Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Anyone know of the status to replace highway signs on I-95 between Fairfield and New Haven (Exits 26-44)?  While some sections of this contract were completed previously (Exits 26-30 in the early 2000s, Exits 36-41 a few years ago), the current contract will replace all signs from Exit 30 to 34 and perform modifications to others.  The SB Exit 38 1/2 mile sign will be replaced (it was damaged), ATTRACTIONS signs will be added, along with new mile markers, etc.  The contract plans were posted on ConnDOT's site over a year ago.  I'm assuming a contract was awarded, but then again, I'm not sure since the project is not listed on the "CT Travel Map", and I've seen nothing new on the web cams of the area. 

The project is also replacing I-84 EB Exit 7 signage with "APL" diagrammatics, plus a few spot sign replacements on CT 25.

Anyone seen anything new "in the field"?

[Mergingtraffic]

exactly what is wrong with CT:

building and moving ahead on a walking trail while not building a highway.


http://www.route7.org/news/2014/06-02-2014Advocate.pdf

Look at the end: hey you can walk to work one way and train home the other.  Yeah, people would walk/bike 20 miles one way. 

[jp the roadgeek]

You forget this is the state that would rather spend $594 million on a bus only road on which only 10 people will ride than to do anything to fix I-84 through Hartford or I-95.

[Duke87]

Super 7 never has been and never will be a viable proposal. It passes through the backyards of too many wealthy, influential people who don't want it.

And you know what, that's fine. With the recent widenings in Wilton and Danbury, the existing road is now much better equipped to handle the traffic demand than it used to be.

What I would like to see, though, is the end of the freeway tied directly into the old road so that the dangerous intersection at Grist Mill Road can be eliminated.

[Mergingtraffic]

What I would like to see, though, is the end of the freeway tied directly into the old road so that the dangerous intersection at Grist Mill Road can be eliminated.

Actually Senator Bob Duff of Norwalk proposed that and almost immediately the political talk starts saying it's a sneaky start of the expressway to Danbury.  I agree, if the highway won't be completed then it should have a proper ending, like what they did in Brookfield. No reason why that can't be done in Norwalk

[Duke87]

Actually Senator Bob Duff of Norwalk proposed that and almost immediately the political talk starts saying it's a sneaky start of the expressway to Danbury.

Pff, people are silly. You could do it using land south of Grist Mill Road, with the tie in point being basically in exactly the same spot that route 7 currently leaves Maine Ave, in front of the DMV. In that case it would actually be a slight stunting of the freeway, forget sneaky extension.

Something like this (hasty sketch I threw together years ago):


Show people plans for that and I'm sure the objections would stop. If anything this firmly establishes that the expressway will always end there and no further north. People in Wilton and Ridgefield will like that!

[Mergingtraffic]

Actually Senator Bob Duff of Norwalk proposed that and almost immediately the political talk starts saying it's a sneaky start of the expressway to Danbury.

Pff, people are silly. You could do it using land south of Grist Mill Road, with the tie in point being basically in exactly the same spot that route 7 currently leaves Maine Ave, in front of the DMV. In that case it would actually be a slight stunting of the freeway, forget sneaky extension.

Something like this (hasty sketch I threw together years ago):


Show people plans for that and I'm sure the objections would stop. If anything this firmly establishes that the expressway will always end there and no further north. People in Wilton and Ridgefield will like that!

I never thought about it ending south of Grist Mill Rd.  Bob Duff wanted the highway to end at the southernly junction of CT-33 & US-7.  He said the state owns most of the land anyway.

[connroadgeek]

Doesn't CL&P have a right-of-way north of the ending of the highway? Could have sworn it's already clear cut north of there where high voltage lines and towers run to the Wilton substation. The one that got taken out during Sandy and Wilton residents complained because they were without power for over a week, yet fail to remember all the times they blocked CL&P wanting to make infrastructure upgrades in their town. Wilton might just be the worst town in the state when it comes to blocking infrastructure upgrades. This is a town that was dry not that long ago.

[Duke87]

Bob Duff wanted the highway to end at the southernly junction of CT-33 & US-7.  He said the state owns most of the land anyway.

They do, although they have been trying to sell it off since they've realized they're unlikely to ever have any use for it.

Doesn't CL&P have a right-of-way north of the ending of the highway? Could have sworn it's already clear cut north of there where high voltage lines and towers run to the Wilton substation.

I'm not sure whether CL&P actually owns the land or simply has easement rights, but yes, they do have lines running adjacent to the train tracks from Grist Mill to the substation, which is most of the segment in discussion. The state owned ROW reserved for the highway is immediately to the west of that. Except for immediately near the intersection with Grist Mill and immediately adjacent to the lines, though, the land is not clear cut, it is undeveloped but forested.

