Connecticut News

[Truvelo]

The only difference between the new signs and the old ones is solid vs outline shields. It's also nice to see Highway Gothic rather than Clearview.

[hbelkins]

This one?

And I guess the last one replaced this overhead:

[shadyjay]

Got a shot of another new assembly on the way home today...

Start of I-691 WB at Exit 13 in Middlefield:



This is an all-new assembly and support system, replacing a former yellow-painted truss style.  All signs are new and are "almost" carbon copies, with the exception of the "LEFT EXIT" tab being added for Exit 13, and of course the aligned exit tab.

It is still interesting how CDOT signs I-691 between here and Exit 8.  WB, its I-691 from the start of the expressway, onward.  EB, its CT 66 from the Exit 8 onramp, eastward.  

[vdeane]

Probably due to the ramp configuration, since there's no way to avoid getting on I-91, CT 15, or switching between I-691 and CT 66.  NYSDOT does this with I-390/NY 390, I-590/NY 590, and I-490 approaching the Thruway.

[shadyjay]

Another signing project about to get underway, this time on US 7 between Wooster Heights Road in Danbury (which is at the south end of the US 7 expressway in Danbury) and Silvermine Road in Brookfield (which is just south of Exit 12/former north end of US 7 expressway before Brookfield Bypass opened).

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=483714

Looks like this project will also replace the rust-colored gantries, but what remains to be seen is whether or not the exit numbering sequence will be corrected. 
NB from I-84 to Brookfield, there's Exit 11 (Federal Road), and Exit 12 (Route 202/Brookfield), then the end of the expressway.  SB, there's Exit 12, Exit 11, then Exit 13 (I-84 East).  Will the new signage reflect this as Exit 10?  Will Exit 11 gain a US 202 NORTH shield, as it technically exits US 7 there, NB, though no signs indicate this today.  And will EXIT tabs be removed altogether on signs on the short spur south of I-84? 

[Mergingtraffic]

Another signing project about to get underway, this time on US 7 between Wooster Heights Road in Danbury (which is at the south end of the US 7 expressway in Danbury) and Silvermine Road in Brookfield (which is just south of Exit 12/former north end of US 7 expressway before Brookfield Bypass opened).

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=483714

Looks like this project will also replace the rust-colored gantries, but what remains to be seen is whether or not the exit numbering sequence will be corrected. 
NB from I-84 to Brookfield, there's Exit 11 (Federal Road), and Exit 12 (Route 202/Brookfield), then the end of the expressway.  SB, there's Exit 12, Exit 11, then Exit 13 (I-84 East).  Will the new signage reflect this as Exit 10?  Will Exit 11 gain a US 202 NORTH shield, as it technically exits US 7 there, NB, though no signs indicate this today.  And will EXIT tabs be removed altogether on signs on the short spur south of I-84? 

Interesting that the press release refers to US 202 and not Federal Road for Exit 11.  (Which way does US 202 go at the end of the ramp from US 7 NB? right? or left?)

And this also means the original signage, non reflectorized button copy signage, will be gone.

and hopefully the tacky 80s square gantries will be gone as well. Although I doubt it.

[shadyjay]

"In theory", US 202 exits I-84 with US 7 at Exit 7, then exits US 7 at Exit 11 (Federal Road), then left off the ramp, then right.  You don't reach Federal Road until you've turned left off the ramp, then hit your second intersection.  The road directly off the ramp is White Turkey Road.  However, there is no signage on US 7 advertising US 202 motorists to use Exit 11.  There are US 7/202 reassurance shields between I-84 and Exit 11, then only US 7 shields north of there.  And signage for Exit 12 used to say "TO US 202 / Brookfield".  When those old non-reflectorized signs were replaced when US 7 was extended slightly north, the "TO" was absent.

Going further south, between I-84 Exits 3 and 7, only reassurance shields for I-84 and US 7 exist, both on the interstate and on entrance ramps.  US 6 shields don't appear EB until just after Exit 7 and the only mention of US 202 is on the guide signs for Exits 4 & 7.  I think it would eliminate a lot of confusion to just reroute US 6 & 202 onto local city streets, or just simply decommission US 202 in New England completely as it is shared so often with other routes, and where its not shared, just have it as a state route.   But I digress....

Seems to me by the press release that they are replacing all the gantries.  My records show only 3 on the section of US 7 north of I-84, all SB:  a truss gantry still in grey, an 80's steel square gantry (in grey), and a new style pipe gantry.  There are several on the section of US 7 south of I-84, all 80s steel square style and painted rust brown.  Those I'm guessing are definitely being replaced.

