Connecticut News

[jp the roadgeek]

Those shields are current standard. FHWA type D font on 2D shields w conn black border. Bordered shields are showing up on new signing contracts quite often. not sure what's wrong with them, other than the fact that they're absolutely huge to replace the former absolutely huge shields that were worn out.

I have yet to figure out why some contracts have the black border on the state shields, and some do not.  The I-395, CT 8, and I-95 between Groton and RI have the borders, but the I-84 Southington/Farmington project, and the plans shown for the CT 9/CT 72 signing projects do not have the black borders, and the 3D route numbers are in 3D shields.  Makes me wonder if it goes by DOT region, with Region 1 using the non-outlined shields and Regions 2 and 4 using it.

[Alps]

Those shields are current standard. FHWA type D font on 2D shields w conn black border. Bordered shields are showing up on new signing contracts quite often. not sure what's wrong with them, other than the fact that they're absolutely huge to replace the former absolutely huge shields that were worn out.

I have yet to figure out why some contracts have the black border on the state shields, and some do not.  The I-395, CT 8, and I-95 between Groton and RI have the borders, but the I-84 Southington/Farmington project, and the plans shown for the CT 9/CT 72 signing projects do not have the black borders, and the 3D route numbers are in 3D shields.  Makes me wonder if it goes by DOT region, with Region 1 using the non-outlined shields and Regions 2 and 4 using it.

No one should be using it, because the black color is not appropriate against the surrounding dark (green) background. The shield should either just be a white square, or if there is a border, it should be inset so that the color contrast of white on green is present.

[abqtraveler]

More plans for Connecticut's transition from sequential to mile-based exit numbers was the subject of an internal memo from the Capital Region Council of Governments. From that memo, CONNDOT presented the CRCOG with a transition timetable for converting all of the state's freeways to mile-based exit numbers.  Excerpts from the memo are below, with my commentary in blue.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjW_Yn5nLTlAhUVGTQIHeOSCqYQFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcrcog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F12%2FMemo-2019-09-13-Exit-Renumbering.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3vbIA6ODVGZNJ0j1GMfLpC

Conversion projects that have been programmed and scheduled:

Route 72 and SR-571: Late 2020 (Project 7-189/171-425)
Route 9: 2021-2022 (Project 172-473)
I-691: 2022-2023 (Project 79-244)
Route 2: 2023-2024 (Project 172-490)
Route 8: 2024 (Project 15-381) (Probably includes Route 25)

Planned conversions with tentative schedules; not yet programmed or assigned a project number
I-291 = 2026
I-384 = 2026 (might include the US-6 Windham Bypass)
I-91 = 2027
I-84 = 2028 (probably includes US-7)
I-95 = 2029
Route 20 = may be done with I-91, if not then likely 2032

[PHLBOS]

Planned conversions with tentative schedules; not yet programmed or assigned a project number
I-291 = 2026
I-384 = 2026 (might include the US-6 Windham Bypass)
I-91 = 2027
I-84 = 2028 (probably includes US-7)
I-95 = 2029
Route 20 = may be done with I-91, if not then likely 2032

Several larger states converted all of their sequential-numbered interchanges to mile-marker based within a 1-to-2 year period.  Why so long, 7-to-13 years, for CT... especially for the shorter-length highways (I-291, I-384 & CT 20)?

[kurumi]

No schedule for the Merritt Parkway, which might be able to celebrate the centennial of Connecticut's first exit numbers in 2047 with the original sequential numbers intact. (Although maybe there is a genuine sentiment in ConnDOT of "don't touch that".)

[abqtraveler]

No schedule for the Merritt Parkway, which might be able to celebrate the centennial of Connecticut's first exit numbers in 2047 with the original sequential numbers intact. (Although maybe there is a genuine sentiment in ConnDOT of "don't touch that".)

The Merritt Patkway Conservancy would have an absolute fit and get all their lawyers involved if ConnDOT even thought of renumbering exits on Route 15.

[Mergingtraffic]

No schedule for the Merritt Parkway, which might be able to celebrate the centennial of Connecticut's first exit numbers in 2047 with the original sequential numbers intact. (Although maybe there is a genuine sentiment in ConnDOT of "don't touch that".)

The Merritt Patkway Conservancy would have an absolute fit and get all their lawyers involved if ConnDOT even thought of renumbering exits on Route 15.

Def yes...I heard that's why CT DOT originally installed panel BGSs on the pkwy instead of extruded aluminum (which they're now finishing up) b/c the MPC had an issue with it. It's also why the NB Exit 46 service plaza had no on-ramp b/c it would extend the footprint. And yes it's why we don't have the US-7/CT-15 full interchange.

[RobbieL2415]

Planned conversions with tentative schedules; not yet programmed or assigned a project number
I-291 = 2026
I-384 = 2026 (might include the US-6 Windham Bypass)
I-91 = 2027
I-84 = 2028 (probably includes US-7)
I-95 = 2029
Route 20 = may be done with I-91, if not then likely 2032

Several larger states converted all of their sequential-numbered interchanges to mile-marker based within a 1-to-2 year period.  Why so long, 7-to-13 years, for CT... especially for the shorter-length highways (I-291, I-384 & CT 20)?

