Connecticut News

[connroadgeek]

On I-95 in CT, especially south of New Haven, they can probably leave most of the exit numbers as-is...as it falls under the "close enough" category. But north of New Haven, and on the other interstates, there will need to be some renumbering, implemented as signs are replaced...that is something the Feds have done to eliminate the unfunded mandate argument...old signs can remain as is until they need to be replaced (outdated, or no longer meets retroreflectivity requirements), and when they are replaced, they are replaced with a device compliant with new standards.  In otherwords, exit re-numbering is likely to occur in phases. 

I don't see any problem with milemarker based exits.  When I'm driving, I don't care if my exit is the 10th exit in the state, I do care that its 15 miles into the state.  It makes navigation and trip planning a lot easier when you know "if I get on at  exit 10, and get off at exit 58, I've traveled about 48 miles"....vs. in a state with sequential numbering, if you get on at 10 and off at 58, they could be 60 miles apart (best guess at I-95 in CT) or 200+ miles apart (l-86/NY 17), but I don't know until I could up all the little mile numbers on the map!

There are 111 miles of I-95 in CT and the last exit is #93, so there are about that many exits +/-. The largest distance between exits in the state is 5 miles, and 90% of them are less than 2 miles apart. Renumbering is a wasteful exercise. That's money that could certainly be better spent than trying to appease bureaucrats in DC that will only add confusion to the locals that use the highways daily.

[mtantillo]

On I-95 in CT, especially south of New Haven, they can probably leave most of the exit numbers as-is...as it falls under the "close enough" category. But north of New Haven, and on the other interstates, there will need to be some renumbering, implemented as signs are replaced...that is something the Feds have done to eliminate the unfunded mandate argument...old signs can remain as is until they need to be replaced (outdated, or no longer meets retroreflectivity requirements), and when they are replaced, they are replaced with a device compliant with new standards.  In otherwords, exit re-numbering is likely to occur in phases. 

I don't see any problem with milemarker based exits.  When I'm driving, I don't care if my exit is the 10th exit in the state, I do care that its 15 miles into the state.  It makes navigation and trip planning a lot easier when you know "if I get on at  exit 10, and get off at exit 58, I've traveled about 48 miles"....vs. in a state with sequential numbering, if you get on at 10 and off at 58, they could be 60 miles apart (best guess at I-95 in CT) or 200+ miles apart (l-86/NY 17), but I don't know until I could up all the little mile numbers on the map!

There are 111 miles of I-95 in CT and the last exit is #93, so there are about that many exits +/-. The largest distance between exits in the state is 5 miles, and 90% of them are less than 2 miles apart. Renumbering is a wasteful exercise. That's money that could certainly be better spent than trying to appease bureaucrats in DC that will only add confusion to the locals that use the highways daily.

Signs aren't there for locals who use the highways daily.  They know where to go.  Signs are there to aid those from out of town who don't know their way around. 

Based on the simple argument of, "if every other state can lay out the cash to convert to mile-based exits, why should New England states be given special treatment", I'd say that milemarker based exits are going to happen in CT sooner than you think.  Not really a waste of money since the signs will just be replaced when they have to be replaced anyway, they will just bear a new exit number. 

[Duke87]

But you can't change exit numbers sign by sign as they need to be replaced. Having two systems at once on one highway is confusing to say the least. Look at what NYSDOT did with the Cross Bronx for an example of how horrible that was.

You can, however, do it one highway at a time. I've always thought New York should start with I-84, then do I-81, I-88, and I-86. While at the same time wrestling with NYSTA to properly change over I-87 and I-90.

For Connecticut, I'd do 395 first.

[shadyjay]

... or Route 15. 

[kurumi]

CT has done a large-scale exit renumbering, on I-84 east of Hartford. The old CT 15 exit numbers (92 to 106) were replaced with consecutive I-84 exit numbers (60 to 74). Everyone survived.

[connroadgeek]

Signs aren't there for locals who use the highways daily.  They know where to go.  Signs are there to aid those from out of town who don't know their way around. 

Based on the simple argument of, "if every other state can lay out the cash to convert to mile-based exits, why should New England states be given special treatment", I'd say that milemarker based exits are going to happen in CT sooner than you think.  Not really a waste of money since the signs will just be replaced when they have to be replaced anyway, they will just bear a new exit number. 

They just replaced all the signs on I-95, so it's gonna be a couple of decades until they'll replace any highway signs. As I said, it's a worthless exercise just so exit 2 can become exit 1, exit 3 can become exit 2, and so on, just so the state can say they number exits the same way as some huge state with exits that are 20 miles apart. Anyway, in these times of economic hardship, I deem any highway project that is not a maintenance, safety, or widening to be wasteful spending. Renumbering all the exits by one or five or whatever it works out to be in most cases, should be the lowest of the low priorities since it'll provide very little bang for the buck. If governments are looking for ways to spend money they don't have, I've got a few projects I'd like them to embark upon before wasting time with renumbering.

