Connecticut News

[STLmapboy]

Two ignorant questions:

Why is most CT signage so old compared to surrounding states?
The traffic signals are also pretty bad. Why are they so old as well? And would CT get some damn FYAs?

<Gets up on soapbox>

Because Connecticut is last to the party on everything unless it involves raising taxes.  Last in the northeast to raise the speed limit above 55.  Last in the region to allow Sunday liquor sales.  Dragging its feet on converting to mileage based exits.  When they replaced signage the last time around in the late 80's, they decided to go to reflective button copy that was typical of the type of signage used in the 1960's because they got a sweetheart deal from 3M.  They somehow find money to pay their state labor unions handsomely but let everything else go to h-e-double hockey sticks in a handbasket.  And some of the speed limits are extremely draconian for the roads they are on (25 MPH zones on roads that would be 40-45 in most other states).  And so many of the state roads are extremely lacking in left turn lanes, let alone left turn arrows.  Plus whoever timed the lights on many roads was either high on something, had a deal with Monro or Exxon-Mobil, or all of the above.  It took us 40 years to fix the I-84/I-91 interchange, and NIMBYism has stopped the construction of pretty much every major highway since 1970.

<Steps down from soapbox>

Thank you for echoing my thoughts. I went to CT on streetview just after browsing through Texas and my god...it's just not up to par. Sure, there are some nice parts (91/95 in New Haven, HOV lanes, some decent signal installs), but so much of it looks...unkempt.

Can anyone send me a GSV link with a CT FYA?

[shadyjay]

As promised, a shot of the new Exit 22 signs on I-91 South in Rocky Hill.  These signs replaced the former button copy signs that were installed on the bridge in the background.  Signs for Exits 22 N-S were put up on that bridge in 1990, shortly after Route 9 was extended west/north of I-91.

91SB-Exit22-1 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


Look closely at the signs and you'll notice the shields are subtle outlines. 

Also, there are 3 different sign types for this interchange: 
This sign, mounted on the now-standard monotube bridge gantry
The 1/2 mile signs, which are button copy, date to 1990, and installed on a cruciform truss
The Exit 22S "exit now" signs, mounted on a tubular truss, also as part of the state's spot overhead structure replacement project. 

[shadyjay]

Also, at this time, I'd like to share an e-mail response I got after writing to ConnDOT about the sign replacement on Route 9.  I asked about why more sheet aluminum signs are being used, vs extruded aluminum, and why the demise of the "service bar" (incorporating service symbols into the bottom of the main guide signs).  I sent the e-mail on 8/27 and wasn't necessarily looking for a response, but what I got was very informative. 
.
.
.

Good morning Jason,

Your knowledge of signs is quite apparent in your email, which makes me curious to know what your background is.  We very rarely receive inquiries where someone understands signage and not only understands signage but knows the materials that are used. 

With that said let me get into some details about some of the signing decisions that are starting to be made now that the Department is trying to put more emphasis on asset management as a whole as well as replacing signage that has poor retroreflectivity.  Based on your email, I assume you may know what retroreflectivity means but if you don't it's the principal of returning light back to the light source, so for signs, it's the ability to have the light from the headlights of your car make the sign appear visible when it's dark.  If the signs were just reflective, like a mirror, the light from your headlights wouldn't make the signs appear to illuminate at night because the light would end up bouncing off the sign and go into the woods.

In general, the majority of signage on our limited access roadways were last replaced between 1985 and 1995.  After that point, there was minimal sign replacement until around 2005.  From 2005 until about 2015 there were corridor sign replacement projects and various sign support replacement projects taking place but it wasn't in a managed fashion.  Around 2015, we created a small group in our Division of Traffic Engineering that placed emphasis on sign replacement projects, specifically on limited access roadways due to the amount of unaware motorists that travel through Connecticut.  I want to emphasize unaware motorists because that is the intent of signage in order to make someone that doesn't know the area aware of roadway features or primary destinations along the roadway. 

Since this group came together, we've been looking at our standards and practices to try to update our signage to be in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and try to make better decisions on the use of Federal and State funding since all funding is paid for with some form of public money that we all as tax payers end up paying for.  As you noted in your email, the life span of the signs on CT-9 has been exceptionally long (about 30 years), but that's just because there wasn't an asset life cycle that was managed in the past.  With current sign sheeting technology, we expect to get a 17 year life out of the signs maintaining minimum required retroreflectivity. 

