Connecticut News

[Mergingtraffic]

But wouldn't the new left exit make traffic worse on I-91NB? 

If I understand the proposals correctly, the new setup will be just like I-84 EB at Exit 7 for US-7NB in Danbury.  The left lane transitions into a split and exits to the left and becomes two left lanes exiting.  Drivers in the left lane slow to merge into the right lanes for I-84 and drivers in the center lanes slow to let them in or to merge into the left lane for Exit 7.  This creates congestion for all lanes.

This is also the setup that they are eliminating at I-95NB at I-91NB in New Haven as well. 

I just don't see how it's going to solve things.  I'm still in favor of the project though....but it seems like once again, we will still have problems down the line b/c the project won't be done right in the first place due to small scale thinking or money issues.

PS, whenever I take that ramp it seems once you pass the gore you're ok, it's the queue of the drivers in the right lane leading up to the gore.

[Mergingtraffic]

New signage contract for CT-25 in Trumbull. The original 1982 or so signage is coming down.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/36395/144-193_Final_Specifications.pdf

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/36395/144-193_Portfolio_Plans.pdf

A couple notes:
a) Shouldn't the "NO COMMERICAL VEHICLES" be on the bottom of the BGS rather than the top?  In other areas in the state it's on the bottom. 
b)  The "EXPRESSWAY ENDS" sign is not etruded aluminum like the "1 Mile" and "1/2 Mile" signs?
c) I also notice on the BGS sign on CT-25 NB pertaining to CT-111 that "MONROE" is all caps. 
d) on the plans, not the signage, it says "future exit xx" so looks like they plan to convert exit numbers to mileage based.
e) Left exit tabs and letter suffix exits pertaining to the CT-15 ramp splits.

[OracleUsr]

Second PDF requires a commercial viewer.

[OracleUsr]

And on page 198...um, no...a right aligned LEFT EXIT tab?

[Mergingtraffic]

https://ctdot-geopub.projectwiseonline.com/public/Default.htm

A new map on the CT DOT website, click on the color and you have updated project statuses. Everything from signing projects to Q-Bridge to paving.

[J N Winkler]

Second PDF requires a commercial viewer.

It is a PDF portfolio, but pdftk will detach the individual PDF files.

[Duke87]

And on page 198...um, no...a right aligned LEFT EXIT tab?

What's even more hilarious is that it's not a left exit. Both White Plains Road and the Merritt are accessed from the same ramp which splits after a bit, the Merritt is the left fork of that split. But the ramp is totally a right exit off of route 25.

ConnDOT's trend of silly overinterpretation of MUTCD standards continues!

[kurumi]

https://ctdot-geopub.projectwiseonline.com/public/Default.htm

A new map on the CT DOT website, click on the color and you have updated project statuses. Everything from signing projects to Q-Bridge to paving.

On Mac, Firefox won't show details, but Chrome pops up a little window on click. The project links appear to be some sort of Windowsy pw:// URL (with backslashes) that might link to something on the web developer's Pentium III back at the office. Anyone get those to work?

[J N Winkler]

On Mac, Firefox won't show details, but Chrome pops up a little window on click. The project links appear to be some sort of Windowsy pw:// URL (with backslashes) that might link to something on the web developer's Pentium III back at the office. Anyone get those to work?

ProjectWise URLs (pw:// etc.) won't work except on machines that have access to the underlying ProjectWise database, which in practice means a computer that is part of the state DOT's LAN.  I am seeing a growing trend toward state DOTs using publicly accessible GIS systems that link to resources that are site-locked to DOT offices, using either proprietary URLs like ProjectWise with network drive references, or standard HTTP URLs where Web service is restricted to sites owned by the DOT.  KDOT, for example, has an open GIS that links to photologging (standard Mandli setup, HTTP URLs, access to imagery restricted to KDOT offices) and paving plans (ProjectWise database, requires login).

ProjectWise is a Bentley product and is pushed out to state DOTs through essentially the same sales channel as MicroStation.  ProjectWise Web front ends are becoming more common (for example, Mississippi DOT now uses it for distributing online plans) but I have yet to see a DOT set one up for general public access.

[shadyjay]

Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)

I noticed this as well. ConnDOT put up those types of signs at Exit 39A/B in Milford as well as Exit 37.

[MVHighways]

Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)

I noticed this as well. ConnDOT put up those types of signs at Exit 39A/B in Milford as well as Exit 37.

That sounds like a good idea that MassDOT (and all other DOTs) should adopt - as it as there are normal "DO NOT ENTER" signs at the onramp base, but no red reflectors I have seen unlike what you have in CT.

[AMLNet49]

Driving around today, noticed new large signs at the base of an onramp... DO NOT ENTER (one angled to face each direction on the cross street, complete with red reflectors on the posts), and NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN signs.  Guessing these are being put up in response to that wrong-way driver on the WCP a few weeks back?

(observed in Essex and Old Saybrook on Route 9, Exits 2 & 3)

I noticed this as well. ConnDOT put up those types of signs at Exit 39A/B in Milford as well as Exit 37.

