Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

I'm beginning to think that towns vs villages are different as far as the MUTCD is concerned.  That's why the signs for Exit 40, stating New Britain Ave and Corbins Corner are okay.  Look back at the I-95 sign replacement project in Fairfield County.  Exit 3 used to say "Arch St/Greenwich", now just says "Arch St".  Meanwhile, Exit 2 says "Delavan Ave/Byram", with Byram being a section of Greenwich.  Same goes for Exit 4, being allowed to keep "Indian Field Rd/Cos Cob".  Again, Cos Cob being a section of Greenwich.  Perhaps that's okay with the MUTCD.

I was correct in assuming the Exit 32 signs would be moved to ground supports.  As for Exit 31 stating "Bristol" along with West St, perhaps its because you're not in Bristol at that point, you're in Southington. 

Originally, the signs at Exit 30 used to say "Marion Ave/West Main St/Southington".  Southington was removed when I-84 was widened and those signs replaced.  I've never seen "Plantsville" on a BGS on I-84, always just on a secondary sign. 

Also, why is Lake Compounce on its own separate sign?  Too many Attractions to list on the new blue ATTRACTIONS logo sign?  Too important an attraction to combine with others? 

[Mergingtraffic]

I like the 3-arrow exit only sign for CT-72 and CT-372 on I-84 WB. 

Also, did you notice the Exit 38 WB "exit now" sign was just replaced recently with only "Bristol" as a control city and now the new sign in the contract says "Farmington Bristol" rather than just "Bristol."  However, the advance signs for Exit 38 says only "Bristol."

Also the Exit 37 1 Mile sign EB was just replaced a couple years ago with a right aligned non-border exit tab (which I like) and that's also being replaced.

[PHLBOS]

Quite a number of signs along that stretch (Exits 32 & 33 between Exits 33 through 35 in particular) were replaced not all that long ago.  Replacing such again seems like a waste of money.

32 was not replaced.  I drive this stretch all the time. 30 is done.  31 and 32 need replacement.  33-35 are new from when the 84/72/Crooked Street interchange was reconstructed around 2002.  36 needs replacement.  37 is done.  38, 39, and 39A need replacement.

My bad, I meant the stretch between the CT 72 interchanges.  I've since corrected my earlier post to reflect such.

[jp the roadgeek]

I'm beginning to think that towns vs villages are different as far as the MUTCD is concerned.  That's why the signs for Exit 40, stating New Britain Ave and Corbins Corner are okay.  Look back at the I-95 sign replacement project in Fairfield County.  Exit 3 used to say "Arch St/Greenwich", now just says "Arch St".  Meanwhile, Exit 2 says "Delavan Ave/Byram", with Byram being a section of Greenwich.  Same goes for Exit 4, being allowed to keep "Indian Field Rd/Cos Cob".  Again, Cos Cob being a section of Greenwich.  Perhaps that's okay with the MUTCD.

I was correct in assuming the Exit 32 signs would be moved to ground supports.  As for Exit 31 stating "Bristol" along with West St, perhaps its because you're not in Bristol at that point, you're in Southington. 

Originally, the signs at Exit 30 used to say "Marion Ave/West Main St/Southington".  Southington was removed when I-84 was widened and those signs replaced.  I've never seen "Plantsville" on a BGS on I-84, always just on a secondary sign. 

Also, why is Lake Compounce on its own separate sign?  Too many Attractions to list on the new blue ATTRACTIONS logo sign?  Too important an attraction to combine with others?

I'm surprised the ESPN visitors' center wasn't included on the sign.

[shadyjay]

Also, did you notice the Exit 38 WB "exit now" sign was just replaced recently with only "Bristol" as a control city and now the new sign in the contract says "Farmington Bristol" rather than just "Bristol."  However, the advance signs for Exit 38 says only "Bristol."

Also the Exit 37 1 Mile sign EB was just replaced a couple years ago with a right aligned non-border exit tab (which I like) and that's also being replaced.

Don't see any sign for Exit 38 in the plans saying "Farmington/Bristol".  What I do find interesting is that they're keeping the placement of "4-Farmington" on the WB 1 mile advance for Exit 39.  I can understand why it was aligned that way before, being beneath the stack, mounted to the unused I-291 mainline, but the new sign will get its own support.

Also, there's an annotation for the Exit 37-EB signs, saying they won't be replaced, being done already under a previous contract.  Each of those signs has a "3" in a hexagon, which means "existing sign, support, & foundation to remain". 


