Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Dear ConnDOT:
No.

New gantries go BEHIND existing, so that you can see the signs. If you need to put it in front, put up temporary signs plz.

As much of a critic I am of ConnDOT; in this case, the likely reasoning for placing the new gantry in front of the existing gantry is due to the gore location with respect to the gantry.

That said & if that's the reason for doing such; I do agree that temporary signs or even portable VMS' should've been provided until the new signs are actually erected.

Judging by the number of support brackets on that new gantry; it would appear that the upcoming new pull-through sign for CT 66 eastbound will be larger and have more information (control city/cities) on the panel.

The outer two signs will be "status quo", with the exception of advances in CTDOT signage practices (aligned exit tabs, LEFT on Exit 11 incorporated into the exit tab, the angled arrow in the "EXIT ONLY" banner), the center pull-through will become:

691  EAST
   TO
66  EAST

While this is at odds with the 1/2 mile advance assembly for Exit 10 (which just has the "EAST 66" pullthrough), the sign assembly at Exit 11 will have its "EAST 66" replaced with "BEGIN 66 EAST". 

Now what really grinds my gears is that, in a couple years or whenever I-691 signs get replaced en masse (and exits renumbered), that Exit 11 sign will most likely get replaced again, as the move to a single control city takes place.  Not sure why this couldn't be incorporated into this project, but just seems wasteful to fabricate a sign, only to have it removed and replaced again in a couple years.  Same will probably go for the Exit 10 sign, as it will most likely loose "W. Cross Pkwy".  Personally, I see nothing wrong with two control cities on a sign. 

Signs on this portion of I-691 were originally installed in the late 1980s, IIRC.  There's been a couple spot replacements here n' there.  There's an upcoming "safety improvement project" for I-691 on the horizon, but not sure if that's going to include sign replacement. 


And as far as when CT 72 will get new numbers, that project is part of the CT 9 sign replacement from New Britain up to I-84.  I believe a contractor has been selected and some preliminary work is underway.  I did observe some stakes where new signs will go, at least on the Cromwell to Berlin project which was announced at that same time.  It's still early in the contract to see significant visible evidence.

[jon daly]

Never seen it in person, but saw it on the eastcoastroads.com site, and on Google maps, on CT 110:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2869891,-73.081629,3a,25.9y,104.18h,86.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKsExG7dHTV3gcT1I5gV4tQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Since we've gone "there", here's an erroneous US 15 shield in Meriden:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5440791,-72.7849245,3a,15y,60.26h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUHVX_kSbu9IIKtgh3fQrXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not sure of any others in the state, though I know there are numerous erroneous CT 1, 5, and 6 shields scattered about.

Not sure if this will work, but there's a CT 6 shield at the intersection of Lake Street and Cider Mill Road in Bolton. I think that it's actually an upside down CT 9 sign.


Link.

[jon daly]

Cool! I figured out how to link Streetview images. I switched jobs last month. My commute is no longer Mystic to Johnston, RI. It's the even longer Mystic to Windsor commute for the time being. The following sign on CT 11 southbound irks me more than the CT 6 sign. The state park is Devil's Hopyard not Devils Hopyard. It's not like CT doesn't use apostrophes on signs. There's the slangy "LET 'EM WORK, LET 'EM LIVE" signs. But there's also two tourist attractions named after Eugene O'Neill and the Attractions Signs for those have apostrophes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4749477,-72.2945812,3a,37y,142.13h,88.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6tJFPYot2sO2M_ePgZnrLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Anytime someone gets pedantic about the English language online, he'll make an error. I'm sure that there's one in this post.

[TravelingBethelite]

Never seen it in person, but saw it on the eastcoastroads.com site, and on Google maps, on CT 110:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2869891,-73.081629,3a,25.9y,104.18h,86.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKsExG7dHTV3gcT1I5gV4tQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Since we've gone "there", here's an erroneous US 15 shield in Meriden:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5440791,-72.7849245,3a,15y,60.26h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUHVX_kSbu9IIKtgh3fQrXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not sure of any others in the state, though I know there are numerous erroneous CT 1, 5, and 6 shields scattered about.

