Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PHLBOS]

And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don’t and why some do.

None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.

Granted, this is getting somewhat OT; but is such really a hard/fast rule for customized state route shields that aren't the generic MUTCD circle/oval nor have a black background behind the shield shape?

I would think that CTDOT-specific MUTCD would have a say on the matter.  In past years, state route shields on sign panels typically did not have the black border... unless the panel featured a white background (though a few signs along I-84's HOV lanes featured borderless route shields on white background panels) as you mentioned.  However, the recent change may be indeed based on updated CTDOT standards.

CTDOT's Sign Catalog (updated 7/3/2019) doesn't state either yay or nay on the matter, but the graphics shown on the Series 50 pages show state route signs with the black outline even on green sign panels.  OTOH, for US routes, the graphics do not show the black background when used on sign panels per the national MUTCD.

CTDOT isn't the only agency that, in many instances, no longer uses different-style state route shields for sign panels vs. free-standing installs.  For well over a decade, MassDOT includes the black offset border on its sign-panel-mounted state route shields.

[RobbieL2415]

And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don’t and why some do.

None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.

Granted, this is getting somewhat OT; but is such really a hard/fast rule for customized state route shields that aren't the generic MUTCD circle/oval nor have a black background behind the shield shape?

I would think that CTDOT-specific MUTCD would have a say on the matter.  In past years, state route shields on sign panels typically did not have the black border... unless the panel featured a white background (though a few signs along I-84's HOV lanes featured borderless route shields on white background panels) as you mentioned.  However, the recent change may be indeed based on updated CTDOT standards.

CTDOT's Sign Catalog (updated 7/3/2019) doesn't state either yay or nay on the matter, but the graphics shown on the Series 50 pages show state route signs with the black outline even on green sign panels.  OTOH, for US routes, the graphics do not show the black background when used on sign panels per the national MUTCD.

CTDOT isn't the only agency that, in many instances, no longer uses different-style state route shields for sign panels vs. free-standing installs.  For well over a decade, MassDOT includes the black offset border on its sign-panel-mounted state route shields.

What about WVDOT?  Their SR shield is the same.

[PHLBOS]

And once again, CTDOT is using the black borders on signage for state route shields.  Still have yet to figure out why some don’t and why some do.

None should. Black should only be the outermost color on a light background.

Granted, this is getting somewhat OT; but is such really a hard/fast rule for customized state route shields that aren't the generic MUTCD circle/oval nor have a black background behind the shield shape?

I would think that CTDOT-specific MUTCD would have a say on the matter.  In past years, state route shields on sign panels typically did not have the black border... unless the panel featured a white background (though a few signs along I-84's HOV lanes featured borderless route shields on white background panels) as you mentioned.  However, the recent change may be indeed based on updated CTDOT standards.

CTDOT's Sign Catalog (updated 7/3/2019) doesn't state either yay or nay on the matter, but the graphics shown on the Series 50 pages show state route signs with the black outline even on green sign panels.  OTOH, for US routes, the graphics do not show the black background when used on sign panels per the national MUTCD.

CTDOT isn't the only agency that, in many instances, no longer uses different-style state route shields for sign panels vs. free-standing installs.  For well over a decade, MassDOT includes the black offset border on its sign-panel-mounted state route shields.

What about WVDOT?  Their SR shield is the same.

Yes it is; but their state MUTCD criteria/standard for SR shields on sign panels could differ from CTDOT's criteria/standard.  As stated earlier, square/rectangular route shields aren't specified in the national MUTCD.

[Alps]

Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.

According to what standard? NJDOT uses twin U's for up to 50 SF. It depends on the channel section.

[roadman]

Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.

According to what standard? NJDOT uses twin U's for up to 50 SF. It depends on the channel section.

Quoting MassDOT standard.  And those CT channels don't look much beefier than the ones MassDOT uses.

[Alps]

Twin U-channel posts are good for a maximum load of 20 sf.  That new Waterbury sign is obviously larger than that, which means it will eventually fail.

According to what standard? NJDOT uses twin U's for up to 50 SF. It depends on the channel section.

Quoting MassDOT standard.  And those CT channels don't look much beefier than the ones MassDOT uses.

They don't look much beefier than what NJ uses either. I'd have to see CT specs.

[Mergingtraffic]

Sadly I think the LGSs at the on-ramps are a new policy.  I was in Newtown today on US-6 near Exit 10 of I-84 and the BGS at the Exit 10 on-ramp to I-84 East is now an LGS.  US-6 was widened in the area and the sign was part of the plans putting US-6 first on the sign rather than I-84 as US-6 multiplexes with I-84 east of there.

[PHLBOS]

If the below-article is accurate; Gov. Lamont's plan to place an AET gantry on the CT portion of I-684 appears to be dead-on arrival.  The push-back came from neighboring Westchester County, NY.

Border war over proposed I-684 Greenwich toll ends with nary a ding on a New York EZ Pass

With Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont’s highway toll plan in tatters, Westchester leaders welcomed the bipartisan opposition that arose across the state line, which signaled that the four-day war over a proposed toll gantry on a one-mile stretch of Interstate 684 in Greenwich had ended without a single ding on a New York E-Z Pass.

