AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Mergingtraffic on October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM

Title: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM
I figured I would post here some road news from Connecticut!

1) I-84 widening EIS is underway this past year and a new website is up:
http://www.i-84eis.com/ (http://www.i-84eis.com/)

1A) New CT-8 Study being started:
http://www.route8study.com/ (http://www.route8study.com/)

1B) Proposal for a new stack interchange at I-84/CT-8 In Waterbury....only $$ for the study, no $$ for anything else to proceed...should wrap up this year.
http://www.i84wins.com/ (http://www.i84wins.com/)

2) A lot of projects have been delayed b/c of the economy...here is a partial list of the major ones:

A) Extension of Route 11 Expressway...a lot are mad over this, they are blaming the governor as not being aggressive enough.  There is $$ for preliminary engineering work to begin but it's delayed anyway.  Congressman Joe Courtney and local politicians are demanding answers. 

B) I-84 Widening between Exits 22-25A to 6-lanes.....it was supposed to start this year....the last 3 miles to go and it's delayed!

C) I-84, CT-9 & CT-4 flyover connection project.....supposed to connect CT-4 SB to CT-9 SB and add flyover (or under) ramps from I-84 to CT-4 replacing the current left exits and entrances.

D) 4-laning of US-6 & US-202 in Danbury.

E) CT-15 & US-7 full interchange project.....started in 2005 until NIMBYs sued and halted work claiming loss of character.  It would have been finished by now! Uggh!

The DOT is supposed to release a list of priority projects next month.  They are also hoping for a new transportation bill from congress.  They say if that happens, some of these projects could proceed again.

New US-7 Expressway extension in Brookfield set to open next month.  New striping is down and only flimsy "Road Closed" barriers remain.  Although, the left lane ends abruptly and you have to use Exit 12 (which is the temporary ending)...but once the new highway opens it'll be a mute issue!

Portions of the new CT-72 boulevard in Bristol on track to open in March.

CT-2 Bypass around Foxwoods opened in August as an access-fully controlled super 4!

More to come...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 29, 2009, 01:01:40 PM
Cool... I'm visiting family in mid-December and will make roadtrips to "the 2" and "the 7"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 31, 2009, 02:14:21 PM
Cool... I'm visiting family in mid-December and will make roadtrips to "the 2" and "the 7"
Be on the lookout for a meet involving some of those projects.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 04, 2009, 03:19:38 PM
Wondering if they'll fix the incorrect exit number sequence going south.  Also, I'm sure the button copy Phase I signage is in jeopardy.  Though if they wanted to fix the signage on Exit 12, all they gotta do is remove the "TO" from the US 202 shield.  The rest is still relevant.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 04, 2009, 09:23:01 PM
Wondering if they'll fix the incorrect exit number sequence going south.  Also, I'm sure the button copy Phase I signage is in jeopardy.  Though if they wanted to fix the signage on Exit 12, all they gotta do is remove the "TO" from the US 202 shield.  The rest is still relevant.

yes, the original 1978 button copy signage on US-7 north of I-84 will be replaced sometime next year...I saw it on the DOT TIP. 
Actually, the original singage that says "To US-202 New Milford" on Exit 12 NB has already been replaced with new signage.  It is still called Exit 12.  Although the exit tab is now on the right.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Dougtone on November 05, 2009, 04:53:35 AM
They stopped work due to "loss of character"?  That's a new one!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2009, 10:31:12 AM
They stopped work due to "loss of character"?  That's a new one!

Yes Doug, a group called the Merritt Conservancy complained that the US-7/CT-15 interchange project was ruining the character of the parkway.  The construction actually started in 2005 and they sued to halt the prject.  It would've been complete by now.

Currently, the DOT is adding shoulders and clearing away brush via stimulus dollars and the conservancy is complaining about that.
 
A state trooper I know told me that the state police requested the DOT add new signage for safety such as reflectors, curve signs etc and the conservancy complained about that too!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 05, 2009, 07:49:31 PM
Why couldn't they just build the missing ramps and make it a full cloverleaf?  No flyovers or new bridges would be needed.  Or would the Main Ave. people get ticked off due to lack of access and would have to drive 1 mile out of their way to get to the parkway? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2009, 08:37:35 PM
Shadyjay, actually the cloverleaf was proposed.  The DOT tried to push that through to satisfy the conservancy.  Since the cloverleaf ramps really extended out, surrounding neighborhoods voiced their displeasure with it claiming the ramps came too close to their homes.  People also cried fowl because the cloverleaf would be a traffic nightmare. (I also wrote public comments saying the colverleaf would be a mistake given outdated designs and the amount of traffic on the parkway)  So, the DOT went with a modification of the original 1992 design, where the flyover ramps wouldn't be as high. 
Here the current proposal: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/102-269&102-312/Alternate-21_with_bike_path.pdf (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/102-269&102-312/Alternate-21_with_bike_path.pdf)

More details here:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=3403&q=410316 (http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=3403&q=410316)

At the bottom are PDFs of all the design choices. Alternate 21 with bike path will be the new design.  Now we have to wait (ugh!) for funding.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 14, 2009, 05:38:13 PM
The US-7 Expressway extension is set to open sometime this week!  Complete with a ribbon cutting ceremony.  Locals call it a bypass, but it's actaully extending the expressway 3 miles!

http://www.newstimes.com/search/ci_13755330?IADID=Search-www.newstimes.com-www.newstimes.com (http://www.newstimes.com/search/ci_13755330?IADID=Search-www.newstimes.com-www.newstimes.com)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 15, 2009, 05:51:28 PM
This link works better:
http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Route-7-bypass-216243.php (http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Route-7-bypass-216243.php)

Gonna have to try to head over there and check it out before I go back to Vermont for the winter.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 15, 2009, 10:24:37 PM
This link works better:
http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Route-7-bypass-216243.php (http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Route-7-bypass-216243.php)

Gonna have to try to head over there and check it out before I go back to Vermont for the winter.

It sure does....too bad the rich folk down in Wilton, Redding & Ridgefield can't open their eyes the way Brookfield did. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 16, 2009, 09:46:05 PM
too bad the rich folk down in Wilton, Redding & Ridgefield can't open their eyes the way Brookfield did. 

In their defense, though, the "Super 7" freeway would not be a bypass of those towns - it would be a freeway through them. And with the surface 7 now mostly widened to four lanes between Danbury and Norwalk, it's less of an issue, anyway.

Although, the "make a right then make a left" business at Grist Mill Road is still a problem. A good freeway ends with a transition into a surface alignment - not a T intersection, especially not one that's up against a solid rock wall.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Scott5114 on November 17, 2009, 12:39:37 AM
They stopped work due to "loss of character"?  That's a new one!

Yes Doug, a group called the Merritt Conservancy complained that the US-7/CT-15 interchange project was ruining the character of the parkway.  The construction actually started in 2005 and they sued to halt the prject.  It would've been complete by now.

Currently, the DOT is adding shoulders and clearing away brush via stimulus dollars and the conservancy is complaining about that.
 
A state trooper I know told me that the state police requested the DOT add new signage for safety such as reflectors, curve signs etc and the conservancy complained about that too!

Just close the damn thing! Best way to preserve the "character"!

You guys better get out and photograph every last button copy sign on US-7 while you still can!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 17, 2009, 09:05:29 AM
US-7 Expressway Extension set to open Thursday!  Here is a detailed article from the News Times of Danbury.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php (http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php)

Here is a photo:
http://www.newstimes.com/news/articleGallery/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php#2 (http://www.newstimes.com/news/articleGallery/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php#2)

PS, the extension will compliment the new widening that converted US-7 to a 45 mph boulevard where the new expressway terminates on US-7.

Also, the original 1978 signage on US-7 north of Danbury is set to be replaced soon according to the DOT TIP.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 17, 2009, 08:08:36 PM
US-7 Expressway Extension set to open Thursday!  Here is a detailed article from the News Times of Danbury.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php (http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php)
About time.
Quote
Here is a photo:
http://www.newstimes.com/news/articleGallery/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php#2 (http://www.newstimes.com/news/articleGallery/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php#2)

PS, the extension will compliment the new widening that converted US-7 to a 45 mph boulevard where the new expressway terminates on US-7.

About time.  The residents were complaining even about widening the two-lane back when the Danbury-Norwalk freeway was originally proposed and ultimately aborted.

Quote

Also, the original 1978 signage on US-7 north of Danbury is set to be replaced soon according to the DOT TIP.
About time (yet again).  Completely unreflective by night.  I've thankfully deleted my nighttime photos, as they were illegible.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Dougtone on November 18, 2009, 06:17:04 AM
US-7 Expressway Extension set to open Thursday!  Here is a detailed article from the News Times of Danbury.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php (http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php)

Here is a photo:
http://www.newstimes.com/news/articleGallery/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php#2 (http://www.newstimes.com/news/articleGallery/Route-7-bypass-in-Brookfield-set-to-open-Thursday-253429.php#2)

PS, the extension will compliment the new widening that converted US-7 to a 45 mph boulevard where the new expressway terminates on US-7.

Also, the original 1978 signage on US-7 north of Danbury is set to be replaced soon according to the DOT TIP.

ConnDOT would also be wise to add a third/exit only lane on US 7 between I-84 and the Federal Road exit, especially northbound.  From when I would go check out the Brookfield Bypass under construction, the right lane going northbound would always be clogged up with cars trying to exit onto Federal Road.  There seems to be a lot of shopping opportunities at that exit.  But you can't get everything.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 24, 2009, 04:38:03 PM
The US-7 Bypass is open!  A great ride! One minor flaw at the end of the expressway going on US-7 North, there is no exclusive right turn lane for US-202 West.  That means traffic coming off the expressway at 55mph could rear-end you.  Why one wasn't put in is beyond me....that seems to be common sense.  Everything else is fantastic. 

http://hvceo.org/transport/7BrookfieldBypassPlan2005.pdf


Plus double left-turn and right-turn lanes where applicable.  Nice job!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Dougtone on November 24, 2009, 05:04:45 PM
The US-7 Bypass is open!  A great ride! One minor flaw at the end of the expressway going on US-7 North, there is no exclusive right turn lane for US-202 West.  That means traffic coming off the expressway at 55mph could rear-end you.  Why one wasn't put in is beyond me....that seems to be common sense.  Everything else is fantastic. 

http://hvceo.org/transport/7BrookfieldBypassPlan2005.pdf


Plus double left-turn and right-turn lanes where applicable.  Nice job!

My guess is that when the bypass was being planned, the idea was that traffic taking US 202 from US 7 northbound between the ends of the new bypass would exit US 7 northbound at Exit 12, rather than proceed to the end of the new bypass then turn.

In any case, I plan on checking out the new bypass ASAP.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 26, 2009, 03:49:34 PM
The new CT-72 Boulevard is set to open up early next year.  The state wanted to open a portion this Fall.  But the towns said wait and open the whole thing at once citing traffic problems for the side streets.


The CT-72 Boulevard is set to pick up after the expressway ends.  It should make for an easier transition into town. 

Here is an overview:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/17_137/Route72_Overview.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on November 29, 2009, 12:36:53 AM
Very cool. I can see the RoW taking shape in Google Earth. Keep us posted when it opens.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 20, 2009, 03:25:37 PM
The New Haven Register has an article detailing the progress of the new Q-Bridge on I-95 in CT.

The project entails widening I-95 for about 9 miles, building 2-lane connections to and from I-91, adding a CT-34 flyover and the new 10-lane (from the current 6-lane) Q-Bridge itself.  I forget what the actual name-type is....but it is the first of it's kind in the U.S.

The 1st side of the Q-Bridge is supposed to be open in 2012 and the whole thing open a couple years after that!

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/12/20/news/metro/doc4b2e0ebf413a9561307614.txt
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Dougtone on January 02, 2010, 05:36:07 AM
The US-7 Bypass is open!  A great ride! One minor flaw at the end of the expressway going on US-7 North, there is no exclusive right turn lane for US-202 West.  That means traffic coming off the expressway at 55mph could rear-end you.  Why one wasn't put in is beyond me....that seems to be common sense.  Everything else is fantastic. 

http://hvceo.org/transport/7BrookfieldBypassPlan2005.pdf


Plus double left-turn and right-turn lanes where applicable.  Nice job!

My guess is that when the bypass was being planned, the idea was that traffic taking US 202 from US 7 northbound between the ends of the new bypass would exit US 7 northbound at Exit 12, rather than proceed to the end of the new bypass then turn.

In any case, I plan on checking out the new bypass ASAP.

I finally drove the new US 7 Brookfield Bypass yesterday, and I must say that a fine job was done with the bypass, including the use of rock as a sound wall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 22, 2010, 10:17:34 AM
Article about the delays of Route 11 Expressway & widening of I-95 and the prioritized list of projects b/c of low funding:

http://www.theday.com/article/20100122/NWS12/301229849/1019&town=

Alos a list of prioritized projects in CT:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/misc/TICP2010_2014.pdf

Letter to FWHA, related to the above list:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/misc/Letter_to_Federal_Partners.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 22, 2010, 06:33:06 PM

I finally drove the new US 7 Brookfield Bypass yesterday, and I must say that a fine job was done with the bypass, including the use of rock as a sound wall.
I just drove it myself - agree completely.  Very scenic, and designed to an appropriate speed.  It ends very well, tying into an extended four-lane divided arterial at the north end that lasts for several miles (up to 7/202 split I think?).  There will be video forthcoming sometime in the first half of this year...

In other CT news, I spied around the CT 72 boulevard.  The least finished part is Pine St., which is basically still just Pine St.  The bridge at the west end (such that 72 continues across 229) is done but the approaches are just a bunch of dirt right now (at least mostly graded dirt).  The boulevard east of Pine St. is almost completely done - pedestrian overpass, signals half in (only facing 72, not the crossing roads), what looks like a combo sound/retaining wall (it's green).  Basically, I probably could have driven straight onto the unfinished boulevard from Pine and come out straight onto 72 with no problems - it just needs some stripes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 24, 2010, 03:15:00 PM

I finally drove the new US 7 Brookfield Bypass yesterday, and I must say that a fine job was done with the bypass, including the use of rock as a sound wall.
I just drove it myself - agree completely.  Very scenic, and designed to an appropriate speed.  It ends very well, tying into an extended four-lane divided arterial at the north end that lasts for several miles (up to 7/202 split I think?).  There will be video forthcoming sometime in the first half of this year....

The Danbury News-Times has a "news from 25 years ago" section.  One of the headlines was about a new legislative push for the US-7 Expressway extension in 1985.  See below in bold:

"From The News-Times files
25 years ago
The legislative push for an improved Route 7 from Brookfield to New Milford breathes fresh life into a project that has lain dormant since the late 1970s. State Department of Transportation officials say immediate improvements to the existing road are necessary, but the long-term solution is still an expressway from the end of Super 7 south of the Four Corners intersection in Brookfield to north of the traffic circle (US202, CT-67 Split) in New Milford.

State Sen. James McLaughlin, R-Woodbury, who is the Senate chairman of the Joint Finance Committee, said he is pushing to get a Super 7 built by 1991. His efforts are supported by Sen. Adela Eads, R-Kent; Rep. Oskar Rogg, R-New Milford; and Rep. M. Jodi Rell, R-Brookfield.

A variety of ideas for Super 7 have been tossed around for nearly two decades, but legislators believe the most feasible is a limited access, two-lane road running several hundred yards to the west of the existing Route 7.

Exit and entrance ramps would be built off the new expressway to connect with the existing Route 7 at the Four Corners (CT-25) intersection in Brookfield and the Lanesville and Sullivan Road intersection in New Milford."


Of course we know, the highway wasn't built by 1991 but 2009.  Today the highway didn't go to US-202 & CT-67 and is 4-lanes instead of a Super-2.   Also, there is no interchange with CT-25 (Four Corners) or Lanesville or Sullivan Road in New Milford.  Interesting to read what was talked about and what became reality.
__________________________

Also an article about the new US-7 & I-84 Interchange at Exit 3 in cooperation with the widening of I-84 from 4 to 6 lanes in 1985 and the new Danbury Fair Mall.  See below in bold:

"Construction of a new Route 7-Interstate 84 interchange in Danbury will take another step forward this month, when the state begins seeking bids for the $33 million project. On the present schedule, the interchange will be completed about the time the new Danbury Fair mall opens in October 1986."

This was completed on time.  I-84 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes by 1988 and the new US-7 Interchange was complete by the time the mall opened in 1986.  Now the expressway is being extended south of here...well sorta.

The DOT is building a twin bridge and full diamond interchange over Wooster Heights Road to compliment the US-7 4-laning that goes down to Ridgefield and CT-35.  So technically the expressway portion is being extended through the Wooster Heights Road interchange.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 25, 2010, 08:44:19 PM
Super 7 refers to the 4-lane expressway.  There were never plans for a VT-style Super 2.  ( I say VT style because that's the only state that has one on US 7.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 27, 2010, 02:23:44 PM
More news on the Q-Bridge project in New Haven.  The CT-34 Flyover and the eastern half on the I-91. I-95, CT-34 interchange should be completed by April.


http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/02/23/news/new_haven/a1_--_dot_openhouse_0224.txt#blogcomments
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 09, 2010, 07:42:55 PM
Route 11 is dead until the TIP expires in 4 years....to come all this way for it to stop again.  It's like it was 1972 when the project stopped due to lack of funds.  It's like a vicious cycle.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/carousel/x723438848/State-says-Route-11-work-will-have-to-keep-waiting

Also, some new maps about the widening of I-84 from Waterbury to Danbury.
http://www.i-84eis.com/PDFs/Alt%203/index%20of%20proposed%20lanes%20pdf's.pdf
click on each section for a detailed close up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on March 28, 2010, 01:06:26 PM
A public workshop was held this past week in Hartford on replacing the I-84 "Aetna" viaduct. 

Presentation from the workshop is available here (http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/Viaduct/Workshop2Presentation.pdf), and the Courant ran an article (http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-i84-viaduct-study-0328.artmar27,0,2736641.story) as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2010, 06:24:04 PM
I-91 South to I-95 South is now a two lane merge!  
Video and article here. It opened one day early!


http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/traffic/traffic_news/two-lanes-open-from-i-91-to-i-95-south

Noticeon the WTNH video, the old signage is still there saying "right lane ends" and that the BGS I-95 South sign still points to one lane.  I hope they change the signage so drivers know it's a two-lane exit now? But, CT has done that before, make you change into one lane via signage only to realize you didn't have to change lanes anyhow.


South of here I-95 is 5 lanes SB until Exit 46. It was supposed to be widened in Long-Wharf NB between exits 45-47 but NH said it would ruin town character.  It's going to be 10-lanes north of Exit 47 anyway. Dumb politicians. Mass transit freaks and politicans get scared by the way it looks on paper.

From the New Haven paper:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/04/16/news/doc4bc84a7eb8ac9206242872.txt

Of course it's all part of the 10-Lane Q-Bridge porject.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 18, 2010, 02:28:08 PM
Also the 4-laning of US-7 in WIlton is all complete.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 19, 2010, 12:02:22 AM
Also the 4-laning of US-7 in WIlton is all complete.

Yup. Has been for a couple months.

Fun note: the wider road made people start driving faster... but the speed limit wasn't raised. The Wilton Police of course saw fit to cash in on this, and handed out some ridiculous number of citations in the first week after the new road fully opened. :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 19, 2010, 12:09:23 PM
More on the new I-95/I-91 two-lane merge.  Updated New Haven Register article.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/04/15/news/new_haven/aa1_new_haven_mergeopen041510.txt
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 19, 2010, 09:58:54 PM
Noticeon the WTNH video, the old signage is still there saying "right lane ends" and that the BGS I-95 South sign still points to one lane.  I hope they change the signage so drivers know it's a two-lane exit now? But, CT has done that before, make you change into one lane via signage only to realize you didn't have to change lanes anyhow.

I drove through the interchange today, I-91 SB to I-95 NB, at 5pm.  Traffic was heavy up to 1/2 mile back from the "merge" but moved quite well.  As I left 91 onto 95NB, I noticed the last BGS on 91 has been changed... the "LANE ENDS MERGE LEFT" sign is gone and the single arrow on the 95SB pullthrough now has 2 arrows.  BGSs before this last one still have 1 arrow on the pullthrus.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2010, 02:43:32 PM
I just found this:  CT wants to revamp the eastern end of I-384 and make it transition more nicely into surface streets.  The current end is more high-speed as I-384 was intended to go much further east.

I think there are more pressing interchanges that need to be addressed than this.  There isn't much traffic out here, also the plans are to degrade the last 1/2 mile of the expressway into a 4-lane median divided blvd.  

In one section they want to make the NB on ramp from Routes 44/6 into a left hand on-ramp rather than the current, and up to current design standards, flyover right hand on-ramp.  (pages 2)

http://www.crcog.org/publications/Rt6CorridorStudy/InterchangeRegonfigSummary20090914.pdf

Current location on bing maps (http://www.bing.com/maps/#JnE9eXAuYm9sdG9uJTJjK2N0JTdlc3N0LjAlN2VwZy4xJmJiPTU3Ljc1ODQxMDA1MDY2MzIlN2UtMzguMTI3NjM5NzclN2UxOS4wNzUxMDk1NTQwOTkxJTdlLTEwOC4yNjQzNTg1Mg==)

And the best part, on page 3, it calls for a sidewalk or bike path...yeah who is going to use that!?!?! It's in the middle of nowhere. One of the times, "Hey it looks good and politically correct on paper, but in reality it's a waste."

fixed a screen stretch (dang, SMF still allows those??  Or, firefox does, for that matter?)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2010, 04:07:45 PM
Well, so much for connecting it to the Willmantic bypass...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2010, 04:21:30 PM
Well, so much for connecting it to the Willmantic bypass...

Yes, the plan to connect to Willimantic was scrapped in 2001, because the state and Army Corps of Engineers couldn't get together on the highway path.  I believe the EIS was even finished! So, instead of ironing out the details, the DOT put it off and here we are today.  Route 11 could meet the same fate....again.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 22, 2010, 11:31:00 PM
Plan A makes more sense to me, though it still doesn't provide a direct connection from 44W to 6E.  The simple solution of course is to just cul-de-sac Notch Road and maybe improve the 384E->6E connection.  But there are more important projects which would benefit a lot more people and are more of a safety risk:  Route 9 in Middletown, ConnDOT - HELLO????




Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 23, 2010, 06:50:47 PM
Sometime over the past week, on I84 WB in east hartford crossing into hartofrd on the bulkely bridge, lane markings have been added with giant painted shields and arrows in the lanes. I-84 (carry through) accompanying giant up pointing arrows, US 44 accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lane, and I 91 shield accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lanes.  I'll try to get some shots soon.  I've never seen anything like it.  They repeat about 3 times in the half mile or so leading up to these bunched interchanges.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 23, 2010, 07:31:53 PM
Sometime over the past week, on I84 WB in east hartford crossing into hartofrd on the bulkely bridge, lane markings have been added with giant painted shields and arrows in the lanes. I-84 (carry through) accompanying giant up pointing arrows, US 44 accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lane, and I 91 shield accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lanes.  I'll try to get some shots soon.  I've never seen anything like it.  They repeat about 3 times in the half mile or so leading up to these bunched interchanges.

I heard about that in other states. It's a typical interstate shield painted in the lanes?  I heard western states and NY does that in spots.

Wow, I'm suprised CT jumped on it so fast.  I wonder if it's a trial run or will this pop up in other areas? 
Yes, get pics soon! That would be great!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2010, 12:05:19 AM
Sometime over the past week, on I84 WB in east hartford crossing into hartofrd on the bulkely bridge, lane markings have been added with giant painted shields and arrows in the lanes. I-84 (carry through) accompanying giant up pointing arrows, US 44 accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lane, and I 91 shield accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lanes.  I'll try to get some shots soon.  I've never seen anything like it.  They repeat about 3 times in the half mile or so leading up to these bunched interchanges.

I heard about that in other states. It's a typical interstate shield painted in the lanes?  I heard western states and NY does that in spots.

Wow, I'm suprised CT jumped on it so fast.  I wonder if it's a trial run or will this pop up in other areas? 
Yes, get pics soon! That would be great!
MD I-695 WB at I-97 was the first I saw.  I've seen a couple others, including NJ 4 WB at NJ 17 in my own state.  This is good news!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 25, 2010, 07:01:50 PM
More on the I-95, I-91, CT-34 Interchange reconstruction from the New Haven Register.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/04/25/news/new_haven/doc4bd3b44f1276d148536376.txt
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jon daly on April 25, 2010, 09:36:22 PM
Sometime over the past week, on I84 WB in east hartford crossing into hartofrd on the bulkely bridge, lane markings have been added with giant painted shields and arrows in the lanes. I-84 (carry through) accompanying giant up pointing arrows, US 44 accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lane, and I 91 shield accompanying turn arrows in the exit only lanes.  I'll try to get some shots soon.  I've never seen anything like it.  They repeat about 3 times in the half mile or so leading up to these bunched interchanges.

I drove by this yesterday just to check it out.  How do you take good pics of something like this?  It's not like you can pull over to the side, get out of the car and snap away.  They're on a bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on April 26, 2010, 11:34:36 PM
I drove by this yesterday just to check it out.  How do you take good pics of something like this?  It's not like you can pull over to the side, get out of the car and snap away.  They're on a bridge.

I can offer two ideas:

1.  Let ConnDOT do the work for you (http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&q=401618)
2.  See if you can get a screen cap of the Fox61 morning news traffic report.  Same cam, higher resolution.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 27, 2010, 09:07:48 PM
Wow - never seen anything like that!  Wonder if they'll go on I-91 in Hartford, where its the same setup as I-84 (several lanes but only two are thru, the others for the other interstates and such).  Guess it makes sense - but how long will they last, especially after their first winter?   (salt, sand, plowing, etc)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 25, 2010, 06:41:40 AM
Wow - never seen anything like that!  Wonder if they'll go on I-91 in Hartford, where its the same setup as I-84 (several lanes but only two are thru, the others for the other interstates and such).  Guess it makes sense - but how long will they last, especially after their first winter?   (salt, sand, plowing, etc)

Still haven't managed to get back through there for pics... but some of the thoughts you all had ran through my head too... these are different, new, CT did something kinda new???? but alas, will they really last more then a few months of being pounded by cars and trucks?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 01, 2010, 12:48:24 PM
May 30, 2010: the News-Times [Danbury, Conn.] accompanies a story about traffic on the new Brookfield Bypass (http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/No-correlation-in-speed-tickets-on-Route-7-bypass-504541.php) (US 7) with a supposed aerial photo of US 7 at a folded diamond interchange in the forest. It's nowhere on the new bypass; in fact, it's nowhere on US 7 at all. Sharp eyes in the story comments figured out where it actually is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 01, 2010, 10:52:07 PM
Annoyingly enough, that's actually fairly common with news agencies. WAVY-TV, my local NBC affiliate, routinely uses a picture of a congested Chinese (I believe) freeway to accompany road-related articles, which even has license plates and signs that are obviously not in English visible.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 01, 2010, 11:59:23 PM
The simple fact of the matter is that in the era of the internet, where sites tend to constantly rush to get news posted as soon as they can, the extra 20 minutes to go out and take a picture of the actual highway to use isn't worth it. Just use the stock photo, most people won't notice or think anything of it!

Typos and grammatical errors in news articles have become more common for the same reason. No time to copy edit that, just post it, hurry!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 02, 2010, 09:07:30 AM
I think the picture is of Exit 9 of I-84.

Now only if we can get the geeks in Ridgefield and Wilton to realize a bypass expressway is needed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 04, 2010, 08:37:50 PM
The 4th lane of I-95 SB in New Haven is expected to open this Wednesday from the I-91 merge to Exit 45.

Of course, the DOT was supposed to add a 4th lane NB in this area but the anti-road New Haven rejected it.  Even though, what is an extra 12 feet of width?   and the underpass was built to accomodate it anyway. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 13, 2010, 07:07:55 PM
Last leg of Route 11 will be completed
Toll possible
Updated: Monday, 13 Dec 2010, 6:33 PM EST
Published : Monday, 13 Dec 2010, 6:33 PM EST

Tina Detelj
Salem, Conn. (WTNH) - The Route 11 project in Salem was cancelled last year due to funding and environmental issues, but now Governor-elect Dan Malloy says he wants to see it finished up.

Route 11 stops at Exit 4 and never connects to I-95, which would make a more direct route between Hartford to New London. It's never been completed and the new governor may support completing this highway but it's going to cost motorists money.

"I mean they've gone this far just finish the thing, you know," said Daniella Daskam of Salem.

"I live right up the road here and if they completed Route 11 there'd be a lot less accidents on this road, a lot less congestion," said Barry Dolzenchuk of Salem.

Residents have heard plans to complete the route before.

"Ever since I've lived here for 25 years. You kept hearing it and hearing it," said Mary Maynard of Salem.

So how would the state finance the one billion dollars it would take to build the next seven miles of highway? Malloy is considering tolls but wants to make sure the money would go only to this project.

"I'd rather have it there and pay for it than not have it there," Maynard said.

Not everybody is on board. Some Salem businesses like Simply Flowers don't want to lose the drive by traffic.

"It's gonna make traffic go right by and nobody's gonna have the chance to stop," said Denise Crosson, Simply Flowers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 13, 2010, 07:10:15 PM
Last leg of Route 11 will be completed
Toll possible
Updated: Monday, 13 Dec 2010, 6:33 PM EST
Published : Monday, 13 Dec 2010, 6:33 PM EST

Very poorly written article.  Original is at http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/last-leg-of-route-11-will-be-completed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 14, 2010, 08:11:11 PM
Last leg of Route 11 will be completed
Toll possible
Updated: Monday, 13 Dec 2010, 6:33 PM EST
Published : Monday, 13 Dec 2010, 6:33 PM EST

How many times have we heard this before?  I'll believe it when I see it!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 30, 2011, 10:01:23 AM
More Route 11 news.  Don't hold your breath.  CT, The, we can't figure out how to build our highways while others can state!

http://www.courant.com/community/new-london/hc-highway-tolls-side-0118-20110118,0,5524402.story
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on January 30, 2011, 11:12:20 AM
Man, i remember when they opened up that first stretch of CONN 11 back in the early 70s....while it trimmed off 10 minutes off the Manchester-Old Lyme trips my brother and i were on between various family members when we were kids, i also recall that environmental issues were the first reason 11 was not completed....the same groups that eventually killed off I-84 from Hartford to Providence, and several other highways...the fact that CONN 85 was totally inadequate for the traffic between Colchester and New London totally escaped the notice of those opposed...

After 40 years, i'll believe it when i see it, and not before....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 22, 2011, 03:50:00 PM
More Route 11 news.  Don't hold your breath.  CT, The, we can't figure out how to build our highways while others can state!

http://www.courant.com/community/new-london/hc-highway-tolls-side-0118-20110118,0,5524402.story

This isn't just a problem in CT. It seems to occur most often in the densely populated areas around the country for a few reasons. One is the not in my back yard syndrome. No one wants a highway that fences off their neighborhood that kills property values. This is one of the arguments of East Lyme residents when it comes to Route 11 completion. Some bad areas in cities can be attributed to the isolation of certain neighborhoods by highway construction. In places in SE NY and southern New England in particular, there is a lot of wealth. Those whose properties would be taken by eminent domain have a ton of money and/or lawyers with disproportionate political influence at their disposal to greatly slow or completely block progress. On the flip side, even if there was no one around to block progress, the right of way acquisition costs in these types of areas are astronomical and potentially financially out of reach or not feasible economically. This is the biggest reason I-95 will never be widened through Fairfield County - ever. I think most of the time, in CT at least, the reason progress isn't made is because of the high cost of the land necessary to expand or build highways. It's not so much an inept government or DOT, but more a question of money and residents' attitudes. There's a reason other states can seemingly "get it done." Look at what those states have in common. Cheap land, and much lower population densities. Other than the EPA it makes for a lot less resistance at the state level.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on March 23, 2011, 08:00:11 PM
NIMBYism isn't really a problem for the Route 11 corridor. All the towns along the proposed route, especially Salem, want to see it completed because Route 85 is now too dangerous and congested.   That's what makes it so odd, it's the one case where there's only minimal community opposition to the road, and it still is mired in planing hell. 

Yeah, I-95 in Fiarfield County will never get the real improvements it needs. Between the price tag of construction and difficult real estate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 23, 2011, 08:24:24 PM
Maybe I just drove it at the wrong time (Saturday in February, ~5-6 PM), but 85 seemed pretty open to me, and 11 itself was empty.

6 between Willmantic and Bolton on the other hand, now that's a nightmare that definitely needs its freeway finished.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2011, 03:47:54 PM
NIMBYism isn't really a problem for the Route 11 corridor. All the towns along the proposed route, especially Salem, want to see it completed because Route 85 is now too dangerous and congested.   That's what makes it so odd, it's the one case where there's only minimal community opposition to the road, and it still is mired in planing hell.  

This is the annoying part, I wonder why is that?  Is it the DOT? Is it the state and their poor spending issues?

But I noticed with other projects as well...the thinking is on a smaller scale than in other parts of the country.  If the DOT can find the space to widen I-95 in East Haven, they could widen anywhere.  Also, when roads are widened, they dont add in turn lanes in some spots when there is room or they dont stripe one in when there is extra pavement.  Small thinking is also why you will never see triple left turn lanes in CT.  People would flip out as it's "too high profile."  It could be used at CT-34 WB intersection with CT-115 and Ct-8 in Derby.

Other states seem to plan and widen in the time it takes CT to think about a project.  

For example, I-84 widening from NY to Waterbury, most of the widening is done in the median, so there is not much property buying but it took the EIS 8 years to get started! 8 years!  It was wrangling between the contractor and the DOT.  the COG was even annoyed at how long it took.  Now, it finally started but it is stalled b/c of funding.  Does this happen in Nebraska or Tenn?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 25, 2011, 06:45:07 PM
NIMBYism isn't really a problem for the Route 11 corridor. All the towns along the proposed route, especially Salem, want to see it completed because Route 85 is now too dangerous and congested.   That's what makes it so odd, it's the one case where there's only minimal community opposition to the road, and it still is mired in planing hell.  

This is the annoying part, I wonder why is that?  Is it the DOT? Is it the state and their poor spending issues?

But I noticed with other projects as well...the thinking is on a smaller scale than in other parts of the country.  If the DOT can find the space to widen I-95 in East Haven, they could widen anywhere.  Also, when roads are widened, they dont add in turn lanes in some spots when there is room or they dont stripe one in when there is extra pavement.  Small thinking is also why you will never see triple left turn lanes in CT.  People would flip out as it's "too high profile."  It could be used at CT-34 WB intersection with CT-115 and Ct-8 in Derby.

Other states seem to plan and widen in the time it takes CT to think about a project.  

For example, I-84 widening from NY to Waterbury, most of the widening is done in the median, so there is not much property buying but it took the EIS 8 years to get started! 8 years!  It was wrangling between the contractor and the DOT.  the COG was even annoyed at how long it took.  Now, it finally started but it is stalled b/c of funding.  Does this happen in Nebraska or Tenn?

Who pays for it all? After seeing I-95 SB and the Merritt SB jammed up today at 1 in the afternoon from Darien south, I think people need to get more accustomed to mass transit because it's not gonna get better in our lifetime. The only way projects are going to get done in CT going forward is if the federal gov't fast tracks the project which automatically bypasses a lot of the standard means to block projects all in the name of national security. I thought Route 11 was considered a fast track project due to the proximity to a nuclear power plant and the sub base.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on March 25, 2011, 08:24:26 PM
After seeing I-95 SB and the Merritt SB jammed up today at 1 in the afternoon from Darien south, I think people need to get more accustomed to mass transit because it's not gonna get better in our lifetime.

Except that Metro-North is also pretty crowded and expanding rail capacity isn't going to happen, either.

What people are going to have to get more accustomed to is living somewhere else. The New York area can't accommodate more people on its existing infrastructure and the will, money, etc. to expand and improve it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on March 25, 2011, 09:21:54 PM
After seeing I-95 SB and the Merritt SB jammed up today at 1 in the afternoon from Darien south, I think people need to get more accustomed to mass transit because it's not gonna get better in our lifetime.

Except that Metro-North is also pretty crowded and expanding rail capacity isn't going to happen, either.

What people are going to have to get more accustomed to is living somewhere else. The New York area can't accommodate more people on its existing infrastructure and the will, money, etc. to expand and improve it doesn't exist.

True, the rails are pretty crowded. Got to ride in one of the new train cars this week. Looks like they're finally out there and in service. Nice bathrooms compared to the current fleet. I think some drastic measures need to be introduced if the congestion issue is to be solved. That is if any one cares. I think people have just gotten used to how things are and are unwilling to pay for improvements. No big deal that it takes an hour to go 10-15 miles, I guess. Widening highways won't work unless done in conjunction with NY. If NY can charge $6 or $10 for bridge crossings, I think CT should institute tolls at the borders of similar amounts if not higher. At least try to deter the pass through traffic. Force a lot of the truck traffic north up 87 to the little used Mass Pike. If nothing else at least CT would have some cash to actually work with for improvements of its highways. They have to do something as 95 is a complete disaster. If they can't increase capacity, then the only other thing to try is reduce the number of cars, and perhaps an exorbitantly high toll would help.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: froggie on March 26, 2011, 07:30:04 AM
Quote
Does this happen in Nebraska or Tenn?

Believe it or not, it does.  TDOT recently killed several projects, including the proposed I-475-or-TN 475 around Knoxville.  Nebraska has been working for the better part of 20 years now to widen I-80 between Lincoln and Omaha, and I don't think they're done yet.

Quote
If NY can charge $6 or $10 for bridge crossings, I think CT should institute tolls at the borders of similar amounts if not higher. At least try to deter the pass through traffic.

Had CT kept the tolls on the CT Turnpike, perhaps things would be a bit different now.  Instead, they let a couple of high-profile tollbooth crashes get the better of them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on March 26, 2011, 11:19:14 AM
CT 11 was fast-tracked, the congressman from that area even got the DOT a chunk of money in the 06? transportation bill to get design work under way.  Less than a year later, the CDOT again decided to shelve the project. 

It was a firly big story, as the congressman (Rep. Courtney) went on the war path, demanding meetings with the Governor and the DOT Commissioner wanting to know what they did with the money he got them for the project, why they cancelled it after asking him for the money to begin with, and why the state was un-fast tracking it.

As far as I know, nobody ever got an answer as to where the DOT slid the money.  If they did, it wasn't in the news.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 26, 2011, 03:16:11 PM
CT 11 was fast-tracked, the congressman from that area even got the DOT a chunk of money in the 06? transportation bill to get design work under way.  Less than a year later, the CDOT again decided to shelve the project.  

It was a firly big story, as the congressman (Rep. Courtney) went on the war path, demanding meetings with the Governor and the DOT Commissioner wanting to know what they did with the money he got them for the project, why they cancelled it after asking him for the money to begin with, and why the state was un-fast tracking it.

As far as I know, nobody ever got an answer as to where the DOT slid the money.  If they did, it wasn't in the news.

I do remember a DC COngressman un fast tracked it b/c CT didn't do something with Amtrak and the guy played dirty politics.  This happened after the EIS was done under Rob Simmons' tenure.  

I remember when the EIS was done, the FHWA said it wanted more details before they issued a ROD, in a unsual move, they said they would release some $$ for the project before the ROD was issued.  Of course, 2 years went by and i haven't heard anything more.  Which is why I print newspaper articles to refer too and so I can grill the politicians and the DOT people.  haha

So, does the FEIS that hasn't had a ROD issued yet have  to be redone if nothin happens?  I ask b/c it seems they spent $$ for the FEIS it's being wasted if the FEIS has to be redone...it just seems stupid to waste $$ they dont allegedly have.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on March 26, 2011, 09:14:35 PM
I think that depends on how long they wait.  If things get rolling again within a certain period of time they may not have to do a new one. However, if it goes for another decade or so then they may be enough changes in the local area development, or changes in different agencies environmental policies that a new one is required.

