Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

And also in today's news...

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=591962

The CTDOT is developing plans to replace existing highway signing from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to just beyond the Stratford/Milford town line on the Merritt Parkway (Route 15). Replacement of the highway signing will consist of removing existing overhead, side-mounted, post-mounted, and variable message signs and installing new overhead, side-mounted, post-mounted, and variable message signs on existing sign supports and new sign supports. Ramp signing will also be included for removal and replacement on new sign supports.

Most of the signs in question were installed around 2000.  What remains to be seen is whether the new signage will MUTCD'ize the parkway, and whether or not this will include new exit numbers.  Seeing as the whole length of the parkway is involved, this would seem like the perfect time to switch to mile-based exits. 

[vdeane]

It covers the entire Merritt Parkway, but not all of CT 15.

[shadyjay]

Correct.  So we'd still have to deal with the exits on the Wilbur Cross Parkway section.  Those signs were last replaced about the same time as the Merritt's, but it's my understanding the primary reason the Merritt is getting new signs is due to the failure of the single-sheet panels.   

So far, only I-395 and CT 2A have switched to mile-based exits.  These are the only two roads which had all of their signs replaced at once (relatively, though the southern section got done first, there was a few months lag between changes).  Current sign replacement projects on CT 8 (Thomaston-Winsted) and future projects on I-95 (Groton-RI) and I-84 (Southington-Farmington) retain the old numbers, but these are isolated segments, vs the whole road (like on I-395).  There's been mention that CT 8 would get new numbers, but only after other two signing contracts are done (Shelton to Waterbury and Bridgeport to Shelton). 

Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

If #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers, in a similar fashion to those on Cape Cod who were against the renumbering of exits on the Mid-Cape.  The Cape Cod uproar seemed to have stopped MassDOT dead in its tracks for a statewide conversion to mile-based exits.

[RobbieL2415]

Correct.  So we'd still have to deal with the exits on the Wilbur Cross Parkway section.  Those signs were last replaced about the same time as the Merritt's, but it's my understanding the primary reason the Merritt is getting new signs is due to the failure of the single-sheet panels.   

So far, only I-395 and CT 2A have switched to mile-based exits.  These are the only two roads which had all of their signs replaced at once (relatively, though the southern section got done first, there was a few months lag between changes).  Current sign replacement projects on CT 8 (Thomaston-Winsted) and future projects on I-95 (Groton-RI) and I-84 (Southington-Farmington) retain the old numbers, but these are isolated segments, vs the whole road (like on I-395).  There's been mention that CT 8 would get new numbers, but only after other two signing contracts are done (Shelton to Waterbury and Bridgeport to Shelton). 

Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

If #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers, in a similar fashion to those on Cape Cod who were against the renumbering of exits on the Mid-Cape.  The Cape Cod uproar seemed to have stopped MassDOT dead in its tracks for a statewide conversion to mile-based exits.

Addressing this post in the order things are bolded:

The WCP's signs are older than that.  They're of the 80's button copy variety.

CT 20 also has new signs but no numbers.

Re-numbering exits on the Merritt/WCPs will be difficult.  The numbers will be a collaborative effort between CONNDOT and NYSDOT since the numbers actually start counting from the beginning of the Hutch.  I'm guessing that MM's will be added on the Berlin Tpke and the Wilbur Cross Highway and that the interchanges on the Turnpike and Wilbur Cross will get mile-based exits continuing from the WCP.

[Duke87]

Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

(3) The numbers on the Merritt get changed and the numbers on the Wilbur Cross don't (yet). This would result in a jump from exit 37 to exit 54, but would not create any duplicate numbers (thanks to them not starting at 1 currently).

If #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers

Yes.

Re-numbering exits on the Merritt/WCPs will be difficult.  The numbers will be a collaborative effort between CONNDOT and NYSDOT since the numbers actually start counting from the beginning of the Hutch.