[Alps]

Based on the MUTCD, if US 7 is to have exit numbers at all, they should be mileage-based starting at I-95. That will ultimately settle the 12-11-13 question.

[Duke87]

Yeah, but I get the feeling that Connecticut (along with all the other sequential states in New England) isn't going to budge on the exit numbering issue unless FHWA proves they're serious and threatens to withhold funding.

[connroadgeek]

Based on the MUTCD, if US 7 is to have exit numbers at all, they should be mileage-based starting at I-95. That will ultimately settle the 12-11-13 question.

No way that happens. CT exits are so closely spaced that converting to mileage based exit numbers, while offering very little benefit, would provide lots of confusion. Connecticut DOT will not budge. The way it has been is the way it will always be.

[vdeane]

But if US 7 doesn't have exit numbers now, it's not exactly converting, is it?  Numbering new roads by distance was how NYSDOT planned to convert to mileage-based numbers in the 70s.  Unfortunately they didn't go though with it, but to this day I-890 and part of I-95 are distance based.  In fact, I would say that if I-88 were completed a decade earlier (while the program was still in effect) NY would be on distance-based numbers now because we would have had a rural road with them.

[Alps]

All freeways are supposed to have exit numbers; I forget whether it's a "should" or a "shall," but I imagine the former. (Otherwise states will start redefining roads to not be freeways.) But there is NO leeway regarding sequential exit numbering. My official interpretation straight from the FHWA is that by January 2012, all state agencies must adopt the MUTCD, and any supplementary provisions or documents cannot blanket override any Standards. That means that all states must agree to reference location-based (or mile-based, as you would, since there will soon be no more km-posted highways) exit numbering. Because it's an unfunded mandate with no listed deadline, each state is responsible for providing a program, again by January, that will explain when and how exit numbering will be changed. (Not necessarily "to which numbers," but "in this order, as signs are replaced, etc.")

[Mergingtraffic]

I asked the DOT this question last year and they said they will not do mileage based numbering.  The person I talked to did know about the loss of federal funding threat.  So you know what this means, soon there will be discussions on whether CT will lose funding.  There will be meeting and hearings and newspaper articles about it.  You would think CTDOT would be smart and head this off sooner rather than later but you know that won't be the case. 

IMO, I don't see the problem with sequential exit numbering.  When you read a book you expect page 5 after page 6.  You don't number pages in a book based on the number of words.  So I don't see the reasoning for mileage based exits. 

[HighwayMaster]

Yeah, the exits are too close together for mileage-based numbers in Connecticut. As a former resident, I am still accustomed to the sequential numbers.

[yakra]

If thinks are all squished too close together and you don't like alphabet soup, maybe try kilometers?
What the heck, they do it in New Brunswick! 

[Duke87]

For Connecticut the benefit would be basically nil, anyway. It's the states with lots of spaced out exits* in rural areas (New York, Vermont...) that need to be jabbed into doing it right.


*whoa man... like, you mean I can get off the freeway here? Far out!

[mtantillo]

All freeways are supposed to have exit numbers; I forget whether it's a "should" or a "shall," but I imagine the former. (Otherwise states will start redefining roads to not be freeways.) But there is NO leeway regarding sequential exit numbering. My official interpretation straight from the FHWA is that by January 2012, all state agencies must adopt the MUTCD, and any supplementary provisions or documents cannot blanket override any Standards. That means that all states must agree to reference location-based (or mile-based, as you would, since there will soon be no more km-posted highways) exit numbering. Because it's an unfunded mandate with no listed deadline, each state is responsible for providing a program, again by January, that will explain when and how exit numbering will be changed. (Not necessarily "to which numbers," but "in this order, as signs are replaced, etc.")

Steve is absolutely correct.  States MUST adopt the MUTCD, (with or without a State Supplement), or a State MUTCD that is in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD by January 15, 2012.  I know the process well...I've been working with  VDOT on the adoption of the MUTCD and their new state Supplement for well over a year now.  FHWA is being MUCH stricter on the substantial conformance issue than they ever have been before.  They will not grant blanket exceptions to standards, period.  "We've always done it this way" is not a valid excuse.  And "reference location based exit numbering" is a standard. 

