Connecticut News

[Mr. Matté]

The southern CT-9 signing contract is a joke of a contract.  So many signs are sheet metal that should be extruded aluminum. 

The NEW EXIT/OLD EXIT is just so wrong.... just put up the signs with the new numbers and then add "OLD EXIT #" signs.  Or just leave the exits numbered as it is, then when you're ready, change out the whole road and then add the "OLD EXIT #" panels. 

C'mon, what's so illogical about this?



/s

[shadyjay]

^  That sign would be fine, if they actually changed the exit number.  It still says "21".  It will soon become "31".  Having the old exit # sign up right now is pointless. 

I think part of the problem is that the southernmost contract for Route 9 sign replacement is the one that will renumber the exits.  The only contract with new sheet aluminum signs up at the present time is the southern contract, so they went "sheet-happy" in the middle contract in regards to the old/new exit # signs. 

And then there's a couple cases in Middletown where new gore signs were put up with the new #, and an "old exit #", but the primary guide signs haven't been changed yet. 

[Mergingtraffic]

I-395 was perfect tho w the extruded old exit signs. I'm hoping the CT-9 project was an anomaly as southern CT-8 contract has extruded aluminum on-ramp signs, town line signs and P&R signs too. It's the latest contract of all the Route 8 ones so far.

[shadyjay]

I-395 was perfect tho w the extruded old exit signs. I'm hoping the CT-9 project was an anomaly as southern CT-8 contract has extruded aluminum on-ramp signs, town line signs and P&R signs too. It's the latest contract of all the Route 8 ones so far.

Yeah, I wish, but we're not going to be so lucky.  The I-91 North Haven-to-Meriden contract and the CT 2/11/17 project, both of which are in their infant construction stages, show sheets for exit services, park & rides, and town lines.  At least the era of sheet aluminum signs for onramps was short-lived, only making it into one "blanket" project (CT 8 from Derby to Waterbury). 

Whose to say that they won't wise up in a couple years and install the extrudeds again?!?!?

[RobbieL2415]

The southern CT-9 signing contract is a joke of a contract.  So many signs are sheet metal that should be extruded aluminum. 

Oh, you're preaching to the choir! 

Okay, the town line signs, I can kind of see them being sheet aluminum.  Yes, it is a major shift in ConnDOT signing practices, as for years, we have been known to have our town lines signed very well.  But now you're replacing simple, readable town line signs with ones found on backwoods 2-lane roads.  Their font is such that you can't read them at high speed.  If they left out the middle "INCORPORATED ####" line and enlarged the rest, it would've been at least readable. 

But the rest really should be extruded aluminum.  Service symbols should be built into either the 1 mile or 1/2 mile advance on the primary guide signs (the so-called "service bar").  I was told by ConnDOT that the extra space would have required the signs to be redesigned to handle the extra load.  Well, considering the replacement sheet aluminums have already gotten severely bent or torn off in the last wind storm, I think they should've gone with the redesign on the extruded signs.  Otherwise, they're going to be replacing a lot of sheets over the next 20 years or so. 

Park & Ride signs should be extruded as well.... combine them with whatever secondary signs you have.  Instead of one sign for "Chester Airport", add "Chester Airport/Park & Ride". 

According to the sign plans, only existing Exit 3 and Exit 7 are getting "ATTRACTIONS" logo signs.  So what does this mean for the attractions in Middletown?  New Britain?  No signage whatsoever going up for CCSU.  And some attractions are keeping sheet aluminum signs.  Apparently "playhouses" and "cultural arts centers" aren't considered worthy of being on a logo sign. 

The excess speed limit signs really irks me.  Some of the older ones have not yet been removed (the ones with the larger "65" numerals).  Regardless, in my opinion, you only need 1 per exit, usually occuring after the merge point.  But for some reason, ConnDOT feels like we need one every mile.  In other states, one suffices, even when exits are 5, 10, 15 miles apart.  And the fact that there's a pair of "MINIMUM 45" signs put up in Chester (NB and SB).  The minimum speed in CT is 40, not 45.  The likewise new minimum signs up in Middletown say "MINIMUM 40".  No, this is not a contractor error... its what the plans said.  Again, we wait and see.

The NEW EXIT/OLD EXIT is just so wrong.... just put up the signs with the new numbers and then add "OLD EXIT #" signs.  Or just leave the exits numbered as it is, then when you're ready, change out the whole road and then add the "OLD EXIT #" panels. 

