I was in to visit Jeff today and after asking and answering a few questions about other sign issues, he advised me that given the new Federal standards for signage, that he will talk to the new overseers and see how receptive they are to our prototype Connecticut shields. When he gets them out, he still gets positive comments, but at least one guy who was a roadblock has retired, so he thinks it is a good time to try again...(I noted that if the Feds are requiring hex or prismatic faces, then now would be a great time to switch to bring new signs online with the changes Fed expectations....
So, we will see. While the money still isnt there, Jeff figures minds might be more open to a change, especially if it can be sold as a way to help promote tourism....
so, we shall see.....
What are the new federal standards for signage and where can I see one of these prototype Connecticut shields?
Quote from: Quillz on May 24, 2011, 06:16:11 PM
where can I see one of these prototype Connecticut shields?
Look at his avatar.
Ah, I thought that was an old-style shield that was discontinued. That does look nice, clean and simple.
Quote from: ctsignguy on May 24, 2011, 05:50:28 PM
So, we will see. While the money still isnt there, Jeff figures minds might be more open to a change, especially if it can be sold as a way to help promote tourism....
so, we shall see.....
I tried the tourism argument when I was "pedaling" my signs.
Good luck! I really do hope you can make this a reality. And I'm glad you haven't given up the fight. As a CT resident who longs for a distinct state route shield, I am grateful for your efforts
Speaking of....how about this forgotten relic at the end of dead-end Park St off Exit 9 off of CT-25. Park St is a dead-end but has access to CT-25 SB and a park & ride lot. It has to date to 1983 when the highway opened.
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=park+lane+trumbull,+ct&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.699934,56.162109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Park+Ln,+Trumbull,+Fairfield,+Connecticut+06611&ll=41.252774,-73.200917&spn=0,0.043774&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.252711,-73.200797&panoid=-XRUZrVdJ-l3f0Fy5sa_Ew&cbp=12,143.77,,0,6.44
Why not bring up the possibility of gradually phasing the signs in as old ones need replacement? That's the route SC is going with their new shields. You don't need to go the Oklahoma route and replace all the signs in a year.
Is there a major anniversary of anything in Connecticut's history that you could use as an excuse to "commemorate"? Oklahoma's new shield design was expressly done for the dual purposes of commemorating the state's centennial and replacing all the worn out signage in the state.
400th anniversary of the first European exploration, 2014.
Still like wytout's version better...
Time to grab some bolt cutters and head to Connecticut.
It'd be nice if some other states would move toward cutout shields, but I guess the federal standards won't allow for that.
Not only would this sign change be a victory for Connecticut, but it would also be a victory for New England!
I await the day when I log onto the forum and see a thread titled "Conn Signs approved!" Keep up the good work. :clap:
I would like to add one point. The tourism argument is weak. Just because CT gets new signs doesn't means hoards of tourists will start flocking to the state. They know that.
A stronger and more practical argument is in the CT square's similarity to surrounding states (Mass and R.I.). Especially on BGS, squares for all three neighboring states are confusing. (I know I've been confused on occasion as to which state I was actually in.) Not only would a new sign be good for state pride as it would distinguish from Mass and R.I., but also practically in the aid of New England of drivers.
I think the plain square for state route markers is fine. You can print bigger numbers in the same area making the sign more legible from a greater distance, especially at night which is important since lit signs aren't used. Besides, I don't think the state highway marker helps you figure out what state you're in. The big signs at state borders do. That would be equivalent to including the state after towns and cities to avoid confusion as to what state you're in.
I never get confused as to what state I am in to require state highway markers to differentiate me.
the difference is solely aesthetic - having the same marker everywhere would be boring. (ugh, generic circle, thanks 1948 MUTCD!)
the squares are just about the most boring state markers imaginable - Connecticut should use a little more imagination. and besides, it can be shown that for two- and three-digit markers, wytout's design can fit the same size numbers. ctsignguy's design (which I personally prefer) isn't quite as flexible, but is more than adequate. both would be a significant improvement from the boring square!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 26, 2011, 09:14:28 PM
I never get confused as to what state I am in to require state highway markers to differentiate me.
the difference is solely aesthetic - having the same marker everywhere would be boring. (ugh, generic circle, thanks 1948 MUTCD!)
the squares are just about the most boring state markers imaginable - Connecticut should use a little more imagination. and besides, it can be shown that for two- and three-digit markers, wytout's design can fit the same size numbers. ctsignguy's design (which I personally prefer) isn't quite as flexible, but is more than adequate. both would be a significant improvement from the boring square!