Because you've got people here who memorize exit numbers and aren't smart enough to notice change.

[jp the roadgeek]

Plus, how would traffic reporters in Fairfield County refer to the No Exit Zone on the Merritt if numbers were converted

Strange that CTDOT would number CT 175 as Exit 37, seeing that the 38 MP is less than 100 feet beyond the CT 175 overpass.

Not surprised at all that CTDOT is dragging its feet on this, as it does with pretty much any type of government work.  Almost 18 months after new signage was erected on I-84 from Southington to Farmington, and some of the old signage it replaced is still there.  Still have the new chorded truss gantry right in front of the old bridge mounted BGS for the EB 1/4 mile signage for Slater Rd, plus the bridge mounted signage on 84 West in Farmington for Exits 39 and 38 just a couple hundred feet beyond the new gantry.  291, 384 and 691 are less than 10 miles long and could be done in a few weeks.  Will be fun to see Exits 89 and 91 on the Willimantic bypass.

[vdeane]

I thought the No Exit Zone was named for the long distance between exits, not the gap in the numbers?

[connroadgeek]

Connecticut has no interest in switching exit numbers. It's busy work that costs money for no benefit. Want to know how far to the next exit? Drive for 30 seconds and you'll find out. It's not that the state can't do it faster, they just don't want to. Something planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.

[jp the roadgeek]

I thought the No Exit Zone was named for the long distance between exits, not the gap in the numbers?

It's both.  There was supposed to be an Exit 43 for the proposed northern extension of the Sherwood Island Connector, but it was never completed north of US 1.  Therefore, you have the 5 1/2 mile No Exit Zone.

I'm surprised they're waiting 5 years to do CT 8.  95% of it is new signage.  The only place where signage hasn't been replaced is through The Mixmaster. 

[PHLBOS]

Something planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.

Once upon a time, 1999 and 2000 seemed like a long way off into the future.

[abqtraveler]

Connecticut has no interest in switching exit numbers. It's busy work that costs money for no benefit. Want to know how far to the next exit? Drive for 30 seconds and you'll find out. It's not that the state can't do it faster, they just don't want to. Something planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.

Point in fact, it took ConnDOT two years to complete the sign replacement project and renumber exits on I-395, and they're three years in to replacing signs on Route 8, without renumbering exits.  Relatively speaking, New York is moving at warp speed on replacing signs and renumbering exits on I-84 and it looks like they'll have that finished before the end of the year.  But...New York is also moving at glacial speed to convert all of its highways to mile-base numbering.  The Hutch appears to be the next in line, and after that, who knows what the next route to be converted will be and when that will happen.

Yet another example of how they do things in Connecticut that make absolutely no sense, just like hare-brained idea sticking a traffic light in the middle of a freeway!

[connroadgeek]

Connecticut has no interest in switching exit numbers. It's busy work that costs money for no benefit. Want to know how far to the next exit? Drive for 30 seconds and you'll find out. It's not that the state can't do it faster, they just don't want to. Something planned for 2029 is basically the day after never.

Point in fact, it took ConnDOT two years to complete the sign replacement project and renumber exits on I-395, and they're three years in to replacing signs on Route 8, without renumbering exits.  Relatively speaking, New York is moving at warp speed on replacing signs and renumbering exits on I-84 and it looks like they'll have that finished before the end of the year.  But...New York is also moving at glacial speed to convert all of its highways to mile-base numbering.  The Hutch appears to be the next in line, and after that, who knows what the next route to be converted will be and when that will happen.

Yet another example of how they do things in Connecticut that make absolutely no sense, just like hare-brained idea sticking a traffic light in the middle of a freeway!

It makes sense when you view it in the context that they simply don't want to do it. Occam's razor. Could they have a bunch of stickers made to overlay all the existing exit numbers? Of course, and it would probably be pretty cheap and quick to do. This is how Pennsylvania did theirs in the '90s. They just went around with a bunch of stickers, covered the old exit numbers, slapped an "old exit XX" sign underneath and called it a day. ConnDOT for almost two decades now said that they would update the exit numbers upon sign replacement, but as we can all see they have no serious intent to do that except for I-395. Only interstates need to change, and really there's an exit every mile on average, so i can see the state's point that it's not going to markedly improve anything. The state should just say they are already compliant with the standard now except for a few places where it gets a bit out of sync. On 95 for example exit 48 is at mile post 48, exit 56 is at mile post 56, though by the time you get to exit 70 it's 9 miles out of sync, but by that point you're 3/4 of the way to Rhode Island, so you're going to renumber every exit just for that one little section of 95 between the Conn. River and state line? Seems like overkill.

[vdeane]

Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?

[wytout]

Well seems that state roads wouldn't need to convert, but fed $$$ could be withheld for use on those state roads I suppose. I would assume that's the only penalty they could impose.