If the world hadn't gone all 2020 a couple years ago, this project should have been done by now.... the original completion date was "MARCH 2022".  We still have yet to see a single extruded sign south of Middletown... not a single sheet sign north of Middletown... and throughout, a hodgepodge of unanswered questions.  Will they figure out the mile markers are a mile off southbound?  Maybe when they put up the fractional mile signs.  How many times will they replace the exit gore signs before they realize they forgot to put the new exit number on them?  And what will those exit numbers be?

And is this all a glimpse of future sign projects?  We've got I-84's W Hartford-E Hartford project stalled.  And we've got CT 2/3/11/17 underway as well. 

Stay tuned!

The additional speed limit signs, are, as I've probably stated before, part of a statewide initiative to reduce wrong-way collisions. The new S/L signs (on the right side of the carriageway) have Wrong Way signs on the reverse. Also have to consider that due to recent changes in legislation, police officers are hesitant to enforce speed limits. Perhaps the overabundance of new S/L signs is to compensate for that lack of enforcement?

I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.

[shadyjay]

I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.

Yeah, that is indeed something.  How that section keeps on missing out on sign replacement contracts is beyond me... and nothing really in the cards for the next few years. 

[MATraveler128]

I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.

Yeah, that is indeed something.  How that section keeps on missing out on sign replacement contracts is beyond me... and nothing really in the cards for the next few years.

I agree with this. These signs should have been replaced already. I don't know if they're just lazy, or if it's a cost issue. How hard is it to replace signs?

[Rothman]

I actually think the bigger joke is we've got these brand new sheet aluminum signs next to 40-year-old extruded aluminum on I-84 from Exit 59-65.

Yeah, that is indeed something.  How that section keeps on missing out on sign replacement contracts is beyond me... and nothing really in the cards for the next few years.

I agree with this. These signs should have been replaced already. I don't know if they're just lazy, or if it's a cost issue. How hard is it to replace signs?

You'd be surprised.  In NY, overwhelmed contractors are no longer bidding on smaller jobs like sign contracts or pavement markings.  This causes prices of such to skyrocket as you only have one or two bidders.

[shadyjay]

The I-84 East Hartford to Vernon project would involve mostly all overhead sign support replacements, and most likely, replacement of all the support structures.  That right there would drive up the cost of the project.  Maybe they'll loop in I-291 and I-384 as well when they eventually do I-84 in that area.  Personally I would have extended out the West Hartford-East Hartford project to go all the way to Vernon/Exit 65, as that project is only replacing the signs themselves in Hartford. 

Sign vintage in that area of I-84 dates itself to around the I-384/I-84 interchange construction, which was 1985-1986.  The next oldest signs in CT not yet in a sign replacement project contract would have to be I-91 in East Windsor & Enfield, dating to the late 1980s (I-691's west end is from the same era as I-84 around I-384, but those are to be replaced as part of current highway upgrades taking place along that route).

[RobbieL2415]

The I-84 East Hartford to Vernon project would involve mostly all overhead sign support replacements, and most likely, replacement of all the support structures.  That right there would drive up the cost of the project.  Maybe they'll loop in I-291 and I-384 as well when they eventually do I-84 in that area.  Personally I would have extended out the West Hartford-East Hartford project to go all the way to Vernon/Exit 65, as that project is only replacing the signs themselves in Hartford. 

Sign vintage in that area of I-84 dates itself to around the I-384/I-84 interchange construction, which was 1985-1986.  The next oldest signs in CT not yet in a sign replacement project contract would have to be I-91 in East Windsor & Enfield, dating to the late 1980s (I-691's west end is from the same era as I-84 around I-384, but those are to be replaced as part of current highway upgrades taking place along that route).

The policy for this stretch has been repair/replace. I could see them not getting replaced until I-84 gets mileage exits, in like 2030-2040 or something.
What about the signs for Exit 61? Did they sit up there covered until I-291 opened in 1994?
There's also a few services/LOGO button copy signs left on that stretch.
Beyond Exit 65, were those signs replaced in the mid-90s? They're in much better shape.

[shadyjay]

I don't recall much of I-84 personally, pre-1999.  The only trips we took up that way were to Sturbridge Village back when I was in grammar school.  I do recall we took I-91 North to Exit 30 to the Founders Bridge to get to I-84, since that was during the era when Exit 29 was closed (it was closed between the time it was a left exit and the time the right exit climb opened).  I don't believe the I-291 signs were up the whole time... my guess is that they were put in storage, as they're the same vintage as surrounding signs.  Mass did this when they were rebuilding the viaduct in Springfield... the signs were kept in storage until the viaduct was done, then they were put up.

