News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Connecticut News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

wytout

#75
Here's a CT update for you.... a busway...

A stupid busway.

A perpetually revenue-draining disaster of a people mover that will be an even bigger failure than "Tommy's Trolley"... or the defunct Bradley Airport people mover.

and tell me....WHYYYYY is Governor Malloy approving the biggest waste of Transportation spending I could possibly think of?   a 9.7 mile $550 million busway between Hartford and New Britain????... that no one will use, and that the state already knows will operate at a 75% (or projected 7-8 million dollar to start but will of course grow) deficit annually?  (just because he didn't want to leave the fed funds on the table that will pay for $400 million of it... still costing the state $150 million to build).

We are a driving state here, we are not going to park our cars to ride a fricken  bus from new britain to hartford...GAHHHHHHHHH I can't take the collective lack of common sense in this state.  

I could think of so many of our highways to nowhere that have all been killed that could greatly benefit from funding like that.  Just finish one of them, route 11 from Salem to Waterford.

OR BETTER YET God forbid we ever try to convince any of the Nimby's North and west of hartford with their "environmental impact studies" that using that funding to begin finishing a NW Route from the northern terminus of Route 9 over to I 291 in windsor is a good idea (wouldn't it be nice to use the rest of the infamous 4 level stack, that was such a waste of highway dollars, sitting there rotting!)... NOW THAT would relieve some traffic on the I 84 corridor from Hartford to New Britain...NOT some stoooopid GD MF'n CS'n GD MF'N POS FOOLISH BUS-WAY that isn't going to be used by anyone other than those that already use the bus.

"it's going to remove 5000 cars from the congested I-84 corridor".... NO... it's not. Because we are not going to park our cars and ride a smelly F'ing bus.
You want to relieve congestion on I-84 (and even the enviro's could benefit by less backed up traffic idling away)... see paragraph directly above, DUH!

Maybe I made a mistake, Maybe this post actually belongs in a thread titled Connecticut CRAP.
because that's exactly what it is... A huge steaming pile of it.

ok... done ranting.
-Chris


iwishiwascanadian

I'm not happy about the busway either...I think it is a massive waste of money...Malloy and the DOT are, frankly, stupid for thinking that building a busway from Hartford to New Britain will pull traffic of of 84...if they haven't noticed, the terminus, Downtown New Britain, doesn't even have direct access to 84 (one must take CT-9 or CT-72)...I can agree that CT is a driving state...but I don't think it would be if we had a viable alternative in public transit.  I was advocating for commuter rail to Waterbury.  It would give Hartford a direct connection to Metro-North service...and it would fit in with AMTRAK's plan to do high-speed rail through Inland Connecticut.  Looks like CT has shot itself in the foot...again...

Duke87

Well, "if you build it, they will come" isn't an invalid argument vis-a-vis transit, although in this case it is wishful thinking. Transit's base function is providing transportation to people who cannot afford to drive or are too young to. Getting people who can drive to not do so is difficult because it is difficult to make transit actually be more convenient. It requires either achieving a critical size and population density (which Hartford is nowhere near), or nerfing the road network (which is counterproductive to overall mobility).

There's also the old irrational yet real class stigma with buses. People would be more willing to use a rail line.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: wytout on April 06, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
Here's a CT update for you.... a busway...

A stupid busway.

A perpetually revenue-draining disaster of a people mover that will be an even bigger failure than "Tommy's Trolley"... or the defunct Bradley Airport people mover.

Wasn't the busway an alternative from the I-84 West of Hartford Needs Study?  Which means, since it is not politically correct to add lanes to I-84, some genius thought the busway would look good on paper and be the political correct thing to do. 


Of course the genius knew it wouldn't work but pushed for it anyway to satisfy the Expressway Revolt people.   But in the end, what did it get us?  13 wasted years.

Now CT has a problem, the busway is not the answer and there is still traffic on I-84, so instead of adding lanes to ease congestion, the state is basically back where it was in 1998 when the I-84 West of Hartford Study was completed. 

In fact, the state's answer to widening I-84 will ONLY be aux lanes between Exits 40 and 41 and 41 & 42.  Big whoop! 

