Connecticut News

[wytout]

Hi all. Reporting in from the free wi-fi @ Bradley International. A couple things to report: New sinage on I-91 looks nice. Gonna miss the button copy though.  Pavement from Exit 17 to the mixmaster on I-84 is getting regrooved. There's major construction, appearing to be highway-related, around Exits 25-25A also on I-84. That's all for now.

The only new signage I've seen on i91 besides spot replacement is the reference markers. There has been no large scale sign replacement in I 91 in  CT. Hartford, north is still exclusively button copy.

[KEVIN_224]

It all still looked like button copy on I-91 south today from the Massachusetts state line to Exit 32A for I-84/US 6 West in Hartford. A couple of the light pole-mounted mile markers are still present.

A couple more of the 2/10 mile markers were up on the CT Fastrak route today towards downtown New Britain. It said "MILE 9" almost immediately after getting on the road from the beginning at Asylum Street. I saw couple passing through the cemetery between the Cedar Street (Newington) and East Main Street (New Britain) stations. The font on the "MILE 0.2" marker under the Harry Truman Overpass in New Britain looked odd.

EDIT: Here is the "MILE 0.2" sign in question...weird font and all! 

[shadyjay]

Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.

[Mergingtraffic]

Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.

I just wonder why they decided to do this part before the more heavily traveled sections south of Waterbury?

[shadyjay]

Its funny, there's been so many spot improvement sign replacement projects on the section south of Waterbury, by the time they get around to doing the Shelton-Waterbury stretch, only half the signs will need to be replaced! 

Originally, there were three CT 8 sign contracts for the next year:  September 2015 would cover Waterbury-Winsted, and two in 2016 would cover Shelton-Waterbury and I-95 to Shelton.  Now I'm seeing just this contract (shortened to start at Thomaston).  But what's back on the table for 2016 (bid opening) is I-84 from Southington to Hartford and I-95 from Groton to RI.  We'll see what gets added as time goes on.

[Alps]

Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.

Are they not using this opportunity to put in mile-based exits? They're going to the top of the route so it's a very easy place to start.

[Duke87]

According to the plans (see 8th document in portfolio), no, they are not. The new signs are all keeping the existing exit numbers.

Looks like this part of route 8 will be getting mile markers, though. So that's an improvement.

[shadyjay]

Probably will wait until the rest of CT 8 gets its signs replaced before switching to mile-based exits.  I-395 had the benefit of the entire route in the state getting new signs at once.  This contract only covers the rural northern third.  Contracts to replace signs to the south haven't even been shown in the "upcoming contracts" page, and that goes out a year.

[mariethefoxy]

all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

[Rothman]

all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

[mariethefoxy]

all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.

[Rothman]

all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.

No ****.   

[cl94]

all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.

No ****.   

[jp the roadgeek]

all they'd have to do at that point is just manufacture a little patch to patch over the exit tab thats there onto the new signs.

And yet, it's even this small cost that gets brought up by officials in NY time and time again when mileage-based exit numbers are proposed.

New York is probably going to be one of the last states to switch over.

No ****.   

They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99

[vdeane]

They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99

I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.

[Duke87]

Probably will wait until the rest of CT 8 gets its signs replaced before switching to mile-based exits.  I-395 had the benefit of the entire route in the state getting new signs at once.  This contract only covers the rural northern third.  Contracts to replace signs to the south haven't even been shown in the "upcoming contracts" page, and that goes out a year.

Also bear in mind it's a different ConnDOT office. Maybe district 4 is just less enthusiastic about changing exit numbers than district 2.

[Rothman]

They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99

I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.

There is not.  I believe some announcement was made that we were going to make the switch, but nothing has happened to actually implement it...

...and I doubt I'll see a switch-over in my lifetime...

...unless I become Commish.

[cl94]

They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99

I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.

There is not.  I believe some announcement was made that we were going to make the switch, but nothing has happened to actually implement it...

...and I doubt I'll see a switch-over in my lifetime...

...unless I become Commish.

There's a bill that passed the state senate earlier this year to change New York over, but I don't know what happened to it.

[noelbotevera]

Contract plans to replace signage on CT 8 from Thomaston to the end of the expressway in Winsted are now online.  I thought the project was originally listed to start in Waterbury, but apparently it will start just south of Exit 38 in Thomaston.  Some items of note:

*  NB signs that were replaced at Exit 38 back in the 2000s will be modified slightly:  exit crowns will be moved to the right. 
*  Most overhead assemblies will be replaced.  This does not include the "spot" replacements done in the past couple years.
*  The northern terminus gets its own exit signs, along with a blank exit tab
*  Yellow diamond signs denoting "speed limit ahead" will be placed near the northern terminus.  About time, CT!!!!!
*  First case of the "service bar" on an overhead assembly I've seen... often the service symbols are ground-mounted.
*  Square "state route" shield shown for US 202 in the plans.  I'm guessing that'll be modified to the proper US shield.
*  New mile markers are part of the project.

