These four states have one thing in common - they all have a square/rectangle for their state highway shield. The problem is that these states are decently close to eachother (Maine being the exception since it's separated from Massachusetts by Vermont and New Hampshire), and I noticed that there are very... subtle differences on their shields that sometimes the general public wouldn't notice. How does this not induce confusion? For comparison, here are the 4 state route shields (CT, RI, MA, and ME) that I whipped up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNE_ShieldComparison_zps69f016f4.png&hash=279ff49e1850b7f0abb94fa69c3dd593aeaa76b3)
So, let's see. Connecticut has a thicker border around it's shield. Rhode Island incorporated the letters "R.I." above the numerals. Massachusetts and Maine have no difference whatsoever (that I could tell).
Ready for the kicker? To add to even more confusion, Rhode Island apparently used the exact same style that Massachusetts used based by this picture:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/rhode_island050/i-095_nb_exit_008a_01.jpg)
As an average motorist, I can't imagine differentiating between the 3 shields of CT, RI and MA if I wasn't paying special attention. I'd probably be the last person to realize that Connecticut shields have a thicker border. The only one that is fairly obvious is Rhode Island's state initials above the numerals, but even then, some people could miss those (esp. at highway speed) and confuse them with it's two neighboring states.
Just curious on the thoughts of any residents of the 4 states I listed - do you think there is some confusion amongst the general public between these shields, or are there clear enough differences (or in Massachusetts and Maine's case - distances) between them to clearly identify them as belonging to their respective state?
For example, New Jersey and Delaware both use the standard circle marker. We also border each other. The only difference I noticed was on overhead signs, where Delaware doesn't have the black backing behind the shield, while we do (not for long if FHWA keeps being dicks about it!). The only way to differentiate is the fact that you can't just silently cross into Delaware (or New Jersey) - you physically have to cross a body of water via a bridge to do so, and there are definitely signs telling you that you entered a different state.
Why would this matter? If you reached that Exit 8 sign on I-95 and weren't already aware that you are in RI, you have bigger problems than differentiating between state route markers.
To my knowledge, neither MassDOT nor predecessor agencies (MassHighway, MassDPW) have received any comments or complaints from the general public regarding the issue you raise.
Quote from: spooky on January 23, 2015, 10:37:12 AM
Why would this matter? If you reached that Exit 8 sign on I-95 and weren't already aware that you are in RI, you have bigger problems than differentiating between state route markers.
I generally agree with this. I also tend to think the increasing use of sat-nav devices may make it even less of an issue than it may have been in the past, simply because the casual motorist who might be less attuned to things like state route markers or state welcome signs is probably more likely to use a sat-nav due to not having a mental road atlas.
But the bigger issue in my mind that Zeffy's comments raise is what remedy he proposes, if indeed there is a problem. States are free to select their own route marker or use the default circle marker shown in the MUTCD. If you require all states to use the circle, then arguably you're just exacerbating the problem, right? Instead of having a problem (assuming
arguendo one exists) in a relatively small area of the country, you suddenly have the problem every time a road crosses a state line. So is the remedy then to require FHWA approval of state-specific markers? I don't like that idea at all. I suppose you could come up with an argument under the Interstate Commerce Clause, as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, that state route markers have an effect on interstate commerce such that the US government can regulate them, but just because the US government "can" legally do something doesn't mean they should.
Moreover, if the FHWA must then review and approve state-specific markers, how do you decide which of those four states gets to keep its current marker and which must change? Or do you make them all change (except maybe Maine due to being discontiguous)? Who pays for it?
Quote from: spooky on January 23, 2015, 10:37:12 AM
Why would this matter? If you reached that Exit 8 sign on I-95 and weren't already aware that you are in RI, you have bigger problems than differentiating between state route markers.
You would think so, but people nowadays have no clue to reality. I work in a restaurant where some people cannot even figure out that the reason why a greeter at the door (which is called a host or hostess) is asking you how many in your party and is grabbing a menu for you, and yet they continue walking into the dining area looking for a seat for themselves. Plus the PLEASE WAIT TO BE SEATED sign is present at the door.
Anyway, I have dealt with a lot of non road geeks in my time and many have no clue of simple little things like what was mentioned. If you try to inform them how ignorant they are these people try to say that we are into something that normal people do not get into and that we are the weird ones for knowing even a little bit about roads.
