Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

So, looking at the Avon picture, the current end of Waterville Rd (CT 10) becomes a cul-de-sac, and a relocated Waterville is built on the other side of Nassau's furniture.  Nice easy connection for thru traffic for CT 10 S off of US 44, from 10 north onto 44 east as well as the crossover between Waterville and Nod Rd.  Can be a little confusing (New Jerseyish) for thru traffic on 10 North onto 44 West, and from 44 west to 10 south.  10 north would follow the crossover, turn right onto Nod Rd, then onto 44. 44 W to 10 S involves turning right onto Nod, left over the overpass, then left onto Waterville.  Also the turn from 44 E onto Nod Rd. would involve turning onto Waterville,  then turning left onto the crossover to Nod Rd.  Probably need traffic lights at either end of the crossover for safety.
   Overall, I like the idea, and it would eliminate that dangerous (and even deadly) traffic light at the bottom of Avon Mountain.

[jp the roadgeek]

Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS.

[KEVIN_224]

Yep! Likely upside down CT 9 shields, since it's north end isn't far from there. I saw those last Saturday, en route to Cambridge and Boston. I thought it was bad when Rhode Island had an error "RI 6" shield along US Route 6 east in Foster once!

[southshore720]

Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS.

Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!

[jp the roadgeek]

Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS.

Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!

Nope, the mini signs are all still there.

[Mergingtraffic]

WOW CT now has legislation that allows design-build projects and public-private partnerships. 
Read the article, it's mentioned towards the end.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/DOT-chief-reviews-rookie-year-3868517.php#page-2

[jp the roadgeek]

$68 million busway?!?  Try closer to $680 million

[jp the roadgeek]

Haven't been out this way in a while, but I took a ride on I-84 West out into New York State.  A few changed I noticed along the way:

In Waterbury, most of the old oversized Phase II BGS's have been replaced with Phase IV.  Only ones I saw remaining were westbound at Exit 23, and eastbound at the very east end of the offramp.  Most BGS's from I-691 to the NY line are now Phase IV with a couple of  exceptions.

Mileage signs:  Mileposts every 5th of a mile extend from the NY Border up to Exit 23.  Mile marker shields have the "East (West) 84 Mile XX" format from the Housatonic River to the NY Border (all of Fairfield County).

At Exit 7 Westbound, BGS's for 84 West and 7 South have replaced NY State with Newburgh.  However, at Exit 3, it still says NY State.  Also, the quad-plex of 84/6/7/202 is now well signed.  One pole has 84 and 7 signage, the other has the 6 and 202 signage.  Also saw the first exit after the 84 split on Route 7 displays 202 East on the Federal Rd. Exit.  Like the directional exit tabs too.

One other note: Saw a Helvetica font Speed Limit 65 sign just east of the Rochambeau Bridge not much unlike the font New Brunswick uses on its BGS's.

[spmkam]

I-95 in Fairfield county is where they need widenings or a parallel route.

[shadyjay]

Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS.

Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!

Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS.

Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!

Nope, the mini signs are all still there.

And as of two days ago (12/27), that "temporary" sign was still there.   Strange too, while the CT 9 NB Exit 30 final exit sign is in Clearview, the newer 1/2 mile sign (which is now ground-mounted and with a right-side exit tab) has text in the good ole' fashioned font. 

Strange seeing all those CT 6 markers too. 

[KEVIN_224]

Probably just upside down CT Route 9 markers. They've been there since at least the spring. Shame on ConnDOT for allowing that to happen!

[shadyjay]

ConnDOT has posted the contract plans for the replacement of signage along the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) between Fairfield and New Haven.  Also within the file are plans to replace signs on CT 25 and I-84.  A couple of notes:

I-95 signs between Milford and Orange were replaced a few years ago.  These will not be replaced (and are noted as "NIC", meaning "not in contract).  Instead, spot sign replacement including some secondary signs, plus new mile markers.  Also it appears the blue "ATTRACTIONS" signs will begin making an appearance, vs the stand-alone green or brown signs.  These are similar to the large "FOOD - EXIT XX" signs which have full size logos.  Also interesting to note, some destinations have changed, SB there will now be Exits 27A-B-C in Bridgeport, and there will be more pull-throughs in the Bridgeport area.

