Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Passed through the [Waterbury] Mixmaster today... the u-turn from CT 8 NB Exit 35 is gone and the former 2-lane ramp is reduced to 1 lane while the u-turn is removed.  The double-wide Exit 35 "exit now" sign is still up, but with just an overlay for the Exit 35 route & destinations over the middle of the sign.  Its due to be replaced anyway as part of the CT 8 resigning/new exit numbers project.  Lots of excavation in the area for new overhead supports.

On I-84 West, they have still yet to restore the "NORTH" directional to most of the CT 8 North ramp signage.  Now that the u-turn is gone, now would be a good time to do that!

[RobbieL2415]

So... for some reason, ConnDOT seems to think that "Merging Traffic (symbol)" signs are no longer necessary and has omitted them from recent sign replacement projects and replacement of "sheet aluminum" signs.  We now have large sections of I-91 and most of CT 2 and CT 9 without any merging traffic signs.  The only ones that were kept were those where there's a short acceleration lane. 

This afternoon, I spotted where some of them may have gone to... the "merging traffic" graveyard      where there's not 1, not 2, but 3, yup 3 merging traffic signs, of varying sizes, on I-95 NB in West Haven:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2827128,-72.9528576,3a,31.3y,75.26h,85.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMLoh_i2EVXMJEea8jev3IQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

So, does the MUTCD require a sign where a ramp merges onto the mainline, or is it mearly a suggestion?  Relying solely on pavement markings seems short-sighted (no pun intended).

I mean, if they invested into sturdier aluminum signage and went to I-beams for support (as MassDOT has started to do here ), maybe they wouldn't have to replace them as often.