My neighbor, for one, got confused crossing the 14th Street bridge in Virginia after leaving Washington, when the control city for US 1 South is Alexandria and for I-395 South is Richmond because her hotel was off of I-395. She claimed that the "Alexandria" on the US 1 guide was misleading her because her hotel she was heading back to was in Alexandria off of an I-395 interchange. She totally acted like the signs were implying that she had to make a choice that she could not take I-395 back to her hotel because the two were on separate signs. She is not out of it outside of this either, but nonetheless got taken for that one moment.
You be a bit surprised at some people out there.
To go one further, most CT state route shields don't have the black border on them. People traveling between Enfield, CT Springfield, MA on either US Route 5 or I-91 don't seem to have a problem with the shields being nearly identical. :P
Better yet...the three cities and towns I've lived in all have a state route 9 going through them! (New Britain, CT now, Wells and Old Orchard Beach, ME in the past.) :)
Rhode Island only uses the neutered style on guide signs.
You're more likely to get confused by the multiple 1As in the same state than two routes with the same number in different states.
Quote from: NE2 on January 23, 2015, 11:46:36 AM
Rhode Island only uses the neutered style on guide signs.
and inconsistently at that, because Rhode Island.
Maine was part of Massachusetts for fifty years after US independence. Maybe there is some kind of subconscious carryover in their sign design.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2015, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: spooky on January 23, 2015, 10:37:12 AM
Why would this matter? If you reached that Exit 8 sign on I-95 and weren't already aware that you are in RI, you have bigger problems than differentiating between state route markers.
deleted gibberish
I think you made my point.
There is also the occasional CT sign in Massachusetts.
And the occasional NJ sign, which is not a white square.
And the one-time Alabama sign.
I've always wondered if CT would go back to the original shields with the state outline. Being from New England, I can tell the difference between those signs. As for RIDOT, I've always noticed they have done similar practices to MassDOT. RIDOT uses the old MassDOT style exit tabs on much of their newer signs.
Quote from: spooky on January 23, 2015, 10:37:12 AM
Why would this matter? If you reached that Exit 8 sign on I-95 and weren't already aware that you are in RI, you have bigger problems than differentiating between state route markers.
Being from Texas I could understand being in a region where you never knew what state you were in because there are so many. Why not take pride in your state? Minnesota has the best state highway signs.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 23, 2015, 01:01:02 PM
Maine was part of Massachusetts for fifty years after US independence. Maybe there is some kind of subconscious carryover in their sign design.
Keeping their options open?
This situation really just bears out the fact that Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are really barely justified in being separate states from one another. Maine is a whole separate bag of potatoes, but their little 200-year dalliance with autonomy will end soon enough, rendering that a moot point.
Regarding the photo of that Exit 8 sign in RI...it has since been replaced in a sign replacement and the true "R.I." shields now appear. In most (sadly, not all) of R.I.'s sign replacements, they've switched from the generic white square to the shield with the R.I. initials. (Maybe a MUTCD requirement?)
RIDOT does get lazy though and you will see many MA-style on some BGS and trailblazers. It all depends on the contractor.
In the Greenwich to Fairfield sign replacement project on I-95 in CT, you will note that they use the thick black border shields for the route numbers. However, this is the only signage in the state that jumped on board. All other new signage is using the generic white square. One could argue that the shield is accurately represented on the disgusting button-copy signs that still exist everywhere in the state...
But I agree with the overall sentiment of the thread...the state signs should be more distinctive. Could there ever be a change in a state's official trailblazer to make it more unique to the state? I would imagine it's possible...expensive for sure, but possible.
I take that CT does not use the CalTrans text shields anymore as I seen them use back in 1990's and early 2000's?
CT and WV are exactly the same shields
The CT outline shield was only popular in Fairfield County.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/sales/CT31968i.png)
The rest of the state had shields like this that were similar to the current RI shield
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fa1%2FOld_CONN_138.jpg%2F220px-Old_CONN_138.jpg&hash=606ab1505f1e882c6a6a4f55debfe4b33f03e620)
I have one not too far from me that looks like this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.596879,-72.877669,3a,75y,180h,100.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snqYf9fq-0k6t0Gm_Pxo6iw!2e0?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.596879,-72.877669,3a,75y,180h,100.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snqYf9fq-0k6t0Gm_Pxo6iw!2e0?hl=en)
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 23, 2015, 05:05:26 PM
CT and WV are exactly the same shields
Are you sure? WV's border looks just a bit thicker.
