Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Just checked the cams in the area and noticed another new gantry put up, this would be the exit now gantry for Exit 34, barely visible in the above photos. 

https://cttravelsmart.org/map#camera-404324--1

Cams are still showing the old truss cantilevers for Exit 36 still up in the eastbound direction, however.

[jp the roadgeek]

Just checked the cams in the area and noticed another new gantry put up, this would be the exit now gantry for Exit 34, barely visible in the above photos. 

https://cttravelsmart.org/map#camera-404324--1

Cams are still showing the old truss cantilevers for Exit 36 still up in the eastbound direction, however.

Drove through there this morning (roads were wet and my windshield was a little dirty, so I couldn't get a good pic).  The gantry replaced the old one, which CTDOT actually removed (yet they still can't remove the Slater Rd ones).  Has the 3/4 mi Exit 35 LEFT Exit sign for 72 East on the left, the 50 MPH advisory in the middle, and the at exit sign for Exit 34.  New signage for Exit 34 is MUTCD compliant and removed "Plainville" so it now says CT 372/ Crooked St (really should say TO CT 372, since Crooked St is actually SR 536 and it's about a 1/2 mile to CT 372/New Britain Ave).

UPDATE: Got a couple shots of the new gantries, and the old gantry for Slater Rd is finally gone.  However, the sign on the North Mountain Rd Bridge is still there.  Also noticed the erroneous CT 6 sign on the Exit 39 eastbound entrance has been corrected with a US shield.

[RobbieL2415]

/r/Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.

[jp the roadgeek]

/r/Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.

Not surprised at all about Lamont reneging on his campaign promise to toll trucks only.  When I saw a map of 82 proposed tolling locations and several were on the parkway, I  knew he was full of it.  Won't go any further into politics lest I get purple fonted, but I warned people this was coming.

[RobbieL2415]

/r/Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.

Not surprised at all about Lamont reneging on his campaign promise to toll trucks only.  When I saw a map of 82 proposed tolling locations and several were on the parkway, I  knew he was full of it.  Won't go any further into politics lest I get purple fonted, but I warned people this was coming.

I'll eat my lunch if even half of those get built.

[shadyjay]

Meanwhile, on the I-95 sign replacement project, several new signs are up, including this one (the left one) which wasn't up a couple of weeks ago:

http://95SB-Exit87 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And a gantry awaiting installation:

http://349NB-Exit03-2 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And a few more from the area:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/with/47127073871/

[ipeters61]

^ Regarding that Exit 86/87 assembly, has ConnDOT figured out yet how they want to represent state shields on their new signs?  Outline, square, rounded square...

[shadyjay]

The sign on the right was a "carbon copy" replacement, which I've found does not get the thick black border.  The sign on the left was replaced as part of the larger I-95 sign replacement contract and therefore got the thick black borders.  Other large scale sign replacement projects have state route shields getting the thick border treatment.  These can be found on CT 8 from Thomaston to Winsted and I-395 from East Lyme to Thompson.  Now, with I-84 from Southington to Farmington, state routes do not get the thick border treatment and look more like the sign on the right. 

So to answer your question, no, no they have not yet figured it out.

I'm still waiting for the day the square gets replaced with a state outline.  I figure I'm going to be waiting a'while. 

[PHLBOS]

Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.

Source

[RobbieL2415]

Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.

Source

Yes, be "angry".  Never mind that others pay to ride the train or bus to work. Muh roads should be free.

[jp the roadgeek]

Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.

Source

Yes, be "angry".  Never mind that others pay to ride the train or bus to work. Muh roads should be free.

There's already a 25¢ a gallon gas tax, plus a gross receipts tax on gas that substitutes for bus and train fares.  Plus train stations charge you for parking (Berlin station, which once offered free parking, now charges for parking since CTRail started).   And not everyone has convenient access to trains; I'm 15 minutes from the nearest station, and bus service is spotty at best.

[RobbieL2415]

Connecticut is in melt-down mode after Lamont's announcement for electronic tolling support.

Source

Yes, be "angry".  Never mind that others pay to ride the train or bus to work. Muh roads should be free.

There's already a 25¢ a gallon gas tax, plus a gross receipts tax on gas that substitutes for bus and train fares.  Plus train stations charge you for parking (Berlin station, which once offered free parking, now charges for parking since CTRail started).   And not everyone has convenient access to trains; I'm 15 minutes from the nearest station, and bus service is spotty at best.