That sounds like a good idea that MassDOT (and all other DOTs) should adopt - as it as there are normal "DO NOT ENTER" signs at the onramp base, but no red reflectors I have seen unlike what you have in CT.

They are just being put up as we speak along freeway entrances from US-44 in Raynham, Mass

[Mergingtraffic]

And on page 198...um, no...a right aligned LEFT EXIT tab?

What's even more hilarious is that it's not a left exit. Both White Plains Road and the Merritt are accessed from the same ramp which splits after a bit, the Merritt is the left fork of that split. But the ramp is totally a right exit off of route 25.

ConnDOT's trend of silly overinterpretation of MUTCD standards continues!

I saw both the sign detail (linked above that actually opens) and the map pdf of where the signs go on the road.....and the sign detail has the LEFT exit tab on the right but on the map pdf they show the sign having the LEFT exit tab on the left...so it'll be interesting to see which plan sheet they follow. 

The sign on the CT-25 mainline has a right exit tab as it's a right exit but once you're on the ramp, the CT-15 ramp is then technically a left exit. 

[Duke87]

I saw both the sign detail (linked above that actually opens) and the map pdf of where the signs go on the road.....and the sign detail has the LEFT exit tab on the right but on the map pdf they show the sign having the LEFT exit tab on the left...so it'll be interesting to see which plan sheet they follow.   

Interesting to see? We already know how this is going to go. The contractor is going to put the tab on the right based on the plans, and then try to say they need extra money for a changeorder if ConnDOT wants it on the left.

[KEVIN_224]

While on I-395 from Norwich to the terminus at I-95 in Waterford (Wednesday), I noticed many of the bigger and taller sign posts were in the ground, but without the new signs installed onto them yet. Also, I noticed CT Route 2A is now signed on I-395 heading from Exit 79A northward.

[bob7374]

While on I-395 from Norwich to the terminus at I-95 in Waterford (Wednesday), I noticed many of the bigger and taller sign posts were in the ground, but without the new signs installed onto them yet. Also, I noticed CT Route 2A is now signed on I-395 heading from Exit 79A northward.

Thanks for the update. Was planning a road trip this weekend or next to check out progress. Saves me some time and gas since it sounds like there hasn't been much change since I traveled through in March. There were many sign posts in the ground at that point and I was hoping at least some new signs had gone up by now.

[jp the roadgeek]

Mileage based exit signs have started going up on I-395.  Went to Crystal Mall, and out of curiosity, went up CT 85 to 395 S to get back to 95 S.  A look in the rear view mirror northbound saw those ground mounted posts filled with signs that read Exit 2.  A couple of signs had the Old Exit 77 tab on top.  The route numbers on the signs looked like emblazoned state route signs with the black border.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

I noticed yesterday that ConnDOT put up new signs and gantries on I-95 southbound for Exit 38/Milford Parkway interchange. They replaced the exit sign and gantry as well as the 1/2 mile advance sign and gantry.

[connroadgeek]

2 new signs S/B I-95 X46-45 saying "EXIT 45 IS NOW EXIT 44" with new overhead signs for X43 and the new 44. The new 44 ramp also has a signal at the end and there's a sign along the ramp saying that there's a new traffic light ahead. The signal also has the new style backing plate with the yellow border which seems to be going up in many places.

[bob7374]

A poster on the Northeast Roads Facebook group says he traveled the northern section of I-395 this past week and that many of the exit numbers had been changed. He said the new numbers on the signs were in button copy. No photos though to confirm this.

[JimmyI395]

Some pics of the I 395 Signing project. I was unable to get the half mile because it was behind some trees. I will post more pics soon.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19327601701/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19317622622/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129630456@N08/19297591686/in/dateposted-public/

[PHLBOS]

Some pics of the I 395 Signing project.

So ConnDOT is now using bordered-state-route shields on its BGS'?  That's a change from previous signage recently erected along other highways (example: along I-84 west of Waterbury). 

I also would've used Series D for 2-digit route shields as opposed to the shown-Series C.  The fore-mentioned newer BGS' along I-84 feature Series D numerals for all route shields.  I agree for using Series D for all single and 2-digit routes; but I would only use Series D for 3-digit routes if the route number contained at least one 1 in it, otherwise use Series C for other 3-digit routes.

[Zeffy]

Nice pics! Glad to see Connecticut is finally moving away from sequential based exit numbering.

I also would've used Series D for 2-digit route shields as opposed to the shown-Series C.  The fore-mentioned newer BGS' along I-84 feature Series D numerals for all route shields.  I agree for using Series D for all single and 2-digit routes; but I would only use Series D for 3-digit routes if the route number contained at least one 1 in it, otherwise use Series C for other 3-digit routes.

For some reason, Connecticut likes to use Series C for a lot of it's route shields on freeway guide signs. Whereas the stand-alone trailblazers may use D, on a freeway sign it almost always uses C - which is different from how Massachusetts or Rhode Island does it.

[PHLBOS]

For some reason, Connecticut likes to use Series C for a lot of it's route shields on freeway guide signs.

That's actually the opposite of what I've seen; especially along the fore-mentioned I-84.