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/wv/wv_72/
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/ct_72/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fwv%2Fwv_72%2Fsr.jpg&hash=8c915c29f145a0e99533e962585c807bd96abb36)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fct%2Fct_72%2Fejct.jpg&hash=e0af644808faa26ef9769e072df6a0190db192c1)
The one thing that prevents this from being so much of an issue is that most motorists don't even realize that different states use different shapes. Do you know how many people get off the Long Island Expressway (I-495) at exit 56 for NY 111 when they really want exit 70 for Suffolk CR 111? It causes lots of people to get lost when trying to go to Montauk. As far as I'm concerned, if two routes in different systems are in close proximity to each other, then one should be renumbered, since otherwise non-roadgeeks will get lost.
By the way, the same situation exists with New Jersey and Delaware, which also border on each other, albeit with a river in between.
Connecticut does not use a border on BGS. It's just a white square with the route number except when button copy is used in which case it's just a hollow square. As others have mentioned, if you can't figure out what state you're in, you have bigger problems in life considering there is a huge sign at state borders plus your GPS will know. I've never once been unsure of what state I'm in. Are people really confused about what state they are traveling through just because the state route shields look similar?
Quote from: dgolub on January 23, 2015, 07:19:56 PM
The one thing that prevents this from being so much of an issue is that most motorists don't even realize that different states use different shapes. Do you know how many people get off the Long Island Expressway (I-495) at exit 56 for NY 111 when they really want exit 70 for Suffolk CR 111? It causes lots of people to get lost when trying to go to Montauk. As far as I'm concerned, if two routes in different systems are in close proximity to each other, then one should be renumbered, since otherwise non-roadgeeks will get lost.
By the way, the same situation exists with New Jersey and Delaware, which also border on each other, albeit with a river in between.
Do New England states even have county maintained roads? There's no county anything in Connecticut, how about the other five states? NY strikes me as a place with too many government layers where you have various road authorities.
Look at NC near Rocky Mount along I-95 and the redundant NC NC 58 shield. It is that way because of another route in another state over 70 miles away has another highway numbered 58. Even though its a US route where you would think everyone would by now know the shield, they still do not.
QuoteDo New England states even have county maintained roads?
Maine might, but Vermont does not.
Regarding the highway shields, it might be a relic of the old New England route marking system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_road_marking_system), which predates the US routes.
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 23, 2015, 07:27:25 PM
Quote from: dgolub on January 23, 2015, 07:19:56 PM
The one thing that prevents this from being so much of an issue is that most motorists don't even realize that different states use different shapes. Do you know how many people get off the Long Island Expressway (I-495) at exit 56 for NY 111 when they really want exit 70 for Suffolk CR 111? It causes lots of people to get lost when trying to go to Montauk. As far as I'm concerned, if two routes in different systems are in close proximity to each other, then one should be renumbered, since otherwise non-roadgeeks will get lost.
By the way, the same situation exists with New Jersey and Delaware, which also border on each other, albeit with a river in between.
Do New England states even have county maintained roads? There's no county anything in Connecticut, how about the other five states? NY strikes me as a place with too many government layers where you have various road authorities.
Technically MA doesn't even have actual counties anymore outside of just existing as paper entities.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 23, 2015, 10:31:12 AM
These four states have one thing in common - they all have a square/rectangle for their state highway shield. The problem is that these states are decently close to eachother (Maine being the exception since it's separated from Massachusetts by Vermont and New Hampshire), and I noticed that there are very... subtle differences on their shields that sometimes the general public wouldn't notice. How does this not induce confusion? For comparison, here are the 4 state route shields (CT, RI, MA, and ME) that I whipped up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNE_ShieldComparison_zps69f016f4.png&hash=279ff49e1850b7f0abb94fa69c3dd593aeaa76b3)
So, let's see. Connecticut has a thicker border around it's shield. Rhode Island incorporated the letters "R.I." above the numerals. Massachusetts and Maine have no difference whatsoever (that I could tell).
Ready for the kicker? To add to even more confusion, Rhode Island apparently used the exact same style that Massachusetts used based by this picture:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/rhode_island050/i-095_nb_exit_008a_01.jpg)
As an average motorist, I can't imagine differentiating between the 3 shields of CT, RI and MA if I wasn't paying special attention. I'd probably be the last person to realize that Connecticut shields have a thicker border. The only one that is fairly obvious is Rhode Island's state initials above the numerals, but even then, some people could miss those (esp. at highway speed) and confuse them with it's two neighboring states.
Just curious on the thoughts of any residents of the 4 states I listed - do you think there is some confusion amongst the general public between these shields, or are there clear enough differences (or in Massachusetts and Maine's case - distances) between them to clearly identify them as belonging to their respective state?
