Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Oh please god NO!  Keep it concrete.  Concrete roads are some of the smoothest and don't require a complete repaving every 10 years or so.  I-84 Exits 60-63 is actually in pretty good shape, and doesn't have many crack sealing marks.  I remember CT 9 had tons in the 80s before it was paved. 

[jp the roadgeek]

I see that the 48 A/B for Capitol/Asylum is one number.  Also, they fudged the CT 72 exit down to 48 to avoid an alphabet city.  Also see the 2 Exit 25's will have different numbers.  Surprised they didn't fudge 691 down to 39 to avoid the alphabet thing there. 

[shadyjay]

Keeping I-691 and Route 322 exits the same, but with A-B suffix lessens the effect that westbound the exits are out of sequence.  Just like every Exit 27 occurance on a 2DI in CT, in at least one direction.

What I'm not a fan of is why the exit to Rt 15 South/Charter Oak Br gets a suffixed number, while there is a "3 mile gap" between existing Exits 58 & 59?  2 miles, maybe, but not 3, and the fudge factor could allow for Exit 57 to get a full number, vs a suffixed one.

[jp the roadgeek]

What I'm not a fan of is why CTDOT puts CT 8 North as 32A and CT 8 South as 32B.  It's the same thing for the I-91 exits, as well as at the northern terminus of CT 9.  When you're traveling eastbound and intersect a north/south road, you would cross over/under the southbound lanes before the northbound lanes, so logically the southbound exit would have the lower in the alphabet suffix.  8 South should really be 32A.  Yes, the 91 North flyover comes before the 91 South exit, so you can make an argument there, but 9 North to 84 East should have been 40A and to 84 West 40B, but it's the other way around. They did it right at the east end of CT 72 and the west end of I-691

[vdeane]

What I'm not a fan of is why CTDOT puts CT 8 North as 32A and CT 8 South as 32B.  It's the same thing for the I-91 exits, as well as at the northern terminus of CT 9.  When you're traveling eastbound and intersect a north/south road, you would cross over/under the southbound lanes before the northbound lanes, so logically the southbound exit would have the lower in the alphabet suffix.  8 South should really be 32A.  Yes, the 91 North flyover comes before the 91 South exit, so you can make an argument there, but 9 North to 84 East should have been 40A and to 84 West 40B, but it's the other way around. They did it right at the east end of CT 72 and the west end of I-691

I've noticed that in NY too; in the cast of a split, the left exit gets the lower number, even if the reverse makes more sense to us.  The worst example is I-99, where both the left AND right lanes take "left exit 12" while "exits 13A-B" is the actual exit.  It gets weirder looking at the pre-I-99 imagery from 2013; "left exit 12" was just the thru lanes and "exits 13A-B" was exits 4A-B.

[shadyjay]

Drove CT 2 from East Hartford down to Colchester this afternoon, and we have some new changes:

First, a new overhead at Exit 5.  This portion of CT 2 East is going to get modified in a project starting soon, with the 3 lane section extending to Exit 6. 

20250427_123533 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


Second, and biggest news, is the changing of the destination for Exit 23, from "East Haddam" to "Colchester Ctr". 

20250427_125024 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

This is a much more logical destination.  I'm assuming "Colchester Ctr" was used since the previous exit is signed as "Colchester" (and under the previous signage was signed "Business Route/Colchester". 
I looked back at the exit now sign for the WB direction and "East Haddam" is still shown.  "East Hampton" makes more sense, but alas, "Bell Town" gets not even a mention on any sign on CT 2 now. 

I am curious what brought about the change of destination from "East Haddam" to "Colchester Ctr".  I never did send an e-mail to ConnDOT about it... wonder if someone else did, or if the town of Colchester itself requested the change.   Or, perhaps someone from ConnDOT was driving through and noticed it and was confused.  In any regard, I'm glad it was changed. 

[Ted$8roadFan]

Great to see the state use the shields with the black borders.

[shadyjay]

... but its very inconsistant. 