Oh and I forgot to add that we all pay to OWN our cars too.  Some of us exorbitant amounts.

[shadyjay]

Getting back to the I-84 project for a minute,

So am I correct in assuming the following gantries still need to be put up in the eastbound direction:
Exit 33 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 34) (or is it up already?  seems odd they did Exit 33 and Exit 34 but skipped the 1/2 mile advance)
Exit 35 1/2 mile
Exit 35 1/4 mile
Exit 35 "exit now"
Exit 36 "exit now" (which plans show a bridge-mount, contrary to ConnDOT standards)
Exit 39 1 mile (also a bridge-mount)
Exit 39 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 39A)
Exit 39A "exit now"

[Alps]

I'm tempted to post in purple text but for now I'll say, please let's not get off tangent on discussions of what should or shouldn't be tolled. Keep it to road news plz.

[jp the roadgeek]

Getting back to the I-84 project for a minute,

So am I correct in assuming the following gantries still need to be put up in the eastbound direction:
Exit 33 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 34) (or is it up already?  seems odd they did Exit 33 and Exit 34 but skipped the 1/2 mile advance)
Exit 35 1/2 mile
Exit 35 1/4 mile
Exit 35 "exit now"
Exit 36 "exit now" (which plans show a bridge-mount, contrary to ConnDOT standards)
Exit 38 39 1 mile (also a bridge-mount)
Exit 38 39 1/2 mile (including an advance for Exit 39A)
Exit 39A "exit now"

FTFY.  No Exit 38 EB.  Otherwise, pretty accurate.  I do see a 35 sign and the 39A Exit Now sign in the Woodford Ave holding area as I drive by WB.

[MikeCL]

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone know which highway in Connecticut will have a sequential-to-milepost based exit conversion. On Wikipedia, it was said that State Highway 8 was the next one to recieve mileage-based exits. However, when I checked the entry today, it showed the exit numbers with their existing sequential numbers (a reversal from what the entry said previously), with no indications that a conversion was upcoming. Does anyone know the status of State Highway 8's mileage-based conversion? Or when other highways might convert?

[bob7374]

Does anyone know which highway in Connecticut will have a sequential-to-milepost based exit conversion. On Wikipedia, it was said that State Highway 8 was the next one to recieve mileage-based exits. However, when I checked the entry today, it showed the exit numbers with their existing sequential numbers (a reversal from what the entry said previously), with no indications that a conversion was upcoming. Does anyone know the status of State Highway 8's mileage-based conversion? Or when other highways might convert?

The exit renumbering of CT 8 has been postponed to 2022. See earlier post #3032 for details, an excerpt:
"Originally, they had planned for Routes 8 and 25 to be the next highways in line to be converted to mile-based exits starting next year [2019].  According to the e-mail I received below from Mr. Barry Schilling at CONNDOT, Routes 9 and 72 will be converted to mile-based exits in the 2020-2022 timeframe, followed by Routes 8 and 25 around 2022."

[jp the roadgeek]

I wish that NYSDOT renumbering its section of I-84 would light a fire under CTDOT to do its section.  NY and PA will have done, so why not be consistent?  There are a lot of minor highways that would require little or no effort to do, like US 6 in Willimantic, US 7, CT 20, CT 40, the Milford Connector, and the rest of the 3di's (384, 291, and 691).  Plus you could give numbers to the pair of CT 17 expressway pieces, and SR 571 (will the exit get a number as part of CT 9 renumbering?) 

[RobbieL2415]

I wish that NYSDOT renumbering its section of I-84 would light a fire under CTDOT to do its section.  NY and PA will have done, so why not be consistent?  There are a lot of minor highways that would require little or no effort to do, like US 6 in Willimantic, US 7, CT 20, CT 40, the Milford Connector, and the rest of the 3di's (384, 291, and 691).  Plus you could give numbers to the pair of CT 17 expressway pieces, and SR 571 (will the exit get a number as part of CT 9 renumbering?)

Does it really need it?  The exit numbers would be in the low 30s.

[jp the roadgeek]

I wish that NYSDOT renumbering its section of I-84 would light a fire under CTDOT to do its section.  NY and PA will have done, so why not be consistent?  There are a lot of minor highways that would require little or no effort to do, like US 6 in Willimantic, US 7, CT 20, CT 40, the Milford Connector, and the rest of the 3di's (384, 291, and 691).  Plus you could give numbers to the pair of CT 17 expressway pieces, and SR 571 (will the exit get a number as part of CT 9 renumbering?)