For example, New Jersey and Delaware both use the standard circle marker. We also border each other. The only difference I noticed was on overhead signs, where Delaware doesn't have the black backing behind the shield, while we do (not for long if FHWA keeps being dicks about it!). The only way to differentiate is the fact that you can't just silently cross into Delaware (or New Jersey) - you physically have to cross a body of water via a bridge to do so, and there are definitely signs telling you that you entered a different state.
No jughandles, self service and wire span traffic lights in Delaware
Consider state routes in these states to be part of one unified system of state routes. Numbers can be reused in multiple states, and this isn't a problem as long as the duplicate numbers either form continuous multi-state routes, or are nowhere near each other.
Ohio's I-270 marker looks very similar to Maryland's I-270 marker, and this is not a problem. Kentucky's I-275 marker looks very similar to Indiana's I-275 marker, and this is not a problem. It's not too different with state routes in New England.
Quote from: vtk on January 23, 2015, 09:42:32 PM
Consider state routes in these states to be part of one unified system of state routes. Numbers can be reused in multiple states, and this isn't a problem as long as the duplicate numbers either form continuous multi-state routes, or are nowhere near each other.
US 20 and CT 20 are fairly close. And US 20 is sometimes signed as MA 20 erroneously.
Quote from: Cjzani on January 23, 2015, 09:00:24 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 23, 2015, 07:27:25 PM
Do New England states even have county maintained roads? There's no county anything in Connecticut, how about the other five states? NY strikes me as a place with too many government layers where you have various road authorities.
Technically MA doesn't even have actual counties anymore outside of just existing as paper entities.
Actually, not all Massachusetts county governments have been abolished, I live in one that still exists. From Wikipedia:
"Massachusetts has abolished eight of its fourteen county governments, leaving five counties with county-level local government (Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Norfolk, Plymouth) and one, Nantucket County, with combined county/city government."
Counties in Mass. were responsible for creating and maintaining highways early on in their history but over time, like most other functions of county government in the state, their responsibilities were taken over by a combination of the cities and towns or the state itself.
Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2015, 07:41:27 PM
QuoteDo New England states even have county maintained roads?
Maine might, but Vermont does not.
Regarding the highway shields, it might be a relic of the old New England route marking system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_road_marking_system), which predates the US routes.
CT and RI have no county level government at all. MA is a mix as described earlier, but even when it had functioning counties, they hadn't been responsible for roads since probably the 40s or 50s.
Maine, NH, and VT all have county governments, but I don't think they are in charge of any roads or highways. Pretty sure that is all either and state or city/town responsibility up there.
The only functions CT counties serve are for division of marshal services, setting of healthcare provisions, and for the National Weather Service.
Quote from: vtk on January 23, 2015, 09:42:32 PM
Ohio's I-270 marker looks very similar to Maryland's I-270 marker, and this is not a problem. Kentucky's I-275 marker looks very similar to Indiana's I-275 marker, and this is not a problem.
Coincidentally, it's apparently a problem with I-291 in CT/MA.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 23, 2015, 10:31:12 AM
These four states have one thing in common - they all have a square/rectangle for their state highway shield. The problem is that these states are decently close to eachother (Maine being the exception since it's separated from Massachusetts by Vermont and New Hampshire), and I noticed that there are very... subtle differences on their shields that sometimes the general public wouldn't notice. How does this not induce confusion?
Well, I haven't lost sleep over this although I've been through the region enough times... :)
QuoteFor example, New Jersey and Delaware both use the standard circle marker.
Haven't had nightmares over this either and I've been in those states a lot more times than the New England states.
ixnay
QuoteMaine, NH, and VT all have county governments, but I don't think they are in charge of any roads or highways. Pretty sure that is all either and state or city/town responsibility up there.
Vermont does not have county roads. I'm pretty sure New Hampshire doesn't either. A quick web search suggests that there are enough unorganized areas in Maine (i.e. areas not in a town) to where some counties do have county roads.
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 23, 2015, 07:23:10 PM
As others have mentioned, if you can't figure out what state you're in, you have bigger problems in life considering there is a huge sign at state borders plus your GPS will know. I've never once been unsure of what state I'm in. Are people really confused about what state they are traveling through just because the state route shields look similar?
Not necessarily. When you cross between New York and Pennsylvania on US 6, there's no state line crossing signage in either direction. Also, I've seen a lot of places where you cross a state line on a county route and the signage only tells you that you're entering a different county.
It also matters in that you sometimes have signage for one state's state route in another state (e.g. NJ 17 and NJ 23 in New York, NJ 90 in Pennsylvania, NY 120A in Connecticut).
