Connecticut News

[abqtraveler]

CT-8 Bridgeport to Shelton sign updates:

Some new BGS signs have sprouted up NB.  None SB yet.  An ATTRACTIONS sign is up for Exit 5.

"To CT-108 1 Mile" sign is up on the side of the road with no exit tab yet.  The button copy overheads are still up. Interestingly enough the old "To Ct 108" sign says 1/2 mile.  Since the new sign is not an overhead IDK where the Exit 9 Merritt Pkwy advance sign will go.

There's also a "Shelton Exits 11-14" BGS and a Park & Ride sign up too for Exit 8.

They are taking forever and a day on that project! A couple years ago, New York completed a full sign replacement project covering all 71 miles of its stretch of I-84 in less than a year. For this section covering 12 miles of Route 8 between I-95 and Shelton is in...what...its third year now?

[shadyjay]

Route 8 Bridgeport to Shelton project plans are dated summer 2018, so it probably went out to bid in the fall, so they've had a couple construction seasons now to make some progress.  There should be more than there is, however. 

Then there's the state spot overhead sign replacement program.  Let's take a look at that real quick: 

The 2017 version at my last check had about 7 sites still to go.  This includes 3 sites within the Route 8 re-signing limits and 2 sites within the Route 9 (northernmost) re-signing.  So maybe those are held up because of those projects.  The other two sites not yet done are the missing gantry on US 7 South in Norwalk before I-95 (is this up yet?) and the I-95 SB gantry at Exit 75 (which had foundations put in a year ago and no progress yet with new gantry). 

Then there's the 2018 version.  That version is down to a single gantry to go up on I-95 spanning all lanes, replacing two individual gantries. 

There was no 2019 version.  The 2020 version I don't expect to see any progress with that yet. 

And finally....

This is page 169 of this thread... there are 169 towns in Connecticut.   

[Mergingtraffic]

  The other two sites not yet done are the missing gantry on US 7 South in Norwalk before I-95 (is this up yet?)   

It is as the middle sign says "South Norwalk" and the Marittime Aquarium is omitted.  But the sign bridge after that still has the old signage up so drivers see old and new driving through.

1)  Any new logo signs up in your travels?  I see a new FOOD EXIT 12 sign on CT-8 SB that was knocked down last year.  It was put up last summer.

2)  Why on I-84 EB in Danbury you have mismatching pull throughs for the mainline.
Before Exit 3 EB you have a pull through "I-84 EAST Waterbury"  the next pull through says "TO US-7 NORTH New Milford" (no I-84 mention at all) and then the third pull through goes back to "I-84 EAST to US-7 NORTH New Milford Waterbury."  Is that even allowed to not mention I-84 on a pull through and change it to another route?

3) Found on Historic Images there used to be another Exit off-ramp on I-84 EB to Columbus Ave in Danbury.  That was taken out during the widening in the early 1980s.  Also, Exit 1 never existed before the widening either. 

[shadyjay]

1)  Any new logo signs up in your travels?  I see a new FOOD EXIT 12 sign on CT-8 SB that was knocked down last year.  It was put up last summer.

Haven't seen any.  I'm really not a huge fan of them, especially when they only have one logo on them.  The "Attractions" logo signs going up I am a huge fan of, as it simplifies things by putting a bunch of random signs together.  I-95 North Exit 83 has about a half dozen separate signs for its attractions, while southbound the signs have all been replaced with a single one that can list up to 6 attractions.  But signs for one food establishment seem like a waste. 

2)  Why on I-84 EB in Danbury you have mismatching pull throughs for the mainline.
Before Exit 3 EB you have a pull through "I-84 EAST Waterbury"  the next pull through says "TO US-7 NORTH New Milford" (no I-84 mention at all) and then the third pull through goes back to "I-84 EAST to US-7 NORTH New Milford Waterbury."  Is that even allowed to not mention I-84 on a pull through and change it to another route?

There are a few quirks when those signs were replaced in that area.  For instance, WB Exit 1 the last two signs appear to be reversed, as the "exit now" up arrow is on the second to last sign, with the last one just displaying "Exit Only".  Same goes for EB.  I'm not a huge fan of the random "TO US 7 NORTH" pull-through.  Maybe it should have been modified, with the down arrows replaced with "STAY ON I-84 EAST" or something to that effect.  Also replacing "Hartford" with "Waterbury" has always seemed odd to me.  Too bad dual control cities aren't generally permitted anymore.  Also, the random pull-through on I-84 West that is only a pull-through reminds me of the random ones on I-91 in Hartford and Enfield. 

3) Found on Historic Images there used to be another Exit off-ramp on I-84 EB to Columbus Ave in Danbury.  That was taken out during the widening in the early 1980s.  Also, Exit 1 never existed before the widening either. 

Interesting.  I've seen old maps also have a random rest area WB in the area.  Personally, I'd get rid of Exit 1 and widen to permit 3 continuous lanes from Exit 3 west to I-684. 

[abqtraveler]

1)  Any new logo signs up in your travels?  I see a new FOOD EXIT 12 sign on CT-8 SB that was knocked down last year.  It was put up last summer.

Haven't seen any.  I'm really not a huge fan of them, especially when they only have one logo on them.  The "Attractions" logo signs going up I am a huge fan of, as it simplifies things by putting a bunch of random signs together.  I-95 North Exit 83 has about a half dozen separate signs for its attractions, while southbound the signs have all been replaced with a single one that can list up to 6 attractions.  But signs for one food establishment seem like a waste. 

2)  Why on I-84 EB in Danbury you have mismatching pull throughs for the mainline.
Before Exit 3 EB you have a pull through "I-84 EAST Waterbury"  the next pull through says "TO US-7 NORTH New Milford" (no I-84 mention at all) and then the third pull through goes back to "I-84 EAST to US-7 NORTH New Milford Waterbury."  Is that even allowed to not mention I-84 on a pull through and change it to another route?

There are a few quirks when those signs were replaced in that area.  For instance, WB Exit 1 the last two signs appear to be reversed, as the "exit now" up arrow is on the second to last sign, with the last one just displaying "Exit Only".  Same goes for EB.  I'm not a huge fan of the random "TO US 7 NORTH" pull-through.  Maybe it should have been modified, with the down arrows replaced with "STAY ON I-84 EAST" or something to that effect.  Also replacing "Hartford" with "Waterbury" has always seemed odd to me.  Too bad dual control cities aren't generally permitted anymore.  Also, the random pull-through on I-84 West that is only a pull-through reminds me of the random ones on I-91 in Hartford and Enfield. 

3) Found on Historic Images there used to be another Exit off-ramp on I-84 EB to Columbus Ave in Danbury.  That was taken out during the widening in the early 1980s.  Also, Exit 1 never existed before the widening either. 

Interesting.  I've seen old maps also have a random rest area WB in the area.  Personally, I'd get rid of Exit 1 and widen to permit 3 continuous lanes from Exit 3 west to I-684.

If my memory serves me correctly, a lot of the changes related to I-84 Exits 1 and 2 were completed during the '80s when Union Carbide set up its headquarters on the west side of Danbury. Union Carbide also ponied up around $50 million to widen I-84 to 3 lanes through Danbury around the same timeframe.

[shadyjay]

Got a couple shots of the spot replacement sign on I-84 near Exits 57-58 in East Hartford.

Eastbound view, previously there was no sign here, and I have to wonder if the 1 1/4 mile advance on the overpass in the distance will be removed at some point...
http://DSC02247 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And westbound, which shows the route markers close together on the Exit 57 sign.  It doesn't look "terrible".  I'm sure a "blanket" sign replacement in this area would modify the sign once again, eliminating the "Charter Oak Br" reference. 
http://DSC02250 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And here's a couple from the I-91 Exit 29 relocation project, taken on CT 15 South.  The Exit 87 sign is new but the pull-through was moved from the old gantry, and will most likely be replaced at some point.  The overpass is the new 2-lane left exit from I-91 North to CT 15 North.
http://DSC02251 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And now at Exit 87.  As evident by the new sign, with Brainard Airport still listed, this was a spot replacement. 
DSC02253 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

On the ramp at Exit 87, with a second access to I-91 South.  This is a new installation, leaving out the airport. 
DSC02254 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


Crews were out working on the Exit 29 project, as well as the I-84 West Hartford "add a lane" project.  Not much new to report on the I-84 sign replacement from Exit 40-56, outside of a couple new town line signs (the surface road version), Attractions logo signs (in the miniature sheet aluminum version), and a couple new reassurance shields. 

On Route 9, some progress in the sign replacement SB in New Britain, as two monotube posts were up to support new gantries.  Just the posts... no overhead structure yet.  And no new signs.  However at Exit 22 NB, a "Lane Ends" sign was put up erroneously where a "Merging Traffic" sign should go.  Entering CT 9 SB from CT 99 SB at Exit 18, a couple "SOUTH 9" shields with the "9" angled wrong... I hope to god that's not a sign (no pun intented :-)) of things to come!

[southshore720]

I still think they should've corrected the control city for I-384 to Bolton and then had a supplemental sign "To US 6; Providence RI; USE I-384 EAST"  The dream of continuous highway access into RI is all but dead.

[shadyjay]

I still think they should've corrected the control city for I-384 to Bolton and then had a supplemental sign "To US 6; Providence RI; USE I-384 EAST"  The dream of continuous highway access into RI is all but dead.

This was a "one-off" sign replacement, and, unfortunately, I have a feeling that ConnDOT will change the destination when a full-blown I-84 sign replacement comes in that area.  The oldest signs in the state are now on I-84 in Manchester, dating back to the early 80s when the highway was rebuilt/widened  and I-384 built.

However, a part of me thinks Providence is OK for I-384.  Why?  Well, technically that route does take you to Providence.  Granted, you have to take a surface road (US 6) for most of the way, but it still is a direct route to Providence.  After all, I-84 is signed as "Boston" but stops in Sturbridge, then you have to take the Mass Pike.  I-95's control city for some of Mass. is signed as Boston, yet I-95 doesn't enter Boston and (from the north) you have to take US 1 (which isn't a freeway the whole way).  From the south, you take I-93. 

So, should I-384 get a new control city?  Perhaps, but instead of Bolton, I'd use Willimantic, or just keep Providence. 

[kurumi]

Having Boston and Bolton -- differing by one letter and 100x the population -- would look a little strange on the diagrammatic sign.

[shadyjay]

Got a shot of those odd looking 9s on the Exit 18 onramp to CT 9 South in Cromwell today.  I really hope these were replaced as part of a spot replacement and not part of the Exits 18-24 resigning project, cause if more of them sprout up.... ugh!

CT9SBonramp-Exit18 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

[odditude]

Got a shot of those odd looking 9s on the Exit 18 onramp to CT 9 South in Cromwell today.  I really hope these were replaced as part of a spot replacement and not part of the Exits 18-24 resigning project, cause if more of them sprout up.... ugh!

i've seen off-axis 6s on/around I-76 and I-676 in Philly as well - definitely an eyesore.

[RobbieL2415]

Last I heard it was shut down because the owners of the property owed a ton to the state in back taxes.

Re: the lamp pole; more than likely someone crashed into it. Happens a lot this time of year.

Finally, I recall someone posting about a few lengths of new gantry in the open area near the Roberts St. exit on I-84 East; the good news is that it isn't there anymore and now supports new signage for the Route 15 exit on I-84 West. Sadly that pretty new gantry hosts a ugly new sign for said exit. I don't have a picture of it as I was driving, but it looked like the sign shop put the 15 and I-91 route markers too close together and realized they had to slap a TO in what little space they left in between them. Kinda like this:

[15]TO(91)

I expect they'll probably be changing it at some point if they haven't already. Next time I'm out in East Hartford I'll have to look.

(Source: me, who drove it a couple weeks back on a trip home from one of Vernon's Polish bakeries)

Yeah, it's up and yeah, that test is a bit too close together.
The eastbound diagramatic and the rest of the westbound signage is good. I've heard they're going to replace the rest of that stretch in the summer.

[RobbieL2415]

I still think they should've corrected the control city for I-384 to Bolton and then had a supplemental sign "To US 6; Providence RI; USE I-384 EAST"  The dream of continuous highway access into RI is all but dead.

This was a "one-off" sign replacement, and, unfortunately, I have a feeling that ConnDOT will change the destination when a full-blown I-84 sign replacement comes in that area.  The oldest signs in the state are now on I-84 in Manchester, dating back to the early 80s when the highway was rebuilt/widened  and I-384 built.

However, a part of me thinks Providence is OK for I-384.  Why?  Well, technically that route does take you to Providence.  Granted, you have to take a surface road (US 6) for most of the way, but it still is a direct route to Providence.  After all, I-84 is signed as "Boston" but stops in Sturbridge, then you have to take the Mass Pike.  I-95's control city for some of Mass. is signed as Boston, yet I-95 doesn't enter Boston and (from the north) you have to take US 1 (which isn't a freeway the whole way).  From the south, you take I-93. 

So, should I-384 get a new control city?  Perhaps, but instead of Bolton, I'd use Willimantic, or just keep Providence.

I've said this several times before, but US 6 should just follow I-384 at exit 59. Then when exit numbers are replaced they can be based off of US 6s mileage. Then for supplemental signage you could have a BGS saying "Bolton, Willimantic, keep right"

[shadyjay]

There are currently no projects to cover the Exits 57-65 section of signs on I-84.  There are some spot replacements here n' there, but nothing on the docket, at least through the upcoming bids in 2021.  The current I-84 sign project is from Exits 39A-56 and will replace the last of the button copy on I-84.  The 1/4 mile Exit 59 diagrammatic attached to an overpass will be replaced with... get this... a ground diagrammatic, as part of the 2020 spot replacement project. 

I doubt US 6 would ever replace I-384.  I'd be more of a fan of having US 6 leave I-84 with US 44 at Connecticut Blvd in East Hartford, then have US 6/44 cosigned from there east to Exit 60 (they're already cosigned east of there).  The fact that US 6 stays on I-84, while US 44 exits, harkens back to when US 6 crossed the Connecticut River on the Charter Oak Bridge, then the only way it could get to Middle Tpke West to Manchester was via what is now I-84 Exit 60. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Personally, I'd rather see US 6 follow Silver Lane, Spencer St, and Center St.  Yes, there would be some slight one way routing idiosyncrasies between the Bulkeley Bridge and Main St.  The EB mainline would exit onto East River Dr then follow Pitkin St to Main St, while the westbound mainline would stay on Main St and utilize the 84 WB onramp.

[shadyjay]

I really hate CT 2 being signed on the Founder's Bridge and since much of US 6 gets lost in the I-84 shuffle through Hartford, I'd put it on Farmington Ave and thru downtown, leaving town on the Founders Bridge.  Then it could take the East River Drive->Silver->Spencer->Center route.  Route 2 would then "officially" begin/end at the Mixmaster. 

I'd leave out Bolton completely from any Exit 59 signage.  As kurumi suggested, it could confuse someone thinking it was Boston.  There's less confusion of it appearing on the Exit 66/Tunnel Rd sign (a local road vs an interstate). 

[RobbieL2415]

I really hate CT 2 being signed on the Founder's Bridge and since much of US 6 gets lost in the I-84 shuffle through Hartford, I'd put it on Farmington Ave and thru downtown, leaving town on the Founders Bridge.  Then it could take the East River Drive->Silver->Spencer->Center route.  Route 2 would then "officially" begin/end at the Mixmaster. 

I'd leave out Bolton completely from any Exit 59 signage.  As kurumi suggested, it could confuse someone thinking it was Boston.  There's less confusion of it appearing on the Exit 66/Tunnel Rd sign (a local road vs an interstate).

Tunnel Rd. is actually SR 533, which IMO should be signed as CT 85.

[shadyjay]

Finally, I-91 North Exit 15 gets a full size extruded aluminum guide sign!
91NB-Exit15-4 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

This project was an addition to the 2018 spot sign replacement project, hence why it has the same outline shields (similar to Mass) as those others replaced recently.  By my count, that leaves just two signs being replaced with one on I-95 in Bridgeport to complete the 2018 project.  The 2017 project still has half dozen+ sites to go, a good portion of them within the confines of other sign replacement projects (CT 8, CT 9-New Britain).  Replacing the I-95 South gantry at Exit 75 in SE CT is also in the 2017 project.  Outside of new supports, nothing has happened at that location in quite some time.  Maybe they're trying to finish the 2018 project and will go back to finish 2017, if its the same contractor.  As a side note, there was no 2019 project.

[RobbieL2415]

I've noticed on this sign and on the new one's on I-84 in East Hartford that they are using SR shields with thin border and not thick ones. IIRC I-395s replacement signs used thick borders.

[shadyjay]

I've noticed on this sign and on the new one's on I-84 in East Hartford that they are using SR shields with thin border and not thick ones. IIRC I-395s replacement signs used thick borders.

As I noted above...

This project was an addition to the 2018 spot sign replacement project, hence why it has the same outline shields (similar to Mass) as those others replaced recently.

I don't know why the outline shields are being used and hope that its just a one-off (or in this case, a 12-off as there's ~ 12 sites/signs in the contract) and not status quo for blanket sign replacements (such as CT 9, upcoming CT 2, etc)

[connroadgeek]

How do signs get screwed up? We can launch a rover into space and have it land in a five mile target zone on another planet seven months later, but can't print a proper 9 on a sign? Seems like there are tons of these errors on brand new signs. I thought this stuff was all computerized to make it less likely to mess it up.

[shadyjay]

And going north at that same exit, the CT 99 North sign has a north which is larger than the width of the "99" shield.  It just looks awkward.  But the 9's in that shield looked normal.  Now, let's wonder how many 9's were printed wrong, whether they'll be all put up, and whether or not a ConnDOT official will sign off on the contract in the field after viewing those 9's. 

When CT 8 signs were replaced from Thomaston to Winsted, they mistakingly put up CT 202 shields (instead of US 202 shields).  I can't remember which shield the contract plans had, but they were later replaced with the proper shields, after some time with the incorrect ones in place.

[Alps]

And going north at that same exit, the CT 99 North sign has a north which is larger than the width of the "99" shield.  It just looks awkward.  But the 9's in that shield looked normal.  Now, let's wonder how many 9's were printed wrong, whether they'll be all put up, and whether or not a ConnDOT official will sign off on the contract in the field after viewing those 9's. 

When CT 8 signs were replaced from Thomaston to Winsted, they mistakingly put up CT 202 shields (instead of US 202 shields).  I can't remember which shield the contract plans had, but they were later replaced with the proper shields, after some time with the incorrect ones in place.

I only saw the one lazy 9.

[abqtraveler]

Anyone have updates on the sign replacements/exit renumberings on Routes 9 and 72?

[shadyjay]

Anyone have updates on the sign replacements/exit renumberings on Routes 9 and 72?

From Feb. 11:

On Route 9, some progress in the sign replacement SB in New Britain, as two monotube posts were up to support new gantries.  Just the posts... no overhead structure yet.  And no new signs.  However at Exit 22 NB, a "Lane Ends" sign was put up erroneously where a "Merging Traffic" sign should go.  Entering CT 9 SB from CT 99 SB at Exit 18, a couple "SOUTH 9" shields with the "9" angled wrong... I hope to god that's not a sign (no pun intented :-)) of things to come!

Nothing new on CT 72 or SSR 571 as of Sunday, except a couple foundations.  Nothing new on CT 15 either.  Southern project (south of Exit 18) has only stakes marking new foundation locations.  I am keeping the CT 9 South Exit 11 "exit now" gantry as a pacesetter, since according to the contract plans, that was going to be first to go, to be replaced with a sheet aluminum until the new gantry/sign goes up.  I travel CT 9's southern half once every few days and the northern half every couple months or so.  If something changes, I'll post it.