Does it really need it?  The exit numbers would be in the low 30s.

Actually, CT 32 would be Exit 89 and the 195 exits would be Exit 91 if you used US 6 mileposts. CT 3, CT 17, and CT 20 would also be roads with seemingly random numbers. For CT 3, NB exits for the freeway section would be 11, 13A, and 13 B-C; SB would be 13, 11B, and 11A.   The exits on 17 in Middletown would be 21 for Main St Ext, and 22 (NB Only) for CT 9 South.  In Glastonbury, you'd have 35 NB for New London Tpke, while the exits SB would be 35B and 35A.  On CT 20, Bradley would be 28A, Hamilton Rd South 28B, CT 75 29, County Rd 30, and I-91 31 A-B

[AMLNet49]

^ Regarding that Exit 86/87 assembly, has ConnDOT figured out yet how they want to represent state shields on their new signs?  Outline, square, rounded square...

Exactly what you see here is the current ConnDOT BGS Plate design: A rounded rectangle with a thick black outline

Some signs, in error, do not have the outline on the BGS Plate.

ConnDOT's state route shields are square with a thick black outline and do not have a 3-digit variant.

Three digit numbers on state route shields are written in Series B or C.

To avoid using the narrow Series B and C on BGS assemblies, for 3-digit state routes, ConnDOT uses a rectangular BGS plate with Series D or E, with the signature thick black outline.

Believe it or not, this is a step up for ConnDOT. Prior to the late 2000s, ConnDOT went full-on Texas Farm-To-Market Road and didn't even attempt to represent the state route design on BGS', simply using the Caltrans-style "outline" BGS plates or the then-MassHighway style borderless white rectangles (which are sometimes still used in error if the contractor forgets the thick black border).

I find this ConnDOT desperation to avoid using Series B or C on BGS plates kind of funny because for this entire time period, states like New Hampshire and Iowa were keeping all elongated 3-digit width BGS plates (even for US Routes and Interstates) out of those states completely.  They were happy to use series B or C if it meant being able to use the same exact BGS plates on every single sign regardless of route.

And in the end both approaches make little logical sense from a lay man's perspective, but I'm sure ConnDOT and NHDOT had plenty of fights about it back in the day

[shadyjay]

The exits on 17 in Middletown would be 21 for Main St Ext, and 22 (NB Only) for CT 9 South.

Lets hope that by the time this happens, 17 won't be signed that way anymore.  Reason being: the removal of the traffic signals in Middletown.  Both proposals offer left exits that are 1/2 to 3/4 mile away from the present 17 onramp onto 9NB.  So if any of those proposals came to pass, I'd hope that 17 got rerouted onto Main Street instead of going onto Route 9, only to exit 1/2 mile later.  And both proposals would dump 17 onto city streets, with more than one light to pass through before hitting the Arrigoni.


EDIT:  What was I thinking?  This is Connecticut, and it'll likely be many more years of studies and alternatives before the lights get taken out and proper interchanges get constructed.  So, yeah, the Route 17 mile-based exits in Middletown would work... at least until the next sign replacement around 2060.  By then...maybe...just maybe... nah, that's still too soon.  :-)

[KEVIN_224]

@MIKECL: I was just about to ask about the location of your picture...until I saw WWE's headquarters in the background. The answer, of course, is Exit 9 of I-95 in Stamford! WWE is at 1241 East Main Street (US Route 1).

[kurumi]

@MIKECL: I was just about to ask about the location of your picture...until I saw WWE's headquarters in the background. The answer, of course, is Exit 9 of I-95 in Stamford! WWE is at 1241 East Main Street (US Route 1).

Yeah, the girders looked like new roadway construction (in Connecticut???) but it's the structure of the replacement US 1 overpass that will be moved into place later this year. From the plans, it looked like the interchange would be modified; but instead they're building temp bypass roadways to carry I-95 traffic around the bridge site.
* https://darienite.com/rt-1-bridge-over-i-95-at-exit-9-to-be-replaced-by-november-2019-34234
* https://www.stamfordct.gov/sites/stamfordct/files/u120/pr_135-325_pim_handout.pdf
* http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpublicmeetingsminutes/project_135-325_public_info_meeting_presentation.pdf