. do I need to take a trip out east? :sombrero:
i think that piccy pretty well answered the question about 3-di shields in the state shape....
Yep.
What size spanner will I need :-D
Hopefully it will still be there in a couple of months. Seriously though, are old signs ever preserved? They should keep it there if it's doing no harm.
Quote from: Truvelo on July 17, 2009, 09:18:21 AM
What size spanner will I need :-D
Hopefully it will still be there in a couple of months. Seriously though, are old signs ever preserved? They should keep it there if it's doing no harm.
Are old signs preserved? Seldom, and if they are, it is more at a local level, is all i can say....main office DOTs tend to scrap them out heedless of historical value or interest....
...and if they are due for replacing, they are replaced, without any thought about preserving them per se...just another road job (although on occasion, a local crew will save older stuff and mount it on the garage walls as decorations...)
I like prototype A. Even if ConnDOT won't bend to use color, that sign would like nice with the background in black, white CT shaped field, and black numerals.
I've also been toying with the idea of a new marker for years, but recently it's gotten to me again and I've been working on several alternates. The last one so far, I threw together yesterday, and it is really not all that different than what we currently have, but it incorporates a white state shaped icon, with a white "Connecticut" across the top in the black background. http://www.wyotut.com/personal/compromised.html (http://www.wytout.com/personal/compromised.html)
I don't understand why CT can't be bold and use color. Other states do. The MUTCD does give sugestions on state route markers, but the actual standard in the MUTCD is that states shall have their own design specs if they choose to for state markers (obviously for Federal funding purposes, Interstate and US route markers must adhere to the MUTCD standards for those shields).
I'd go for A or a black variant of it. I don't need to explain why. Its been done already </bad pun>
I'd have to go with A.
I'm thinking maybe even a variant on your prototype A.
I don't want to step on your toes, but the shape of CT is a rectangle. To maintain the character height of the MUTCD (12" on 24" high signs, and 18" on 36" high signs) the state outline could be better placed on a MUTCD elongated shield (24X30 and 36X45 for larger ones) and used for all state highways 1-, 2-, and 3-digits. Conn. is an archaic state abbreviation. I understand the nostalgic and retro idea behind your signage, but maybe you could still use some elements while updating the sign a bit.
I threw together som quick graphics showing possibilities of using your idea (in fact I used your image to start with), make the CT outline field take up more room because the sign is MUTCD rectangular now, and instead of CONN. spell out CONNECTICUT on the lower right (similar to the green village signs).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fctsignguyvariant1.jpg&hash=b7459390602d44394825acac75d05481a32dd22d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fctsignguyvariant2.jpg&hash=459e02ca54e1ad101732213eca3cf793854df25e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fctsignguyvariant3.jpg&hash=91ca3fe7c335d50daa3e6adc90bd0c5da38489df)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wytout.com%2Fpersonal%2Fctsignguyvariant4.jpg&hash=1087b0aac92455d37d5a3f1514d1456a390df501)
Just a thought. All signs would be either 24X30, or 36X45.
I know that South Carolina is using all elongated signs for 1 , 2, or 3 digit routes as they place their newly designed shields.
Of course elongated shields cost more money, so that would make it all that harder to sell to ConnDOT.
which was why i didnt do a 24x30 prototype...the 24x30 as it is, is a rare bird indeed, and Jeff indicated to me they dont like making them, but do if they dont have anything else (24x24) on hand at the moment
ConnDOT will be the last holdout in the country for FHWA 'B' fonts and engineering sheeting regardless, so we need to confine ourselves within those parameters
as far as spelling out 'Connecticut' as opposed to 'CONN', i dont think cost is a factor as much as "Lets make these things as simply as we can so we can get them out to the field'. As, 'CONN' has always been part of the state highway marker heritage, in any new prototype, we need to make a nod to that...That i think was why the A prototype won out......black as suggested or blue, it would be fairly simple to fabricate as either silk-screen or cut vinyl....and number as needed with B, C or D fonts....
But let's also be honest...while i am sure it might flatter them in a way that we are talking about how to make the markers better/more unique/colorful/less like Mass, Rhody and Maine, the bottom line remains that as of now, this is about as far as it goes. Maybe once the CT economy picks up, then they may revisit the issue, but as of right now, things are at a dead end.
One more update....
I am planning a return trip to New England in late October....and i am having a black CONN 15 made up....since they feel blue wouldnt pass Federal muster, let's see how a black version appeals to them! :)
THe blue kicks ass, but the black might have a shot! I wonder though... if you do a route 15 will they get the point that this would be a good idea statewide, and not just on the nostalgic Merritt Parkway? Maybe you should do a different number? Just a thought.
Actually, that is a good idea....i'll ask to have the black sign made up in either of two routes that have long been decommissioned....CONN 51 or CONN 52
As I mentioned in the other thread, 24x30 isn't as rare as you might expect. If MnDOT sign specs are any indication, those states that use a 3-digit sized shield (and there's at least a few out there) would use the 4:5 ratio...
24X30 or 4:5 aren't even that rare here in central CT, even though we don't use them... technically. I can think of several places you can find them.
Either way, the nostalgic square is probably the most likely to have any sort of chance here in CT, this state isn't a big fan of change.