Once I had a nightmare that I was in Penns Grove, NJ and drove right into the Delaware River looking for Hockessin.
Quote from: NE2 on January 24, 2015, 05:33:27 AM
Coincidentally, it's apparently a problem with I-291 in CT/MA.
Yet I doubt changing one to state route 291 would help.
Quote from: vtk on January 24, 2015, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 24, 2015, 05:33:27 AM
Coincidentally, it's apparently a problem with I-291 in CT/MA.
Yet I doubt changing one to state route 291 would help.
CT 218 maybe?
They had the chance to use 491 around Hartford, but assigned that instead to the never-finished southwest quadrant when the northwest quadrant was cancelled.
Quote from: 1 on January 24, 2015, 12:43:11 PM
Quote from: vtk on January 24, 2015, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 24, 2015, 05:33:27 AM
Coincidentally, it's apparently a problem with I-291 in CT/MA.
Yet I doubt changing one to state route 291 would help.
CT 218 maybe?
Maybe change the CT one to I-284, or the MA one to I-491 or I-490, since the interstates connect (well, close enough on the MA one) to I-84 and I-90.
Quote from: dgolub on January 23, 2015, 07:19:56 PM
The one thing that prevents this from being so much of an issue is that most motorists don't even realize that different states use different shapes. Do you know how many people get off the Long Island Expressway (I-495) at exit 56 for NY 111 when they really want exit 70 for Suffolk CR 111? It causes lots of people to get lost when trying to go to Montauk. As far as I'm concerned, if two routes in different systems are in close proximity to each other, then one should be renumbered, since otherwise non-roadgeeks will get lost.
By the way, the same situation exists with New Jersey and Delaware, which also border on each other, albeit with a river in between.
Some people even have trouble with the Interstate shield. This sign in Maryland has shown up on this forum from time to time....
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland070/i-070_wb_exit_018_03.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2015, 04:49:19 PM
Some people even have trouble with the Interstate shield. This sign in Maryland has shown up on this forum from time to time....
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland070/i-070_wb_exit_018_03.jpg)
Not surprising. This reminds me a bit of the signage on the New York Thruway (I-87) northbound at exit 21A for the Berkshires Section, which is signed as TO I-90 EAST. There are signs telling people to stay on I-87 north for a few more exits for I-90 west toward Buffalo. Similarly, in the opposite direction, there are signs at exit 24 where the two interstates actually cross telling people to continue to exit 21A for the Mass Pike.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2015, 04:49:19 PM
Some people even have trouble with the Interstate shield. This sign in Maryland has shown up on this forum from time to time....
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland070/i-070_wb_exit_018_03.jpg)
Number duplication is something that I would always avoid for this reason - the general public really only knows the number, not the actual type of route it is. Sure, the Interstate shield should be something more people know about, but they really don't, which is shocking.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2015, 04:49:19 PMSome people even have trouble with the Interstate shield. This sign in Maryland has shown up on this forum from time to time....
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/maryland070/i-070_wb_exit_018_03.jpg)
Personally, I'm still suprised that when I-68 first came about that Maryland didn't renumber just MD 68 to MD x68 or some other number; especially given its relatively close proximity the then-newly designated Interstate.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 23, 2015, 10:31:12 AM
These four states have one thing in common - they all have a square/rectangle for their state highway shield. The problem is that these states are decently close to eachother (Maine being the exception since it's separated from Massachusetts by Vermont and New Hampshire), and I noticed that there are very... subtle differences on their shields that sometimes the general public wouldn't notice.
For that matter, you might as well add in Illinois which shares a very long border with Indiana. Both use squares, and the only difference is "ILLINOIS" or "INDIANA" at the top of the shield.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 26, 2015, 09:39:59 AM
Number duplication is something that I would always avoid for this reason - the general public really only knows the number, not the actual type of route it is. Sure, the Interstate shield should be something more people know about, but they really don't, which is shocking.
I couldn't agree more. Also, in certain areas like New York City and its close-in suburbs such as Nassau County, a lot of people don't even know the numbers and just go by street names. For example, people will generally talk about Jericho Turnpike, Northern Boulevard, Hillside Avenue, and Sunrise Highway, not NY 25, NY 25A, NY 25B, and NY 27. In these types of areas, they really need to put both the names and the numbers on the signs, even if it violates MUTCD.
Makes me glad that Connecticut doesn't duplicate! I still remember the CT Route 291 days.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 26, 2015, 10:49:04 AMPersonally, I'm still suprised that when I-68 first came about that Maryland didn't renumber just MD 68 to MD x68 or some other number; especially given its relatively close proximity the then-newly designated Interstate.