What makes you think this quirk would be maintained in the event of CT renumbering their exits? It exists as a historical vestige from when the standard of resetting exit numbers at state lines had not yet been established, not on account of some deliberate coordination to maintain it - indeed, the numbers don't match up, suddenly jumping from 30 back to 27 at the state line! Meanwhile CT's mile markers start at 0 at the state line, so therefore exits numbered according to mile marker would do so as well.

[RobbieL2415]

Back to CT 15, there's two possibilities:
(1)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy retain their existing numbers, and exits are not renumbered until at some point in the distant future.
(2)  Exits on the Merritt Pkwy are renumbered as the signs are replaced, and overlays placed on existing WCP signage denoting new numbers.  Exits on the "Hartford Bypass" portion can either retain their existing numbers, get overlays, or new signage altogether.  I don't believe mile markers are posted on CT 15 north of I-691.

(3) The numbers on the Merritt get changed and the numbers on the Wilbur Cross don't (yet). This would result in a jump from exit 37 to exit 54, but would not create any duplicate numbers (thanks to them not starting at 1 currently).

If #2 happens, I wonder if the rich and powerful Fairfield County residents will be up in arms about having to learn new numbers

Yes.

Re-numbering exits on the Merritt/WCPs will be difficult.  The numbers will be a collaborative effort between CONNDOT and NYSDOT since the numbers actually start counting from the beginning of the Hutch.

What makes you think this quirk would be maintained in the event of CT renumbering their exits? It exists as a historical vestige from when the standard of resetting exit numbers at state lines had not yet been established, not on account of some deliberate coordination to maintain it - indeed, the numbers don't match up, suddenly jumping from 30 back to 27 at the state line! Meanwhile CT's mile markers start at 0 at the state line, so therefore exits numbered according to mile marker would do so as well.

I wrote this not knowing that the MMs reverted to 0 at the border.  However, I think it would be rather nostalgic if the exit numbers still started at the Hutch and ended at I-84, but good luck getting NY to agree to MP-based exits.

[shadyjay]

The WCP's signs are older than that.  They're of the 80's button copy variety.

CT 20 also has new signs but no numbers.

WCP signage was replaced 2000-2001.  I drove the parkway frequently during that time and remember seeing the old signs (which were a mix of Phase II/III (button copy) and Phase IV) and the new signs, which were staged in the DOT yard adjacent to the NB Exit 59 onramp in New Haven (at the West Rock Tunnel).  The project replaced signs from Exit 56 (Rt 121/Orange) to Exit 66 (Rt 5/Wallingford).  For some reason, the project didn't replace signage for Exit 54-SB or Exit 55... perhaps it was thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would've taken care of those, but it didn't.  In addition, some advance signage for Exit 67-NB was not replaced either.  These 3 exits are the only button copy remaining on the WCP, from Exit 54 in Milford to the north end jct with US 5 at the start of the Berlin Tpke in Meriden (sometimes referred to as Exit 69). 

Regarding Route 20, I'm not sure why they at least didn't install blank exit tabs, like what is on the CT 2 "Super 4" in Mashantucket.  Perhaps the exits weren't numbered since they don't know how to number those exits.  I'd start with Exit 1 at Old County Road and count up to the airport.  However since it's CT 20, a mileage-based system would start at MILE XX in Granby/Windsor Locks and count up to I-91. 

[RobbieL2415]

The WCP's signs are older than that.  They're of the 80's button copy variety.

CT 20 also has new signs but no numbers.

WCP signage was replaced 2000-2001.  I drove the parkway frequently during that time and remember seeing the old signs (which were a mix of Phase II/III (button copy) and Phase IV) and the new signs, which were staged in the DOT yard adjacent to the NB Exit 59 onramp in New Haven (at the West Rock Tunnel).  The project replaced signs from Exit 56 (Rt 121/Orange) to Exit 66 (Rt 5/Wallingford).  For some reason, the project didn't replace signage for Exit 54-SB or Exit 55... perhaps it was thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would've taken care of those, but it didn't.  In addition, some advance signage for Exit 67-NB was not replaced either.  These 3 exits are the only button copy remaining on the WCP, from Exit 54 in Milford to the north end jct with US 5 at the start of the Berlin Tpke in Meriden (sometimes referred to as Exit 69). 