The CT 2 & CT 3 resigning projects have the black border, as does CT 9 south of Middletown.  North of Middletown, CT 9 & CT 72 resigning projects got borderless 2-digit squares (even for 3-digit routes).   The 2022 statewide spot sign replacement project used Mass-style outline shields (the contractor IIRC was Liddell, which is used in much of Mass, so maybe that's why), as did the I-691 corridor (not sure who had that contract - it was design-build).  Signs replaced as part of I-91's Exit 29 relocation were squares with no outlines (like the northern contract on CT 9).  I-91's resigning from North Haven up to Meriden also got squares with no outlines. 

Its possible the black border is the new standard for "blanket" sign replacement projects, having changed halfway through the CT 9 contracts.  We'll see when I-291, I-384 and the new CT 15 signs start going up.

[jp the roadgeek]

You want to see inconsistent?  Just travel a 2 mile stretch of I-84 in the area of Westfarms mall.  Eastbound, exit 39A signage is white shield, and Exit 40 is black border.  Westbound, both exits have MA spec shields. Not sure if the DOT office handling it has anything to do with it. 

And thank God CTDOT came to its senses and changed East Haddam to Colchester CTR on the CT 16 exit.  Sign projects need to allow for differences in signage for the same exit in opposite direction.  Middletown should be a control WB here; no one is going up to Exit 15 and using CT 66 to get to Middletown.   

[RobbieL2415]

The project to remove the pair of sweeper ramp to New London Tpke. from CT 17 S is out for bidding. They will be replaced with a roundabout on the opposite side of CT 17 where the current SB offramp is located.
Project # 0053-0189

[Ted$8roadFan]

The project to remove the pair of sweeper ramp to New London Tpke. from CT 17 S is out for bidding. They will be replaced with a roundabout on the opposite side of CT 17 where the current SB offramp is located.
Project # 0053-0189

That'll be interesting to see. Having driven through that area many times, it'll be interesting to see how it goes. I'd imagine the state will need to add significant signage to get drivers to slow down fairly quickly, as they are used to driving at expressway speeds in that area, especially continuing on CT-17 South. 

[shadyjay]

Roundabout won't be on the freeway mainline, but at the end of an existing offramp, where it meets New London Turnpike.  Don't give ConnDOT any ideas with roundabouts on the mainlines themselves.

The whole reason why that strange "left exit" exists is because that was the mainline of CT 2 East.  When the freeway upgrades began, first on the list was the Glastonbury Expressway, which is today's CT 17 from Main St in Glastonbury, past New London Turnpike, past the existing CT 2/17 merge, and up to East Hartford.  No expressway existed east of CT 17, with "New London Turnpike" being signed CT 2, and following such route down towards Marlborough, Colchester, and into Norwich.  Eventually the CT 2 freeway was built on its present alignment, leaving the Glastonbury Expressway at the present CT 17 interchange/Exit 5/former Exit 7, and striking a coarse southeast to Colchester, then east to Norwich.  The old surface roads of New London Turnpike, et al, were given back to the towns.

Before the Glastonbury Expressway, I'm assuming CT 2 came straight down Main St to the center of Glastonbury, then a left onto New London Turnpike.  Further south/east, in some places, the original road was abandoned, with the freeway taking its part.  That's why there are so many half interchanges down that way... from "Thompson St/Wassuc Rd" to "West Rd/Portland Rd" and from "S Main St" to "CT 149", the original surface Route 2 was abandoned when the freeway was built. 

[relaxok]

Here's what I gather for the renumbering.  I fudged I-691 down to 39 and put the I-91 exits for the destination (62C for SB and 62D for NB).  Also added some wishful thinking signage (CT 173 shields for South Main St, Flatbush Ave being the better way to New Park Ave WB, West Blvd on Sisson Ave, TO US 44 WEST on EB signage for Main St)

This makes me so sad - I wish my home area stayed the same.. I guess i'll have to make do with 'old exit' tabs..

[Ted$8roadFan]

Having seen the plans and older maps, it makes sense. I wonder what the state/town will do with the land freed from the ramp that is to be removed.

[kurumi]

Before the Glastonbury Expressway, I'm assuming CT 2 came straight down Main St to the center of Glastonbury, then a left onto New London Turnpike. 

That's true. The 3-way intersection of Hebron Ave (old CT 94) with Main St (old 2/15/17) was originally 4-way, with the New London Turnpike leg heading southeast. New London Turnpike was realigned in the mid-1970s to develop some commercial sites (Fox Run Mall, Glen Lochen, etc.)