Thank you! That's the exact sign I was talking about. I've been looking for that sign for years.

[KEVIN_224]

A former coworker of mine lives along that street in Meriden. He can confirm that it's still there.

[jp the roadgeek]

Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

[abqtraveler]

Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

That would violate the standard exit numbering convention for east-west routes. The standard convention is for exit numbers and mile markers to start at the western end and increase heading east.

[PHLBOS]

Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

That would violate the standard exit numbering convention for east-west routes. The standard convention is for exit numbers and mile markers to start at the western end and increase heading east.

You beat me to the punch.  Additionally, the current sequential numbered interchanges for I-691 start at the I-84 interchange (current Exits 1 & 2) and increase eastward to I-91.

[RobbieL2415]

A BEGIN sign??  That would be a new one for ConnDOT.

[kurumi]

Here is how I would envision 691 looking after the renumbering:

That would violate the standard exit numbering convention for east-west routes. The standard convention is for exit numbers and mile markers to start at the western end and increase heading east.

You beat me to the punch.  Additionally, the current sequential numbered interchanges for I-691 start at the I-84 interchange (current Exits 1 & 2) and increase eastward to I-91.

JP's exit numbers follow the mileposts on I-691 in the state highway log, which are indeed "backwards" (east to west).

I hope ConnDOT leaves the more familiar west-to-east convention in place and uses "9 minus X" (approx.) for the mileage-based numbers, but I haven't seen the plans.

[jp the roadgeek]

The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.  I originally had the numbers East-West but realized they wouldn't be when CTDOT numbered CT 72 that way.  Otherwise you'd have 2, 4, 6, 7A, 7B, and the 91/15's would all be 8's (assuming the 84 ramps would no longer be numbered in following the pattern at the north end of CT 9).   It actually makes numbering the 91/15 interchange easier going East-West because you'd have 1A for 91 North, 1B for 91/15 south, and the partial to 15 North would be 1C.  Otherwise you'd have 8A being the partial and wonder where 8A was going EB.  The Preston and West Main exits on 66 use 66 mileage, hence the plain 1's.

And there is one BEGIN sign in CT: on the ramp from 72 East to 9 South (although CT 9 doesn't officially "Begin"  there.) Wish there would be more END signs than just the one on CT 4 at Boulevard in West Hartford.

[PHLBOS]

The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West. 
...
Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.

Given the above, then why were the sequential numbers for I-691 set going eastward in the first place?

As far as the 3DI's mileage typically starting from its parent logic is concerned: while such seems to be true for either spur routes (odd 3DIs) and bypass/beltway even 2DIs; such certainly wasn't the case for I-376 in the Greater Pittsburgh area both before and after it took over much of PA 60 & the lower part of I-279.  Such always had its highest exit number/milepost located at its terminus at its I-76 parent (PA Turnpike Exit 57) east of Pittsburgh.

Bottom line & IMHO; I-691's mile marker-based interchange numbers should follow the conventional west-to-east arrangement for consistency if nothing else.  I just checked GSV; mile markers along I-691 are either very scarce or non-existent.

[vdeane]

The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.

Is that actually a rule or something certain states made up for themselves?  It's certainly not the case in NY.

Regarding it being north-south... why?  What it planned to extend further?

Although starting at I-91 would allow CT 66 to start at 0 without resetting anything, but wouldn't the duplicative numbers in a short distance be confusing?

[shadyjay]

There are no mile markers along I-691.  I just drove it again this past weekend.  I don't believe I-291 or I-384 carry any mile markers either.  And CT 72 doesn't have any numbers either. 

I-691 exits were numbered that way long before I-691 was even in the picture... before the late 1980s, it was CT 66, and the highway ended at Exit 4 until c 1985.  In fact, it was signed as "EXIT 4/"66"/SOUTHINGTON".  It wasn't until the highway was built to I-84 when it became I-691.  There used to be a sign "NOTICE/66 IS NOW 691" just before Exit 11, westbound. 