Basically, it seems the state squandered all the funds that Simmons and Courtney got to try to get the ball rolling.

Hadn't heard about the Amtrack thing, but it isn't surprising. Gotta love the system...
 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 28, 2011, 09:03:17 PM
Elsewhere in the Nutmeg State....


A project to replace signage along I-84 between the New York State Line and the Housatonic River is commencing:

See:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=476140

This section has featured a hodge-podge of signage, including some old signs between NY and Exit 3 with some extra-large US and interstate route shields on the BGSs.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2011, 03:58:31 PM

A project to replace signage along I-84 between the New York State Line and the Housatonic River is commencing:
See:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=476140

This section has featured a hodge-podge of signage, including some old signs between NY and Exit 3 with some extra-large US and interstate route shields on the BGSs.

Yes,when I-84 was widened between NY & Exit 3 the state put up new signage that wasn't button copy.  This was around 1983 or so.  Also, there is a non-reflective button copy Exit 2 tab on I-84 EB, that used to be an Exit 23 tab. (The three outline is still visible)
Most of the signs here had a hodge-podge of 1983 non-button copy signage and mid 80s button copy.

(CT used non reflective button copy until the early 80s and then non-button copy and then to reflective button copy by 1986 or so)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 29, 2011, 04:13:47 PM
what was the numbering scheme under which exit 2 was once exit 23?  it is nowhere near 23 miles to the NY state line.

there are definitely some of those non-button-copy exit signs still left eastbound, as of Feb 2010.  Austin Road comes to mind.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2011, 09:00:29 PM
what was the numbering scheme under which exit 2 was once exit 23?  it is nowhere near 23 miles to the NY state line.

there are definitely some of those non-button-copy exit signs still left eastbound, as of Feb 2010.  Austin Road comes to mind.


I'm thinking they stole that tab from somewhere else? Possibly Waterbury?  it has been there as long as I can remember.  Possibly from the widening project in 1983?

I figured the non button copy signs are from 1983-ish b/c there is also similiar signage left on the Merritt by the CT-25 Expressway which opened up around the same time. Plus when I-84 was widened from Exit 3-8 in 1986, button copy was used.  I remember when those were new.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on March 29, 2011, 10:11:43 PM
what was the numbering scheme under which exit 2 was once exit 23?  it is nowhere near 23 miles to the NY state line.

there are definitely some of those non-button-copy exit signs still left eastbound, as of Feb 2010.  Austin Road comes to mind.
That would just be continuing the NY state sequential numbering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 31, 2011, 12:29:04 AM
while driving on I-84 from NY to Newtown, I reallized some gems will soon be gone:

1) the Exit 10 "Exit now" gantry with the old non working BGS lights on I-84 EB
2) The non reflective button copy Exit 2 (23) exit tab on the 1/2 mile sign on I-84 EB
3) The ancient gantry for the WB Exit 4 1/2 mile sign


EXIT TAB PROGRESS:

However I just realized DOT did a new signing project not too long ago between Exits 13 and 22 on I-84 with non bordered centered exit tabs in 2006.  
A year or two later, new Exit 9 & 8 signs went up with alligned non-bordered exit tabs in 2009.  
Now in 2010-2011 a new Exit 11 WB 1/2 mile sign went up with an alligned BORDERED exit tab.  How quickly CTDOT is getting MUTCD compliant. I noticed all new eixt tabs in the state now have borders and are alligned.


If you like your non-bordered alligned tabs check out I-95 from Exit 23 to NY.  They should be there for the next 25 years or so.  They look really good.  I'm not a fan of the borders....they aren't bad looking at all, I just like the uniqueness of the non-bordered tabs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on April 06, 2011, 03:13:21 AM
while driving on I-84 from NY to Newtown, I reallized some gems will soon be gone:

1) the Exit 10 "Exit now" gantry with the old non working BGS lights on I-84 EB
2) The non reflective button copy Exit 2 (23) exit tab on the 1/2 mile sign on I-84 EB
3) The ancient gantry for the WB Exit 4 1/2 mile sign

Wow, I haven't been in the area in years now, but I do remember all those things!

Is it just me or is all the signage between around 8 and 13 pretty shabby looking?  Unless they've replaced it in the last several years.. if I recall it seemed like it had seen better days.  I guess that's sort of a dumb question since the news item was about replacing detriorated signage -- I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that noticed it and the DOT took note =)

Here's something one of you guys must know - any idea how to get off the CT DOT mailing lists?  I put myself on via the website but the emails have no links or information about removing yourself, and nobody will respond to any of the contact addresses on the site.  I've never in my life seen mailing list email without unsubscribe instructions! Actually, I'd like to stay on for news like the above, but I accidentally get tons of traffic information - which, living in California now, couldn't be less useful.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 06, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
Here's a CT update for you.... a busway...

A stupid busway.

A perpetually revenue-draining disaster of a people mover that will be an even bigger failure than "Tommy's Trolley"... or the defunct Bradley Airport people mover.

and tell me....WHYYYYY is Governor Malloy approving the biggest waste of Transportation spending I could possibly think of?   a 9.7 mile $550 million busway between Hartford and New Britain????... that no one will use, and that the state already knows will operate at a 75% (or projected 7-8 million dollar to start but will of course grow) deficit annually?  (just because he didn't want to leave the fed funds on the table that will pay for $400 million of it... still costing the state $150 million to build).

We are a driving state here, we are not going to park our cars to ride a fricken  bus from new britain to hartford...GAHHHHHHHHH I can't take the collective lack of common sense in this state.  

I could think of so many of our highways to nowhere that have all been killed that could greatly benefit from funding like that.  Just finish one of them, route 11 from Salem to Waterford.

OR BETTER YET God forbid we ever try to convince any of the Nimby's North and west of hartford with their "environmental impact studies" that using that funding to begin finishing a NW Route from the northern terminus of Route 9 over to I 291 in windsor is a good idea (wouldn't it be nice to use the rest of the infamous 4 level stack, that was such a waste of highway dollars, sitting there rotting!)... NOW THAT would relieve some traffic on the I 84 corridor from Hartford to New Britain...NOT some stoooopid GD MF'n CS'n GD MF'N POS FOOLISH BUS-WAY that isn't going to be used by anyone other than those that already use the bus.

"it's going to remove 5000 cars from the congested I-84 corridor".... NO... it's not. Because we are not going to park our cars and ride a smelly F'ing bus.
You want to relieve congestion on I-84 (and even the enviro's could benefit by less backed up traffic idling away)... see paragraph directly above, DUH!

Maybe I made a mistake, Maybe this post actually belongs in a thread titled Connecticut CRAP.
because that's exactly what it is... A huge steaming pile of it.

ok... done ranting.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on April 06, 2011, 07:46:53 PM
I'm not happy about the busway either…I think it is a massive waste of money…Malloy and the DOT are, frankly, stupid for thinking that building a busway from Hartford to New Britain will pull traffic of of 84…if they haven't noticed, the terminus, Downtown New Britain, doesn't even have direct access to 84 (one must take CT-9 or CT-72)…I can agree that CT is a driving state…but I don't think it would be if we had a viable alternative in public transit.  I was advocating for commuter rail to Waterbury.  It would give Hartford a direct connection to Metro-North service…and it would fit in with AMTRAK's plan to do high-speed rail through Inland Connecticut.  Looks like CT has shot itself in the foot…again…
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 06, 2011, 11:14:36 PM
Well, "if you build it, they will come" isn't an invalid argument vis-a-vis transit, although in this case it is wishful thinking. Transit's base function is providing transportation to people who cannot afford to drive or are too young to. Getting people who can drive to not do so is difficult because it is difficult to make transit actually be more convenient. It requires either achieving a critical size and population density (which Hartford is nowhere near), or nerfing the road network (which is counterproductive to overall mobility).

There's also the old irrational yet real class stigma with buses. People would be more willing to use a rail line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 07, 2011, 04:50:15 PM
Here's a CT update for you.... a busway...

A stupid busway.

A perpetually revenue-draining disaster of a people mover that will be an even bigger failure than "Tommy's Trolley"... or the defunct Bradley Airport people mover.

Wasn't the busway an alternative from the I-84 West of Hartford Needs Study?  Which means, since it is not politically correct to add lanes to I-84, some genius thought the busway would look good on paper and be the political correct thing to do. 


Of course the genius knew it wouldn't work but pushed for it anyway to satisfy the Expressway Revolt people.   But in the end, what did it get us?  13 wasted years.

Now CT has a problem, the busway is not the answer and there is still traffic on I-84, so instead of adding lanes to ease congestion, the state is basically back where it was in 1998 when the I-84 West of Hartford Study was completed. 

In fact, the state's answer to widening I-84 will ONLY be aux lanes between Exits 40 and 41 and 41 & 42.  Big whoop! 

So why doesn't the state just add lanes to I-84 and be done with it!?!? Stop all the political correct crap and add the lanes.  I'm not saying don't put in some sort of rail thing, but don't scrap the road widening for the rail thing.

and there IS room for the widening, if they could widen I-95 in cramped East Haven, they could widen anything

Example:  Route 7 in Ridgefield, they are 4-laning it just south of the existing expressway portion with NO center divider.  It's all woods there, so just add a jersey barrier.  Oh wait, a jersey barrier on paper would look too much like an expressway and the Expressway Revolt people and the PC people were up in arms over it.  Now that most of the road is built, would it really be THAT big of a deal if a jersey barrier was put in place!?!? Of course not.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on April 07, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Wasn't the busway an alternative from the I-84 West of Hartford Needs Study?  Which means, since it is not politically correct to add lanes to I-84, some genius thought the busway would look good on paper and be the political correct thing to do. 


Of course the genius knew it wouldn't work but pushed for it anyway to satisfy the Expressway Revolt people.   But in the end, what did it get us?  13 wasted years.

Now CT has a problem, the busway is not the answer and there is still traffic on I-84, so instead of adding lanes to ease congestion, the state is basically back where it was in 1998 when the I-84 West of Hartford Study was completed. 

In fact, the state's answer to widening I-84 will ONLY be aux lanes between Exits 40 and 41 and 41 & 42.  Big whoop! 

So why doesn't the state just add lanes to I-84 and be done with it!?!? Stop all the political correct crap and add the lanes.  I'm not saying don't put in some sort of rail thing, but don't scrap the road widening for the rail thing.

and there IS room for the widening, if they could widen I-95 in cramped East Haven, they could widen anything

Example:  Route 7 in Ridgefield, they are 4-laning it just south of the existing expressway portion with NO center divider.  It's all woods there, so just add a jersey barrier.  Oh wait, a jersey barrier on paper would look too much like an expressway and the Expressway Revolt people and the PC people were up in arms over it.  Now that most of the road is built, would it really be THAT big of a deal if a jersey barrier was put in place!?!? Of course not.

Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2011, 06:08:58 AM
Wasn't the busway an alternative from the I-84 West of Hartford Needs Study?  Which means, since it is not politically correct to add lanes to I-84, some genius thought the busway would look good on paper and be the political correct thing to do. 


Of course the genius knew it wouldn't work but pushed for it anyway to satisfy the Expressway Revolt people.   But in the end, what did it get us?  13 wasted years.

Now CT has a problem, the busway is not the answer and there is still traffic on I-84, so instead of adding lanes to ease congestion, the state is basically back where it was in 1998 when the I-84 West of Hartford Study was completed. 

In fact, the state's answer to widening I-84 will ONLY be aux lanes between Exits 40 and 41 and 41 & 42.  Big whoop! 

So why doesn't the state just add lanes to I-84 and be done with it!?!? Stop all the political correct crap and add the lanes.  I'm not saying don't put in some sort of rail thing, but don't scrap the road widening for the rail thing.

and there IS room for the widening, if they could widen I-95 in cramped East Haven, they could widen anything

Example:  Route 7 in Ridgefield, they are 4-laning it just south of the existing expressway portion with NO center divider.  It's all woods there, so just add a jersey barrier.  Oh wait, a jersey barrier on paper would look too much like an expressway and the Expressway Revolt people and the PC people were up in arms over it.  Now that most of the road is built, would it really be THAT big of a deal if a jersey barrier was put in place!?!? Of course not.

Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.
CT does, on the other hand, make a five-lane road with a center STAY OUT OF THIS lane. CT 66. I just looked at it, and it's either one direction or neither direction that gets to turn, never both.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 08, 2011, 09:02:38 PM
Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.
CT does, on the other hand, make a five-lane road with a center STAY OUT OF THIS lane. CT 66. I just looked at it, and it's either one direction or neither direction that gets to turn, never both.

That section of CT 66 has few enough driveways that it was practical to stripe individual left turn lanes for all of them and leave dead space otherwise.

Of course, don't always trust the paint. One might logically assume based on standards that an area in the middle of the road with double yellow lines on either side (even if there is no hatch) is an area not to be entered or crossed. A center left turn lane should, after all, have interior dashes and painted white turn arrows, along with accompanying signage.
But here in Stamford, there are a few miles of CT 137 that make extensive use of this double double yellow line pattern. Every side street gets a dedicated left turn lane; most driveways do not, instead having what appears to be a dead zone similar to on CT 66. It is well understood among locals, however, that this area is meant to be used as a center left turn lane for making lefts both off of and onto High Ridge Road. Whether or not that's technically legal is anybody's guess, but the Stamford Police will not ticket you for it (and will even do it themselves), and in my entire life I've seen a state police car on High Ridge Road exactly once, so...

There's also a section of US 1 in Milford striped like this, though I don't know if they treat it the way we do.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 08, 2011, 09:44:53 PM
Why do you need a jersey barrier on a non-expressway road? Besides, there are homes, businesses, and signalized intersections with local roads. It would have made more sense to make it a four lane road with a center left turn lane which Connecticut generally doesn't do, perhaps due to space constraints. The better solution with regard to Route 7 is to just finish the highway between the two highway segments.
CT does, on the other hand, make a five-lane road with a center STAY OUT OF THIS lane. CT 66. I just looked at it, and it's either one direction or neither direction that gets to turn, never both.

That section of CT 66 has few enough driveways that it was practical to stripe individual left turn lanes for all of them and leave dead space otherwise.

Of course, don't always trust the paint. One might logically assume based on standards that an area in the middle of the road with double yellow lines on either side (even if there is no hatch) is an area not to be entered or crossed. A center left turn lane should, after all, have interior dashes and painted white turn arrows, along with accompanying signage.
But here in Stamford, there are a few miles of CT 137 that make extensive use of this double double yellow line pattern. Every side street gets a dedicated left turn lane; most driveways do not, instead having what appears to be a dead zone similar to on CT 66. It is well understood among locals, however, that this area is meant to be used as a center left turn lane for making lefts both off of and onto High Ridge Road. Whether or not that's technically legal is anybody's guess, but the Stamford Police will not ticket you for it (and will even do it themselves), and in my entire life I've seen a state police car on High Ridge Road exactly once, so...

There's also a section of US 1 in Milford striped like this, though I don't know if they treat it the way we do.

If it is "understood" by the locals, is it understood by the DOT officially?  Why doesn't the DOT just make it a STWLTL (Shared 2 Way Left Turn Lane)?  It seems like CT will do anything possible to avoid this. In fact, I asked the DOT about the STWLTL and they said they don't like them b/c of head on crashes.  I responded saying, doesnt the inconvenience to trafic in the through lanes out weigh the the head on crash risk?  Traffic in the STWLTL isn't high, only if two people are turning left from the opposite ways at the exact same location.  Also,with no left turn lanes, you have drivers that stop to turn left in the travel lane and through traffic either cuts off other drivers to get around the left turn person resulting in crashes or you have a rear end collision.


US-1 in Milford was restriped with a STWLTL and it works wonderfully. Cars don'thave to wait for left turners and left turners are not blocking lanes of travel.  

Also, US-5 in Wallingford will get one, although a short one according to the latest State Traffic Commission meeting.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2011, 09:58:13 PM
There are two types of problem collisions in TWLTLs: Two cars trying to pull in from opposite directions simultaneously, and someone turning left out of a driveway as someone else is entering the lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 09, 2011, 11:14:30 AM
Why doesn't the DOT just make it a STWLTL (Shared 2 Way Left Turn Lane)?

Most likely because of the large number of side streets, many of which are signalized. Each demands a dedicated left turn lane, certainly if there's a signal. There is no significant continuous length of the center lane that can be used as a two-way turn lane, only segments of a few hundred feet at a time at most. It would be very awkward to properly stripe and mark all that as center turn lane.

This problem is usually avoided by laying out subdivisions to have only one or two exits out onto the main road. But that level of planning doesn't happen in New England, things are just kinda done willy-nilly. And so we have a major four (five including the center) lane artery that averages a side street every couple hundred feet, several of which are just dinky little dead ends.

Quote
US-1 in Milford was restriped with a STWLTL and it works wonderfully.

Part of it was. Not all of it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on April 09, 2011, 12:15:47 PM
There are two types of problem collisions in TWLTLs: Two cars trying to pull in from opposite directions simultaneously, and someone turning left out of a driveway as someone else is entering the lane.

The left-turn-out-of-driveway scenario also leads to gap acceptance problems because the turning driver has to monitor the TWLTL (which can fill unexpectedly, from either direction, at any time) as well as both directions of traffic.  That in turn leads to some drivers trying to subdivide the problem by breaking the turn into two chunks and using the TWLTL as a place to stop and wait, which creates good conditions for right-angle crashes.

Once the turning and through traffic volumes become unfavorably high, either singly or in combination, TWLTLs just don't work and techniques from the access management toolbox have to be used--driveway consolidation, provision of service drives, Michigan lefts, facilitated U-turns, etc.  TRB now has an access management manual (downloadable free of charge, IIRC) which goes into this in exhaustive detail.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on April 09, 2011, 06:46:24 PM
Hartford has been doing a lot of TWLTLs lately on major streets in the city and I don't like them because people don't know how to use them and also they narrow the road.

Instead of people using them correctly they use them as passing lanes or they don't get used at all.  Also, I dislike that they take a perfectly four-lane road and restripe it as a three-lane road with a TWLTL and bike lanes…especially in places where it isn't warranted. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 13, 2011, 11:47:38 PM
A couple CT Notes:
1) The new right alligned pipe gantries for BGS don't extend as far out over the lanes as the old ones did. ie.  I-384 Exit 2 Keeney St. Some barely extend out over the shoulder.  

2) Median work has started for I-95 around Exit 74.  Although I expected the new jersey barrier to be split down the middle of the median, so when the addition of a 3rd lane eventually comes through, the middle is already done.  However, the wall goes from one side of the median to the other and sometimes takes up the whole 12" wide median!

3) Why don't they make the Buslane in New Britain a HOT lane, drivers who want to use it can pay a toll.  Has anyone thought of this?

4) and the aux lane for I-95 NB between Exit 45 and the new CT-34 flyover is back in.  It was taken out after New Haven objected to all the ring road Long Wharf proposals.  What do the two have to do with each other?  Nothing really but the DOT told me NH was the reason.  NOW, apparently it's back in. The aux SB lane is in a different project.
http://www.i95newhaven.com/contracts/future/lwip/

and from the CT DOT PDF: (Scroll to page 56) (also check the updates on other projects)
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/mtp/2011mtp.pdf

"Reevaluation of the Reconstruction of I-95 through Long Wharf (Project No. 92-619)
This project involves the addition of an auxiliary lane on I-95 Northbound (NB) from Route 10 to
Route 34 and the southerly relocation of the I-95 NB on and off ramps at Interchange No. 46. This
project is part of the New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Program (“Q” Bridge
Program) under Contract E2. In April 2010 the Federal Highway Administration approved a
Reevaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Section (4f) FEIS/Section 4(f)) and
Record of Decision for the Interstate 95 (I-95) New Haven Harbor Crossing Improvements to
include the above changes in the original proposal.
Current construction costs have been estimated at $30 million and involve an auxiliary lane as
described above and the reconfiguration of Interchange 46. The project is tentatively scheduled for
advertisement in March 2012. It is anticipated that construction would start in August of 2012"


Weren't the NB Exit 46 ramps already moved? Or will they be moved again?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 15, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
New Generation BGS goes up yesterday on I-84 WB for Exit 42 in west Hartford, Trout Brook Drive. 1 MILE (or as the sign says "Trout Brk Dr.".  THere has been a substandard small temporary sign in the left median for well over a year right next to the remains of the Pole for the old BGS (only the upright remains)...

Funny thing is.  This temp sign and pole are still there (accruately 1 mile from the gore)... and the NEW 1 MILE BGS IS .2 miles further west attached to BRAND NEW mounting on an infamous CT "OVERPASS GANTRY", about .8 miles from the exit.

I got a photo this afternoon in traffic, - crappy because I was going EB and had to point my iphone into the sun.
LEFT aligned tab, but in true CT fashion, NO liner on the exit tab. - (I thought the new MUTCD standard was a LEFT plaque in yellow w/ black legend on the exit tab itself?)

photos 2 and 3 are the old sign location and the temp sign still standing - again The old location is about .2 Miles east of the new permanent sign. - I wonder why that wasn't replaced at the proper 1 mile interval by one of those gaudy rounded pipe gantry's the state seems to be in love with.

AT LEAST IT'S NOT CLEARVIEW  :sombrero:

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/images/new421.JPG)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/images/new422.JPG)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/images/new423.JPG)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 15, 2011, 11:49:55 PM
Oh dear, that's a no no. It's okay for a sign to be a bit further away from the exit than it says it is, but you never want it closer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2011, 01:07:03 PM
New Generation BGS goes up yesterday on I-84 WB for Exit 42 in west Hartford, Trout Brook Drive. 1 MILE (or as the sign says "Trout Brk Dr.".  THere has been a substandard small temporary sign in the left median for well over a year right next to the remains of the Pole for the old BGS (only the upright remains)...

Funny thing is.  This temp sign and pole are still there (accruately 1 mile from the gore)... and the NEW 1 MILE BGS IS .2 miles further west attached to BRAND NEW mounting on an infamous CT "OVERPASS GANTRY", about .8 miles from the exit.

I got a photo this afternoon in traffic, - crappy because I was going EB and had to point my iphone into the sun.
LEFT aligned tab, but in true CT fashion, NO liner on the exit tab. - (I thought the new MUTCD standard was a LEFT plaque in yellow w/ black legend on the exit tab itself?)

photos 2 and 3 are the old sign location and the temp sign still standing - again The old location is about .2 Miles east of the new permanent sign. - I wonder why that wasn't replaced at the proper 1 mile interval by one of those gaudy rounded pipe gantry's the state seems to be in love with.

AT LEAST IT'S NOT CLEARVIEW  :sombrero:

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/images/new421.JPG)

Are you sure the new Exit 42 tab isn't bordered?  I see some fizzyness around the edge.  The reason I ask is b/c as of 2010 all tab put up by the DOT have borders.  There is only about a year or so in 2009 that CTDOT put up alligned non-bordered exit tabs.

However, about 5 new BGSes went up this week on CT-8, most have borders but 2 don't.  Exit 19 NB "1 3/4 Mile" sign and Exit 17 SB "1 Mile" sign. Were these two just sitting around for a year in the shop? 

Also, the two I just mentioned are the "Overpass Gantry"  haha    In fact for Exit 19 the old 1 mile sign was on a gantry but was replaced with the 1 3/4 mile sign on the overpass.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 16, 2011, 05:19:47 PM
trust me it's not bordered. I pass it every day going to work.

I went by it again this morning, early and looked it over carefully.

The fuzziness was a crappy picture, lol. I'll get a better one.

Rememer, new CT exit tab borders are as thick as theborder on the sign itself, so it's easy to spot.

Quote
However, about 5 new BGSes went up this week on CT-8, most have borders but 2 don't.  Exit 19 NB "1 3/4 Mile" sign and Exit 17 SB "1 Mile" sign. Were these two just sitting around for a year in the shop?  

Maybe this is the same issue? - let's hope it's that, and NOT the sign of more random inconsistency to come from ConnDOT.

This sign has been missing for a long time, and may have been prepped sitting in the sign shop several months ago, waiting to be put up. The mountings to the "overpass gantry" are all square "BOX" style arms now instead of the older bracketing made from angle iron.


** and I'd like to correct one thing,  I clocked the mileage today... that overpass is just about 1 mile from the exit, right at the gore sign (about .9 to the beginning of the ramp) not .8 as I had said previously.  The old sign was actually a little further than a mile away, so I guess it's compliant, or pretty darn close, distance wise. **
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2011, 08:04:47 PM
Maybe this is the same issue? - let's hope it's that, and NOT the sign of more random inconsistency to come from ConnDOT.


Yes, the DOT is very inconsistant with all topics, signage, design, turn lanes, placement of signs etc.

I think they look at things in terms of project numbers not consistancy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 25, 2011, 05:09:23 PM
New Generation BGS goes up yesterday on I-84 WB for Exit 42 in west Hartford, Trout Brook Drive. 1 MILE (or as the sign says "Trout Brk Dr.".  THere has been a substandard small temporary sign in the left median for well over a year right next to the remains of the Pole for the old BGS (only the upright remains)...

Funny thing is.  This temp sign and pole are still there (accruately 1 mile from the gore)... and the NEW 1 MILE BGS IS .2 miles further west attached to BRAND NEW mounting on an infamous CT "OVERPASS GANTRY", about .8 miles from the exit.

I got a photo this afternoon in traffic, - crappy because I was going EB and had to point my iphone into the sun.
LEFT aligned tab, but in true CT fashion, NO liner on the exit tab. - (I thought the new MUTCD standard was a LEFT plaque in yellow w/ black legend on the exit tab itself?)

photos 2 and 3 are the old sign location and the temp sign still standing - again The old location is about .2 Miles east of the new permanent sign. - I wonder why that wasn't replaced at the proper 1 mile interval by one of those gaudy rounded pipe gantry's the state seems to be in love with.

AT LEAST IT'S NOT CLEARVIEW  :sombrero:

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/images/new421.JPG)

Are you sure the new Exit 42 tab isn't bordered?  I see some fizzyness around the edge.  The reason I ask is b/c as of 2010 all tab put up by the DOT have borders.  There is only about a year or so in 2009 that CTDOT put up alligned non-bordered exit tabs.

However, about 5 new BGSes went up this week on CT-8, most have borders but 2 don't.  Exit 19 NB "1 3/4 Mile" sign and Exit 17 SB "1 Mile" sign. Were these two just sitting around for a year in the shop? 

Also, the two I just mentioned are the "Overpass Gantry"  haha    In fact for Exit 19 the old 1 mile sign was on a gantry but was replaced with the 1 3/4 mile sign on the overpass.

It appears the style sign you see plated on a gantry in CT has to do with when the signing project was implemented.  There is a 2008 project for various individual sign support replacements that this sign was part of.  I received an email from ConnDOT engineering explaining.   

So it stands to reason that new blanket replacement projects that are designed from 2009-on will have certain elements that projects going on now, designed earlier, may not.

"Chris,
 
    I am a traffic engineer in the DOT's Division of Traffic Engineering and would like to respond to your recent comment on the DOT website comment page regarding a new sign on I 84 westbound in West Hartford.
    The new sign installation on I-84 that you referred to in your e-mail is being installed as part of a construction project to replace sign supports at various locations throughout the state.  This project was designed in 2008, before the "left exit" sign crown was called for in the 2009 MUTCD.  Changing the sign would require redesign of not only the sign but the support as well.  Since the project was designed using current standards at the time and the MUTCD does not require immediate compliance, as this would be nearly impossible, the sign was installed as designed.  Current projects are being designed according to the latest 2009 MUTCD standards.   The Department will revise existing signing to current standards as these signs are scheduled for replacement.
 
Thank You,
 
 
James M."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 26, 2011, 11:41:15 AM
I find that the DOT is very good at responding to questions.  I have asked a ton over the years and always get great responses from them. 

By the way, the bill to put tolls on new highway construction (Route11) passed another legislative committe, not too long ago, and the SECCOG put Route 11 back into it's Transportation Plan.  The Route 2A Bypass is also in there.  I submitted my public comments to them as well, hopefully it will help.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 05, 2011, 07:39:46 PM
Another Assembly went up on I-84 WB from 5/3 - 5/5 to completion.  This is a full-width overhead gantry.  The only thing I'll point out is that it appears to be 100% MUTCD compliant... in CT of all places.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's compliant.  Aligned Exit Tabs, separate Borders on the tabs, and the pull through signage uses the required larger leading CAP on the cardinal direction.  I know it's boring to some, because it's so compliant, but for CT, complete compliance is quite a rarity still, so really.... it's different.  Oddly enough, the sign at exit 42 WB that went up a couple weeks ago, has the UNBORDERED tab, so I'm still seeing a lot of mix and match only a few weeks apart here.

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/i84.JPG)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 05, 2011, 10:41:09 PM
That new assembly looks really good, especially when compared to the old one, on dougtone's site:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4191755080/sizes/o/in/set-72157622891127873/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 05, 2011, 10:48:50 PM
what was wrong with the original gantry?  threatening structural failure?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 05, 2011, 11:34:44 PM
Another Assembly went up on I-84 WB from 5/3 - 5/5 to completion.  This is a full-width overhead gantry.  The only thing I'll point out is that it appears to be 100% MUTCD compliant... in CT of all places.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's compliant.  Aligned Exit Tabs, separate Borders on the tabs, and the pull through signage uses the required larger leading CAP on the cardinal direction.  I know it's boring to some, because it's so compliant, but for CT, complete compliance is quite a rarity still, so really.... it's different.  Oddly enough, the sign at exit 42 WB that went up a couple weeks ago, has the UNBORDERED tab, so I'm still seeing a lot of mix and match only a few weeks apart here.

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/i84.JPG)
Not fully MUTCD compliant. Exit distances under 1 mile are omitted from signs with EXIT ONLY.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2011, 11:35:32 PM
speaking of that, on I-84 between Exits 1-13 a sign replacement project has started and they are putting in foundations for new sign poles if you look carefully.  

One sign they are replacing, amazingly b/c it's relatively new, is the Exit 11 "To 25 South Brdigeport" auxillary BGS on I-84 WB.  I saw them putting in new foundations last week.

Why are they replacing that one?  It's new, as in the last 5 years or so.

PS, I wish they would replace the crappy 1980s gantries, the solid "square" ones that aren't level with the ground.  Danbury has a lot of them!  The one in ShadyJay's photo are nice, they are fromthe 60s and 70s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 05, 2011, 11:58:09 PM
The "TO 25 SOUTH-BRIDGEPORT" (WB) along with a sign before Exit 9-EB reading "ALTERNATE ROUTE TO BRIDGEPORT" et al, date back to c 2000-2002.  It was at that time (or around then) when thru traffic from I-84 EB to Bridgeport was diverted from Exit 9 to use Exit 11.  The Exit 9-EB BGS used to read  "EXIT 9/ 25 / Brookfield / Bridgeport / 1 MILE, etc".  When Mile Hill Rd/Wasserman Way was upgraded from the Exit 11 stub to Route 25, thru traffic was directed to that route away from town. 

Not completely related, the Exit 9-WB BGS used to read "EXIT 9 / 25 / Brookfield / New Milford".  Following the reroute of thru traffic, "New Milford" was removed from the WB signs, leaving an extra space.  When all Exit 9 signs were replaced in the past couple of years, they were reduced to simply "EXIT 9 / 25 / Brookfield".   

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 06, 2011, 02:57:42 AM
what was wrong with the original gantry?  threatening structural failure?

Yes, The original gantry was on a project that had about 20 ganties in various locations that were tagged as structurally deficient.
I personally love the old truss gantry's that this replaced, but there are a lot of them in this corridor and only that one was tagged for replacement on this project along with another further east at the west end of the bulkley bridge near the ramp to i 91 north.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 06, 2011, 03:09:35 AM

Not fully MUTCD compliant. Exit distances under 1 mile are omitted from signs with EXIT ONLY.

I'm not sure if this necessarily makes the signs not compliant.  The suggestion to not use mileage within 1 mile is shown under guidance, and not under any mutcd standard.

Guidance:
07 Except as provided in Paragraph 8 for an auxiliary lane, Advance Guide signs for lane drops within 1 mile of
the interchange should not contain the distance message.

From my understanding of the MUTCD, guidance items are "best practices", and requirements are listed under standards.

I think in this case the mileage is good because you have 2 exits fairly close together, and it's nice to know how much distance between each.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 06, 2011, 05:43:25 AM

Not fully MUTCD compliant. Exit distances under 1 mile are omitted from signs with EXIT ONLY.

I'm not sure if this necessarily makes the signs not compliant.  The suggestion to not use mileage within 1 mile is shown under guidance, and not under any mutcd standard.

Guidance:
07 Except as provided in Paragraph 8 for an auxiliary lane, Advance Guide signs for lane drops within 1 mile of
the interchange should not contain the distance message.

From my understanding of the MUTCD, guidance items are "best practices", and requirements are listed under standards.

I think in this case the mileage is good because you have 2 exits fairly close together, and it's nice to know how much distance between each.

I was going by a decision I just made on a project, but that decision was based on attempting to reduce sign sizes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 06, 2011, 05:47:02 AM
Good point about sign sizes. And now that you mention it, I notice that all the new signage going up in this state seems larger than any old signs coming down, lol
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 06, 2011, 02:41:42 PM
The "TO 25 SOUTH-BRIDGEPORT" (WB) along with a sign before Exit 9-EB reading "ALTERNATE ROUTE TO BRIDGEPORT" et al, date back to c 2000-2002.  It was at that time (or around then) when thru traffic from I-84 EB to Bridgeport was diverted from Exit 9 to use Exit 11.  The Exit 9-EB BGS used to read  "EXIT 9/ 25 / Brookfield / Bridgeport / 1 MILE, etc".  When Mile Hill Rd/Wasserman Way was upgraded from the Exit 11 stub to Route 25, thru traffic was directed to that route away from town. 

Not completely related, the Exit 9-WB BGS used to read "EXIT 9 / 25 / Brookfield / New Milford".  Following the reroute of thru traffic, "New Milford" was removed from the WB signs, leaving an extra space.  When all Exit 9 signs were replaced in the past couple of years, they were reduced to simply "EXIT 9 / 25 / Brookfield".   



That is true, so if it's only 11 years old why are they replacing it?  I've seen some good new BGSes on CT-8, so is CTDOT going to replace them whenever a new signing project comes through?

I actually like the alligned non-bordered tabs that have sprung up since 2009. CT-8 has a lot of them in drips and drabs along the route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on May 06, 2011, 08:43:09 PM
Am i the only one that REALLY doesn't like those huge thick curved gantries?

They just seem way thicker than is necessary - was there really studies done that showed this was needed in a new design?

It's such an eyesore and draws the eye to this giant curved girthy thing - I don't ever remember thinking much about gantries in the past, but these seem... almost like precusors to turning the highway into a tunnel, like a big structural support.   Very unappealing, in my opinion.

I don't know if it's that I don't like a curved gantry at all, or if the thickness alone is what gets me.. It just seems wrong..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 06, 2011, 09:13:22 PM
Am i the only one that REALLY doesn't like those huge thick curved gantries?

They just seem way thicker than is necessary - was there really studies done that showed this was needed in a new design?

You can connect them to the city water system - double duty.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 06, 2011, 09:15:03 PM
I'll I know is that they are more pleasing too look at than those god-awful square 80's  and 90's box steel gantries they used to replace the truss gantries in the last major signing project.  I've never seen them in any other state... You know why... because THEY are ass ugly, and no one else would want them on their roads.

As far as the actual sign support structures are concerned... I prefer a truss gantry.  They seem timeless, like the older 60's ones we still have in many places.  I hope that as they resign parts of the state that have these, they leave them intact if they are structurally sound to support the next generation of signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on May 06, 2011, 09:18:35 PM
It's a giant croquet hoop.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 06, 2011, 10:42:08 PM
I actually like those old + shaped gantries. They're a uniquely Connecticut thing.

Same goes for pipe gantries. There's a certain pleasantly minimalist character to them, and the curves set them apart from other types.

Truss gantries... eh, every state uses some form of them, so they're boring.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 06, 2011, 10:46:39 PM
actually CT still uses the truss 60s style gantries. They use them for the VMS and a new one went up over CT-8 in Naugatuck at Exit 27.

I like the pipe gantries as Duke87 says, they are nice and simple.

The square 80s gantries, that if they are a right alligned gantry, they aren't even level with the road and point upward. They are ugly and hopefully they will be replaced SOON!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2011, 02:24:45 AM
I've always been a fan of CT's color coding of sign gantries. Grayish blue on I-95, red on US 7, white on CT 8, ecru on CT 2, I forget them all but there was some duplication. I'll miss it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 07, 2011, 09:17:32 PM
I've always been a fan of CT's color coding of sign gantries. Grayish blue on I-95, red on US 7, white on CT 8, ecru on CT 2, I forget them all but there was some duplication. I'll miss it.


Cream/Light Yellow - I-91 from Hartford, northward, installed between the late 1980s and the early 1990s.  A few were added south of Hartford as well down to New Haven in sporadic locations.  Existing overhead trusses were painted the same color.

Fluorescent Green/Pale Green - Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) in SW Connecticut, and on Rt 9 - first installed on the extension west of I-91 to the Berlin Turnpike in 1989, then on new gantries in Middletown.  Truss gantries were painted the same color in this area.. 

Brown/Rust or dark green- I-84 and US 7 in the Danbury area

Grey - new sign installations in the late 1990s, primarily on I-91 (Exit 25 and on the last widening between Exits 38 & 42), I-84 (various locations throughout), and on CT 9's latest extension (opening in 1992).


Truss bridges - some were left their original color (grey), others were painted either light yellow or green.  A few new truss bridges were installed during the 1980s/1990s, even when the color-coded posts were going up.  Recent installations within the past 5 years include some on the widened Connecticut Turnpike in Darien and statewide, on new larger VMS. 

Steel pipe gantries - going up on most replacement and new sign installations, except where truss bridges are going up. 


Not sure on why a particular version was chosen over others (truss vs color-coded) or why some of the truss assemblies were painted from their original colors.  Also unclear as to why a steel pipe gantry is installed on one assembly, then the very next is a brand new heavy supported truss design.  Then again, CDOT is not exactly consistent with their actions!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 14, 2011, 03:40:48 PM
Recent ConnDOT press release: new I-95 to CT 34 flyover ramp opening soon.

"I-95 Northbound Exit 47 (to Route 34 Westbound) Ramp in New Haven To Be Permanently Closed on May 20, 2011

The Connecticut Department of Transportation is announcing that the existing Route 34 westbound exit ramp from I-95 northbound (Exit 47) will be permanently closed to traffic on Friday, May 20, 2011 at 9 p.m.  The new Route 34 westbound flyover ramp, which will be a right-hand exit from I-95 northbound to Route 34 westbound (Exit 47), will be open to traffic on Monday, May 23, 2011 at 6 a.m."

Too bad, after all the work at the I-95 interchange, CT 34 is much more likely to be torn up than extended westward.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on May 14, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
Whoa whoa waitasecond...
"right-hand exit"?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 14, 2011, 09:25:44 PM
More news, this time on the Arrigoni Bridge project, which has its own website:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=1410&q=474156%20

This project is bound to cause some major traffic headaches for those throughout central Connecticut.  I used to commute/travel through here regularly and it was a nightmare with NO construction going on.  Traffic regularly backs up on Route 9 SB during the afternoon rush for at least a mile, more than that during the summer on a Friday. 

But the work apparently is required - the bridge's deck is reportedly not in good condition.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 15, 2011, 05:25:58 PM
Recent ConnDOT press release: new I-95 to CT 34 flyover ramp opening soon.

