News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Connecticut News

Started by Mergingtraffic, October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TravelingBethelite

I was driving with family through New Haven and saw (but didn't get to snappa picture) of this pretty old sign:

"Imprisoned by the freedom of the road!" - Ronnie Milsap
See my photos at: http://bit.ly/1Qi81ws

Now I decide where I go...

2018 Ford Fusion SE - proud new owner!


TravelingBethelite

On a recent trip through Niantic, I also saw this one, just like a Missouri Secondary marker:

"Imprisoned by the freedom of the road!" - Ronnie Milsap
See my photos at: http://bit.ly/1Qi81ws

Now I decide where I go...

2018 Ford Fusion SE - proud new owner!

shadyjay

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on November 18, 2015, 03:19:54 PM
On a recent trip through Niantic, I also saw this one, just like a Missouri Secondary marker:



Ah yes, the infamous "Route B", though it was a lot more important back before they built the present high-level Niantic River drawbridge.

relaxok

#1403
Does anybody have information on proposed I-84 exit numbering (before and after) from the NY state line to Waterbury?  i'm curious what each of those would become.  I looked at a list a bit up in this thread but the numbers didn't make sense to me.

KEVIN_224

http://i-84waterbury.com/pages/43-ct-transportation-fast-facts

This link for information was given at the I-84 Waterbury reconstruction website. :)

vdeane

If there's anything about exit numbers on that site, it sure is buried.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

PHLBOS

Quote from: relaxok on November 24, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Does anybody have information on proposed I-84 exit numbering (before and after) from the NY state line to Waterbury?  i'm curious what each of those would become.  I looked at a list a bit up in this thread but the numbers didn't make sense to me.
Having just driven that stretch just last night and assuming that ConnDOT doesn't use Exit 0 for any interchange east of MM 1; I can easily see Exits 1 through 8 not changing at all.

Based on where the mile markers fall (speculation only)...

Exit 9 will likely become Exit 11
Exit 10 will likely become Exit 15
Exit 11 will likely become Exit 16
There is no Exit 12 (anyone know the history behind this?)
Exit 13 will likely become Exit 19
Exit 14 will likely beome Exit 20
Exit 15 will likely become Exit 21
Exit 16 will likely become Exit 25
Exit 17 will likely become Exit 30
Exit 18 will likely become Exit 31
Exit 19 will likely become Exit 32A
Exit 20 will likely become Exit 32B
Exit 21 will likely become Exit 32C
Exit 22 will likely become Exit 33
Exit 23 will likely become Exit 34
Exit 24 will likely become Exit 35A westbound
Exit 25 will likely become Exit 35 eastbound/35B westbound
Exit 25A will likely become Exit 36
Exit 26 will likely become Exit 38
Exit 27 will likely become Exit 40A
Exit 28 will likely become Exit 40B
GPS does NOT equal GOD

relaxok

#1407
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:33:48 PM
There is no Exit 12 (anyone know the history behind this?)

[btw thanks for that list]

Regarding Exit 12, paraphrasing info from kurumi's site:

When the Exit 11 interchange was re-made in 1976, the old 11 and 12 were removed.  12 has never been replaced - the area straddles the housatonic river and does not have much room for building a safe interchange.  I believe 13 West was considered unsafe as well, and only eastbound was improved and kept alive.

jp the roadgeek

Pretty accurate list.  Lot of people get the MM wrong on Exits 26-28, but you got it right from what I've seen.  Just one item: Exit 24 westbound is being eliminated as part of the Waterbury widening project, so Exit 25 both ways should become just plain Exit 35.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

dgolub

Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: relaxok on November 24, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
Does anybody have information on proposed I-84 exit numbering (before and after) from the NY state line to Waterbury?  i'm curious what each of those would become.  I looked at a list a bit up in this thread but the numbers didn't make sense to me.
Having just driven that stretch just last night and assuming that ConnDOT doesn't use Exit 0 for any interchange east of MM 1; I can easily see Exits 1 through 8 not changing at all.

Based on where the mile markers fall (speculation only)...

Exit 9 will likely become Exit 11
Exit 10 will likely become Exit 15
Exit 11 will likely become Exit 16
There is no Exit 12 (anyone know the history behind this?)
Exit 13 will likely become Exit 19
Exit 14 will likely beome Exit 20
Exit 15 will likely become Exit 21
Exit 16 will likely become Exit 25
Exit 17 will likely become Exit 30
Exit 18 will likely become Exit 31
Exit 19 will likely become Exit 32A
Exit 20 will likely become Exit 32B
Exit 21 will likely become Exit 32C
Exit 22 will likely become Exit 33
Exit 23 will likely become Exit 34
Exit 24 will likely become Exit 35A westbound
Exit 25 will likely become Exit 35 eastbound/35B westbound
Exit 25A will likely become Exit 36
Exit 26 will likely become Exit 38
Exit 27 will likely become Exit 40A
Exit 28 will likely become Exit 40B

Wait, is this supposed to mean that I-84 is switching to milepost exit numbers?