So why doesn't the state just add lanes to I-84 and be done with it!?!? Stop all the political correct crap and add the lanes.  I'm not saying don't put in some sort of rail thing, but don't scrap the road widening for the rail thing.

and there IS room for the widening, if they could widen I-95 in cramped East Haven, they could widen anything

Example:  Route 7 in Ridgefield, they are 4-laning it just south of the existing expressway portion with NO center divider.  It's all woods there, so just add a jersey barrier.  Oh wait, a jersey barrier on paper would look too much like an expressway and the Expressway Revolt people and the PC people were up in arms over it.  Now that most of the road is built, would it really be THAT big of a deal if a jersey barrier was put in place!?!? Of course not.

I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

connroadgeek

Quote from: doofy103 on April 07, 2011, 04:50:15 PM
Wasn't the busway an alternative from the I-84 West of Hartford Needs Study?  Which means, since it is not politically correct to add lanes to I-84, some genius thought the busway would look good on paper and be the political correct thing to do. 


Of course the genius knew it wouldn't work but pushed for it anyway to satisfy the Expressway Revolt people.   But in the end, what did it get us?  13 wasted years.

Now CT has a problem, the busway is not the answer and there is still traffic on I-84, so instead of adding lanes to ease congestion, the state is basically back where it was in 1998 when the I-84 West of Hartford Study was completed. 

In fact, the state's answer to widening I-84 will ONLY be aux lanes between Exits 40 and 41 and 41 & 42.  Big whoop! 

So why doesn't the state just add lanes to I-84 and be done with it!?!? Stop all the political correct crap and add the lanes.  I'm not saying don't put in some sort of rail thing, but don't scrap the road widening for the rail thing.

and there IS room for the widening, if they could widen I-95 in cramped East Haven, they could widen anything

Example:  Route 7 in Ridgefield, they are 4-laning it just south of the existing expressway portion with NO center divider.  It's all woods there, so just add a jersey barrier.  Oh wait, a jersey barrier on paper would look too much like an expressway and the Expressway Revolt people and the PC people were up in arms over it.  Now that most of the road is built, would it really be THAT big of a deal if a jersey barrier was put in place!?!? Of course not.

Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.

Alps

Quote from: connroadgeek on April 07, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 07, 2011, 04:50:15 PM
Wasn't the busway an alternative from the I-84 West of Hartford Needs Study?  Which means, since it is not politically correct to add lanes to I-84, some genius thought the busway would look good on paper and be the political correct thing to do. 


Of course the genius knew it wouldn't work but pushed for it anyway to satisfy the Expressway Revolt people.   But in the end, what did it get us?  13 wasted years.

Now CT has a problem, the busway is not the answer and there is still traffic on I-84, so instead of adding lanes to ease congestion, the state is basically back where it was in 1998 when the I-84 West of Hartford Study was completed. 

In fact, the state's answer to widening I-84 will ONLY be aux lanes between Exits 40 and 41 and 41 & 42.  Big whoop! 

So why doesn't the state just add lanes to I-84 and be done with it!?!? Stop all the political correct crap and add the lanes.  I'm not saying don't put in some sort of rail thing, but don't scrap the road widening for the rail thing.

and there IS room for the widening, if they could widen I-95 in cramped East Haven, they could widen anything

Example:  Route 7 in Ridgefield, they are 4-laning it just south of the existing expressway portion with NO center divider.  It's all woods there, so just add a jersey barrier.  Oh wait, a jersey barrier on paper would look too much like an expressway and the Expressway Revolt people and the PC people were up in arms over it.  Now that most of the road is built, would it really be THAT big of a deal if a jersey barrier was put in place!?!? Of course not.

Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.
CT does, on the other hand, make a five-lane road with a center STAY OUT OF THIS lane. CT 66. I just looked at it, and it's either one direction or neither direction that gets to turn, never both.

Duke87

Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 08, 2011, 06:08:58 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 07, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.
CT does, on the other hand, make a five-lane road with a center STAY OUT OF THIS lane. CT 66. I just looked at it, and it's either one direction or neither direction that gets to turn, never both.

That section of CT 66 has few enough driveways that it was practical to stripe individual left turn lanes for all of them and leave dead space otherwise.

Of course, don't always trust the paint. One might logically assume based on standards that an area in the middle of the road with double yellow lines on either side (even if there is no hatch) is an area not to be entered or crossed. A center left turn lane should, after all, have interior dashes and painted white turn arrows, along with accompanying signage.
But here in Stamford, there are a few miles of CT 137 that make extensive use of this double double yellow line pattern. Every side street gets a dedicated left turn lane; most driveways do not, instead having what appears to be a dead zone similar to on CT 66. It is well understood among locals, however, that this area is meant to be used as a center left turn lane for making lefts both off of and onto High Ridge Road. Whether or not that's technically legal is anybody's guess, but the Stamford Police will not ticket you for it (and will even do it themselves), and in my entire life I've seen a state police car on High Ridge Road exactly once, so...