I agree the exit numbers should proceed from west to east, regardless of internal mileage.  But obviously any plan to convert to mile-based exits would also include installation of MUTCD-compliant mileposts, and if the internal mileage is used, then we're going to get exit numbers that run east to west.  As far as how E Main St/Preston Ave exit gets handled, I'd prefer to see it numbered as part of I-691, as having another Exit 1 thrown in the mix would be damn confusing to many.  Perhaps though that is why the "END 691/BEGIN 66" is being made more prominent on the spot sign replacements.  Right now, motorists see the first CT 66 East pull-though just east of Exit 8, and westbound, the first is right at the start of the expressway.

[jp the roadgeek]

The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.

Is that actually a rule or something certain states made up for themselves?  It's certainly not the case in NY.

Regarding it being north-south... why?  What it planned to extend further?

Although starting at I-91 would allow CT 66 to start at 0 without resetting anything, but wouldn't the duplicative numbers in a short distance be confusing?

The original plan, when the road was US 6A (the CT 66 designation didn't come along until the mid 60's) was to extend the freeway east all the way to Willimantic.  Kurumi and Steve Anderson have articles dedicated to this.   The I-691 designation came along circa 1976.  The portion from CT 322 to CT 10 opened in late 1985, and opened to I-84 in 1988.  The killing of the highway east of its current terminus as CT 66 predated the I-691 creation.  CTDOT has other routes that are logged differently than signed.  Besides the two mentioned, CT 31 and CT 67 are signed North-South but logged East-West.  As for the numbers, there technically would be no exact duplicates.  You'd have the 1's on 66 and 1A, 1B, and 1C (WB only) on 691.  Really no different than the current 39/39A or 25/25A setups on I-84.

[Duke87]

Regarding it being north-south... why?

I don't think there is some specific justification as to why. It being north-south reflects a lack of thought being put into how to inventory it, because the inventorying was never intended to be for anything other than internal purposes so it wasn't considered important that it make any sense to the public.

Fast forward several decades, and the mandate to use mile-based exit numbers suddenly puts the state in the awkward position of needing to either redo the inventorying of the road to flip its direction around (and create internal mess and confusion in the process), or leave the existing inventorying alone and accept that mile markers and exit numbers will be signed "backwards" from standard convention.

The latter option was easier for the DOT, and the fact that the exit numbers are "backwards" is frankly one of those things that the average non-roadgeek motorist won't notice or care about.

[deathtopumpkins]

To put this to rest, no, there is no rule that 3di exit numbering starts at the parent. It always goes W-E or S-N per the MUTCD.

MUTCD begs to differ:

14 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20).

The above rule only applies to odd numbered 3dis though, as even numbered are supposed to follow the directional convention.

[PHLBOS]

To put this to rest, no, there is no rule that 3di exit numbering starts at the parent. It always goes W-E or S-N per the MUTCD.

MUTCD begs to differ:

14 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20).

The above rule only applies to odd numbered 3dis though, as even numbered are supposed to follow the directional convention.

As mentioned earlier, and yes I know this is a CT-topic thread, I-376 in western PA never followed that MUTCD convention since its 1972 inception.

[Alps]

To put this to rest, no, there is no rule that 3di exit numbering starts at the parent. It always goes W-E or S-N per the MUTCD.

MUTCD begs to differ:

14 Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route (see Figure 2E-20).

The above rule only applies to odd numbered 3dis though, as even numbered are supposed to follow the directional convention.

I caught that as I reread my reply this morning. I removed it. I will stop being wrong now.

[abqtraveler]

The numbers on 691 will go East to West for 2 reasons: the CT log officially designates 691 as a North-South route but signs it East-West.  This is the same reason why CT 72's numbers will start at CT 9 and head west rather than starting at 14 for CT 177 and end at 19B for CT 71.  Secondly, mileage on a 3DI usually starts at its parent; if we wanted to keep the numbers East-West, you'd have to renumber 691 as an I-x84.  I originally had the numbers East-West but realized they wouldn't be when CTDOT numbered CT 72 that way.