"I-95 Northbound Exit 47 (to Route 34 Westbound) Ramp in New Haven To Be Permanently Closed on May 20, 2011

The Connecticut Department of Transportation is announcing that the existing Route 34 westbound exit ramp from I-95 northbound (Exit 47) will be permanently closed to traffic on Friday, May 20, 2011 at 9 p.m.  The new Route 34 westbound flyover ramp, which will be a right-hand exit from I-95 northbound to Route 34 westbound (Exit 47), will be open to traffic on Monday, May 23, 2011 at 6 a.m."

Too bad, after all the work at the I-95 interchange, CT 34 is much more likely to be torn up than extended westward.

I don't mind the left handed exits, especially when the highway is along the water like I-95 is in New Haven, kinda makes sense that exits have to be on the left side. Plus the exit ramps can be shorter and less tighter of a curve which means higher speed. I know a lot of backups that start around exit 41 are because of exits 47-48, but perhaps more/better signage would help alleviate that rather than new flyover ramps which will probably be of lower speed (meaning capacity is reduced) judging by the sharper ramp curve. Connecticut needs to realize that when it redoes major exits like this, it needs to increase capacity by either adding lanes to the ramp or making it possible for a high-speed interchange. When they re-did the I-95 NB to Route 8 interchange, the DOT claimed it was reducing the curve radius which would help alleviate the backup. Not surprisingly, it didn't help. Replacing a one lane ramp with another one lane ramp with slightly lower curve radius is kind of pointless. What they needed to do was make that ramp two lanes, but for some reason they rather have wide breakdown lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 15, 2011, 06:32:00 PM
When they re-did the I-95 NB to Route 8 interchange, the DOT claimed it was reducing the curve radius which would help alleviate the backup. Not surprisingly, it didn't help. Replacing a one lane ramp with another one lane ramp with slightly lower curve radius is kind of pointless. What they needed to do was make that ramp two lanes, but for some reason they rather have wide breakdown lanes.

Yes, only in CT is where they would redo theinterchange but end up leaving it the same.  Other states would probably have made the 8/25/I-95 interchange a tri-level stack.   I suggested a two-lane ramp with an option lane from I-95 NB to CT-8/25, considering it's wide enough anyway..but nobody thought it was a good idea.  Figures

BTW: New signage on I-91 in Rocky Hill.  New gantry on I-91 SB before Route 9.  Nice looking and makes it less confusing.  HOWEVER, on the NB side there is a new aux BGS for Exit 23 (I think?) and the sign is new but they kept the old button copy exit tab and right alligned it. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 15, 2011, 07:02:58 PM
When they re-did the I-95 NB to Route 8 interchange, the DOT claimed it was reducing the curve radius which would help alleviate the backup. Not surprisingly, it didn't help. Replacing a one lane ramp with another one lane ramp with slightly lower curve radius is kind of pointless. What they needed to do was make that ramp two lanes, but for some reason they rather have wide breakdown lanes.

Yes, only in CT is where they would redo theinterchange but end up leaving it the same.  Other states would probably have made the 8/25/I-95 interchange a tri-level stack.   I suggested a two-lane ramp with an option lane from I-95 NB to CT-8/25, considering it's wide enough anyway..but nobody thought it was a good idea.  Figures

BTW: New signage on I-91 in Rocky Hill.  New gantry on I-91 SB before Route 9.  Nice looking and makes it less confusing.  HOWEVER, on the NB side there is a new aux BGS for Exit 23 (I think?) and the sign is new but they kept the old button copy exit tab and right alligned it. 

Yep, everyone apparently hates left exits, but what would you rather have: left exit with curve radius that allows no or little change in speed or right-handed exit that because of the loop around means an average speed of 30-35 MPH? In high traffic situations, such as the 8/95 interchange, I'd rather have a left exit there. They're compact and allow for high speed interchanges. Alternatively, if you must have a right exit, at the minimum, increase the number of lanes to prevent backups.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 15, 2011, 07:14:06 PM
BTW: New signage on I-91 in Rocky Hill.  New gantry on I-91 SB before Route 9.  Nice looking and makes it less confusing.  HOWEVER, on the NB side there is a new aux BGS for Exit 23 (I think?) and the sign is new but they kept the old button copy exit tab and right alligned it. 

How does the new gantry make the sign assembly less confusing?  Is it just a new gantry or are the signs new as well?  The Exit 22-SB gantry 1 mile advance was mounted on the bridge, while the 1/2 was a yellow "i-beam" type (installed in 1990) and the Exit 22S final gantry is a yellow-painted "truss bridge" which has been up at least since the 80s, if not dating back to the completion of Route 9 South in the late 60s. 

Last time I passed through Rocky Hill on I-91 NB, the NB 1/4 mile advance gantry was removed and replaced with a 1/2 mile steel pipe.  The former 1/4 mile was on a truss bridge right before the Shunpike Rd (Route 3) overpass and at one time had a pull-through for I-91 North.  It most likely was going to be a 1 mile advance guide for Exit 23A to I-291 as well.  The Exit 23 final sign, mounted on a yellow steel girder type, was installed in the late 1980s - the original sign was ground-mounted. 

Anyways....
One of the Exit 23-NB auxillary signs (the one that advertised the State Veterans Home/Dinosaur State Park) had a button copy exit tab but with reflective non-button copy lettering.  I believe this was converted from all-button copy about the time the "TO" was removed from alongside the "3" for Exit 23.  Still not sure why that was done! 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 15, 2011, 07:33:23 PM

How does the new gantry make the sign assembly less confusing?

the new final 22S gantry has new signs as well, a left exit CT-9 NOW sign,  and 91 pullthrough with no arrows and an extra advance warning sign for CT-9 NB which emphasizes to stay to the right hand side andit says "FIRST RIGHT" with blackon yellow letters at the bottom. I don't remember the extra CT-9 NB advance signing there, just the CT-9 SB final left exit now signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 15, 2011, 09:28:11 PM
Nice.... does it have the LEFT up in the (I'm assuming, aligned?) exit tab?  

The old gantry had just the 9 SOUTH "Exit Now" sign and the 91 SOUTH pullthrough.  I can see how the addition of the 9 NORTH sign would ease confusion.  
See here:
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rocky+hill,+ct&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=44.928295,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Rocky+Hill,+Hartford,+Connecticut&ll=41.632926,-72.686834&spn=0.020817,0.045447&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.633008,-72.686749&panoid=yZTAJSMsaFh_-pOY2MVhaw&cbp=12,191.84,,0,-8.97

Someone's gotta get a pic of the new sign!!!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2011, 12:24:05 PM
Nice.... does it have the LEFT up in the (I'm assuming, aligned?) exit tab?  

The old gantry had just the 9 SOUTH "Exit Now" sign and the 91 SOUTH pullthrough.  I can see how the addition of the 9 NORTH sign would ease confusion.  
See here:
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rocky+hill,+ct&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=44.928295,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Rocky+Hill,+Hartford,+Connecticut&ll=41.632926,-72.686834&spn=0.020817,0.045447&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.633008,-72.686749&panoid=yZTAJSMsaFh_-pOY2MVhaw&cbp=12,191.84,,0,-8.97

Someone's gotta get a pic of the new sign!!!

No LEFT, but they are alligned with borders.   Before that on I-91 SB, I think for CT-99, there is another new BGS with a non-bordered alligned tab.  Not sure how long that was there for.

It does seem, when CTDOT replaces gantries or BGSes, they are reevaluating what the signs say and if there needs to be additional signage.  As seen with Exit 22 on I-91 SB and I-84 WB before Exit 47-46 as seen in the photos above.  

I-84 WORK

Also, work has begun for the aux lanes for I-84 between exits 1-2 in Danbury.  One thing that got me on WB I-84 is 3 lanes until Exit 1.  But on EB the 3 lanage doesn't start until the Exit 2 on-ramp.  

The aux lanes will only run between exits 1 & 2 on I-84 EB, (WB will only have the exit 2 off ramp lengthened) I proposed adding or lengthening the third lane until it meets up with the 3rd lane at the Exit 2 EB on-ramp.  B/c once work is complete it will narrow BACK down to 2 lanes at the exit 2 off ramp, only to have 3 lanes again with the exit 2 on-ramp.  The distance isn't that far, you would think they would've thought of that.  I guess not.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2011, 06:57:07 PM
(http://www.divalishcouture.com/i84.JPG)
(http://www.divalishcouture.com/images/new421.JPG)
[/quote]

Funny thing is, both of these signs, one with a bordered tab and one without a bordered tab are from the SAME project!  I'm guessing they were designed at different times?

Here is the project:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/stimulus/projects/highway/Stimulus_Project_170-2662rev__2_X.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 16, 2011, 07:36:08 PM
Personally, I'm glad to see them go.  It would be one thing if they were original button copy, but they are largely 3rd generation button copy, being installed from the mid 1980s to the early 1990s. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 16, 2011, 08:05:17 PM
Personally, I'm glad to see them go.  It would be one thing if they were original button copy, but they are largely 3rd generation button copy, being installed from the mid 1980s to the early 1990s. 



Exactly. They are CRAP button copy, on reflective sheeting... as the button copy legend deteriorates, the green field still glows giving this wonderful green square w/ some brownish looking squiggles at night, that is completely and totally UNreadable. 

The button copy in this state is nothing nostalgic, it replaced previous generation button copy, with army green non reflective extruded sign panels that were illuminated with wonderful up lighting that has all but disappeared in the northeast.

The worst abomination in CT signing history came with the generation of signs that are now finally being replaced en-masse
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on May 21, 2011, 06:28:41 PM
The worst abomination in CT signing history came with the generation of signs that are now finally being replaced en-masse

I pretty much agree with that - personally, I didn't so much like the old button copy either (though I like uplighting)  But the newer stuff is a real eyesore.  For some reason button copy to me always looks like some top layer of something wore off, showing something underneath you shouldn't be seeing, like production rivets.

Anyway, I'm more concerned about clearview into the future =(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 24, 2011, 05:12:46 PM
Route 11 Back from the Dead!  Say what you want but it's still better than nothing.
The Governor, DEP and FHWA announced funding for more environmental studies. 

http://www.theday.com/article/20110524/NWS12/305249917
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on May 24, 2011, 06:06:47 PM
Route 11 Back from the Dead!  Say what you want but it's still better than nothing.
The Governor, DEP and FHWA announced funding for more environmental studies.  

http://www.theday.com/article/20110524/NWS12/305249917

This reminds me of how tired I am of hysterical anti-spending commenters on news stories.  If the proposal doesn't personally affect them positively, they all respond with 'WE'RE BROKE, CAN'T AFFORD IT' - As far as transportation infrastructure goes, you can only take that position for so long until the entire lifeblood of your workforce and economy goes up in smoke (and potholes)..

Not that there aren't wasteful transportation projects, but this 'NO' answer to anything proposed is hardly helpful.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 24, 2011, 08:12:12 PM
Quote
A previous round of environmental studies that was cut short must be completed before new engineering and funding analysis studies are conducted.
The studies are to begin this summer and will require two and a half years to finish, Malloy said. Another consultant will examine options for funding the full project, such as the installation of temporary toll booths.

More studies...
I'd be surprised at this point if they actually get around to build this thing in my lifetime!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 24, 2011, 08:19:02 PM
I'll believe it when they actually stick a shovel in the ground.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 24, 2011, 08:39:26 PM
Route 11 Back from the Dead!  Say what you want but it's still better than nothing.
The Governor, DEP and FHWA announced funding for more environmental studies.  

http://www.theday.com/article/20110524/NWS12/305249917

This reminds me of how tired I am of hysterical anti-spending commenters on news stories.  If the proposal doesn't personally affect them positively, they all respond with 'WE'RE BROKE, CAN'T AFFORD IT' - As far as transportation infrastructure goes, you can only take that position for so long until the entire lifeblood of your workforce and economy goes up in smoke (and potholes)..

Not that there aren't wasteful transportation projects, but this 'NO' answer to anything proposed is hardly helpful.

I agree.  I am a fairly staunch conservative, but I agree that (intelligent) transportation infrastructure is a key function of governments, and is one thing that money actually SHOULD be spent on... it all boils down to the ability to protect our country, and have a backbone that will allow us to grow and remain a great power in the 21st century.  fed state and local governments have become so expanded and bloated with programs far beyond what was ever expected to be the government's role, that none of the core, necessary functions of government have the funding needed or deserved.


now i ALSO agree with this comment on the article
"Here we go again and again. Million's of dollars for more studies! No wonder nothing gets built in this state. Just build the highway already if your going to do it at all."

Seriously.  Just build it.
Could you imagine if all this red tape existed when the interstate system was being laid out... I miss those days (of course I wasn't even born in those day).  If they had to go through then what they have to go through now to get a road built... I90 would still only be about 10 miles long and the rest of it would be tied up in EIS's.

Build it. Just build it.  We've waited almost 40 years for it, now we'll spend another 5 million on it, and in 2 years it will be shelved again because of some tree huggers and local opposition no doubt.

They should just start the machines and start building, don't even mention it in the news.  If some wacko wants to stand in front of a dozer in protest...well let him or her "become one" with the new road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 24, 2011, 08:53:50 PM
Scene: 8:01 am, May 23, 2011, Connecticut State Capitol, Governor's Office

Gov. MALLOY: Huh. So I guess the rapture didn't happen.

Lt. Gov. WYMAN: So much for running out the clock on that Route 11 thing.

Gov. MALLOY: (sighs) Yeah, OK, let's put together a speech...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 25, 2011, 08:04:38 PM
Is this a non-reflective button copy I found here?
The signs in question, iare on the left with the BIG I-91 shield.  It's on CT-40 SB.  The sign on the right is the putrid button copy reflective signs from the late 80s to early 90s.  But the sign on the left is darker and has a huge shield, the same type that has been used on other non-reflective button copy signs.  CT-40 opened in 1976 or so. 
I drove here today and it looks like it, but the only way to tell for sure is to drive at night,

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mt.+carmel,+ct&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.699934,56.162109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mt+Carmel,+New+Haven,+Connecticut&ll=41.389882,-72.886562&spn=0,0.043774&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.389976,-72.886579&panoid=YN9ZYkWfsDtJB_lyfqT2ag&cbp=12,160.28,,0,-8.91


http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mt.+carmel,+ct&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.699934,56.162109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mt+Carmel,+New+Haven,+Connecticut&ll=41.382959,-72.884717&spn=0,0.043774&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.383051,-72.884745&panoid=y9kjfZtxlU2MaYekQxj_mA&cbp=12,157.57,,0,-13.06

Which leads me to this question, it seems like CT faded out original non reflective button copy really fast.  On roads that opened in the 70s, before reflective button copy was used, there are reflective button copy signs posted.  Which would mean they were replaced in the mid 80s to early 90s.  Which means the signs that were replaced were only 10 years old or so. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 29, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
Some interesting US6 Expressway news here:

1) THE CRCOG ammended their 2011 Trans Plan and while the US proposed expressway from I-384 to the expressway portion in Willimantic is on life support, it isn't totally dead.  The CRCOG put it in the unfunded needs category, which means it probably wont ever get built, but they didn't cross it off completely.  They are also looking at a corridor study of the area, which probably means curb cut type stuff.
http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/RTP2011/2011ExecSumFINAL.pdf

As you know in the late 90s the DOT and Army COE disagreed on the routing and our lovley John Rowland scrapped funding for the highway in 2000-2001.  Maybe Route 6 can be like Roue 11?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 02, 2011, 04:00:52 PM
Looks like CDOT is closing ALL interstate rest areas except those found along the I-95 and I-395 portions of the Connecticut Turnpike, and those on the parkways.

Willington rest areas on I-84 will be first to go, starting July 1, with the rest going one year later.  
See press release here:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=480274

This is a far cry from a couple of years ago, when a report proposed rebuilding all rest areas and even adding a few new ones on CT 2, CT 9, and on I-91 SB in Enfield.  

The only stand-alone tourist info/rest area that will remain will be the one on I-95 in Westbrook, though that is planned for long term removal as part of a widening project in 2030.  
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Is this a non-reflective button copy I found here?
The signs in question, iare on the left with the BIG I-91 shield.  It's on CT-40 SB.  The sign on the right is the putrid button copy reflective signs from the late 80s to early 90s.  But the sign on the left is darker and has a huge shield, the same type that has been used on other non-reflective button copy signs.  CT-40 opened in 1976 or so. 
I drove here today and it looks like it, but the only way to tell for sure is to drive at night,

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mt.+carmel,+ct&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.699934,56.162109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mt+Carmel,+New+Haven,+Connecticut&ll=41.389882,-72.886562&spn=0,0.043774&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.389976,-72.886579&panoid=YN9ZYkWfsDtJB_lyfqT2ag&cbp=12,160.28,,0,-8.91


http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mt.+carmel,+ct&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.699934,56.162109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mt+Carmel,+New+Haven,+Connecticut&ll=41.382959,-72.884717&spn=0,0.043774&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.383051,-72.884745&panoid=y9kjfZtxlU2MaYekQxj_mA&cbp=12,157.57,,0,-13.06

Which leads me to this question, it seems like CT faded out original non reflective button copy really fast.  On roads that opened in the 70s, before reflective button copy was used, there are reflective button copy signs posted.  Which would mean they were replaced in the mid 80s to early 90s.  Which means the signs that were replaced were only 10 years old or so. 

Checking my own photos, they're ones that didn't come out too well. I'll have to get some retakes at the New Haven meet. Seems like it, though. There's that one other non-reflective one up in Hartford, but they're really scattered. Keep in mind CT was using button copy on up till nearly the turn of the century, so the signs could have been 25 years old by the time they were replaced. Sign life is generally 10-15 years, theoretically...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alex on June 06, 2011, 01:35:47 PM
Looks like CDOT is closing ALL interstate rest areas except those found along the I-95 and I-395 portions of the Connecticut Turnpike, and those on the parkways.

Willington rest areas on I-84 will be first to go, starting July 1, with the rest going one year later.  
See press release here:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=480274

This is a far cry from a couple of years ago, when a report proposed rebuilding all rest areas and even adding a few new ones on CT 2, CT 9, and on I-91 SB in Enfield.  

The only stand-alone tourist info/rest area that will remain will be the one on I-95 in Westbrook, though that is planned for long term removal as part of a widening project in 2030.  

:thumbdown: Another reason to dislike roadding in Connecticut (congestion being the first reason). I don't much care for being forced to venture off the freeway to use the facilities.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Lyle on June 06, 2011, 02:41:11 PM
Looks like CDOT is closing ALL interstate rest areas except those found along the I-95 and I-395 portions of the Connecticut Turnpike, and those on the parkways.

:angry:
That's terrible. Not only is Connecticut not building the new highways it was supposed to (CT-11, U.S. 7, I-384), but now it is moving backwards!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 06, 2011, 03:40:59 PM
Looks like CDOT is closing ALL interstate rest areas except those found along the I-95 and I-395 portions of the Connecticut Turnpike, and those on the parkways.

Willington rest areas on I-84 will be first to go, starting July 1, with the rest going one year later. 
See press release here:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=480274

This is a far cry from a couple of years ago, when a report proposed rebuilding all rest areas and even adding a few new ones on CT 2, CT 9, and on I-91 SB in Enfield. 

The only stand-alone tourist info/rest area that will remain will be the one on I-95 in Westbrook, though that is planned for long term removal as part of a widening project in 2030. 

:thumbdown: Another reason to dislike roadding in Connecticut (congestion being the first reason). I don't much care for being forced to venture off the freeway to use the facilities.

Not just that, but also trying to find tourist information off the highway?  Good luck with that one.  Stop at a gas station perhaps?  Use a dirty nasty old bathroom that may or may not be locked, then asking the clerk for directions or suggestions on things to do in the state?  Ha!
Good luck with that one!

I still can't believe they're even closing [most of the] welcome centers.  The only standalone non-service area facility come next summer will be the one on I-95 in Westbrook.  Shame, CDOT!  Just when you were starting to get your points back by properly aligning your exit tabs.....

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2011, 03:43:48 PM

Not just that, but also trying to find tourist information off the highway?  Good luck with that one.  Stop at a gas station perhaps?  Use a dirty nasty old bathroom that may or may not be locked, then asking the clerk for directions or suggestions on things to do in the state?  Ha!
Good luck with that one!


that's what the internet is for - a lot of "things to do in the state" can be found out ahead of time, which helps with strategic planning.

the bathroom issue ... well, I wouldn't attempt to use the internet to take care of that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 06, 2011, 04:55:58 PM
welllll.....the new CT-34 flyover ramp from I-95 NB opened today replacing the nasty left hand exit.  Shouldn't that get extra points? lol
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on June 08, 2011, 06:32:15 PM
The Chair of the State's Transportation Committee has said that the plan to close the Rest Areas on 84 and 95 will be scrapped tonight in the General Assembly's last session of the year. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2011, 10:53:29 PM
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Danbury-rest-area-will-remain-open-state-rep-says-1415679.php

Rep Scribner of Brookfield worked with the Trans Comittee to keep the rest areas open.  I like Scribner as I have wrote to him in the past and he was the only one to write back on my transportation solutions/comments.

However, he is against tolling.  That could be dangerous for CT-11, as it seems the state is betting on tolling to get CT-11 finished.  He and others fear tolling will be like the 80s with booths and buckets.  Keep in mind other states have tolls and have been doing so without incident for years but it's different for Ct somehow.  CT hates change. unfortunately.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 08, 2011, 10:56:40 PM
And the CT-34 exit is now a right hand flyover off of I-95 NB in New Haven.
Click the link and notice the NEW overhead map sign on the left on the article indicating CT-34 is now a right hand exit.  They will have to replace that soon, once I-91 also exits from the right and I-95 will remain 3 lanes.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/07/news/new_haven/doc4ded904e5ebaf904396823.txt

Of course most of the reader comments are stupid, ie people wondering where they would put the snow in the winter.  So, does that mean we shouldn't have built it?!  Plow it to the side just like with the state's 5000 other bridges.

Also, some readers brought up good points, the traffic weave now created with Exit 46 on ramp and CT-34 Exit 47 off ramp traffic, just under a 10th of a mile!!  Why couldn't the off ramp start before the Exit 46 on ramp!?!?!  That way, drivers could take local streets to CT-34 if they are getting on from Exit 46.  And, yes the ramp still merges with CT-34 from the left.  I have a feeling, iif this were any other state, those issues would've been taken care of.  It's like it was planned with 80% common sense comared to 100% common sense.

But, it's better than before.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Michael in Philly on June 09, 2011, 12:26:20 AM
Just dropped into this thread to remark that - having driven from Philadelphia to North Attleboro, Mass., today and thus passed through Connecticut for the first time in nearly a decade - I do like a state that hasn't neutered its Interstate markers!

(I'm less happy about having paid $4.139 for regular on the Turnpike in Darien, or about the fact that the state welcome center there is out of maps.  I like maps.  But I should have known gas would be over-priced in Connecticut, and they say they'll have maps next week (I won't be there any time soon to pick one up, but it's nice to know they exist.  And I guess it can be requested on line.)  I'm less happy still about having glanced at the last few posts and seen this bit about closing rest areas.  What the f--- do certain portions of the political spectrum have against basic civilization?)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on June 09, 2011, 11:13:50 AM
Just dropped into this thread to remark that - having driven from Philadelphia to North Attleboro, Mass., today and thus passed through Connecticut for the first time in nearly a decade - I do like a state that hasn't neutered its Interstate markers!

(I'm less happy about having paid $4.139 for regular on the Turnpike in Darien, or about the fact that the state welcome center there is out of maps.  I like maps.  But I should have known gas would be over-priced in Connecticut, and they say they'll have maps next week (I won't be there any time soon to pick one up, but it's nice to know they exist.  And I guess it can be requested on line.)  I'm less happy still about having glanced at the last few posts and seen this bit about closing rest areas.  What the f--- do certain portions of the political spectrum have against basic civilization?)

Never get gas at one of the rest stops on 95…you're better off getting off the highway and driving for a mile and a bit…gas is just starting to drop below $4…but then again this is in Hartford County, I'm not so sure about the shore.  Regardless, should you travel into our great state again, don't let the convenience tempt you. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 09, 2011, 01:25:53 PM
Re: the new CT 34 flyover's left-hand merge. Does no one else realize that when a new road is beginning from a series of ramps, like CT 34, SOME ramp has to be on the left?

Here's a Google Maps aerial of the ramp under construction for reference: http://goo.gl/maps/4Xaa

If they had moved the ramp from 95 north over to the right side, in addition to taking more room (probably by cantilevering over adjacent Water St.) it would have moved the merge point farther up, thus providing traffic from the other ramps onto CT 34 less room to merge over to the upcoming exits. And, in that case, these same people complaining about the current left entrance would then be complaining about the ramp from 95 south or 91 south entering on the left. When multiple ramps come together, one HAS to be on the left. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

And I'm glad to hear Conn is coming to it's senses about keeping rest areas open.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 10, 2011, 09:09:24 PM
Re: the new CT 34 flyover's left-hand merge. Does no one else realize that when a new road is beginning from a series of ramps, like CT 34, SOME ramp has to be on the left?

Here's a Google Maps aerial of the ramp under construction for reference: http://goo.gl/maps/4Xaa

If they had moved the ramp from 95 north over to the right side, in addition to taking more room (probably by cantilevering over adjacent Water St.) it would have moved the merge point farther up, thus providing traffic from the other ramps onto CT 34 less room to merge over to the upcoming exits. And, in that case, these same people complaining about the current left entrance would then be complaining about the ramp from 95 south or 91 south entering on the left. When multiple ramps come together, one HAS to be on the left. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

And I'm glad to hear Conn is coming to it's senses about keeping rest areas open.

Yeah the whole "we need to get rid of every left exit" mentality is annoying. Highways that begin at the shore like I-91 and CT-34, should begin as a left exit northbound. It just makes sense. It keeps the ramp short, and the curve radius negligible meaning vehicles can maintain high speeds. Now we have a flyover that requires a much sharper curve radius (read: lower speed meaning less cars/hour) and needs to pass over I-95 N/B and S/B instead of just the S/B lanes. Bet the backups at the I-95/91/CT-34 don't go away even with the right hand exits and CDOT will be scratching their heads trying to figure out why that is. CT is notorious for rebuilding major interchanges without adding capacity which is the definition of pointless.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2011, 09:18:20 PM
freeway-to-freeway left exits aren't generally all that problematic.  it's the surface street ones, which require traffic to slow significantly, which should be eliminated.

the only freeway-to-freeway "left exits" that are problematic are when the mainline through lanes change number, and the previous number continues as a right exit of one's self - but this can be adequately dealt with using ample signage.  
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 11, 2011, 08:35:07 PM
Yeah the whole "we need to get rid of every left exit" mentality is annoying. Highways that begin at the shore like I-91 and CT-34, should begin as a left exit northbound. It just makes sense. It keeps the ramp short, and the curve radius negligible meaning vehicles can maintain high speeds. Now we have a flyover that requires a much sharper curve radius (read: lower speed meaning less cars/hour) and needs to pass over I-95 N/B and S/B instead of just the S/B lanes.

The old ramp to 34 featured a couple of tight curves and was more medium speed than high speed. I haven't driven the new ramp yet, but it looks to be much higher speed. And being a more minor exit, it makes sense on the right. 91, meanwhile, could easily remain a left exit but it doesn't really make a difference.

What I'm really wondering is how traffic entering from Long Wharf Drive is going to handle after all this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 18, 2011, 03:37:53 PM
Here we go again, another group complaining about the DOT I-95 widening in New Haven/West Haven.
Of course, they wait and come out now.  


http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/18/news/new_haven/doc4dfbaafe9c8e9172207978.txt
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 18, 2011, 06:28:21 PM
Yeah the whole "we need to get rid of every left exit" mentality is annoying. Highways that begin at the shore like I-91 and CT-34, should begin as a left exit northbound. It just makes sense. It keeps the ramp short, and the curve radius negligible meaning vehicles can maintain high speeds. Now we have a flyover that requires a much sharper curve radius (read: lower speed meaning less cars/hour) and needs to pass over I-95 N/B and S/B instead of just the S/B lanes.

The old ramp to 34 featured a couple of tight curves and was more medium speed than high speed. I haven't driven the new ramp yet, but it looks to be much higher speed. And being a more minor exit, it makes sense on the right. 91, meanwhile, could easily remain a left exit but it doesn't really make a difference.

What I'm really wondering is how traffic entering from Long Wharf Drive is going to handle after all this.

You are probably right with regards to exit 47 being left or right not making a whole lot of difference. Why bother then? I'm not a fan of reconstruction type projects unless it adds capacity in some way. CT seems notorious for undertaking these big projects of realigning, reducing curves, moving an exit 100 feet, etc. but yet afterwards the number of lanes remains the same and the same old traffic hot spots remain. The only thing we seem to gain is a big bill to taxpayers and traffic jams from 8 PM-6 AM M-F through the construction pattern for a few years. If traffic backups at exit 47 and 48 are because of the left handedness of the ramps, then better signage would be a start. Try the $2 solution before the $2 million solution. Diagram signs like they use for 47 and 48 suck anyway for quickly discerning lane assignments. I'd rather pull through type signs that show each lane where they're gonna go if they stay there. And I'd start those signs back at Kim Ave instead of closer to Long Wharf.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 18, 2011, 06:56:21 PM
By the way, it seems New Haven is no longer a big enough control city to not be listed without its state abbreviation. NYC-area signage is using "New Haven CT" from now on and many of these signs are already up especially in the Bronx.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2011, 09:31:38 PM
By the way, it seems New Haven is no longer a big enough control city to not be listed without its state abbreviation. NYC-area signage is using "New Haven CT" from now on and many of these signs are already up especially in the Bronx.

I'm still mourning the loss of "NEW ENGLAND" as a control point on I-95 and "UPSTATE" on the Deegan. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2011, 09:34:40 PM
Here we go again, another group complaining about the DOT I-95 widening in New Haven/West Haven.
Of course, they wait and come out now. 


http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/18/news/new_haven/doc4dfbaafe9c8e9172207978.txt

Wait a minute... I thought the Exit 46 ramps were already moved from previous locations?  Now they want to move them AGAIN?  Sounds like a typical ConnDOT move - not thinking ahead.  If there is a weaving issue, then ConnDOT should have been prepared for this and put the ramps further south. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on June 18, 2011, 10:21:15 PM
It looks like ConnDOT is continuing it's sign replacement on I-84, they're re-doing the whole sign bridge on the Bulkeley Bridge on the Hartford side.  They're replacing the I-84 West sign, the sign for Exit 50 (US-44 East) and Exit 51 (I-91 North).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 18, 2011, 10:30:55 PM
By the way, it seems New Haven is no longer a big enough control city to not be listed without its state abbreviation. NYC-area signage is using "New Haven CT" from now on and many of these signs are already up especially in the Bronx.

At least for NYSDOT. The Thruway Authority thinks differently, and is still using "Connecticut" or "Conn" as a control point. See hideous piece of work exhibit A:
(http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/4126/img1938ii.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2011, 11:13:19 PM
Oh my god that sign is just downright horrendous... I'd rather have it say New Haven if they could at least get the layout correct.  I've seen that sign from Amtrak/Metro North as well and the phrase "WTF" comes to mind.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 18, 2011, 11:49:51 PM
Here we go again, another group complaining about the DOT I-95 widening in New Haven/West Haven.
Of course, they wait and come out now. 


http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/18/news/new_haven/doc4dfbaafe9c8e9172207978.txt

Wait a minute... I thought the Exit 46 ramps were already moved from previous locations?  Now they want to move them AGAIN?  Sounds like a typical ConnDOT move - not thinking ahead.  If there is a weaving issue, then ConnDOT should have been prepared for this and put the ramps further south. 

YES, they will be moved a 2nd time!  I'm glad Exit 46 is moving b/c the current weave is unacceptable for a new layout, but shouldn't CTDOT have moved Exit 46 to it's final place the first time?  Seems wasteful to have the whole temp ramps etc.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: newyorker478 on June 19, 2011, 05:35:37 PM

I'm still mourning the loss of "NEW ENGLAND" as a control point on I-95 and "UPSTATE" on the Deegan.  

You can still find these controls on the Triboro Bridge as well as Upstate/Albany on signs from the Bruckner WB to the Deegan NB.

quOte
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on June 20, 2011, 06:24:36 PM
At least for NYSDOT. The Thruway Authority thinks differently, and is still using "Connecticut" or "Conn" as a control point. See hideous piece of work exhibit A:

That is truly, truly ugly.  :confused:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 20, 2011, 08:05:26 PM
I drove the new CT-34 flyover bridge today....an awesome job!  Idk why all the people in the article above were so negative about it.  Flyovers are nothing new.

Although Exit 46 should be moved back so allow for more merging time.  I think they should get rid of the Exit 46 on ramp all together.  There are other ways to get around and it isn't used that much. 

Plus, this:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/20/news/doc4dff980aaee7b348871450.txt

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: newyorker478 on June 20, 2011, 10:01:45 PM
I drove the new CT-34 flyover bridge today....an awesome job!  Idk why all the people in the article above were so negative about it.  Flyovers are nothing new.

Although Exit 46 should be moved back so allow for more merging time.  I think they should get rid of the Exit 46 on ramp all together.  There are other ways to get around and it isn't used that much.  
Plus, this:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/20/news/doc4dff980aaee7b348871450.txt




New Englanders and CTers do not have many flyovers to use, so it does take some geting used to
your text goes AFTER the quote, not INSIDE it
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2011, 06:33:01 PM
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Norwalk-I-95-bottleneck-a-priority-for-Malloy-1461671.php

I-95 widening (sort of) in Norwalk.  However, no news on the CT-15/US 7 interchange. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 12, 2011, 08:40:31 PM
Oh great, another auxiliary lane.

The Rampart Road overpass has been out for at least a few weeks now, so something is already going on in that area... but that's west of exit 14, so it might not be related.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2011, 09:25:54 PM
Oh great, another auxiliary lane.

The Rampart Road overpass has been out for at least a few weeks now, so something is already going on in that area... but that's west of exit 14, so it might not be related.

I think that is something else. My theory is crappy improvements are better than nothing. 

However, I want to see how long these lanes will be?  Will it be like I-95 SB between exits 10 and 8 where you have 4-lanes and other exits and entrances during the 4-lanes? , where it's actually long and could be considered 4-lanes SB?  OR will be like the other areas just between the on and off ramps for 1000 feet?

Also of note:  new signage, part of the new signage project, spotted on I-84 just west of Exit 13. Including new mileage markers complete with small interstate shields in them.  It looks like this:

    East
   (I-84
  shield)

    Mile

    18
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 15, 2011, 02:03:46 PM
Connecticut Ferries to Close (http://www.theday.com/article/20110715/NWS12/307159953/1070/FRONTPAGE)

More fallout from the economy: by August 25, 2011, both the Chester-Hadlyme (CT 148) and Glastonbury - Rocky Hill (CT 160) ferries will close indefinitely. Some fear this is permanent.

So CT 148 and CT 160, the only highways in CT to have seasonal closures, will have gaps year-round. To get rid of those gaps, there would be a small chance that the state would redesignate CT 160 east of CT 99 as two new unsigned "secret" routes; and do the same for CT 148 east of CT 154. The state has a couple maintenance gaps in its systems, though the highways are still signed through (83, 136), but all other highways are continuous end to end.

Closing the ferries will save about $400K a year or so (costs minus fares). Hopefully someone on Wall Street is a ferry fan and can run them as a philanthropy. Not sure if you could run those at a profit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 15, 2011, 06:48:40 PM

How does the new gantry make the sign assembly less confusing?

the new final 22S gantry has new signs as well, a left exit CT-9 NOW sign,  and 91 pullthrough with no arrows and an extra advance warning sign for CT-9 NB which emphasizes to stay to the right hand side andit says "FIRST RIGHT" with blackon yellow letters at the bottom. I don't remember the extra CT-9 NB advance signing there, just the CT-9 SB final left exit now signage.

I finally got a shot of the new assembly this afternoon on my first trip to CT since December 2010.  The sign looks pretty good, though FIRST RIGHT for Exit 22N would not have been my first choice.  NEXT RIGHT just sounds better, and I would have had that text be in traditional white on green, instead of a black on yellow bar.  I see "black on yellow" on a BGS and think EXIT ONLY or LEFT EXIT.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Uct0D05r4YU/TiDC7Rv5pwI/AAAAAAAAPLQ/B_llbO-KdRA/s640/2011%252520001.jpg)
(not the best quality - taken at speed so I had to snap it pretty quick, while driving)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 15, 2011, 06:57:47 PM
Connecticut Ferries to Close (http://www.theday.com/article/20110715/NWS12/307159953/1070/FRONTPAGE)

More fallout from the economy: by August 25, 2011, both the Chester-Hadlyme (CT 148) and Glastonbury - Rocky Hill (CT 160) ferries will close indefinitely. Some fear this is permanent.

So CT 148 and CT 160, the only highways in CT to have seasonal closures, will have gaps year-round. To get rid of those gaps, there would be a small chance that the state would redesignate CT 160 east of CT 99 as two new unsigned "secret" routes; and do the same for CT 148 east of CT 154. The state has a couple maintenance gaps in its systems, though the highways are still signed through (83, 136), but all other highways are continuous end to end.

Closing the ferries will save about $400K a year or so (costs minus fares). Hopefully someone on Wall Street is a ferry fan and can run them as a philanthropy. Not sure if you could run those at a profit.

It's a shame, since those are the two oldest continously operated ferries in the country... Chester-Hadlyme to ~ 1769 and Rocky Hill-Glastonbury c 1655.

In addition to the routes being isolated, I'm guessing the HADLYME control city will come off Route 9 Exit 6 (presently "148 / Chester / Hadlyme") and NB Gillette Castle signage will be advised to use Exit 7. 


Also, word has it that the non-commercial rest areas along I-84, I-91, and I-95 are back on the closed list.  The buildings will be closed but the parking areas will remain open.   So at least parking will be available, but no facilities.  I guess that's a compromise.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on July 15, 2011, 10:20:08 PM
Connecticut Ferries to Close (http://www.theday.com/article/20110715/NWS12/307159953/1070/FRONTPAGE)

More fallout from the economy: by August 25, 2011, both the Chester-Hadlyme (CT 148) and Glastonbury - Rocky Hill (CT 160) ferries will close indefinitely. Some fear this is permanent.

So CT 148 and CT 160, the only highways in CT to have seasonal closures, will have gaps year-round. To get rid of those gaps, there would be a small chance that the state would redesignate CT 160 east of CT 99 as two new unsigned "secret" routes; and do the same for CT 148 east of CT 154. The state has a couple maintenance gaps in its systems, though the highways are still signed through (83, 136), but all other highways are continuous end to end.

Closing the ferries will save about $400K a year or so (costs minus fares). Hopefully someone on Wall Street is a ferry fan and can run them as a philanthropy. Not sure if you could run those at a profit.

It's a shame, since those are the two oldest continously operated ferries in the country... Chester-Hadlyme to ~ 1769 and Rocky Hill-Glastonbury c 1655.

In addition to the routes being isolated, I'm guessing the HADLYME control city will come off Route 9 Exit 6 (presently "148 / Chester / Hadlyme") and NB Gillette Castle signage will be advised to use Exit 7.  


Also, word has it that the non-commercial rest areas along I-84, I-91, and I-95 are back on the closed list.  The buildings will be closed but the parking areas will remain open.   So at least parking will be available, but no facilities.  I guess that's a compromise.