It is also worth noting that that segment of the highway would if built pass directly through where two ponds now are. The plan originally of course would have been to simply fill them in, but modern environmental regulation makes that impossible without recreating twice the acreage of wetlands elsewhere and makes it difficult to get through the courts when you inevitably have litigation even if you can manage to meet that condition.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Today I was in New Haven and our route took us on CT 34. They recently took down most of the old signage and replaced it with some new signs that look great. Next time I'm there I'll get some pictures. The traffic was horrible ever since they shifted the highway off onto N. Frontage Road. I think ConnDOT did a nice job with this project for once. I can't wait to see the finished product! 

[KEVIN_224]

http://wtnh.com/2014/08/18/first-of-ct-fastrak-buses-arrives/

One of the new CT Fastrak busses has arrived via Waterbury, of all places. One of the people quoted is Former New Britain Mayor Tim Stewart. His daughter Erin is our current mayor.

[Mergingtraffic]

when did CT start using reflective button copy?  I always thought it was around 1984 or 1985 based on a reflective button copy sign at the Exit 25 on-ramp to I-84 in Waterbury with a 10-85 date on the back. 

I base it on this:

NRBC (non-reflective button copy) was used until 1980 or so.  CT-8 SB has it in Beacon Falls, SB and my recollections are that the road in that area opened up around then.

However, roads that were opened or had new signage in 1981-1983 had demountable copy.  CT-25 in Bridgeport used it and there's a sign on CT-127 that has a date of 10-81 on it. Plus when I-84 was widened in Danbury in 1982-1983 from Exit 1-3 it also had demountable copy.  While the segment between exits 3-7 had reflective button copy when it was widened in 1986-1988.

However, in Hartford this past week, at the end of the Exit 48B off-ramp there's a reflective button copy sign with a 3-82 date on the back, so it kinda throws my theory out the window.

Any one know for sure?

[Duke87]

Your dates are probably right in a general sense. But I doubt there is any single date where you can say "everything installed before this date used standard X, and everything installed on or after this date used standard Y" since that's just not how things work. What standard is followed will depend on the date the sign was designed, not the date it was fabricated or the date it was installed.

CT may have decided early in 1982 to start using reflective button copy, but given the design cycle on things any signage installed over the next couple years as part of a major project would have been fabricated according to the old standards since the construction spec would have been written before the decision to make the change was made. Meanwhile, here and there signs might have started showing up according to the new standard sooner if they were one-off replacements (sign got hit by a truck, needed to have legend updated, etc.) rather than part of a major project.

So, the sign at exit 48B was probably a one-off, maybe even a pilot for the new idea. Meanwhile the signs from exits 1-3 were installed later but designed earlier.


For a more recent example of this in action, note how signage on the NJ Turnpike Widening between exits 6-9 is all according to the old turnpike standards while new signs elsewhere are MUTCD compliant, with some of the MUTCD compliant signs having gone up before the signs for the widening did by a year or two.

[Mergingtraffic]

Thanks Duke. kinda like today.  lol

btw: anybody have any old pictures of the old I-86 Connecticut signage? 

[agentsteel53]

So, the sign at exit 48B was probably a one-off, maybe even a pilot for the new idea.

always plenty of these floating around.  for example, did you know that California went to retroreflective green overhead signs not in 2002 but ... 1956?  Roseville Bypass (US-40, later I-80).  just an example of a one-off experiment.

and here's some I-86 photos:


1972


1985

[shadyjay]

However, in Hartford this past week, at the end of the Exit 48B off-ramp there's a reflective button copy sign with a 3-82 date on the back, so it kinda throws my theory out the window.

3-82 sounds awfully early for reflective button copy, especially in the Hartford area.  Earliest known installations of RBC I know of were on I-95 and I-395, and those had a 1985 date.  Since all the ramps in Hartford were reconstructed during the late 1980s or early 1990s, I can't see a 3-82 being valid... 3-92 maybe.  Or maybe it was relocated from somewhere else.  Still strikes me as a typo.

The opening of I-691 west of Exit 4/3 in Southington/Cheshire is another "phase overlap".  I believe I-691 was extended in the mid to late 1980s, with demountable copy (no buttons), during the same era when I-95 and I-395 signage was being replaced.  Shortly later, I-84 and I-384 were reconstructed with "DC" while CT 9 had its signage upgraded by 1989 with RBC. 

It would be interesting to see if ConnDOT had a file of all expressways in the state and what signage they have had over the years.  I've compiled a list but its quite incomplete.   

Still... so many unanswered questions:
Why didn't I take more pictures back in the 80s?  Did I-91 between New Haven and Rocky Hill (except Exits 21-22) have RBC?  What year was it traded out for "Phase IV"?   The early Phase IV, that is, with the "old-style" exit tabs.  I know the CT Turnpike in Branford and Guilford held onto its original signage until 1991-92, then went to the present RBC, but what about west of there?  What year was the original signage east of Madison traded in for the former demountable copy that was then replaced c 1999/2000 with the present signage? 

And of course the big question...
Why do I even wonder about this stuff?   

[Duke87]

It would be interesting to see if ConnDOT had a file of all expressways in the state and what signage they have had over the years.  I've compiled a list but its quite incomplete.   