Why CONNDOT would record I-691 in its route logs as a north-south route makes no sense as it clearly runs east-west. Comparing I-691's situation to Route 72, there is a big difference where logging Route 72 as a north-south route makes some degree of sense. Looking at Route 72 on a map one will see that it has a dog-leg shape that runs east-west from Route 9 to US-6 near Terryville, and then runs north-south from US-6 to Route 4 near Harwinton.  In contrast, I-691 runs almost on a due east-west alignment with no real jog to the north or south anywhere along the route.

[kurumi]

I-691's log direction is westbound (which is opposite to the usual eastbound), but not north-south:

[PHLBOS]

Apparently, Gov. Lamont has pulled the brakes on his truck-toll plan (which still included the short piece of I-684 in Greenwich, CT IIRC)... for now.

Lamont vents frustration with General Assembly and abandons tolls

After a year of prodding the Democratic majority in the General Assembly, Gov. Ned Lamont on Wednesday abruptly slammed the brakes on his plan for trucks-only highway tolls, admitting defeat and lambasting the legislature for its reticence.

But even as he hastily called a news conference in his Capitol office, Democratic leaders insisted that they could muster the support for a dozen tolls next week. Lamont said he was tired of their procrastination, and vowed that his plan to fix highways and railroad lines will go forward, with state taxpayers shouldering the full freight rather than gathering revenue from interstate trucks.
...

"I have a legislature that doesn't want to make a choice at this time,"  a terse, visibly frustrated Lamont told reporters after 4 p.m. "I've lost patience. I think it's time to take a pause. If these guys aren't willing to step up and vote, I'm going to solve this problem. Right now we're going to go back to the way we've done it for years in this state. We both agree, we need $19 to $20 billion. I'm going to do that out of pocket. I hate to do it this way."
...

At around the time that Lamont was venting to reporters in the Capitol, Democratic leaders said they still hold out hope for a vote on tolls next week. So it's not entirely clear whether tolls are dead for the year, depending on what Lamont's bonding alternative turns out to be.

Two of the biggest opponents of tolls, House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby and Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, told reporters that parking the toll legislation is politically expedient, especially at this point in the first month of the short, 13-week budget-adjustment session of the General Assembly.

"Nothing is dead in this building,"  Fasano said, adding he'd be surprised if this issue was revived this session. "In 2021? I think you can bank on it."

"I think and I'm hoping that the House Democrats understand what the Senate Democrats seem to have understood for a while and that's that this is not a good vote and it's a very risky vote for them because the people of Connecticut don't like it and they do not want their hands stuck in their pocket one more time,"  Klarides said.
...

Patrick Sasser of Stamford, a firefighter who is the informal leader of the No Tolls CT movement, was optimistic at the apparent death of the proposal. "I'm happy the governor will be moving away from tolls,"  Sasser said. "I am hopeful that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle can come together to find a solution that works for the people of Connecticut."

Asked by reporters about his opinion of the opposition to tolls, Lamont snapped: "It's a grassroots movement to do nothing."

Told about Lamont's comment, Sasser, took a different view.

"The voice of the people has been heard,"  he said. "It's been clear from day one that the people of Connecticut were not in favor of tolls coming into the state, and part of that is that they just don't trust another source of revenue,"  Sasser said. "We've seen this before, where these other things were supposed to save Connecticut and we've been spiraling out of control. What people really want to see in Connecticut is reform...and that's what this movement has been about."

[Duke87]

And once again... my stance of "I'll believe it when I see it" on this matter is upheld.

[PHLBOS]

And once again... my stance of "I'll believe it when I see it" on this matter is upheld.

This is one of those times where taking the Doubting Thomas stand is completely valid.

That said, it might be prudent for the CT legislature to wait until anyone who was around during the 1983 Mianus Bridge collapse is long dead & gone (i.e. their version of the Warren Commission) before presenting a bill to reintroduce tolls.

[KEVIN_224]

I was 12 when that happened. I don't plan on dropping dead. Then again, I don't make or propose any laws in this state.