It's the price we pay in progressive CT.  Screw the infrastructure. This state has just seen it's single biggest group of tax and fee hikes ever take place over the past month, and we can't even keep a shitter open at a rest stop.  Really?!?!  I Wonder if the "CONN WELCOME CENTER" sign WB on 84 in Willington will be changed to say, "Ok to PARK AND REST, but if you need to shit, don't wipe with the shiny leaves"

If CT ever had any glory days they are over, All I can do as I sit in traffic in greater Hartford is lament about the great network of expressways that were once planned, as I travel back and forth to and from work, watching my paycheck get smaller, and being jealous of the fact that those ever-increasing tax dollars don't seem to support any cool new road projects like those going on in neighboring states (well unless you call that stupid busway a "road").
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on July 16, 2011, 05:00:48 AM
Some new signage on a new pipe gantry that went up around the eastern terminus for I-384 in Bolton, CT, near interchange/jct w/ US 6 and 44 in conjunction with a general improvement project that has been going on out there.

EB:
(http://www.divalishcouture.com/bolton1.jpg.JPG)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/bolton2.jpg.JPG)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/bolton3.jpg.JPG)

WB:
(http://www.divalishcouture.com/bolton4.jpg.JPG)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: hbelkins on July 16, 2011, 10:00:16 PM
I guess those replaced this?

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5007/5344775275_dd7a362772_z.jpg)

(Taken last November...)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on July 17, 2011, 05:51:36 AM
No those are still there (swastika and all on the US6 BGS). The new gantry E of that overpass and is the final guide assembly for the split, where 384 terminates and splits to 44E and 6E. It replaces one of the old truss gantries that you can find on the entire length of i384
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Truvelo on July 17, 2011, 07:06:20 AM
The only difference between the new signs and the old ones is solid vs outline shields. It's also nice to see Highway Gothic rather than Clearview.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: hbelkins on July 17, 2011, 11:24:17 AM
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5003/5344781405_f7b0aeafe3_z.jpg)

This one?

And I guess the last one replaced this overhead:

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5287/5344799461_b6265b597a_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 17, 2011, 09:07:42 PM
Got a shot of another new assembly on the way home today...

Start of I-691 WB at Exit 13 in Middlefield:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-lQBP924Wfus/TiOGnCxUROI/AAAAAAAAPL4/K9U-q2Vyvok/s720/003.JPG)


This is an all-new assembly and support system, replacing a former yellow-painted truss style.  All signs are new and are "almost" carbon copies, with the exception of the "LEFT EXIT" tab being added for Exit 13, and of course the aligned exit tab.

It is still interesting how CDOT signs I-691 between here and Exit 8.  WB, its I-691 from the start of the expressway, onward.  EB, its CT 66 from the Exit 8 onramp, eastward.  
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2011, 12:25:34 PM
Probably due to the ramp configuration, since there's no way to avoid getting on I-91, CT 15, or switching between I-691 and CT 66.  NYSDOT does this with I-390/NY 390, I-590/NY 590, and I-490 approaching the Thruway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 25, 2011, 04:15:37 PM
Another signing project about to get underway, this time on US 7 between Wooster Heights Road in Danbury (which is at the south end of the US 7 expressway in Danbury) and Silvermine Road in Brookfield (which is just south of Exit 12/former north end of US 7 expressway before Brookfield Bypass opened).

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=483714

Looks like this project will also replace the rust-colored gantries, but what remains to be seen is whether or not the exit numbering sequence will be corrected. 
NB from I-84 to Brookfield, there's Exit 11 (Federal Road), and Exit 12 (Route 202/Brookfield), then the end of the expressway.  SB, there's Exit 12, Exit 11, then Exit 13 (I-84 East).  Will the new signage reflect this as Exit 10?  Will Exit 11 gain a US 202 NORTH shield, as it technically exits US 7 there, NB, though no signs indicate this today.  And will EXIT tabs be removed altogether on signs on the short spur south of I-84? 



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2011, 04:24:13 PM
Another signing project about to get underway, this time on US 7 between Wooster Heights Road in Danbury (which is at the south end of the US 7 expressway in Danbury) and Silvermine Road in Brookfield (which is just south of Exit 12/former north end of US 7 expressway before Brookfield Bypass opened).

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=483714

Looks like this project will also replace the rust-colored gantries, but what remains to be seen is whether or not the exit numbering sequence will be corrected. 
NB from I-84 to Brookfield, there's Exit 11 (Federal Road), and Exit 12 (Route 202/Brookfield), then the end of the expressway.  SB, there's Exit 12, Exit 11, then Exit 13 (I-84 East).  Will the new signage reflect this as Exit 10?  Will Exit 11 gain a US 202 NORTH shield, as it technically exits US 7 there, NB, though no signs indicate this today.  And will EXIT tabs be removed altogether on signs on the short spur south of I-84? 

Interesting that the press release refers to US 202 and not Federal Road for Exit 11.  (Which way does US 202 go at the end of the ramp from US 7 NB? right? or left?)

And this also means the original signage, non reflectorized button copy signage, will be gone.

and hopefully the tacky 80s square gantries will be gone as well. Although I doubt it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 25, 2011, 06:28:12 PM
"In theory", US 202 exits I-84 with US 7 at Exit 7, then exits US 7 at Exit 11 (Federal Road), then left off the ramp, then right.  You don't reach Federal Road until you've turned left off the ramp, then hit your second intersection.  The road directly off the ramp is White Turkey Road.  However, there is no signage on US 7 advertising US 202 motorists to use Exit 11.  There are US 7/202 reassurance shields between I-84 and Exit 11, then only US 7 shields north of there.  And signage for Exit 12 used to say "TO US 202 / Brookfield".  When those old non-reflectorized signs were replaced when US 7 was extended slightly north, the "TO" was absent.

Going further south, between I-84 Exits 3 and 7, only reassurance shields for I-84 and US 7 exist, both on the interstate and on entrance ramps.  US 6 shields don't appear EB until just after Exit 7 and the only mention of US 202 is on the guide signs for Exits 4 & 7.  I think it would eliminate a lot of confusion to just reroute US 6 & 202 onto local city streets, or just simply decommission US 202 in New England completely as it is shared so often with other routes, and where its not shared, just have it as a state route.   But I digress....

Seems to me by the press release that they are replacing all the gantries.  My records show only 3 on the section of US 7 north of I-84, all SB:  a truss gantry still in grey, an 80's steel square gantry (in grey), and a new style pipe gantry.  There are several on the section of US 7 south of I-84, all 80s steel square style and painted rust brown.  Those I'm guessing are definitely being replaced.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2011, 06:31:16 PM
Based on the MUTCD, if US 7 is to have exit numbers at all, they should be mileage-based starting at I-95. That will ultimately settle the 12-11-13 question.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 26, 2011, 08:29:14 PM
Yeah, but I get the feeling that Connecticut (along with all the other sequential states in New England) isn't going to budge on the exit numbering issue unless FHWA proves they're serious and threatens to withhold funding.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on July 29, 2011, 09:04:01 PM
Based on the MUTCD, if US 7 is to have exit numbers at all, they should be mileage-based starting at I-95. That will ultimately settle the 12-11-13 question.

No way that happens. CT exits are so closely spaced that converting to mileage based exit numbers, while offering very little benefit, would provide lots of confusion. Connecticut DOT will not budge. The way it has been is the way it will always be.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on July 30, 2011, 11:44:40 AM
But if US 7 doesn't have exit numbers now, it's not exactly converting, is it?  Numbering new roads by distance was how NYSDOT planned to convert to mileage-based numbers in the 70s.  Unfortunately they didn't go though with it, but to this day I-890 and part of I-95 are distance based.  In fact, I would say that if I-88 were completed a decade earlier (while the program was still in effect) NY would be on distance-based numbers now because we would have had a rural road with them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 30, 2011, 04:19:49 PM
All freeways are supposed to have exit numbers; I forget whether it's a "should" or a "shall," but I imagine the former. (Otherwise states will start redefining roads to not be freeways.) But there is NO leeway regarding sequential exit numbering. My official interpretation straight from the FHWA is that by January 2012, all state agencies must adopt the MUTCD, and any supplementary provisions or documents cannot blanket override any Standards. That means that all states must agree to reference location-based (or mile-based, as you would, since there will soon be no more km-posted highways) exit numbering. Because it's an unfunded mandate with no listed deadline, each state is responsible for providing a program, again by January, that will explain when and how exit numbering will be changed. (Not necessarily "to which numbers," but "in this order, as signs are replaced, etc.")
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 30, 2011, 05:30:38 PM
I asked the DOT this question last year and they said they will not do mileage based numbering.  The person I talked to did know about the loss of federal funding threat.  So you know what this means, soon there will be discussions on whether CT will lose funding.  There will be meeting and hearings and newspaper articles about it.  You would think CTDOT would be smart and head this off sooner rather than later but you know that won't be the case. 

IMO, I don't see the problem with sequential exit numbering.  When you read a book you expect page 5 after page 6.  You don't number pages in a book based on the number of words.  So I don't see the reasoning for mileage based exits. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: HighwayMaster on July 30, 2011, 06:27:10 PM
Yeah, the exits are too close together for mileage-based numbers in Connecticut. As a former resident, I am still accustomed to the sequential numbers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on July 30, 2011, 11:41:42 PM
If thinks are all squished too close together and you don't like alphabet soup, maybe try kilometers?
What the heck, they do it in New Brunswick!  :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 31, 2011, 12:07:47 AM
For Connecticut the benefit would be basically nil, anyway. It's the states with lots of spaced out exits* in rural areas (New York, Vermont...) that need to be jabbed into doing it right.


*whoa man... like, you mean I can get off the freeway here? Far out!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mtantillo on July 31, 2011, 02:58:03 AM
All freeways are supposed to have exit numbers; I forget whether it's a "should" or a "shall," but I imagine the former. (Otherwise states will start redefining roads to not be freeways.) But there is NO leeway regarding sequential exit numbering. My official interpretation straight from the FHWA is that by January 2012, all state agencies must adopt the MUTCD, and any supplementary provisions or documents cannot blanket override any Standards. That means that all states must agree to reference location-based (or mile-based, as you would, since there will soon be no more km-posted highways) exit numbering. Because it's an unfunded mandate with no listed deadline, each state is responsible for providing a program, again by January, that will explain when and how exit numbering will be changed. (Not necessarily "to which numbers," but "in this order, as signs are replaced, etc.")

Steve is absolutely correct.  States MUST adopt the MUTCD, (with or without a State Supplement), or a State MUTCD that is in substantial conformance with the national MUTCD by January 15, 2012.  I know the process well...I've been working with  VDOT on the adoption of the MUTCD and their new state Supplement for well over a year now.  FHWA is being MUCH stricter on the substantial conformance issue than they ever have been before.  They will not grant blanket exceptions to standards, period.  "We've always done it this way" is not a valid excuse.  And "reference location based exit numbering" is a standard. 

So...either the states adopt the national MUTCD as is, meaning they are required to use reference location based exit numbering (aka, mile marker based exit numbering).  Or they will adopt a state Supplement, and if they try to say "in our state we will use sequential exit numbering", then FHWA will not approve it, because it overrides a federal standard.  If they try to adopt a state MUTCD with "in our state we will us sequential exit numbering"...well, that is not in substantial conformance with the MUTCD, and the Feds will reject it. 

How is it enforced?  Easy.  The Feds have to approve any project on the Interstate system.  As part of the approval process, the Feds WILL NOT SIGN OFF ON any project unless it follows the approved MUTCD and/or State Supplement/State MUTCD.  So if there is any project advertised for bid after January 15, 2012 that involves large scale replacement of signs, those signs will have to have mile-marker-based exit numbers on them, or the Feds will not approve the plans.  And yes, from experience in Virginia, I know the Feds do care and they do check to make sure Interstate projects follow the applicable state MUTCD/supplement, etc. 

On I-95 in CT, especially south of New Haven, they can probably leave most of the exit numbers as-is...as it falls under the "close enough" category. But north of New Haven, and on the other interstates, there will need to be some renumbering, implemented as signs are replaced...that is something the Feds have done to eliminate the unfunded mandate argument...old signs can remain as is until they need to be replaced (outdated, or no longer meets retroreflectivity requirements), and when they are replaced, they are replaced with a device compliant with new standards.  In otherwords, exit re-numbering is likely to occur in phases. 

I don't see any problem with milemarker based exits.  When I'm driving, I don't care if my exit is the 10th exit in the state, I do care that its 15 miles into the state.  It makes navigation and trip planning a lot easier when you know "if I get on at  exit 10, and get off at exit 58, I've traveled about 48 miles"....vs. in a state with sequential numbering, if you get on at 10 and off at 58, they could be 60 miles apart (best guess at I-95 in CT) or 200+ miles apart (l-86/NY 17), but I don't know until I could up all the little mile numbers on the map!

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on July 31, 2011, 05:29:08 AM
I wonder how this will pan out on I-95 in NYC, where signs are still being slowly changed from mile-based to sequential (or are they finally done?).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 31, 2011, 10:14:16 AM
I'm pretty sure NYC gave up on sequential-based for I-95.  Exit tabs with new numbers NB at the Bruckner were changed to reflect the old system (I-295 was originally Exit 6A, then became 12, and is back to 6A, or something like that).  Pics of new SB signage maintain the mile-based numbers.  So at this point, I think that only a couple signs in Manhattan still have the Exit 1A, 1B, 1C, being Exits 1, 2, and 3.

If/when CT switches over, I think the "test subject" should be the Merritt/W Cross Pkwy, where the greatest benefit will be from mile-based exits. 

And I agree, pretty much everything from New Haven, westward on I-95 should remain the same.  Further east, exits are spaced out more.  This would definitely solve the exit jumping where I-95 leaves the turnpike.  Still the question remains whether or not I-395 would start with Exit 1 or would continue turnpike numbering.  I'm guessing the former.

Pros to the system would be correct exit numbers on US 7, exit numbers on the Willimantic bypass (US 6), and whether the Bradley Airport Connector would start with Exit 1, or go on a mile-based system based on CT 20. 

We'd also need mile markers installed on these roads, plus I-291, I-384, and I-691, which presently have no mile markers installed.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2011, 02:23:03 PM
If/when CT switches over, I think the "test subject" should be the Merritt/W Cross Pkwy, where the greatest benefit will be from mile-based exits.
Knowing CT, they'll use I-95.  Speaking of which, why does it jump exit numbers when it leaves the turnpike?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 31, 2011, 03:43:04 PM
Speaking of which, why does it jump exit numbers when it leaves the turnpike?

I've always wondered that.  I do remember when "EXIT 76" got signed in the 1980s when the I-395 designation replaced CT 52 on the rest of the turnpike.  EXIT 76 tabs were added to the turnpike/I-395's "exit".  The "NORTH" text was taken off the I-95 signs and moved over to the I-395 signs in a classic example of "cut and paste". 

Perhaps the reasoning for the skipping of I-95 exits was due to the close proximity of the CT 85 interchanges from the turnpike and I-95.  If I-95's exits had not skipped, then CT 85 would be Exit 78 or 79 from I-95 and Exit 77 from the turnpike.    Or perhaps there was a deeper reason, which we may never know why, such as why Exit 25 was chosen as the first exit # on various routes fanning out from Route 128 in Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 02, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
The consensus is that it was done to provide a noticeable break from I-395/Turnpike numbering along 95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 04, 2011, 12:02:04 PM
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Route-7-widening-in-Danbury-nearly-complete-1699602.php

US-7 in Danbury almost complete, ahead of schedule and under budget.  Of course it should be the expressway instead.  Also, the new US-7 signing project is set to begin soon!
The paper also mentioned the other US-7 corridor expansion projects and their history.  Not including those in Wilton and Norwalk.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on August 04, 2011, 12:13:37 PM
Since the article didn't seem clear on it, after this project is complete, what percentage of 7 between Danbury and Norwalk will be at least 4 lanes now?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 04, 2011, 09:43:23 PM
With the completion of this project, there are three 4 lane sections:
1) out of the freeway in Norwalk to Grumman Hill Road in Wilton
2) from the southern CT 33 junction in Wilton to Olmstead Hill Road, also in Wilton (Cannondale)
3) from CT 35 in Ridgefield to and into I-84 in Danbury (and beyond into New Milford).

By mileage I'd say that's a bit less than half of the distance between the two freeway segments.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 06, 2011, 06:40:10 PM
On I-95 in CT, especially south of New Haven, they can probably leave most of the exit numbers as-is...as it falls under the "close enough" category. But north of New Haven, and on the other interstates, there will need to be some renumbering, implemented as signs are replaced...that is something the Feds have done to eliminate the unfunded mandate argument...old signs can remain as is until they need to be replaced (outdated, or no longer meets retroreflectivity requirements), and when they are replaced, they are replaced with a device compliant with new standards.  In otherwords, exit re-numbering is likely to occur in phases. 

I don't see any problem with milemarker based exits.  When I'm driving, I don't care if my exit is the 10th exit in the state, I do care that its 15 miles into the state.  It makes navigation and trip planning a lot easier when you know "if I get on at  exit 10, and get off at exit 58, I've traveled about 48 miles"....vs. in a state with sequential numbering, if you get on at 10 and off at 58, they could be 60 miles apart (best guess at I-95 in CT) or 200+ miles apart (l-86/NY 17), but I don't know until I could up all the little mile numbers on the map!

There are 111 miles of I-95 in CT and the last exit is #93, so there are about that many exits +/-. The largest distance between exits in the state is 5 miles, and 90% of them are less than 2 miles apart. Renumbering is a wasteful exercise. That's money that could certainly be better spent than trying to appease bureaucrats in DC that will only add confusion to the locals that use the highways daily.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mtantillo on August 08, 2011, 09:48:29 AM
On I-95 in CT, especially south of New Haven, they can probably leave most of the exit numbers as-is...as it falls under the "close enough" category. But north of New Haven, and on the other interstates, there will need to be some renumbering, implemented as signs are replaced...that is something the Feds have done to eliminate the unfunded mandate argument...old signs can remain as is until they need to be replaced (outdated, or no longer meets retroreflectivity requirements), and when they are replaced, they are replaced with a device compliant with new standards.  In otherwords, exit re-numbering is likely to occur in phases. 

I don't see any problem with milemarker based exits.  When I'm driving, I don't care if my exit is the 10th exit in the state, I do care that its 15 miles into the state.  It makes navigation and trip planning a lot easier when you know "if I get on at  exit 10, and get off at exit 58, I've traveled about 48 miles"....vs. in a state with sequential numbering, if you get on at 10 and off at 58, they could be 60 miles apart (best guess at I-95 in CT) or 200+ miles apart (l-86/NY 17), but I don't know until I could up all the little mile numbers on the map!

There are 111 miles of I-95 in CT and the last exit is #93, so there are about that many exits +/-. The largest distance between exits in the state is 5 miles, and 90% of them are less than 2 miles apart. Renumbering is a wasteful exercise. That's money that could certainly be better spent than trying to appease bureaucrats in DC that will only add confusion to the locals that use the highways daily.

Signs aren't there for locals who use the highways daily.  They know where to go.  Signs are there to aid those from out of town who don't know their way around. 

Based on the simple argument of, "if every other state can lay out the cash to convert to mile-based exits, why should New England states be given special treatment", I'd say that milemarker based exits are going to happen in CT sooner than you think.  Not really a waste of money since the signs will just be replaced when they have to be replaced anyway, they will just bear a new exit number. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 08, 2011, 08:23:15 PM
But you can't change exit numbers sign by sign as they need to be replaced. Having two systems at once on one highway is confusing to say the least. Look at what NYSDOT did with the Cross Bronx for an example of how horrible that was.

You can, however, do it one highway at a time. I've always thought New York should start with I-84, then do I-81, I-88, and I-86. While at the same time wrestling with NYSTA to properly change over I-87 and I-90.

For Connecticut, I'd do 395 first.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 08, 2011, 08:33:14 PM
... or Route 15. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 08, 2011, 08:34:50 PM
CT has done a large-scale exit renumbering, on I-84 east of Hartford. The old CT 15 exit numbers (92 to 106) were replaced with consecutive I-84 exit numbers (60 to 74). Everyone survived.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 08, 2011, 09:09:39 PM
Signs aren't there for locals who use the highways daily.  They know where to go.  Signs are there to aid those from out of town who don't know their way around. 

Based on the simple argument of, "if every other state can lay out the cash to convert to mile-based exits, why should New England states be given special treatment", I'd say that milemarker based exits are going to happen in CT sooner than you think.  Not really a waste of money since the signs will just be replaced when they have to be replaced anyway, they will just bear a new exit number. 

They just replaced all the signs on I-95, so it's gonna be a couple of decades until they'll replace any highway signs. As I said, it's a worthless exercise just so exit 2 can become exit 1, exit 3 can become exit 2, and so on, just so the state can say they number exits the same way as some huge state with exits that are 20 miles apart. Anyway, in these times of economic hardship, I deem any highway project that is not a maintenance, safety, or widening to be wasteful spending. Renumbering all the exits by one or five or whatever it works out to be in most cases, should be the lowest of the low priorities since it'll provide very little bang for the buck. If governments are looking for ways to spend money they don't have, I've got a few projects I'd like them to embark upon before wasting time with renumbering.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mtantillo on August 09, 2011, 12:25:25 AM
Well, Connecticut is certainly able to opt out of Federal highway funds if they wish to not comply. 

If they just replaced a bunch of signs, then they should be in the clear for a little over a decade.  New sign retroreflectivity requirements will likely require replacement of signs more frequently than in the past. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mtantillo on August 09, 2011, 12:33:28 AM
But you can't change exit numbers sign by sign as they need to be replaced. Having two systems at once on one highway is confusing to say the least. Look at what NYSDOT did with the Cross Bronx for an example of how horrible that was.

You can do it in phases though.  I remember my first trip to Georgia, they had mile-based exits from SC down to Gwinnett County.  Then the exit numbers magically jumped from 120-something to 40 or 30-something, and were sequential the rest of the way into Atlanta.  Not really a problem so long as you replace all signs for the same interchange at the same time (which is not what NY did on the Cross Bronx). 

FHWA is willing to work with states that make a good faith effort to comply.  If they say they'll phase it in 10 years from now when signs are replaced, that is likely going to be okay.  But if you thumb your nose at the other 43 states and say that you're not even going to try, then that's when loss of a percentage of highway funding starts to get discussed. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 09:50:23 PM
Signs aren't there for locals who use the highways daily.  They know where to go.  Signs are there to aid those from out of town who don't know their way around. 

Based on the simple argument of, "if every other state can lay out the cash to convert to mile-based exits, why should New England states be given special treatment", I'd say that milemarker based exits are going to happen in CT sooner than you think.  Not really a waste of money since the signs will just be replaced when they have to be replaced anyway, they will just bear a new exit number. 

They just replaced all the signs on I-95, so it's gonna be a couple of decades until they'll replace any highway signs. As I said, it's a worthless exercise just so exit 2 can become exit 1, exit 3 can become exit 2, and so on, just so the state can say they number exits the same way as some huge state with exits that are 20 miles apart. Anyway, in these times of economic hardship, I deem any highway project that is not a maintenance, safety, or widening to be wasteful spending. Renumbering all the exits by one or five or whatever it works out to be in most cases, should be the lowest of the low priorities since it'll provide very little bang for the buck. If governments are looking for ways to spend money they don't have, I've got a few projects I'd like them to embark upon before wasting time with renumbering.
You don't have to replace the signs, just the exit tabs (or just patch them). Also, sign life is 12-15 years, not 20+, before it loses retroreflectivity. Finally, a lot of exits wouldn't change, or would change by a small amount. Fine, that makes your job easier.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 04, 2011, 11:43:11 AM
Update on a few projects in CT:


They are really making progress on the new Q Bridge in New Haven, with almost the entire new northbound span unified from end-to-end, though decking remains in some sections.  On the westernmost section, it appears the deck is complete and a tubular gantry awaits its signs.  I believe that all traffic will move to this northbound bridge, then the present bridge will be demolished to accommodate the new southbound lanes.


The replacement of the turnpike median further east in East Lyme is not proceeding how I thought it would.  This is one of the last stretches on the I-95 portion of the turnpike that had the grass median with a metal guardrail running down the middle.  When I heard of this project going for construction, I thought the center median would be paved and a jersey barrier installed.  Instead, only half the median was paved and the barrier isn't consistently in the center, but rather fluctuates from side to side.  I haven't noticed any new signs in the project area, except the Exit 75-NB final sign now a single sided pipe gantry.  Also it appears more and more I-95 reassurance shields are mounted on a single metal support. 

Further east on "free I-95", signage for Exits 83 & 84 which said DOWNTOWN NEW LONDON has been changed to read NEW LONDON WATERFRONT DIST, on a brown background. 

Finally, while other states in New England have been replacing their mile markers in recent years, there appears to be no push for CT to do the same.  A few along CT 9 I noticed are barely readable, and those on I-95 heading west towards New Haven are this style:

(about half the width of a normal mile marker)
N    < -- direction of travel
_
5
4     <--  mile marker 54.8
_
8

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 04, 2011, 01:49:22 PM
The replacement of the turnpike median further east in East Lyme is not proceeding how I thought it would.  This is one of the last stretches on the I-95 portion of the turnpike that had the grass median with a metal guardrail running down the middle.  When I heard of this project going for construction, I thought the center median would be paved and a jersey barrier installed.  Instead, only half the median was paved and the barrier isn't consistently in the center, but rather fluctuates from side to side.

Which is kind of stupid b/c you would think they would do it right down the middle so when they actually widen the highway the median work is already done.  Now, I think when the highway actually gets widened, they will have to do it again.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 04, 2011, 07:27:27 PM
The only thing I can think of is that the median is just put together but not in its final place yet.  Perhaps they'll have a Tappan Zee-style movable barrier machine come in and place it.  If they don't - it just will look strange.  The median doesn't even line up with the new catch basins they put in.  Also where there are overhead signs, instead of the median being placed around it, the jersey barrier transitions to a metal guardrail and goes around each side of the sign support in the median. 

You can see some of the work being done via the traffic cams:  http://ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&Q=415318
The cams in the work zone are #s 192-193-194. 

It also seems weird that the project started at Exit 72.  I'm not sure why it wouldn't have started at the end of the existing jersey barrier at Exit 70. 

Also the project has installed fencing on all overhead bridges and is installing standpipe connections on the bridges for fire trucks (similar to the west end).  Resurfacing I saw on a VMS is scheduled to begin this week.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 04, 2011, 10:21:21 PM
Which is kind of stupid b/c you would think they would do it right down the middle so when they actually widen the highway the median work is already done.

That would require ConnDOT to have forethought.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on September 29, 2011, 09:33:34 PM
Blanket Big Green Sign replacement happening, and FAST, on the Route 20 Expwy/Bradley connector in windor/windsor locks.  I live close by and noticed a couple new  ground mounted breakaways last week behind existing signs, this week the signage is going up like wild fire, should have some pics this weekend.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 03, 2011, 10:39:40 AM
The I-84 signing project is taking shape in Danbury, new BGS with right alligned bordered exit tabs are sprouting up.  Also, some 1960s gantries are staying, as the new signs are on some old gantries by Exit 11.  It also means some of the ugly 1980s ones are staying too.

Also of note, on I-84 WB by Exit 7, there is a new I-84 pull though sign with the control cities of "Newburgh/Norwalk"  Newburgh was on the first generation of signs from the 1960s and was later removed.  Old photos of old signs show where "Newburgh" was stripped off.  Later signs just showed "NY State" now it appears "Newburgh" is back on for the first time since the 1960s.  

and US7 and US6 are now signed on I-84 through Danbury.  US 202 was left off.

annnnd, the I-84 widening project in Waterbury set to start in 2014, which really means 2016.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 03, 2011, 08:35:10 PM
Photos of the new Route 20 replacement of BGS's.  Notice that despite being NON-numbered exits, the new signs don't say 'EXIT X MILES' at the bottom anymore they just say 'X MILES' like a regular numbered exit BGS

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/newbgs1.JPG)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/newbgs2.JPG)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/newbgs3.JPG)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/newbgs4.JPG)
DO YOU THINK THE OLD SIGN HAD ENOUGH SUPPORT.  LOOK AT THE 3 GIANT I-BEAM BREAKAWAYS

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/newbgs5.JPG)
NEW BREAKAWAYS IN FRONT OF OLD ASSEMBLY

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/newbgs6.JPG)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 03, 2011, 08:38:20 PM
and US7 and US6 are now signed on I-84 through Danbury.  US 202 was left off.

Unsurprising. The unofficial routing of US 202 has been "head down Federal Road, vanish into aether, magically reappear on Mill Plain Road" for years now. This is an issue off the freeway as well as on. Good luck following 202 south into Danbury if you don't know where you're going. There's no sign telling you where to turn. Not even "to I-84".

A less cynical person might say that US 202 has never served much purpose in Connecticut and ConnDOT realizes this. Of course, there's also that aluminum is expensive and ConnDOT is chintzy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on October 03, 2011, 09:41:00 PM
US 202's purpose seems to have been an inland long-distance alternate to US 1 (like US 62 from northeastern Ohio to Niagara as an alternate to US 20).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2011, 10:15:52 PM
US 202's purpose seems to have been an inland long-distance alternate to US 1 (like US 62 from northeastern Ohio to Niagara as an alternate to US 20).

indeed; it is a very long route.  to me it seems a pleasant alternative to the hustle and bustle of the US-1 corridor, but I do not know how it was viewed in the 1920s when it was first being laid out.

what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington?  apart from that curl downwards to intersect I-95, I cannot think of anything major.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 04, 2011, 01:41:31 AM
Photos of the new Route 20 replacement of BGS's.  Notice that despite being NON-numbered exits, the new signs don't say 'EXIT X MILES' at the bottom anymore they just say 'X MILES' like a regular numbered exit BGS
...

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/newbgs5.JPG)

...


I'm happy to see those old outline route markers go. Good riddance.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ian on October 04, 2011, 06:17:52 AM
I think I might be the only person in the world to like the outline button copy shields in Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 04, 2011, 06:26:14 AM
I think I might be the only person in the world to like the outline button copy shields in Connecticut.

I liked them. They showed "Hey look everybody! We're Different!"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 04, 2011, 07:48:20 PM
what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington? 

Cities with a population greater than 30k along US 202:
Danbury, CT (80,893)
Wilmington, DE (70,851)
Wayne, NJ (53,918)
Concord, NH (42,695)
Lewiston, ME (41,592)
Holyoke, MA (39,880)
Torrington, CT (35,995)
Bangor, ME (35,473)
Norristown, PA (34,324)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Michael in Philly on October 04, 2011, 09:58:26 PM
I think I might be the only person in the world to like the outline button copy shields in Connecticut.

I liked them. They showed "Hey look everybody! We're Different!"

Me too.  I don't see the harm in a bit of regional quirkiness.  And that goes for the discussion upthread about exit numbering too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Michael in Philly on October 04, 2011, 10:01:45 PM
US 202's purpose seems to have been an inland long-distance alternate to US 1 (like US 62 from northeastern Ohio to Niagara as an alternate to US 20).

indeed; it is a very long route.  to me it seems a pleasant alternative to the hustle and bustle of the US-1 corridor, but I do not know how it was viewed in the 1920s when it was first being laid out.

what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington?  apart from that curl downwards to intersect I-95, I cannot think of anything major.

I always assumed that an inland alternate to US 1 was its purpose.  But it was probably more pleasant a few decades ago, now that suburbia has reached it in lots of places and it's got its share of hustle and bustle.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 04, 2011, 10:17:32 PM
outline shields were a federal standard until 1961.  lots of states used them.  it's just that Connecticut abolished them quite late (after, in fact, turning to them in the 70s)

one other state which used them until relatively late is Louisiana.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 05, 2011, 11:02:51 PM
US 202's purpose seems to have been an inland long-distance alternate to US 1 (like US 62 from northeastern Ohio to Niagara as an alternate to US 20).

indeed; it is a very long route.  to me it seems a pleasant alternative to the hustle and bustle of the US-1 corridor, but I do not know how it was viewed in the 1920s when it was first being laid out.

what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington?  apart from that curl downwards to intersect I-95, I cannot think of anything major.

I always assumed that an inland alternate to US 1 was its purpose.  But it was probably more pleasant a few decades ago, now that suburbia has reached it in lots of places and it's got its share of hustle and bustle.
I get the feeling 202 just started extending further and further with no real aim. "Oh, look, it sorta connects to Danbury if you just stick it on 10 for awhile, and then all these other routes too. Then it can take over these roads in NY for no real reason."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Michael in Philly on October 05, 2011, 11:37:22 PM
^^Somewhere, I've got a (photocopy from the Library of Congress of) a 1931 road map of the area around Philadelphia (75-mile-radius-type thing so it covers most of New Jersey...).  If memory serves - and it may not - 202 wasn't 202 yet.  I'm certain the Flemington-to-Somerville segment, which is clearly not part of the older road grid of the area, wasn't there yet.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on October 06, 2011, 12:14:24 AM
202 was originally 122 from Whitehouse, NJ to Wilmington.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 06, 2011, 11:42:18 AM
New signing project on the Milford Connector.  The big news is the exits will now have numbers!   

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/23224/83-253%20Plans%20Portfolio.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 06, 2011, 07:08:43 PM
Makes no sense to number exits on the Milford Parkway (errr... Wasson Connector) and not number exits on the Bradley Connector.

But that's ConnDOT for ya!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 06, 2011, 08:15:30 PM
Makes no sense to number exits on the Milford Parkway (errr... Wasson Connector) and not number exits on the Bradley Connector.

But that's ConnDOT for ya!

I was just thinking that.  There are enough exits to number them...

Leaving Mileage-Based numbering off the table for now:

EB Exit 2, Route 20 WB, Exit 3 Hamilton Road South, Exit 4 CT 75, Exit 5 Old County Road, and Exits 6A and B  I91 N and S.

WB, Exit 5 Old County Road, Exit 4 CT 75, Exit 3 Hamilton Rd South, Exit 2 Route 20 WB, Exit 1 Hamilton Road North..... then Express way ends at Bradley.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 07, 2011, 01:59:32 AM
New signing project on the Milford Connector.  The big news is the exits will now have numbers!   

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/23224/83-253%20Plans%20Portfolio.pdf

Are there more signing plans or other docs like this? I tried looking around but directory browse is disabled and the main site doesn't make it obvious where to look.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 07, 2011, 08:52:37 AM
Are there more signing plans or other docs like this? I tried looking around but directory browse is disabled and the main site doesn't make it obvious where to look.

Yes, Kurumi, go under "Doing Business with the DOT" and then look under "CTDOT Bids and RFPs"  and what ever projects are advertised for bids are listed.  They usually include the plans as well, which is where I got the above. 

I wish the DOT would put all of their project plans on the web but that would be a lot of work.

I have asked them for plans on certain big projects such as the future I-84 widening in Waterbury and the CT-9/4/I-84 plans and they always write back and attach the plans with it.  My experiences with them have been great.  I always get detailed answers to my questions too.  You just have to figure out who to ask. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 07, 2011, 11:46:07 AM
I was just thinking that.  There are enough exits to number them...

Leaving Mileage-Based numbering off the table for now:

EB Exit 2, Route 20 WB, Exit 3 Hamilton Road South, Exit 4 CT 75, Exit 5 Old County Road, and Exits 6A and B  I91 N and S.

WB, Exit 5 Old County Road, Exit 4 CT 75, Exit 3 Hamilton Rd South, Exit 2 Route 20 WB, Exit 1 Hamilton Road North..... then Express way ends at Bradley.

I would start with Exit 1 being Old County Road, Exit 2 for CT 75, Exit 3 for Hamilton Rd South, Exit 4 for Route 20, and Exit 5 for Hamilton Road North.  I'd also renumber the whole connector as I-191 or I-391.  [And renumber CT 40 as I-991].   

But that's just me..... :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2011, 06:45:34 PM
A freeway doesn't need exit numbers if it's not a freeway. One exit on top, one in the middle, and a traffic light at the bottom - sounds like a connector to me. No one's going to use these exit numbers, waste of effort. Let's fix the Merritt first!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 07, 2011, 08:39:58 PM
Let's fix the Merritt first!

No argument there!!!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 07, 2011, 09:37:07 PM
I was just thinking that.  There are enough exits to number them...

Leaving Mileage-Based numbering off the table for now:

EB Exit 2, Route 20 WB, Exit 3 Hamilton Road South, Exit 4 CT 75, Exit 5 Old County Road, and Exits 6A and B  I91 N and S.

WB, Exit 5 Old County Road, Exit 4 CT 75, Exit 3 Hamilton Rd South, Exit 2 Route 20 WB, Exit 1 Hamilton Road North..... then Express way ends at Bradley.

I would start with Exit 1 being Old County Road, Exit 2 for CT 75, Exit 3 for Hamilton Rd South, Exit 4 for Route 20, and Exit 5 for Hamilton Road North.  I'd also renumber the whole connector as I-191 or I-391.  [And renumber CT 40 as I-991].   

But that's just me..... :)

 

Well I had them numbered as one would normally number and E/W roadway. Exit numbers (and mileage) goes low to high from west to east or south to north, this would be "going against the grain"
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 07, 2011, 10:16:33 PM
Even more pointless than the exit numbers is the "durr" use of the LEFT exit tab resulting from numbering the terminal splits.

Also interesting to note that ConnDOT considers that large loop at the north end to be part of mainline SR 796, not just a pair of ramps. I'd been wondering about that for a while...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 08, 2011, 09:38:36 AM
Well I had them numbered as one would normally number and E/W roadway. Exit numbers (and mileage) goes low to high from west to east or south to north, this would be "going against the grain"

But if we renumber it as I-191 or something like that, then it can be a north/south route.  I don't know - call me crazy but I think the exits should count up from I-91 on that route.  Its alignment is west/northwest and then north past CT 20.  But I'm dreaming here...

Wait till CT is forced to switch to mile-based exits... then the exit numbers would really confuse motorists.  
See also:  US 6 - Willimantic Bypass


Anyone got any pics of the new I-84 signage in the Danbury area? 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 08, 2011, 05:48:47 PM

Anyone got any pics of the new I-84 signage in the Danbury area? 



Ditto to that! Anyone.  Esp those new Cardinal direction/Reassurance mile markers.  I didn't think CT would ever spring for such "frivolous" signage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 09, 2011, 10:53:33 AM
Button copy "Phase III" signage remains on the following roadways:

I-84:  Exits 3-11 (currently being replaced), Exits 30-55
I-91:  Exits 21-22 (installed 1989), Exits 29-49 (installed early 1990s)
I-95:  Exits 30-35, Exits 43-50 (Q Bridge work zone), Exits 54-59 (installed 1992-replaced last Phase I signage), Exits 68-70 (installed 1993), Exits 84-93
I-395: Exits 77-100 (entire)(installed mid/late 1980s)
I-291: Exits 1-4 (entire)(installed 1990s)
I-691: Exits 5-9
CT 2:  Exits 3-29
CT 8:  Exits 1-30, Exits 39-(47)
CT 9:  Exits 1-32 (entire)(installed late 1980s)
CT 11: Exits 4-6 (entire)
CT 15: Exits 54-55, Exits (69)-91

And let's not forget those roads which still have non-reflectorized text, non-button copy (Phase II):
I-84:  Exits 23-25A, Exits 58-64  (installed early 1980s in conjunction with I-384 completion to I-84)
CT 25:  from CT 8/25 split, north to end of expressway  (installed early 1980s)

So there are still some long sections of button copy out there.  In ConnDOT's long range transportation plan, I've seen notes for replacement of signage on I-395 and on I-95 from Exits 84-93.  However, we can also expect to see I-95 Exits 34-36 and Exits 45-50 be replaced within the next 3-5 years due to the Moses Wheeler and Q Bridge replacement projects, hopefully with the new signs to extend west to Exit 30 and west to Exit 43, closing in the gaps. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2011, 12:17:02 PM
I went on I-84 through Danbury today and the new Exit 2 WB ramp is completed and the new aux lane on I-84 EB is almost done between exits 1 & 2. 

