News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Connecticut News

Started by Mergingtraffic, October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
If CT goes to 1 - which they should - it won't matter what NY does.
It would at least be more logical than it is now, though I still don't like the idea of both sides having different numbers, and I still think it should be on whatever NY does because it's for NY 120A.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


ipeters61

Quote from: vdeane on September 08, 2018, 10:15:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
If CT goes to 1 - which they should - it won't matter what NY does.
It would at least be more logical than it is now, though I still don't like the idea of both sides having different numbers, and I still think it should be on whatever NY does because it's for NY 120A.
Is NY-120A's Connecticut side even logged by ConnDOT?  If it's a route that's only officially recognized by NYSDOT, I feel like NYSDOT should decide on that exit number, then Round Hill Road should be the "first exit" in CT if/when they renumber.

I do definitely think that each state should use the same exit number for NY-120A, just for consistency (e.g. so businesses can say "we're Exit 30 on the Hutch!" instead of "exit 30 on the Hutch, exit 1 on the Merritt, because whyyyyyy" or something like that).
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on my posts on the AARoads Forum are my own and do not represent official positions of my employer.
Instagram | Clinched Map

jp the roadgeek

ConnDOT does not log NY 120A in its route log.  The CT portion of the road is fully maintained by NYSDOT, similar to the nearby I-684 portion and the Waverly area piece of NY 17.  It would make sense to give it a NY exit number.  If only NYSDOT had added suffixed numbers rather than to keep adjusting numbers upward when adding new exits, we would have never had this problem.  Of course, CONNDOT could have adjusted 27 to 31, started renumbering exits, and eventually have caught up to the current numbering system by Exit 46, as Exits 30, 32, 43, and 45 are not used.
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

Considering how far up Exit 28 is, it would be Exit 3 under a mile-based system, so 120A could be Exit 1 in a CT system without squeezing other numbers. That said, I would also support it having a NY number, since that makes more sense with the NY route designation.

Pete from Boston

I haven't kept up–what's the status of the proposed expansion of the I-91/Charter Oak Bridge interchange?

RobbieL2415

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 10, 2018, 07:34:46 PM
I haven't kept up–what's the status of the proposed expansion of the I-91/Charter Oak Bridge interchange?
AFIAK it is in the design phase.  Construction start date is April, next year.

shadyjay

Wednesday 9/19 is the date the plans will be released.  Most likely construction to start in the spring. 

MikeCL

I wanted to know since it's been a long time for some that know around the Darien area they have the roadway lighting in the center on the Jersey berries. I noticed this morning that around the on ramp 4 NB they look like they have provisions for it but why did they stop in just Darien to Norwalk?

shadyjay

Here are the areas on I-95 where the center-median lighting is installed:
vic. Exits 10/11 in Darien to Exit 15 in Norwalk
vic. Exit 23 in Fairfield to vic. Exit 29 in Bridgeport/Stratford
Exit 33 in Stratford to Exit 34 in Milford
vic. Exit 43 in West Haven to Exit 53 in Branford

In other places, it appears that the median is ready to accept the lighting, though I'm not sure why it hasn't been installed yet.  Areas where it appears ready is in Darien just west of where it presently begins, from Exit 20 to 23 in Fairfield, and in most of Milford (Exits 34-40). 

Two upcoming I-95 projects will most likely extend the center lighting further... the rehab of the Yankee Doodle Bridge in Norwalk and the replacement of the median in East Norwalk, into Westport.  This is the last section west of New Haven where there is still a grassy median.  Some of those gantries are quite old as well.  Hopefully they do the median right this time, paving the entire median area and centering the barrier (unlike east of Old Saybrook, where the median isn't centered and isn't fully paved.  Some sections in Greenwich appear to have the compatible median for the lighting, but don't, or may not connect to anything else.  Stamford's jersey barrier is too narrow and wouldn't support the bases or doesn't have the conduit.  The narrow profile of I-95 through that area makes making that section difficult to convert.  But the rest should be relatively easy and probably will come with future median or other "safety improvement" projects.

Years ago I was surveying alongside I-95 in Stratford (near the old toll booths) and saw the plastic conduit for the existing side-lighting just laying on the ground, not even buried.  This gave it quite the temporary look.  The center lighting looks better and reduces the clutter along this already-crowded interstate corridor.