Also added to the contract are spot sign replacements on CT 25 and I-84.  On CT 25, looks like just the area around Exits 8-9... the whole CT 25 connector is not shown up to (near) Monroe.  I-84 sign changes are primarily EB and will include the replacement of two signs at Exit 7 with the new style "arrow-per-lane" diagrammatics. 

Here's the link to the plans:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Scroll down to "PROJECT PORTFOLIO PLANS", best to right click and choose SAVE LINK AS.  It'll open in Adobe, its a 30+MB file.

[Mergingtraffic]

New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.

[shadyjay]

New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.

If you look at the file, there's going to be a change in the "lane deliniation" for Exit 7 EB, which apparently is part of the reason why the change in signage.  Seems strange for the change, but something must've triggered it quickly, since these signs were JUST replaced, and are already being modified.  Leads me to think that Exit 3 WB signage may change with another upcoming project... perhaps the I-395 sign replacements, as those are next in the "highway signing" advertising of contracts.

[Mergingtraffic]

New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.

If you look at the file, there's going to be a change in the "lane deliniation" for Exit 7 EB, which apparently is part of the reason why the change in signage.  Seems strange for the change, but something must've triggered it quickly, since these signs were JUST replaced, and are already being modified.  Leads me to think that Exit 3 WB signage may change with another upcoming project... perhaps the I-395 sign replacements, as those are next in the "highway signing" advertising of contracts.

I consider I-84 EB Exit 7 and I-84 WB Exit 3 to be the same type of exit, so one would think the same type of signage would apply.  Exit 3 was restriped with an option center lane a few years back.  Glad to see Exit 7 is getting the same treatment.  But with the new sign contract that is nearing completion, Ext 3 only has two diagramical signs before hand.  I think there should be more BGS signs regarding the left lane will exit only.  There was a Danbury Mall "Exit Only" drop down arrow sign that was taken down with the new project.

And yes Jay, after rereading the contract, the current Exit 7 1-Mile sign (Which was put up only this past year and cost money) on I-84 EB will be replaced with the new Exit 7 1-Mile sign showing the lane movements.  It seems to be a last minute change.  Did someone mess up?  Also, How come Exit 3 WB doesnt have the lane movement type of sign? Why weren't these changes with the current signing contract which isn't even done yet!? 


Speaking of overall, the I-84 Danbury and Milford Connector signing contracts were well designed and detailed.  Danbury has new signage for CT-25 @ Exit 11, Crossing Traffic and Exit 4 EB and the Connector has the new white vehicle restriction signs.  Well done. 

I hoped the DOT would've installed new BGS or BYS (Big yellow signs) warning motorists of the loop ramp from I-95 NB to CT-8-25 and the sharp curve of I-95 SB to CT-8-25 rather than the usual two pole warning signs . 

[southshore720]

New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.

- Big fan of the new Exit 27 A-B-C scheme.  It's too bad it couldn't be replicated on the NB side, but logistically it wouldn't make sense.
- I noticed that Exit 43 is now "Campbell Avenue."  I'm sure that was a MUTCD influence.
- Why only Exits 8 and 9 on Route 25?  Why not go all the way down the 95 split?  The signage for Exits 6-7 is in bad shape (especially from 25N to the Merritt) and the 25/8 connector is still holding onto the gruesome reflective button copy.  The 25/8 split NB is guaranteed to get the new arrow-per-lane treatment down the line.
- I also noticed that they are finally replacing a wrecked sign from the prior Milford resigning contract at Exit 38.  The interim patch job for the sign was not pretty!

