Connecticut News

[Mergingtraffic]

Back to the CT-8 project....some button copy signs will remain in Naugatuck and Shelton, but overlays will be installed over the signs.  Not sure why that is being done. Maybe new signs will come when they rehab the bridges?

[shadyjay]

For Shelton, next year's CT 8 sign replacement project will cover I-95 up to Shelton, so most likely this will include the remainder of the Exit 14 signs.  There's an error in the Derby-Waterbury plans which show an overlay of "Derby/New Haven" being placed over the Exit 14 sign.  Hopefully they catch that before the signs get made.  If it's going to be an overlay, it should say either "Howe Ave" or "Shelton", as Howe Ave is in Shelton, so the street name/town is no longer allowed. 

Meanwhile, there's a sign to be replaced northbound for Exit 14, which retains "Howe Ave/Shelton", under the 2017 version of the state's random sign support replacement project.  Generally, signs in projects such as those retain the "status-quo" as far as the wording on the sign, but if the signs through there are going to be replaced anyway, with most likely different wording, then they hopefully will issue an addendum or a contract modification in order to have the signs all match up. 

In Naugatuck, the overlay of "NAUGATUCK" over "NORTH MAIN ST" for Exit 27 makes sense on the northbound "exit now" sign, since that sign (and Exit 28 1/2 mile) was previously replaced.  As for the Exit 27 sign, that's still button copy - perhaps the whole gantry will get replaced in another project.

[yakra]

Route 34:
Connecticut does not ever include town-maintained roads on the numbered state system, correct?

If that's the case, dig this:
TOWN ROAD LIST
LISTING OF LOCALLY MAINTAINED ROADS BY TOWN
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/ref/townroadlist.pdf
Check out the New Haven listings, starting at Page 556. Both "LEGION AV-RT 34" (curious name, though...) and "NORTH FRONTAGE RD" are included.

[jp the roadgeek]

Just looked at my town.  There are a couple of roads that have sections that are part of a state route, but the mileage shown is for the section that is not a state route.  However, the town is responsible for snow removal on most of the numbered routes in my town except for the sections that pass through highway interchange zones. 

As for CT 34 in New Haven, maybe this is a clue that CT 34 (and SR 706) have indeed been truncated to CT 10/eliminated. 

[Duke87]

Connecticut does not ever include town-maintained roads on the numbered state system, correct?

What never? Well, hardly ever.

There are two known segments of locally-maintained state highway in Connecticut: 136 from S. Main St to Washington St in Norwalk, and 83 from Hartford Rd to US 44 in Manchester.


Legion Ave in New Haven being locally maintained is new - it definitely was state maintained in the past. I concur with the assessment that this indicates a truncation of CT 34 is in progress. Note as well how mention of CT 34 has been deliberately removed from signs for exit 47 on I-95. Also, when the removal of the Oak Street connector was a mere study, one thing that was discussed was how through traffic to I-95 from CT 34 should use CT 10 instead of going through downtown.

[shadyjay]

The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.

[Mergingtraffic]

The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.

Highway gothic font will be used.  Thank god.  I hate the font that they currently use.  The current reflectivity is awful, it looks sheet white when the headlights hit it and the ones on the Sikorsky Bridge are shiny. 

The recent signage with the awful font for the service plazas will not be changed.  I find that odd since they will not be consistent after the project is done.

[tckma]

A road trip up to CT this weekend had me seeing brand new signs on CT-8, particularly north of I-84.  I'm wondering why, when CT has already started transitioning to milepost-based exit numbers on I-395, they decided to keep the existing exit numbers when the new signs were made?  Seems like a big waste of taxpayer dollars, as the signs (or at least the exit tabs and gore signs) will need to be replaced prematurely.

Also, some of the old signage is gone along I-84.

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[shadyjay]

A road trip up to CT this weekend had me seeing brand new signs on CT-8, particularly north of I-84.  I'm wondering why, when CT has already started transitioning to milepost-based exit numbers on I-395, they decided to keep the existing exit numbers when the new signs were made?  Seems like a big waste of taxpayer dollars, as the signs (or at least the exit tabs and gore signs) will need to be replaced prematurely.

