News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Connecticut sign updates

Started by jp the roadgeek, April 15, 2018, 11:53:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jon daly

I drove by that sign today on the way to see my brothers. It isn't a BGS, but it is a (MGS? SMGS?) sign for Exit 59. On closer inspection, it looks like a lower case "y" shifted up too high.


shadyjay

For a time in the 90s-2000s, the community college signs were modified state-wide to "Com-Tech College".  Maybe this was a reminent of the conversion back to just "Community".

There was a sign on the Wilbur Cross Parkway for Exit 66 that said "MxCTC - Meriden Campus".  That would have been Middlesex County Community-Technical College, which is ironic since Meriden is actually in New Haven County.  IIRC, the sign was replaced with a Park & Ride one in later years.

jon daly

Quote from: shadyjay on May 27, 2018, 07:54:20 PM
For a time in the 90s-2000s, the community college signs were modified state-wide to "Com-Tech College".  Maybe this was a reminent of the conversion back to just "Community".


Perhaps. But the kicker on this visit was on my ride home via Bolton. I saw 3 signs for US-6 that had that state square shield instead of the US Route shield. One was at the Cider Mill-Lake St intersection pointing to 6. The others were 6-East and 6-West were Cider Mill intersected US 6 and US 44.

KEVIN_224

It sounds like somebody at Conn-DOT is being cheap, lazy or both! There's a stretch of I-84/US 6 in West Hartford where one sees a couple of state "6" shields . Clearly they are "9" shields upside down, with the northern end of CT 9 being a couple miles or less to the west. (CT doesn't have a state route 6 at all!)

jon daly

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 27, 2018, 10:17:43 PM
It sounds like somebody at Conn-DOT is being cheap, lazy or both! There's a stretch of I-84/US 6 in West Hartford where one sees a couple of state "6" shields . Clearly they are "9" shields upside down, with the northern end of CT 9 being a couple miles or less to the west. (CT doesn't have a state route 6 at all!)

Aha! I was wondering where those signs came from.

shadyjay

Just drove I-95 from Old Saybrook out to the RI state line to check on the progress of the sign replacement project from Exits 86-93.  New ground-mount BGS to report, mostly from Exits 89-93.  New speed limits and reassurance shields (using the smaller numerals, no state name, and proper color on the directionals).  Only mile marker replacements are SB.  Limited work on new foundations for the overheads.  No new primary BGSs for Exit 88 yet (those are going overhead).

A few pics here, more on my FLICKR page...

DSC09896 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

DSC09912 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

DSC09923 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

DSC09935 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


And the rest...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157659006078550/with/41689311324/

Magical Trevor


shadyjay

Lack of proofreading strikes again....

Framington

KEVIN_224

Maybe the sign people thought it was for FRAMINGHAM? Also, the "Crooked St 372" sign needs a "TO" on it.

RobbieL2415

At least the welcome signs get a logo now. And a better slogan. "We're full of surprises" is kind weak.

PHLBOS

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 29, 2018, 09:14:05 PMMaybe the sign people thought it was for FRAMINGHAM?
I was about to say the same thing.  However, the left-exit BGS itself has the correct spelling for Farmington.  If the letters are demountable; a correction can be easily made (preferably prior to erecting).

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2018, 09:18:44 AMAt least the welcome signs get a logo now. And a better slogan. "We're full of surprises" is kind weak.
Actually, that slogan could be interpreted in so many different ways and can be quite loaded .
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 29, 2018, 09:14:05 PM
Maybe the sign people thought it was for FRAMINGHAM?
When MassHighway first started their blanket sign update projects in the early 1990s, I recall that nearly every sign face sheet submitted from the fabricators for a sign including the legend "Framingham" had it spelled "Farmington."
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

jp the roadgeek

Framington has gone mainstream:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Typo-Caught-in-Framington-Sign-for-I-84-Caught-Before-it-Went-Up-DOT-484064751.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CTBrand

From the same people who brought you Exit 31 Route 10 and White directional signs westbound comes this:
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

AMLNet49

Everyone talks about the misprint, how about the caltrans layout on that thing?

PHLBOS

Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 30, 2018, 02:53:31 PMEveryone talks about the misprint, how about the caltrans layout on that thing?
The current BGS sports a similar layout.

Scroll down for pic

Daytime view of current BGS
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

This seems to be the only exception to ConnDOT moving away from bridge mounted signage.  Guess they figure they can since the bridge it is on is not an active roadway (unused NB I-291 mainline).  Due to lower clearance than the average gantry BGS, it's made to these specs.


Good news though: ConnDOT has made corrections to the white "WEST" shields.  The one just west of Queen St. is now blue.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Alps

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 30, 2018, 06:36:50 PM
This seems to be the only exception to ConnDOT moving away from bridge mounted signage.  Guess they figure they can since the bridge it is on is not an active roadway (unused NB I-291 mainline).  Due to lower clearance than the average gantry BGS, it's made to these specs.