Regarding Route 20, I'm not sure why they at least didn't install blank exit tabs, like what is on the CT 2 "Super 4" in Mashantucket.  Perhaps the exits weren't numbered since they don't know how to number those exits.  I'd start with Exit 1 at Old County Road and count up to the airport.  However since it's CT 20, a mileage-based system would start at MILE XX in Granby/Windsor Locks and count up to I-91.

Wow, you're right.  I'm really slacking tonight.

[jp the roadgeek]

Renumbering the Merritt but (temporarily) not the Wilbur Cross and the South Meadows CT 15 section wouldn't be that confusing or duplicate any numbers.  Numbers would just jump from 37 to 54 (or 38 to 55) at the Milford Parkway exit.  When replaced, the Wilbur Cross exits, whose signs are pretty well updated south of the I-91/I-691/CT 66 interchange (which is being reconstructed) would run up to 65 A/B for the I-91 North and I-691 West exits, and would only require number overlays in most areas, the only issue being room for suffixed exits for CT 34 (57-58 becomes 43 A-B) and Whitney Ave/Dixwell Ave (61-62 would become 52 A-B)  The South Hartford bypass section has late 1980's vintage button copy signing from when the Charter Oak Bridge was replaced.  I'd imagine the signage would be replaced as part of the proposed I-91/CT 15 interchange reconstruction.

[MikeTheActuary]

Regarding Route 20, I'm not sure why they at least didn't install blank exit tabs, like what is on the CT 2 "Super 4" in Mashantucket.  Perhaps the exits weren't numbered since they don't know how to number those exits.  I'd start with Exit 1 at Old County Road and count up to the airport.  However since it's CT 20, a mileage-based system would start at MILE XX in Granby/Windsor Locks and count up to I-91.

The other consideration for numbering the exits on CT 20 is how to handle CT 401.  There is one exit (Hamilton Road North) on 401, plus however you treat the intersection where controlled access ends.

If they tried numbering the exits in a compliant manner, they'd likely end up causing more confusion than it's worth.

ConnDOT would almost have to assign a new number to the entire connector to have exit numbers make any sense.  That might appeal to roadgeeks (I-591?), but outside our little fraternity it would seem like overkill.

(Obligatory disclosure: I've lived in sight of the Connector for the past decade and a half.)

[shadyjay]

I'm voting for I-191, though we'd have to renumber existing CT 191, which is just across the river.  I'd have exits starting with #1 at Old County Road, and counting up towards the airport, with the last numbered exit being Hamilton Rd North.  Truncate CT 20 back to where it meets the connector. 

While we're at it, I'd also renumber I-291 to either I-491 or I-284, to remove any confusion with nearby I-291 in Springfield. 

[shadyjay]

Re-issued press release:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=592054

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace the highway signs and their support structures on a 38.3-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line.
       "This project is necessary because of the age, condition and structural integrity of these signs and their support systems— some of which have little remaining reflectivity and are literally falling apart after 20 years along the roadway,"  said CTDOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. "This creates a safety issue, not to mention an inconvenience and distraction for motorists. As part of our ongoing asset management program, we are constantly evaluating the condition of all of our highways, bridges and ancillary structures. This project is a direct result of those efforts."

[Mergingtraffic]

Re-issued press release:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=592054

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace the highway signs and their support structures on a 38.3-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line.
       “This project is necessary because of the age, condition and structural integrity of these signs and their support systems– some of which have little remaining reflectivity and are literally falling apart after 20 years along the roadway,” said CTDOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. “This creates a safety issue, not to mention an inconvenience and distraction for motorists. As part of our ongoing asset management program, we are constantly evaluating the condition of all of our highways, bridges and ancillary structures. This project is a direct result of those efforts.”

And you know why they reissued it? To quiet the vocal minority groups that will complain and will think this is a precursor to widening or tree cutting. It's also been in various newspapers

[southshore720]

The inclusion of Milford and Orange in the press release suggests that the button-copy for Exits 54-55 will be replaced.  Do you think they are going to try to replicate the "saw edge" look of the signs, or are they going to go for the traditional BGS that they are installing elsewhere in CT?