New signage going up fast, by Exit 7 on I-84 WB, see my post from last week.

Question about non-reflectorized button copy.  On CT-8 SB there is that type of signage for Exits 25 and 24.  But NB it's all late 1980s reflectorized button copy.  That section opened up in 1982 or so, does that mean they replaced the northbound signage only 5-10 years after it opened!?!

On I-95 NB, signage that went up about 10 years ago with the Bridgeport widening project and by Exit 42 that went up in 2008 is hardly reflectorized anymore.  In Bridgeport there is a 2002 sign next to a newer 2010 sign and the difference is night and day with the reflectiveness.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2011, 12:27:23 PM
CTDOT has non relectorized button copy up until 1980 or so with shields.

In the early 80s they flirted with reflectorized NON button copy with sheilds.

In the mid 1980s CTDOT went back to button copy with reflectorized background this time and outline shields. It last until the mid 1990s.

Mid 1990s until today letter that are nailed on (not sure of the correct name of it)

EXIT TABS:

Centered/non bordered until 2008.

Alligned/non bordered in 2008-2009.

Alligned with bordered 2010-present.

Only a few non relectorized button copy signs left:

CT-8 SB Exits 25 and 24
I-84 C/D road EB at Exit 23 just before CT-69. 
Also on CT-69 itself SB before I-84 EB onramp.
I-84 WB Exit 25 1/2 mile sign and the Exit 23 3/4 Mile sign.
CT-8 Exit 14 NB on ramps at CT-110.

 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 09, 2011, 05:08:33 PM
Speaking of bordered exit tabs (OR SIGN CROWNS as Conndot engineering likes to call them.  I was reading project specs for Milfor Connector Signing project.  The Engineers specs state the following.  Signs On all New sign supports, Crowns shall have a border.  Signs placed on existing sign supports shall have no border.

Uhmm... really?!?!  Are they going to DELIBERATELY mix bordered tabs and NON-bordered tabs based on whether or not the support is being replaced or reused.  Do the engineers totally disregard the aesthetic bonus of consistency?!  

I DID notice that the engineering drawings for the project show the use of the newly adopted "LEFT" over "EXIT XX" sign tabs, w/ the left being black on yellow plaque on the sign tab which isabout 4 feet in height.

FULL project specifications here: http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/23224/83-253%20Specifications.pdf
- PAGE 169  of 447 Spec sheet showing Appurtenances for Exit Crowns for new supports and for use on existing supports.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2011, 06:50:11 PM
Speaking of bordered exit tabs (OR SIGN CROWNS as Conndot engineering likes to call them.  I was reading project specs for Milfor Connector Signing project.  The Engineers specs state the following.  Signs On all New sign supports, Crowns shall have a border.  Signs placed on existing sign supports shall have no border.

With the I-84 signing project in Danbury some new BGS signs have gone on existing sign supports (gantries) and they all have borders.  Why isn't the DOT consistant?  

I noticed on the Wilbur Cross Pkwy, on ramps with no merge space have stop signs but the same type of ramps on CT-8 have yield signs.  Another inconsistancy.

ON a side note:
The US 7 south of Danbury widening is complete.  No reason that a divider wasn't installed there.  Even though the speed limit is 45, people go 65 through there.  I think the barrier was taken out b/c NIMBYs would think the plan is too expressway like and didn't want it.  It's only a matter of time before there are serious crashes there.  (The same with the new CT-66 in Middlefield)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 14, 2011, 01:54:11 PM
http://www.theday.com/article/20110906/NWS01/309069957

Route 2A bridge put off for now...no surprise really.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on October 18, 2011, 05:33:43 PM
what is the largest city through which US-202 passes, north of Wilmington?

Cities with a population greater than 30k along US 202:
Danbury, CT (80,893)
Wilmington, DE (70,851)
Wayne, NJ (53,918)
Concord, NH (42,695)
Lewiston, ME (41,592)
Holyoke, MA (39,880)
Torrington, CT (35,995)
Bangor, ME (35,473)
Norristown, PA (34,324)

At least some of those were major manufacturing centers in the early 20th century.   They were probably higher up in the list of population centers at the time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 25, 2011, 08:54:45 PM
Pavement preservation project north of exit 37 on I 91 in CT is yielding something new.  A new way of marking the buffer zone between regular travel lanes and the separate HOV Lane on the inside.  Per the 2011 Standard engineering drawings avail on conndot's website  (...AND in keeping w/ the current MUTCD), the new markings are 2 sets of double white lines parallel to the travel lane.  one set to the left of the left side travel lane and one set to the right of the hov lane, with white cheverons in the buffer area every 200 feet.  

The old way was a single yellow line to the left of the travel lanes as with the inside lane on any divided highway, and a white stripe to the right of the hov lane with yellow chevrons in the buffer zone.  i.e. (FORGIVE MY AWESOME MS PAINT SKILLS)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/hov.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 26, 2011, 06:56:19 PM
Pavement preservation project north of exit 37 on I 91 in CT is yielding something new.  A new way of marking the buffer zone between regular travel lanes and the separate HOV Lane on the inside.  Per the 2011 Standard engineering drawings avail on conndot's website  (...AND in keeping w/ the current MUTCD), the new markings are 2 sets of double white lines parallel to the travel lane.  one set to the left of the left side travel lane and one set to the right of the hov lane, with white cheverons in the buffer area every 200 feet. 

The old way was a single yellow line to the left of the travel lanes as with the inside lane on any divided highway, and a white stripe to the right of the hov lane with yellow chevrons in the buffer zone.  i.e. (FORGIVE MY AWESOME MS PAINT SKILLS)

(http://www.divalishcouture.com/hov.jpg)

The same on CT-8, just got doing a repaving project there also and the new markings have the "guide dots" crossing the exit ramps (which CTDOT has been doing for a couple years now) and now they have the guide dots for the on-ramps.  It helps b/c you know exactly how the on-ramp lane is merging into the mainline.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on October 27, 2011, 03:27:18 PM
The same on CT-8, just got doing a repaving project there also and the new markings have the "guide dots" crossing the exit ramps (which CTDOT has been doing for a couple years now) and now they have the guide dots for the on-ramps.  It helps b/c you know exactly how the on-ramp lane is merging into the mainline.

How is CT-8 these days?

I'm no longer in CT as of 2005 but I recall it usually being in terrible condition.. In dire need of paving, in dire need of re-striping the lines (barely visible), etc.  Especially the area adjacent to Waterbury..  Of course it may have been as far back as the 90s that I was even on it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 28, 2011, 07:52:18 PM
It was recently resurfaced between Bridgeport and Derby. Around Waterbury I don't recall it being particularly bad but I don't think there was a repaving up there anytime within the past few years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 20, 2011, 12:15:02 PM
I-84 Signing project update:  (Sorry nopics)
1) On I-84 EB just before Exit 3 (US-7 SB Exit) and the US-7-6-202 multiplex, the I-84 EB 2-lane pull through BGS has been replaced and it now says "To 7 NB" as a 2-lane pull through instead.  I-84 NOT on the sign! 

2) Also the left exit BGSs have the yellow "LEFT" tabs on them. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 20, 2011, 03:12:46 PM
I-84 Signing project update:  (Sorry nopics)
1) On I-84 EB just before Exit 3 (US-7 SB Exit) and the US-7-6-202 multiplex, the I-84 EB 2-lane pull through BGS has been replaced and it now says "To 7 NB" as a 2-lane pull through instead.  I-84 NOT on the sign!  

Well that's kind of bizarre... though there was never mention of US 7 NB at that interchange in the past, and probably should've been, but at the expense of an I-84 shield?  
Here's the Google Maps view of the old assembly at Exit 3-EB:
http://www.google.com/maps?q=danbury,+ct&hl=en&ll=41.384765,-73.480351&spn=0.000002,0.001931&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.677964,93.076172&vpsrc=6&hnear=Danbury,+Fairfield,+Connecticut&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.384451,-73.479955&panoid=9vIDIqaCpzK8jaF1dUAl0Q&cbp=12,85.89,,0,-0.68

I'm guessing that gantry was replaced as well?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 20, 2011, 06:01:47 PM

I'm guessing that gantry was replaced as well?

The older gantry is still there.  It was a 1980s gantry.  The sign in question is at the half mile Exit 3 BGS.  So maybe the other two (1 MIle & exit now) sign will have the I-84 shield? 

PS, some of the 60s gantries have survived throughout the project with new signs on them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on November 20, 2011, 06:29:37 PM
Everyone (myself included) was always so confused about the US-7 segments being split by so great a distance on 84 and it not just continuing... Is that sort of split a rarity?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 21, 2011, 10:07:52 PM
You're not supposed to have different messages on consecutive signs. They should all say I-84 / US 6/7/202.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 24, 2011, 10:33:36 PM
On WFSB Channel 3's "Face the State" this Sunday is a look back on the busway route plan of 1974.  Check out the link from anchor Dennis House.  Old I-91 pics from 1974.

http://dennishouse.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/face-the-state-flashback-the-busway-proposal-of-74/

I can't make it out, but the pic with the "Exit 31-32 Downtown" sign on it is I-91 NB I think.
Was I-91 5 lanes wide here?  Or was it already divided up into slip ramps and C&D roads by this time?  I know the current state of I-91 was done in the early 90s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 25, 2011, 06:21:49 PM
I can't make it out, but the pic with the "Exit 31-32 Downtown" sign on it is I-91 NB I think.
Was I-91 5 lanes wide here?  Or was it already divided up into slip ramps and C&D roads by this time?  I know the current state of I-91 was done in the early 90s.

Yup, that shot is I-91 NB.  I-91 appears to have 2 thru lanes and an extra wide shoulder, which may in reality have been the "Exit Only" lane for Exit 30, which led to the Founder's Bridge and was signed simply as "EXIT 30 / EAST I-84".  After that, you had two Downtown exits on the left:  Exit 31 (which was signed as State St but led to Kinsley Street) and Exit 32 (To I-84 West).  IIRC that old Exit 32 ramp led to the Morgan St/Chapel St frontage road combo, making the I-91->I-84 connection indirect. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 06, 2011, 10:58:46 AM
Much of that interchange as we know it today, has only been that way since the early 1990s. I do know part of I-91 used to go over the Founders Bridge (beginning of CT Route 2). The flyover ramp from I-84/US 6 East to I-91 North opened in October of 1990.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 06, 2011, 05:16:08 PM
The flyover ramp from I-84/US 6 East to I-91 North opened in October of 1990.

That was BIG news when it opened in 1990.  Before then, there was no direct route, and motorists had to exit, head south and use the onramp that was off Commerce Street. 

I remember when I-91 South used to go over the Founder's Bridge (I-91 North has always ducked under).  The big reasoning for the lowering of I-91 was to build the pedestrian plaza connecting Constitution Plaza and the Founders Bridge.  I remember the article in the Courant about Riverfront Recapture and their plans.  It took years for it to happen, but the end result was finally a construction-free zone on I-91 through Hartford. 

Before the reconfiguration, there was also a ramp from the Founders Bridge WB to I-91 South, which entered I-91 SB on the left. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 06, 2011, 06:13:20 PM
I'm trying to picture a ramp coming from the Founders Bridge like that. I wish there were photos of downtown Hartford overhead from just before this was all redone, say from the 1980s. Despite the closeness to Hartford, I rarely went into the capitol back then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on December 06, 2011, 06:43:47 PM
I wish there were photos of downtown Hartford overhead from just before this was all redone, say from the 1980s.
http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=3.44853969719683E-05&lat=41.7684138310079&lon=-72.6694167370338&year=1962
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on December 11, 2011, 01:16:57 PM
New signing project on the Milford Connector.  The big news is the exits will now have numbers!  

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/23224/83-253%20Plans%20Portfolio.pdf

Are there more signing plans or other docs like this? I tried looking around but directory browse is disabled and the main site doesn't make it obvious where to look.

As far as I can tell, the Biznet.ct.gov portal allows you to run searches for contracts filtered by awarding agency ("Transportation, Department of" in this case), and documents (including plans and the proposal book, if uploaded at the time of advertisement) continue to be available even for "expired" ads.  By default the search results are collated by ConnDOT contract number (so, for example, 83-253 comes after 200-17).  There may be options, which I haven't yet investigated, for searching by project description.  The entry page for searching is at:

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/Default.aspx

In regard to your other question, ConnDOT has advertised some other signing contracts in the recent past (since late 2010) and has uploaded plans, but only to a state-owned file transfer site (link and login credentials given in the bid advertisement) and not to the Biznet.ct.gov site.  The plans have now been removed from the state-owned file transfer site.

I have construction plans for 018-123 (US 7 signing) and 138-221 (I-95 signing).  If you would like copies, please PM me and I will upload the contract documentation to a commercial file transfer site and send you the URL.

I wish the DOT would put all of their project plans on the web but that would be a lot of work.

They do now.  It is not a lot of work in comparison to distributing the paper plans--in fact it is a major efficiency savings.  Every state DOT and other highway agency should be doing this and the plans should be available for download free of charge.  The list of state DOTs that don't do this, which is getting shorter and shorter as time goes on, includes OR, NV, ID, WY, AZ, NM, CO, MN, IA, MS, FL, KY, MD (SHA only), WV, HI, NJ, NY, RI, MA, and NH.  Some of these states (NV, WY, MN, NM, NJ, WV, IA) make plans available through a pay service (which, IMO, is wrong--plans for construction in the public interest should be free to the public in electronic form; let the blueprint vendors earn their crust on paper prints and plans for privately funded construction).  The holdouts are concentrated in the Northeast.

P.S.  The emerging trend is to put the complete project archive (not just the projects that have been advertised in the recent past) on an externally accessible server.  MnDOT and Georgia DOT, for example, now have fully searchable construction plan archives covering the early years of Interstate construction and even further back.  It is thanks in large part to MnDOT's archive that I have construction plans for over 1000 MnDOT projects with signing (including over 400 contracts for sign replacement alone).  There are significant scalability issues that have to be confronted in putting a project archive online, but those are slowly being addressed.  Georgia DOT, for example, used to have its online project archive under a single Web directory which was (surprisingly enough) fully browsable, which meant that any random user could pull the server offline by requesting multiple directory listings within a short period of time.  Now it has switched over to a searchable but non-browsable "library cylinder" architecture, which is more robust.

P.P.S.  Note that if you are after sign design sheets for a ConnDOT signing contract, you need to look in the proposal book rather than the plans.  For 083-253 the proposal book (which has 45 sign design sheets) is here:

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/23224/83-253%20Specifications.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 19, 2011, 09:13:10 PM
I-84 Signing project update:  (Sorry nopics)
1) On I-84 EB just before Exit 3 (US-7 SB Exit) and the US-7-6-202 multiplex, the I-84 EB 2-lane pull through BGS has been replaced and it now says "To 7 NB" as a 2-lane pull through instead.  I-84 NOT on the sign! 

Update:  CT DOT put up the I-84 EB 2-lane pull through BGS next to the Exit 3 "1 Mile" sign BGS and it shows I-84.  So that means the 1 mile pull through sign does not match the 1/2 mile pull through sign. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 19, 2011, 09:30:00 PM
I'm trying to picture a ramp coming from the Founders Bridge like that. I wish there were photos of downtown Hartford overhead from just before this was all redone, say from the 1980s. Despite the closeness to Hartford, I rarely went into the capitol back then.

Look what I just found:
http://kurumi.com/roads/maps/pics/ct-off-cover-1967.jpg

Founders Bridge crossing the river, I-91 going left-right along the river.  The ramp from I-91 NB to "State Street" (which clearly doesn't go directly to State St) is visible on the right.  You can also see I-91 South going over the bridge/State St, while NB goes underneath, after the direct entrance to the Founders Bridge.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 19, 2011, 11:51:25 PM
Thank you for that awesome find! I see that the camera is generally pointing to the west towards Hartford. Today's I-84 would be to the right of this picture. As for the historical overheads, it only had the 1930s, 1962 and 2006. Oh well!  :banghead:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 01, 2012, 07:35:58 PM
more signing updates:  On US-7 in Danbury north of I-84, the last of the non-reflectorized BGSs are being replaced.  Some US-202 signs have sprouted upon White Turkey Rd Ext off of Exit 11.  However, the exit numbers have changed:

Exit 11: US202/Federal Road.
Exit 12: US202
Exit 13:  end of expressway

NEW: Exit 10:  on US7 SB is the ramp to I-84 East. 

Then the exits jump to Exit 6, the exits on the I-84, US-7, US-6, US-202 overlap.  Then, on the US-7 expressway south of I-84 the exits are Exits 9, 8 by the mall.

The US-7 exit numbers make no sense.  They could at least coincide with the I-84, US-7, US-6, US-202 overlap exits.   If they are supposed to go with the exits on the US-7 expressway in Norwalk, I can half see that.  But as we all know the expressway through Wilton won't be completed anytime soon.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 01, 2012, 08:38:11 PM
Did we forget what the exit numbers on US 7 north of I-84 were prior to this signing project?

NB-heading north from I-84:  Exit 11 (Federal Rd), Exit 12 (US 202/Brookfield)
SB-heading south from US 202/former end of expy:  Exit 11 (Federal Rd), Exit 13 (I-84 East)

And there were no exit numbers on the section of US 7 south of I-84.

Utilizing the same sequence as I-84's exits for US 7 would work in theory, but not logistically.  While Exits 1 & 2 could be south of I-84, then the US 7 NB exit to I-84 WB would be Exit 3, it would present the problem with two different Exits 1 & 2 on US 7, as Exits 1-3 are in Norwalk. 

It'll all make sense the day when CT is forced to switch to mile-based exits.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: HighwayMaster on January 02, 2012, 12:01:55 PM
Did we forget what the exit numbers on US 7 north of I-84 were prior to this signing project?

NB-heading north from I-84:  Exit 11 (Federal Rd), Exit 12 (US 202/Brookfield)
SB-heading south from US 202/former end of expy:  Exit 11 (Federal Rd), Exit 13 (I-84 East)

And there were no exit numbers on the section of US 7 south of I-84.

Utilizing the same sequence as I-84's exits for US 7 would work in theory, but not logistically.  While Exits 1 & 2 could be south of I-84, then the US 7 NB exit to I-84 WB would be Exit 3, it would present the problem with two different Exits 1 & 2 on US 7, as Exits 1-3 are in Norwalk. 

It'll all make sense the day when CT is forced to switch to mile-based exits.


Finally! Believe me, doofy103, I've been on that road before, and the old US-7 SB numbers (12-11-13) made no sense whatsoever. It's much better now. However, I think ConnDOT should have waited until they built a Danbury-Norwalk link to put the exit numbers near the Danbury Fair Mall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 02, 2012, 06:52:44 PM
For those curious on the status of the Milford service plazas on the turnpike...

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Upgraded-I-95-service-plazas-near-completion-2413051.php#photo-1950633

(some pics in there, too)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 04, 2012, 08:08:02 PM
more signing updates:  On US-7 in Danbury north of I-84, the last of the non-reflectorized BGSs are being replaced.  Some US-202 signs have sprouted upon White Turkey Rd Ext off of Exit 11.  However, the exit numbers have changed:

Exit 11: US202/Federal Road.
Exit 12: US202
Exit 13:  end of expressway

NEW: Exit 10:  on US7 SB is the ramp to I-84 East. 

Then the exits jump to Exit 6, the exits on the I-84, US-7, US-6, US-202 overlap.  Then, on the US-7 expressway south of I-84 the exits are Exits 9, 8 by the mall.

The US-7 exit numbers make no sense.  They could at least coincide with the I-84, US-7, US-6, US-202 overlap exits.   If they are supposed to go with the exits on the US-7 expressway in Norwalk, I can half see that.  But as we all know the expressway through Wilton won't be completed anytime soon.


I have no problem with the way they did it. Yeah, ideally, the numbers ought to silently count along with I-84, which would leave you with Exit 6 for I-84, 4 and 5 or 5A/5B for the other exits. That doesn't leave a whole lot between there and Norwalk. My GUESS is that Exit 13 was numbered to account for I-84 (which would put Exit 9 right where it is now), while Exits 11 and 12 were numbered without accounting for I-84 (which again put Exit 9 right where it is now).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 05, 2012, 02:20:21 AM
There's seemingly two sections of CT Route 72, both west and east of it's concurrency with I-84 in Plainville, CT:

1- CT 177 Plainville/Farmington [westbound exit/eastbound entrance]
2- CT 372 Plainville [westbound exit/westbound entrance]
3- Woodford Avenue - Plainville [eastbound exit]
4- I-84 West - Waterbury [only signed as Exit 4 eastbound]

(Concurrency with I-84 through Cooke's Gap)

6- I-84 East - Farmington/Hartford [only signed as Exit 6 westbound]
7- CT 372 - Corbin Avenue - New Britain
8- Columbus Boulevard - New Britain [eastbound exit]
9- CT 71 - Main St - New Britain [eastbound exit]

After Exit 9 [eastbound exit only] is the split for CT Route 9 North and South in downtown New Britain. Although there are no exit numbers, it should be Exit 10. There is no signed Exit 5 on CT Route 72. On a technicality, Exit 5 eastbound involves I-84 Exit 35 (CT 72 East to CT 9 - New Britain) while exit 5 westbound involves I-84 Exit 33 (CT 72 West - Bristol).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 05, 2012, 09:08:40 PM
That's equally bizarre, that there would just be no Exit 5 or even a place for one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 05, 2012, 10:04:39 PM
There was an exit "5", WB only... it was a ramp to Crooked St / CT 372 IIRC.  It was eliminated due to I-84 WB traffic having to quickly cross CT 72 WB traffic to exit.  As part of the 3-laning of I-84 WB through the area, the exit was eliminated and a new exit constructed on CT 72 WB after it splits with I-84 WB. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 06, 2012, 01:07:19 PM
@ Shadyjay: Right! And the exit you refer to is westbound-only Exit 2 on CT Route 72. The ramps opened about 10 years ago at this time, in fact.

Crooked Street still exists, but as an eastbound-only Exit 34 from I-84 East. Soon after the work to close off the old Exit 34 Westbound was done, they added a dedicated on-ramp to CT Route 72 East. That road merges with traffic coming off of I-84 East Exit 35's ramp, once I-84 itself splits off and heads to Farmington and Hartford. The original Exit 35 off ramp for CT Route 72 East didn't change. It's still a left exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on January 07, 2012, 10:38:05 AM
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.67243,-72.84099&z=16&t=O
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 07, 2012, 11:12:19 AM
Ah! Memories! The interchange as it used to be! No westbound off/on-ramp to CT Route 372 in Plainville! (That opened in 2001-02.) Also, I panned around a bit down to the Kensington village of Berlin and, sure enough, the supermarket my family frequents is not there. New Britain Stadium (c-1996) is there, but going by what's next to it, this picture may very well be from that time!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 07, 2012, 08:37:42 PM
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.67243,-72.84099&z=16&t=O

Interesting that in the map, I-84 WB is striped as 2 lanes from before the CT-72 on-ramp.  Also, interesting to see that CT-72 EB to I-84 WB was two lanes.  

The map date must be from 1989 or 1990-91 or so based on what roads were widened and what was under construction at the time.  There was a slew of road building in CT around this time:  I-91/CT-15/CHarter Oak Bridge reconfigurations, I-91/I-291 construction, I-91/CT-20 interchange, US-7 Expressway in Norwalk. 

I-84 widening in Danbury was already complete in the map and that was done in 1988.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 08, 2012, 08:03:57 PM
The map is not from 1989, because the flyover ramp from I-84/US 6 East to I-91 North in Hartford is present. That opened in October of 1990. However, there is no tunnel yet on I-84/US 6 between Exits 50 (Main Street) and 52 (I-91 South). It also looks like the current Charter Oak Bridge (US 5/CT Route 15) had either just opened or was near completion. What looked like a ramp from the old bridge to I-91 North is no longer there.

Anyways, I found a reprint of an article from the day the old Charter Oak Bridge was used for the last time in 1991:

http://articles.courant.com/1991-08-08/news/0000213347_1_four-lane-bridge-founders-bridge-two-bridges

There was also this article about the Founders Bridge (today's western terminus of CT Route 2) from February of 1992, which spans the Connecticut River south of the Bulkeley Bridge (I-84/US 6/US 44). Interesting reading for all of us highway geeks!

http://articles.courant.com/1992-02-11/news/0000205959_1_i-91-new-project-founders-bridge
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 09, 2012, 07:00:03 PM
I remember reading that second article in the Courant when it came out and thought of how they'd undertake a massive project, especially the lowering of I-91 South.  But they did it, and IIRC it was a few years behind schedule, but the end result was a much smoother drive and less traffic headaches.  

I also remember meeting DOT Commissioner Frankel.  He came to my Junior High School in 1992 and I again met him at the Baldwin Bridge opening in 1993.  I even got a tour of the DOT building (aka - the Taj Mahal) and had submitted my "plans" for the reconfiguration of Route 9 in Middletown to eliminate the traffic lights  (nearly 20 years later and NOTHING has been done to it to improve that bottleneck).  Back then, I had big transportation aspirations.  After being a surveyor for almost 10 years, I've found myself back in the ski resort/tourism field and haven't looked back.  

I wished I saved those articles from "back in the day", and wished I took more pictures.  I have some of the Baldwin Bridge opening and at one time I had a video of it too.  CPTV also ran a special called "From Here To There" with a lot of archival footage of roads in CT but it was on VHS and the tape got chewed up.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 09, 2012, 09:03:19 PM
Oh damn! I would kill to see a show like that now!

As for the articles from The Hartford Courant, I'm surprised they're still available like that! Despite the closeness of downtown Hartford (10 miles from my house), I almost never went there back then. I had to be reminded that I-91 South went over the Founders Bridge then! I, myself, can't even recall there being a northbound Exit 30 from I-91! Today, the exits northbound jump from 29A to 32A/B (Exit 30 for I-84/US 6 East and Exit 31 for State Street are southbound only).

In one other place, it was mentioned that I-91 access from Commerce Street closed. I would hope so, considering much of the Connecticut Convention Center now sits on that former roadway! (Commerce Street is the first bridge you pass under today when getting onto the Whitehead-Conlon Highway from I-91.)

Lastly, I found this little gem of a video! Somebody posted their drive through Hartford and parts of East Hartford, along I-84/US Route 6. The clip is from the late 80s. What makes that obvious?

1- The left exit lane for Exit 46 in Hartford (Sisson Avenue) was longer.
2- No tunnel between Exit 50 (Main Street) and 52 (I-91 South).
3- No flyover ramp from I-84/US Route 6 East to I-91 North (that opened in October of 1990).
4- A construction zone in East Hartford. It may be when the addition of the HOV lanes was started.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 22, 2012, 07:16:14 PM
Here is the DOT 5 year plan.  On the pdf page 13, it still lists the US-6 expressway extension from the end of I-384.  Of course it's unfunded, but glad to see it's still there.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/5-year_Cap_Plan_-_Oct11_Update_11-17.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on January 26, 2012, 12:19:28 AM
What route does 72 take between 372 & 229 right now?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 26, 2012, 06:37:25 PM
What route does 72 take between 372 & 229 right now?

Last time I was up there (August?), there was conflicting signage between the old and new routings. But the new routing is complete and driveable, so presumably the move has taken place, at least on the books.

What's screwy is that 72 still follows Riverside Ave (requiring three turns) as opposed to Memorial Blvd (which would be a straight shot). Maybe there's a turf war there?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 27, 2012, 05:19:17 PM
What's screwy is that 72 still follows Riverside Ave (requiring three turns) as opposed to Memorial Blvd (which would be a straight shot). Maybe there's a turf war there?

There is an old white  overhead sign at the start of Memorial Blvd at each end.  Here's the west end view:  http://www.google.com/maps?q=bristol,+ct&hl=en&ll=41.670386,-72.942634&spn=0.00068,0.00142&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.677964,93.076172&hnear=Bristol,+Hartford,+Connecticut&t=h&layer=c&cbll=41.670397,-72.942767&panoid=iQnan7VxK4k1xmCzIpbXlQ&cbp=12,146.02,,0,-19.29&z=20

It states: 

VEHICLES WITH PASSENGER
PLATES ONLY ALLOWED
CHAPTER ##-## ORDINANCE

This could very well be why the signed route takes it bypassing the Blvd.  

Of course if they had just built the whole expressway like they should have back in the 1970s, there wouldn't be an issue.  
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 27, 2012, 08:06:22 PM
Okay, how did I not notice that? :ded:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 27, 2012, 09:18:50 PM
On another note....

Has anyone gotten any pics of the new signage on I-84 in the Danbury area?

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on January 27, 2012, 11:29:48 PM
On another note....

Has anyone gotten any pics of the new signage on I-84 in the Danbury area?



ditto was wondering the same thing, esp new mileage markers w/ shields which have allegedly been sprouting up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 15, 2012, 10:20:46 PM
Drove on US-7 north of I-84 and the last of the non-reflective button copy signs are gone.  Interesting note, drivers on NB US-7 now see US-202 signed from the expressway, including the off ramps and White Turkey Road Ext and until you reach Federal Road.  

However drivers from Federal Road (US-202) getting on US-7 SB, it is not signed.

However again, US-202 is signed both directions for Exit 11 (Exit 11, To US-202 East Federal Road) on the US-7 Expressway itself.

For the most part US-202, for the first time ever, is now signed through Danbury.  US-202 was never signed at Exit 11 on US-7 til now.  US-202 was signed on I-84 until it was widened in 1988.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 16, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
I just found this on the CT 9 Wikipedia page.  As with all things Wiki, take it for what its worth, but is there any truth to replacing the "Stack" on I-84 at Route 9 with a trumpet?

Quote
In the future ConnDOT will have plans to build the trumpet interchange at I-84/U.S. 6 and Route 9.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_9#History


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 16, 2012, 08:43:09 PM
That's the first I've ever seen or heard about it. There are a couple of reservoirs just north of the current "stack" on the Farmington/West Hartford town line, hence part of the reason the beltway was never built north of there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 17, 2012, 12:30:43 AM
At some point those ramps will be getting old enough to replace, so may as well build a trumpet. But if Wiki says it, it's wrong.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 17, 2012, 01:35:13 AM
I just found this on the CT 9 Wikipedia page.  As with all things Wiki, take it for what its worth, but is there any truth to replacing the "Stack" on I-84 at Route 9 with a trumpet?

Quote
In the future ConnDOT will have plans to build the trumpet interchange at I-84/U.S. 6 and Route 9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Route_9#History


I've heard nothing about the trumpet. That would seem like a lot of expense for marginal benefit (less capacity, possibly free up some land?). There are many real needs going unmet these days.

The closest thing I've seen is a project (on hold, no funding) to fix nearby exit 39 (SR 508/CT 4) to remove the left-hand ramps, and provide direct access from CT 4 to CT 9: http://www.farmington-ct.org/docs/FYI/Road_Project_Summary.pdf

(We do know from Wikipedia (or we did, until it got "fixed") that the number of African elephants had actually tripled in the last decade: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wikipedia_handles_colbert_elephant_prank/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 17, 2012, 11:17:19 AM
Don't you love how Conn-DOT is too lazy to have the Exit 39 signs read "TO CT 4"? Anyways, how would they fit this all in? Presently, the long on-ramp to I-84 East is separated with a jersey barrier, because traffic is already coming in from US Route 6 Eastbound on the other side of I-84 East. That was already in place long before the last portion of CT Route 9 opened in 1992. Also, between where US Route 6 East joins I-84 East and the Exit 39A off-ramp for CT Route 9 South, there's a small access road for a Conn-DOT maintenance yard. Then there's South Road and it's overpass to contend with, too. Good luck Conn-DOT!

Here's how it looks on Google Maps:

http://g.co/maps/xqd9c
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 17, 2012, 11:34:40 AM
I hate trumpets, b/c of the long curves ie I-95 & CT-25-8.  If anything, the DOT would tear down the non used ramps at the stack.  The stack was actually well designed and that seems to be the favored style of ramps, flyovers.  Look at all the recent construction, I-691, I-384-I-291 and the new CT-34 flyover.

Plus, notice the sentence in wiki isn't sourced. 

and the new project of the I-84, CT-9 and 4 project includes flyovers or flyunders.  The left hand on-ramp from CT-4 will enter on the right side of I-84 EB.  There will be a new C&D road on the south side of I-84 connecting to CT-9 SB.  Drivers could connect to I-84EB or CT-9 SB.  The left hand exit from I-84 EB to CT-4 will also be from the right. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 17, 2012, 02:09:39 PM
My guess is that the space being used now for the left on-ramp from CT Route 4 could become the left lane for I-84 (the highway would get shifted over a few feet to the left. As for a C/D road, would it be similar to how they reconfigured the combined I-84/CT Route 72 in Plainville near the New Britain city line? (That project also provided eastbound access for both roads from Crooked Street in Plainville.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 17, 2012, 06:18:21 PM
I hate trumpets, b/c of the long curves ie I-95 & CT-25-8.  If anything, the DOT would tear down the non used ramps at the stack.  The stack was actually well designed and that seems to be the favored style of ramps, flyovers.  Look at all the recent construction, I-691, I-384-I-291 and the new CT-34 flyover.

Plus, notice the sentence in wiki isn't sourced. 

That's what I figured, but wanted to make sure.   Well, we're not 100% sure, but wanted to make sure I didn't miss some article in the Courant or online elsewhere about it. 

I still think that CT 9 should be extended north at least to CT 4 or to US 44, getting around the reservoirs either by veering east or west or split carriageways.  If it was up to me, I'd build all of I-291.  Still hard to believe there is no [limited access] route from points west of Hartford to points north without having to go through downtown.   

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 17, 2012, 09:37:40 PM
My guess is that the space being used now for the left on-ramp from CT Route 4 could become the left lane for I-84 (the highway would get shifted over a few feet to the left. As for a C/D road, would it be similar to how they reconfigured the combined I-84/CT Route 72 in Plainville near the New Britain city line? (That project also provided eastbound access for both roads from Crooked Street in Plainville.)

Correct, I believe I-84 would shift over to where the left on-ramp is and the C&D would tie in to the existing ramp to CT-9 SB. 

I do have a plan pdf on my computer I received from the DOT (if you ask, they are happy to share their knowledge)  but don't know how to post it on here.  Any ideas? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 17, 2012, 09:51:18 PM
Here's my take - base map is from DeLorme's Street Atlas USA program:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-rGQwS-ZE1N0/Tz8QjhHedlI/AAAAAAAAQEc/z6o4inkg_V4/s912/I84-Farmington.jpg


I-84 EB new right hand exit would become a flyover to CT 4, somewhat meeting up with the existing ramp alignment.  Just past this new exit, a new exit would lead to a C&D road leading to CT 9.  This single lane ramp would be joined by the existing ramp from Colt Highway.  Joining the C&D road on the left just past the Colt Highway ramp would be the extended ramp from CT 4.  The C&D road would run parallel to and south of I-84, with one lane continuing straight and slightly left to merge onto I-84 EB, and the right lane(s) continuing to CT 9.  It is optional whether or not Colt Highway traffic would merge onto the C&D or be given its own lane.  The need for one or two lanes past the I-84 EB "exit" would be determined by whether or not CT 9 is extended north of I-84.  3 lanes of I-84 EB traffic would be maintained throughout the area, increasing the current capacity slightly.

And to simplify matters, US 6 is no longer signed through this area, but rather leaves Colt Highway and heads north and then northeast on Farmington Avenue into Hartford.  Therefore, CT 4 would actually start at the I-84 interchange, making the "TO" unnecessary. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 25, 2012, 07:14:45 PM
If you really want to extend Route 9 north, I'd take it west of the reservoirs. There's a lot of empty space over there, and in fact, you could almost make it to Simsbury/Bradley Airport area without much effort as it looks like a whole lot of nothing in those areas, though I'm not sure why you'd bother servicing nothing unless you could hook the terminus of 9 up with a state highway in that area (terminating at CT-185 would provide a way to get to 291 from there). Going west also keeps the highway away from most residential areas on the NW side of Hartford (Bloomfield) which would certainly raise concern from home owners. One problem is passing a highway through a reservoir/watershed...tends to not go over well these days. Extending 9 further north would also allow suburbs to the west and south to bypass Hartford on their way to Mass. & points north and Bradley Airport.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: HighwayMaster on March 03, 2012, 09:09:54 PM
If you really want to extend Route 9 north, I'd take it west of the reservoirs. There's a lot of empty space over there, and in fact, you could almost make it to Simsbury/Bradley Airport area without much effort as it looks like a whole lot of nothing in those areas, though I'm not sure why you'd bother servicing nothing unless you could hook the terminus of 9 up with a state highway in that area (terminating at CT-185 would provide a way to get to 291 from there). Going west also keeps the highway away from most residential areas on the NW side of Hartford (Bloomfield) which would certainly raise concern from home owners. One problem is passing a highway through a reservoir/watershed...tends to not go over well these days. Extending 9 further north would also allow suburbs to the west and south to bypass Hartford on their way to Mass. & points north and Bradley Airport.

I second that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 18, 2012, 09:24:24 PM
Connecticut Turnpike NB service plaza in Milford has reopened:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=500814

What I find interesting is that a ConnDOT press release prominently says "CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE", with I-95 in parenthesis.

And this isn't the first time the turnpike reference has appeared on their site, either:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=3535&q=292578
(scroll towards the bottom)


What next.... the turnpike trailblazer appearing on reassurance signs or on BGSs??? (which I'm all for, BTW)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 20, 2012, 02:30:06 PM
Yikes! The heavy emphasis on CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE...considering it hasn't carried a toll since 1983 or so. What that press release doesn't mention is that the whole statewide project is way behind schedule!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 28, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
CDOT's Danbury traffic cams are finally pointed in a direction that yields some of the new mile markers and signage.  Not the best shots but it'll have to do for now:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sCfytRn-dDA/T3NxtyLX2bI/AAAAAAAAQHg/hK0ezR5obGo/s254/image160.jpg)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-yxiCglYaliM/T3NxzgSkHuI/AAAAAAAAQHo/Un9FtGQBwqM/s254/image158.jpg)

Could that be an orange LEFT in the aligned exit tab for Exit 7?   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 28, 2012, 04:20:15 PM
Could that be an orange LEFT in the aligned exit tab for Exit 7?   
my guess is yellow... the black text darkens the overall image a bit because the resolution is so low.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 28, 2012, 04:32:11 PM
Could that be an orange LEFT in the aligned exit tab for Exit 7?   
my guess is yellow... the black text darkens the overall image a bit because the resolution is so low.

I meant it as a shock of a LEFT being in the exit tab.  Is this the first signage contract in CT to have that feature in an exit tab? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 28, 2012, 11:18:04 PM
Could that be an orange LEFT in the aligned exit tab for Exit 7?   
my guess is yellow... the black text darkens the overall image a bit because the resolution is so low.

I meant it as a shock of a LEFT being in the exit tab.  Is this the first signage contract in CT to have that feature in an exit tab? 


Yes, that is correct a yellow LEFT.  The same for Exit 3 going WB.  Also, new "Welcome to CT" signage went up at the state line. 

The exit tabs in general in this project, are quite large even with the border around them. 

and, although, Exit 7 EB & Exit 3 WB are the same type of exit but are signed differently.  WB has a diagramical sign while the EB side has the signs shown above. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 18, 2012, 05:59:18 PM
As Part of the new signing Project on CT 20 The Bradley Connector, it is apparent that CT is now following suit on Surface Street Guide signage as well.   Those panels have gone mixed case:

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5311/6945604550_44fd1027f5_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/6945604550/)
IMG_1922 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/6945604550/) by wytout (http://www.flickr.com/people/76971031@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5334/7091673217_0759fb8782_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/7091673217/)
IMG_1923 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/7091673217/) by wytout (http://www.flickr.com/people/76971031@N02/), on Flickr

But in truly tasteless CT fashion, the need to "fill" the panel is resulting in Mixed Series FHWA fonts and Mixed Kerning in many assemblies, just as in the old all-caps assemblies
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 19, 2012, 12:34:40 AM
Ewwwww! I hate those signs already! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2012, 09:02:24 PM
I looked at the US-7 signing plans and noticed it's not the contractor that makes mistakes but whoever wrote the plans in the first place.