East of Exit 65, those signs are most likely late 90s vintage.  Button copy was being phased out c 1995 (I-291 and CT 9's north end were among the last roads to get it, both being new construction).  Those on I-84 are essentially the same vintage as those on I-91 between North Haven and Middletown.  Exit services are still text and predate service symbols.  The use of the service bar started shortly later, first appearing on the Wilbur Cross before spilling over to other roads. 

[kurumi]

Minor improvements are proposed along CT 85, mainly between CT 82 and 161: https://portal.ct.gov/DOTSalemMontville85-146 / https://www.theday.com/local-news/20220319/major-construction-improvements-proposed-for-route-85

The one change of note is a relocation of part of 161 from Butlertown Road easterly to meet CT 85 at a new 4-way roundabout at Deer Run.

[Mergingtraffic]

New signage on the CT-8 portion of the mixmaster in Waterbury.  Note the creative use of the yellow "USE EXIT 35."

[/url]

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.

[RobbieL2415]

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.

The justification probably is that if someone crashes into a sheet metal sign, its less dangerous to the driver and cheaper to replace.
The biggest issue I've seen is reflectivity.

[abqtraveler]

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.

The justification probably is that if someone crashes into a sheet metal sign, its less dangerous to the driver and cheaper to replace.
The biggest issue I've seen is reflectivity.

That argument doesn't hold water with me. The MUTCD now requires ground-mounted extruded aluminum signs to have breakaway supports, so that when they're struck by a vehicle, the supports break off and the sign falls in the opposite direction of the vehicle motion.

[DJStephens]

and it boggles my mind how CT basically uses extruded aluminum of basically exit signs.  MA uses for a lot of warning and regulatory signs.  CT could use more warning extruded aluminum signs in Middletown for the stoplights and other areas.  I suggested that once to the DOT but they seemed stuck in their ways. 

Makes you also wonder, side streets that have extruded aluminum signs such as a few on CT-34 and CT-73, will they give way to sheets when a new signing contract comes through.  The sheeting that CT uses seems flimsy and thin at best.  The sheeting starts to curve as soon as it's put up.

The justification probably is that if someone crashes into a sheet metal sign, its less dangerous to the driver and cheaper to replace.
The biggest issue I've seen is reflectivity.

That argument doesn't hold water with me. The MUTCD now requires ground-mounted extruded aluminum signs to have breakaway supports, so that when they're struck by a vehicle, the supports break off and the sign falls in the opposite direction of the vehicle motion.

Was under the impression that that requirement has existed for a long time - 55 years perhaps?  But maybe am thinking of larger type BGS ground mounted signage.   

[shadyjay]

Lamont has killed the I-95 improvement project in Greenwich....
https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Lamont-pulls-plug-on-I-95-project-in-Greenwich-17065676.php#:~:text=GREENWICH%20%E2%80%94%20Due%20to%20complaints%20that,First%20Selectman%20Fred%20Camillo%20announced.

"We were able to show the state that there was a need for a more comprehensive plan to mitigate the noise generated by highway traffic, which has a negative impact on our residents and environment."

Well then, why on earth did you buy a house next to the interstate?  Seriously, how is some paving, bridge rehab, and signs going to effect the noise of traffic on I-95?  Couldn't they just throw up some sound barriers in the affected areas? 

Oh well... maybe this $200 million can get reallocated to getting other sign projects off the ground, or other much-long-overdue projects started (cough... Route 9....Middletown....cough....)


In Route 9 sign replacement news...

Actually, no news to report.  No visible progress made, from end-to-end, in the past month.  Lots of overhead foundations awaiting new signs.  The staging lot in Middletown is empty... no signs at all.  Are we waiting for the signs themselves to come in from the fabricator?  There was more progress this winter than there has been in the spring thus far. 

[MATraveler128]

Lamont has killed the I-95 improvement project in Greenwich....
https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Lamont-pulls-plug-on-I-95-project-in-Greenwich-17065676.php#:~:text=GREENWICH%20%E2%80%94%20Due%20to%20complaints%20that,First%20Selectman%20Fred%20Camillo%20announced.

"We were able to show the state that there was a need for a more comprehensive plan to mitigate the noise generated by highway traffic, which has a negative impact on our residents and environment."

Well then, why on earth did you buy a house next to the interstate?  Seriously, how is some paving, bridge rehab, and signs going to effect the noise of traffic on I-95?  Couldn't they just throw up some sound barriers in the affected areas? 