What really sucks is how most states used to have unique cutout shields then slowly phased them out. Fortunately, California hung onto theirs.
You could also make the argument that at higher speeds a Connecticut route marker looks a lot like a speed limit sign (both white squares with large numbers). I know I've made that mistake in Texas and Illinois before (though I quickly sorted it out after a double take).
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 27, 2011, 10:07:24 AM
You could also make the argument that at higher speeds a Connecticut route marker looks a lot like a speed limit sign (both white squares with large numbers). I know I've made that mistake in Texas and Illinois before (though I quickly sorted it out after a double take).
That's why I think state route shields should be a color scheme other than white and black, it's too generic.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 27, 2011, 10:07:24 AM
You could also make the argument that at higher speeds a Connecticut route marker looks a lot like a speed limit sign (both white squares with large numbers). I know I've made that mistake in Texas and Illinois before (though I quickly sorted it out after a double take).
Really? I suppose an R2-2P speed limit sign would be the closest thing to what you're talking about, though it distinctly says "TRUCK" across the top, so it'd be tough to mistake that for a route marker. It seems like the area of the route marker signs is fixed, so in that case, being able to make the numbers as big as possible is paramount. The black background and state abbreviation of the sign also poses some problems in that it reduces the area available for printing the route number, and good luck reading a sign with a black background at night. I like the design, but it's not practical unless the minimum size of the sign is doubled to bring the route numbers to full height.
Quote from: connroadgeek on May 27, 2011, 07:13:22 PM
being able to make the numbers as big as possible is paramount. The black background and state abbreviation of the sign also poses some problems in that it reduces the area available for printing the route number, and good luck reading a sign with a black background at night. I like the design, but it's not practical unless the minimum size of the sign is doubled to bring the route numbers to full height.
I disagree, Half of the route shield in the state use a much smaller number leaving piles of white space, I can see the numbers fine (like the abounding piles of signs able to fit unmodified series D for 3 di's in a regular ct square w/ much room left over).
Many states with unique state route shields have character heights that are less than that on MUTCD compliant US and interstate route Shields. Look at Colorado, South Carolina, Michigan, North Carolina, Louisiana, and even many Florida state shields, they all have smaller numbers than their US Route counterparts.
I believe on a 24 inch square the standard height is 12 inches... i could be wrong and correct me if I am, but ctsignguy's prototypes look to have approx 10" numbers. We have ct shield right now w/ 8" numbers in them.
And lets face it, most of the route shields in CT up to the latest replacements use grabage engineer grade sheeting. Most of them have been up a while, and a good number hardly retroreflect at all at night... I'd trade in signs i can't see at all anymore at night, for some cool shields that we can take pride in. And I'm sure if they were made w/ high grade prism sheeting, they'd glow and be very visable at night.
The size of the numbers on the Conn. prototype appears to be no smaller than that on Oklahoma's shields, at least, and their 3-digit blanks use Series B.
ctsignguy, do you have a spec drawn up for this?
Quote from: wytout on May 27, 2011, 08:36:38 PM
Many states with unique state route shields have character heights that are less than that on MUTCD compliant US and interstate route Shields. Look at Colorado, South Carolina, Michigan, North Carolina, Louisiana, and even many Florida state shields, they all have smaller numbers than their US Route counterparts.
I believe on a 24 inch square the standard height is 12 inches... i could be wrong and correct me if I am, but ctsignguy's prototypes look to have approx 10" numbers. We have ct shield right now w/ 8" numbers in them.
Add California to the list of states that use smaller digits on route shields. The 25x24 California route shield uses 10-inch digits while the 31.25x30 California route shield uses 12-inch digits.
