News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Connecticut News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 05:31:59 PM
I think the idea with the CT 9 proposal was to minimize impacts/views of the river and keep the costs down.  That's why only the southbound lanes would be elevated.  But they'll raise to climb over the NB onramp from Hartford Avenue, then drop down quickly to pass beneath the railroad bridge, then rise again to climb over the NB offramp to Washington Street.  I don't know if its the best design, but if it actually gets built, then at least the lights will be gone!   There really isn't much space at all to work with there.  In a perfect world, I'd send Route 9 over to Portland and back. 

I wonder, with Route 11 being cancelled, will Route 2 and Route 11 forever be signed as the "Route to New London"?  It's advertised as far north as the North Meadows on I-91.  But with Route 11 never being built (in our lifetimes, at least), perhaps it should be kept on Route 2 to I-395, and sign Route 11 as "Salem".
Or decommission CT 11 and sign it as "To CT 85 New London", that way you don't have to change a thing in Hartford.

The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually) For Exit 28S on 2 East (future Exit 37A), change the control city from New Haven (which maybe 3% or less of traffic reaches taking the exit) or add New London on the BGS's. And while you're at it, I always hated Providence as a control city on Exit 28N (future 37B) since I-395 doesn't get within 30 miles of the city and I've never used 2 to 395 to 6 to get to Providence from Hartford; should be Worcester.
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)


shadyjay

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow. 

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city). 

RobbieL2415

Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow.

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city).

What's CT 11's AADT at these days? Can't be too high.

kurumi

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow.

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city).

What's CT 11's AADT at these days? Can't be too high.

In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

abqtraveler

Quote from: kurumi on May 16, 2017, 10:09:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 16, 2017, 08:40:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 16, 2017, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
The signs in Hartford on I-91 South for the I-84 East exit say "I-84 East/ 2 /East Hartford/ New London.  There's no mention about Route 11 until you get to Colchester.  What can be done is keep the Route 11 number as is, just use Salem or Salem/Waterford as control cities, and just before the Route 11 exit, put an LGS for a time that says "New London: Follow CT 2 East TO I-395 South TO CT 32 South" (similar to the Meriden ones on CT 9 North in Middletown), and change all replacement signage from Hartford east to include both Norwich and New London as control cities for CT 2 East (it's among some of the most illegible Phase III reflective button copy out there, so it has to be replaced eventually)

What I meant was... While Route 11 isn't mentioned, Route 2 AND Route 11 make up the route from the Hartford area to New London.  I believe many of the entrance signs on CT 2 do indeed advertise both Norwich and New London.   And such a sign "To New London use 2 EAST to 395 SOUTH" would be perfect in this case.  Or, as I have suggested earlier, extend Route 11 just a short ways so it blends in with Route 85, a la the Brookfield Bypass' north end, and then improve Route 85 from there.  Or, tear it (Route 11) up completely, perhaps initiating it by converting it to a "Super 2" to gauge the traffic flow.

Back when Route 11 was still "on the table", I thought a fun idea would be to resign Route 2 to Route 11 north/west of Colchester.  I always feel like I'm traveling more south than east on CT 2 East out of Hartford anyway.

Regarding I-395 control cities at Route 2 Exit 28, New London would be good, as would Worcester.  I always thought it was odd that Providence was used, perhaps a throwback to the "Turnpike" days, when it was the road to Providence.  I was kinda hoping all I-395 entrance signs would've been changed to New London, as I prefer that over Norwich.  At least Plainfield never got entrance sign status, outside of the I-95 NB Exit 76 signs.  (When Mass resigns the 'pike at Exit 10 in Auburn, New London CT will be a control city).

What's CT 11's AADT at these days? Can't be too high.

In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.

Compare that to Route 7, which sees 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day between Norwalk and Danbury.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

abqtraveler

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 11, 2017, 03:37:52 PM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Governor-Proposes-Wiping-Out-Reserves-Millions-in-Cuts-421904133.html

Malloy plans to raid the transportation fund to balance the budget.

Gee...he's one of the major talkers of a "lock box" on transportation funds but he is the one raiding it.  Irony. 

All year they talk about the importance of transportation funding but when it comes to budget balance time, they don't give a shit about transportation or anything.

Nothing will ever change...just like what I said above with the study after study...
This is exactly why there will be a constitutional "lock box" for transportation in Connecticut.  In a state run by the Democrat political machine, a big pot of money sitting there is just too irresistible to not raid for "General Fund" expenditures (cough..."entitlements").
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

yakra

Quote from: kurumi on May 16, 2017, 10:09:28 PM
In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.
What's the AADT on CT 85 between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd?
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

kurumi

Quote from: yakra on May 19, 2017, 01:01:27 AM
Quote from: kurumi on May 16, 2017, 10:09:28 PM
In 2015, AADT on CT 11 peaks at 10200, between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd.