I don't see how this would be harmful to those who live next to I-95. Spot improvements aren't going to hurt anyone. Greenwich and SW Connecticut really need this done. I agree that they should just throw sound barriers up.

[abqtraveler]

Lamont has killed the I-95 improvement project in Greenwich....
https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Lamont-pulls-plug-on-I-95-project-in-Greenwich-17065676.php#:~:text=GREENWICH%20%E2%80%94%20Due%20to%20complaints%20that,First%20Selectman%20Fred%20Camillo%20announced.

"We were able to show the state that there was a need for a more comprehensive plan to mitigate the noise generated by highway traffic, which has a negative impact on our residents and environment."

Well then, why on earth did you buy a house next to the interstate?  Seriously, how is some paving, bridge rehab, and signs going to effect the noise of traffic on I-95?  Couldn't they just throw up some sound barriers in the affected areas? 

I don't see how this would be harmful to those who live next to I-95. Spot improvements aren't going to hurt anyone. Greenwich and SW Connecticut really need this done. I agree that they should just throw sound barriers up.

What the article completely fails to mention: how can the state justify spending $205 million for "spot improvements" and resurfacing? They've completely reconstructed entire stretches of highway for a fraction of that amount. Sounds like there is a lot of waste going on there.

[Mergingtraffic]

New signs ready to go up for CT-8 Exit 13.  Although I thought only still needed to be put up, the 1/2 mile advance sign northbound.  The NB "exit now" sign was just put up from a previous "20 sign spot improvement" project.

[The Ghostbuster]

Will the exit number on the new signs be 11 (mileage) or 13 (sequential)?

[shadyjay]

Sequential.  The mileage contract hasn't been released yet.  It would have made sense to have the old number overlayed over.  We now wonder if the renumbering contract will overlay over (a la MassDOT) or replace the entire tab (which was supposed to happen in the CT 9 northern/middle contracts, but luckily they smartened up and overlayed the old number over the new number). 

[DJStephens]

What the article completely fails to mention: how can the state justify spending $205 million for "spot improvements" and resurfacing? They've completely reconstructed entire stretches of highway for a fraction of that amount. Sounds like there is a lot of waste going on there.

Just about the most expensive part of the country, to do anything.  Real Estate, Utilities, Labor, etc.
Prevailing Wage.   A million dollars doesn't go very far in SW Connecticut.   And heaven forbid they add the fourth GP lane in each direction, as well as useful auxiliary lanes between closely spaced exits.     
If money was not a concern, would depress the road, as much as possible, with some minor straightening.    Tens of Billions to completely reconstruct, properly, with needed widening, auxiliary lanes, noise abatements / sound walls, and perhaps deck parks in certain locales.   

[abqtraveler]

What the article completely fails to mention: how can the state justify spending $205 million for "spot improvements" and resurfacing? They've completely reconstructed entire stretches of highway for a fraction of that amount. Sounds like there is a lot of waste going on there.

Just about the most expensive part of the country, to do anything.  Real Estate, Utilities, Labor, etc.
Prevailing Wage.   A million dollars doesn't go very far in SW Connecticut.   And heaven forbid they add the fourth GP lane in each direction, as well as useful auxiliary lanes between closely spaced exits.     
If money was not a concern, would depress the road, as much as possible, with some minor straightening.    Tens of Billions to completely reconstruct, properly, with needed widening, auxiliary lanes, noise abatements / sound walls, and perhaps deck parks in certain locales.

For 6 miles of highway, I can see them spending $205 million if they're replacing every single bridge and overpass, and reconstructing the roadway (removing the underlying concrete, regrading the roadbed, and placing a new sub-base and pavement), but from the sounds of it, they're not going that far. 

If it's like any other "spot improvement" project, they'll probably replace two or three of the most deteriorated bridges, and perform patch and repairs on the rest, and then mill the roadway, make repairs to the underlying concrete, and resurface with a new layer of asphalt. Maybe $50-$100 million, but I can't see that being $205 million.

[Alps]

Sequential.  The mileage contract hasn't been released yet.  It would have made sense to have the old number overlayed over.  We now wonder if the renumbering contract will overlay over (a la MassDOT) or replace the entire tab (which was supposed to happen in the CT 9 northern/middle contracts, but luckily they smartened up and overlayed the old number over the new number). 

Now I know agencies that will put up the new number and then overlay the old number on top of it until it's time to change. Wish ConnDOT would do that!