Sixty-eight is not the only route number used by MD on a state-numbered road as well as an interstate. I-97 comes within +/- 22 miles of MD 97 as the crow flies.
ixnay
Another thing is that numbers often carry over at state lines in this part of the country. Think NY/MA 2, VT/NH 9, NY/VT 22A (there is no VT 22), etc. It's the same number, so the shield really doesn't matter.
And about the comment with NY's many layers of government, it's more apparent in some areas than it is in others. Erie County has a bunch of bureaucracy, but in Warren County, everything except police (only Glens Falls has its own) and a very small road network is left to the towns, including most services, rendering it not very different from nearby Vermont.
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on January 23, 2015, 03:22:13 PM
I've always wondered if CT would go back to the original shields with the state outline.
Those shields are not "original", they were mostly put up in the 1970s and were only ever used on and in the vicinity of the Merritt Parkway. The old style from the rest of the state and from that area before then was a state named square (with "CONN" in it).
All six New England states historically used a square for their state highway markers, a practice which arose from signage for the now long-defunct "New England interstate" system. NH switched to the old man of the mountain shield a while back and VT switched from squares to circles before creating their current shield in the 1990s, but examples of old square shields still exist in the wild in both states.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 26, 2015, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on January 23, 2015, 03:22:13 PM
I've always wondered if CT would go back to the original shields with the state outline.
Those shields are not "original", they were mostly put up in the 1970s and were only ever used on and in the vicinity of the Merritt Parkway. The old style from the rest of the state and from that area before then was a state named square (with "CONN" in it).
All six New England states historically used a square for their state highway markers, a practice which arose from signage for the now long-defunct "New England interstate" system. NH switched to the old man of the mountain shield a while back and VT switched from squares to circles before creating their current shield in the 1990s, but examples of old square shields still exist in the wild in both states.
Ah, I didn't know that about the CT shields. I remember one sign up into maybe the early 2000s on the Merritt Parkway that still had the outline shield.
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on January 27, 2015, 12:28:35 AM
Ah, I didn't know that about the CT shields. I remember one sign up into maybe the early 2000s on the Merritt Parkway that still had the outline shield.
Oh there were tons until about then. Almost every guide sign on the parkway featured the outline shields (on non-reflective button copy) until they were replaced with the current sawtooth design.
I know of five 1970s outline shields still in existence in the wild today. Two of them are in my avatar. I find it a bit amazing that the 137 has survived so long considering it's in a highly visible location, but then I also know ConnDOT doesn't pay much attention to Stamford and Greenwich since they're rather far from the district 3 office in New Haven. CT 137 and CT 104 are both sparsely signed, especially 104.
Quote from: cl94 on January 26, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
Another thing is that numbers often carry over at state lines in this part of the country. Think NY/MA 2, VT/NH 9, NY/VT 22A (there is no VT 22), etc. It's the same number, so the shield really doesn't matter.
The fun part of NY/VT 22A is that it has been artificially created over the years. NY 22A was NY 286 and VT 22A was VT 30A. They renumbered 286 to 22A and 30A was renumbered to match.
Quote from: ixnay on January 26, 2015, 09:22:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 26, 2015, 10:49:04 AMPersonally, I'm still suprised that when I-68 first came about that Maryland didn't renumber just MD 68 to MD x68 or some other number; especially given its relatively close proximity the then-newly designated Interstate.
Sixty-eight is not the only route number used by MD on a state-numbered road as well as an interstate. I-97 comes within +/- 22 miles of MD 97 as the crow flies.
OTOH I-283 and PA 283 do the cloverleaf square dance in suburban Harrisburg.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on January 27, 2015, 07:44:09 AMOTOH I-283 and PA 283 do the cloverleaf square dance in suburban Harrisburg.
One has to wonder if there ever were any
actual plans to make PA 283 an extension of I-283? I know somebody posted a fictional I-383 plan that does just such.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 27, 2015, 01:50:01 AM
I know of five 1970s outline shields still in existence in the wild today. Two of them are in my avatar. I find it a bit amazing that the 137 has survived so long considering it's in a highly visible location, but then I also know ConnDOT doesn't pay much attention to Stamford and Greenwich since they're rather far from the district 3 office in New Haven. CT 137 and CT 104 are both sparsely signed, especially 104.
Also, those towns don't exactly have many state routes in them. Greenwich literally has nothing other than I-95, US 1, and CT 15 passing through it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 27, 2015, 08:50:41 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 27, 2015, 07:44:09 AMOTOH I-283 and PA 283 do the cloverleaf square dance in suburban Harrisburg.