Duke87

Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2015, 07:50:31 PM
Wait, is this supposed to mean that I-84 is switching to milepost exit numbers?

ConnDOT has not announced any such plans as far as I'm aware. Chris is just speculating.

As for why there is no exit 12, there used to be. It led to local streets immediately at the west shore of the Housatonic River and was eliminated when that bridge was twinned (some point between 1972 and 1985 per Historic Aerials). This twinning also saw exit 13 converted to a half interchange, it originally was a full interchange.



If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

jp the roadgeek

It would make sense to do it when the planned sign replacement between Southington and Hartford takes place.  As it is, the mile markers themselves need to be replaced east of Waterbury all the way to the MA line, as many are either extremely faded or missing.  Hope to see the 1/5 mi markers with the Shield Mile XX signs.  Danbury area changes would be Exits 3 and 4 becoming 4A and 4B, and Exits 5 and 6 westbound becoming 6A and 6B (unless Exit 1 becomes Exit 0).
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PHLBOS

Quote from: Duke87 on November 30, 2015, 10:15:22 PM
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2015, 07:50:31 PM
Wait, is this supposed to mean that I-84 is switching to milepost exit numbers?

ConnDOT has not announced any such plans as far as I'm aware. Chris is just speculating.
Given the fact that ConnDOT is presently converting I-395 to mile-marker based exit numbers; conversions along other CT highways could be in the long-range plans.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

vdeane

I expect that they'll eventually convert everything to mile-based, but I'm not expecting any sort of speed on it.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

The Ghostbuster

I suspect Interstate 84 and the exit sequences on the other roads will remain sequential for a long time to come.

Alps

My thought is that ConnDOT probably felt some FHWA pressure to get this changed. If that's the case, then I would expect more roads to follow.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 30, 2015, 11:08:23 PMDanbury area changes would be Exits 3 and 4 becoming 4A and 4B, and Exits 5 and 6 westbound becoming 6A and 6B (unless Exit 1 becomes Exit 0).
Personal opinion: Assuming that ConnDOT doesn't follow MassDOT's present lead towards unnecessary (over)suffixing of interchange numbers (i.e. chooses the path of least resistance instead); those interchanges are within reasonable proximity to the corresponding mile markers so that the current exit numbers can remain as is and still meet criteria. 

Look at the I-95 in PA (Exits 1 through 10) near the DE state line as an example for such.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

kurumi

What bugs me (slightly) is that CT assigns "Exit 1[A,B,C,...]" to all interchanges between milepost 0 and milepost 1.99. On I-91, present-day exits 1 thru 6 (Willow Street; the East Rock Expressway stub at MP 1.6) would become exits 1A - 1F.

Instead, IMHO they should take the largest integer less than the MP value and add 1.

MP 0.99: exit 1
MP 1.00: exit 1
MP 1.01: exit 2
... and add letter suffixes as needed
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

PHLBOS

Quote from: kurumi on December 02, 2015, 11:52:06 AM
What bugs me (slightly) is that CT assigns "Exit 1[A,B,C,...]" to all interchanges between milepost 0 and milepost 1.99. On I-91, present-day exits 1 thru 6 (Willow Street; the East Rock Expressway stub at MP 1.6) would become exits 1A - 1F.

Instead, IMHO they should take the largest integer less than the MP value and add 1.

MP 0.99: exit 1
MP 1.00: exit 1
MP 1.01: exit 2
... and add letter suffixes as needed
My personal take on this would be to have any interchange situated* between MM 0 and MM 1.5 be Exit 1 (or 1A, B, etc.) and ones between MM 1.5 and 2.5 be Exit 2 and so forth.

*MM at where the center of the interchange is, not where the ramps begin/end.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Alps

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 02, 2015, 12:36:18 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 02, 2015, 11:52:06 AM
What bugs me (slightly) is that CT assigns "Exit 1[A,B,C,...]" to all interchanges between milepost 0 and milepost 1.99. On I-91, present-day exits 1 thru 6 (Willow Street; the East Rock Expressway stub at MP 1.6) would become exits 1A - 1F.

Instead, IMHO they should take the largest integer less than the MP value and add 1.

MP 0.99: exit 1
MP 1.00: exit 1
MP 1.01: exit 2
... and add letter suffixes as needed
My personal take on this would be to have any interchange situated* between MM 0 and MM 1.5 be Exit 1 (or 1A, B, etc.) and ones between MM 1.5 and 2.5 be Exit 2 and so forth.

*MM at where the center of the interchange is, not where the ramps begin/end.
My personal take on this would be to be flexible in adopting standards through densely ramped areas, to try to minimize the alphabet soup.

Mergingtraffic

How about a break from the endless exit numbering debates:

Operational Improvements Under Development for I-91 Northbound at Interchange 29




The Connecticut Department of Transportation's Office of Engineering is developing plans to relocate I-91 northbound Interchange 29, and widen I-91 northbound and Route 15 northbound to I-84 East in Hartford and East Hartford. The purpose of the project is to address safety concerns associated with the capacity and operational deficiencies at the I-91 northbound Interchange 29, which routinely experiences significant traffic delays and above average crash frequency.  Much of this can be attributed to the steep vertical grade and single-lane configuration of the ramp, the heavy traffic weave on the Charter Oak Bridge, and the near capacity volumes on I-91.


The proposed improvements include widening I-91 northbound to extend the four-lane travel section from Interchange 27 to Interchange 29 to relieve congestion, address safety concerns, and provide an efficient I-91 to I-84 connection.  It is also proposed to remove the existing ramp at I-91 northbound Interchange 29 and provide a major diverge south of the I-91 bridge over Route 15 to address the existing adverse vertical grade and limited capacity of the existing ramp.  The new I-91 diverge will consist of three lanes to the right, maintaining I-91 traffic (existing condition), and two lanes to the left, conveying traffic to Route 15 northbound via a new structure over Route 15 southbound.  The existing pavement markings on the Charter Oak Bridge will be modified to accommodate the additional northbound lane from I-91.  Additional improvements include widening of Route 15 northbound to three travel lanes, from the Charter Oak Bridge to the Silver Lane underpass, to address congestion concerns on Route 15 and allow a more desirable distance from Interchange 29 on I-91 to merge from three travel lanes to two prior to its merge with I-84 East.


The present schedule indicates that the design will be completed in November 2017, with construction anticipated to start in the spring of 2018, assuming acceptance of the project, availability of funding and receipt of any required right-of-way and environmental permits.  This project will be undertaken with 80% federal and 20% state funds.


It is the Department's policy to keep the public informed and involved when such projects are undertaken.  It is important that the community share its concerns with us to assist in the project's development.  A public informational meeting will be conducted upon the completion of the preliminary design.  At this time, it is not anticipated that a formal public hearing will be necessary.


Anyone interested in receiving information on this project may do so by contacting Ms. Susan M. Libatique, Principal Engineer, at (860) 594-3179 or by e-mail at Susan.Libatique@ct.gov.  Please make reference to State Project No. 63-703.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

mroad860

#1421
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?

kurumi

ConnDOT has a proposal to increase safety on CT 82 between I-395 and downtown Norwich (Day [New London, Conn.] article, Sept 16 2015)

Project document here: http://www.norwichct.org/DocumentCenter/View/2411 (low-quality diagram)

The project would add a median with landscaping from New London Turnpike to Asylum Street. Roundabouts would be constructed at New London Turnpike, Norman Road, Dunham Street, Osgood Street, Mount Pleasant Street and Asylum Street. The roundabouts would slow traffic as well as facilitate U-turns; there would be no other breaks in the median.

From Dunham Street to Ann Street, Route 82 would get a road diet, from 4 lanes to 2, because... (shrug)

Cost: about $42M
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

dgolub

Quote from: mroad860 on December 02, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?

Interesting.  New York has traditionally used dark green for NYSDOT-owned signals, but the more recent ones have a yellow rectangle around them.  Perhaps for the same reason?

cl94

Quote from: dgolub on December 06, 2015, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: mroad860 on December 02, 2015, 08:21:41 PM
Hello everyone! :D Longtime reader and road geek.. First post..

I've been noticing that CTDOT is painting its new signals yellow with retroreflective back plates.. Like at the intersection of Route 195 and 320 in Mansfield.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8280874,-72.2672461,3a,75y,333.29h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVBfuzXX_7Hwhe2PkUhrDgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

I personally was a fan of the dark green painted signals.. I was thinking maybe they switched to yellow since they are more visible during power outages? When I drove around during our October 2011 storm, the older style yellow painted signals were more visible, while the dark green painted signals weren't as visible during a power outage.. They also recently replaced a bunch of road sign flasher lights in CT recently with yellow painted lights.. Is this the new standard for CT signals? What are your thoughts?

Interesting.  New York has traditionally used dark green for NYSDOT-owned signals, but the more recent ones have a yellow rectangle around them.  Perhaps for the same reason?

Everything in New York except NYCDOT, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse and a handful of counties and smaller localities uses green. I've heard that the dark green is used to increase contrast in snow. In most of Upstate, almost everything is green.

Several states have switched to the retroreflective backplates, but many states adopting them use green in such cases. Ohio, for example, changed from yellow to dark green when they started using the backplates to improve contrast. Weird that Connecticut changed the other way.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.