Good news though: ConnDOT has made corrections to the white "WEST" shields.  The one just west of Queen St. is now blue.
I don't understand your fascination, but a white directional banner is barely an error compared to these other things.

roadman

#42
Quote from: Alps on May 31, 2018, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 30, 2018, 06:36:50 PM
This seems to be the only exception to ConnDOT moving away from bridge mounted signage.  Guess they figure they can since the bridge it is on is not an active roadway (unused NB I-291 mainline).  Due to lower clearance than the average gantry BGS, it's made to these specs.


Good news though: ConnDOT has made corrections to the white "WEST" shields.  The one just west of Queen St. is now blue.
I don't understand your fascination, but a white directional banner is barely an error compared to these other things.
On the one hand, a misspelling on a sign is a greater (and far more obvious to the average person) error than using black on white cardinal direction plates with red/white/blue Interstate shields.  On the other hand, both problems are equally avoidable errors that are indicative of poor workmanship in executing the project - whether the error existed in the original design, happened during the sign fabrication, or was the result of a field decision (i.e. we have no white on blue plates on the truck - the black on white ones should be OK for now).  Such errors reflect badly on the contractor and, ultimately, the DOT.  And these are precisely the things, however minor they may seem, that the media loves to use to fuel their "government is inherently incompetent and wasteful" bias.

Now, if JP was continually commenting about things like "Oh, the border on that overhead sign has a 9 inch radius, and it's supposed to be 12 inches.  That's totally unacceptable.", you might have a point.  But wrong colors on a sign are an obvious error that should be pointed out.  And, as many others on these forums have pointed out, the majority of the state DOTs do not seem to have any sort of organized quality control procedures to flag sign errors between the time the plans are prepared and the signs are installed.  Which IMO makes it even more important to call attention to when such errors do occur.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

shadyjay

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 30, 2018, 06:36:50 PM
This seems to be the only exception to ConnDOT moving away from bridge mounted signage.  Guess they figure they can since the bridge it is on is not an active roadway (unused NB I-291 mainline).  Due to lower clearance than the average gantry BGS, it's made to these specs.

Well, I thought that too, til I just re-checked the contract plans.  That Exit 39 1 mile sign is being mounted on a new overhead sign support, most likely a 4-chord cantilever.  So there should've been no reason why the full-height sign could have been used. 

Also, probably no reason why the sign just couldn't be mounted on ground supports.  The new 1 mile advance Exit 40 sign on the other side of the interstate is being mounted on the ground. 

roadman

#44
On sign projects, it's not uncommon for designers to take the "replace in kind" route when it comes to panel design.  If an overall sign standard has changed, or if revisions from the existing legends and/or layout at a specific interchange are required or desired, it's normally the responsibility of the DOT reviewer to point this out to the designer.  That's the principal reason why, for guide sign replacement specific projects, MassDOT requires their designers to submit a conceptual signing plan for review by both the HQ and applicable District offices prior to the formal preliminary submission (25%).

In the case of the Framington (yes, it should be Farmington) advance sign, to revise the panel format at this point would require not only changing the sign panel (relatively inexpensive), but revising the sign support design (not so inexpensive) as well.  Design error?  Yes.  However, given that the sign legend is otherwise correctly sized and accurate, having a 'correctly formatted' sign only marginally benefits the driver.  As such, I couldn't see that ConnDOT would agree to undertake such changes at this point.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

roadman

Quote from: Magical Trevor on May 29, 2018, 11:31:45 AM
Noticed by a friend...

Really?  They just leave the new signs lying on the ground, with no racks, pallets, or other protection.  Interesting.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Mergingtraffic

Anybody know why on I-84 East the old Exit 34 1/2 mile is being replaced ny a 1/4 or 3/4 mile sign instead? In the place of the 1/2 mile advance signage for Exit 34 is an aux sign.  Why??  Shouldn't the DOT keep the 1 Mile and 1/2 mile advances at almost all costs??

I've noticed they also have been skimping out on BGS.  The Exit 35 BGS (BBS) sign on I-84 west is now a regular sign and in an older post the the BGS in GSV are now just regular trailblazers.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6474926,-72.7912071,3a,75y,149.73h,81.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgA2DPTYLBFUctRnE1blWoQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

roadman

While the 1 and 1/2 mile distances are commonly accepted practice, 3/4 and 1/4 mile distances are OK as well (I personally don't agree with this approach).  Sounds like ConnDOT adjusted the locations of the advance signs to accommodate the supplemental sign.  The sequence used for the new signs may have been for spacing reasons, and to satisfy the MUTCD guidance that supplemental signs for an exit be placed between the major advance signs, and not before them.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

RobbieL2415

Speaking of I-84, holy cow what a mess the traffic is on there. From US 7 to the end of the Waterbury project at 3PM you average 45 mph.

connroadgeek

Does it not concern anyone that the signs might get scratched up leading to earlier oxidation depending on what they are made of laying on the ground like that?



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.