RobbieL2415

Correct me if I'm wrong but center-mounted lighting has been the ConnDOT standard since the 90's, at least for new construction.  I-291, I-91 north of Hartford, I-84 east of Waterbury have all been done since then.

shadyjay

Correct.  Only new construction not to get center median lighting was Route 9 north of New Britain to I-84.  That would've been a short section, though, as the median is only narrow for about a mile or so between Exits 29 & 30, where it widens again heading up to the Stack.

MikeCL

Quote from: shadyjay on September 11, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
Here are the areas on I-95 where the center-median lighting is installed:
vic. Exits 10/11 in Darien to Exit 15 in Norwalk
vic. Exit 23 in Fairfield to vic. Exit 29 in Bridgeport/Stratford
Exit 33 in Stratford to Exit 34 in Milford
vic. Exit 43 in West Haven to Exit 53 in Branford

In other places, it appears that the median is ready to accept the lighting, though I'm not sure why it hasn't been installed yet.  Areas where it appears ready is in Darien just west of where it presently begins, from Exit 20 to 23 in Fairfield, and in most of Milford (Exits 34-40). 

Two upcoming I-95 projects will most likely extend the center lighting further... the rehab of the Yankee Doodle Bridge in Norwalk and the replacement of the median in East Norwalk, into Westport.  This is the last section west of New Haven where there is still a grassy median.  Some of those gantries are quite old as well.  Hopefully they do the median right this time, paving the entire median area and centering the barrier (unlike east of Old Saybrook, where the median isn't centered and isn't fully paved.  Some sections in Greenwich appear to have the compatible median for the lighting, but don't, or may not connect to anything else.  Stamford's jersey barrier is too narrow and wouldn't support the bases or doesn't have the conduit.  The narrow profile of I-95 through that area makes making that section difficult to convert.  But the rest should be relatively easy and probably will come with future median or other "safety improvement" projects.

Years ago I was surveying alongside I-95 in Stratford (near the old toll booths) and saw the plastic conduit for the existing side-lighting just laying on the ground, not even buried.  This gave it quite the temporary look.  The center lighting looks better and reduces the clutter along this already-crowded interstate corridor.
Man I would give you a thumbs up if I had the option to! Near the state border it doesn't seem the barrier has the option for lighting as they have the light barrier installed I remember when these lights went up it was very welcomed however they have been up so long I've seen some with bulbs due to be changed.

I agree the center looks better.. whatever reason people like taking out light poles around this area not willing to put down the phone while driving.

Alps

It appears that very recently, ConnDOT has been changing over to CTDOT. Was there a press release or some other information about this?

shadyjay

Today, the 2018 version of the state's random sign replacement project was released.  It includes a couple sites on I-95, I-84, the I-84 Exit 39 ramps, I-691 WB at Exit 7, CT 2 WB at Exit 18, and a few other scattered locations.  Within the contract document is a separate section for the replacement of the single I-91 NB Exit 15 sign with a 4-chord cantilever.  I was kind of surprised, given the state's recent shifting of signs to ground-based.  But then I realized this is ConnDOT (or CTDOT) we're talking about, and the gantry will probably last only until I-91 signs in the area get replaced, then it will be relocated to the ground. 

What did strike me as odd were the plans for the I-84 sign at Exit 57 (which will span all of I-84 and contain a new Exit 59 sign in the EB direction).  "Charter Oak Bridge" remains as a control point but that's probably only until this section of I-84 gets a blanket replacement.  Even stranger, in the EB direction, the new diagrammatic is proposed as an Exit 59 1 1/2 miles.  There is already a 1 1/4 miles diagramattic on an overpass just to the east, and its not showing as being removed (maybe a future project).  In the plans, it shows the 1 1/2 mile diagramattic, with proposed separate signs to be installed as part of a future sign replacement project.  It didn't make much sense, as the separate signs had no distances shown, just a dual-arrow EXIT ONLY banner for the Exit 59 sign. 

Another oddball was one of the sites is I-91 NB Exit 47W and addresses the 3 signs mounted to the CT 190 overpass.  It doesn't show any sign replacements, just removal of the middle sign only.  That sign today is a 1/4 mile advance for Exit 48.  It shows retaining the 91NB pull-through and the Exit 47W final sign. 

