First of all, I know that CTsignguy has already posted on the extensive work he's done doing mockups of CT15 route markers./
I think his work is awesome, and I'm posting my proposals not to compete with his, but to just get some more ideas out there, and really
to point out that I agree that something should be done with our hideous state route signage. I'm sure we have a lot of common
ground here. It sounds like he's talked more to ConnDOT than I have, but I have made my color proposals to them, and have already
been shot down.
Since being shot down, I've devoloped a quick idea based on our current boring shield, that might alternately give our roads a little
unique character of their own.
You can see all the proposals, the original color proposals that were shot down, and the new black and white which I've yet to present
to ConnDOT.
Questions and comments are welcome.
http://www.wytout.com/personal/routes.html (http://www.wytout.com/personal/routes.html)
The first proposal looks a little like a license plate while the second looks a little like SC's current design. Other than that, nice job!
As nice as it looks, it still has the same critical flaw the other one did: color. Whatever design you come up with needs to be black and white in order to satisfy the (admittedly stupid) MUTCD guidance that:
Quote
State Route signs (see Figure 2D-3) should be rectangular and should be approximately the same size as the U.S. Route sign. State Route signs should also be similar to the U.S. Route sign by containing approximately the same size black numerals on a white area surrounded by a black background without a border. The shape of the white area should be circular in the absence of any determination to the contrary by the individual State concerned.
Still, the old black and white outline shields perfectly satisfied this and so going back to that design would be both simple and acceptable standard.
How about this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15blackprototype2-b.jpg&hash=33b7fbd7f106527200b49ca95013c36d1fdf9baf)
That's a black version of your prototype A right? Well, I have to say that's my favorite design of your ctsignguy, but i still wish it could be considered by ConnDOT in the blue you originally prototyped it in. Either way though, if they could be convinced to go with the design but wouldn't budge from black and white, this is still the way to go. I really think you've got it with this sign.
:clap: :clap:
In general I think both wytout and ctsignguy did a great job in designing their signs, now let's pitch 'em to ConnDOT
QuoteAs nice as it looks, it still has the same critical flaw the other one did: color. Whatever design you come up with needs to be black and white in order to satisfy the (admittedly stupid) MUTCD guidance that:
QuoteState Route signs (see Figure 2D-3) should be rectangular and should be approximately the same size as the U.S. Route sign. State Route signs should also be similar to the U.S. Route sign by containing approximately the same size black numerals on a white area surrounded by a black background without a border. The shape of the white area should be circular in the absence of any determination to the contrary by the individual State concerned.
Still, the old black and white outline shields perfectly satisfied this and so going back to that design would be both simple and acceptable standard.
Hmm... I wonder why California, Colorado,
Especially Vermont, Minnesota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and many others get through the "State Shields must be Black and White" thing.
Oh, and black and white is so 1960. :sombrero:
Pitch 'im to ConnDOT again until you get it offical! Then we can work on Mass., Maine, Delaware, Mississippi, and some other states.
QuoteHmm... I wonder why California, Colorado, Especially Vermont, Minnesota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and many others get through the "State Shields must be Black and White" thing.
There is nothing to get through. The black and white thing in the MUTCD is for guidance purposes only. the official standard set forth by the FHWA in the 2003 MUTCD is that states are in charge of designing their own state route markers. and it's directly followed by a period! lol. Even in the guidance it states that the black and white circle bull is suggested in the abscense of any design set by the state.
Quote
In general I think both wytout and ctsignguy did a great job in designing their signs, now let's pitch 'em to ConnDOT
Thanks yanksfan. We clearly have more in common with road signage than with baseball teams :biggrin:
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 14, 2009, 09:38:24 PM
How about this one?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FOdd%2520Sign%2520Stuff%2Fct15blackprototype2-b.jpg&hash=33b7fbd7f106527200b49ca95013c36d1fdf9baf)
Suppose you crop off the top of the sign where it says CONN. The state outline already identifies the state, so no info is lost.
The remainder of the sign (CT state shape + interior number) can then be enlarged to the normal sign height and will probably fit into the same size as a typical 5:4 3-digit US shield sign. The numbers are now bigger and more legible and the sign has a simpler yet effective design.