June 14, 2017 will be the next big sign contract release date... two projects now listed on that date:  Route 8 from Shelton to I-84 and Route 15 from Greenwich to Milford.  The interesting part of the Route 15 contract is that instead of saying "upgrade signing", it says "Replace Large Sheet Alum. Signs with Extruded Alum. Signs".  Will the Merritt go MUTCD?  Time will tell.

[jp the roadgeek]

That would also be the time to consider converting both highways to mileage based exits, since CT 8 would pretty much be done from Bridgeport to Winsted and the Wilbur Cross is pretty much done up to Meriden (except the signs along 5/15 in Hartford need replacing). 

[Duke87]

The current signs were supposed to be extruded aluminum until the Merritt Parkway Conservancy complained that the proposed supports were too big and unsightly. So the state used flat sheet aluminum instead to reduce the weight and be able to use smaller supports.

Also, I have a bit of a mental issue with the fact that those signs, whose initial erection I remember vividly, are somehow coming due for a replacement in a couple years. They're only about 15 years old and while some of them have gotten a little beat up they aren't otherwise suffering from fading or loss of reflectivity.

[Mergingtraffic]

Also, did you notice the Exit 38 WB "exit now" sign was just replaced recently with only "Bristol" as a control city and now the new sign in the contract says "Farmington Bristol" rather than just "Bristol."  However, the advance signs for Exit 38 says only "Bristol."

Also the Exit 37 1 Mile sign EB was just replaced a couple years ago with a right aligned non-border exit tab (which I like) and that's also being replaced.

Don't see any sign for Exit 38 in the plans saying "Farmington/Bristol".  What I do find interesting is that they're keeping the placement of "4-Farmington" on the WB 1 mile advance for Exit 39.

Check out page 340 of project specifications

[Mergingtraffic]

The current signs were supposed to be extruded aluminum until the Merritt Parkway Conservancy complained that the proposed supports were too big and unsightly. So the state used flat sheet aluminum instead to reduce the weight and be able to use smaller supports.

Also, I have a bit of a mental issue with the fact that those signs, whose initial erection I remember vividly, are somehow coming due for a replacement in a couple years. They're only about 15 years old and while some of them have gotten a little beat up they aren't otherwise suffering from fading or loss of reflectivity.

My god that damn conservancy. Who's in charge them or the DOT?! The conservancy is so anal about these small things that don't make a difference.

A state trooper told me when they redid the service plazas, the DOT wanted to extend the exit and entrance ramps but the conservancy complained.

[pugnamedmax]

Will the Merritt go MUTCD?  Time will tell.

More likely: Will the Merritt ever go mile based? Obviously changing the exit numbers to a more logical system would "ruin our parkway's character". Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I'm fine with the extruded aluminum signs as long as they'll last longer and save money in the long run, which they should.

(Btw first post! Been following this thread for a while!)

[Duke87]

A state trooper told me when they redid the service plazas, the DOT wanted to extend the exit and entrance ramps but the conservancy complained.

Definitely true in at least one case. Check out the exit from the NB plaza in Fairfield. This was actually safer before it was rebuilt!

[connroadgeek]

How about a sign replacement for Route 9? Or do we have to wait until they take out the traffic lights for them to ever do anything on that highway ever again?

[shadyjay]

How about a sign replacement for Route 9? Or do we have to wait until they take out the traffic lights for them to ever do anything on that highway ever again?

Most likely!  Every time I drive down Route 9 at night, I wonder about those signs.  Many are barely legible.  I remember when they were installed, around 1987.  The sign replacement included numbering the exits in downtown Middletown.  Exits 13-16 never originally had numbers. 

The original expressway Route 9 (I-95 to I-91) has also escaped having any spot sign replacement done.  One of the earlier spot overhead replacement projects removed two overhead gantries for Exit 11, but instead of getting new signs, the existing ones were moved off the gantry and placed on the ground.  The I-91 jct got new shields several years back, slapped right on the existing reflective background.  But that's it... Route 9 hasn't had much work done to it at all, outside of paving projects, a few bridge replacements, and a heck of a lot of tree clearing between Exits 2 & 3.  And in the town of Haddam, secondary signage was replaced a couple years ago.  At least the mile markers are legible, and there's a Speed Limit 65 sign about every 1/2 mile in that stretch (overkill, if you ask me... here in VT, there's only one posted after each exit, so you could go 15 miles without seeing a single speed limit sign). 