I'm not sure why service bars are now a green background, like the rest of the signs.  Seems to make more sense for them to be on a blue background (like I-95 from Exits 60-81).  I-395's signs have the green extending through the service bar, though the symbols are shown in blue.

Present signage in this area is (mostly) button copy, installed at some point in the late 1980s I believe.  The signs NB for Exit 38 were most likely original to CT 8's construction until they were replaced in the 2000s.  They used to have oversized route markers and button copy.  When they were replaced (as part of a project that began at I-84 and ended at Exit 38), all exit tabs were still centered.

You know what, just redo all of CT 8 altogether. If any opposition hits the plan, ignore it, then bulldoze all of the opposition's town. Put whatever you want on  CT 8, we don't care. We just want it redone. Now we apply this to I-95 in all of CT.

[TravelingBethelite]

The thing is, the state is getting a significant proportion of their tax dollars from the area closest to I-95. Evicting them would likely make them move outside of Connecticut. Less taxpayers = less money = less road construction and maintenence. Us denizens of Connecticut are appreciative that they're resigning CT 8. Although it'd be nice to redo I-95, we can't have everything. Towns = people live there, anyway. I'm sure there's national laws here in the U.S. about bulldozing citizens' homes unless it has eminent domain, and there's a limit to that. You can't do that to entire towns. And don't forget the enviromental impacts and what the enviromentalists will have to say about that.   

Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.

Yeah fuck democracy!

[vdeane]

They did that stretch of US 15 that became a piece of I-99

I believe that was because it was being upgraded.  I-781 has mileage-based numbers as well.  Basically, new routes get mileage-based numbers, but there's no current plans to convert existing numbers as far as I know.

There is not.  I believe some announcement was made that we were going to make the switch, but nothing has happened to actually implement it...

...and I doubt I'll see a switch-over in my lifetime...

...unless I become Commish.

There's a bill that passed the state senate earlier this year to change New York over, but I don't know what happened to it.

It probably died in assembly like it does every year.

[noelbotevera]

The thing is, the state is getting a significant proportion of their tax dollars from the area closest to I-95. Evicting them would likely make them move outside of Connecticut. Less taxpayers = less money = less road construction and maintenence. Us denizens of Connecticut are appreciative that they're resigning CT 8. Although it'd be nice to redo I-95, we can't have everything. Towns = people live there, anyway. I'm sure there's national laws here in the U.S. about bulldozing citizens' homes unless it has eminent domain, and there's a limit to that. You can't do that to entire towns. And don't forget the enviromental impacts and what the enviromentalists will have to say about that.   

Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.

Yeah fuck democracy!

Screw the environmentalists too. Tell everyone who complains to shut up or be arrested and serve life in prison.

[TravelingBethelite]

Arrested for what? Obstructing the construction of a highway is not a capital offense. It's simple democracy. If the overwhelming opinion is that a highway should not be built, then it's not gonna happen. See I-695 Massachusetts, I-70 and 83 to I-95 in Baltimore, and the Embarcadero Freeway plan in San Fransisco.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

The thing is, the state is getting a significant proportion of their tax dollars from the area closest to I-95. Evicting them would likely make them move outside of Connecticut. Less taxpayers = less money = less road construction and maintenence. Us denizens of Connecticut are appreciative that they're resigning CT 8. Although it'd be nice to redo I-95, we can't have everything. Towns = people live there, anyway. I'm sure there's national laws here in the U.S. about bulldozing citizens' homes unless it has eminent domain, and there's a limit to that. You can't do that to entire towns. And don't forget the enviromental impacts and what the enviromentalists will have to say about that.   

Do it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland. When it collapses, put it on a new alignment, a new structure, and a new government. Just not give a crap and give any citizens or building a second thought. Just rebuild it all.

Yeah fuck democracy!

Screw the environmentalists too. Tell everyone who complains to shut up or be arrested and serve life in prison.

I hope you do realize how stupid you sound. Bulldozing entire towns isn't gonna solve any problems at all. That's how it is in Connecticut, it's a densely populated state.

[Pete from Boston]

Back to meaningful discussion, one cost factor that rarely gets mentioned in the beaten-to-death "Why the Connecticut Turnpike will never be widened southeast of New Haven" topic is that as a coastal route, it's littered with bridges over wide estuaries.  As we've seen recently over the Quinnipiac and Housatonic, replacing these bridges is an enormous, slow undertaking. The same would end up being repeated in Bridgeport, Greenwich, Norwalk, and elsewhere.  An easier nut to crack for sure than popular opposition, but a serious issue just the same.