At this point, I'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the points you bring up because they're great points and I'd like you to understand some of the decision making that came into play.  I should note that the decisions we make now aren't necessarily locked in stone so we could revert if we feel it's a benefit to.

1.   Sheet aluminum post mounted supports vs extruded aluminum side mounted supports with foundations

a.   You're right on the money when you say the extruded supports last significantly longer but they cost significantly more. 
i.   A large sheet aluminum sign (let's assume a general service, park & ride, or town line sign as you noted) typically costs the State about $2,500 to install under a sign replacement project. 
ii.   That same sign as an extruded aluminum sign will cost about $15,000.
iii.   Since these signs aren't considered critical signs, we decided to go with sheet aluminum to reduce the cost of the installations as they add up significantly when you realize there are around 10,000 extruded aluminum signs in the State. 
iv.   These signs are also a lower priority in terms of the MUTCD so we want to maintain an emphasis on the higher priority signs such as the Exit Directional sign, Advance Guide signs (1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc), and supplemental destinations that are major traffic generators such as a college/university or a train station.
v.   Utilizing sheet aluminum signs also allows us a little more flexibility on sign placement.
vi.   We receive many complaints when we replace signs because the general public doesn't understand how much the materials and labor cost to perform this work, so this was one way for us to reduce some costs from a signing perspective.

b.   Maintenance
i.   While in my opinion, our Maintenance staff is great, they have limitations to the type of work they can perform. 
ii.   When an extruded aluminum sign is hit by an errant vehicle or damaged our Sign Shop doesn't have the ability to fabricate extruded signs so we can't replace these signs as quickly or efficiently.
iii.   We also don't keep the steel in stock for the extruded supports because we typically don't work on them but we do for sheet aluminum.

c.   Adding the general services to the 1 mile or ½ mile signs was very convenient but it created other challenges.
i.   The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) didn't like this very much as it's questionable if it violates the MUTCD.
ii.   As services change, this becomes more difficult to update and more costly to update.
iii.   This created significant issues with the overall size of the signs. 
1.   They end up being a few feet taller and sometimes a little wider than necessary making breakaway sign post selection in many cases very difficult and more expensive. 
2.   If there was a steep slope on the edge of the road where these signs were installed, our Bridge Design unit would have to run additional loading analysis because the signs became so large.

d.   The Merritt Parkway signage was a little different than most projects because there is a Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee (MPAC) that all changes have to be brought to.
i.   Previously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.
ii.   During the design process we had to explain to the MPAC that utilizing extruded aluminum signs will mitigate the issues with the signs falling off and they will still look uniform similar to a sheet aluminum sign. 
iii.   Previous Merritt Parkway signs were required to be fabricated by State forces but switching to extruded aluminum allowed us to follow the standard low bid contract process.

2.   Thank you for your notes about some mistakes on the plans.  We've noticed a few others as well so we'll get them cleaned up as construction gets underway.

I know this was a very longwinded email but I hope it answers your questions in a way where you can understand some of the recent decisions and changes in design practice.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions as we're open to listening.  I also appreciate the tone of your email, it's not often that we receive emails noting that people are generally happy with the work being accomplished.

Have a nice weekend and stay safe,

[Alps]

Previously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.

Glad you wrote for this quote alone!

[relaxok]

Wow! What a reply!

[mrsman]

Wow! What a reply!

Agreed.  Amazing they took the time from their workday to craft such a detailed reply.  Compare the non-response mentioned in the New York thread regarding Northway signage to guide (or not to guide) traffic in the Albany area of the need to be in the right lane to stay on I-87 to reach the Thruway.

[RobbieL2415]

Also, at this time, I'd like to share an e-mail response I got after writing to ConnDOT about the sign replacement on Route 9.  I asked about why more sheet aluminum signs are being used, vs extruded aluminum, and why the demise of the "service bar" (incorporating service symbols into the bottom of the main guide signs).  I sent the e-mail on 8/27 and wasn't necessarily looking for a response, but what I got was very informative. 
.
.
.

Good morning Jason,

Your knowledge of signs is quite apparent in your email, which makes me curious to know what your background is.  We very rarely receive inquiries where someone understands signage and not only understands signage but knows the materials that are used. 