CT 85 gets to 15600 between I-395 and CT 82; max is 8000 ADT between CT 82 and CT 354. The highest ADT on CT 85 is 27100, near Crystal Mall between I-395 and I-95.
What's the AADT on CT 85 between Witch Meadow Rd and Lake Hayward Rd?

Min 2700, max 6100 (http://www.ct.gov/dot/otherreports)
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

shadyjay

In upcoming sign replacement news, here are the latest bid announcements coming within the next year:

2017:
July 5:  sign support replacements - statewide - various locations - tba
August 16:  Merritt Parkway, replace signs, including VMS, vicinity of Exits 27-53
August 23:  CT 8, Upgrade Signing, from Shelton to I-84 in Waterbury

2018:
January 17:  CT 8, Upgrade Signing, from I-95 thru Shelton
April 18:  I-84, Replace Highway Signs & Supports from Exit 40 to 56

These projects will result in CT 8 being completely resigned, coupled with the currently-in-progress Thomaston to Winsted project.  Unknown if CT 8 will go to mile-based exits following completion, or at least during the last contract (I-95 through Shelton). 

What is unclear is why I-84 signs will be replaced through an area that will be drastically altered within the next few years (the Aetna viaduct).  I would have extended the project that just went out to bid this spring which encompasses Exits 30-39A to Exit 46, and then issued the 4/18/2018 project to cover Exits 53-(at least)65.  That way it covers the very old signage in Manchester and Vernon and leaves the viaduct/canyon signage alone for now.  Time will tell.

Looks like button copy on I-91 from downtown Hartford, north to Enfield (dating to the late 1980s-early 1990s) and those on CT 2 and CT 9 is safe for now.  As is the 1993-installed button copy along I-95 in Branford and Madison, which replaced the original 1958-vintage Connecticut Turnpike signage. 

Regardless, when July and August come this year, it'll be interesting to see the contract plans for the new signage. 

jp the roadgeek

Looks like the Exit 54-55 signage on the Wilbur Cross is going to remain as well?  It would be the only signage not updated on the entire Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkway.  Would love to see the parkway go mileage based to correct the God-awful 30-27 jump backwards at the NY/CT state line, but then the Hartford area section of CT 15 would have to be converted, as it's also reflective button copy.
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)

shadyjay

For the interim, I wouldn't even worry about the Hartford exits.  They can stay 85-91 for now.  There's no mile markers north of Meriden on Route 15, IIRC.  Just getting the Merritt and WCP on the mileage system would be a good start.  Then I'd worry about the Hartford exits later.  I'd like to see mile markers added along the Berlin Tpke section and actual exits there numbered. 

The contract to reconstruct I-91 Exit 29 is set to be released in April 2018, so maybe that'll include some signage in the area of Route 15.  I'd blanket the Hartford section of Route 15 in with a project to replace signs on I-384, I-291, and I-691, in an effort to get rid of as much button copy as possible.  Some of these signs are now dating back 30 years.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: shadyjay on May 22, 2017, 06:28:38 PM
I'd blanket the Hartford section of Route 15 in with a project to replace signs on I-384, I-291, and I-691, in an effort to get rid of as much button copy as possible.  Some of these signs are now dating back 30 years.

CT seems slow to replace the reflective button copy...but between 1985-1995 CT seemed to be in a rush to replace all non-reflective button copy no matter how long it was up for with reflective button copy.  The whole state was blanketed during that time. 
(I never really understood the concept of reflective button copy)
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 23, 2017, 03:33:02 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 22, 2017, 06:28:38 PM
I'd blanket the Hartford section of Route 15 in with a project to replace signs on I-384, I-291, and I-691, in an effort to get rid of as much button copy as possible.  Some of these signs are now dating back 30 years.

CT seems slow to replace the reflective button copy...but between 1985-1995 CT seemed to be in a rush to replace all non-reflective button copy no matter how long it was up for with reflective button copy.  The whole state was blanketed during that time. 
(I never really understood the concept of reflective button copy)

Seems ConnDOT got a sweetheart deal on a closeout lot for it, since most states were moving away from button copy in the 80's and 90's (if you look at the Vermont thread, there's a sign with it in 1960!  Now, many of the signs are illegible at night due to the wear and tear on the reflectors.  The state route and US route shields are so ugly with their green backgrounds.
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)

shadyjay

I seem to remember a news story on Channel 3 (WFSB) back in the day which touted the new signs and said it had something to do with the company 3M, perhaps they're the ones that made the reflective background.  Nevertheless, it sprouted up like dandelions all over the state, except in some oddball locations.  I-95 between Exits 60 and 67 and Exits 70 and 82 never had it, nor did I-84 Exits 59-64, I-691 from I-84 to Exit 4, and most of independent Route 25.  The parkways were odd in that they didn't get a full-on "Phase III" assault, just in sections where some signs were replaced (in Hamden and in Norwalk).  I-84 is still holding onto this Phase II non-button copy signage right up to the present day, so is I-691.  And then the ultimate oddball of I-84 Exits 24-25A in Waterbury, which is holding on (by a thread!) to its (original?) Phase I button copy non-reflective signage, with oversized "69". 