Knowing the way these things work I'm sure they have tons of files you can dig through with information on individual projects but they most certainly don't have a neatly compiled list. The OCD/Roadgeek crowd may love the idea of such a list but I assure you the DOT has no practical use for one, certainly not enough practical use to spend resources making one.

[shadyjay]

The OCD/Roadgeek crowd may love the idea of such a list but I assure you the DOT has no practical use for one, certainly not enough practical use to spend resources making one.

Didn't think so.  Guess that's why we have these boards.... so we can all share information to help "fill in the blanks".

[Mergingtraffic]

However, in Hartford this past week, at the end of the Exit 48B off-ramp there's a reflective button copy sign with a 3-82 date on the back, so it kinda throws my theory out the window.

3-82 sounds awfully early for reflective button copy, especially in the Hartford area.  Earliest known installations of RBC I know of were on I-95 and I-395, and those had a 1985 date.  Since all the ramps in Hartford were reconstructed during the late 1980s or early 1990s, I can't see a 3-82 being valid... 3-92 maybe.  Or maybe it was relocated from somewhere else.  Still strikes me as a typo.

The opening of I-691 west of Exit 4/3 in Southington/Cheshire is another "phase overlap".  I believe I-691 was extended in the mid to late 1980s, with demountable copy (no buttons), during the same era when I-95 and I-395 signage was being replaced.  Shortly later, I-84 and I-384 were reconstructed with "DC" while CT 9 had its signage upgraded by 1989 with RBC. 

It would be interesting to see if ConnDOT had a file of all expressways in the state and what signage they have had over the years.  I've compiled a list but its quite incomplete.   

Still... so many unanswered questions:
Why didn't I take more pictures back in the 80s?  Did I-91 between New Haven and Rocky Hill (except Exits 21-22) have RBC?  What year was it traded out for "Phase IV"?   The early Phase IV, that is, with the "old-style" exit tabs.  I know the CT Turnpike in Branford and Guilford held onto its original signage until 1991-92, then went to the present RBC, but what about west of there?  What year was the original signage east of Madison traded in for the former demountable copy that was then replaced c 1999/2000 with the present signage? 

And of course the big question...
Why do I even wonder about this stuff?   

Also Shadyjay and Duke87....I noticed CT-8 in Beacon Falls, the SB side was opened first around 1980 and has NRBC, as you see here:



but the NB side in the same area opened up a couple of years later.  The signage on the NB side is RBC with a date of 1989 installation.  So, does that mean there was no signage until 1989 or does that mean there was NRBC up that was replaced about 6 years after it was installed? Seems kind of quick for signage replacement?

The similar is true with CT-40.

[agentsteel53]

was there once a white 42 shield on there that was replaced with an outline shield?

[shadyjay]

was there once a white 42 shield on there that was replaced with an outline shield?

Wouldn't surprise me.  Looking close, you can definitely see the outline of a larger shield.  And it's been known to happen elsewhere in CT.

[ctsignguy]

was there once a white 42 shield on there that was replaced with an outline shield?

Wouldn't surprise me.  Looking close, you can definitely see the outline of a larger shield.  And it's been known to happen elsewhere in CT.

Dont know how widespread it was, but at one time, ConnDOT would bolt on 24x24 CONN wood route shields onto their BGS.....I recall a few on the Connecticut Turnpike, and some on CONN 2, 9, and I-91....

[Mergingtraffic]

Only in CT folks:

State wants to put in a left-turn lane on CT-63 NB at CT-67 with a stop light.  It's a 3-way intersection.
Construction started this summer. 

NOW, residents are complaining about the traffic light and dont want it.  Im sure NIMBY and town character have something to do with it.

The other issue, talk of a traffic light goes all the way back to 1974!  Studies in the 1990s and early 2000s and work JUSt started in 2014.  WTF. 

THIS is why there is no Hartford Beltway.

http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20140818/klarides-wants-connecticut-dot-to-reassess-woodbridge-road-project

[Duke87]

The left turn lane would be beneficial. That intersection doesn't strike me as being in sore need of a signal for traffic count reasons although I can see where there would be a safety motive for it.

You are correct with your assessment of the sentiment, though. CT culturally abhors change. Building something new will always be met with intense opposition no matter what it is.


But I have to commend Klarides, at least, for being self-aware enough to concede that she is not an expert on the matter and is not qualified to make her own judgment on the engineering merit of the project. Too many people would insist they know better than the experts because they spent five minutes googling it and found some blogger writing about how traffic signals cause asthma.

[wytout]

CT sign practices update. Tolland Green, CT.  Noticed a little something taking a scenic route home and I will provide a photo asap.

New signage where 195 Ends at Route 74 in Tolland.  at the intersection there is a WEST 74 and EAST 74 sign facing the NB Terminus of 195.  Nestled between those two signs is a wide 3di shield with 195 on it.... and above it an "END" placard  i.e. END 195.  Historically, it is not CT practice to mark route ends, in fact I don't recall ever seeing it.  Are we seeing a pile of coincidental anomalies lately with state highway signage or a real shift/update in signing practices?