One has to wonder if there ever were any actual plans to make PA 283 an extension of I-283? I know somebody posted a fictional I-383 plan that does just such.
Nothing has ever surfaced. Considering PA 283 uses up the internal 300 number, it should just be signed 300. That makes it make sense as a spur off US 30.
While we're talking about confusing, neighboring, square shields: IL and IN.
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.
Quote from: Doctor Whom on January 28, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
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.
In Massachusetts, it's only a problem with MA 60 and maybe MA 70. (45, 50, 55, 65, and 75 don't exist, while 30, 35, and 40 are reasonable speed limits for those routes).
Quote from: 1 on January 28, 2015, 11:16:17 AM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on January 28, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
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.
In Massachusetts, it's only a problem with MA 60 and maybe MA 70. (45, 50, 55, 65, and 75 don't exist, while 30, 35, and 40 are reasonable speed limits for those routes).
If someone could hit 60 on 60 even at 3 AM, I'd be impressed.
70, on the other hand, is not even a challenge between 2 and 117 in Lancaster.
Quote from: Cjzani on January 28, 2015, 11:23:48 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 28, 2015, 11:16:17 AM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on January 28, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
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.
In Massachusetts, it's only a problem with MA 60 and maybe MA 70. (45, 50, 55, 65, and 75 don't exist, while 30, 35, and 40 are reasonable speed limits for those routes).
If someone could hit 60 on 60 even at 3 AM, I'd be impressed.
70, on the other hand, is not even a challenge between 2 and 117 in Lancaster.
60 on 60 would have to be Squire Rd in Revere. The rest you'd get nabbed doing much past 35 (not that 60 on Squire Rd is all that inconspicuous).
It never dawned me that CT and MA had an I-291 that close to each other. I thought there was a rule that you can't have the same 3DI in neighboring states? There are two I-291s in different states within about 30 miles (eyeballing it from google maps) of each other. That other I-84 out west already bothers me. Wish they would change that as there are no people out there to drive on that fake I-84 anyway.
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 28, 2015, 08:09:48 PM
I thought there was a rule that you can't have the same 3DI in neighboring states?
Nope. Kentucky and Tennessee both have an I-275, and at one time both had an I-265. Tennessee and North Carolina have I-240, 440 and 640.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 28, 2015, 08:16:28 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 28, 2015, 08:09:48 PM
I thought there was a rule that you can't have the same 3DI in neighboring states?
Nope. Kentucky and Tennessee both have an I-275, and at one time both had an I-265. Tennessee and North Carolina have I-240, 440 and 640.
If that was the case, MA couldn't have any x90s because NY has 9 (or 2 of NY's x90s couldn't exist). There are a bunch of other examples (especially concerning I-95).
Quote from: cl94 on January 28, 2015, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 28, 2015, 08:16:28 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 28, 2015, 08:09:48 PM
I thought there was a rule that you can't have the same 3DI in neighboring states?
Nope. Kentucky and Tennessee both have an I-275, and at one time both had an I-265. Tennessee and North Carolina have I-240, 440 and 640.
If that was the case, MA couldn't have any x90s because NY has 9 (or 2 of NY's x90s couldn't exist). There are a bunch of other examples (especially concerning I-95).
Oo, oo, let's make a list of them all! :awesomeface:
Quote from: empirestate on January 29, 2015, 12:04:45 AM
Quote from: cl94 on January 28, 2015, 08:28:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 28, 2015, 08:16:28 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 28, 2015, 08:09:48 PM
I thought there was a rule that you can't have the same 3DI in neighboring states?
Nope. Kentucky and Tennessee both have an I-275, and at one time both had an I-265. Tennessee and North Carolina have I-240, 440 and 640.
If that was the case, MA couldn't have any x90s because NY has 9 (or 2 of NY's x90s couldn't exist). There are a bunch of other examples (especially concerning I-95).
Oo, oo, let's make a list of them all! :awesomeface:
Not here.
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 28, 2015, 08:09:48 PM
...That other I-84 out west already bothers me. Wish they would change that as there are no people out there to drive on that fake I-84 anyway.
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.
And Portland does have a few people still driving cars (KOMO picture):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.komonews.com%2Fimages%2F120720-I-84-Traffic-660.jpg&hash=3dea86fecee0b3981f6a0751877daaff0398559d)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 29, 2015, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: empirestate on January 29, 2015, 12:04:45 AM
Oo, oo, let's make a list of them all! :awesomeface:
NY, MA I-495
NY, RI/MA I-295
NY, NJ I-295
DE, MD I-495
I'm done.