I agree.  It would've been the perfect time to convert at least the northern half of Route 8 to mile-based exits (ie - from Waterbury, northward).  But ConnDOT's going to wait until all signs along the route are replaced before going to mile-based.  They've divided Route 8 into three projects:  Thomaston-Winsted (completed), Derby-Waterbury (currently up for bids), and Bridgeport-Shelton (due for bid next spring).  So it's possible the Bridgeport-Shelton project will include mile-based exits not just for the signs within that territory, but for the rest of Route 8.  But yup, I agree, seems like a waste.  The least they could've done was put overlays with the existing numbers over the new numbers on the new signs. 

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Yup, that's bad.  There's many bad ones for I-691 around Meriden, some being reassurance shields, some on approach roads, etc.  This one, though, on the Exit 4 pullthrough, was a replacement for the original.  ConnDOT has replaced a lot of shields on its overheads over the years, and many of them now include the state name.  So I'm guessing some of them were standalone shields that used to be mounted on the ground, that were just slapped up on the BGS.  Sometimes they are much smaller than the shields they replaced (I-84 in East Hartford) and sometimes they have whacky fonts.  And sometimes, the shields replaced badly-faded button copy shields (as on I-91). 



[/quote]

[jp the roadgeek]

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Very familiar with that area.  When I was a young kid, the highway was still CT 66 and used to end at that exit. 

That font reminds me of the font that New Brunswick uses for interstate highway shields.

https://goo.gl/maps/g2wiZ96okvN2

[JJBers]

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That looks like someone made that in Word.

[southshore720]

The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.

Do you have a link to these plans?  Are they available for public view?

[shadyjay]

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=44127

I usually go straight for the "CONTRACT PLANS" which show a map of the roadway with all the signs to be replaced.  For more details, see the "CONTRACT SPECIAL PROVISIONS" which is actually the final specs for the project.  Both files are PDFs.

[RobbieL2415]

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That is 80's ConnDOT poop font.

[PHLBOS]

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I believe there are still one or two Helvetica-font I-384 shields still out there.

[SectorZ]

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I believe there are still one or two Helvetica-font I-384 shields still out there.

On I-84 E/B on the approach to 384 there are a couple.

[JJBers]

Traveled I-691 for the first time as well.  What is up with this awful font?  This isn't the only place I saw it, either.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5540404,-72.842335,3a,32.1y,283.71h,100.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZMfuNLB-Gp1UizRdjrybA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I believe there are still one or two Helvetica-font I-384 shields still out there.

Here you go

Connecticut by JJBers, on Flickr

[J N Winkler]

The Merritt Parkway resigning contract is out, a week early. 

After checking the plans, it looks like the guide signs being replaced will be the same style as what's there now, but will be extruded like other guide signs elsewhere, since many of the existing sheet signs (which were installed in 2000) have failed.  The integrated full-width exit tab will remain, as will the "jagged-edge" border.  The font looks like the traditional font, not the font that's presently used on guide signage on the Merritt.  Exits 39 & 40 in both directions will get new signage... this is the last remnants of button copy along the Merritt mainline.  The project stops at Exit 54/Milford Parkway and will not replace the button copy signage at Exit 55, nor will it replace the overheads/button copy on the connecting ramp from Merritt SB to CT 8 NB/SB. 

Other than that, it looks like all guide signs within the project limits (NY state line to Exit 54) will be replaced, EXCEPT signs for the service plazas.

Highway gothic font will be used.  Thank god.  I hate the font that they currently use.  The current reflectivity is awful, it looks sheet white when the headlights hit it and the ones on the Sikorsky Bridge are shiny. 

The recent signage with the awful font for the service plazas will not be changed.  I find that odd since they will not be consistent after the project is done.

I am currently going through the Merritt Parkway signing plans and it looks like there are over 300 sheets to extract, though with a lot of repetitions, most of which consist of two versions of the "No Commercial Vehicles" prohibitory sign, one with that legend in FHWA Series C and the other in FHWA Series D.

I believe this is a rare example of a plans set where the sign panel detail sheets use the FHWA alphabet series but are nevertheless not pattern-accurate.  Most of the guide sign detail sheets have callouts that say "Use Stone Semi-Bold" or similar, so I suspect FHWA Series E, Series E Modified, etc. are being used to dummy out legend that will later be fabricated using Stone Semi-Bold.  I frankly wish they would just use the FHWA series, but we will have to wait and see what is used when the signs are actually manufactured.

As an aside, the legend "Merrit Parkway" in the parkway shield design is incorrect--should be two t's, not one.

