Should Connecticut sign its secondary routes?

[Streetman]

The other day a variable message board on US-1 in Milford CT announced a delay on Route 796. I was puzzled for a moment until I remembered that's the secondary route number of the Milford Parkway from I-95 to CT-15 / Wilbur Cross Pkwy. It got me thinking that it might be helpful to motorists for the state to sign its secondary routes, perhaps with a modified county route sign like my avatar. Has any other state undertaken a program to sign its previously "secret" routes, and what kind of signs did they use? I mean all or a large number of such routes, not an occasional one here and there.

[Big John]

Shouldn't this be posted here instead?  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.0

[dgolub]

On its official state maps, Connecticut shows the unsigned routes with ovals instead of squares/rectangles.  This would be consistent with what West Virginia does with its state-maintained county routes.

[Streetman]

Shouldn't this be posted here instead?  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.0

Thought about that but wanted to get perspective on what other states have done.

[Bitmapped]

On its official state maps, Connecticut shows the unsigned routes with ovals instead of squares/rectangles.  This would be consistent with what West Virginia does with its state-maintained county routes.

WV does sign its county routes as part of street name signage.

[jp the roadgeek]

A couple of LGS overpass signs have also revealed SSR's and SR's.  The Spencer St overpass of I-384 in Manchester has a CT 502 sign, plus the West St overpass of I-91 in Rocky Hill has a CT 411 sign.  Years ago, CTDOT signed the westbound Newtown Rd overpass of I-84 as SR 911 on the bridge itself (which is still there) but put Newtown Rd on the replacement LGS. 

[corco]

Many of them are effectively ramps with little  independent navigational purpose - what I think they should do is upgrade any of them which are more than a mile long or a freeway to full route status and sign them and leave the rest unsigned.

[kurumi]

In general, no; the numbers have value for inventory purposes but would add clutter to navigation.

Examples:
* all the tiny connecting roads from one signed route (or interchange ramp) to another
* roads like Silver Lane where most traffic is local, going to a house or business whose address is going to be "Silver Lane", not "SR 502"

The state did promote a few connecting routes to signed in the 1980s (319, 244, 234, 349) but then stopped.

I would promote a few more, but under certain criteria:
* connect two towns or areas where there is not already a direct connection
* has one or more interchanges of its own (not just the termini)

These could include: 796, 571, 695; 603, 476

(EDIT: basically what corco said as well)

[Streetman]

In general, no; the numbers have value for inventory purposes but would add clutter to navigation.

Examples:
* all the tiny connecting roads from one signed route (or interchange ramp) to another
* roads like Silver Lane where most traffic is local, going to a house or business whose address is going to be "Silver Lane", not "SR 502"

The state did promote a few connecting routes to signed in the 1980s (319, 244, 234, 349) but then stopped.

I would promote a few more, but under certain criteria:
* connect two towns or areas where there is not already a direct connection
* has one or more interchanges of its own (not just the termini)

These could include: 796, 571, 695; 603, 476

(EDIT: basically what corco said as well)

Agreed, not the long ramps, but there are probably a few dozen that could be useful.

[Quillz]

I'm a bit mixed, because I'm generally somewhat black-and-white when it comes to signage. I generally say either sign everything, or sign nothing. Signing some county/secondary highways is when you get really arbitrary.

[Duke87]

Connecticut does not have secondary routes, the correct term for them is "state service roads" (400s) or just "state roads" (500s-900s)

And anyway no, the entire point of this separate system is for inventorying of routes that don't justify signage. Sure, there are a few that maybe could justify such, but in that case it needs to be given a number under 400. Of which there are plenty available, so there's room for promotions.

[jp the roadgeek]

I came up with this idea a while back.

[epzik8]

If not, they need to instead not post internal information on VMS.