The US202 shield should be a 3d sign but it's only like that on BGSs.  They put up some new US202 shields but they are 2d shields.  ugh! It's written that way in the plans!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 29, 2012, 01:03:18 PM
Surprised this hasn't been brought up here yet:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/17858651/senate-votes-to-allow-tolls-on-conns-route-11

Quote
Under the proposal, the tolls would be used to pay for the extension of Route 11, which ends abruptly in Salem. The highway was originally supposed to continue another 8.5 miles to Interstate 95, but the project was been stalled for two decades.

Seems like tolls on CT 11 wouldn't yield that much revenue.  The locals would most likely jump off onto CT 85 and head right down to Salem and points south.  Or maybe they'd patronize the tolls just to see CT 11 finished. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on April 29, 2012, 03:25:11 PM
If tolls were what it took, and they actually finished it... I'd use it every time and happily pay the tolls.  That's one road I would like to see done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 29, 2012, 03:57:42 PM
That will be one hell of an interchange with I-95/I-395 in Waterford...IF they actually finish it! :P
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 29, 2012, 04:29:21 PM
Indeed, any toll would be ridiculously easy to shunpike - CT 85 isn't exactly choked with traffic.

But, maybe if the toll is low enough (say, $2), drivers won't consider it worth driving around. And if ConnDOT does it all-electronic (and I see no reason why they wouldn't), psychologically the toll will be less noticed and people won't be as driven away from the road by it as they would be by a toll booth.

There's also the option of banning through trucks from CT 85, though the corridor doesn't have much truck traffic.


As for the concern of it opening up the possibility of putting tolls on other roads in Connecticut, I say, so? If that's what it takes to actually get some decent road improvements done in the state, bring it on.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 29, 2012, 08:50:02 PM
As for the concern of it opening up the possibility of putting tolls on other roads in Connecticut, I say, so? If that's what it takes to actually get some decent road improvements done in the state, bring it on.

As I've said for years, tolls at strategically-placed locations would bring in quite a bit of revenue and not piss off too many locals.  For instance, the Greenwich toll, which would occur near the site of the present Weigh Station on the "turnpike".  Make it at least $2 for cars, higher for trucks.  This would get the traffic heading in/out of state, rather than "in-state" traffic.  Next, slap a toll on the Mohegan-Pequot Connector, between the turnpike and CT 32.  You're looking at primarily casino traffic using that ramp, and any local traffic would appreciate a widening of the bridge over the Thames River and extension of the expressway east, off local roads.  Finally, up in Plainfield, just before the last turnpike service area.  And quite possibly some other locations would be adequate.  How bout the Rocky Neck connector during peak season?   And, why not, how bout resurrecting the Madison toll plaza site? 

The CT 11 tolling idea would help to get the ball rolling on this, and if it means other tolls in the state, then so be it, if it meant it would help to get much needed improvements off the ground (such as widening east of New Haven).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on May 03, 2012, 06:49:33 PM
I find this utterly disgusting: For 45 years we can't get any reasonable highways finished in this state, between funding issues and "ENVIRONMENTAL RED TAPE".

This stupid busway, that is a political pet project to collect stimulus dollars the state would otherwise lose, and a boondoggle that will operate at a loss for the forseeable future (I haven't heard of one single human being that will actually use this thing).   Well they fastracked the funding and they fasttracked the enviro issues.....  and in less than 4 years............... it's here.


and without further ado....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NEWS RELEASE
 
2800 BERLIN TURNPIKE P.O. BOX 317546
NEWINGTON CONNECTICUT, 06131-7456
   
FOR RELEASE: April 25, 2012    
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE: (860) 594-3062
FAX: (860) 594-3065
WEB SITE: www.ct.gov/dot

Busway Groundbreaking Scheduled as Final Environmental Permit is Approved

         The Department of Transportation (DOT) received word today that the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has approved the final wetlands permit needed for the New Britain-Hartford Busway, clearing the way for a formal groundbreaking next month.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FULL PRESS RELEASE: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=503076


And Just Remember... most of this is FEDERALLY funded... which means it's not just CT taxpayer dollars.... IT'S ALL OF YOUR TAX PAYER DOLLARS!  Enjoy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 03, 2012, 09:30:07 PM
Honestly, my key beef with the busway is that it chews up a section of the rail ROW along the line from Waterbury to Hartford, guaranteeing that it will never see trains again. Maybe it's the railfan in me, but I'd rather see them run trains if they want to do something with that ROW.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 05, 2012, 05:45:07 PM
Remember my disgust on the turnpike median replacement project in East Lyme?  When the project was first announced, I thought it would have been a carbon-copy of median replacements to the west, where the entire grassy median was paved and the guardrail replaced by a jersey barrier.  This provided for inside shoulders as well as outside. 

Well, here's a shot from the traffic cam on 5/5/2012 which shows the completed median near Exit 74 in East Lyme.  Note the new barrier remains in the grassy median and isn't even centered....

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4aw6-GM2H0o/T6WdVvI39SI/AAAAAAAAQVw/ewqQIPJR-QE/s352/live.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: hbelkins on May 05, 2012, 09:17:51 PM
Looks like a lot of the medians along I-30 in Texas and on I-20 east of Dallas.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on May 07, 2012, 03:52:50 AM
Does anybody know what exactly was done in the waterbury I-84 'straightening' from exit ~18-25 or whatever that took an eternity?  Is it done?

I commuted through that stretch everyday for 3 awful years about 10 years ago, and in my visits back there the past couple years, it still seems horrible.  I don't notice it being any 'straighter' or more safe.   Plus, the concrete-filled median area and ugly light poles leave a lot to be desired.

Maybe it had just been too long since I was on it, but for such a major and expensive undertaking for me to fail to notice any significant difference is pretty disturbing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 07, 2012, 02:41:19 PM
They haven't made it west of Exit 25A yet.  In fact, I have no idea when that project is even supposed to start, but that is where the straightening I think will occur, near Exits 24-25.  So it looks like those giant '69' shields on button copy non-reflective background for Exit 23 will stick around for a while longer.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on May 07, 2012, 04:09:43 PM
They haven't made it west of Exit 25A yet.  In fact, I have no idea when that project is even supposed to start, but that is where the straightening I think will occur, near Exits 24-25.  So it looks like those giant '69' shields on button copy non-reflective background for Exit 23 will stick around for a while longer.

Wow, really?  Weren't they working on it from 2005 on (or even earlier)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 07, 2012, 04:27:23 PM
I left CT in 2005 and I believe the I-84 reconstruction was [trying to be] wrapping up around then.  There were some major contractor blunders (such as storm drains which didn't lead anywhere) that had to be repaired by a new contractor after the old one went belly-up.  But that work was only between Exit 25A in Waterbury and Exit 30 in Southington. 

West of there, there is a plan to reconstruct, widen, and straighten (still?) the section from Exit 25A, west to Exit 22.  It was supposed to kick off right after the "eastern" project was finished but... well, you know. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2012, 08:59:42 PM
And then sometime after that, widening all of I-84 to three lanes each way. Yeah, right.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 23, 2012, 06:32:59 PM
A redesign of the ConnDOT homepage makes looking for contractor information (plans, upcoming bids, etc) a lot easier.....

Looks like more new signs are coming on the Connecticut Turnpike.... a project will be advertised in August for the replacement of signage from Exit 25 in Fairfield to Exit 47 in New Haven.  Exit 25 is where an earlier signage project ended (after coming up from the NY state line) and also marks the beginning of the reconstructed "Bridgeport Corridor", which saw all signs replaced in the early 2000s.  Signage from Exit 31 to Exit 34 is still button copy Phase III and so is Exits 43-46.  Most likely signs from Exits 35 to 41 won't be touched since those were just replaced a year or two ago. 

After completion of this latest project, and associated sign replacement for the Q Bridge project, there will be no more button copy from the NY state line up to Exit 54.  And those signs from Exit 54 to Exit 59 in Branford and Guilford were installed 1992, replacing original turnpike signage that dated back to the 1958-era. 


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 23, 2012, 07:15:52 PM
Do they ever change the signs themselves, or do they just take pictures of what's there and replace it with an exact replica?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 23, 2012, 07:47:28 PM
Do they ever change the signs themselves, or do they just take pictures of what's there and replace it with an exact replica?

For the most part, most sign replacements these days are "carbon copy".  There have been some minor changes in signage over the years, mostly when Phase I or II was replaced with newer versions.  For instance, original turnpike signage replaced in 1992 at Exit 58 (for example) went from "GUILFORD - CONN 77" to "[77] / Guilford / North Guilford".  Every now and then there is some tweaking of destinations, but those replaced west of Bridgeport on the turnpike c 2008 were essentially carbon copy replacements, just without button copy.  One sign that was "altered" was for Exit 17... "Sherwood Island State Park" became "Sherwood Island Connector", and thus the sign didn't have to become a "big brown sign". 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 25, 2012, 08:36:16 PM
The I-84 widening between Exits 23 and 25 is supposed to start in 2014.  O

On I-84 in Danbury there have been new BGSs that aren't just CC of older ones.  The "Expressway Ends" BYS on Exit 11 are now "Signal Ahead" BYSs and a new BYS at Exit 4 EB says "Crossing Traffic 700 Feet" there was never a sign that said that before.

Drove through the same area today, nice new signs but new gantries have gone up too and they are not the pipe gantries.  I liked the pipe gantries. I wonder why the DOT keeps changing the style?

Also, I noticed they replaced some signs that used to be on gantries with some that are now on poles on the side of the road and replaced other signs that used to be on poles on new gantries. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 03:15:07 PM
Noticed DOT moved the 95 S/B Stamford city line sign from ground mounted to gantry. I can't recall any other town line sign mounted on a gantry. Looks like there is just enough space for an exit 9 advanced guide sign should they choose to add one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 27, 2012, 06:56:48 PM
On I-84 in Danbury there have been new BGSs that aren't just CC of older ones.  The "Expressway Ends" BYS on Exit 11 are now "Signal Ahead" BYSs and a new BYS at Exit 4 EB says "Crossing Traffic 700 Feet" there was never a sign that said that before.

Drove through the same area today, nice new signs but new gantries have gone up too and they are not the pipe gantries.  I liked the pipe gantries. I wonder why the DOT keeps changing the style?

Also, I noticed they replaced some signs that used to be on gantries with some that are now on poles on the side of the road and replaced other signs that used to be on poles on new gantries. 

Pics?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 27, 2012, 08:49:31 PM
The I-84 widening between Exits 23 and 25 is supposed to start in 2014.  O

On I-84 in Danbury there have been new BGSs that aren't just CC of older ones.  The "Expressway Ends" BYS on Exit 11 are now "Signal Ahead" BYSs and a new BYS at Exit 4 EB says "Crossing Traffic 700 Feet" there was never a sign that said that before.

Drove through the same area today, nice new signs but new gantries have gone up too and they are not the pipe gantries.  I liked the pipe gantries. I wonder why the DOT keeps changing the style?

Also, I noticed they replaced some signs that used to be on gantries with some that are now on poles on the side of the road and replaced other signs that used to be on poles on new gantries. 

DOT is using both styles now. In most cases where only one or two signs are needed, the pipe gantries seem to be favored, though recently I've seen some new box style truss gantries being used (like the new Stamford city line sign gantry just south of the DOT garage on 95 S/B) similar to those for the electronic highway signs. There are some new box style full span gantries in Darien as well around exit 10 that went up as part of the widening a couple years back, and the funny thing about those is they span both lanes of 95 with very little in the way of sign load. Wonder how they decide which to use if it is indeed an intentional choice.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 10, 2012, 05:31:50 PM
My quest to track down shots of the new signage on I-84 in the Danbury area turned up this:

https://foursquare.com/v/i84--danbury/4b704f1df964a5208e112de3/photos

The second photo is I-84 WB at Exit 10 (US 6 West), while the seventh photo is WB at Exit 4.   Nice diagrammatic on the left sign, but no distance given, and no control city for I-84. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 14, 2012, 03:49:57 PM
** BREAKING NEWS **

The new northbound lanes of the "Q" Bridge in New Haven on the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) are opening, with traffic delays expected, weekend of June 22-24, 2012.

See press release here:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=505954

I'll imagine later this year that southbound traffic will also be shifted to the new span, which when completed will host northbound traffic only.  But in the interim, all traffic will eventually use the new span while the old one is torn down and the new southbound bridge is built.

Full website here:  http://www.i95newhaven.com

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 14, 2012, 09:25:18 PM
** BREAKING NEWS **

The new northbound lanes of the "Q" Bridge in New Haven on the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) are opening, with traffic delays expected, weekend of June 22-24, 2012.

See press release here:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=505954

I'll imagine later this year that southbound traffic will also be shifted to the new span, which when completed will host northbound traffic only.  But in the interim, all traffic will eventually use the new span while the old one is torn down and the new southbound bridge is built.

Full website here:  http://www.i95newhaven.com



That's crazy. I just drove through there a few weeks ago, and it didn't look like it was any where close to being ready to open.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on June 15, 2012, 06:51:45 PM
** BREAKING NEWS **

The new northbound lanes of the "Q" Bridge in New Haven on the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) are opening, with traffic delays expected, weekend of June 22-24, 2012.

See press release here:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=505954

I'll imagine later this year that southbound traffic will also be shifted to the new span, which when completed will host northbound traffic only.  But in the interim, all traffic will eventually use the new span while the old one is torn down and the new southbound bridge is built.

Full website here:  http://www.i95newhaven.com



That's crazy. I just drove through there a few weeks ago, and it didn't look like it was any where close to being ready to open.
Once the bridge deck is paved, it only takes one night to stripe (short distance). Approach work probably takes a week on each side to fill it in and pave each layer (one layer per night, figure four layers).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 16, 2012, 05:27:38 PM
** BREAKING NEWS **

The new northbound lanes of the "Q" Bridge in New Haven on the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) are opening, with traffic delays expected, weekend of June 22-24, 2012.

See press release here:  http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=505954

I'll imagine later this year that southbound traffic will also be shifted to the new span, which when completed will host northbound traffic only.  But in the interim, all traffic will eventually use the new span while the old one is torn down and the new southbound bridge is built.

Full website here:  http://www.i95newhaven.com



That's crazy. I just drove through there a few weeks ago, and it didn't look like it was any where close to being ready to open.
Keep in mind that this is not a final opening, just a traffic pattern change.  I-95 won't even be using the final approaches, just temporary ones.  The southbound side hasn't even been built yet and requires the demolition of the old bridge to be done.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2012, 06:28:25 PM
New Q-Bridge opens this weekend, well part of it anyway.
Front page news on the New Haven paper
http://www.nhregister.com/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 23, 2012, 12:35:54 AM
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/traffic/traffic_news/detours-before-opening-of-new-q-bridge#.T-VFb8VQSF8

Just looked at the Conn-DOT traffic cameras. I-91 looked to be flowing fine for the most part. The northbound backup was back to between Exits 41 and 42 in West Haven. Of course, those are only going to get worse as the night goes on.

http://interactives.wtnh.com/photomojo/gallery/3255/65250/pearl-harbor-memorial-bridge/the-ribbon/

Assorted photos from the ribbon cutting. Again, it's only the NORTHBOUND side of the bridge which is opening.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 23, 2012, 09:10:47 PM
Anyone drive it today? I considered it, but opted to watch via DOT cam. Plenty of line painting and barrier placement shown on those cams this morning. Going pretty much according to schedule. Still don't see how I-91 to I-95 N/B gets rerouted onto the new segment, but it appears all three lanes are now open on the new bridge with no traffic flowing over the old bridge. Will have to look over the traffic shift diagrams.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 23, 2012, 10:50:08 PM
Strange looking at this cam and seeing no traffic NB/EB across the old span:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&q=415620

Probably won't get a chance to drive across the new span until late July at the earliest.  Still, nice to see some substantial progress being made on the bridge replacement.  The surveying/engineering company I used to work for had the contract for the bridge's replacement.  It was sketchy, to say the least, working underneath the old span in '03-04.  Pieces of concrete from the bridge were falling off at one point when one of our crews was working nearby.  We also had the contract to reconstruct Waterfront Street - not a fun place to work, with a constant stream of trucks and diesel exhaust all day long.  The plus side was I was able to snag an old wooden US 1 sign that was in the weeds at the end of the old Exit 49 off-ramp.

Soon enough, the old bridge will be but a memory and Waterfront Street's railroad spurs will be reactivated once again, hopefully relieving some truck traffic in the port area. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 24, 2012, 12:57:02 PM
Personally I'm wondering how this project will fix the I-91 left exit on I-95... couldn't find plans for the final configuration on the site, just the interim one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 24, 2012, 03:30:29 PM
Strange looking at this cam and seeing no traffic NB/EB across the old span:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&q=415620

I want to know too, as you can see on the NB span that is now built, in the end, that will be 5 lanes in ONE direction, but I noticed they have a temp jersey barrier with a pipe gantry for the temp SB traffic that will use the NB bridge at the end of this year.  It looks permanent, but amazing that it's only temporary.

Personally I'm wondering how this project will fix the I-91 left exit on I-95... couldn't find plans for the final configuration on the site, just the interim one.

I-91 will exit to the right in the end and I-95 will be on the left side when all is said and done. 

I am also curious to see how the new 4th lane on I-95 NB from Exit 45 to the interchange will go?  Exit 46 was just rebuilt and there is a jersey barrier between the Exit 46 off and on ramp that is NEW but it's too close to the mainline for the 4th lane. 

Will the new lane go to Exit 47 Route 34 or I-91 Exit 48?  I can't find any plans anywhere. i95newhaven.com doesn't have detailed ones up yet.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 25, 2012, 10:43:47 AM
The ramp to CT 34 does go off at an odd angle... maybe that's why.  When I was there I thought CTDOT was just being dumb.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 25, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
That flyover ramp is an improvement in the fact that it took the left exit away from I-95 North. The downside is that there's now little room to merge between that ramp and the on ramp from Long Wharf Drive.

Playing around with Google Street View and satellite images, I'm wondering how Exit 48 for I-91 North will fit as a right side on-ramp?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 25, 2012, 04:27:51 PM
That flyover ramp is an improvement in the fact that it took the left exit away from I-95 North. The downside is that there's now little room to merge between that ramp and the on ramp from Long Wharf Drive.

Playing around with Google Street View and satellite images, I'm wondering how Exit 48 for I-91 North will fit as a right side on-ramp?

If you go under Contracts on i95newhaven.com

http://www.i95newhaven.com/pdfs/contracts/contract_e_0510.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on June 25, 2012, 10:38:02 PM
Are there any current bills considering mileage-based numbering on interstates like I-84 and I-91 in CT?

What do you all think of the idea w/rt I-84 specifically? It seems like everything would change but only very slightly - which would be a recipe for confusion (at first).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 26, 2012, 02:39:07 PM
Ditto for I-95 south of New Haven.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 12, 2012, 01:58:54 PM
What does this mean? I used to check the agendas each month to see what new turn lanes were being added and such. 

From the CT DOT website:

As of July 1, 2012 the State Traffic Commission is now
the Office of the State Traffic Administration.
There are no more monthly meetings
 
Connecticut State Traffic Commission
2012 Public Meeting Schedule

 
DATE  TIME LOCATION
*January 19, 2012
AGENDA
MINUTES 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
*February 23, 2012
AGENDA
MINUTES 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
March 20, 2012
AGENDA
MINUTES  10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
April 17, 2012
AGENDA
MINUTES 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
May 15, 2012
AGENDA
MINUTES  10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
June 19, 2012
AGENDA - REVISED
MINUTES - DRAFT 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
July 17, 2012
 
CANCELLED 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
August 21, 2012
 
CANCELLED 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
September 18, 2012
 
CANCELLED 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
October 16, 2012
 
CANCELLED 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
November 20, 2012
 
CANCELLED 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
December 18, 2012
 
CANCELLED 10:00 am ConnDOT Headquarters
2800 Berlin Tpke, Newington, CT
Conference Rm. A
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on July 16, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
Not sure, doofy, maybe they thought the meetings were unnecessary.  Lots of things being cut these days..  I wonder if the office got a reduced headcount and folded in somewhere else or if it was literally just a name change..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 29, 2012, 10:06:07 PM
So just got back from a trip to CT to see the family.  I decided against driving and took the train, which made me forgo my road trip adventures that were planned for Friday (I-84 west of Waterbury, US 7, and Milford Parkway to see the new signage, Conn Turnpike to check out the new Milford service area and the new Q Bridge, etc). 

My only time on the interstate this trip was the turnpike from Int 65 down to Int 47.  A couple brief observations:

*   The Madison service area sign which was put up a few years ago after the 1 mile advance for Int 62 has finally had its mileage corrected, changed from the way-inaccurate 1/2 mile to a more accurate 1 mile distance.

*   The Branford service area - SB is still open, but NB is closed and demolition work continues.  The old restaurant building is still standing but appeared to be gutted. 

*   Traffic is moving over the new Q Bridge NB.  New signs appear for the exit and 1/2 mile advance guide, plus an overhead sign for secondary destinations (including Tweed-NHV Airport, USCG Fort Nathan Hale, etc).  The oddball was the old 3/4 mile Phase III button copy from the old NB bridge was moved to the new bridge, but with an aligned exit tab.  The final SB overhead assembly for Exit 48 also had its exit tab on button copy signage moved to the right side, similar to what was done to Exit 45 further south.  Strange that they would take the time to do this on signs that are going to be replaced anyway.

And that was it for the road portion of the trip.  I may be going down again in Sept or Oct and depending on time, I want to grab shots of that new signage in western CT, drive the Brookfield Bypass, visit the rebuilt plaza, pick up a map, etc, and of course take lots of pics. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 30, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Both I-95 plazas in Milford are done. The northbound I-95 plaza in Darien is being redone as we speak and is closed to the public.

Also, some work finally started on the New Britain end of the New Britain/Hartford Busway last night:

http://www.ctnow.com/news/connecticut/hartford/hc-new-britain-busway-work-0728-20120727,0,3435249.story

At first, I thought the meant the railroad bridge which parallels the Exit 26 Northbound off-ramp from CT Route 9. They're talking about an abandoned bridge a bit north of there:

http://goo.gl/maps/WqVq6

The span in question is over CT Route 9, from north of the Columbus Plaza Shopping Center, eastward to Stanley Street. It's been abandoned for at least 30 years and people have used it as a shortcut to the plaza along Columbus Boulevard.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 30, 2012, 09:12:05 PM
Some pretty substantial work also taking place along the Amtrak ROW from Newington [Junction] up to Hartford.

But don't get me started on this project........
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on July 31, 2012, 04:28:41 PM
So just got back from a trip to CT to see the family.  I decided against driving and took the train, which made me forgo my road trip adventures that were planned for Friday (I-84 west of Waterbury, US 7, and Milford Parkway to see the new signage, Conn Turnpike to check out the new Milford service area and the new Q Bridge, etc). 

Does anyone know the exit number listing for the Milford Pkwy?  Any pictures?  I was down in the area this past week, but didn't get a chance to go on the connector.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 31, 2012, 07:17:13 PM
Looking at Google Street View, it doesn't look like the exits on it are numbered at all.

Getting back to New Britain and the Busway: The only thing I've seen so far from Main Street is a bit of tree clearing on either side of the Exit 9 off ramp from CT Route 72 East to CT Route 71/Harry Truman Overpass.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2012, 08:26:17 PM
So just got back from a trip to CT to see the family.  I decided against driving and took the train, which made me forgo my road trip adventures that were planned for Friday (I-84 west of Waterbury, US 7, and Milford Parkway to see the new signage, Conn Turnpike to check out the new Milford service area and the new Q Bridge, etc). 

Does anyone know the exit number listing for the Milford Pkwy?  Any pictures?  I was down in the area this past week, but didn't get a chance to go on the connector.
No numbering. www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/milford
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 31, 2012, 09:30:11 PM
Actually, the Milford Parkway signs have been replaced and now have exit numbers.  I saw them in the plans.  And there are a few ConnDOT traffic cams that, when pointed the right direction, show the signs, or back of, and you can see they're new.

I believe the plans had Exit 1 for US 1, Exit 2 for the turnpike, and Exit 3 for the WCP.  Exit 4 may have been the Merritt or Wheelers Farm Road.  It seems ridiculous that they would sign exit numbers on this road, while the Bradley Airport Connector just had its signs replaced and didn't get exit numbers.  Motorists traveling the Milford Parkway never encounter more than 2 exits in a single direction, while there are 5 or so exits on the Bradley connector. 

Maybe ConnDOT couldn't agree where to start the exit numbering.... should Exit 1 be the first exit from I-91, or should Exit 1 be at the other end?  Technically when the road begins at I-91, it's CT 20 West, so exits should be numbered the other way.  However, what if mileage-based exits ever come into play?  Then we'd be talking Exit ## (from CT 20's western terminus).  In my opinion, the connector should be an I-#91.  Perhaps I-191. 

Perhaps this is also the reason why CT 3 doesn't have exit numbers over the Putnam Bridge.  Exit 1 for I-91?  Maybe, but CT 3 starts in Middletown, several miles south.

But I digress.  I will never understand CT exit numbering.  (I-95 NB Exit 76, then Exit 81, as a prime example).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 01, 2012, 03:00:16 PM
Or the screwy number along CT Route 15, over the Merritt Parkway, Wilbur Cross Parkway, skip over the Berlin Turnpike and then resume between Wethersfield and East Hartford. Greenwich should reset to exit 1 at the NY state line and leave the other exits unnumbered in that last segment.

Yes, CT Route 3 does start in Middletown, at the junction of CT Route 66 by Wesleyan University.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 01, 2012, 03:06:41 PM
Or the screwy number along CT Route 15, over the Merritt Parkway, Wilbur Cross Parkway, skip over the Berlin Turnpike and then resume between Wethersfield and East Hartford. Greenwich should reset to exit 1 at the NY state line and leave the other exits unnumbered in that last segment.

If CT ever switches to mileage-based exits, they should start the process with CT 15.  It would have the most to gain with the switch, plus CT 9 and CT 175 interchanges on the Berlin Turnpike would get numbers, too. 

The other route that would gain a lot would be I-395, but if I were in charge, I'd keep the turnpike exit numbering sequence.  Any mile-based system however would start I-395 with Exit 1 (or in reality, Exit 2 or 3). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 01, 2012, 07:40:47 PM
Never going to happen unless FHWA plays hardball with that requirement. And even then, there will be an uproar about it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2012, 07:50:55 PM
Never going to happen unless FHWA plays hardball with that requirement. And even then, there will be an uproar about it.
Some, if not all, of the Northeastern agencies are waiting for their hands to get forced, because at least then they can blame the FHWA when people get upset. If they take the initiative and people are upset, they can only blame themselves.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 01, 2012, 11:21:59 PM
Or the screwy number along CT Route 15, over the Merritt Parkway, Wilbur Cross Parkway, skip over the Berlin Turnpike and then resume between Wethersfield and East Hartford. Greenwich should reset to exit 1 at the NY state line and leave the other exits unnumbered in that last segment.

If CT ever switches to mileage-based exits, they should start the process with CT 15.  It would have the most to gain with the switch, plus CT 9 and CT 175 interchanges on the Berlin Turnpike would get numbers, too. 

Starting at the north end of CT Route 9, as an example:

32 (new 40B) - I-84/US 6 West - Waterbury [northbound off]
31 (new 40A) - I-84/US 6 East - Hartford [northbound off]
30 (new 39) - CT 71 - To Corbin's Corner/ West Hartford
29 (new 38) - To CT 175 - CCSU/Newington [southbound via Ella Grasso Boulevard]
28A (37 C?) - Downtown New Britain [southbound off]
28 (37 AB?) - CT 72 West - Bristol
27 (36B) - Chestnut Street -New Britain [southbound off/northbound on]
26 (36A) - Columbus Boulevard - Downtown [northbound off]
25 (new 35) - Ellis Street - New Britain - To CT 71
24 (new 34) - Willow Brook Connector - Kensington - To CT 71 [northbound off/southbound on]
23 (new 33) - Christian Lane - Berlin [southbound off/northbound on]
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 02, 2012, 02:40:33 PM
to this day, I don't get the US-7 Danbury exit numbers.  It really makes no sense.  They now have NEW exit numbers.  The mall exit is now Exit 8, the airport is Exit 7 etc.  On US-7 SB, the exit for I-84 EB is now Exit 10. Couldn't they allign the numbers with the I-84 numbers, and lets face it, the expressway will never be connected to Norwalk, so if that is reasoning why the exit numbers are the way they are, it won't make sense.

And to make things worse, it reinforces my opinion, that CT DOT doesnt think about continuity, they think in terms of "projects" is that the first BGS on US-7 NB says "Airport Road" with no exit number, that was from the widening contract.  But the BGS exit now sign has Exit 7, which is from the current signing contract. 

SO, two signs for the SAME exit, one from one contract has NO exit number and one from a different contract HAS an exit number!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 02, 2012, 03:53:55 PM
And the first US Route 7 Expressway exit north of the split with I-84 is for Exit 11.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 02, 2012, 06:38:56 PM
to this day, I don't get the US-7 Danbury exit numbers.  It really makes no sense.  They now have NEW exit numbers.  The mall exit is now Exit 8, the airport is Exit 7 etc.  On US-7 SB, the exit for I-84 EB is now Exit 10. Couldn't they allign the numbers with the I-84 numbers, and lets face it, the expressway will never be connected to Norwalk, so if that is reasoning why the exit numbers are the way they are, it won't make sense.

And to make things worse, it reinforces my opinion, that CT DOT doesnt think about continuity, they think in terms of "projects" is that the first BGS on US-7 NB says "Airport Road" with no exit number, that was from the widening contract.  But the BGS exit now sign has Exit 7, which is from the current signing contract. 

SO, two signs for the SAME exit, one from one contract has NO exit number and one from a different contract HAS an exit number!

Allowing for a freeway to fill the gap was definitely the original intent with the northern numbers, but ConnDOT seems to have simply dumbly counted backwards when slapping exit numbers on the middle section in a way which was not intended. Most likely, neither I-84 interchange was to be numbered, and the two interchanges on the middle freeway section were to be 9 and 10. Having them as 7 and 8 leaves room for only two new interchanges between Norwalk and Danbury (assuming Grist Mill Rd would be exit 4 rather than having access closed up). There definitely would have been a couple more.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on August 03, 2012, 12:15:19 AM
I believe the plans had Exit 1 for US 1, Exit 2 for the turnpike, and Exit 3 for the WCP.  Exit 4 may have been the Merritt or Wheelers Farm Road.  It seems ridiculous that they would sign exit numbers on this road, while the Bradley Airport Connector just had its signs replaced and didn't get exit numbers.  Motorists traveling the Milford Parkway never encounter more than 2 exits in a single direction.

Thanks ShadyJay...you are absolutely right.  The Milford Pkwy NB and SB share NO mutual exits and exit numbering here is simply puzzling  :hmmm:

Did they replace the outdated Exit 54/55 signage on the Wilbur Cross Pkwy approaching the Milford Pkwy?  Somehow, this signage got lost in both the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Pkwy sign replacement projects in the early 2000s.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on August 03, 2012, 12:19:14 AM
Allowing for a freeway to fill the gap was definitely the original intent with the northern numbers, but ConnDOT seems to have simply dumbly counted backwards when slapping exit numbers on the middle section in a way which was not intended. Most likely, neither I-84 interchange was to be numbered, and the two interchanges on the middle freeway section were to be 9 and 10. Having them as 7 and 8 leaves room for only two new interchanges between Norwalk and Danbury (assuming Grist Mill Rd would be exit 4 rather than having access closed up). There definitely would have been a couple more.

I'm just thankful that they FINALLY corrected the incorrect Exit 13 to the correct Exit 10 on US 7 South!  I guess we have to take what we can get from the CT DOT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 03, 2012, 12:50:16 AM

Did they replace the outdated Exit 54/55 signage on the Wilbur Cross Pkwy approaching the Milford Pkwy?  Somehow, this signage got lost in both the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Pkwy sign replacement projects in the early 2000s.

I think the signs on the actual parkway themselves are still there.  I think they date to the mid 80s. 

But the non-reflective button copy BGS signs off Exit 55 (I think) by the park & ride were replaced with the current signing project on the Milford Connector. 

Also, there are still some old BGS on CT-15 NB for CT-25 NB and a 15NB reassurance BGS in Trumbull.  I think they date back to 1982 or 1983 when CT-25 opened.  They are non-button copy and never replaced even though there are new signs right next to them.  (when CT expereimented with non button copy in the early 80s and yes CT-25's original signage was never button copy either)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 03, 2012, 12:46:26 PM
Those old signs are still there (was on this stretch on July 21st and 26th). You can barely read the "CT 15 NORTH" sign until you're almost under the bridge the sign is on. :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 03, 2012, 01:15:51 PM
Also, there are still some old BGS on CT-15 NB for CT-25 NB and a 15NB reassurance BGS in Trumbull.  I think they date back to 1982 or 1983 when CT-25 opened.  They are non-button copy and never replaced even though there are new signs right next to them.  (when CT expereimented with non button copy in the early 80s and yes CT-25's original signage was never button copy either)

there are some signs of this style (demountable reflective letters) on I-84.  the Austin Rd. exit (exit 25) on I-84 eastbound comes to mind.

this was observed in Feb 2010.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 03, 2012, 02:34:21 PM
Did they replace the outdated Exit 54/55 signage on the Wilbur Cross Pkwy approaching the Milford Pkwy?  Somehow, this signage got lost in both the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Pkwy sign replacement projects in the early 2000s.

It really irked me that they didn't replace Exits 54/55 signage when the Moses Wheeler Bridge was replaced.  When the WCP signage was replaced, it started at the Milford/Orange town line and went north to the Wallingford/Meriden town line.  No signs SB for Exit 55 were replaced.  A button copy Exit 55 1/2 mile, which featured the old blue service text trademark that used to adourn most 1/2 mile signs (advertising food/phone/gas/lodging, before replaced with symbols in the late 90s), remained.  So you had two Exit 55 1/2 mile signs - one overhead (paired with Exit 54) and one ground-based.  That sign replacement project got underway around 2000 or so - I remember seeing the new signs stored at the ConnDOT garage just before the West Rock Tunnel.  I assumed that the reasoning behind starting at the Milford/Orange town line and going north was that a separate project would handle the area around Moses Wheeler.  Maybe they just forgot about it.  But the same thing happened in the north as well:  Two signs for Exit 67 remained button copy "Phase III", NB while there's still a New Haven/Bridgeport/NY City mileage Phase III sign SB in the same area.

But that's not the only case of signs being left out of a contract.  Again, around 2000-2001, signs on the turnpike between Exits 60 and 76 were replaced, but not those between Exits 68-70.  Why?  Because those were replaced in 1992-1993 in conjunction with the Baldwin Bridge replacement.  Still I think it would've made more sense to do the whole route - now there's button copy in the middle of a nice Phase IV stretch. 

Then you have to wonder about another turnpike sign contract going out to bid late this year or early next year - the replacement of signs from Exit 25 up to Exit 47.  Now those between Exits 36 and 41 were JUST replaced, what, 2 years ago?  Don't tell me they're going to yank those out.  We'll see when they post the contract details on the ConnDOT web site.

And yes, at least ConnDOT did fix the exit number error on US 7 SB at I-84 EB.  Having NB exits go 11-12 and SB exits go 11-13 made NO sense. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on August 05, 2012, 03:53:52 AM
I thought Ex 54/55 signage on Rte 15 was originally going to be replaced with the completion of the Sikorsky Bridge replacement...but no!  Then I banked on hopes of the Milford Pkwy replacement...but shut out again!

Maybe the Ex 68-70 gap on I-95 will eventually be covered under a (hopeful) Rte 9 sign replacement contract?  I too was irked that 68-70 was left out of that original contract.  I'm waiting for an Exit 83-93 signage replacement as well.

I don't think they are going to replace anything in the Bridgeport widening stretch (Ex 26-29) or the recent Milford replacement (Ex 34-41).  SOME of Stratford will be replaced when the Moses Wheeler Bridge is finished...but I'm sure a few "relics" will remain unless the new contract covers them.

On a recent ride down I-95 SB, I noticed that the new Exit 38 (Rte 15 Merritt/W Cross) sign at the 1/2 way mark is "off."  It looks like someone clipped off the left portion of the sign, threw on a small Rte 15 shield, and tried to make the most to salvage the sign as it was recently replaced.  It looks AWFUL!!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 05, 2012, 06:31:43 PM
I don't think they are going to replace anything in the Bridgeport widening stretch (Ex 26-29) or the recent Milford replacement (Ex 34-41).  SOME of Stratford will be replaced when the Moses Wheeler Bridge is finished...but I'm sure a few "relics" will remain unless the new contract covers them.


Some of the signs that went up in 2002 for the bpt widening on I-95 and the signs for exit 42 widening that went up in 2007 or so are losing their reflectivity already.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 06, 2012, 08:14:53 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443659204577571203607650934.html

Moving forward in New Haven. I can attest that this is one freeway not really needed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on August 06, 2012, 10:25:00 AM
The article gets cut off for me.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 06, 2012, 11:30:35 AM
The article gets cut off for me.

I had to copy the headline and paste into Google News search. The resulting link brought up the entire article. I think WSJ is checking referrer in the header, so providing a direct link here won't work.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 06, 2012, 05:36:54 PM
I just hope they improve access to Union Station with this project - most likely with the extension of South Orange Street.  That hairpin turn as soon as you get off the highway has driven me crazy for years. 

So if I had to guess, the present expressway would hold together until after crossing the railroad yard, then the two carriageways would split into the present North/South Frontage Road alignment, with the first signalized intersection being South Orange Street.

As much as I hate to see an expressway torn down, I would have to agree with this project.  It's a shame they couldn't extend the expressway out to at least the Boulevard... up until a few years ago, all the land was still available and I'm sure they could've gone through the ground floor of the parking garage.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It all means nothing now.

So if we're going to tear down an expressway stub and pretend like it never existed, then maybe that's the solution for CT 11.  Decomission it, close it, bury it, end of story.  Noone would even remember it existed.  That's what they did to the I-291 ramps and overpasses on I-91 in Rocky Hill. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 06, 2012, 06:25:43 PM
The article gets cut off for me.

I had to copy the headline and paste into Google News search. The resulting link brought up the entire article. I think WSJ is checking referrer in the header, so providing a direct link here won't work.

Tried that, still doesn't show. But forging the referrer so it sends wsj.com works. So yeah, they are checking the referrer.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 06, 2012, 06:31:32 PM


Tried that, still doesn't show. But forging the referrer so it sends wsj.com works. So yeah, they are checking the referrer.

how does one forge a referer?  I think NY Times works the other way; they paywall you if you click from within their own site, but if you come in from outside, they show you the whole thing.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 06, 2012, 07:34:54 PM
Shouldn't this work?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443659204577571203607650934.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 06, 2012, 08:16:29 PM
how does one forge a referer?

With a FF Add-on. (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/refcontrol/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on August 07, 2012, 09:11:27 AM
So if we're going to tear down an expressway stub and pretend like it never existed, then maybe that's the solution for CT 11.

I'm still rooting for CT 11 - the TRUE "Road to Nowhere!"  Hell, I'm still rooting for the completion of highways for CT 25 and US 7 - even though I know pigs will fly and hell will freeze over before they are finally realized!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2012, 07:15:18 PM
So if we're going to tear down an expressway stub and pretend like it never existed, then maybe that's the solution for CT 11.