[Mergingtraffic]

How about a sign replacement for Route 9? Or do we have to wait until they take out the traffic lights for them to ever do anything on that highway ever again?

Most likely!  Every time I drive down Route 9 at night, I wonder about those signs.  Many are barely legible.  I remember when they were installed, around 1987.  The sign replacement included numbering the exits in downtown Middletown.  Exits 13-16 never originally had numbers. 

The original expressway Route 9 (I-95 to I-91) has also escaped having any spot sign replacement done.  One of the earlier spot overhead replacement projects removed two overhead gantries for Exit 11, but instead of getting new signs, the existing ones were moved off the gantry and placed on the ground.  The I-91 jct got new shields several years back, slapped right on the existing reflective background.  But that's it... Route 9 hasn't had much work done to it at all, outside of paving projects, a few bridge replacements, and a heck of a lot of tree clearing between Exits 2 & 3.  And in the town of Haddam, secondary signage was replaced a couple years ago.  At least the mile markers are legible, and there's a Speed Limit 65 sign about every 1/2 mile in that stretch (overkill, if you ask me... here in VT, there's only one posted after each exit, so you could go 15 miles without seeing a single speed limit sign). 

I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

[abqtraveler]

A state trooper told me when they redid the service plazas, the DOT wanted to extend the exit and entrance ramps but the conservancy complained.

Definitely true in at least one case. Check out the exit from the NB plaza in Fairfield. This was actually safer before it was rebuilt!

And the big point to take home about the Merritt Parkway Conservancy is its members include a lot of deep-pocketed lower Fairfield County residents who can afford hiring a dream team of lawyers to force their agenda through the courts.  ConnDOT knows this (likely through past experience), so they just simply give into whatever the Conservancy demands.

[vdeane]

Perhaps ConnDOT should get some backing from FHWA?  The Merritt is on the NHS, so I imagine the feds wouldn't be too happy with CT compromising safety because the Conservancy wants to put the road in a time warp rather than undertake needed safety upgrades.  I'm VERY surprised there haven't been some high profile fatalities on that road due to the heavy traffic combined with terribly substandard ramps.  While I can certainly understand why the Conservancy doesn't want to change the character of the road (which CT shouldn't, within reason), they take it WAY too far.

[shadyjay]

I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9. 

[Duke87]

Perhaps ConnDOT should get some backing from FHWA?  The Merritt is on the NHS, so I imagine the feds wouldn't be too happy with CT compromising safety because the Conservancy wants to put the road in a time warp rather than undertake needed safety upgrades.  I'm VERY surprised there haven't been some high profile fatalities on that road due to the heavy traffic combined with terribly substandard ramps.  While I can certainly understand why the Conservancy doesn't want to change the character of the road (which CT shouldn't, within reason), they take it WAY too far.

Backing from the feds won't necessarily help. There are no federal laws mandating that road improvement projects bring them up to modern safety standards. There are federal laws mandating that road improvement projects pass an environmental review process, which is easily exploited to block an improvement by anyone who opposes it and has deep pockets.

And for what it's worth ConnDOT has been undertaking efforts to improve safety on the Merritt - over the past 30 years many interchanges have been improved to add accel/decel lanes, remove tight curves, and such. The state used a bunch of ARRA money to add paved shoulders to a good chunk of the road.  One of the more dangerous curves in Greenwich now has advance warning signage with flashing lights, in spite of opposition by the Conservancy to this. And perhaps most notably, a few years ago the state went in and removed/pruned quite a few trees within the clear zone in the hopes of reducing incidents of trees falling across the road during storms (people have been killed on the Merritt Parkway by this) - also in spite of considerable opposition.

The example I gave where the service plaza exit was made less safe is unusual.

[jp the roadgeek]

CT 2, especially from east of Glastonbury, needs major sign replacement.  The signs are unreadable at night from busted reflectors and it makes for a rough experience for those coming back from the casinos that may be unfamiliar with the road.  I-291 isn't as bad but needs replacement, as well as I-384, I-691 (mostly from Exit 4 east), and CT 40 (each would probably be done at once and converting to mileage based numbers would be simple, and CT 40 numbering is done if the I-91 and Bailey Rd ramps remain unnumbered).  CT 72 has been done except for Exits 3/4 eastbound and a couple of signs for Exit 7.  The signage in the I-84 contract is ambiguous though; it makes it look like CT 372 is Exit 33 and CT 72 West has no exit number, then all of a sudden you'll see signage saying CT 372 is Exit 2

[Mergingtraffic]

Perhaps ConnDOT should get some backing from FHWA?  The Merritt is on the NHS, so I imagine the feds wouldn't be too happy with CT compromising safety because the Conservancy wants to put the road in a time warp rather than undertake needed safety upgrades.  I'm VERY surprised there haven't been some high profile fatalities on that road due to the heavy traffic combined with terribly substandard ramps.  While I can certainly understand why the Conservancy doesn't want to change the character of the road (which CT shouldn't, within reason), they take it WAY too far.