There's also a section of US 1 in Milford striped like this, though I don't know if they treat it the way we do.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Mergingtraffic

#82
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2011, 09:02:38 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 08, 2011, 06:08:58 AM
Quote from: connroadgeek on April 07, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.
CT does, on the other hand, make a five-lane road with a center STAY OUT OF THIS lane. CT 66. I just looked at it, and it's either one direction or neither direction that gets to turn, never both.

That section of CT 66 has few enough driveways that it was practical to stripe individual left turn lanes for all of them and leave dead space otherwise.

Of course, don't always trust the paint. One might logically assume based on standards that an area in the middle of the road with double yellow lines on either side (even if there is no hatch) is an area not to be entered or crossed. A center left turn lane should, after all, have interior dashes and painted white turn arrows, along with accompanying signage.
But here in Stamford, there are a few miles of CT 137 that make extensive use of this double double yellow line pattern. Every side street gets a dedicated left turn lane; most driveways do not, instead having what appears to be a dead zone similar to on CT 66. It is well understood among locals, however, that this area is meant to be used as a center left turn lane for making lefts both off of and onto High Ridge Road. Whether or not that's technically legal is anybody's guess, but the Stamford Police will not ticket you for it (and will even do it themselves), and in my entire life I've seen a state police car on High Ridge Road exactly once, so...

There's also a section of US 1 in Milford striped like this, though I don't know if they treat it the way we do.

If it is "understood" by the locals, is it understood by the DOT officially?  Why doesn't the DOT just make it a STWLTL (Shared 2 Way Left Turn Lane)?  It seems like CT will do anything possible to avoid this. In fact, I asked the DOT about the STWLTL and they said they don't like them b/c of head on crashes.  I responded saying, doesnt the inconvenience to trafic in the through lanes out weigh the the head on crash risk?  Traffic in the STWLTL isn't high, only if two people are turning left from the opposite ways at the exact same location.  Also,with no left turn lanes, you have drivers that stop to turn left in the travel lane and through traffic either cuts off other drivers to get around the left turn person resulting in crashes or you have a rear end collision.


US-1 in Milford was restriped with a STWLTL and it works wonderfully. Cars don'thave to wait for left turners and left turners are not blocking lanes of travel.  

Also, US-5 in Wallingford will get one, although a short one according to the latest State Traffic Commission meeting.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Alps

There are two types of problem collisions in TWLTLs: Two cars trying to pull in from opposite directions simultaneously, and someone turning left out of a driveway as someone else is entering the lane.

Duke87

Quote from: doofy103 on April 08, 2011, 09:44:53 PM
Why doesn't the DOT just make it a STWLTL (Shared 2 Way Left Turn Lane)?

Most likely because of the large number of side streets, many of which are signalized. Each demands a dedicated left turn lane, certainly if there's a signal. There is no significant continuous length of the center lane that can be used as a two-way turn lane, only segments of a few hundred feet at a time at most. It would be very awkward to properly stripe and mark all that as center turn lane.

This problem is usually avoided by laying out subdivisions to have only one or two exits out onto the main road. But that level of planning doesn't happen in New England, things are just kinda done willy-nilly. And so we have a major four (five including the center) lane artery that averages a side street every couple hundred feet, several of which are just dinky little dead ends.

QuoteUS-1 in Milford was restriped with a STWLTL and it works wonderfully.

Part of it was. Not all of it.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

J N Winkler

Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 08, 2011, 09:58:13 PMThere are two types of problem collisions in TWLTLs: Two cars trying to pull in from opposite directions simultaneously, and someone turning left out of a driveway as someone else is entering the lane.

The left-turn-out-of-driveway scenario also leads to gap acceptance problems because the turning driver has to monitor the TWLTL (which can fill unexpectedly, from either direction, at any time) as well as both directions of traffic.  That in turn leads to some drivers trying to subdivide the problem by breaking the turn into two chunks and using the TWLTL as a place to stop and wait, which creates good conditions for right-angle crashes.