I'm still rooting for CT 11 - the TRUE "Road to Nowhere!"  Hell, I'm still rooting for the completion of highways for CT 25 and US 7 - even though I know pigs will fly and hell will freeze over before they are finally realized!

Of all the unbuilt freeways in CT, 11 is the only one still alive, even if it's in a coma on life support.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 07, 2012, 09:27:55 PM
See my rant on this project on this thread.

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7323.0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 07:05:58 AM
See my rant on this project on this thread.

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7323.0
*yawn*
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 08, 2012, 04:58:18 PM
See my rant on this project on this thread.

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7323.0
*yawn*

you made your point clear on the other post.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on August 08, 2012, 06:08:30 PM
As did you?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2012, 08:29:31 PM
NE2, he's within his rights to refer people in this thread to another thread. Sometimes two threads align with each other, especially where one is a catch-all like this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 18, 2012, 12:58:06 PM
So just got back from a trip to CT to see the family.  I decided against driving and took the train, which made me forgo my road trip adventures that were planned for Friday (I-84 west of Waterbury, US 7, and Milford Parkway to see the new signage, Conn Turnpike to check out the new Milford service area and the new Q Bridge, etc). 

Does anyone know the exit number listing for the Milford Pkwy?  Any pictures?  I was down in the area this past week, but didn't get a chance to go on the connector.
No numbering. www.alpsroads.net/roads/ct/milford

So we finally have field confirmation of exit numbers on the Milford Parkway, courtesy of the ConnDOT traffic cameras:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cNGLt8mXQ5A/UC_G2Ubp6BI/AAAAAAAARNw/pBRPj-DztCw/s352/live.jpg)

On the far right assembly, we can see the ramp to CT 15 North is Exit 3A.  The assembly in the foreground is the first advance signs for the turnpike and an exit tab is shown, presumably for Exit 2 (or 2A or 2B).  US 1, the southern end of the Milford Parkway, is Exit 1.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on August 18, 2012, 01:23:12 PM
Interesting...they removed the Merritt Pkwy and Wilbur Cross Pkwy distinctions from the signs and went solely with the destinations.  I wonder if there is a secondary assembly prior to the exits distinguishing the two?  Also, there is the exit for Wheelers Farm Road right before the 15S merge.  I wonder if this is Exit 4, or if it will remain un-numbered and be considered a spur of the new Exit 3B?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 18, 2012, 01:36:52 PM
Interesting...they removed the Merritt Pkwy and Wilbur Cross Pkwy distinctions from the signs and went solely with the destinations.

For the sake of MUTCD compliance. You're not supposed to have both the name of a road and the name of a place on the same sign. ConnDOT is obeying this with all new signs now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 18, 2012, 01:52:28 PM
Interesting...they removed the Merritt Pkwy and Wilbur Cross Pkwy distinctions from the signs and went solely with the destinations.  I wonder if there is a secondary assembly prior to the exits distinguishing the two?  Also, there is the exit for Wheelers Farm Road right before the 15S merge.  I wonder if this is Exit 4, or if it will remain un-numbered and be considered a spur of the new Exit 3B?

I was sent a copy of the signing plans for the Milford Parkway a few months ago.  Somehow, they went up missing on my computer.  I don't recall any ground-mounted or secondary signage distinquishing the two parkways.  Since the turnpike signs list no destinations but just "Merritt & W Cross Pkwys", it would make sense to see some sort of sign prior to the split. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Lyle on August 18, 2012, 02:50:57 PM
For the sake of MUTCD compliance. You're not supposed to have both the name of a road and the name of a place on the same sign.

Why is that? Sounds like a stupid rule to me!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 18, 2012, 03:42:48 PM
For the sake of MUTCD compliance. You're not supposed to have both the name of a road and the name of a place on the same sign.

All the more reason why the parkway trailblazers should be posted on BGSs!  Or is that now illegal, too?  (thanks MUTCD)

Then again, there's only a handful of WCP trailblazers out in the wild - if you've never seen one, they're pretty much identical to the Merritt's, but without the mountain laurel and on a lighter blue background.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Roadsguy on August 18, 2012, 05:19:40 PM
I think you messed up your quoting code. Is all the text in the bottom quote except the last line your post?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 18, 2012, 06:00:15 PM
I think you messed up your quoting code. Is all the text in the bottom quote except the last line your post?

Fixed
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on August 20, 2012, 08:06:08 AM
For the sake of MUTCD compliance. You're not supposed to have both the name of a road and the name of a place on the same sign.

All the more reason why the parkway trailblazers should be posted on BGSs!  Or is that now illegal, too?  (thanks MUTCD)

Then again, there's only a handful of WCP trailblazers out in the wild - if you've never seen one, they're pretty much identical to the Merritt's, but without the mountain laurel and on a lighter blue background.




Wilbur Cross.....
(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/wilburcrosspkway.jpg)

Old Merrittt....
(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/merritpkwy.jpg)

Current Merritt
(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/stcpkwy-merritt3.jpg)

Seen a couple of odd-shaped WC markers, but failed to get piccys of either of them...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 24, 2012, 11:58:59 AM
The mods might argue that any highway plan in CT will never be built, and thus belongs in Fictional Highways, but: here's an interesting proposal for an interchange at US 44 and CT 10 (eastern split) in Avon.

(http://i.imgur.com/yJzAj.jpg)

Link to PDF: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/Improvement_Overview_Avon_10_44.pdf

The intersection is at the bottom of a long hill on US 44 westbound -- the site of several accidents. ConnDOT explored a few alternatives for grade separation, to eliminate the need for US 44 traffic to stop.

The first looked very much like a conventional freeway interchange, with gradually curving ramps and a commuter parking lot.

The preferred alternative (pictured) looks more like a Merritt Parkway solution, but modern and safer. The connecting roads act like ramps, but don't look like them; and the entries and exits to US 44 are for lower speeds. It seems they want to make clear that US 44 is not a freeway through the area. (It looks like there are curb cuts to a hotel and restaurant at right.) There are a lot of traffic lights, but none on 44.

Overall, I like the plan, and would like to see more non-freeway solutions like this (these are rare in CT). Add a pedestrian bridge east of the 44 WB offramp (between hotel and restaurant) and this could start to stitch together a nice village center that gets the benefits of a main traffic artery without all the drawbacks.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 24, 2012, 12:15:08 PM
Can I ask what interchange is pictured here? I haven't been to Avon in years and never have to deal with US Route 44. (I have been on the nasty hill that is Rattlesnake Mountain and US Route 6, though.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on August 24, 2012, 05:51:54 PM
Can I ask what interchange is pictured here? I haven't been to Avon in years and never have to deal with US Route 44. (I have been on the nasty hill that is Rattlesnake Mountain and US Route 6, though.)

It's unbuilt. Current intersection is a 4-way between US 44 east, CT 10 south, US 44/CT 10 overlap to the west, and Nod Road to the north.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 25, 2012, 01:50:20 AM
So, looking at the Avon picture, the current end of Waterville Rd (CT 10) becomes a cul-de-sac, and a relocated Waterville is built on the other side of Nassau's furniture.  Nice easy connection for thru traffic for CT 10 S off of US 44, from 10 north onto 44 east as well as the crossover between Waterville and Nod Rd.  Can be a little confusing (New Jerseyish) for thru traffic on 10 North onto 44 West, and from 44 west to 10 south.  10 north would follow the crossover, turn right onto Nod Rd, then onto 44. 44 W to 10 S involves turning right onto Nod, left over the overpass, then left onto Waterville.  Also the turn from 44 E onto Nod Rd. would involve turning onto Waterville,  then turning left onto the crossover to Nod Rd.  Probably need traffic lights at either end of the crossover for safety.
   Overall, I like the idea, and it would eliminate that dangerous (and even deadly) traffic light at the bottom of Avon Mountain.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 26, 2012, 11:08:54 AM
Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 26, 2012, 12:29:31 PM
Yep! Likely upside down CT 9 shields, since it's north end isn't far from there. I saw those last Saturday, en route to Cambridge and Boston. I thought it was bad when Rhode Island had an error "RI 6" shield along US Route 6 east in Foster once! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on August 27, 2012, 10:53:32 PM
Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS. :rolleyes:
Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 28, 2012, 10:10:00 AM
Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS. :rolleyes:
Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!

Nope, the mini signs are all still there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 18, 2012, 09:44:40 PM
WOW CT now has legislation that allows design-build projects and public-private partnerships. 
Read the article, it's mentioned towards the end.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/DOT-chief-reviews-rookie-year-3868517.php#page-2
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 18, 2012, 11:49:39 PM
$68 million busway?!?  Try closer to $680 million :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 07, 2012, 12:45:02 AM
Haven't been out this way in a while, but I took a ride on I-84 West out into New York State.  A few changed I noticed along the way:

In Waterbury, most of the old oversized Phase II BGS's have been replaced with Phase IV.  Only ones I saw remaining were westbound at Exit 23, and eastbound at the very east end of the offramp.  Most BGS's from I-691 to the NY line are now Phase IV with a couple of  exceptions.

Mileage signs:  Mileposts every 5th of a mile extend from the NY Border up to Exit 23.  Mile marker shields have the "East (West) 84 Mile XX" format from the Housatonic River to the NY Border (all of Fairfield County).

At Exit 7 Westbound, BGS's for 84 West and 7 South have replaced NY State with Newburgh.  However, at Exit 3, it still says NY State.  Also, the quad-plex of 84/6/7/202 is now well signed.  One pole has 84 and 7 signage, the other has the 6 and 202 signage.  Also saw the first exit after the 84 split on Route 7 displays 202 East on the Federal Rd. Exit.  Like the directional exit tabs too.

One other note: Saw a Helvetica font Speed Limit 65 sign just east of the Rochambeau Bridge not much unlike the font New Brunswick uses on its BGS's.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on December 25, 2012, 10:00:00 PM
I-95 in Fairfield county is where they need widenings or a parallel route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 29, 2012, 08:17:47 AM
Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS. :rolleyes:
Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!
Just drove 84 East into Hartford yesterday, and between Exits 39 and 41, it looks like ConnDOT had replaced some US 6 reassurance shields with CT 6 shields.  OOPS. :rolleyes:


Did they ever erect a BGS for the CT 71/Corbin's Corner exit on I-84 EB?  The last time I checked, there were still smaller secondary replacement signs on the side of the road.  I hope it won't be like the Clearview cousin on CT 9!

Nope, the mini signs are all still there.

And as of two days ago (12/27), that "temporary" sign was still there.   Strange too, while the CT 9 NB Exit 30 final exit sign is in Clearview, the newer 1/2 mile sign (which is now ground-mounted and with a right-side exit tab) has text in the good ole' fashioned font. 

Strange seeing all those CT 6 markers too. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 29, 2012, 04:29:02 PM
Probably just upside down CT Route 9 markers. They've been there since at least the spring. Shame on ConnDOT for allowing that to happen!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 02, 2013, 10:22:07 PM
ConnDOT has posted the contract plans for the replacement of signage along the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) between Fairfield and New Haven.  Also within the file are plans to replace signs on CT 25 and I-84.  A couple of notes:

I-95 signs between Milford and Orange were replaced a few years ago.  These will not be replaced (and are noted as "NIC", meaning "not in contract).  Instead, spot sign replacement including some secondary signs, plus new mile markers.  Also it appears the blue "ATTRACTIONS" signs will begin making an appearance, vs the stand-alone green or brown signs.  These are similar to the large "FOOD - EXIT XX" signs which have full size logos.  Also interesting to note, some destinations have changed, SB there will now be Exits 27A-B-C in Bridgeport, and there will be more pull-throughs in the Bridgeport area.

Also added to the contract are spot sign replacements on CT 25 and I-84.  On CT 25, looks like just the area around Exits 8-9... the whole CT 25 connector is not shown up to (near) Monroe.  I-84 sign changes are primarily EB and will include the replacement of two signs at Exit 7 with the new style "arrow-per-lane" diagrammatics. 

Here's the link to the plans:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Scroll down to "PROJECT PORTFOLIO PLANS", best to right click and choose SAVE LINK AS.  It'll open in Adobe, its a 30+MB file.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 04, 2013, 09:31:56 PM
New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 05, 2013, 09:01:21 AM
New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.

If you look at the file, there's going to be a change in the "lane deliniation" for Exit 7 EB, which apparently is part of the reason why the change in signage.  Seems strange for the change, but something must've triggered it quickly, since these signs were JUST replaced, and are already being modified.  Leads me to think that Exit 3 WB signage may change with another upcoming project... perhaps the I-395 sign replacements, as those are next in the "highway signing" advertising of contracts.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 05, 2013, 02:10:03 PM
New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.

If you look at the file, there's going to be a change in the "lane deliniation" for Exit 7 EB, which apparently is part of the reason why the change in signage.  Seems strange for the change, but something must've triggered it quickly, since these signs were JUST replaced, and are already being modified.  Leads me to think that Exit 3 WB signage may change with another upcoming project... perhaps the I-395 sign replacements, as those are next in the "highway signing" advertising of contracts.

I consider I-84 EB Exit 7 and I-84 WB Exit 3 to be the same type of exit, so one would think the same type of signage would apply.  Exit 3 was restriped with an option center lane a few years back.  Glad to see Exit 7 is getting the same treatment.  But with the new sign contract that is nearing completion, Ext 3 only has two diagramical signs before hand.  I think there should be more BGS signs regarding the left lane will exit only.  There was a Danbury Mall "Exit Only" drop down arrow sign that was taken down with the new project.

And yes Jay, after rereading the contract, the current Exit 7 1-Mile sign (Which was put up only this past year and cost money) on I-84 EB will be replaced with the new Exit 7 1-Mile sign showing the lane movements.  It seems to be a last minute change.  Did someone mess up?  Also, How come Exit 3 WB doesnt have the lane movement type of sign? Why weren't these changes with the current signing contract which isn't even done yet!?  :pan:


Speaking of overall, the I-84 Danbury and Milford Connector signing contracts were well designed and detailed.  Danbury has new signage for CT-25 @ Exit 11, Crossing Traffic and Exit 4 EB and the Connector has the new white vehicle restriction signs.  Well done. 

I hoped the DOT would've installed new BGS or BYS (Big yellow signs) warning motorists of the loop ramp from I-95 NB to CT-8-25 and the sharp curve of I-95 SB to CT-8-25 rather than the usual two pole warning signs . 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on January 08, 2013, 05:38:01 PM
New sign project for I-84, I-95 and CT-25:
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=27324

Note Exit 27 A-B-C for I-95 SB and "Attractions" service signs.
New pull through signs with arrows facing UP for I-84 EB Exit 7 in Danbury.
Although for the same exact exit for I-84 WB Exit 3 has NO signage like that.  It makes no sense, it's the same type of exit.

- Big fan of the new Exit 27 A-B-C scheme.  It's too bad it couldn't be replicated on the NB side, but logistically it wouldn't make sense.
- I noticed that Exit 43 is now "Campbell Avenue."  I'm sure that was a MUTCD influence.
- Why only Exits 8 and 9 on Route 25?  Why not go all the way down the 95 split?  The signage for Exits 6-7 is in bad shape (especially from 25N to the Merritt) and the 25/8 connector is still holding onto the gruesome reflective button copy.  The 25/8 split NB is guaranteed to get the new arrow-per-lane treatment down the line.
- I also noticed that they are finally replacing a wrecked sign from the prior Milford resigning contract at Exit 38.  The interim patch job for the sign was not pretty!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 11, 2013, 06:43:38 PM
However these non-reflective BGS signs on Warren St in Bridgeport will remain as I think they are forgotten.
I didn't see them on the plans.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Warren+St,+Bridgeport,+CT&hl=en&ll=41.170958,-73.191343&spn=0.000728,0.0012&sll=41.500765,-72.757507&sspn=1.474878,2.458191&oq=warren+st+brdige&t=h&hnear=Warren+St,+Bridgeport,+Connecticut+06604&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.170867,-73.191298&panoid=JNEKVIaVzKVaV55cRy39oQ&cbp=12,343.51,,0,0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 11, 2013, 10:01:07 PM
Couple of errors in there. One is the yellow "no commercial vehicles" on the new CT-15 exit guide signs. That should be a white background as it exists now. Didn't they just redo all the signs in Milford? I mean they're all right tabbed just with no border on the crowns so I'd guess they're from 2009-10. The other is the all caps NY CITY entrance sign in Stratford. The exit 27-B-C thing is kind of silly. First, the B-C only exists on the S/B side, so the fact that it doesn't exist in both directions makes it irregular. Second, businesses rely on the exact number/name of the exit to direct customers, so having to say exit 27 if you're coming north but exit 27B or C coming south is dumb. This is a case of over-engineering in my opinion.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 20, 2013, 02:44:20 PM
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/General-Assembly-to-mull-tolls-on-Conn-highways-4208622.php

Article about tolls, for some reason the media loves to hype the Stratford toll accident.  Also look at the old pics and the classic button copy signage.
I also hate the fact that other articles (not this one) usually blend the idea of toll BOOTHS into it.  When, with today's technology you wouldn't really have a toll booth.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 20, 2013, 07:20:51 PM
I'd be fine with it, as long as it were open road tolling. I'm near the center of Connecticut, but having the tolls at the state lines would seem to be the most likely choice. What the article didn't say if if these tolls would be limited to just the interstates. I know the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways, along with the Charter Oak Bridge (all parts of CT Route 15) had them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on January 20, 2013, 10:15:39 PM
maybe they should do a commercial vehicle only toll somewhere on 95 like they have on the NYS Thruway in Rockland County. I think tolling cars would be a bad idea for commuters
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 20, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
I've already figured out quick detour roads around every toll at the state borders except for I-84 at the MA Line.

I-84: US 6/202.  You can even access I-684 without returning to I-84.
I-91: US 5
I-95: US 1 (Greenwich); CT/RI 216, Wellstown Rd, RI 3 (North Stonington)
CT 695: US 6
I-395: CT/MA 193

Tolls at borders will just put more traffic onto local roads.  Probably have to put up truck bans like they did for the DE/MD go around on I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 20, 2013, 11:41:30 PM
Some of those detours depends on where exactly they place the tolls.  If it is right at the state lines, then US 6 would not bypass for CT-695, since they split on the CT side of the line. The lack of S-E ramps at the 395/6 interchange would also make that dificult for trucks.  Cars could use S. Frontage Rd to Ross Rd and rejoin 695 from there.   

I-84 at the Mass line would be a difficult one to bypass if they put tolls right at the line. There are some local roads that you could use for cars, but they are narrow and very windy so they would not work as a truck bypass.   If the tolls were a bit further into CT, like near the weigh stations, you have a great bypass via CT-171 and CT-190.

Still, most of these detours take much more time, either due to distance or number of stop lights/congestion. Assuming any new tolls are ORT, it's a matter of deciding if adding 15-20 minutes is worth saving whatever the toll is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on January 23, 2013, 03:17:48 PM
Not necessarily. For non-EZPass drivers shunpiking could be more time efficient than waiting in a long line to pay a toll (assuming there is no system such as toll by mail or online for cash traffic)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 24, 2013, 06:50:06 PM
New epoxy project for some interstates in CT.  Aren't they going over board with the lane "dots."  I like the lane "dots" if they're done right and properly show the main lane or where most traffic goes, but it seems kinda nuts here.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 07:25:28 PM
I'd be fine with it, as long as it were open road tolling. I'm near the center of Connecticut, but having the tolls at the state lines would seem to be the most likely choice. What the article didn't say if if these tolls would be limited to just the interstates. I know the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways, along with the Charter Oak Bridge (all parts of CT Route 15) had them.

In my opinion, just putting tolls at the  state border (I-95 Delaware Turnpike-style) should be forbidden by Congress as unreasonable discrimination against interstate commerce. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 07:37:07 PM
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/General-Assembly-to-mull-tolls-on-Conn-highways-4208622.php

Article about tolls, for some reason the media loves to hype the Stratford toll accident.  Also look at the old pics and the classic button copy signage.
I also hate the fact that other articles (not this one) usually blend the idea of toll BOOTHS into it.  When, with today's technology you wouldn't really have a toll booth.

In my opinion, there is no need for cash toll collection, given the presumably high rate of E-ZPass penetration in Connecticut already (since every state that borders it has E-ZPass toll roads or toll crossings or both).

But even if Connecticut wanted to erect cash toll booths, putting open road tolling down the middle of the plaza (as the New Jersey Turnpike Authority did some years ago at the south end of the Turnpike at Exit 1); the New York State Thruway has at the Woodbury plaza (Exit 16); and Delaware has done at its (infamous) I-95 plaza (and has long had at the two mainline plazas on the Delaware 1 (Relief Route) toll road), that would presumably prevent  the kind of epic backups for which the old Connecticut Turnpike mainline barriers were once known.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 24, 2013, 09:06:18 PM
given the presumably high rate of E-ZPass penetration in Connecticut already (since every state that borders it has E-ZPass toll roads or toll crossings or both).

Not so much as you might think. Most people I know who live in Connecticut do not have EZPass. Most people I know who live in Connecticut, because the state lacks tolls, rarely pass through one and do not consider it worth it to sign up. Especially since you need to pay a monthly fee to have a NY EZPass if you live out of state. My parents (who make a lot of car trips into New York and New Jersey) are the exception, not the rule.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on January 24, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
I don't have an EZPASS for instance. Also Duke-87 I assume you are from Stamford originally?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on January 25, 2013, 04:40:00 AM
I'm originally from Hartford, and most of my family and friends have EZ-Pass (either through Mass Pike, MTA or NJTA).  But, most of my family and friends have relatives outside of CT along the 95 corridor which therefore makes having EZ-Pass a whole lot more convenient.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on January 25, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
New epoxy project for some interstates in CT.  Aren't they going over board with the lane "dots."  I like the lane "dots" if they're done right and properly show the main lane or where most traffic goes, but it seems kinda nuts here.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf
Why on earth do these people not allow people to view the PDF without Adobe Reader?  Other readers are just as good and are in fact better; ironically, Adobe Reader is the worst PDF reader on the planet, and Adobe created PDF!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on January 25, 2013, 01:23:58 PM
AMEN
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on January 25, 2013, 05:10:46 PM
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf
Why on earth do these people not allow people to view the PDF without Adobe Reader?  Other readers are just as good and are in fact better; ironically, Adobe Reader is the worst PDF reader on the planet, and Adobe created PDF!
Works for me in Foxit, actually. But it's still annoying.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on January 25, 2013, 05:18:55 PM
Foxit is pretty good, and, IIRC, they have a .NET Framework.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 25, 2013, 11:45:55 PM
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf
Why on earth do these people not allow people to view the PDF without Adobe Reader?  Other readers are just as good and are in fact better; ironically, Adobe Reader is the worst PDF reader on the planet, and Adobe created PDF!
Works for me in Foxit, actually. But it's still annoying.

Really?!  4 new posts (now 5 including mine) and it's about a PDF reader!?!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 01:14:39 PM
given the presumably high rate of E-ZPass penetration in Connecticut already (since every state that borders it has E-ZPass toll roads or toll crossings or both).

Not so much as you might think. Most people I know who live in Connecticut do not have EZPass. Most people I know who live in Connecticut, because the state lacks tolls, rarely pass through one and do not consider it worth it to sign up. Especially since you need to pay a monthly fee to have a NY EZPass if you live out of state. My parents (who make a lot of car trips into New York and New Jersey) are the exception, not the rule.

You obviously have better local knowledge than I, and I defer to it.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 01:16:35 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Bill in Connecticut House to toll state's highways (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6377)

Quote
A sweeping bill to put tolls on Connecticut highways has been filed in the Connecticut state house. HB5125 is elegant in its simplicity. Titled "An Act Establishing Tolls on Connecticut Highways" it provides "That the general statutes be amended to establish tolls on Connecticut's highways."

Quote
Its Statement of Purpose: "To raise revenue through tolls." The bill is sponsored by Representative Patricia Dillion (Dem, New Haven) who says a new source of revenue for roads and transit is urgently needed and that states all around Connecticut use tolls for financing roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 29, 2013, 02:36:48 PM
States all around Connecticut...despite Rhode Island only having one toll bridge. Hmmmmm! :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 29, 2013, 04:23:02 PM
States all around Connecticut...despite Rhode Island only having one toll bridge. Hmmmmm! :)
LOL, Don't let the facts get in the way, Rep. Dillion.

Love this little excerpt:

Present federal restrictions would force the toll money from interstates  to be spent on improvements in the corridors in which the revenues were raised, CS points out. But such restrictions can be removed if Connecticut's US delegation chooses to work for that in the US Congress and with the Obama administration.

I guess she didn't read the memo regarding what happened to one key provision in PA's Act 44 3 times within the last 8 years.  Tolls on I-80 for transit systems elsewhere in the state = Robbing Peter To Pay Paul = Feds shooting it down every time.

If memory serves, tolls were still being collected along the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) when the Mianus River Bridge (now called the Michael L. Morano Bridge) collapsed on June 28, 1983.  As a matter of fact, until the I-35W bridge collapse in MN a few years back; most of the non-earthquake-related road/bridge/tunnel collapses all occurred on toll facilities.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 PM
States all around Connecticut...despite Rhode Island only having one toll bridge. Hmmmmm! :)
LOL, Don't let the facts get in the way, Rep. Dillion.

Love this little excerpt:

Present federal restrictions would force the toll money from interstates  to be spent on improvements in the corridors in which the revenues were raised, CS points out. But such restrictions can be removed if Connecticut's US delegation chooses to work for that in the US Congress and with the Obama administration.

Why not just use the dollars that are collected to benefit the drivers paying those tolls?  What a concept!

I guess she didn't read the memo regarding what happened to one key provision in PA's Act 44 3 times within the last 8 years.  Tolls on I-80 for transit systems elsewhere in the state = Robbing Peter To Pay Paul = Feds shooting it down every time.

Because the wording in the federal law that allowed states to apply for "slots" in the tolling program was very clear that Pennsylvania could not collect tolls on I-80 and then ship the dollars to the pay packages of transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which was apparently the intent of then-Pennsylvania State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the architect of Act 44 (now serving time in federal prison on a corruption conviction).

But what has always escaped me regarding Act 44 is this - even if the federal government was not going to allow the use of I-80 to subsidize PennDOT projects and transit systems having nothing to do with I-80, they (PennDOT and PTC) should have taken the deal anyway, under which the PTC would have maintained and operated I-80, freeing up the dollars that PennDOT had been spending (and still spends) on I-80 for other things even if the flow of money might not have been as large as Fumo and the transit unions had anticipated.

If memory serves, tolls were still being collected along the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) when the Mianus River Bridge (now called the Michael L. Morano Bridge) collapsed on June 28, 1983.  As a matter of fact, until the I-35W bridge collapse in MN a few years back; most of the non-earthquake-related road/bridge/tunnel collapses all occurred on toll facilities.

The tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were indeed being collected when the Mianus River Bridge failed. 

Every few miles, you had to stop and pay (if memory serves me correctly) either 25¢ or 50¢.  And it sucked.  Rather like the days of the Garden State Parkway before E-ZPass and the conversion to (mostly) one-way tolling was made.

I also got the distinct impression that the barrier tolls  on the  Connecticut Turnpike were located so that short intrastate trips went untolled (I don't recall there being any ramp tolls, but I may be wrong about that).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 29, 2013, 09:13:32 PM
I also got the distinct impression that the barrier tolls  on the  Connecticut Turnpike were located so that short intrastate trips went untolled (I don't recall there being any ramp tolls, but I may be wrong about that).

There were never any ramp tolls. Just 8 barrier tolls:
- between exits 2 and 3 (Greenwich, where the weigh station now is)
- between exits 16 and 17 (Westport)
- between exits 32 and 33 (Stratford)
- between exits 43 and 44 (West Haven)
- between exits 52 and 53 (East haven)
- between exits 59 and 60 (Madison)
- between exits 69 and 70 (Old Saybrook)
- between exits 79 and 79A (Montville, on what's now I-395)

So yes, most short trips were not tolled.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on January 29, 2013, 11:49:44 PM
I also got the distinct impression that the barrier tolls  on the  Connecticut Turnpike were located so that short intrastate trips went untolled (I don't recall there being any ramp tolls, but I may be wrong about that).

 

There were never any ramp tolls. Just 8 barrier tolls:
- between exits 2 and 3 (Greenwich, where the weigh station now is)
- between exits 16 and 17 (Westport)
- between exits 32 and 33 (Stratford)
- between exits 43 and 44 (West Haven)
- between exits 52 and 53 (East haven)
- between exits 59 and 60 (Madison)
- between exits 69 and 70 (Old Saybrook)
- between exits 79 and 79A (Montville, on what's now I-395)

So yes, most short trips were not tolled.

There was another toll between exits 89 and 90 in Plainfield on the I-395 section.

Also, I think the tolls at Old Saybrook (on the Baldwin Br over the Conn River) were actually removed in the late 60s, long before the rest of the turnpike tolls were.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 30, 2013, 07:40:08 AM
The Baldwin Bridge tolls had to be long gone before my time because I can remember going to Misquamicut as a kid and I don't remember ever having to stop at a toll plaza on the stretch of I-95 between CT 9 and I-395 (then CT 52).  I do remember the I-95 tolls west of New Haven, the ones on CT 15 (between exit 27 + 28, at the Sikorsky Bridge, and at exit 65 in Wallingford), as well as the Putnam, Charter Oak, and Bissell Bridges.  Never had a reason to cross the Mohegan-Pequot Bridge (also a former toll bridge) until the casinos were built.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 30, 2013, 11:51:42 AM
The Baldwin Bridge tolls were removed in 1968 ("Toll Revenue Jumps 46.5% in 10 Years", Hartford Courant, Sept. 13, 1973)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Because the wording in the federal law that allowed states to apply for "slots" in the tolling program was very clear that Pennsylvania could not collect tolls on I-80 and then ship the dollars to the pay packages of transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which was apparently the intent of then-Pennsylvania State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the architect of Act 44 (now serving time in federal prison on a corruption conviction).

But what has always escaped me regarding Act 44 is this - even if the federal government was not going to allow the use of I-80 to subsidize PennDOT projects and transit systems having nothing to do with I-80, they (PennDOT and PTC) should have taken the deal anyway, under which the PTC would have maintained and operated I-80, freeing up the dollars that PennDOT had been spending (and still spends) on I-80 for other things even if the flow of money might not have been as large as Fumo and the transit unions had anticipated.
If memory serves, responsibility of an existing free interstate maintained by the state's DOT can't be transferred over to a toll authority unless there's a major improvement project for said-interstate taking place and the feds approve of such measure.

Example: Boston's old Central Artery was maintained by MassDPW/MassHighway but its O'Neill Tunnel successor is the responsibility of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

Those along the I-80 corridor knew a PONSI scheme when they saw it w/Act 44.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mr_Northside on January 30, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

I think the PTC claimed they would improve the highway the long term, including some widenings - possibly straight up 6 lanes in spots, and truck climbing lanes in others, along with other from-the-ground-up rebuildings.  I'm also pretty sure I read they would have completed the two freeway-freeway I-99 interchanges, and the short section north from I-80 to the (current) US-220 freeway section (possibly worded as extended "ramps" or an "I-80 connector").

I also agree that PA should have wised up and just limited the scope of I-80 tolling to I-80 expenses.  It should have been obvious to those who voted for Act 44 that it wasn't going to work out like they planned.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PM
Because the wording in the federal law that allowed states to apply for "slots" in the tolling program was very clear that Pennsylvania could not collect tolls on I-80 and then ship the dollars to the pay packages of transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which was apparently the intent of then-Pennsylvania State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the architect of Act 44 (now serving time in federal prison on a corruption conviction).

But what has always escaped me regarding Act 44 is this - even if the federal government was not going to allow the use of I-80 to subsidize PennDOT projects and transit systems having nothing to do with I-80, they (PennDOT and PTC) should have taken the deal anyway, under which the PTC would have maintained and operated I-80, freeing up the dollars that PennDOT had been spending (and still spends) on I-80 for other things even if the flow of money might not have been as large as Fumo and the transit unions had anticipated.

If memory serves, responsibility of an existing free interstate maintained by the state's DOT can't be transferred over to a toll authority unless there's a major improvement project for said-interstate taking place and the feds approve of such measure.

Example: Boston's old Central Artery was maintained by MassDPW/MassHighway but its O'Neill Tunnel successor is the responsibility of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

The "free" sections of I-95 in Baltimore City were transferred from city maintenance to MdTA maintenance.

The "free" section of I-95 between I-895 and Md. 43 was transferred from SHA maintenance to MdTA maintenance.

In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

As I understand it, there are sections of I-80 (especially the eastern parts) that badly need to be  widened to 6 lanes, though that was not part of the Act 44 plan to transfer it to PTC maintenance (though it should have been). And there are numerous bridges that need replacement or re-decking. There is also a need for new and extended climbing lanes at various places (note that this is secondhand - I have not driven most of I-80 in Pennsylvania).

Those along the I-80 corridor knew a PONSI scheme when they saw it w/Act 44.

I agree that it was a scam to extract money from drivers (and especially from commercial vehicle traffic) and transfer it to transit subsidies and projects on "free" PennDOT roads having nothing to do with I-80. 

At least in part, Act 44 was intended to be a replacement for something that many Pennsylvania legislators are terrified of - a motor fuel tax increase.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:30:36 PM
In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

I think the PTC claimed they would improve the highway the long term, including some widenings - possibly straight up 6 lanes in spots, and truck climbing lanes in others, along with other from-the-ground-up rebuildings.

But did the PTC actually promise to do any of the above as part of the  Act 44 proposal - or were those just things that the PTC would "think about for later?" 

I'm also pretty sure I read they would have completed the two freeway-freeway I-99 interchanges, and the short section north from I-80 to the (current) US-220 freeway section (possibly worded as extended "ramps" or an "I-80 connector").

Those are actually related to I-80.  What a concept!

I also agree that PA should have wised up and just limited the scope of I-80 tolling to I-80 expenses.  It should have been obvious to those who voted for Act 44 that it wasn't going to work out like they planned.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 31, 2013, 04:05:09 PM
The "free" sections of I-95 in Baltimore City were transferred from city maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
I'm assuming that's the stretch of I-95 south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel to the city border.  Why would the city maintenance be involved with it in the first place?  IMHO, that should've been run by SHA or MdTA from the get-go.  Is there an improvement project taking place that particular stretch?  If so, toll revenue from Fort Mchenry Tunnel might be helping to subsidizing such. 

The "free" section of I-95 between I-895 and Md. 43 was transferred from SHA maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
Actually, that stretch of I-95 is still considered part of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway; which is considered to be in MdTA's road jurisdiction.  I wonder if that transfer was due to or the result of the I-95 Express Toll Lane Project; it certainly would make sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2013, 04:32:06 PM
The "free" sections of I-95 in Baltimore City were transferred from city maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
I'm assuming that's the stretch of I-95 south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel to the city border.  Why would the city maintenance be involved with it in the first place?  IMHO, that should've been run by SHA or MdTA from the get-go.  Is there an improvement project taking place that particular stretch?  If so, toll revenue from Fort Mchenry Tunnel might be helping to subsidizing such.

It was all of I-95 in Baltimore City that was not in the  Fort McHenry Tunnel or close to the toll plaza or the south portals (I don't recall exactly where the hand-off between MdTA maintenance and Baltimore City maintenance happened).

By long-standing agreement/tradition, the State Highway Administration maintains nothing within the corporate limits of Baltimore.  Even now, the city maintains I-83 within its corporate limits.

For reasons not entirely clear to me, Baltimore decided to turn-over maintenance of all of I-95 and I-395 to MdTA, and the city makes an annual payment to MdTA in exchange for MdTA having maintenance and law enforcement jurisdiction over those sections of freeway. 

The "free" section of I-95 between I-895 and Md. 43 was transferred from SHA maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
Actually, that stretch of I-95 is still considered part of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway; which is considered to be in MdTA's road jurisdiction.  I wonder if that transfer was due to or the result of the I-95 Express Toll Lane Project; it certainly would make sense.

It has indeed been the JFK Highway (and before that, the Northeast Expressway) dating back to 1963.

However, from 1963 up to the early 1980's,  the segment between  I-895 (the northern corporate limits of Baltimore) and Md. 43 (White Marsh) was maintained by the State Highway Administration as a "free" road.  From Md. 43 to the Delaware border, I-95 was a real toll road (complete with its own unique set of exit numbers) - if you did not pass through the main barrier at Perryville, you had to pay at a coin-drop (never-staffed) toll barrier on the ramps.

[Since this has little to do with the topic at hand here, we should probably move the discussion to the Mid-Atlantic forum if you want to continue to discuss this (which I am happy to do).]
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 31, 2013, 04:57:09 PM
Since this has little to do with the topic at hand here, we should probably move the discussion to the Mid-Atlantic forum if you want to continue to discuss this (which I am happy to do).
No worries, I was just asking a couple questions and you answered them.

As far as reeling this thread back on topic is concerned; hopefully, these CT toll proposals will go nowhere.  If memory serves, not all the tax revenues collected from the gas tax goes to transportation-related projects (at least it didn't circa 1990) but goes to a general fund instead; maybe it's time to firm that up first (gas tax for transportation projects only) and see what happens.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 10:16:02 AM
As far as reeling this thread back on topic is concerned; hopefully, these CT toll proposals will go nowhere.  If memory serves, not all the tax revenues collected from the gas tax goes to transportation-related projects (at least it didn't circa 1990) but goes to a general fund instead; maybe it's time to firm that up first (gas tax for transportation projects only) and see what happens.

If the tolls are used to fund Connecticut's highways (including expansion where appropriate) and maintenance, then what's not to like?

Does the Connecticut legislature or its staff keep track of (and report on) transportation tax dollars that are consumed by non-transportation uses?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 01, 2013, 10:35:28 AM
If the tolls are used to fund Connecticut's highways (including expansion where appropriate) and maintenance, then what's not to like?
In principle, I agree with you.  However, when I went for a job interview at ConnDOT circa early 1990; it was briefly mentioned to me (in a roundabout manner) that not all gas tax revenue indeed goes towards transportation projects.  Due to a hiring freeze that took place back then; I wasn't hired for the job.

Does the Connecticut legislature or its staff keep track of (and report on) transportation tax dollars that are consumed by non-transportation uses?
That, I do not know.  I do know that neighboring Rhode Island's State Gas Tax goes to a General Fund (as opposed to a transporation fund); at least it did during the mid-1980s (when I was attending college there).  Not sure if that's still true today.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 12:41:43 PM
If the tolls are used to fund Connecticut's highways (including expansion where appropriate) and maintenance, then what's not to like?
In principle, I agree with you.  However, when I went for a job interview at ConnDOT circa early 1990; it was briefly mentioned to me (in a roundabout manner) that not all gas tax revenue indeed goes towards transportation projects.  Due to a hiring freeze that took place back then; I wasn't hired for the job.

And then the other elephant in  the room is transit  funding.  How much of Connecticut's motor fuel tax revenue gets diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?

Does the Connecticut legislature or its staff keep track of (and report on) transportation tax dollars that are consumed by non-transportation uses?
That, I do not know.  I do know that neighboring Rhode Island's State Gas Tax goes to a General Fund (as opposed to a transporation fund); at least it did during the mid-1980s (when I was attending college there).  Not sure if that's still true today.

Most of the fuel tax money in my part of the world gets deposited into a transportation trust fund, though transit consumes a huge share of those dollars (way out of proportion to the number of trips taken on transit).