[KEVIN_224]

Probably just the traditional. The sawtooth signs are exclusively with the Merritt Parkway, as far as I know.

[Mergingtraffic]

Re-issued press release:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=592054

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) is developing plans to replace the highway signs and their support structures on a 38.3-mile stretch of the Merritt Parkway from the Connecticut/New York border in Greenwich to the Stratford/Milford town line.
       "This project is necessary because of the age, condition and structural integrity of these signs and their support systems— some of which have little remaining reflectivity and are literally falling apart after 20 years along the roadway,"  said CTDOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. "This creates a safety issue, not to mention an inconvenience and distraction for motorists. As part of our ongoing asset management program, we are constantly evaluating the condition of all of our highways, bridges and ancillary structures. This project is a direct result of those efforts."

I just now reread it...They even put in pictures.  My god...don't want to upset the people.  I hope they change the font of the new signs. 

I think the button copy at exit 55 will remain as only a VMS in Orange will be replaced.  The Stratford/Milford line is where it stops.  To me that says Sikorsky Bridge.

[shadyjay]

Wow... those signs have definitely taken a beating in the past 16 years!  Too bad... I liked the unique-ness of them.  Guess we'll find out in a month when the plans are available of what the new signs will look like.  The Merritt held onto the old style CT shields (route numbers in the state outline) on BGSs longer than any other road.  In fact in my years of traveling the roads of CT (since the early/mid 80s), I never saw another road in CT with those old shields on the guide signs.  It's always had unique signing, except the section around Exits 39-40 which got the dreaded mid-late 1980s Phase III all-reflective button copy. 

[Mergingtraffic]

Wow... those signs have definitely taken a beating in the past 16 years!  Too bad... I liked the unique-ness of them.  Guess we'll find out in a month when the plans are available of what the new signs will look like.  The Merritt held onto the old style CT shields (route numbers in the state outline) on BGSs longer than any other road.  In fact in my years of traveling the roads of CT (since the early/mid 80s), I never saw another road in CT with those old shields on the guide signs.  It's always had unique signing, except the section around Exits 39-40 which got the dreaded mid-late 1980s Phase III all-reflective button copy. 

A state trooper told me the DOT went with the panel signs because certain groups complained.  IDK any details but he said they even complained about the service station rehabs.  Just let the DOT maintain the road like any other.

except the section around Exits 39-40 which got the dreaded mid-late 1980s Phase III all-reflective button copy. 

and yes it seems CT was in a rush to blanket the entire state in reflective button copy.  Within 10 years (1985-1994 or so) all roads had them except US-7 north of I-84 and CT-25 and a couple sections of I-84. Even signs that were up for only 10 years got replaced with reflective button copy.

They are a lot slower to get rid of the signs too.

[vdeane]

I don't remember the signs being anywhere near that bad during the Merritt Parkway meet a couple years ago.  Why did they deteriorate so much in just two years?  It looks almost like a storm blew a bunch of panels off.

[Duke87]

I don't remember the signs being anywhere near that bad during the Merritt Parkway meet a couple years ago.  Why did they deteriorate so much in just two years?  It looks almost like a storm blew a bunch of panels off.

Those signs were in that condition at the time of the Merritt Parkway meet. But, only a handful of signs were in pieces like that. Most of them were fine, so if you remember the signage being generally intact you remember correctly.

The signs which fell apart sustained that damage during the shoulder widening project (2014-16). The likely culprit is vibrations from the construction causing the bolts to come loose.

Meanwhile these signs were all repaired last summer (with new panels using the sawtooth design), so I find it intriguing that efforts to replace them are gearing up. Or, maybe, those few signs will be left out of the replacement - which could be an indication that the sawtooth design will be kept.


It appears to me that the key motivator here, though, is simply that the signs are losing their reflectivity. Which is not a statement as to their quality - by the time new signs are actually going up, the existing ones will have been in service for almost as long as the button copy signs they replaced (~20 years). So they're about due.

