Connecticut News

[ipeters61]

Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.

That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.

[shadyjay]

The signs that the current project are replacing are mid-1980s vintage "Phase III" button copy.  I don't remember what the pull-thrus at Exit 87 stated before those signs were replaced, but I do remember Exit 87 was "349/Clarence B Sharp Hwy/Industrial Area" and Exit 88 was "117 North Road/Noank/Groton Long Point".  And southbound the Exit 88 signs added an I-95 shield to them, which I believe was some sort of business route/spur and was only posted SB.  I wished I had taken pictures back then, but that was in the early 80s-1985 timeframe. 

[connroadgeek]

Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.

That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.

I believe Mystic is partly in Groton and Stonington. The only boundaries in CT that really matter are the town lines which divide tax towns as the state calls them.

[DJ Particle]

People have to realize that tolls on tractor-trailers only will eventually be subsidized by the people of CT (and even beyond) in the form of higher market prices for goods.  The trucking industry is not just going to absorb the increase in transportation costs to get goods to market.  So it's a Catch-22 for the taxpayers: either pay the tolls on the roads, or pay them in retail establishments, or both . Basically like asking whether you'd prefer a sharp stick in the eye, or under your fingernails.

Not to mention costs being passed down to the entire LI Sound/Narragansset Bay/Cape Cod Bay areas...as I-95 would still be the fastest way to get goods to those areas from points south.

[jon daly]

Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.

That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.

I believe Mystic is partly in Groton and Stonington. The only boundaries in CT that really matter are the town lines which divide tax towns as the state calls them.

This is correct. The river is the border and the village is on both sides.

[ipeters61]

Stonington as a control city? I probably would've used Warwick and Providence together.

That Stonington sign is older button copy, so it probably goes back to an older time.  Though bear in mind that Mystic is technically in Stonington.

I believe Mystic is partly in Groton and Stonington. The only boundaries in CT that really matter are the town lines which divide tax towns as the state calls them.

I am aware.  But isn't that Exit 87 sign already in Groton?  No point in using Groton as the control city for I-95 since it's already there.

[jp the roadgeek]

So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.

[ipeters61]

So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.

If I remember correctly, when they did the I-395 sign replacement/renumbering, all the new signs had a black border, as well.  Maybe the black bordering was an experiment, but they ultimately decided against it?

For a while I didn't really like the lack of border on the non-button copy signs (I've always been partial to the shield outlines on the button copy, but it would look weird on a non-button copy sign, I feel), but I think I've seen some with rounded corners on the state shields and I like that a lot better.  The ones with the border just feel like the border is too thick.  I get that CT's shield just has the thick border with black on the fringes, but I think Massachusetts shields make for a better border for a BGS (with a thinner border and white fringes).

[southshore720]

If I remember correctly, when they did the I-395 sign replacement/renumbering, all the new signs had a black border, as well.  Maybe the black bordering was an experiment, but they ultimately decided against it?

I think it depends on the contractor.  I prefer the use of the black border because it is the accurate shield for the State of CT that distinguishes itself from MA and RI.  I'm also proud when they get it right on RI's BGS by adding the "R.I." onto the shield as that is the accurate shield for RI.  I cringe when the contractor cheapens out and sticks a plain MA shield on there for either CT or RI.

[jon daly]

If I remember correctly, when they did the I-395 sign replacement/renumbering, all the new signs had a black border, as well.  Maybe the black bordering was an experiment, but they ultimately decided against it?

I think it depends on the contractor.  I prefer the use of the black border because it is the accurate shield for the State of CT that distinguishes itself from MA and RI.  I'm also proud when they get it right on RI's BGS by adding the "R.I." onto the shield as that is the accurate shield for RI.  I cringe when the contractor cheapens out and sticks a plain MA shield on there for either CT or RI.

I-95 southbound near the CT line has a BGS for CT exit 93 with RI-216 and RI-184 signs. Sure, you go a little south of there on 216 and you're in Ashaway, RI. But 184 never crosses the state line.

[RobbieL2415]

SR shields with the thicker black outline (IIRC) are official ConnDOT spec signs.  Thin-border ones are contract errors, probably due to laziness on their part ("hmmm, we have some leftover MassDOT sheets left...")

No one would confuse a ConnDOT shield for a WVDOT shield.

[ipeters61]

SR shields with the thicker black outline (IIRC) are official ConnDOT spec signs.  Thin-border ones are contract errors, probably due to laziness on their part ("hmmm, we have some leftover MassDOT sheets left...")

But isn't that what the standalone shields are supposed to be like?  Can't there be variation (especially regarding borders) on a BGS?  It appears that historically (pre-button copy outline), CT has used no border on a BGS. http://alpsroads.net/roads/ct/i-84/e2.html (note Exit 23 Exit Only signs and Exit 26 1/2 mile sign)

[roadman]

SR shields with the thicker black outline (IIRC) are official ConnDOT spec signs.  Thin-border ones are contract errors, probably due to laziness on their part ("hmmm, we have some leftover MassDOT sheets left...")

But isn't that what the standalone shields are supposed to be like?  Can't there be variation (especially regarding borders) on a BGS?  It appears that historically (pre-button copy outline), CT has used no border on a BGS. http://alpsroads.net/roads/ct/i-84/e2.html (note Exit 23 Exit Only signs and Exit 26 1/2 mile sign)

The "no border on a BGS shield" issue goes back to fabricators interpretation of the MUTCD.  Section 2E.27 of the 2009 MUTCD states:

Guidance:
Route signs (see Figure 2E-17) should be incorporated as cut-out shields or other distinctive shapes on large
directional guide signs.

Similar language has appeared in previous editions of the MUTCD, starting with the 1971 edition.  However, the phrase "cut-out" was not added until the 2000 MUTCD.