[Mergingtraffic]

However these non-reflective BGS signs on Warren St in Bridgeport will remain as I think they are forgotten.
I didn't see them on the plans.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Warren+St,+Bridgeport,+CT&hl=en&ll=41.170958,-73.191343&spn=0.000728,0.0012&sll=41.500765,-72.757507&sspn=1.474878,2.458191&oq=warren+st+brdige&t=h&hnear=Warren+St,+Bridgeport,+Connecticut+06604&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.170867,-73.191298&panoid=JNEKVIaVzKVaV55cRy39oQ&cbp=12,343.51,,0,0

[connroadgeek]

Couple of errors in there. One is the yellow "no commercial vehicles" on the new CT-15 exit guide signs. That should be a white background as it exists now. Didn't they just redo all the signs in Milford? I mean they're all right tabbed just with no border on the crowns so I'd guess they're from 2009-10. The other is the all caps NY CITY entrance sign in Stratford. The exit 27-B-C thing is kind of silly. First, the B-C only exists on the S/B side, so the fact that it doesn't exist in both directions makes it irregular. Second, businesses rely on the exact number/name of the exit to direct customers, so having to say exit 27 if you're coming north but exit 27B or C coming south is dumb. This is a case of over-engineering in my opinion.

[Mergingtraffic]

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/General-Assembly-to-mull-tolls-on-Conn-highways-4208622.php

Article about tolls, for some reason the media loves to hype the Stratford toll accident.  Also look at the old pics and the classic button copy signage.
I also hate the fact that other articles (not this one) usually blend the idea of toll BOOTHS into it.  When, with today's technology you wouldn't really have a toll booth.

[KEVIN_224]

I'd be fine with it, as long as it were open road tolling. I'm near the center of Connecticut, but having the tolls at the state lines would seem to be the most likely choice. What the article didn't say if if these tolls would be limited to just the interstates. I know the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways, along with the Charter Oak Bridge (all parts of CT Route 15) had them.

[spmkam]

maybe they should do a commercial vehicle only toll somewhere on 95 like they have on the NYS Thruway in Rockland County. I think tolling cars would be a bad idea for commuters

[jp the roadgeek]

I've already figured out quick detour roads around every toll at the state borders except for I-84 at the MA Line.

I-84: US 6/202.  You can even access I-684 without returning to I-84.
I-91: US 5
I-95: US 1 (Greenwich); CT/RI 216, Wellstown Rd, RI 3 (North Stonington)
CT 695: US 6
I-395: CT/MA 193

Tolls at borders will just put more traffic onto local roads.  Probably have to put up truck bans like they did for the DE/MD go around on I-95.

[Beeper1]

Some of those detours depends on where exactly they place the tolls.  If it is right at the state lines, then US 6 would not bypass for CT-695, since they split on the CT side of the line. The lack of S-E ramps at the 395/6 interchange would also make that dificult for trucks.  Cars could use S. Frontage Rd to Ross Rd and rejoin 695 from there.   

I-84 at the Mass line would be a difficult one to bypass if they put tolls right at the line. There are some local roads that you could use for cars, but they are narrow and very windy so they would not work as a truck bypass.   If the tolls were a bit further into CT, like near the weigh stations, you have a great bypass via CT-171 and CT-190.

Still, most of these detours take much more time, either due to distance or number of stop lights/congestion. Assuming any new tolls are ORT, it's a matter of deciding if adding 15-20 minutes is worth saving whatever the toll is.

[spmkam]

Not necessarily. For non-EZPass drivers shunpiking could be more time efficient than waiting in a long line to pay a toll (assuming there is no system such as toll by mail or online for cash traffic)

[Mergingtraffic]

New epoxy project for some interstates in CT.  Aren't they going over board with the lane "dots."  I like the lane "dots" if they're done right and properly show the main lane or where most traffic goes, but it seems kinda nuts here.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf