Connecticut News

[bmitchelf]

CT 218 in Bloomfield will be getting a computerized traffic signal system (CTSS) in 2026:
https://portal.ct.gov/dotbloomfield0011-0160

it's a replacement

[DrSmith]

Today on the VMS on 91 south prior to the 84 interchange, it was advertising for road work on Route 598 West. No one knows what that is...it's a secret route number. It'd be more useful if it said Conland-Whitehead Hwy.

[shadyjay]

I saw that too, and tried to get a pic but it slipped by me.  Way to keep a secret route secret, ConnDOT!  (Yes I know SSR is state service road, but secret state rooad has always sounded better to me! 

Not sure putting Whitehead Highway on the VMS/DMS would be any more helpful... people these days don't know the old road names like we "road geeks" do.  Most people just think its the "Capitol Area Connector".  The Merritt, WCP, and Milford Parkway/connector  are the only roads I still hear on the radio referenced as such... I don't even hear I-95 called "the turnpike" on WPLR anymore 

[kurumi]

The only resolution, I think, is to sign SR 598 :-)

CT has plenty of SR references for overcrossings and undercrossings (example in Danbury, SR 911, look up).

The only times I know of where an SR was signed (route marker or BGS; all as mistakes) are:
* SR 540 in E. Granby at CT 187
* SR 533 BGS on I-86 in Vernon, 1980s

[MikeTheActuary]

The only resolution, I think, is to sign SR 598 :-)

CT has plenty of SR references for overcrossings and undercrossings (example in Danbury, SR 911, look up).

The only times I know of where an SR was signed (route marker or BGS; all as mistakes) are:
* SR 540 in E. Granby at CT 187
* SR 533 BGS on I-86 in Vernon, 1980s

With the new signs identifying roads crossing the freeways at over/underpasses, I believe a few more SSRs have been identified (albeit not with trailblazers).

[abqtraveler]

The only resolution, I think, is to sign SR 598 :-)

CT has plenty of SR references for overcrossings and undercrossings (example in Danbury, SR 911, look up).

The only times I know of where an SR was signed (route marker or BGS; all as mistakes) are:
* SR 540 in E. Granby at CT 187
* SR 533 BGS on I-86 in Vernon, 1980s

I recall seeing signs for SR-771 along Post Road and Fairfield Avenue between the US-1 traffic circle in Fairfield and Bridgeport in the late '80s before that stretch was re-designated as Route 130 in the '90s.

[shadyjay]

So, ConnDOT has completely revamped their web site:
https://portal.ct.gov/dot?language=en_US

I haven't explored every fascet of it yet, but the image on the Rest Area page caught my eye...

https://portal.ct.gov/dot/travel-gateway/roads-and-highways/rest-areas?language=en_US

... wonder what state that image is from???

[Mergingtraffic]

Yeah looking at the site on my phone I can't find the press release or construction advisories at all

[MikeTheActuary]

Yeah looking at the site on my phone I can't find the press release or construction advisories at all

They're "News".

[Mergingtraffic]

Yeah looking at the site on my phone I can't find the press release or construction advisories at all

They're "News".

I see it there today.

I have to say after returning from a road trip to Georgia, CT has the worst roads in terms of capacity and basic travel flow

Maintenance, I think CT does pretty well. Light poles get replaced every 25 years, sewers etc.

But when it comes to capacity, I think CT is dead last.

In, GA, NC, SC etc, they have triple left turn lanes and channelled right turns lanes. It's the norm not the exception. Divided arterials where strip malls are. Even NJ has that, think NJ-17 and US-46. (Yeah CT has CT-34 and US-5 but that's it)

I saw a sign near Senoia,GA, on a rare two-lane road that says "School Speed Limit 50." 50?! Ha it was great. Speed Limit was 55. Here it would've been 30 for the school zone and 50 tops for the speed limit. Even, NY has 55mph 2-lane roads.

There are many spots in CT where 2 turn lanes can be made, in spots just by restriping the road.

We can't even remove stoplights from a freeway here. On top of that, the proposal has a left exit and entrance. Surely if they could double the size of I-95 in narrow East Haven (exit 51) they could do CT-9 the right way.

DOT has even killed traffic flow, they could've kept some free-flow movements with the revamped I-95 Exit 44. Other areas, they have the wrong lane opening up to an option lane at an intersection. BS like that doesn't happen down south or some other northeastern states. It seems to be a CT thing. They can't even widen I-84 from Danbury, the first study was released in 2000.

With the taxes we pay (and the surplus) we should get better. And stop being cheap with the extruded aluminum signs. Lol

It was eye opening to see what we don't have in this state. Not even the region, this state alone.

That's all carry on     

[shadyjay]

The resigning plans for I-95 from Clinton to New London are now out.  Most of these signs were installed in 2000, except those for Exits 68-70 which are button copy and date to 1993's opening of the Baldwin Bridge. 

Some notes:

As expected, Exit 69 for CT 9 will be signed "CT 9 NORTH/Middletown", with an auxiliary sign for "Essex/Deep River".   An unexpected change of control cities for Exit 82 in Waterford, where CT 85 will have "Broad St/Waterford" replaced with "Hartford Tpke/Broad St".  "Flanders" gets removed from Exit 75 SB.  "Clinton" is gone from Exit 64 SB. 

Exit 62 and Exit 72, the exits for Hammonasett and Rocky Neck State Parks, will retain their brown signage and only reference the state parks on the primary signage.  I would've thought for sure they'd "go green" and get "Rocky Neck Connector" text, or something similar, like what was done to Sherwood Island State Park in lower Fairfield County.  But I guess they're important enough to keep the primary signs brown. 

All bridge mounts are being replaced with either overheads or ground mounts... except Exit 83 1/2 mile NB mounted on the Coleman St overpass in New London.  The bridge mounts on the Rt 153 overpass at Exit 65 aren't shown... I bet that's a future spot replacement project. 

Sheets will be used for a couple onramps... looks like Society Road, Four Mile River Rd, and Elm St.  These are local road onramps.  Frontage Road in New London will get sheets, replacing all extruded aluminum signs.  Not a huge fan of Frontage Rd getting sheets.  This will mean the loss of the 1970s-era "Briggs St" exit now sign on Frontage Road North.

A couple mainline SB signs will get the sheet treatment, for Exits 72 & 71.  These existing supports will be used and I'm guessing this is because SB Exits 72 & 71 are scheduled to be combined/reconstructed in a project currently in the design phase. 

No ATTRACTIONS signs seen in the plans.  Some new blue logo signs are in the plans.  As far as general exit services and park & ride and town line signs, they'll be sheets, as per now-standard ConnDOT cheapness. 

Current sequential exit numbering is still shown, as I-95 is a little ways out from a complete exit renumbering.  There's still 1992-vintage button copy up in Branford-Guilford that has yet to be replaced.  Too bad they couldn't at least renumber east of I-395, as the exit numbers already skip numbers there... what's another 10?


... and there you go.  We'll see what happens when construction actually begins, probably won't see any visible progress for a year.  And it all depends on who gets the contract, as right now, there are replacement projects taking place on CT 2/3/11/17, CT 8, CT 15, I-291, I-384, I-91, and I-84. 

[Ted$8roadFan]

The resigning plans for I-95 from Clinton to New London are now out.  Most of these signs were installed in 2000, except those for Exits 68-70 which are button copy and date to 1993's opening of the Baldwin Bridge. 

Some notes:

As expected, Exit 69 for CT 9 will be signed "CT 9 NORTH/Middletown", with an auxiliary sign for "Essex/Deep River".   An unexpected change of control cities for Exit 82 in Waterford, where CT 85 will have "Broad St/Waterford" replaced with "Hartford Tpke/Broad St".  "Flanders" gets removed from Exit 75 SB.  "Clinton" is gone from Exit 64 SB. 

Exit 62 and Exit 72, the exits for Hammonasett and Rocky Neck State Parks, will retain their brown signage and only reference the state parks on the primary signage.  I would've thought for sure they'd "go green" and get "Rocky Neck Connector" text, or something similar, like what was done to Sherwood Island State Park in lower Fairfield County.  But I guess they're important enough to keep the primary signs brown. 

All bridge mounts are being replaced with either overheads or ground mounts... except Exit 83 1/2 mile NB mounted on the Coleman St overpass in New London.  The bridge mounts on the Rt 153 overpass at Exit 65 aren't shown... I bet that's a future spot replacement project. 

Sheets will be used for a couple onramps... looks like Society Road, Four Mile River Rd, and Elm St.  These are local road onramps.  Frontage Road in New London will get sheets, replacing all extruded aluminum signs.  Not a huge fan of Frontage Rd getting sheets.  This will mean the loss of the 1970s-era "Briggs St" exit now sign on Frontage Road North.

A couple mainline SB signs will get the sheet treatment, for Exits 72 & 71.  These existing supports will be used and I'm guessing this is because SB Exits 72 & 71 are scheduled to be combined/reconstructed in a project currently in the design phase. 

No ATTRACTIONS signs seen in the plans.  Some new blue logo signs are in the plans.  As far as general exit services and park & ride and town line signs, they'll be sheets, as per now-standard ConnDOT cheapness. 

Current sequential exit numbering is still shown, as I-95 is a little ways out from a complete exit renumbering.  There's still 1992-vintage button copy up in Branford-Guilford that has yet to be replaced.  Too bad they couldn't at least renumber east of I-395, as the exit numbers already skip numbers there... what's another 10?


... and there you go.  We'll see what happens when construction actually begins, probably won't see any visible progress for a year.  And it all depends on who gets the contract, as right now, there are replacement projects taking place on CT 2/3/11/17, CT 8, CT 15, I-291, I-384, I-91, and I-84. 

I've been surprised that Connecticut has used Essex as a control city at I-95/CT-9 instead of Middletown all these years. Middletown makes more sense as it is a regional center and iirc, it isn't signed elsewhere on I-95.

[shadyjay]

As someone who is from Essex (and still lives there, after several stints in other areas of CT and in VT), I always liked seeing my hometown as a primary from I-95, but I realize that Middletown is best and that Essex is best suited to be on an auxiliary sign.  Ideally, from I-95 North, Exit 65 would get you to Essex quicker, and a sign there saying "ESSEX - USE EXIT 65 OR 69" would be nice.  But with CTDOT cheaping out, we're lucky to get a sheet sign on the Exit 65 offramp pointing the way to Essex.  And it looks like we won't even get an auxiliary sign heading SB before Exit 69, either.  Ferry Point gets a mention though on the mainline SB for the first time in... ever!

Hartford appears on numerous exits as a control city on the Connecticut Turnpike route... I-91 in New Haven, CT 9 in Old Saybrook, CT 2 in Norwich, and US 6 in Killingly.  If CT 11 had been built, I bet they would've changed "Hartford" to "Middletown" on the Exit 69 sign heading west/south a lot sooner than this go-around. 

Another oddity... the near complete removal of gantries from the Baldwin Bridge.  In the plans, I only see:  NB, one at the start of the bridge, one at the end of the bridge, and SB one at the end of the bridge, plus the "spot replacement" currently underway. 

[Ted$8roadFan]

I love Essex and the other river towns as well, but Middletown is the right choice for 9/95. The state could add Essex as an auxiliary to Exits 67-68 on 95 via CT-154 or Exit 2 off 9, which we nicer drives anyway.

[jp the roadgeek]

There are a couple of things that should be added.  The Exit 68 SB sign should say US 1 SOUTH, since that is the only direction you are accessing.  Also, Exit 70 should mention US 1 NORTH for the same reason.  Also, not sure why SB signage still hides the US 1 designation and just makes it CT 156.  I thought CTDOT was going for consistency in both directions (see adding CT 322 to I-691 EB signage instead of continuing it as West Main St).

While I'm at it, I took a ride on CT 2 recently and was absolutely floored by the use of East Haddam as a control for CT 16.  If it were East Hampton I'd be fine, but CT 16 doesn't even enter East Haddam and most would continue on CT 2 to CT 11 and CT 82 to get there.  Absolute head scratcher. 

[shadyjay]

Excellent point... I remember in 2000 when a route marker was added to the SB Exit 70 signs (the previous signs just said "OLD LYME".... I wasn't expecting CT 156 at all.  And damn not expecting it to show up by itself again.

As far as the directions for US 1 at Exits 68 & 70, I can go either way.  Exit 68, while on the US 1 South mainline itself, does allow you to access the solitary US 1 North portion. 

And "East Haddam" for CT 16 off Rt 2 makes NO SENSE.  Really...CTDOT should get an email about that! 

[MikeCL]

what's with the paving from 95 S from Exits 6 to 2? It seems it's been dragging on I've been checking the state website but other then some gas line replacement in Stamford for 95 N/S nothing really said about the paving part.

[kurumi]

This is a year old, but: the Arrigoni Bridge (CT 17/66) was featured on a first-class postage stamp: https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2023/0824-spectacular-bridges-grace-stamps.htm (yes, .htm)

[RobbieL2415]

So, we appear to have traded shitty sheet aluminum signs for thicker shoulder lines. Seeing a lot of new line painting jobs that have them, surface street and freeway alike.

[Rothman]

So, we appear to have traded shitty sheet aluminum signs for thicker shoulder lines. Seeing a lot of new line painting jobs that have them, surface street and freeway alike.

Wut.

[RobbieL2415]

So, we appear to have traded shitty sheet aluminum signs for thicker shoulder lines. Seeing a lot of new line painting jobs that have them, surface street and freeway alike.

Wut.

CT 83 near Talcottville, for example, as well as I-91 SB approaching that hill before I-691/CT 15/US 5.

[shadyjay]

Something's going on with the Welcome sign at the Mass border on I-91 South.  It's been tarped over for a couple weeks now.  It was the older "Connecticut Welcomes You" style, still button copy, and has been in place at least since the early 90s.  Below it was the Enfield/Next 4 Exits/Town Line sign.  The whole thing is covered up now.  Not sure if they placed a new Welcome to CT sign and are planning a "Great Unveiling" or what. 

Also, I'm beginning to think there's some shortage of sign contractors as of late.  In the past few months, I've seen almost zero progress on sign replacement projects on CT 2/3/11/17, and barely any progress on the 2023 spot sign replacements.  Haven't been down to check out the I-91 North Haven-Meriden progress on that portion in a while.  And again, my trip on CT 8 last week produced no visible progress on any of the "spot sites" or mileage-based exit number conversion. 

Presently, there's the CT 8, CT 15, CT 2/3/11/17, I-84 (e of Vernon), I-291, and I-384/US 6 sign contracts in progress.  And add to the mix I-95 central/SE soon.  That's going to be a lot of new signs going up statewide.

[bob7374]

Something's going on with the Welcome sign at the Mass border on I-91 South.  It's been tarped over for a couple weeks now.  It was the older "Connecticut Welcomes You" style, still button copy, and has been in place at least since the early 90s.  Below it was the Enfield/Next 4 Exits/Town Line sign.  The whole thing is covered up now.  Not sure if they placed a new Welcome to CT sign and are planning a "Great Unveiling" or what. 

Also, I'm beginning to think there's some shortage of sign contractors as of late.  In the past few months, I've seen almost zero progress on sign replacement projects on CT 2/3/11/17, and barely any progress on the 2023 spot sign replacements.  Haven't been down to check out the I-91 North Haven-Meriden progress on that portion in a while.  And again, my trip on CT 8 last week produced no visible progress on any of the "spot sites" or mileage-based exit number conversion. 

Presently, there's the CT 8, CT 15, CT 2/3/11/17, I-84 (e of Vernon), I-291, and I-384/US 6 sign contracts in progress.  And add to the mix I-95 central/SE soon.  That's going to be a lot of new signs going up statewide.

The delays may have something to do with the recent acquisition of Roadsafe Systems by the other major sign contractor in New England, Liddell Bros. If Liddell decided to downsize the operation of its former competitor as part of purchase, this may have something to do with the lack of progress in CT and elsewhere. Also, before the acquisition Liddell tended to win most of the sign replacement projects it bid on on Mass. and the percentage of these projects completed on time was never very high to begin with.

[SectorZ]

Something's going on with the Welcome sign at the Mass border on I-91 South.  It's been tarped over for a couple weeks now.  It was the older "Connecticut Welcomes You" style, still button copy, and has been in place at least since the early 90s.  Below it was the Enfield/Next 4 Exits/Town Line sign.  The whole thing is covered up now.  Not sure if they placed a new Welcome to CT sign and are planning a "Great Unveiling" or what. 

Also, I'm beginning to think there's some shortage of sign contractors as of late.  In the past few months, I've seen almost zero progress on sign replacement projects on CT 2/3/11/17, and barely any progress on the 2023 spot sign replacements.  Haven't been down to check out the I-91 North Haven-Meriden progress on that portion in a while.  And again, my trip on CT 8 last week produced no visible progress on any of the "spot sites" or mileage-based exit number conversion. 

Presently, there's the CT 8, CT 15, CT 2/3/11/17, I-84 (e of Vernon), I-291, and I-384/US 6 sign contracts in progress.  And add to the mix I-95 central/SE soon.  That's going to be a lot of new signs going up statewide.

The delays may have something to do with the recent acquisition of Roadsafe Systems by the other major sign contractor in New England, Liddell Bros. If Liddell decided to downsize the operation of its former competitor as part of purchase, this may have something to do with the lack of progress in CT and elsewhere. Also, before the acquisition Liddell tended to win most of the sign replacement projects it bid on on Mass. and the percentage of these projects completed on time was never very high to begin with.

I thought Liddell was bought by Roadsafe? That's what Roadsafe states on their own site.

[RobbieL2415]

Something's going on with the Welcome sign at the Mass border on I-91 South.  It's been tarped over for a couple weeks now.  It was the older "Connecticut Welcomes You" style, still button copy, and has been in place at least since the early 90s.  Below it was the Enfield/Next 4 Exits/Town Line sign.  The whole thing is covered up now.  Not sure if they placed a new Welcome to CT sign and are planning a "Great Unveiling" or what. 

Also, I'm beginning to think there's some shortage of sign contractors as of late.  In the past few months, I've seen almost zero progress on sign replacement projects on CT 2/3/11/17, and barely any progress on the 2023 spot sign replacements.  Haven't been down to check out the I-91 North Haven-Meriden progress on that portion in a while.  And again, my trip on CT 8 last week produced no visible progress on any of the "spot sites" or mileage-based exit number conversion. 

Presently, there's the CT 8, CT 15, CT 2/3/11/17, I-84 (e of Vernon), I-291, and I-384/US 6 sign contracts in progress.  And add to the mix I-95 central/SE soon.  That's going to be a lot of new signs going up statewide.

The delays may have something to do with the recent acquisition of Roadsafe Systems by the other major sign contractor in New England, Liddell Bros. If Liddell decided to downsize the operation of its former competitor as part of purchase, this may have something to do with the lack of progress in CT and elsewhere. Also, before the acquisition Liddell tended to win most of the sign replacement projects it bid on on Mass. and the percentage of these projects completed on time was never very high to begin with.

1. Maybe that has something to do with all the new sheet aluminum signs that don't appear in new contracts. At the I-84 E Exit 66 on-ramps, they have some up near the old extruded ones. The new ones are supposed to be extruded.

2. The state is pushing out a new logo, an inverse-colored "T" within a "C". They could be changing the design of the welcome signs in a way that doesn't merit replacement.