Because the black border on the CT shield is not inset, many fabricators would (and still do) omit it on shields for BGS panels to satisfy the MUTCD guidance.  MA shields on BGS panels were similar (no border) until the mid-1990s, when MassHighway directed all fabricators to include the border on these shields.  As the MA border is inset, including it on BGS shields does not contradict the MUTCD guidance.

[AMLNet49]

So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.

Neither design is the actual state design. However ConnDOT officially sanctions the thicker outline BGS plates (since 2009) because at least its closer. Before that it was just a white background with no outline, but any time new signs have no outline today it's contractor error.

Connecticut's state route shields are like Texas F&M roads: one design for the shield, separate design for the BGS plate, although again the newer BGS plates with the thick outlines are ConnDOT's attempt to get it as close as possible to the shield version.

That actually brings up a good point, how many states which don't use elongated interstate/US/SR shields carry this policy over to BGS plates too?  New Hampshire still doesn't use elongated standalone shields I believe, but I think they now do use elongated BGS plates for Interstates and US Routes. State routes though I think continue to use "squashed"  plates. I certainly remember back in the day NH having BGSs with narrow "squished"  BGS plates for I-293 or US 202.

[Pete from Boston]

What's going on with the disused I-291 ramps in Rocky Hill?  I briefly saw what looks like the beginnings of an elevated structure being erected along 91 southbound there today.

[shadyjay]

Perhaps work related to the replacement of the Route 160 overpass there?  The overpass is where the I-91 NB ramp to I-291 WB began. 

[KEVIN_224]

I thought the beginning of that ramp or bridge was removed several years ago?

[shadyjay]

The bridge being replaced is the Route 160/Elm St bridge, shown here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6600456,-72.6699186,488m/data=!3m1!1e3

A portion of the Rt 160 bridge spanned the former ramp from I-91 NB to I-291 WB, as seen here
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6591906,-72.6698392,3a,75y,343.66h,70.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH4pu70WVZDVdvGwmh7FKHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

When I-91 was widened from 3 to 4 lanes through the area years ago, the "bridge" which carried I-91 SB over I-291 WB was filled in and all concrete patches of the ramps removed, EXCEPT what would have been the I-291 EB ramp to I-91 SB.  Since that time, the remaining concrete ramp there has been used as a staging area for various highway projects. 

[KEVIN_224]

Pan your linked image a wee bit north. Two old ramps become visible.

[shadyjay]

Yup, and a little further north, the other half of the interchange, completely removed:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6706327,-72.6624563,438m/data=!3m1!1e3

Before the I-91 widening I described above, the far right lane of I-91 NB ended before Exit 23, and I-91 had 3 lanes up to the image linked in this post, where a 4th lane began on the left.  This would've served the I-291 EB to I-91 NB connection.  Southbound, there never was a direct ramp at Exit 25 so the 4th lane that is inherited there never existed.  Instead, a 4th lane appeared just before Exit 23, about where the overpass is being replaced and where I-291 EB would have met I-91 SB, on the ramp that still exists.

[abqtraveler]

Because it was built to accommodate the I-291 ghost ramps merging into the I-91 mainline beneath it, the Rt 160 overpass has a particularly long center span. IIRC, the Rt 160 overpass includes a pin-and-hanger assembly, which would be plenty enough reason to get that thing replaced as quickly as possible just to eliminate that fracture-critical component.

[RobbieL2415]

Do we have a project start date for I-91 Exit 29 reconstruction?

[shadyjay]

Bids are now due 1/9/2019 for the project, after being pushed back 3 times already.  So my guess is sometime in the spring, we should start seeing construction begin.  DOT has combined the Exit 29 project with a resurfacing/safety improvement project that goes south to the area of Exit 25 in Wethersfield. The actual Exit 29 project begins in vic. Exit 27 and continues north to just past present Exit 29.

[KEVIN_224]

So what's going on with the state shields in the sign replacement project, and for that matter, overall with sign replacements?  The ones on the Groton side of the Gold Star have the black borders around them, and look like someone just took a reassurance shield and applied it to a BGS.  Meanwhile, the New London signage (specifically the CT 32 shield) does not have a black border, nor do the ones in the Southington-Farmington I-84 replacement project (btw, going on 5 1/2 months now since the new signage for Exit 36 EB was installed and the old signage is still there.  Plus, the overhead signage and enhanced mile markers have yet to be completed).  CTDOT is quite inconsistent with their looks.

Neither design is the actual state design. However ConnDOT officially sanctions the thicker outline BGS plates (since 2009) because at least its closer. Before that it was just a white background with no outline, but any time new signs have no outline today it's contractor error.

Connecticut's state route shields are like Texas F&M roads: one design for the shield, separate design for the BGS plate, although again the newer BGS plates with the thick outlines are ConnDOT's attempt to get it as close as possible to the shield version.

This slightly leaning sign in Berlin is fairly recent. It replaced a matching shield which got knocked down by a driver the winter before or so.

[MikeCL]

Page 11 mentioned people want a direct expressway between I-84 and I-95.  Hmmm but if you read the media you'd think everyone is against it (Super 7).  It'll never be built, but people DO want it.

I-91 isn't?  CT-8 isn't? 

[edit] Oh, just noticed this is for Danbury.  What about I-684 in New York State?  It's not direct in that you need to jump over using I-287, but it's pretty close.

Oh man, I-684 is already congested as it it.  Ever try going from I-84 W to I-684 S on a weekday?  Always a one-mile backup for the ramp.  Plus, 684 is a longer route to I-95 than you think.  A compromise for US 7 would be to widen it to a Jersey freeway (50-55mph limit) and eliminate petty left turns.

God I remember I used to take that way man it's still hasn't changed I see..