With that said let me get into some details about some of the signing decisions that are starting to be made now that the Department is trying to put more emphasis on asset management as a whole as well as replacing signage that has poor retroreflectivity.  Based on your email, I assume you may know what retroreflectivity means but if you don't it's the principal of returning light back to the light source, so for signs, it's the ability to have the light from the headlights of your car make the sign appear visible when it's dark.  If the signs were just reflective, like a mirror, the light from your headlights wouldn't make the signs appear to illuminate at night because the light would end up bouncing off the sign and go into the woods.

In general, the majority of signage on our limited access roadways were last replaced between 1985 and 1995.  After that point, there was minimal sign replacement until around 2005.  From 2005 until about 2015 there were corridor sign replacement projects and various sign support replacement projects taking place but it wasn't in a managed fashion.  Around 2015, we created a small group in our Division of Traffic Engineering that placed emphasis on sign replacement projects, specifically on limited access roadways due to the amount of unaware motorists that travel through Connecticut.  I want to emphasize unaware motorists because that is the intent of signage in order to make someone that doesn't know the area aware of roadway features or primary destinations along the roadway. 

Since this group came together, we've been looking at our standards and practices to try to update our signage to be in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and try to make better decisions on the use of Federal and State funding since all funding is paid for with some form of public money that we all as tax payers end up paying for.  As you noted in your email, the life span of the signs on CT-9 has been exceptionally long (about 30 years), but that's just because there wasn't an asset life cycle that was managed in the past.  With current sign sheeting technology, we expect to get a 17 year life out of the signs maintaining minimum required retroreflectivity. 

At this point, I'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the points you bring up because they're great points and I'd like you to understand some of the decision making that came into play.  I should note that the decisions we make now aren't necessarily locked in stone so we could revert if we feel it's a benefit to.

1.   Sheet aluminum post mounted supports vs extruded aluminum side mounted supports with foundations

a.   You're right on the money when you say the extruded supports last significantly longer but they cost significantly more. 
i.   A large sheet aluminum sign (let's assume a general service, park & ride, or town line sign as you noted) typically costs the State about $2,500 to install under a sign replacement project. 
ii.   That same sign as an extruded aluminum sign will cost about $15,000.
iii.   Since these signs aren't considered critical signs, we decided to go with sheet aluminum to reduce the cost of the installations as they add up significantly when you realize there are around 10,000 extruded aluminum signs in the State. 
iv.   These signs are also a lower priority in terms of the MUTCD so we want to maintain an emphasis on the higher priority signs such as the Exit Directional sign, Advance Guide signs (1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc), and supplemental destinations that are major traffic generators such as a college/university or a train station.
v.   Utilizing sheet aluminum signs also allows us a little more flexibility on sign placement.
vi.   We receive many complaints when we replace signs because the general public doesn't understand how much the materials and labor cost to perform this work, so this was one way for us to reduce some costs from a signing perspective.

b.   Maintenance
i.   While in my opinion, our Maintenance staff is great, they have limitations to the type of work they can perform. 
ii.   When an extruded aluminum sign is hit by an errant vehicle or damaged our Sign Shop doesn't have the ability to fabricate extruded signs so we can't replace these signs as quickly or efficiently.
iii.   We also don't keep the steel in stock for the extruded supports because we typically don't work on them but we do for sheet aluminum.

c.   Adding the general services to the 1 mile or ½ mile signs was very convenient but it created other challenges.
i.   The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) didn't like this very much as it's questionable if it violates the MUTCD.
ii.   As services change, this becomes more difficult to update and more costly to update.
iii.   This created significant issues with the overall size of the signs. 
1.   They end up being a few feet taller and sometimes a little wider than necessary making breakaway sign post selection in many cases very difficult and more expensive. 
2.   If there was a steep slope on the edge of the road where these signs were installed, our Bridge Design unit would have to run additional loading analysis because the signs became so large.

d.   The Merritt Parkway signage was a little different than most projects because there is a Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee (MPAC) that all changes have to be brought to.
i.   Previously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.
ii.   During the design process we had to explain to the MPAC that utilizing extruded aluminum signs will mitigate the issues with the signs falling off and they will still look uniform similar to a sheet aluminum sign. 
iii.   Previous Merritt Parkway signs were required to be fabricated by State forces but switching to extruded aluminum allowed us to follow the standard low bid contract process.

2.   Thank you for your notes about some mistakes on the plans.  We've noticed a few others as well so we'll get them cleaned up as construction gets underway.

I know this was a very longwinded email but I hope it answers your questions in a way where you can understand some of the recent decisions and changes in design practice.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions as we're open to listening.  I also appreciate the tone of your email, it's not often that we receive emails noting that people are generally happy with the work being accomplished.

Have a nice weekend and stay safe,

Wow, what a kind reply.

[CapeCodder]

Am I the only one who thinks that the I-91 shields are wonky? The 91 seems to hug the bottom of the shield with so much wasted blue space above it?

[shadyjay]

Am I the only one who thinks that the I-91 shields are wonky? The 91 seems to hug the bottom of the shield with so much wasted blue space above it?

You referring to these?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7941406,-72.6548143,3a,31y,26.5h,86.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNSlaNGgiev2iMMwitoD17Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm not a fan of this style.. thank god they didn't become too numerous or last too long...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9009501,-72.6376977,3a,24.5y,181.95h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8rQBfRZdjExno80r7WB9lg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Both of these are pretty descent looking...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7911713,-72.655764,3a,26.2y,204.03h,94.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.18713%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[CapeCodder]

Am I the only one who thinks that the I-91 shields are wonky? The 91 seems to hug the bottom of the shield with so much wasted blue space above it?

You referring to these?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7941406,-72.6548143,3a,31y,26.5h,86.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNSlaNGgiev2iMMwitoD17Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm not a fan of this style.. thank god they didn't become too numerous or last too long...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9009501,-72.6376977,3a,24.5y,181.95h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8rQBfRZdjExno80r7WB9lg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Both of these are pretty descent looking...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7911713,-72.655764,3a,26.2y,204.03h,94.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXBdXwfbfhUMLpMcNWSol0Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D307.18713%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Yes. CT seems to follow MA's lead with supersized reassurance shields.

[shadyjay]

Actually, CT has never posted a supersized Mass-style reassurance shield, at least that I know of in the past 30 years or so.  The ones I posted links to in Google Maps are all normal sized traditional shields. 

Mass is the only state I've seen to use the supersized variety, and the XXL variety for the 3DIs.  To see them shrink back down to smaller ones on I-495 seems odd.  And I really can't stand Mass' use of supersized shields on 2-lane roads. 

[CapeCodder]

Actually, CT has never posted a supersized Mass-style reassurance shield, at least that I know of in the past 30 years or so.  The ones I posted links to in Google Maps are all normal sized traditional shields. 

Mass is the only state I've seen to use the supersized variety, and the XXL variety for the 3DIs.  To see them shrink back down to smaller ones on I-495 seems odd.  And I really can't stand Mass' use of supersized shields on 2-lane roads.

TIL! I think the two posts for use with the shields tricked my eyes.

[shadyjay]

ConnDOT has put up a new web page in regards to the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project in Meriden.  The plans show some extensive widening and ramp reconfigurations.  We'll be gaining yet another left exit but will lose one as well as lose one left hand entrance.  Here are a few highlights:

I-91 NB Exit 16 & 17 are combined into one, splitting into two, with Exit 17 entering on the right side of CT 15 NB, instead of the left.  I-91 NB gets widened from where the new ramp from CT 15 NB will come in (south of the E Main St overpass) to the Bee St underpass before Exit 18, and again from the I-691/CT 66 onramp north to the rest area in Middletown.

I-91 SB truck lane gets extended south to Exit 18, which will become a 2-lane ramp.  Existing combined Exit 17 (to CT 15 SB and East Main St) gets split, with the new ramp to CT 15 SB now occuring south of the E Main St overpass.  This will be 3 lanes, with 1 lane going to 91 SB, one to 15SB, and an option lane.  A short 2-lane section of 91SB traffic will occur, until the ramps merge in from 15 SB.

CT 15 NB gets a new left hand exit beginning as 15 NB crosses over I-91 before Exit 67.  This will be a 2-lane ramp.  The existing Exit 68N-E ramp is maintained in its present configuration, as it will serve traffic heading to CT 66 East and another ramp to 91NB.  (Traffic coming in from E Main St NB will still need 91 NB access).  The ramp from 15NB to 691WB is also widened.

CT 15 SB gets widened from the 691 EB ramp merge down to a new right side ramp to 91SB, also 2 lanes, which will fly over 15 SB to get to 91SB.

I-691 EB and WB will be widened from Exit 8 up to Exit 10 to accomodate the new 2-lane ramps at Exit 10-EB and the merge from 15NB.  I-691 EB - Exit 11 will be a new 2-lane ramp, still a left exit.  What is interesting is that thru traffic at Exit 11, EB and at Exit 10, WB will only get a single lane.  This will better show the transition between CT 66 and I-691. 

Basically all spot sign replacement projects in this area within the past 1-2 years will be junked.  Given all the 2-lane ramps and option lanes, I bet we'll see a lot of APLs go in. 

You can view the project website here, with links to download the plans.  No sign plans yet.  Construction is still a few years off for the big project, but the smaller one is planned for 2022.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT79-240

[Alps]

ConnDOT has put up a new web page in regards to the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project in Meriden.  The plans show some extensive widening and ramp reconfigurations.  We'll be gaining yet another left exit but will lose one as well as lose one left hand entrance.  Here are a few highlights:

I-91 NB Exit 16 & 17 are combined into one, splitting into two, with Exit 17 entering on the right side of CT 15 NB, instead of the left.  I-91 NB gets widened from where the new ramp from CT 15 NB will come in (south of the E Main St overpass) to the Bee St underpass before Exit 18, and again from the I-691/CT 66 onramp north to the rest area in Middletown.

I-91 SB truck lane gets extended south to Exit 18, which will become a 2-lane ramp.  Existing combined Exit 17 (to CT 15 SB and East Main St) gets split, with the new ramp to CT 15 SB now occuring south of the E Main St overpass.  This will be 3 lanes, with 1 lane going to 91 SB, one to 15SB, and an option lane.  A short 2-lane section of 91SB traffic will occur, until the ramps merge in from 15 SB.

CT 15 NB gets a new left hand exit beginning as 15 NB crosses over I-91 before Exit 67.  This will be a 2-lane ramp.  The existing Exit 68N-E ramp is maintained in its present configuration, as it will serve traffic heading to CT 66 East and another ramp to 91NB.  (Traffic coming in from E Main St NB will still need 91 NB access).  The ramp from 15NB to 691WB is also widened.

CT 15 SB gets widened from the 691 EB ramp merge down to a new right side ramp to 91SB, also 2 lanes, which will fly over 15 SB to get to 91SB.

I-691 EB and WB will be widened from Exit 8 up to Exit 10 to accomodate the new 2-lane ramps at Exit 10-EB and the merge from 15NB.  I-691 EB - Exit 11 will be a new 2-lane ramp, still a left exit.  What is interesting is that thru traffic at Exit 11, EB and at Exit 10, WB will only get a single lane.  This will better show the transition between CT 66 and I-691. 

Basically all spot sign replacement projects in this area within the past 1-2 years will be junked.  Given all the 2-lane ramps and option lanes, I bet we'll see a lot of APLs go in. 

You can view the project website here, with links to download the plans.  No sign plans yet.  Construction is still a few years off for the big project, but the smaller one is planned for 2022.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT79-240

2 lanes from 91S-15S and 15N-91N are all I ask for. Especially the former.

[abqtraveler]

ConnDOT has put up a new web page in regards to the I-91/I-691/Rt 15 interchange project in Meriden.  The plans show some extensive widening and ramp reconfigurations.  We'll be gaining yet another left exit but will lose one as well as lose one left hand entrance.  Here are a few highlights:

I-91 NB Exit 16 & 17 are combined into one, splitting into two, with Exit 17 entering on the right side of CT 15 NB, instead of the left.  I-91 NB gets widened from where the new ramp from CT 15 NB will come in (south of the E Main St overpass) to the Bee St underpass before Exit 18, and again from the I-691/CT 66 onramp north to the rest area in Middletown.

I-91 SB truck lane gets extended south to Exit 18, which will become a 2-lane ramp.  Existing combined Exit 17 (to CT 15 SB and East Main St) gets split, with the new ramp to CT 15 SB now occuring south of the E Main St overpass.  This will be 3 lanes, with 1 lane going to 91 SB, one to 15SB, and an option lane.  A short 2-lane section of 91SB traffic will occur, until the ramps merge in from 15 SB.

CT 15 NB gets a new left hand exit beginning as 15 NB crosses over I-91 before Exit 67.  This will be a 2-lane ramp.  The existing Exit 68N-E ramp is maintained in its present configuration, as it will serve traffic heading to CT 66 East and another ramp to 91NB.  (Traffic coming in from E Main St NB will still need 91 NB access).  The ramp from 15NB to 691WB is also widened.

CT 15 SB gets widened from the 691 EB ramp merge down to a new right side ramp to 91SB, also 2 lanes, which will fly over 15 SB to get to 91SB.

I-691 EB and WB will be widened from Exit 8 up to Exit 10 to accomodate the new 2-lane ramps at Exit 10-EB and the merge from 15NB.  I-691 EB - Exit 11 will be a new 2-lane ramp, still a left exit.  What is interesting is that thru traffic at Exit 11, EB and at Exit 10, WB will only get a single lane.  This will better show the transition between CT 66 and I-691. 

Basically all spot sign replacement projects in this area within the past 1-2 years will be junked.  Given all the 2-lane ramps and option lanes, I bet we'll see a lot of APLs go in. 

You can view the project website here, with links to download the plans.  No sign plans yet.  Construction is still a few years off for the big project, but the smaller one is planned for 2022.

https://portal.ct.gov/DOT79-240

2 lanes from 91S-15S and 15N-91N are all I ask for. Especially the former.

It seems like they're spending a whole lot of money without making substantial improvements to the I-91/I-691/CT-15 interchange. Of glaring note, they keep the lane drops on I-91 in both directions, rather than widening I-91 so that it's three lanes in each direction all the way through the interchange. I'm certainly not a fan of left hand exits. There was a great opportunity to eliminate the several left exits, yet they chose not to capitalize on that opportunity.  All in all, this could have been done a whole lot better with the same amount of money they're going to spend on this project.

[shadyjay]

One may think the mainline I-91 needs to be 3 lanes but it really doesn't need to be.  The traffic chokepoints are the movements from 91S->15S and from 15N->91N.  Thru traffic on I-91 moves pretty well through the 2-lane stretch.  After all this is said and done, it will still be 2 lanes, but for not nearly as long.

As for the left exits, they should've converted the 691EB->91NB ramp into a flyover.  You could move the whole roadway to the north to take advantage of the wide median, and have the present right 2 lanes at Exit 11 on I-691 fly over, with some rebuilding of course.  If you moved this exit to the right, then you could also finally put in the 15SB->66EB connection, which is a ghost ramp... graded but not paved.  It would enter 691EB on the left, and that could be one of the two lanes that becomes "thru" for 66EB.

This project is still technically in the design phases and I'm sure there will be tweaks between now and when it goes out to bid.  Maybe the public will have something to say. 

[Alps]

One may think the mainline I-91 needs to be 3 lanes but it really doesn't need to be.  The traffic chokepoints are the movements from 91S->15S and from 15N->91N.  Thru traffic on I-91 moves pretty well through the 2-lane stretch.  After all this is said and done, it will still be 2 lanes, but for not nearly as long.

As for the left exits, they should've converted the 691EB->91NB ramp into a flyover.  You could move the whole roadway to the north to take advantage of the wide median, and have the present right 2 lanes at Exit 11 on I-691 fly over, with some rebuilding of course.  If you moved this exit to the right, then you could also finally put in the 15SB->66EB connection, which is a ghost ramp... graded but not paved.  It would enter 691EB on the left, and that could be one of the two lanes that becomes "thru" for 66EB.

This project is still technically in the design phases and I'm sure there will be tweaks between now and when it goes out to bid.  Maybe the public will have something to say. 

I would slightly differ by saying that when there's an accident on 15S, 91S does get congested as everyone tries to stay on the mainline. 15 being two lanes with no shoulders, there are accidents there on occasion, so 3 lanes on 91 would be a reasonable thought.

[jp the roadgeek]

Looks like some of the replacement reassurance signage has started going up on I-84 in the Hartford area, mostly between South Main St (Exit 41) and Sisson Ave (Exit 46).  The I-84/US 6 shields are now on a single metal post instead of on twin supports, and the 84 shields are neutered, as opposed to the Southington-Farmington ones from a couple years ago which are state shields (no new mile markers yet east of MP 56).   Also included: a CT 173 South sign on the westbound South Main St exit ramp, a Speed Limit 50/Minimum Speed 40 sign near the Flatbush Avenue onramp eastbound, and new small attractions signs for Exit 48A and 48B that are about the size of speed limit signs.  The most ridiculous install: a new West Hartford town line LGS that is typically found on local roads in front of the existing one at Prospect Ave.  Blink and you miss it. 

EDIT: They added one eastbound right under the Prospect Ave bridge.

[shadyjay]

The most ridiculous install: a new West Hartford town line LGS that is typically found on local roads in front of the existing one at Prospect Ave.  Blink and you miss it. 

We better start getting used to those!  Though we have been in the minority for so long, as many adjacent states (MA, VT, NH, ME) use small town line signs that are usually also just sheet aluminum, vs extruded. 

Lets not forget this one on I-95 NB in Guilford that has been there for many years, at least since the 1990s.  What was once the oddity will now be the standard.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2970152,-72.7440725,3a,75y,103.39h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spbf3MaVY1jW2L7i9Iw-CSg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[MikeCL]

What's with the bridge work in Stamford on 95 N/S seems like they just stopped working and not sure when they are going to repave

[MikeCL]

Also, at this time, I'd like to share an e-mail response I got after writing to ConnDOT about the sign replacement on Route 9.  I asked about why more sheet aluminum signs are being used, vs extruded aluminum, and why the demise of the "service bar" (incorporating service symbols into the bottom of the main guide signs).  I sent the e-mail on 8/27 and wasn't necessarily looking for a response, but what I got was very informative. 
.
.
.

Good morning Jason,

Your knowledge of signs is quite apparent in your email, which makes me curious to know what your background is.  We very rarely receive inquiries where someone understands signage and not only understands signage but knows the materials that are used. 

With that said let me get into some details about some of the signing decisions that are starting to be made now that the Department is trying to put more emphasis on asset management as a whole as well as replacing signage that has poor retroreflectivity.  Based on your email, I assume you may know what retroreflectivity means but if you don't it's the principal of returning light back to the light source, so for signs, it's the ability to have the light from the headlights of your car make the sign appear visible when it's dark.  If the signs were just reflective, like a mirror, the light from your headlights wouldn't make the signs appear to illuminate at night because the light would end up bouncing off the sign and go into the woods.

In general, the majority of signage on our limited access roadways were last replaced between 1985 and 1995.  After that point, there was minimal sign replacement until around 2005.  From 2005 until about 2015 there were corridor sign replacement projects and various sign support replacement projects taking place but it wasn't in a managed fashion.  Around 2015, we created a small group in our Division of Traffic Engineering that placed emphasis on sign replacement projects, specifically on limited access roadways due to the amount of unaware motorists that travel through Connecticut.  I want to emphasize unaware motorists because that is the intent of signage in order to make someone that doesn't know the area aware of roadway features or primary destinations along the roadway. 

Since this group came together, we've been looking at our standards and practices to try to update our signage to be in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and try to make better decisions on the use of Federal and State funding since all funding is paid for with some form of public money that we all as tax payers end up paying for.  As you noted in your email, the life span of the signs on CT-9 has been exceptionally long (about 30 years), but that's just because there wasn't an asset life cycle that was managed in the past.  With current sign sheeting technology, we expect to get a 17 year life out of the signs maintaining minimum required retroreflectivity. 

At this point, I'd like to dig a little deeper into some of the points you bring up because they're great points and I'd like you to understand some of the decision making that came into play.  I should note that the decisions we make now aren't necessarily locked in stone so we could revert if we feel it's a benefit to.

1.Sheet aluminum post mounted supports vs extruded aluminum side mounted supports with foundations

a.You're right on the money when you say the extruded supports last significantly longer but they cost significantly more. 
i.A large sheet aluminum sign (let's assume a general service, park & ride, or town line sign as you noted) typically costs the State about $2,500 to install under a sign replacement project. 
ii.That same sign as an extruded aluminum sign will cost about $15,000.
iii.Since these signs aren't considered critical signs, we decided to go with sheet aluminum to reduce the cost of the installations as they add up significantly when you realize there are around 10,000 extruded aluminum signs in the State. 
iv.These signs are also a lower priority in terms of the MUTCD so we want to maintain an emphasis on the higher priority signs such as the Exit Directional sign, Advance Guide signs (1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc), and supplemental destinations that are major traffic generators such as a college/university or a train station.
v.Utilizing sheet aluminum signs also allows us a little more flexibility on sign placement.
vi.We receive many complaints when we replace signs because the general public doesn't understand how much the materials and labor cost to perform this work, so this was one way for us to reduce some costs from a signing perspective.

b.Maintenance
i.While in my opinion, our Maintenance staff is great, they have limitations to the type of work they can perform. 
ii.When an extruded aluminum sign is hit by an errant vehicle or damaged our Sign Shop doesn't have the ability to fabricate extruded signs so we can't replace these signs as quickly or efficiently.
iii.We also don't keep the steel in stock for the extruded supports because we typically don't work on them but we do for sheet aluminum.

c.Adding the general services to the 1 mile or ½ mile signs was very convenient but it created other challenges.
i.The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) didn't like this very much as it's questionable if it violates the MUTCD.
ii.As services change, this becomes more difficult to update and more costly to update.
iii.This created significant issues with the overall size of the signs. 
1.They end up being a few feet taller and sometimes a little wider than necessary making breakaway sign post selection in many cases very difficult and more expensive. 
2.If there was a steep slope on the edge of the road where these signs were installed, our Bridge Design unit would have to run additional loading analysis because the signs became so large.

d.The Merritt Parkway signage was a little different than most projects because there is a Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee (MPAC) that all changes have to be brought to.
i.Previously, the Merritt Parkway utilized an extruded aluminum type of sign support but had sheet aluminum signs attached to the supports with more or less a double sided tape.  That's why many of the signs literally fell off the sign posts.
ii.During the design process we had to explain to the MPAC that utilizing extruded aluminum signs will mitigate the issues with the signs falling off and they will still look uniform similar to a sheet aluminum sign. 
iii.Previous Merritt Parkway signs were required to be fabricated by State forces but switching to extruded aluminum allowed us to follow the standard low bid contract process.

2.Thank you for your notes about some mistakes on the plans.  We've noticed a few others as well so we'll get them cleaned up as construction gets underway.

I know this was a very longwinded email but I hope it answers your questions in a way where you can understand some of the recent decisions and changes in design practice.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions as we're open to listening.  I also appreciate the tone of your email, it's not often that we receive emails noting that people are generally happy with the work being accomplished.

Have a nice weekend and stay safe,

Wow, what a kind reply.

At least he got a response.. I emailed about two months ago about what happened to the highway advisory radio for lower Fairfield county it's 1670 AM it's been dead air now for over 3 months but yet the lights on the highway still flash telling you to tune in..

[zzyzx]

Connecticut College just launched a website about Urban Renewal History projects in New London, including the expansion of I-95. There's some high quality satellite imagery and charts showing the evolution of the road network around the city.  There's also a rendering from the 1960s that shows a widely different plan for Bank St. and the area around Union Station.  Basically CTDOT wanted to build a large freeway connection so commuters could reach downtown in less than 2 minutes. There's a lot more info to go through:


https://conncoll.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=9ed5ba20384545e6bfd5d3aaff30ea97

https://ctexaminer.com/2020/09/26/conn-college-launches-website-of-urban-renewal-history-in-new-london/


iPhone

[vdeane]

Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project.  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).

[SectorZ]

Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project.  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).

You know a state has failed when a neighboring state does a better job detailing their own construction events.

[vdeane]

Question: is there a place one can check up on the current status of construction projects in CT and related closures?  I was going to clinch CT 9, part of US 1, and part of US 6 on Sunday, but noticed on Google Maps that the ramps carrying US 6 on the south end of the CT 8 overlap are closed, aparrantly for a bridge project.  However, NY's 511 (which includes info on CT) doesn't show it in either the construction or closure layers, and CT's 511 is WAY out of date (the construction project shown in the area is from last year).  If this was NY, I could just go on NYSDOT's website, look up the project, and check the status - projected end date, whether it's on time/early/late/etc.  I couldn't find an equivalent resource from CT's DOT.  Is there one?  I'm wondering if I have to scrap this trip on account of the closure (if Google Maps is 100% accurate, one of the ramps would reopen by Sunday... but the one going in the other direction to what I'd be going, and I don't know if flipping directions would change my travel time, and since it's Sunday, don't have time to check since I don't know how to get an empirical time with Google's "depart at" feature, necessitating that I spec out trips on the same day of the week as the planned travel; plus changing direction is less idea for a multitude of reasons).

You know a state has failed when a neighboring state does a better job detailing their own construction events.

If it helps, that year-old project is the half of the project that would affect my trip that was done last year - and NY's 511 doesn't have anything in the area at all.