Find the link here:
https://biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=47615

ipeters61

Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 09:32:29 AM
What did strike me as odd were the plans for the I-84 sign at Exit 57 (which will span all of I-84 and contain a new Exit 59 sign in the EB direction).  "Charter Oak Bridge" remains as a control point but that's probably only until this section of I-84 gets a blanket replacement.
So this is just one Exit 57 sign being replaced?  I always found that Exit 57 interchange interesting since each sign has a different error.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on my posts on the AARoads Forum are my own and do not represent official positions of my employer.
Instagram | Clinched Map

shadyjay

Just one for now, apparently. 

With the Waterbury reconstruction project replacing signs in the Exits 23-25A region, the signs from Exits 57-64/65 in East Hartford-Manchester-Vernon are now the oldest on an interstate in the state, and are in need of replacement.  I'm surprised (well, no, not really surprised) that this section isn't in line yet for a blanket replacement.  The proposed I-84 West Hartford-East Hartford sign replacement project stops just shy of Exit 57.  The one gantry westbound being replaced will maintan the "status quo" for Exit 57, that's why "Charter Oak Br" is still a control point.  I'm sure that one sign will get replaced again, come a blanket replacement, with something like "New Haven/NY City", or just "New Haven".

The eastbound sign just east of this location, which is the 1 1/4 mile advance for Exit 59 mounted on a bridge, also has a newly replaced HOV lane sign on it.  I wondered why that Exit 59 sign isn't shown as being removed on the plans (maybe it is mentioned in the "special provisions" - I didn't read that doc), but it would make sense for it to be removed.  And why would they put up a new 1 1/2 mile diagrammatic only to replace it in a couple years with two separate signs, without showing any distances? 

RobbieL2415

Will the control city for exit 59 still be Providence?

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 12, 2018, 03:16:00 PM
Will the control city for exit 59 still be Providence?

I would imagine, except that I would also add Willimantic. At least it's not the huge metopoli of Spencer St and Silver Lane like it is WB.
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)

shadyjay

Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic. 

RobbieL2415

Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.
I'd prefer supplemental signage advising drivers to use I-384 to US 6 to get to Providence.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.

I could also see a future project including an APL or two eastbound for Exit 59.
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)

ipeters61

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.

I could also see a future project including an APL or two eastbound for Exit 59.
I thought APLs were only used if there was an option lane?
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on my posts on the AARoads Forum are my own and do not represent official positions of my employer.
Instagram | Clinched Map

PHLBOS

Quote from: ipeters61 on September 13, 2018, 08:38:21 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2018, 11:41:39 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic.

I could also see a future project including an APL or two eastbound for Exit 59.
I thought APLs were only used if there was an option lane?
Correct, that is the criteria for such.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: shadyjay on September 12, 2018, 10:47:46 PM
Per the plans, Providence is still the sole control city on both the new sign (diagrammatic) and the dual-sign versions.  Maybe a blanket sign replacement in the area would include a supplemental sign for Willimantic. 

I think it's odd the I-95 sign replacements, I think some of those were just replaced. However the exit 32 "exit now"  signs are still button copy and were never replaced. And this project seems to replace perfectly fine signage. Strange.

SR-508 signage that wasn't replaced with the lagging I-84 sign project are being replaced, just that one gantry. I'm surprised the whole SR-508 wasn't involved with the I-84 signage contract.

I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Duke87

Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
As much as I'd like to see CT get moving with mile-based exit numbers, it would probably be better if NY were to renumber first here, so the 30/27 situation doesn't become 19/1 or 19/27 or 19/30 or something completely different.  Ideally the exit would be numbered based on NY since it's for NY 120A.
If CT goes to 1 - which they should - it won't matter what NY does.

To be fair, you're looking at what is (sort of) a cloverleaf precisely straddling a state line, with each state maintaining their half of it. It is, as far as I am aware, a unique situation. I would be in favor of using the NY exit numbering for both sides to minimize confusion but this would require NYSDOT and ConnDOT to actually coordinate on this which as the existing signs show they really... don't.

Meanwhile if CT does use its own exit number it should logically be 0, not 1.


I also have the NY side being numbered 33 in my spreadsheet, not 19... but then I numbered the Hutch continuously with I-678. Something which NY will not actually do, but they really should.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.



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.