It's probably worth noting that...
the 24-inch US route shield uses 10-inch digits
the 30-inch US route shield uses 12-inch digits
the 24-inch Interstate shield uses 8-inch digits
the 36-inch Interstate shield uses 12-inch digits
Wouldn't the spacing between numerals actually be a stronger factor towards distance recognition rather than size? After all, that's one of the stated goals of Clearview, was to give more spacing between the letters (by default, anyway.)
Most state route shields that use smaller numeral height than what is recommended by the MUTCD seem to have adequate enough spacing to still be legible.
To answer a few of the questions that have popped up here.
Current CT standard is SUPPOSED to be 12' numerals on State shields, but Jeff has admitted that they dont always follow that rule when they sticky-on numbers as opposed to screening them. The numbers I used were 10", and Jeff and i discussed how spacing could be played with with teh State outline and the word 'CONN' to allow for the larger numbers while still maintaining the character of the original sign. As Jake noted, my design isnt quite as versatile as wytout's but there still is the wiggle room to accommodate 2 Series C/D or 3 Series B numbers (I think ConnDOT will be one of the last states in the country to use B fonts...)
I would imagine the design would look better with hex or prismatic sheeting, especially at night
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 24, 2011, 11:09:02 PM
Is there a major anniversary of anything in Connecticut's history that you could use as an excuse to "commemorate"? Oklahoma's new shield design was expressly done for the dual purposes of commemorating the state's centennial and replacing all the worn out signage in the state.
I just thought I'd mention that Maine's bicentennial year is upcoming in 2020. If Maine was to implement a "South Carolina" style implementation for new highway shields beginning soon, it's completion could be scheduled in time for it's bicentennial. This idea could be easily pitched to the Maine DOT. Something to consider...
wytout, can you post a picture of your concept? I'm just curious for comparison's sake.
Quote from: realjd on May 30, 2011, 01:42:23 AM
wytout, can you post a picture of your concept? I'm just curious for comparison's sake.
Look at his avatar...
MnDOT standard is a 10in numeral for a 24in height shield. The only instance where they appear to deviate from this is with the independent pentagon-style county route marker, where they go with an 8in numeral. All other county route markers (independent squares and both types on guide signs) use 10in numerals.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divalishcouture.com%2Fcollage.jpg&hash=106ad72412bfd47ba288b2296f33a3055fcd923f)
just a sampling of some mockups I did quick using 2 different designs i had.
I however, am a proponent of CTsignguy's design and would back that design as the proposal go with for ConnDOT.
The blue bar design is reminiscent of South Carolina's signs. Not a bad thing. :P
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 30, 2011, 10:49:45 AM
The blue bar design is reminiscent of South Carolina's signs. Not a bad thing. :P
I wholeheartedly agree, It wasn't necessarily intended to be, but it kinda happened, lol
I like the blue bar design much better.
I rather prefer the black Conn outline over the blue bar design. It's not much better than what's there, in my opinion.
I like both John's and wytout's design. Wytout's has a nice bit of color while John's has a nice state outline going on. Just get that current boring square out of the way!
What i would like to see is the state outline version with the outside background and the numbers in a lighter Navy Blue to match UConn.
I'd actually really like to see someone attempt a cutout shield. Would probably never get approved, though.
Well, I had these prototypes drawn up before using blue as a base color
Blue as primary color
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConvincing%2520Fakes%2Fct15prototype2.jpg&hash=9f6476887ee28e60a464440ccb173e5e96c97730)
and under flash
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConvincing%2520Fakes%2Fct15prototype2flash.jpg&hash=da8105ee4d55478fe8f41fa9104059871b90b48e)
And a different take on the theme
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConvincing%2520Fakes%2Fct15prototype1.jpg&hash=f99df7a4c630b237d7c7fdf8b7e8e248272d1902)
and under flash
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConvincing%2520Fakes%2Fct15prototype1flash.jpg&hash=0b60a5a4e3685cdd50c196dcd3eb7ca2d546fec1)
But Jeff felt that blue wouldnt fly over the long run....so we had a black and white shield made up
What if instead of black on white, you reversed the colors and white on black, similar to the Idaho standalone shields?
I really like the blue with both of them.