Once the turning and through traffic volumes become unfavorably high, either singly or in combination, TWLTLs just don't work and techniques from the access management toolbox have to be used--driveway consolidation, provision of service drives, Michigan lefts, facilitated U-turns, etc.  TRB now has an access management manual (downloadable free of charge, IIRC) which goes into this in exhaustive detail.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

iwishiwascanadian

Hartford has been doing a lot of TWLTLs lately on major streets in the city and I don't like them because people don't know how to use them and also they narrow the road.

Instead of people using them correctly they use them as passing lanes or they don't get used at all.  Also, I dislike that they take a perfectly four-lane road and restripe it as a three-lane road with a TWLTL and bike lanes...especially in places where it isn't warranted. 

Mergingtraffic

#87
A couple CT Notes:
1) The new right alligned pipe gantries for BGS don't extend as far out over the lanes as the old ones did. ie.  I-384 Exit 2 Keeney St. Some barely extend out over the shoulder.  

2) Median work has started for I-95 around Exit 74.  Although I expected the new jersey barrier to be split down the middle of the median, so when the addition of a 3rd lane eventually comes through, the middle is already done.  However, the wall goes from one side of the median to the other and sometimes takes up the whole 12" wide median!

3) Why don't they make the Buslane in New Britain a HOT lane, drivers who want to use it can pay a toll.  Has anyone thought of this?

4) and the aux lane for I-95 NB between Exit 45 and the new CT-34 flyover is back in.  It was taken out after New Haven objected to all the ring road Long Wharf proposals.  What do the two have to do with each other?  Nothing really but the DOT told me NH was the reason.  NOW, apparently it's back in. The aux SB lane is in a different project.
http://www.i95newhaven.com/contracts/future/lwip/

and from the CT DOT PDF: (Scroll to page 56) (also check the updates on other projects)
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/mtp/2011mtp.pdf

"Reevaluation of the Reconstruction of I-95 through Long Wharf (Project No. 92-619)
This project involves the addition of an auxiliary lane on I-95 Northbound (NB) from Route 10 to
Route 34 and the southerly relocation of the I-95 NB on and off ramps at Interchange No. 46. This
project is part of the New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Program ("Q"  Bridge
Program) under Contract E2. In April 2010 the Federal Highway Administration approved a
Reevaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Section (4f) FEIS/Section 4(f)) and
Record of Decision for the Interstate 95 (I-95) New Haven Harbor Crossing Improvements to
include the above changes in the original proposal.
Current construction costs have been estimated at $30 million and involve an auxiliary lane as
described above and the reconfiguration of Interchange 46. The project is tentatively scheduled for
advertisement in March 2012. It is anticipated that construction would start in August of 2012"


Weren't the NB Exit 46 ramps already moved? Or will they be moved again?
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

wytout

#88
New Generation BGS goes up yesterday on I-84 WB for Exit 42 in west Hartford, Trout Brook Drive. 1 MILE (or as the sign says "Trout Brk Dr.".  THere has been a substandard small temporary sign in the left median for well over a year right next to the remains of the Pole for the old BGS (only the upright remains)...

Funny thing is.  This temp sign and pole are still there (accruately 1 mile from the gore)... and the NEW 1 MILE BGS IS .2 miles further west attached to BRAND NEW mounting on an infamous CT "OVERPASS GANTRY", about .8 miles from the exit.

I got a photo this afternoon in traffic, - crappy because I was going EB and had to point my iphone into the sun.
LEFT aligned tab, but in true CT fashion, NO liner on the exit tab. - (I thought the new MUTCD standard was a LEFT plaque in yellow w/ black legend on the exit tab itself?)

photos 2 and 3 are the old sign location and the temp sign still standing - again The old location is about .2 Miles east of the new permanent sign. - I wonder why that wasn't replaced at the proper 1 mile interval by one of those gaudy rounded pipe gantry's the state seems to be in love with.

AT LEAST IT'S NOT CLEARVIEW  :sombrero:






-Chris

Duke87

Oh dear, that's a no no. It's okay for a sign to be a bit further away from the exit than it says it is, but you never want it closer.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: wytout on April 15, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
New Generation BGS goes up yesterday on I-84 WB for Exit 42 in west Hartford, Trout Brook Drive. 1 MILE (or as the sign says "Trout Brk Dr.".  THere has been a substandard small temporary sign in the left median for well over a year right next to the remains of the Pole for the old BGS (only the upright remains)...