[mtantillo]

Well, Connecticut is certainly able to opt out of Federal highway funds if they wish to not comply. 

If they just replaced a bunch of signs, then they should be in the clear for a little over a decade.  New sign retroreflectivity requirements will likely require replacement of signs more frequently than in the past. 

[mtantillo]

But you can't change exit numbers sign by sign as they need to be replaced. Having two systems at once on one highway is confusing to say the least. Look at what NYSDOT did with the Cross Bronx for an example of how horrible that was.

You can do it in phases though.  I remember my first trip to Georgia, they had mile-based exits from SC down to Gwinnett County.  Then the exit numbers magically jumped from 120-something to 40 or 30-something, and were sequential the rest of the way into Atlanta.  Not really a problem so long as you replace all signs for the same interchange at the same time (which is not what NY did on the Cross Bronx). 

FHWA is willing to work with states that make a good faith effort to comply.  If they say they'll phase it in 10 years from now when signs are replaced, that is likely going to be okay.  But if you thumb your nose at the other 43 states and say that you're not even going to try, then that's when loss of a percentage of highway funding starts to get discussed. 

[Alps]

Signs aren't there for locals who use the highways daily.  They know where to go.  Signs are there to aid those from out of town who don't know their way around. 

Based on the simple argument of, "if every other state can lay out the cash to convert to mile-based exits, why should New England states be given special treatment", I'd say that milemarker based exits are going to happen in CT sooner than you think.  Not really a waste of money since the signs will just be replaced when they have to be replaced anyway, they will just bear a new exit number. 

They just replaced all the signs on I-95, so it's gonna be a couple of decades until they'll replace any highway signs. As I said, it's a worthless exercise just so exit 2 can become exit 1, exit 3 can become exit 2, and so on, just so the state can say they number exits the same way as some huge state with exits that are 20 miles apart. Anyway, in these times of economic hardship, I deem any highway project that is not a maintenance, safety, or widening to be wasteful spending. Renumbering all the exits by one or five or whatever it works out to be in most cases, should be the lowest of the low priorities since it'll provide very little bang for the buck. If governments are looking for ways to spend money they don't have, I've got a few projects I'd like them to embark upon before wasting time with renumbering.

You don't have to replace the signs, just the exit tabs (or just patch them). Also, sign life is 12-15 years, not 20+, before it loses retroreflectivity. Finally, a lot of exits wouldn't change, or would change by a small amount. Fine, that makes your job easier.

[shadyjay]

Update on a few projects in CT:


They are really making progress on the new Q Bridge in New Haven, with almost the entire new northbound span unified from end-to-end, though decking remains in some sections.  On the westernmost section, it appears the deck is complete and a tubular gantry awaits its signs.  I believe that all traffic will move to this northbound bridge, then the present bridge will be demolished to accommodate the new southbound lanes.


The replacement of the turnpike median further east in East Lyme is not proceeding how I thought it would.  This is one of the last stretches on the I-95 portion of the turnpike that had the grass median with a metal guardrail running down the middle.  When I heard of this project going for construction, I thought the center median would be paved and a jersey barrier installed.  Instead, only half the median was paved and the barrier isn't consistently in the center, but rather fluctuates from side to side.  I haven't noticed any new signs in the project area, except the Exit 75-NB final sign now a single sided pipe gantry.  Also it appears more and more I-95 reassurance shields are mounted on a single metal support. 

Further east on "free I-95", signage for Exits 83 & 84 which said DOWNTOWN NEW LONDON has been changed to read NEW LONDON WATERFRONT DIST, on a brown background. 

Finally, while other states in New England have been replacing their mile markers in recent years, there appears to be no push for CT to do the same.  A few along CT 9 I noticed are barely readable, and those on I-95 heading west towards New Haven are this style:

(about half the width of a normal mile marker)
N    < -- direction of travel
_
5
4     <--  mile marker 54.8
_
8

[Mergingtraffic]

The replacement of the turnpike median further east in East Lyme is not proceeding how I thought it would.  This is one of the last stretches on the I-95 portion of the turnpike that had the grass median with a metal guardrail running down the middle.  When I heard of this project going for construction, I thought the center median would be paved and a jersey barrier installed.  Instead, only half the median was paved and the barrier isn't consistently in the center, but rather fluctuates from side to side.

Which is kind of stupid b/c you would think they would do it right down the middle so when they actually widen the highway the median work is already done.  Now, I think when the highway actually gets widened, they will have to do it again.

[shadyjay]

The only thing I can think of is that the median is just put together but not in its final place yet.  Perhaps they'll have a Tappan Zee-style movable barrier machine come in and place it.  If they don't - it just will look strange.  The median doesn't even line up with the new catch basins they put in.  Also where there are overhead signs, instead of the median being placed around it, the jersey barrier transitions to a metal guardrail and goes around each side of the sign support in the median. 

You can see some of the work being done via the traffic cams:  http://ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&Q=415318
The cams in the work zone are #s 192-193-194. 