MD, VA I-395
Quote from: kurumi on January 29, 2015, 12:43:27 AM
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.
Just poked around on Google Street View. I need to go to Oregon.
The above picture is Portland, Oregon, but the credit is for ABC channel 4 in Seattle? (KOMO-TV?)
Quote from: kurumi on January 29, 2015, 12:43:27 AM
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.
Quote from: dgolub on January 29, 2015, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 29, 2015, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: empirestate on January 29, 2015, 12:04:45 AM
Oo, oo, let's make a list of them all! :awesomeface:
NY, MA I-495
NY, RI/MA I-295
NY, NJ I-295
DE, MD I-495
I'm done.
MD, VA I-395
MD, VA I-195, I-295
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on January 27, 2015, 12:28:35 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 26, 2015, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on January 23, 2015, 03:22:13 PM
I've always wondered if CT would go back to the original shields with the state outline.
Those shields are not "original", they were mostly put up in the 1970s and were only ever used on and in the vicinity of the Merritt Parkway. The old style from the rest of the state and from that area before then was a state named square (with "CONN" in it).
All six New England states historically used a square for their state highway markers, a practice which arose from signage for the now long-defunct "New England interstate" system. NH switched to the old man of the mountain shield a while back and VT switched from squares to circles before creating their current shield in the 1990s, but examples of old square shields still exist in the wild in both states.
Ah, I didn't know that about the CT shields. I remember one sign up into maybe the early 2000s on the Merritt Parkway that still had the outline shield.
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....
.
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 01, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
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....
Probably makes you a hero here to even have someone assess your proposal. Good for you.
CT is officially switching? That explains why the MA shields have been proliferating. Bummer.
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
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 01, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
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...
Quote from: Zeffy on February 02, 2015, 11:01:16 AMQuote from: ctsignguy on February 01, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
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". (http://goo.gl/maps/y1E1P)
CT-style MA 148 reassurance marker. (http://goo.gl/maps/cIkBo)
Ctsignguy, will ConnDOT still maintain its black edge line for its SR shields vs. an offsetted black outline featured on MA SR shields?
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:22:33 PM
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....
Will it apply to the 2-digit state routes as well, or just the 3-digit ones?
Why would the number of digits make a difference?
Because Connecticut is apparently switching its 3d signs to a whole new width of sign.
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 02, 2015, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:22:33 PM
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.
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...)
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2015, 11:08:11 PM
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
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2015, 08:21:58 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 02, 2015, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:22:33 PM
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.
Quote from: vtk on February 03, 2015, 05:22:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2015, 08:21:58 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 02, 2015, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:22:33 PM
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....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FNE%2520Vacation%252005-09%2FDSCF0209.jpg&hash=fb82b2dd33664309c8fb3ef60b63d730b6075d83)
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:22:33 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 02, 2015, 11:01:16 AMQuote from: ctsignguy on February 01, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
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". (http://goo.gl/maps/y1E1P)
CT-style MA 148 reassurance marker. (http://goo.gl/maps/cIkBo)
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.
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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii139%2Fdoogie1303%2Fsigns_zps2a675037.png&hash=bb2a299b39b4b0ca490a2db972a5d79df4802bfe)
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"
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.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 02, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 02, 2015, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 01, 2015, 01:00:35 AM
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.
"C.T." is not a sensical abbreviation.
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
"C.T." is not a sensical abbreviation.
Right, CT scans and all that. :pan: Fixed.
Quote from: dcbjms on February 12, 2015, 05:06:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
"C.T." is not a sensical abbreviation.
Right, CT scans and all that. :pan: Fixed.
Connecticut DID signs like that once, but dropped them because they couldnt make the numbers fit in specified sizes without some major distortions
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConnecticut%2520Signs%2Fct254.jpg&hash=b689781c83c4ad9fe799ac64f75b734f3b96bea3)
Quote from: ctsignguy on February 14, 2015, 09:40:07 AM
Connecticut DID signs like that once, but dropped them because they couldnt make the numbers fit in specified sizes without some major distortions
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConnecticut%2520Signs%2Fct254.jpg&hash=b689781c83c4ad9fe799ac64f75b734f3b96bea3)
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 (http://goo.gl/maps/bESNH).
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 29, 2015, 11:41:01 AM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2015, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: kurumi on January 29, 2015, 12:43:27 AM
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!
Quote from: Doctor Whom on January 28, 2015, 11:13:55 AM
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