Funny thing is.  This temp sign and pole are still there (accruately 1 mile from the gore)... and the NEW 1 MILE BGS IS .2 miles further west attached to BRAND NEW mounting on an infamous CT "OVERPASS GANTRY", about .8 miles from the exit.

I got a photo this afternoon in traffic, - crappy because I was going EB and had to point my iphone into the sun.
LEFT aligned tab, but in true CT fashion, NO liner on the exit tab. - (I thought the new MUTCD standard was a LEFT plaque in yellow w/ black legend on the exit tab itself?)

photos 2 and 3 are the old sign location and the temp sign still standing - again The old location is about .2 Miles east of the new permanent sign. - I wonder why that wasn't replaced at the proper 1 mile interval by one of those gaudy rounded pipe gantry's the state seems to be in love with.

AT LEAST IT'S NOT CLEARVIEW  :sombrero:



Are you sure the new Exit 42 tab isn't bordered?  I see some fizzyness around the edge.  The reason I ask is b/c as of 2010 all tab put up by the DOT have borders.  There is only about a year or so in 2009 that CTDOT put up alligned non-bordered exit tabs.

However, about 5 new BGSes went up this week on CT-8, most have borders but 2 don't.  Exit 19 NB "1 3/4 Mile" sign and Exit 17 SB "1 Mile" sign. Were these two just sitting around for a year in the shop? 

Also, the two I just mentioned are the "Overpass Gantry"  haha    In fact for Exit 19 the old 1 mile sign was on a gantry but was replaced with the 1 3/4 mile sign on the overpass.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

wytout

#91
trust me it's not bordered. I pass it every day going to work.

I went by it again this morning, early and looked it over carefully.

The fuzziness was a crappy picture, lol. I'll get a better one.

Rememer, new CT exit tab borders are as thick as theborder on the sign itself, so it's easy to spot.

QuoteHowever, about 5 new BGSes went up this week on CT-8, most have borders but 2 don't.  Exit 19 NB "1 3/4 Mile" sign and Exit 17 SB "1 Mile" sign. Were these two just sitting around for a year in the shop?  

Maybe this is the same issue? - let's hope it's that, and NOT the sign of more random inconsistency to come from ConnDOT.

This sign has been missing for a long time, and may have been prepped sitting in the sign shop several months ago, waiting to be put up. The mountings to the "overpass gantry" are all square "BOX" style arms now instead of the older bracketing made from angle iron.


** and I'd like to correct one thing,  I clocked the mileage today... that overpass is just about 1 mile from the exit, right at the gore sign (about .9 to the beginning of the ramp) not .8 as I had said previously.  The old sign was actually a little further than a mile away, so I guess it's compliant, or pretty darn close, distance wise. **
-Chris

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: wytout on April 16, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
Maybe this is the same issue? - let's hope it's that, and NOT the sign of more random inconsistency to come from ConnDOT.


Yes, the DOT is very inconsistant with all topics, signage, design, turn lanes, placement of signs etc.

I think they look at things in terms of project numbers not consistancy.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

wytout

Quote from: doofy103 on April 16, 2011, 01:07:03 PM
Quote from: wytout on April 15, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
New Generation BGS goes up yesterday on I-84 WB for Exit 42 in west Hartford, Trout Brook Drive. 1 MILE (or as the sign says "Trout Brk Dr.".  THere has been a substandard small temporary sign in the left median for well over a year right next to the remains of the Pole for the old BGS (only the upright remains)...

Funny thing is.  This temp sign and pole are still there (accruately 1 mile from the gore)... and the NEW 1 MILE BGS IS .2 miles further west attached to BRAND NEW mounting on an infamous CT "OVERPASS GANTRY", about .8 miles from the exit.

I got a photo this afternoon in traffic, - crappy because I was going EB and had to point my iphone into the sun.
LEFT aligned tab, but in true CT fashion, NO liner on the exit tab. - (I thought the new MUTCD standard was a LEFT plaque in yellow w/ black legend on the exit tab itself?)

photos 2 and 3 are the old sign location and the temp sign still standing - again The old location is about .2 Miles east of the new permanent sign. - I wonder why that wasn't replaced at the proper 1 mile interval by one of those gaudy rounded pipe gantry's the state seems to be in love with.

AT LEAST IT'S NOT CLEARVIEW  :sombrero:



Are you sure the new Exit 42 tab isn't bordered?  I see some fizzyness around the edge.  The reason I ask is b/c as of 2010 all tab put up by the DOT have borders.  There is only about a year or so in 2009 that CTDOT put up alligned non-bordered exit tabs.

