This is a personal web page and is in no way affiliated
with the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

August 13, 2009: Update: After submitting my proposal
to ConnDOT, I was informed that the use of color was not going to happen, and that the current shield,
they feel most represents the suggestions of the MUTCD.  I respect and understand their feeling on the
matter, and there is currently no plan to make any changes to state route markers.
I have one final proposal to offer on a CT Route Marker that maintains the elements of the current 
shield that are so important to ConnDOT.  
1) It retains the current black background with white text field, with black numerals.
2) The MUTCD Square is maintained with the use of varying series FHWA fonts to properly
fit the 12" high numbers on 24" square shields, and the 18" high numbers on the 36" square shields.
If you prefer to skip looking at the other pages of the original proposal, whose links are below,
please click here to jump to my final compromised proposal that can hopefully be looked at by 
ConnDOT in the future.  If you'd like to view my original proposals, keep reading down this page
and navigate the links at the bottom.

JULY 2009. A Proposal: CT Highway Route Markers Update
Navigation to additional pages can be found at the bottom of this page.
I welcome any comments: chris@wytout.com

The Purpose: The purpose of this page is to illustrate my idea for a new CT State Route Marker.
I would like to show that a redesign, uniform font, and set number of shield dimensions would bring a sense of careful 
thought and pride to the way we mark our state roads. I also think that to build a real identity for CT's roads it could
be based on the current license plate redesign for added continuity and awareness of visiting and driving around CT.
I also provide a second proposed style, if it's felt by experts that something similar to the license plates doesn't
provide optimum readability.

Preferred Proposal Collage

Alternate Proposal Collage

Background: This is not the first time I have taken interest in this subject.  A previous version of this page has
existed for some time.  It was a crude attempt to just get a new design out there on the web.  I've taken a renewed interest
in the subject lately, especially seeing that in the past year another state has gone forth with a colorful redesign in their own
state route markers.  South Carolina is the latest state, just in the past 2 years, to be moving forward with an initiative to replace their 
route markers with a new design featuring the state name and silhouette of the the state map with a stylized palmetto tree 
centered within emblazoned on a medium blue banner across the top of the sign.  

Some other states that have abandoned basic black and white are California, Colorado, Minnesota, Vermont, and South
Carolina, as pictured below.  The source images for the graphic immediately below below are credited to James Lin and his
Routemarkers.com website. 

2003 MUTCD EXCERPT REGARDING STATE ROUTE MARKERS:

"Standard:
U.S. Route signs (see Figure 2D-3) shall consist of black numerals on a white shield surrounded by a
black background without a border. This sign shall be used on all U.S. routes and in connection with route
sign assemblies on intersecting highways.

Guidance:
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."

Guidance is just that.  Guidance.  We've already thrown out the elongated shield GUIDANCE for 3-digit routes, as they should be based
on the US route marker STANDARD.  So why must we adhere to the guidance so closely on other issues regarding signage?

Seeing this, and seeing other states' shields utilizing colorful and pertinent elements, gave me renewed hope that one day
a similar idea could be undertaken by the CT state government and ConnDOT.   There is no need to stick with black and white.
The Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) does SUGGEST that a state shield be black
lettering on a white circle on a black background similar in size to the 1,2-digit and 3-digit US route markers respectively (which we do 
not use of course, anwyay). However, the actual STANDARD set forth by the MUTCD is that the states shall be in charge of designing 
their own state route markers.

When to undertake a project like this: At first thought, I'm sympathetic to the fact that this may not be the time
to even consider and idea such as this.  Our state is facing enormous deficits and the Governor has had to work day and night
to reign in unnecessary spending.  I understand that this is very important for our state now, so on the one hand, I would agree
that at best my likely pipe-dream should not even be considered until the state faces a much more robust outlook in revenues.
HOWEVER...... this project could actually benefit the state in these hard economic times.

Why Fast Tracking this project and using stimulus funds could boost businesses 
and overall state economy:
I do have one potential argument for undertaking a project like this in the current economy, though.  This idea is contingent on
the receipt and allocation of federal stimulus dollars by the state of CT.  
This project could provide direct and immediate positive impact to the state's economy and increase tax revenues.
The sign-making and sign-replacement could be contracted out to various businesses all over the state.  Every district
could see higher employment. Businesses and individuals  throughout the state involved in this project would benefit, 
and the state would benefit.  The state would benefit through increased tax revenue, and it could help tourism as there
wouldbe something (even if subconscious) that would provide a mental association with being on OUR roads, and not 
someother states'.  The MOST important thing to remember about contracting out to multiple vendors, however, is that the guidelines for making
signage must be clear and followed strictly by sign makers.  After signage is replaced, it should be impossible to tell that different signs were 
made by different companies.  That is the biggest problem with our signage now.  Every different sign making contractor seems to have created the 
signage differently than every other one.  The aesthetics are key here.

Current Signage: I apologize for this section being editorialized, but currently CT signage looks like a mish-mash.  
Additionally, CT route signage is generally showing it's age.  Many signs are severely worn.
I would say that most have been in place for very many years, and at some point are going to need replacing anyway.  
Why not use that as an opportunity to make a positive change in marking our roads.
At the bottom of this page are links to more detailed pages about the issues raised here.

Intro to basic variations: As best I can tell CT route signage is supposed to go like this with regard to fonts. 3 digit signs are to 
be numbered in the square in FHWA type B.  To keep the height standard and for the most legibility this is 100% true for 3-digit signs 
that do not contain any 1's.   Typically you will see this in practice.  Although you will also find many of these routes signed in a reduced
size FHWA type-D font.  This is not optimal as the font is quite small on the signage and utilizes barely more than 1/3 the height available.  
Now, another variation on 3-digit signs is any sign having at least one 1 in it.  These signs can use FHWA type C and retain proper size 
and height. In practice though, I see many 3-digit routs with at least one 1 (i.e. Rte 190) signed in Type B, Type C and even reduced size 
type D.  This is visible all within a few miles, as almost every intersection and reassurance shield is different.

2 digit, and 1 digit signs should use Type-D FHWA font.  It fits the signs fine.  However I often see Type-C used, Type-D used, and even the 
reduced size type-D that leaves a lot of wasted sign space and makes readability at a distance difficult.

Then there are the anomalies.  Many route markers do not even use an FHWA font.  Also, you may find the occasional elongated sign for 
a 3-digit route, even though CT does not use them.

Please use the links below to view some picture examples of current route marks and variations,
My proposal for a new uniform route marker, and some computer generated overlays showing how
the new markers might look in the field!  I have provided examples of the original proposal style
and of the alternate proposal, as the samples immediately below indicate.

>>> Pictures of current route markers

>>> Computer graphics showing my idea for a fresh and uniform route marker.

>>> Comparisons of current installations, with side-by-side computer enhanced versions showing the new
        shield being used in the field.

>>> HOME: Return to www.wytout.com

All content, photographs, and computer enhanced images created by and copyright (c) 2009 by Christopher Pelizari