[vdeane]

The federal government hasn't given money specifically to interstates in a long time.  These days everything is a block grant and the federal aid system is actually pretty expansive.  Those expressways are almost certainly on the NHS as well.  Usually when FHWA wants to assess a penalty they just take out a percentage of the state's total highway money.  That's what would have happened to NY if they hadn't reached an agreement with Cuomo about his tourism signs, for example (well, actually did - they just reached an agreement in time for this to not be permanent for that year's money).

[Alps]

Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?

Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.

[DJ Particle]

Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.

Which means hopefully MA needs to shape up and fly right eventually.  Some Cape Cod crybabies put the ENTIRE renumbering project statewide on hold in MA.  Jerks....

[PHLBOS]

Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.

Which means hopefully MA needs to shape up and fly right eventually.  Some Cape Cod crybabies put the ENTIRE renumbering project statewide on hold in MA.  Jerks....

MA's mistake IMHO (& I know this is a CT thread) was not converting its Interstates interchange numbers first and save the conversion non-Interstates exit numbers like those along US 6/Mid Cape Highway for last.

[vdeane]

Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?

Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.

This is what page 212 of the MUTCD has on it.  Nothing stands out as saying interstates only.  Or is there somewhere else?

01 Interchange exit numbering provides valuable orientation for the road user on a freeway or expressway. The
feasibility of numbering interchanges or exits on an expressway will depend largely on the extent to which grade
separations are provided. Where there is appreciable continuity of interchange facilities, interrupted only by an
occasional interSection at grade, the numbering will be helpful to the expressway user.
Standard:
02 Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit. Interchange exit
numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide sign, Exit Direction sign, and Exit Gore sign. The exit
number shall be displayed on a separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign. The
exit number (E1-5P) plaque (see Figure 2E-22) shall be 30 inches in height and shall include the word EXIT
and the appropriate exit number in a single-line format. Suffix letters shall be used for exit numbering at
a multi-exit interchange. The suffix letter shall also be included on the exit number plaque and shall be
separated from the exit number by a space having a width of between 1/2 and 3/4 of the height of the suffix
letter. Exit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route. Minimum numeral and letter sizes are given in Tables 2E-2 through 2E-5. If used, the interchange
numbering system for expressways shall comply with the provisions prescribed for freeways.
03 At a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number
without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is
designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the
same direction.
04 Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The
consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used.

[abqtraveler]

Where in the MUTCD does it say that only interstates need to convert?

Non-Interstates aren't required to have exit numbers. But anything with exit numbers needs to be mile based.

This is what page 212 of the MUTCD has on it.  Nothing stands out as saying interstates only.  Or is there somewhere else?

01 Interchange exit numbering provides valuable orientation for the road user on a freeway or expressway. The
feasibility of numbering interchanges or exits on an expressway will depend largely on the extent to which grade
separations are provided. Where there is appreciable continuity of interchange facilities, interrupted only by an
occasional interSection at grade, the numbering will be helpful to the expressway user.
Standard:
02 Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit. Interchange exit
numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide sign, Exit Direction sign, and Exit Gore sign. The exit
number shall be displayed on a separate plaque at the top of the Advance Guide or Exit Direction sign. The
exit number (E1-5P) plaque (see Figure 2E-22) shall be 30 inches in height and shall include the word EXIT
and the appropriate exit number in a single-line format. Suffix letters shall be used for exit numbering at
a multi-exit interchange. The suffix letter shall also be included on the exit number plaque and shall be
separated from the exit number by a space having a width of between 1/2 and 3/4 of the height of the suffix
letter. Exit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route. Minimum numeral and letter sizes are given in Tables 2E-2 through 2E-5. If used, the interchange
numbering system for expressways shall comply with the provisions prescribed for freeways.
03 At a multi-exit interchange where suffix letters are used for exit numbering, an exit of the same number
without a suffix letter shall not be used on the same route in the same direction. For example, if an exit is
designated as EXIT 256 A, then there shall not be an exit designated as EXIT 256 on the same route in the
same direction.
04 Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The
consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used.

It's interesting to note the MUTCD language also gives states a lot of leeway for short freeway segments of a given route: either use mile-based exit numbers or leave exits unnumbered for short freeway sections punctuated by longer non-freeway sections. I could see exits on the US-6 Windham Bypass and the short freeway stubs for Route 17 remaining unnumbered when signs on those stretches are eventually replaced.

[jp the roadgeek]

As far as those short stubs: the very short stubs of CT 184, as well as the Willow Brook Connector (SR 571), the CT Turnpike stub (SR 695), and the Milford Connector (SR 796) all have, or will son have exit numbers.  So it would kind of buck the trend if CT 17 and US 6 don't.  CT 72 received exit numbers about 20 years ago. I have the US 6 numbers upthread, but CT 17 would be 21 (Main St Ext), 22 (CT 9 South NB only), 35A (Hubbard St, SB only), and 35/35B (New London Turnpike).

[KEVIN_224]

https://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-pol-toll-postcards-halloween-surprise-20191101-rlzo3ttfzngtzarpguz5b22bdu-story.html

Another story about the state's toll saga. Yes or no?