[RobbieL2415]

Yes, start a massive sign replacement project on the Merritt while parts of I-84 are still holding on to their original '77-83 re-build signs.  Makes sense.

[zzyzx]

I attended the meeting for the I-95 / Exit 74 improvement project, and got several photos of the plans in better detail.  Too many pictures to embed here--I made an album for those interested in seeing them in more detail: http://imgur.com/a/H3zuD

This was the first public presentation of the project, and while most residents seemed receptive to the improvements, many were concerned about the Exit 75 and I-395 interchange (Exit 76).  Without giving specifics, the presenters mentioned that this was the next "high priority" area they were studying. With the completion of Route 11 now out of the question, I imagine they'll find a way to combine the 2 interchanges.

Back to Exit 74...this is still a concept design that will likely see further changes.  No, 95 will not be widened immediately to three lanes following completion ("too many safety issues going from 4 with the auxiliary lane to 2 lanes"). The DOT is basically eliminating the major choke points on 95 across the state, and rebuilding the infrastructure so the pavement is in place when it comes time to widen the highway (when that will be, who knows, maybe a few decades??)

I also spoke to one of the state DOT engineers afterwards about other improvements to 95.  I was able to confirm that all future interchange projects (at least on 95) will include an additional auxiliary lane in between exits (yes, even in Fairfield County, though he noted that "land issues" are a major factor).  When I joked to him about using DDIs and other modern designs, I was surprised to hear that they do try to include them in the preliminary design alternatives (ROW, the state's hilly terrain, and not enough room for opposing traffic to merge onto on-ramps are the major issues there). While I don't think we'll see DDIs being built anytime soon, it's refreshing to think that they're looking into actually modernizing interchanges rather than building something substandard.

So...what I got from the meeting in terms of priorities for future projects:
1. Eliminate traffic choke points and reconstruct sub-standard interchanges, while maintaining the current 4-lane highway
2. Widen bridges to accommodate 6 + 2 auxiliary lanes total
3. Actually widen the highway

I like the new CTDOT thinking...but rebuilding 95 is going to be a piecemealed process that'll take decades (no surprise there).

[Alps]

It appears to me that the key motivator here, though, is simply that the signs are losing their reflectivity. Which is not a statement as to their quality - by the time new signs are actually going up, the existing ones will have been in service for almost as long as the button copy signs they replaced (~20 years). So they're about due.

They could start by modifying the background to FHWA green instead of the darker, less reflective current color.

[Mergingtraffic]

DOT engineers afterwards about other improvements to 95.  I was able to confirm that all future interchange projects (at least on 95) will include an additional auxiliary lane in between exits (yes, even in Fairfield County, though he noted that "land issues" are a major factor).  When I joked to him about using DDIs and other modern designs, I was surprised to hear that they do try to include them in the preliminary design alternatives (ROW, the state's hilly terrain, and not enough room for opposing traffic to merge onto on-ramps are the major issues there). While I don't think we'll see DDIs being built anytime soon, it's refreshing to think that they're looking into actually modernizing interchanges rather than building something substandard.

So...what I got from the meeting in terms of priorities for future projects:
1. Eliminate traffic choke points and reconstruct sub-standard interchanges, while maintaining the current 4-lane highway
2. Widen bridges to accommodate 6 + 2 auxiliary lanes total
3. Actually widen the highway

I like the new CTDOT thinking...but rebuilding 95 is going to be a piecemealed process that'll take decades (no surprise there).

I noticed since I-95 SB was widened between exits 15-14, the choke point is now Exit 13, which it never was before. Hopefully they'll address that soon.  Also, the loop ramp to CT-8 is awful. On the loop you curve down, then up and down again all in the loop. They need to make it a flyover.

But with Sen Boucher opposing tolls nothing will get done.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Is exits 74 and 75 really a priority? Yes, 74 is of poor design, but right now I'd say rebuilding exit 80 into a route that gets you to I-395 (even if it means via Oil Mill up the road). It would be helpful for those who go to the Waterford Speedbowl rather than take CT 85 all the way up. There is room for an entrance ramp from Oil Mill to I-395 northbound.