However, about 5 new BGSes went up this week on CT-8, most have borders but 2 don't.  Exit 19 NB "1 3/4 Mile" sign and Exit 17 SB "1 Mile" sign. Were these two just sitting around for a year in the shop? 

Also, the two I just mentioned are the "Overpass Gantry"  haha    In fact for Exit 19 the old 1 mile sign was on a gantry but was replaced with the 1 3/4 mile sign on the overpass.

It appears the style sign you see plated on a gantry in CT has to do with when the signing project was implemented.  There is a 2008 project for various individual sign support replacements that this sign was part of.  I received an email from ConnDOT engineering explaining.   

So it stands to reason that new blanket replacement projects that are designed from 2009-on will have certain elements that projects going on now, designed earlier, may not.

"Chris,

    I am a traffic engineer in the DOT's Division of Traffic Engineering and would like to respond to your recent comment on the DOT website comment page regarding a new sign on I 84 westbound in West Hartford.
    The new sign installation on I-84 that you referred to in your e-mail is being installed as part of a construction project to replace sign supports at various locations throughout the state.  This project was designed in 2008, before the "left exit" sign crown was called for in the 2009 MUTCD.  Changing the sign would require redesign of not only the sign but the support as well.  Since the project was designed using current standards at the time and the MUTCD does not require immediate compliance, as this would be nearly impossible, the sign was installed as designed.  Current projects are being designed according to the latest 2009 MUTCD standards.   The Department will revise existing signing to current standards as these signs are scheduled for replacement.

Thank You,


James M."
-Chris

Mergingtraffic

I find that the DOT is very good at responding to questions.  I have asked a ton over the years and always get great responses from them. 

By the way, the bill to put tolls on new highway construction (Route11) passed another legislative committe, not too long ago, and the SECCOG put Route 11 back into it's Transportation Plan.  The Route 2A Bypass is also in there.  I submitted my public comments to them as well, hopefully it will help.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

wytout

Another Assembly went up on I-84 WB from 5/3 - 5/5 to completion.  This is a full-width overhead gantry.  The only thing I'll point out is that it appears to be 100% MUTCD compliant... in CT of all places.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's compliant.  Aligned Exit Tabs, separate Borders on the tabs, and the pull through signage uses the required larger leading CAP on the cardinal direction.  I know it's boring to some, because it's so compliant, but for CT, complete compliance is quite a rarity still, so really.... it's different.  Oddly enough, the sign at exit 42 WB that went up a couple weeks ago, has the UNBORDERED tab, so I'm still seeing a lot of mix and match only a few weeks apart here.

-Chris

shadyjay

That new assembly looks really good, especially when compared to the old one, on dougtone's site:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4191755080/sizes/o/in/set-72157622891127873/

agentsteel53

what was wrong with the original gantry?  threatening structural failure?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Alps

Quote from: wytout on May 05, 2011, 07:39:46 PM
Another Assembly went up on I-84 WB from 5/3 - 5/5 to completion.  This is a full-width overhead gantry.  The only thing I'll point out is that it appears to be 100% MUTCD compliant... in CT of all places.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's compliant.  Aligned Exit Tabs, separate Borders on the tabs, and the pull through signage uses the required larger leading CAP on the cardinal direction.  I know it's boring to some, because it's so compliant, but for CT, complete compliance is quite a rarity still, so really.... it's different.  Oddly enough, the sign at exit 42 WB that went up a couple weeks ago, has the UNBORDERED tab, so I'm still seeing a lot of mix and match only a few weeks apart here.


Not fully MUTCD compliant. Exit distances under 1 mile are omitted from signs with EXIT ONLY.

Mergingtraffic

#99
speaking of that, on I-84 between Exits 1-13 a sign replacement project has started and they are putting in foundations for new sign poles if you look carefully.  

One sign they are replacing, amazingly b/c it's relatively new, is the Exit 11 "To 25 South Brdigeport" auxillary BGS on I-84 WB.  I saw them putting in new foundations last week.

Why are they replacing that one?  It's new, as in the last 5 years or so.

PS, I wish they would replace the crappy 1980s gantries, the solid "square" ones that aren't level with the ground.  Danbury has a lot of them!  The one in ShadyJay's photo are nice, they are fromthe 60s and 70s.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/



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.