Connecticut Senate Democratic leaders from New Haven and Norwalk trashed Lamont’s plan on Thursday, saying that the toll plan lacked support in the state’s Democrat-controlled upper chamber. Instead, they suggested that legalizing sports betting and recreational marijuana would be a better way to finance the state’s dire transportation needs.

Then Connecticut Republicans, who have long opposed highway tolls, proposed tapping into the state’s reserves to help pay for repairs to the state’s roads, bridges, railroad lines and airports. It sent Connecticut policymakers back to the drawing board to find a more palatable financial fix for its infrastructure.

Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who had instructed County Attorney John Nonna to consider suing Connecticut if the plan moved forward, said he was relieved that the county did not have to gear up for the interstate legal battle in federal court.
...

State Sen. Shelley Mayer, D-Yonkers, whose district includes I-684 as far north as Bedford, applauded the Connecticut Senate Democrats who stood up against the plan. The I-684 toll station was a new addition to a plan Lamont had first aired in 2018, when he sought approval for 82 gantries around the state.

It had been reduced to 14 gantries on eight state roads under the plan he announced last week.

“It was done hastily, without thought, and with a punitive impact on New Yorkers,” she said. “It was not a thoughtful way to enhance the Connecticut infrastructure by imposing tolls on New Yorkers, without justification.”
...

Lamont’s inclusion of the Greenwich toll didn’t sit well with one of his fellow Greenwich Democrats, state Sen. Alex Bergstein, D-Greenwich, who said she was surprised to see the I-684 toll included in Lamont’s toll plan.

Bergstein’s state Senate website declares: “We are all neighbors.” While she supports tolls on major Connecticut highways, putting the cashless gantry on the sliver of 684 in Greenwich was one toll too many.

“I do not believe in taxation without representation, and I was surprised to see a proposed toll on 684 that runs from New York state into Connecticut for a short stretch,” she said. “I do not support fees on that portion of 684. However, I do believe that drivers using Connecticut’s major highways should contribute to their maintenance and improvement. New York and every state in our region has tolls for this reason.”

Upshoot: Gov. Lamont IMHO literally jumped the shark with at least this part of his tolling plan.

[jp the roadgeek]

The ironic thing: Bergstein, who opposed the toll on I-684, was the senator who introduced the tolls bill in the state legislature.  Guess she’s ok with tolls, as long as they don’t affect her by being in her district.  You just can’t make this stuff up.  This would be like if PennDOT put a toll on I-86 in South Waverly.

[cl94]

The ironic thing: Bergstein, who opposed the toll on I-684, was the senator who introduced the tolls bill in the state legislature.  Guess she’s ok with tolls, as long as they don’t affect her by being in her district.  You just can’t make this stuff up.  This would be like if PennDOT put a toll on I-86 in South Waverly.

Aren't a lot of politicians like that? "Hurt people all you want, just not those in my district!"

[RobbieL2415]

The debate about I-684 comes down to real property.  Is I-684 in CT, including its ROW and following utilities, still property of NYSDOT?  If it is then CT has no authority to erect tolls on it.

[The Ghostbuster]

Are tolls really going to get reimposed in Connecticut? Count me on the skeptical side. If tolls really are reimposed, they should be entirely electronically charged and collected. It seems to me like transportation in Connecticut follows the same pattern: Much talk, little action on implementing anything. It's almost as if the state is prepetually stuck in neutral.

[PHLBOS]

Are tolls really going to get reimposed in Connecticut?

At present & to my knowledge; nothing has officially been finalized nor submitted (to the feds) for approval.

Count me on the skeptical side.

Given Gov. Lamont's misfires on the matter, including the recent I-684 tolling-attempt debacle; I'm inclined to agree.

If tolls really are reimposed, they should be entirely electronically charged and collected.

Such is what's exactly being proposed (AET).  If AET didn't exist, any attempt to re-establish tolls in CT would've been an automatic non-starter given the infamous 1983 tollbooth pileup.

It seems to me like transportation in Connecticut follows the same pattern: Much talk, little action on implementing anything. It's almost as if the state is prepetually stuck in neutral.

Agree, but in this case; the later the implementation of tolls, the better.  Especially, and yes I'm going to get political here, since Candidate Lamont campaigned in 2018 for truck-only tolls (similar to what the feds approved for RI); his backpedalling on the matter (to charge tolls for every vehicle) could very well come back & bite him should he campaign for re-election come 2022.

[PHLBOS]

CT's proposed tolling soap-opera continues.  Now it's back to tolling just trucks-again a la RI (which did receive federal approval to do so).

House Democrats say tolling cars is off the table, propose truck-only tolls

HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH)– House Democratic leaders say that tolling cars is off the table and have proposed truck-only tolls at 12 sites across the state.

House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin) and House Majority Leader Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) are asking Governor Lamont to consider truck-only tolls on 12 of the 14 bridges in the Governor’s transportation proposal CT2030.

The proposal eliminates Rt. 9 and the Wilbur Cross and Merritt Parkways.
...
It is estimated that truck-only tolls could raise approximately $150 million annually.