[RobbieL2415]

Having seen the plans and older maps, it makes sense. I wonder what the state/town will do with the land freed from the ramp that is to be removed.

Probably nothing because the EB/SB ramp from CT 2 is in the middle of the interchange. The crossunder at CT 17 NB will be backfilled and the overpass at New London Tpke. will be removed.

But removing it does eliminate the 5-way intersection at Williams and Oak Sts.

[MikeCL]

Oh please god NO!  Keep it concrete.  Concrete roads are some of the smoothest and don't require a complete repaving every 10 years or so.  I-84 Exits 60-63 is actually in pretty good shape, and doesn't have many crack sealing marks.  I remember CT 9 had tons in the 80s before it was paved. 

I love concrete roads, the NY/CT boarder went so long before they paved it.. I want to say 20+ years.. plus the joint sounds are relaxing lol

[shadyjay]

What's this... a new "END" sign?  A definite rareity in CT.   
 
CT 42 approaching CT 10, Cheshire

DSC07000 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

[kurumi]

What's this... a new "END" sign?  A definite rarity in CT. 
 
CT 42 approaching CT 10, Cheshire

I remember an "END 349" sign that isn't there anymore.

The only one I know of is "END 58" in Bethel: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cG7Z1jh7XF2Ek8dJ6

[jp the roadgeek]

What's this... a new "END" sign?  A definite rarity in CT. 
 
CT 42 approaching CT 10, Cheshire

I remember an "END 349" sign that isn't there anymore.

The only one I know of is "END 58" in Bethel: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cG7Z1jh7XF2Ek8dJ6

Funny you bring this up.  The erroneous END sign has re-emerged at the east end of CT 72.  A new 72 ENDS 9 BEGINS sign has been put up in lieu of the 0 mile marker, this time with black border shields.  Didn't get a pic as I was late to a function.

[74/171FAN]

What's this... a new "END" sign?  A definite rareity in CT.   
 
CT 42 approaching CT 10, Cheshire

I cannot remember if that end sign was there during @Dougtone's Connecticut Meet in 2022 or not.  Maybe @Duke87 or @corco would know.

[RobbieL2415]

What's this... a new "END" sign?  A definite rareity in CT.   
 
CT 42 approaching CT 10, Cheshire

DSC07000 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Joke's on you, that's actually WV 42 ending at the JCT of WV 10. There just happened to be a car with CT plates in your photo.

[shadyjay]

Sign replacement contract is now out for bid, covering I-91 from Exit 40 to the Mass state line as well as the short CT 190 expressway. 

Items of note:

This removes all pull-thrus within the project limits, including spot replacements at NB Exit 42 & SB Exits 41 & 40. 

Attractions get the shaft... not even any sheets. 

"5 SOUTH"remains the route designation at Exit 44.  Guess they really don't want to advertise US 5 North off I-91 for this exit.

Some interesting mileage signs for the Exit 47 cloverleaf... we get a 2 mile, 1 mile, 3/4 mile combo sign (E-W) then the only split signage we get is at Exit 47-E. 

Thompsonville is gone from Exit 48 signage, and moved to Exit 49.  CT signage will now be the same as those that went up in Mass for CT Exit 49 during Mass' last sign replacement project on I-91. 

[jp the roadgeek]

That 5 SOUTH thing totally drives me nuts.  Why they can use that there but couldn't use 322 WEST for I-691 Exit 5 or CT 99 NORTH for CT 9 Exit 25 is beyond me.  It's not like US 5 is joining/leaving the mainline at that point. 

Have to wonder if/when signage and exit numbers for CT 20 will be included in a contract.  Would've made sense here, but then again, when does anything ever make sense to CTDOT?

[shadyjay]

The "state projects scheduled for advertising" reveals the next I-91 sign replacement:

4/22/2026  --   I-91  - Signs & Exit Renumbering

No doubt this will replace the last of the "old signage" from Hartford up to Windsor Locks, plus the isolated pieces of old signage in New Haven and from Middletown up to Rocky Hill, and then convert the whole road to mileage-based numbers.