So...either the states adopt the national MUTCD as is, meaning they are required to use reference location based exit numbering (aka, mile marker based exit numbering).  Or they will adopt a state Supplement, and if they try to say "in our state we will use sequential exit numbering", then FHWA will not approve it, because it overrides a federal standard.  If they try to adopt a state MUTCD with "in our state we will us sequential exit numbering"...well, that is not in substantial conformance with the MUTCD, and the Feds will reject it. 

How is it enforced?  Easy.  The Feds have to approve any project on the Interstate system.  As part of the approval process, the Feds WILL NOT SIGN OFF ON any project unless it follows the approved MUTCD and/or State Supplement/State MUTCD.  So if there is any project advertised for bid after January 15, 2012 that involves large scale replacement of signs, those signs will have to have mile-marker-based exit numbers on them, or the Feds will not approve the plans.  And yes, from experience in Virginia, I know the Feds do care and they do check to make sure Interstate projects follow the applicable state MUTCD/supplement, etc. 

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!

[NE2]

I wonder how this will pan out on I-95 in NYC, where signs are still being slowly changed from mile-based to sequential (or are they finally done?).

[shadyjay]

I'm pretty sure NYC gave up on sequential-based for I-95.  Exit tabs with new numbers NB at the Bruckner were changed to reflect the old system (I-295 was originally Exit 6A, then became 12, and is back to 6A, or something like that).  Pics of new SB signage maintain the mile-based numbers.  So at this point, I think that only a couple signs in Manhattan still have the Exit 1A, 1B, 1C, being Exits 1, 2, and 3.

If/when CT switches over, I think the "test subject" should be the Merritt/W Cross Pkwy, where the greatest benefit will be from mile-based exits. 

And I agree, pretty much everything from New Haven, westward on I-95 should remain the same.  Further east, exits are spaced out more.  This would definitely solve the exit jumping where I-95 leaves the turnpike.  Still the question remains whether or not I-395 would start with Exit 1 or would continue turnpike numbering.  I'm guessing the former.

Pros to the system would be correct exit numbers on US 7, exit numbers on the Willimantic bypass (US 6), and whether the Bradley Airport Connector would start with Exit 1, or go on a mile-based system based on CT 20. 

We'd also need mile markers installed on these roads, plus I-291, I-384, and I-691, which presently have no mile markers installed.

[vdeane]

If/when CT switches over, I think the "test subject" should be the Merritt/W Cross Pkwy, where the greatest benefit will be from mile-based exits.

Knowing CT, they'll use I-95.  Speaking of which, why does it jump exit numbers when it leaves the turnpike?

[shadyjay]

Speaking of which, why does it jump exit numbers when it leaves the turnpike?

I've always wondered that.  I do remember when "EXIT 76" got signed in the 1980s when the I-395 designation replaced CT 52 on the rest of the turnpike.  EXIT 76 tabs were added to the turnpike/I-395's "exit".  The "NORTH" text was taken off the I-95 signs and moved over to the I-395 signs in a classic example of "cut and paste". 

Perhaps the reasoning for the skipping of I-95 exits was due to the close proximity of the CT 85 interchanges from the turnpike and I-95.  If I-95's exits had not skipped, then CT 85 would be Exit 78 or 79 from I-95 and Exit 77 from the turnpike.    Or perhaps there was a deeper reason, which we may never know why, such as why Exit 25 was chosen as the first exit # on various routes fanning out from Route 128 in Massachusetts.

[Alps]

The consensus is that it was done to provide a noticeable break from I-395/Turnpike numbering along 95.

[Mergingtraffic]

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Route-7-widening-in-Danbury-nearly-complete-1699602.php

US-7 in Danbury almost complete, ahead of schedule and under budget.  Of course it should be the expressway instead.  Also, the new US-7 signing project is set to begin soon!
The paper also mentioned the other US-7 corridor expansion projects and their history.  Not including those in Wilton and Norwalk.

[BamaZeus]

Since the article didn't seem clear on it, after this project is complete, what percentage of 7 between Danbury and Norwalk will be at least 4 lanes now?

[Duke87]

With the completion of this project, there are three 4 lane sections:
1) out of the freeway in Norwalk to Grumman Hill Road in Wilton
2) from the southern CT 33 junction in Wilton to Olmstead Hill Road, also in Wilton (Cannondale)
3) from CT 35 in Ridgefield to and into I-84 in Danbury (and beyond into New Milford).

By mileage I'd say that's a bit less than half of the distance between the two freeway segments.