[The Ghostbuster]

If trucks are the only vehicles that are going to be tolled, maybe trucks should be given their own lanes, and thus have those lanes tolled. In dense urban landscapes, building truck-only toll lanes would probably be quite a chore. In the end, I expect no vehicles will be tolled.

[cl94]

Truck tolls I see being much easier to implement. Yeah, there was SOME opposition, but market conditions in that area allow trucking companies to pass on the cost to the customer. The average voter doesn't care about truck tolls as it doesn't affect them, they only see new bridges.

[shadyjay]

Drove the length of the CT 8 signing project from Derby to Waterbury today.  All new guide signs are in place, along with secondary, regulatory, mile markers, and even those god awful sheet metal entrance signs. 

A couple signs within the project limits are listed as N.I.C. on the plans, for some reason.  These include two existing truss overheads in Naugatuck (one which retains button copy Phase III), and two 1980s-style "angled-support" gantries with button copy signs.  Why these oddballs were left out, I am not sure. 

RE:  sheet metal entrance signs replacing BGSs....
after checking upcoming sign projects (CT 8 from Bridgeport to Shelton, CT 9, I-84, etc), all those project plans show the traditional extruded aluminum on heavy steel posts.  So hopefully the Derby-Waterbury project is a one-off for the cheap way out for the entrance signs.


Here's a couple samples of the new signs on CT 8:

CT8NB-Exit15-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT8NB-Exit26-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT8NB-Exit30-1 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

CT8SB-Exit15-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Complete photo log available here: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157670186371584/page3

Also, on the way home, I stopped at the recently reopened Rest Area/Welcome Center on I-95 North in Westbrook.  The attendant said, at least for now, the rest area will remain open 7 days a week from 9am-6pm.  In years past, the rest area went to Thursday-Sunday hours for the winter season, and it is unclear whether that will resume this winter.  Unlike the other non-commercial rest areas in Connecticut, this rest area will not be open 24/7.  I don't believe it was ever open 24/7, as it isn't operated by ConnDOT like the others.   Given the hours the attendant stated, I'm assuming the other welcome centers in Connecticut (Danbury, N. Stonington, etc) will remain staffed 9am-6pm daily.  Those buildings are open 24/7. 

Its nice to see Connecticut giving a hoot about tourism again.  In the past couple years, RI has reopened its I-95 welcome center.  Meanwhile, most welcome centers in Massachusetts are boarded up and motorists get nothing more than port-o-lets in the parking lot, even at high noon. 

[RobbieL2415]

Update on I-91 Exit 29 project 11/25/19:

-Center median has been removed on I-91 from vic. exit 26-28 and CT 5/15 from exit 86 to bridge carrying I-91.
-Milling and paving began on I-91 N from Exit 26.
-The relocated Exit 89 from CT 5/15 NB has been completed.  Pavement removal has begun on the old ramp.
-Mold for support for the new flyover ramp is up, awaiting a pour.
-New reduce speed signs are up at various points in the site area
-Exit 28 loop has been paved

BE AWARE: in wet/winter conditions removed pavement markings can be slippery.  This is especially true for shoulder lines.

[KEVIN_224]

Nearby Brainard Airport (HFD) had 1.55 inches this weekend. I guess that would be a good way to test that scenario.

[zzyzx]

Visiting home for the week and checked out the new Costco near me.  They modified the ramps from exit 74 off 95 S to connect to a new frontage road and added new traffic signals and signage.  Check out the huge cutout 95 shields and notice no thick black border on the state route shields.






iPhone

[dgolub]

Complete photo log available here: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157670186371584/page3

Nice pictures!  I'll need to head up to Winsted and clinch that again some time next year.

[zzyzx]

I just noticed this sign right before the on ramp to 95 north at Exit 74.  Since when did CT start placing CalTrans like signage for a freeway entrance? Or could this have been the contractor for Costco who decided this?  I don’t know of any other “FREEWAY ENTRANCE” signs across the state:




iPhone

[KEVIN_224]

Heaven forbid they ever change the "9" with a vertical "THE"? I'm outta Connecticut for good!

[Alps]

I just noticed this sign right before the on ramp to 95 north at Exit 74.  Since when did CT start placing CalTrans like signage for a freeway entrance? Or could this have been the contractor for Costco who decided this?  I don’t know of any other “FREEWAY ENTRANCE” signs across the state:

The diagonal down arrow is not the correct type, but it's also not CT standard. Unless it is. I mean, it IS all in the MUTCD now.

[jp the roadgeek]

I just noticed this sign right before the on ramp to 95 north at Exit 74.  Since when did CT start placing CalTrans like signage for a freeway entrance? Or could this have been the contractor for Costco who decided this?  I don’t know of any other “FREEWAY ENTRANCE” signs across the state:

The diagonal down arrow is not the correct type, but it's also not CT standard. Unless it is. I mean, it IS all in the MUTCD now.

MassDOT is the only agency who regularly uses the diagonal down arrow, especially on BGS’s.  I’ve noticed a couple on BGS’s on CT 2; one at the CT 17 split and the other at the CT 11 split (both eastbound), but I don’t see it much in CT or other states.