KEVIN_224

#2189
I wonder how old this sign is? It's attached to Christian Lane in Berlin (Exit 23 - SB off and NB on only). Behind me was an ancient sign that read "(up left arrow) CT 72 WEST". Only problem is that this hasn't been part of CT Route 72 since 1989-90!  :-D


I also saw this new device on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). There's one at the corner of Pane Road in Newington. This one is at the next intersection going south, at the corner of Webster Street.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 23, 2017, 08:52:06 PM
I wonder how old this sign is? It's attached to Christian Lane in Berlin (Exit 23 - SB off and NB on only). Behind me was an ancient sign that read "(up left arrow) CT 72 WEST". Only problem is that this hasn't been part of CT Route 72 since 1989-90!  :-D


I also saw this new device on the Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). There's one at the corner of Pane Road in Newington. This one is at the next intersection going south, at the corner of Webster Street.


Don't think the sign itself is that old because it's Phase IV signage. Originally, the sign was old Phase II and said "372 TO 71" when the highway was CT 72.  When the East Berlin/Cromwell Route 9 link was completed in 1989 and CT 372 was rerouted away from the connector (which became SR 571) and extended to Cromwell, the sign was converted to reflective button copy that said "TO 71/372".  This sign can't be more than 10-15 years old, but the bracket on the other hand wasn't replaced so it has to be really old. 

As for the white thing, my guess is that it's a DOT traffic camera like the ones you see on most CT highways. 
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)

kurumi

GSV link to the CT 72 sign KEVIN_224 mentioned: https://goo.gl/maps/oVwUqU4V3qu

Put a "TO" tab above the 72 marker and the sign is correct again.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

Mergingtraffic

#2192
I'm guessing the Exit 24 71/372 1 Mile sign photoed above is from the late 80s since it's reflective button copy.

The CT-72 sign has held up well and prob dates to 1989-1990 or so.

This sign also on Christian Lane is not button copy and probably dates to 1981-82 before reflective button copy took hold.  Notice the "9" is button copy and was added on later when CT-9 went through. It dates to the same era as the orginial CT-25 signage.  The CT-25 original signage had dates stenciled on the back, so I'm guessing this sign does too.  I'd love to get a close up pic of it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6340782,-72.751581,3a,75y,236.19h,76.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s55wGEkxz07v4xh81l5WiUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

KEVIN_224


JJBers

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2017, 07:02:23 PM

I see that era of signs in Central Connecticut all the time.
*for Connecticut
Clinched Stats,
Flickr,
(2di:I-24, I-76, I-80, I-84, I-95 [ME-GA], I-91)

KEVIN_224

#2195
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:

Someone mentioned that Exit 47 sign a couple of weeks ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if CT 34 is truncated back to CT 10.
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)

kurumi

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2017, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:

Someone mentioned that Exit 47 sign a couple of weeks ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if CT 34 is truncated back to CT 10.

Too bad SR 734 is in use; I don't know what the new designation might be
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: kurumi on May 26, 2017, 09:22:12 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 26, 2017, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM
Strange goings-on with I-95 signs in New Haven: exit 47 north now says MLK Boulevard. Exit 44 southbound now says Ella Grasso Boulevard...CT 10 to CT 34.  :confused:

Someone mentioned that Exit 47 sign a couple of weeks ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if CT 34 is truncated back to CT 10.

Too bad SR 734 is in use; I don't know what the new designation might be

704 is available, seeing North Frontage Rd is officially SR 706.
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)

kurumi

ConnDOT has a list of approved speed limits by route number and segment: http://dot.si.ct.gov/dotsi/lib/dotsi/statetrafficcommission/postedspeeds.pdf

Each segment has direction (N E S W or "B" for both/bi), milepost start/end and length, speed limit in MPH, date approved (could match up with completed construction) and remarks.

Some of the tinier 900 routes are not included.

Unfortunately, the doc is not set up for sorting by speed or filtering by number of lanes, etc.

I think the highest speed limit in CT along an undivided two-lane road is 50 MPH (CT 85 in Hebron, CT 118 in Litchfield, US 202 in New Hartford, etc.)
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"



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.