The only problem with that idea is that ConnDOT prefers NOT to use 24x30 shields....even for 3-di signs.....they will use them if there are no 24x24 blanks around, but when given a choice, will opt for a square every time...even with 2xx and 3xx routes
what other signs use the 24x30 format? I can think of some that are 30x24 (speed limit) but 24x30, with mounting holes located along the longer sides? WRONG WAY perhaps?
I think that wrong way signs I've seen are of the larger variety (30 X 45).
Quotewhat other signs use the 24x30 format? I can think of some that are 30x24 (speed limit) but 24x30, with mounting holes located along the longer sides? WRONG WAY perhaps?
There are some signs that are 24x30. Some MnDOT examples include Bike Lane (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/R%20Series/R3-17.pdf), Divided Highway (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/R%20Series/R6-3-3a.pdf), Business District (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/D%20Series/D1-X1.pdf) (similar specs for "Frontage Road", "Historic Site", and "High School"), and 3-digit state (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/M%20Series/M1-5b.pdf) and U.S. (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/M%20Series/M1-4a.pdf) routes that are on guide signage (standalone shields remain square). Depending on the length of the city or county name, some city (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/I%20Series/I2-3.pdf) or county (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/I%20Series/I2-5.pdf) line markers may be 24x30.
Given MnDOT's US route guide sign specs, I would guess that those states that use a 3-digit sized shield for their US routes would have a 24x30 spec shield.
Wrong Way (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mnstdsigns/R%20Series/R5-1a.pdf), at least in Minnesota, is a 2:3 size ratio, or 24x36.
QuoteWrong Way, at least in Minnesota, is a 2:3 size ratio, or 24x36.
You are correct on the 2:3 size ratio for Wrong Way signs. It's the same here in CT. I noticed it getting off Exit 45 SB on I-91 yesterday. There are two RARE 30 X 24 Sheilds for CT 140, and on the back side of one of those is plastered a Wrong Way Shield. The Wrong Way is the same height but definitely wider than the 4:3 aspect Route shield.
I am going to have a black CONN 15 as in the above piccy made up prior to my trip back to New England in late October....lets see what they say then!
*pouts* I still think blue is the cooler version!
Maybe you two should double up on them and meet ConnDOT together with the black and white shield proposal. :sombrero:
I'd go. I mean it's his pitch but I'd go along as the advocacy group for something better to look at on our state roads for sure! lol
Thank you for the kudos. As far as any proposal having any real hope, I think CTsignguy's nostalgic CT markers might actually have a real shot of being put into use someday. That still seems to be the best possibility for CT with any shot at actually happening. Unfortunately color will likely never happen, unless he really becomes best buds with Jeff and others at the CT sign shop hehe. We like the MUTCD too much here to even think about really using colors in our route markers, lol.
Quote from: treichardSuppose you crop off the top of the sign where it says CONN. The state outline already identifies the state, so no info is lost.
Better not to assume the amount of geographical literacy that most of us in here have. We know it's Connecticut, but the average driver won't necessarily know.
Have assembled two more prototypes for ConnDOT...see the UPDATE thread in the General Highway Talk for the gory photos.....
*G* if nothing else, i had one of each made for Jeff...then he can hang them up on his office wall as a silent advertisement!
They are looking good. And I like the sound of Jeff's enthusiasm for them! Nice work doing a different route too in order to make sure they realize this is a statewide proposal and not just something for the Merritt/Wilbur!
In hindsight, if i was REALLY smart about it, i shoulda had one done up as CONN 254, or 322...one of the 2xx or 3xx routes...
Oh well, i will email Jeff in a few weeks and see how it went
I remember a few of the old "CONN" banner shields from years ago, but it wasn't until I started traveling the Merritt regularly when I discovered the old state outline shields. I think the square marker is about as plain as you can get. Great creations, ctsignguy. I'd be all for anything over what we have now. Some time ago, I found someone's idea of taking the license plate colors and making that a shield - thought that was pretty cool. But if they're against colors, the black & white one you made, ctsignguy, looks awesome. Is that what you'd have on the BGSs too, or just on standalone signs?
The black ones for pole-use...
it was suggested elsewhere on these fine forums that the original white ones be used for BGS, but one step at a time...
Trying to remember if I ever saw a state route marker posted outside of the square on a BGS... Merritt Parkway had the outline but no CONN. Signs on the Turnpike were all text. Guessing the WCP went from the wooden jagged edge signs straight to the button copy that existed before the c 2002 sign replacement. Other interstates and expy's had jumbo route markers but they were just square ones.