It also seems weird that the project started at Exit 72.  I'm not sure why it wouldn't have started at the end of the existing jersey barrier at Exit 70. 

Also the project has installed fencing on all overhead bridges and is installing standpipe connections on the bridges for fire trucks (similar to the west end).  Resurfacing I saw on a VMS is scheduled to begin this week.

[Duke87]

Which is kind of stupid b/c you would think they would do it right down the middle so when they actually widen the highway the median work is already done.

That would require ConnDOT to have forethought.

[wytout]

Blanket Big Green Sign replacement happening, and FAST, on the Route 20 Expwy/Bradley connector in windor/windsor locks.  I live close by and noticed a couple new  ground mounted breakaways last week behind existing signs, this week the signage is going up like wild fire, should have some pics this weekend.

[Mergingtraffic]

The I-84 signing project is taking shape in Danbury, new BGS with right alligned bordered exit tabs are sprouting up.  Also, some 1960s gantries are staying, as the new signs are on some old gantries by Exit 11.  It also means some of the ugly 1980s ones are staying too.

Also of note, on I-84 WB by Exit 7, there is a new I-84 pull though sign with the control cities of "Newburgh/Norwalk"  Newburgh was on the first generation of signs from the 1960s and was later removed.  Old photos of old signs show where "Newburgh" was stripped off.  Later signs just showed "NY State" now it appears "Newburgh" is back on for the first time since the 1960s.  

and US7 and US6 are now signed on I-84 through Danbury.  US 202 was left off.

annnnd, the I-84 widening project in Waterbury set to start in 2014, which really means 2016.

[wytout]

Photos of the new Route 20 replacement of BGS's.  Notice that despite being NON-numbered exits, the new signs don't say 'EXIT X MILES' at the bottom anymore they just say 'X MILES' like a regular numbered exit BGS








DO YOU THINK THE OLD SIGN HAD ENOUGH SUPPORT.  LOOK AT THE 3 GIANT I-BEAM BREAKAWAYS


NEW BREAKAWAYS IN FRONT OF OLD ASSEMBLY

[Duke87]

and US7 and US6 are now signed on I-84 through Danbury.  US 202 was left off.

Unsurprising. The unofficial routing of US 202 has been "head down Federal Road, vanish into aether, magically reappear on Mill Plain Road" for years now. This is an issue off the freeway as well as on. Good luck following 202 south into Danbury if you don't know where you're going. There's no sign telling you where to turn. Not even "to I-84".

A less cynical person might say that US 202 has never served much purpose in Connecticut and ConnDOT realizes this. Of course, there's also that aluminum is expensive and ConnDOT is chintzy.

[NE2]

US 202's purpose seems to have been an inland long-distance alternate to US 1 (like US 62 from northeastern Ohio to Niagara as an alternate to US 20).

[agentsteel53]

US 202's purpose seems to have been an inland long-distance alternate to US 1 (like US 62 from northeastern Ohio to Niagara as an alternate to US 20).

indeed; it is a very long route.  to me it seems a pleasant alternative to the hustle and bustle of the US-1 corridor, but I do not know how it was viewed in the 1920s when it was first being laid out.

what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington?  apart from that curl downwards to intersect I-95, I cannot think of anything major.

[kurumi]

Photos of the new Route 20 replacement of BGS's.  Notice that despite being NON-numbered exits, the new signs don't say 'EXIT X MILES' at the bottom anymore they just say 'X MILES' like a regular numbered exit BGS
...



...

I'm happy to see those old outline route markers go. Good riddance.

[Ian]

I think I might be the only person in the world to like the outline button copy shields in Connecticut.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I think I might be the only person in the world to like the outline button copy shields in Connecticut.

I liked them. They showed "Hey look everybody! We're Different!"

[Duke87]

what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington? 

Cities with a population greater than 30k along US 202:
Danbury, CT (80,893)
Wilmington, DE (70,851)
Wayne, NJ (53,918)
Concord, NH (42,695)
Lewiston, ME (41,592)
Holyoke, MA (39,880)
Torrington, CT (35,995)
Bangor, ME (35,473)
Norristown, PA (34,324)

[Michael in Philly]

I think I might be the only person in the world to like the outline button copy shields in Connecticut.

I liked them. They showed "Hey look everybody! We're Different!"

Me too.  I don't see the harm in a bit of regional quirkiness.  And that goes for the discussion upthread about exit numbering too.

[Michael in Philly]

US 202's purpose seems to have been an inland long-distance alternate to US 1 (like US 62 from northeastern Ohio to Niagara as an alternate to US 20).

indeed; it is a very long route.  to me it seems a pleasant alternative to the hustle and bustle of the US-1 corridor, but I do not know how it was viewed in the 1920s when it was first being laid out.

what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington?  apart from that curl downwards to intersect I-95, I cannot think of anything major.

I always assumed that an inland alternate to US 1 was its purpose.  But it was probably more pleasant a few decades ago, now that suburbia has reached it in lots of places and it's got its share of hustle and bustle.