As Duke said, There have been from falling down trees. Which up until a couple of years ago, the DOT was reluctant to take them down Bc the conservancy would've cried fowl. So if you ever have an accident with a tree on the Merrit include the MPC in your lawsuit

They actually complained ab the flashers?!?

[RobbieL2415]

I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9.

Hell, I-84 E in Vernon is still holding on to its 1979-83 OG pavement, complete with spaces for reflectors.  I-395 north of Putnam has the same thing.

[Mergingtraffic]

I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9.

Hell, I-84 E in Vernon is still holding on to its 1979-83 OG pavement, complete with spaces for reflectors.  I-395 north of Putnam has the same thing.

Amazing how well concrete holds up, do you know how much the statw would save if they still had concrete showing? 
I-84 in Waterbury still has it from when the Exit 22-23 area was reconstructed in 1978.  CT-25 still concrete as well.

[shadyjay]

Amazing how well concrete holds up, do you know how much the statw would save if they still had concrete showing? 
I-84 in Waterbury still has it from when the Exit 22-23 area was reconstructed in 1978.  CT-25 still concrete as well.

CT 9 has a stretch of concrete in New Britain, from Exit 25 to just south of Exit 29.  So does I-691 between Exits 3 & 4.  I remember when CT 9 was paved from Old Saybrook up to Middletown.  That was in the late 1980s.  It's been repaved several times since then in parts.  Where it hasn't, it's rough.  I-691 was supposed to be repaved between Exits 3 & 4 but the concrete was grinded down instead and retained.  It's pretty smooth and has held up welll, similar to the New England Thruway in New York, from New Rochelle up to Rye.

[RobbieL2415]

I noticed some signs were replaced rather quickly. CT-8 opened in 1980 in spots and there's new signage was put up around 1990 (I checked the dates on the sign) so CT did a blanket job of signs around that time.  Replacing everything it seemed regardless of how old.

What I find interesting is how long some of the original signage stuck around.  Original Connecticut Turnpike signage dating to the opening of the road in 1958 was still present between Exits 53 & 59 until 1992.  I-84 is still holding onto old signage through the East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon area, dating to when the road was rebuilt/widened/HOV'd/I-384 extended.  I-691 is maintaining its 1988-signage from when it was completed to I-84. 

ConnDOT is taking their time to replace signs nowadays, but within a few years, I'd guess button copy will be more rare than present in the state.  There's not much left on I-84 and I-95 (after present contracts are completed), so you've just got I-91 north of Hartford, plus CT 8 (which will dwindle), CT 2, and CT 9.

Hell, I-84 E in Vernon is still holding on to its 1979-83 OG pavement, complete with spaces for reflectors.  I-395 north of Putnam has the same thing.

Amazing how well concrete holds up, do you know how much the statw would save if they still had concrete showing? 
I-84 in Waterbury still has it from when the Exit 22-23 area was reconstructed in 1978.  CT-25 still concrete as well.

I wasn't talking about the concrete.  I was talking about this stretch further east.  Lasts from Exit 64 to just before Exit 66.https://goo.gl/maps/FK32ddUNr1T2

[abqtraveler]

I was looking at Google Maps Street View along Routes 8 and 25 today and noticed that both highways have updated street views dated between October and November 2016.  The main things I noticed were:

1.  The northbound onramp to Route 8 at Exit 18 (Division Street) in Ansonia is now shown as being complete and open to traffic.
2.  Sign replacement is occurring on Route 25, but it looks like ConnDOT is sticking with sequential exit numbers for the time being. Same observation on Route 8 north of Waterbury.
3.  Resurfacing of the northbound Route 8/25 connector in Bridgeport was ongoing at the time of the Street View update--ramp gores to Exits 2 and 4 northbound marked with chevrons.
4.  Recent resurfacing of I-95 between Fairfield and Stratford has increased the number of ramp gores marked with chevrons (Exits 22(NB) 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 32 also confirmed by ConnDOT traffic cams).  Looks like ConnDOT is trending toward marking ramp gores with chevrons.