Sign panel details are also provided for a number of standard (non-designable) warning and regulatory signs, some of which are similar to but do not quite match the details provided in FHWA's Standard Highway Signs book.  It looks like they are extracted from a ConnDOT state-level clone of SHS.  (In due course I plan to hunt for it online, but do not harbor strong expectations of finding it.  There are plenty of states--Nebraska and Missouri being just two that come to mind--that have such design references but do not put them online.)

A link for downloading the plans and specifications has already been provided upthread, but for future reference, the ConnDOT project number is 173-472.

[MikeTheActuary]

CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

Well, the Hamilton Road North exit is indeed no more.

The construction to realign CT 401 has begun..

It's only been in the past few weeks that it's become obvious that the work being done is more than simple drainage work.  Just finally remembered to look it up and confirm my suspicions that the exit is gone for good.

I suspect that "Hamilton Road North" itself won't last much longer.  However, if ConnDOT is true to form, "Hamilton Road South" will remain labeled as such in perpetuity.  (It's really just "Hamilton Road".)

[jp the roadgeek]

Saw the first signs that the sign replacement project on I-84 from Exits 30-39A may be under way soon.  Saw a yellow taped off area with what looks like a new slab of concrete for new support posts next to the BGS's at the eastbound entrances for Exits 31 and 32.

[shadyjay]

CT 20: Bradley 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, (Hamilton Rd North on SSR 401 28C), CT 75 would be 29, Old County Road 30, and I-91 31 A/B

So, for traffic headed to Bradley from I-91, they would encounter in sequence: Exit 28B (Hamilton Road South), Exit 28A (Bradley), Exit 28C (Hamilton Road North)?

I think that they probably could get away with leaving Hamilton Road North unnumbered.  I'm not even certain that interchange will survive the realignment of CT401 as part of Bradley's long-term construction plan.

Well, the Hamilton Road North exit is indeed no more.

The construction to realign CT 401 has begun..

It's only been in the past few weeks that it's become obvious that the work being done is more than simple drainage work.  Just finally remembered to look it up and confirm my suspicions that the exit is gone for good.

I suspect that "Hamilton Road North" itself won't last much longer.  However, if ConnDOT is true to form, "Hamilton Road South" will remain labeled as such in perpetuity.  (It's really just "Hamilton Road".)

Hmm... interesting.  First I'm hearing of this.  Is there a "final layout" plan or such available out there?  Not much on the CAA/Bradley site.

[MikeTheActuary]

Hmm... interesting.  First I'm hearing of this.  Is there a "final layout" plan or such available out there?  Not much on the CAA/Bradley site.

The CAA is, annoyingly, a "need to know" kind of organization.  The local planespotters' opinion of the agency is best left unspoken.

That being said, there are a very few images of interest in the Environmental Assessment done for the future Terminal B.  Figure ES-2 shows the realigned CT401 and CT403.

[RobbieL2415]

Looks like bidding starts for sign replacement on I-84 from Exits 40-56 next April.

Bidding for an add-a-lane project (!) on I-84 in West Hartford starts next July.

[kurumi]

Hmm... interesting.  First I'm hearing of this.  Is there a "final layout" plan or such available out there?  Not much on the CAA/Bradley site.

The CAA is, annoyingly, a "need to know" kind of organization.  The local planespotters' opinion of the agency is best left unspoken.

That being said, there are a very few images of interest in the Environmental Assessment done for the future Terminal B.  Figure ES-2 shows the realigned CT401 and CT403.

From the EA:

Two landside roadway configuration alternatives were evaluated using design simulations for traffic leaving or recirculating the Terminal B area. A flyover ramp alternative, which includes grade separation ramps and structures for all movements, was initially considered in the schematic design. An at-grade alternative was developed and analyzed to determine the feasibility of a lower-cost alternative. The at-grade intersection alternative was found to be more cost-effective and was selected for Design Development as part of the preferred alternative.

The drawings may not be to scale, but there doesn't look like a lot of room to merge and weave between the two levels of SSR 403 meeting and the SSR 401 intersection.

[MikeTheActuary]

The drawings may not be to scale, but there doesn't look like a lot of room to merge and weave between the two levels of SSR 403 meeting and the SSR 401 intersection.

Just eyeballing it, it looks like the post-construction road widths may be slightly exaggerated, but otherwise the drawing seems to scale.

If I had to venture a guess, they'll  take a page from the prior arrangement:  Before the Murphy Terminal was demolished, traffic lights were used to control the flow of traffic where the arrivals, departures, and international arrivals roadways came together.