In  bad budget years, there has been  "borrowing" from the transportation trust fund to prop up the general fund, but in some cases, that money does get refunded when the budgets improve.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 01, 2013, 04:31:53 PM
And then the other elephant in  the room is transit  funding.  How much of Connecticut's motor fuel tax revenue gets diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?
There was a reason why I mentioned in my previous post transportation funding as opposed to just highway funding.  It was intended to be a catch-all, if you would.  Outside of busses & Amtrak, what other forms of mass transit exist in CT?  Hartford, certainly doesn't have the same transit infrastructure as Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, etc.

That said, any state that has large transit infrastructure in key counties could allow said-counties to charge a slightly higher gas tax for transit-related projects.  That way a rural county isn't subsidizing a transit system that doesn't serve them and they're never going to use.
 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 01, 2013, 05:09:43 PM
And then the other elephant in  the room is transit  funding.  How much of Connecticut's motor fuel tax revenue gets diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?
There was a reason why I mentioned in my previous post transportation funding as opposed to just highway funding.  It was intended to be a catch-all, if you would.  Outside of busses & Amtrak, what other forms of mass transit exist in CT?  Hartford, certainly doesn't have the same transit infrastructure as Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, etc.

Connecticut pays the MTA a lot of money to operate Metro-North within the state, and ConnDOT also operates Shore Line East rail.

ConnDOT is generally in some way responsible for all modes of transportation in the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2013, 06:09:40 PM
That said, any state that has large transit infrastructure in key counties could allow said-counties to charge a slightly higher gas tax for transit-related projects.  That way a rural county isn't subsidizing a transit system that doesn't serve them and they're never going to use.

Virginia allows its local governments to set-up transportation districts, which are effectively about bus and sometimes rail transit (and sometimes both).

The Northern Virginia counties and cities that belong to the WMATA (Metro) interstate compact are allowed to collect a 2% tax on motor fuel sold within the district.  All of that revenue helps to defray some of the operating subsidies that would otherwise come from the general funds of those jurisdictions.  Further south and west along the I-95 and I-66 corridors, a different agency provides express bus service to D.C., and partners with the Northern Virginia WMATA compact members to fund and oversee the Virginia Railway Express commuter rail lines.

Maryland does not generally do special districts for the money collected for transit subsidies.  The money is collected from statewide motorists, and a large percentage of it goes to transit, with no regard for where the dollars originated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 02, 2013, 12:34:59 PM
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27617/170-3065_Portfolio_Plans.pdf

More waste of CT DOT dollars.  They plan to modify the 3-lane pull through BGS on I-84 EB in Waterbury:

    84    East
\/       \/        \/

They plan to cover up the right arrow with a "this lane ends 1/2mile ahead" over it.
However the third lane does drop about a half mile ahead, but it's not signed until 1500 feet ahead.
My question is, this sign has been here for years and NOW they change it!?!?  The widening project that will eliminate this lane drop will start next year.  Why change it now!?!?!  It seems to be a waste. 

Meanwhile on I-84 WB, the Route 8 SB left exit isn't properly signed.  You don't really know it until about a 1/2 mile before it.  I just don't get their reasoning.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on February 03, 2013, 09:12:43 AM
Hopefully they don't follow those plans TOO closely, as the one for the replacement of the assembly on CT 72 EB in Plainville has NEW BRITAIN as a control city for both CT 72/I-84 East and for Exit 4/I-84 West.  Obviously, the I-84 West one should be Waterbury. 

What confuses me is why some locations get a "lattice-style" old school gantry, while others get a pipe gantry.  And also strange to see the move from bridge-mounted to ground-mounted signs. 



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on February 03, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
And also strange to see the move from bridge-mounted to ground-mounted signs.
For some unknown reason, several states (MA & PA come to mind) have been shying away from bridge/overpass mounted BGS' in favor of either ground-mounts or a separate gantry for about a decade.  I checked the latest MUTCD, and there's no mention of bridge/overpass mounted signs being discouraged or not allowed.  It sounds like CT is doing similar.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 04, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
Just found this in this morning's Courant.  The legislature might consider raising the speed limit in CT to 75.

http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-transportation-speeding-texting-20130204,0,6159327.story (http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-transportation-speeding-texting-20130204,0,6159327.story)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 04, 2013, 11:15:04 AM
Just found this in this morning's Courant.  The legislature might consider raising the speed limit in CT to 75.

http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-transportation-speeding-texting-20130204,0,6159327.story (http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-transportation-speeding-texting-20130204,0,6159327.story)

that would be nice.  though I am leery of a reckless driving threshold only 15 above the limit. 

reckless driving should always be cited at an officer's discretion - I can think of a thousand ways to drive recklessly at 74mph in a posted 75, even in good weather and low traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on February 04, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
75 mph would especially be helpful in the Guilford-Old Saybrook stretch of I-95, which is NOTORIOUSLY policed.  I'm always checking my speedometer in this stretch, and I have the previous speeding ticket to prove that!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: BamaZeus on February 04, 2013, 12:04:46 PM
I can see 75 in certain areas, like on 91 and on 95 east of New Haven.  But, I could never see it on a road like the Merritt Parkway. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 04, 2013, 12:18:53 PM
I can see 75 in certain areas, like on 91 and on 95 east of New Haven.  But, I could never see it on a road like the Merritt Parkway.

the better parts of 84 as well.  from east (north) of Hartford to the MA state line.  I believe some parts in the west of the state are comparable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on February 04, 2013, 12:33:24 PM
75mph would also be great on the entirety of I-395...another heavily policed route.  It also does not have a lot of bends and curves, which would make it a great candidate!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 04, 2013, 12:38:37 PM
Stretches I could see should have at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction) unless it's really desolate.  Where I could see it: 

I-84 from east of Exit 64-65 to the MA line (too much traffic through E. Hartford and Manchester, where it will stay 65).  Western zone of 65 MPH (exit 8-17) is mostly 4 lanes, so keep it 65 there, but add exits 25A-33 as 65 MPH.
I-91 from Exit 8-16, and north of 35.  Keep exit 19-25 as 65.
I-95 from Exit 87 to the RI line.  Once 95 is widened from East Haven to East Lyme, then up it to 75.
I-395 north of CT 2 to the MA line.  Keep as 65 from I-95 to CT 2.
CT 2 from Exit 10-Route 32
US 6 Willimantic Bypass
US 7 from Federal Rd. to end of expressway
CT 8 north of Exit 36. 
CT 9 From Exit 2-10.  Keep as 65 north of Middletown.
All of CT 11
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on February 04, 2013, 01:18:49 PM
And also strange to see the move from bridge-mounted to ground-mounted signs.
For some unknown reason, several states (MA & PA come to mind) have been shying away from bridge/overpass mounted BGS' in favor of either ground-mounts or a separate gantry for about a decade.  I checked the latest MUTCD, and there's no mention of bridge/overpass mounted signs being discouraged or not allowed.  It sounds like CT is doing similar.

I've been told by reliable sources that MassDOT has been moving away from bridge-mounted signs because a series of recent bridge inspections (done after the 2007 I-35W collapse in Minneapolis) revealed that BGS installations on bridges were causing damage to the bridge parapets and, in some cases, the outside bridge beams themselves.  This damage is apparently due to the torsinal effects from having wind gusts striking the exposed sign panel, which normally protudes much higher than the bridge structure itself.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 04, 2013, 09:58:21 PM
Before we worry about raising the speed limit on CT freeways which, honestly, are rarely rural and open enough that a speed limit higher than 65 is fathomable, how about we raise the limit on all the state highways posted at 35 and 40 which could easily be 45 and 50? (and the state highways posted at 45 and 50 which could be 55...)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 06, 2013, 05:45:16 PM
CT was the LAST state to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 in 1998.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits is always last to change especially with road design.  Think of how many outdated techniques we still use here or how many new designs or ways of doing things that are not done here but are done in nearly every other state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 06, 2013, 06:04:00 PM
CT was the LAST state to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 in 1998.

Actually Hawaii holds that distinction, having only raised the speed limits on H-1 and H-3 from 55 to 60 in 2002.
Source: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/04/18/news/story5.html
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on February 06, 2013, 09:07:38 PM
Am I the only person who is curious why the increase to 75 from 65? why not stop at 70?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on February 07, 2013, 01:16:58 AM
Am I the only person who is curious why the increase to 75 from 65? why not stop at 70?

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States), only one other state east of the Mississippi* goes up to 75: Maine. Connecticut would stand out on the high end.

* Louisiana is also 75, but lies mostly west of the river
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Ian on February 07, 2013, 07:03:26 PM
Am I the only person who is curious why the increase to 75 from 65? why not stop at 70?

While I am not complaining, I am wondering the same thing. Connecticut is the last state in the Northeast that I would've expected to get a 75 speed limit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 10, 2013, 09:57:23 PM
Just saw this before snowmageddon hit:  The Exit 30 LGS on CT 9 1/2 mi. before the CT 71 exit has been replaced with a side mounted BGS.  The BGS (side mounted) at the exit is now in Clearview. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 10, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
Don't ya mean Nemo or Charlotte? Yeah, right! ;)

Actually, I think that sign has been there for quite some time now. You're right about Clearview, though. There's not a whole lot of it here in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on February 13, 2013, 08:18:37 PM
I notice more on roads in Downtown Stamford like Washington Blvd. (CT-137) but I rarely see it elsewhere
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2013, 09:27:52 PM
I see quite a bit of Clearview for the street name signs around Buckland Hills Mall in Manchester.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on February 21, 2013, 11:36:09 PM
Read an article in the Stamford Advocate that said that Express-lane tolling was considered for I-95 in Southwestern CT. Here is the link mailto:http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Consultant-to-get-toll-debate-rolling-again-4291664.php (http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Consultant-to-get-toll-debate-rolling-again-4291664.php)


What are everyone's thoughts
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 22, 2013, 12:13:03 AM
I think your link may be incorrect
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 22, 2013, 12:41:19 AM
This link will work:

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Consultant-to-get-toll-debate-rolling-again-4291664.php

Both this article and Beau Berman from WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford claim that Connecticut's last toll was in 1987. I'm almost 100% certain that the last toll on a Connecticut road or bridge was when the toll was removed on the Charter Oak Bridge (US 5/CT 15) in the spring of 1989.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Perfxion on February 22, 2013, 07:04:30 AM
Billion dollar question is what room? They can't really expand 95 long enough in Fairfield county to warrant any of this. It would be 2 lanes of normal traffic and a toll lane? Good luck with that traffic problem. Its bad enough driving on it at 7:00pm on any given night. Lets make a rush hour feel at 11:00pm too! Glad I moved to Texas, we got the land to expand.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 22, 2013, 05:09:55 PM
Billion dollar question is what room? They can't really expand 95 long enough in Fairfield county to warrant any of this. It would be 2 lanes of normal traffic and a toll lane? Good luck with that traffic problem. Its bad enough driving on it at 7:00pm on any given night. Lets make a rush hour feel at 11:00pm too! Glad I moved to Texas, we got the land to expand.
Elevated toll lanes, two each way, $0.50 per mile. CT residents can afford it!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2013, 05:19:33 PM
Billion dollar question is what room? They can't really expand 95 long enough in Fairfield county to warrant any of this. It would be 2 lanes of normal traffic and a toll lane? Good luck with that traffic problem. Its bad enough driving on it at 7:00pm on any given night. Lets make a rush hour feel at 11:00pm too! Glad I moved to Texas, we got the land to expand.
Elevated toll lanes, two each way, $0.50 per mile. CT residents can afford it!

Though consider that even though they might be able to afford it, that does not mean that they are willing to pay.

And what happens when those elevated toll lanes get to the New England Thruway at the New York state line?

Fixed quoting
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on February 22, 2013, 06:56:19 PM
Billion dollar question is what room? They can't really expand 95 long enough in Fairfield county to warrant any of this. It would be 2 lanes of normal traffic and a toll lane? Good luck with that traffic problem. Its bad enough driving on it at 7:00pm on any given night. Lets make a rush hour feel at 11:00pm too! Glad I moved to Texas, we got the land to expand.
Elevated toll lanes, two each way, $0.50 per mile. CT residents can afford it!

Though consider that even though they might be able to afford it, that does not mean that they are willing to pay.

And what happens when those elevated toll lanes get to the New England Thruway at the New York state line?


a) :P
b) I-287
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 23, 2013, 09:15:10 AM
Quite honestly, if you expanded from 287 north and left it only six lanes south of there, you'd probably be fine. The problem I-95 in Fairfield County has is that there are a lot of interchanges and as such it picks up a lot of local traffic hopping on and then quickly back off. I-95 in Westchester County has relatively fewer interchanges and a couple of them don't lead anywhere too convenient for a lot of people... and shockingly, you rarely hit traffic there!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on February 23, 2013, 10:24:15 AM
The toll in New Rochelle also pushes a lot of traffic away from the road on to the Hutch and local roads. In my experience, The Hutch gets worse traffic than the Merritt (aside from Fridays afternoons). Also more people live on 95 in Fairfield County than in Westchester. New Rochelle is the largest city on the route, but there are 2 cities larger than New Rochelle (Stamford and Bridgeport) and Norwalk is comparable in size.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 23, 2013, 01:33:40 PM
Billion dollar question is what room? They can't really expand 95 long enough in Fairfield county to warrant any of this. It would be 2 lanes of normal traffic and a toll lane? Good luck with that traffic problem. Its bad enough driving on it at 7:00pm on any given night. Lets make a rush hour feel at 11:00pm too! Glad I moved to Texas, we got the land to expand.

They can widen it if they really wanted to.  If they can double the size on I-95 in East Haven, look at how narrow that land was, they can do it anywhere.  Plus they added in extra lanes in between some exits (15-14, 10-8 etc) and there's still room left over.  So, they could if they reeeeallly wanted to, but it's politically unpopular. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on February 23, 2013, 02:19:10 PM
I think enough people would want it, but the state has no money to do it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mc78andrew on February 23, 2013, 06:41:16 PM
My personal view is that such a project would work.  Elevated toll lanes with only one exit per town between 287 and Bridgeport (or at least Norwalk).

It really is all the interchanges in fairfield county that cause a majority of the issues.  They are all over the place.  Many lead right into residential neighborhoods. Most do not follow the typical pattern either (aka no ez on/off). It's a mess and those bridges overhead are starting to look very tired. 

Maybe CT can convince a private firm to rebuild the whole stretch with elevated toll lanes and reduced interchanges on the free lanes similar to the HOT lane project in northern VA? 

South of 287 in NY state there really isn't much of an issue as Steve said until you get to co-op city where the interchanges are tight and traffic volumes are high. Then comes the cross Bronx which is truely unfixable. I think terminating any new toll lanes at 287 is doable without too much headache.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on February 23, 2013, 09:09:58 PM
It makes you think, "Will there ever be a time in our existences when I-95 in CT is NOT under construction?"  I'm wary to see an elevated toll lane project go up considering how long it took to finish the Bridgeport renovation and the ongoing time drain involved in the New Haven renovation.  By the time they finish it, would it even be worth it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 24, 2013, 06:39:44 PM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Hearing--Set-for-Monday-to-Discuss-Establishing-Toll-Booths-192857931.html

A news item from WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain, using a stock photo from the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I hate how they assume the end of the toll booths was simply because of the Stratford toll plaza disaster in 1983. Nice reporting bozos! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 24, 2013, 10:17:54 PM
A toll booth on route 11? Nice way to make the already low traffic counts drop to zero. CT 85 will absorb the traffic just fine...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 25, 2013, 06:46:10 PM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Hearing--Set-for-Monday-to-Discuss-Establishing-Toll-Booths-192857931.html

A news item from WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain, using a stock photo from the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I hate how they assume the end of the toll booths was simply because of the Stratford toll plaza disaster in 1983. Nice reporting bozos! :(

and what gets me is these news reports always say toll BOOTHS, and use the same old guy saying he hates toll BOOTHS.  When we all know and it's been made perfectly clear that the new type of tolls will be electronic. 

PS, Route 11 would get tolls if the highway is completed to I-95 as a way to pay for the project. 

But the real issue is politicians keep raiding the transportation fund for non transportation purposes.  Just think of how much more money CT would have and how many other peojects would be completed if that did not happen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on February 25, 2013, 09:53:19 PM
Route 11 would get tolls if the highway is completed to I-95 as a way to pay for the project. 

OK, I can understand that, but my point still stands: it'd be quite easy to shunpike, even if you put a toll point after each interchange a la ICC.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on February 26, 2013, 03:23:12 PM
But the real issue is politicians keep raiding the transportation fund for non transportation purposes.  Just think of how much more money CT would have and how many other peojects would be completed if that did not happen.

I completely agree!  I don't mind paying a toll knowing it's going to fund the project as opposed to paying a toll to fund some pork-barrel project.  In my opinion, whatever it takes to get Route 11 finished is fine by me!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: olemissfan on March 03, 2013, 12:17:06 PM
But the real issue is politicians keep raiding the transportation fund for non transportation purposes.  Just think of how much more money CT would have and how many other peojects would be completed if that did not happen.

I completely agree!  I don't mind paying a toll knowing it's going to fund the project as opposed to paying a toll to fund some pork-barrel project.  In my opinion, whatever it takes to get Route 11 finished is fine by me!

i could not agree more. conndot consisently gets raided when the traffic bottlenecks are among the worst in america. and also, the 2nd deck on 95 with the toll lanes should seriously be considered
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 03:19:40 PM
i could not agree more. conndot consisently gets raided when the traffic bottlenecks are among the worst in america. and also, the 2nd deck on 95 with the toll lanes should seriously be considered

My impression is that most raids on state transportation trust funds are to fund ongoing state government operations, not capital projects.  Though some states do consider that the transportation trust fund is an appropriate place from which  to fund all sorts of passenger rail projects.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 03, 2013, 05:49:36 PM
Maybe its time to form the Connecticut Turnpike Authority and have them operate the turnpike (I-95/I-395) and use the funds from tolls directly towards maintenance and improvement projects on CTA-operated properties.  Slap up signs that say "YOUR TOLL DOLLARS AT WORK" and widen from Branford to East Lyme and improvements west of New Haven as well, all financed through the tolls.  That way there would be no worries of toll money going into the general fund.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 08:06:04 PM
Maybe its time to form the Connecticut Turnpike Authority and have them operate the turnpike (I-95/I-395) and use the funds from tolls directly towards maintenance and improvement projects on CTA-operated properties.  Slap up signs that say "YOUR TOLL DOLLARS AT WORK" and widen from Branford to East Lyme and improvements west of New Haven as well, all financed through the tolls.  That way there would be no worries of toll money going into the general fund.

Just because a highway is toll road and owned by an independent toll road authority does not prevent diversion to non-highway uses (often transit).  It may be a little more difficult, but it does not prevent it.  MdTA provided millions of dollars annually to the Maryland Department of Transportation for transit operating subsidies, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has had to impose huge toll increases in large part so that it can provide cash to PennDOT to spend on projects and subsidize service having nothing to do with the Turnpike.

I do like the YOUR TOLL DOLLARS AT WORK signs (I think the old New Jersey Highway Authority used them on the Garden State Parkway before the NJHA was abolished and the Parkway taken-over by the Turnpike Authority).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 05, 2013, 12:56:47 PM
Just because a highway is toll road and owned by an independent toll road authority does not prevent diversion to non-highway uses (often transit).  It may be a little more difficult, but it does not prevent it.
To add; as seen in other parts of the northeast, creating an independent agency (even without the need for human toll collectors) can be interpreted as or equated with creating another bureaucracy (aka a haven for political hacks) that has the potential for waste, squandering of funds and/or fraud.  While such may not happen right away; it could happen 10 to 20 years down the road (no pun intended).  Let's not forget that tolls were still being collected on the Connecticut Turnpike when the Mainus River Bridge collapsed in 1983; so the notion of tolled roads being in better condition is not always true.

the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has had to impose huge toll increases in large part so that it can provide cash to PennDOT to spend on projects and subsidize service having nothing to do with the Turnpike.
Monies from those Act 44-initiated tolls & increases are also being diverted to transit projects throughout the state.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 15, 2013, 03:18:09 PM
Looks like a re-signing project on I-84 between I-691 and Hartford could be underway.  CONNDot was putting up a new 1 mi. sign for CT 72 West on I 84 East this morning. It was on a single old-school (non-pipe) gantry with directional tab and a big "LEFT" in yellow above the word  "Exit".  I'll have to see if they turned it into a full gantry when I go through there next.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on March 15, 2013, 04:28:09 PM
Looks like a re-signing project on I-84 between I-691 and Hartford could be underway.  CONNDot was putting up a new 1 mi. sign for CT 72 West on I 84 East this morning. It was on a single old-school (non-pipe) gantry with directional tab and a big "LEFT" in yellow above the word  "Exit".  I'll have to see if they turned it into a full gantry when I go through there next.
Weren't most of the signs between I-691 (Exit 27) and CT 72 East (Exit 35) just replaced a few years ago?  IMHO, the signs east of Exit 35 to Hartford would be more likely due for replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 15, 2013, 06:17:30 PM
Not part of a specific route signing project, but instead that gantry/sign was selected as a site in the "Replacement of Overhead Sign Supports On Various Routes Statewide".  This is why you're seeing some new signs with aligned exit tabs and on new pipe gantries at various locations throughout the state, mixed in with button copy Phase III, and whatnot.  (See:  I-91 NB Exit 23, CT 9 NB Exit 30, I-84 EB Exit 38, etc).

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 15, 2013, 06:30:48 PM
There is no Exit 38 Eastbound from I-84. I know US Route 6 leaves I-84 there westbound.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 15, 2013, 07:43:51 PM
There is no Exit 38 Eastbound from I-84. I know US Route 6 leaves I-84 there westbound.

Sorry - meant Exit 37... Finneman Rd to US 6 West... the Exit 38 equivilent for EB motorists.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 15, 2013, 08:16:25 PM
Most of the signage on I-84 has been changed over from Exit 30 in Southington to the NY State line, and from I-384/I-291 to the Mass line (save for a couple of antiques in Waterbury and Vernon).  From Exit 30-32, it's a mix of new and old; 33 to 35 is new; 36 is old, 37 is new, and 39-59 is old eastbound (51-38 westbound).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 15, 2013, 09:30:52 PM
Also, you'll notice on all recent projects that have been designed in the past year or so do not have pipe gantries anymore.  Look at I-84 in Danbury, it's all non pipe.  I don't think CT prefers them pipe gantries.

However, some projects that are still in the works that were designed at least a couple years earlier still have them such as the Q-Bridge and the Moses Wheeler Bridge.

I like pipe gantries, they're simple and slick, IDK why CTDOT is not using them anymore?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on March 15, 2013, 11:06:31 PM
Most of the signage on I-84 has been changed over from Exit 30 in Southington to the NY State line, and from I-384/I-291 to the Mass line (save for a couple of antiques in Waterbury and Vernon).  From Exit 30-32, it's a mix of new and old; 33 to 35 is new; 36 is old, 37 is new, and 39-59 is old eastbound (51-38 westbound).

The signs from Exit 57 to 63 on I-84 most likely were among the last Phase II installations in the state, in the early/mid 1980s, once I-384 was completed.  All direct-applied text.  All button copy (including route markers) came out in the mid 80s.  Not sure of the year installed of the signs from Exit 64 to the Mass line, but I believe they were among the first Phase IV installations, most likely at about the same time those on I-91 between I-95 and Exit 20 were installed.  Exit tabs are centered and exit services were still all-text (before the service bar was introduced c 2000). 

Some of the oldest signs in the state still exist on I-84 in the Waterbury area, plus the first overhead after Exit 57-WB for Route 2. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 06, 2013, 08:53:05 PM
Always funny when I see a press release like this:

" Bridge Maintenance, I-684 Northbound, in Greenwich "

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=524008

I always thought the I-684 section in CT was under NYSDOT maintenance.  Seeing as this is a ConnDOT project on a bridge overhead, would the crews performing the work on I-684 be from ConnDOT? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 07, 2013, 10:22:28 PM
As did I. It has NYSDOT reference markers and signage, after all.

But I suppose this one of those things where the responsibility is shared. That, or New York is paying for this but letting Connecticut actually handle the dirty work.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 07, 2013, 11:46:23 PM
Suppose you were trying to sensationalize a bit of roadgeek knowledge, to attract the casual web surfer and drive some ad impressions. You might do something like this:

8 Highways Connecticut Wanted to Get Rid Of But Couldn't
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 08, 2013, 04:31:43 PM
Same with 217

[source:  well, I think you know]



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 08, 2013, 10:43:08 PM
Also, you'll notice on all recent projects that have been designed in the past year or so do not have pipe gantries anymore.  Look at I-84 in Danbury, it's all non pipe.  I don't think CT prefers them pipe gantries.

However, some projects that are still in the works that were designed at least a couple years earlier still have them such as the Q-Bridge and the Moses Wheeler Bridge.

I like pipe gantries, they're simple and slick, IDK why CTDOT is not using them anymore?

You're talking, I'm guessing, about the kind Massachusetts put in on the Big Dig?  Single curved pipe from end to end?

I have always liked the unique CT-style thin gantries that have been up since the 80s, the yellow ones that look like they taper up and have some kind of complicated cross-section.  I saw one of those at the start of I-91 in New Haven being replaced with one on a typical truss type a few weeks ago and it made me feel like a bit of CT tradition was lost in the process.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on May 09, 2013, 01:49:49 PM
Also, you'll notice on all recent projects that have been designed in the past year or so do not have pipe gantries anymore.  Look at I-84 in Danbury, it's all non pipe.  I don't think CT prefers them pipe gantries.

However, some projects that are still in the works that were designed at least a couple years earlier still have them such as the Q-Bridge and the Moses Wheeler Bridge.

I like pipe gantries, they're simple and slick, IDK why CTDOT is not using them anymore?

You're talking, I'm guessing, about the kind Massachusetts put in on the Big Dig?  Single curved pipe from end to end?

I have always liked the unique CT-style thin gantries that have been up since the 80s, the yellow ones that look like they taper up and have some kind of complicated cross-section.  I saw one of those at the start of I-91 in New Haven being replaced with one on a typical truss type a few weeks ago and it made me feel like a bit of CT tradition was lost in the process.



I would suspect that large pipe gantries are no longer specfied for cost and design reasons.  Also, unlike trichoird and box truss structures, there's no redundancy if the signs and structure are hit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 13, 2013, 10:41:32 PM
Another ROAD DIET for "non-motorized users" aka bikes.  It seems the DOT quickly revises the lane markings to take away lanes with no problem......but to add lanes, it never happens. 

When I say add lanes I mean revising the markings using the pavement that is already there. 

How many times do you come accross an intersection with room for a turn lane and one isn't striped!??!  ALOT in this state.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=524500
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on May 22, 2013, 01:34:41 PM
Does anybody have photos of I-84 around exits 10-17 since the new gantries were installed?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 28, 2013, 05:36:45 PM
Update along I-84 westbound in the Waterbury area, in case this wasn't already posted/commented on:

The one-off Clearview BGS' for Exits 22 & 21 have since been replaced with newer BGS' featuring all-FHWA Gothic fonts and larger EXIT tabs (right-hand-side mounted).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 28, 2013, 07:29:00 PM
Does anybody have photos of I-84 around exits 10-17 since the new gantries were installed?

No gantries exist between Exits 13 & 17 - that was a signing project from a few years back.  The latest project is Exit 1-11 (there is no longer an Exit 12).  Only a select few gantries were replaced.  I found a link to some new sign shots but all gantries on it were pre-existing:  http://www.billburmaster.com/rmsandw/connecticut/interstate/84ct.html.

There is one new gantry (pipe style) for Exit 11 - 1/2 mile IIRC, that was replaced, though not linked on that site.  Gantries on the Exit 1-11 stretch vary:  pipe style, lattice, and I-beam (dark green). 

I have seen at least one picture of a new sign in Danbury that went from mounted on a gantry to now mounted on ground-based posts.  I wonder why that was done.  I wonder if there's any standards as to when to mount signs overhead vs on the ground/side of the highway.  Around CT, they pretty much post everything on a 3+ lane highway overhead, except I-84 from Vernon out to Union and on I-91 in Middletown/Cromwell.  I can't see why I-91 in Wallingford and North Haven can't be mounted on the ground.  NH goes ahead and mounts signs on the ground on I-95 where its 4 lanes each way.  MA went ahead and mounted a whole slew of overhead signs on 2-lane-each-way roads. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 28, 2013, 08:01:32 PM
Just did the drive on I-84 west out to the NY state line yesterday (and sat in the same spot for 45 minutes between exit 16-17).  Here is what I gathered:

All the signage in Danbury has replaced "NY State" with "Newburgh" on the 84W signage.  Only one sign (the westbound entrance from Federal Rd, used NY after Newburgh.

All signage in Fairfield County has directional exit sign tabs, and the left exits for US 7 have the "Left" above Exit rather than in the bar underneath, similar to the isolated one for CT 72 West in Plainville on 84 east.  No major gantry replacement, and no real rhyme or reason to gantry vs ground signs. The first sign of any button copy that I saw eastbound was Exit 21.  Also, I updated a couple of exit numbers on my 84 mileage based exits in the other thread.  I'll actually be doing the ride up to Sturbridge on Friday, so I can update the other end.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 28, 2013, 09:25:19 PM
Please confirm that 97 is still the last Connecticut mile marker, just before Exit 74 in Union. :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 28, 2013, 10:52:16 PM
I was through there a couple weeks ago (got on at exit 74 heading east), and definitely did not see a MM 98.

Not that Google Maps can be relied upon for this sort of thing, but they measure the distance from the location of MM 97 to the state line as 0.9 miles (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=I-84+E&daddr=I-84+E&hl=en&ll=42.025069,-72.13872&spn=0.016131,0.030942&sll=42.028671,-72.137325&sspn=0.008065,0.015471&geocode=FZgygQIdrRuz-w%3BFbRUgQId5Umz-w&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=16&t=m&z=15).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on May 29, 2013, 08:06:50 AM
Please confirm that 97 is still the last Connecticut mile marker, just before Exit 74 in Union. :)
Confirmed.  I drove past there last Thursday night.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 29, 2013, 04:20:35 PM
So I spent some time today to cruise around Bing maps and see if they drove I-84 in the Danbury area since the Exit 1-11 sign replacement project began.  Turns out they have, and managed to get several screen captures of the new signage:

https://picasaweb.google.com/108118189767835080687/CTSignage02

As far as new gantries, it appears that the only new ones I spotted are for Exit 4 - one EB and one WB.  Both are heavy duty "lattice/girder style", and the one for Exit 4 EB used to span all lanes, but now only spans the rightmost 2 lanes. 

UPDATE:
Link above now includes some Bing images of the Bradley Field Connector signing project.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on May 29, 2013, 10:39:20 PM
Hey, pretty cool.  Yeah, the pull through on the Exit 3 diagrammatical sign for US 7 not including a control city for I-84 West is a bit disconcerting, but the signage replacement looks like it's coming along quite well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 30, 2013, 05:20:17 AM
Hey, pretty cool.  Yeah, the pull through on the Exit 3 diagrammatical sign for US 7 not including a control city for I-84 West is a bit disconcerting, but the signage replacement looks like it's coming along quite well.

And for all I know, all signs could be replaced by now.  I'm not sure when Bing "drove" the roads down there, but I will say this...... The i95/i91 split in New Haven has been moved more to the south, and pretty sure that change occurred "in the field" about 2 weeks ago. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 30, 2013, 06:45:18 PM
The i95/i91 split in New Haven has been moved more to the south, and pretty sure that change occurred "in the field" about 2 weeks ago.

I just notices this last night.  Must have missed it when driving through the week before.  It's not permanent because it puts you in the new ROW of 95.  Looks like 91 will finally get a proper right-hand exit ramp.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 01, 2013, 03:32:01 PM
Please confirm that 97 is still the last Connecticut mile marker, just before Exit 74 in Union. :)
Confirmed.  I drove past there last Thursday night.
Correct.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on June 03, 2013, 12:31:07 AM
I was on the 25/8 Connector this morning and noticed that there are several new BGS panels installed sporadically between Exits 1-3.  Is there a replacement plan for the Connector, or were they just randomly selected for replacement?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 21, 2013, 11:16:07 PM
If anyone wants to see some of the evidence of sign replacement on I-84 in Danbury, watch this week's episode of Jerry Seinfeld's new webshow Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee.  All of the car scenes with Jerry and David Letterman take place on 84 and 7 in the Danbury area.  http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/ (http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 30, 2013, 10:35:38 PM
I-84 widening to start "soon."  It's actually listed on the CT DOT website, with plans included.

I like the I-84 EB Exit 23 on-ramp and Exit 25 off ramp reconfiguration.

Note: This will be the third time, the Exit 25 EB has been reconfigured.  It used to end at a stop sign accross from McDonalds on Reidville Dr, then it was moved to it's current location in 1993 or 1994. And in 2014, it'll move again.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/majorprojectupdates/waterbury_i_84/I_84_Waterbury.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 27, 2013, 08:01:55 PM
Goodbye, old "Q"....

Southbound I-95/turnpike traffic is being shifted off the original "Q" Bridge and onto the new northbound span this weekend.  Looking at the traffic cams, looks like traffic has been shifted over, though those motorists destined for Exits 47-48 still use the far western end of the new bridge via temporary ramps.

This will all pave the way for the demolition of the rest of the original bridge, which will be replaced with the new southbound span.

Details at www.i95newhaven.com

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on July 28, 2013, 08:34:46 AM
Some sign news for Eastern CT, i have recently seen some new 3di route markers on CT 190, 198, 195 that are all new HIP sheeting and they are all 3-di wide shield. multiple examples of this in a blanket replacement on 195 south of UConn,  several for 198 around the intersection with 171, and a blanket of new signs on 190 in stafford near a recent paving project includes a new route marker which is a wide shield. Will post some pics soon, looks like CT may be making a move to 3di wide state route shields as more than a "one-off".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 28, 2013, 10:21:29 AM
Wait, wait... ConnDOT is installing rectangles now? Madness!

A few do already exist, but they tend to be municipal installs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on July 28, 2013, 10:42:06 PM
Wait, wait... ConnDOT is installing rectangles now? Madness!

A few do already exist, but they tend to be municipal installs.
Next thing you know, Virginia will join suit, and we'll all have to move to Canada for normalcy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 30, 2013, 05:39:45 PM
Couple shots of the new signage on I-95 SB on the new "Q" Bridge...

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-tL8yXu-6v68/Ufgx5-S8OTI/AAAAAAAASjE/XWFZaBR3c_w/w960-h640-no/SB-Exit+48-2.jpg)

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-rmxctgTfgQo/Ufgx5z4ok_I/AAAAAAAASjM/CGIzw1JyicQ/w960-h640-no/SB-Exit+48-3.jpg)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qs_ItizIsc4/Ufgx6BZs3UI/AAAAAAAASjQ/sluXnTTNjSI/w960-h640-no/SB-Exit+48-ramp.jpg)

^ that last image is actually on the old span, which is still open on its extreme western end to serve as temporary access to Exits 48 & 47.  This Phase III button copy sign assembly was slightly modified this weekend, with "NEXT RIGHT" removed from the bottom line of the Exit 47 sign, and the "I-95 South/N.Y. City" pull-through being removed.  Since I-95 SB being on the new northbound bridge is only temporary, the present connections are likewise also only temporary.  With recent construction, this assembly could very well be one of the few all button copy overhead assemblies left in New Haven. 

Images are screenshots from a video/news story recently on WTNH:
 http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/traffic/traffic_news/rolling-along-on-the-new-q-bridge#.UfgyNtJBWSo
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 31, 2013, 07:00:30 PM
and coming up soon when they replace the West River Bridge, there will be a temporary extruded Orange (BOS) telling of a road split during a few stages of construction.  I saw that in the plans on the DOT site
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on August 09, 2013, 12:00:22 AM
Some sign news for Eastern CT, i have recently seen some new 3di route markers on CT 190, 198, 195 that are all new HIP sheeting and they are all 3-di wide shield. multiple examples of this in a blanket replacement on 195 south of UConn,  several for 198 around the intersection with 171, and a blanket of new signs on 190 in stafford near a recent paving project includes a new route marker which is a wide shield. Will post some pics soon, looks like CT may be making a move to 3di wide state route shields as more than a "one-off".

OK after a 12 hour day at work I'm driving home through East Windsor near dusk tonight, and suddenly in the vicinity of the southern/western end of the CT191 /CT140 concurrency, route signage... just today... became all rectangle 3di wide shields.  I'm starting to think this isn't a fluke, as this is in a different district than the CT 198 and 195 new signage I saw a couple weeks ago.  Furthermore, the only signs replaced today were Route markers in this area, none of the other guide or warning signage is touched and this is not associated with any paving project... so I'm thinking state-erected signs, not contractor.  I go this way daily so I will get pic's up shortly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on August 20, 2013, 07:01:26 PM
So, here are a few Wide 3Di's for CT-191 and CT-140 (East Windsor), CT-190 (stafford) -
I still need to get shots of CT-195 in storrs (NOT the ones that have been there for years at CT-32, these are south of the UConn Campus down to Route 6), and CT 198 in Woodstock.

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2841/9559405040_40341c40b5_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9559405040/)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3744/9559404838_d193fda3ed_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9559404838/)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/9556617065_e76f23fa6e_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9556617065/)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5504/9556616039_2db20f9e70_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9556616039/)
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5345/9559404302_3a06e0576e_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9559404302/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76971031@N02/9559404302/) by wytout (http://www.flickr.com/people/76971031@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 24, 2013, 10:15:28 PM
Caught a few of those 3-wide state shields in Middlefield today on CT 147 & 157.  I admit, they look a little strange.  Guess I'm just used to seeing 3 numbers squished into a 2-wide shield.

Also driving around CT these past few days, I've been noticing A LOT of the new symbol version of the "School Bus Stop Ahead" sign.  Still haven't seen any new style "reduce speed ahead" signs.  The large black on yellow "Speed Limit Ahead - XX MPH" is still in use, on backroads and on the interstates.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 24, 2013, 10:35:52 PM
Caught a few of those 3-wide state shields in Middlefield today on CT 147 & 157.  I admit, they look a little strange.  Guess I'm just used to seeing 3 numbers squished into a 2-wide shield.

Also driving around CT these past few days, I've been noticing A LOT of the new symbol version of the "School Bus Stop Ahead" sign.  Still haven't seen any new style "reduce speed ahead" signs.  The large black on yellow "Speed Limit Ahead - XX MPH" is still in use, on backroads and on the interstates.

I caught one...it was so new, it still had the plastic wrap on it. CT-34 in Derby EB

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5342/9432544786_7c1e972521.jpg)

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on December 23, 2013, 03:48:18 PM
Little bit o' news:

Last night, came down I-91 from MA to Exit 22S....
*  the last overhead assembly for Exit 40 has not yet been replaced.  There are two small temporary signs advertising Exit 40, which just have a CT 20 route marker and the Bradley Airport logo on them.

Drove the turnpike today between Int. 65 & 47 and back again....
*  There's a new blue "attractions" sign for Exit 64, advertising the NWR.  It's about the size of a temporary BGS sign.
*  Branford SB Service Plaza is still under construction.  It appears the old building was torn down and a new one is taking shape.
*  My first time driving over the new "Q"... pretty nice but no pics due to the heavy rain and I was driving. 
*  Stopped at the Branford NB service plaza.  Very nicely done.  A couple of vendors aren't open yet:  signs said "Coming soon- Statement Shop" and "Coming soon-Cinnabon & Auntie Anne's". 
*  Madison NB service plaza demo work continues.
*  Usual heavy traffic for much of the drive.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 27, 2013, 06:49:21 PM
Little bit o' news:

Last night, came down I-91 from MA to Exit 22S....
*  the last overhead assembly for Exit 40 has not yet been replaced.  There are two small temporary signs advertising Exit 40, which just have a CT 20 route marker and the Bradley Airport logo on them.

Drove the turnpike today between Int. 65 & 47 and back again....
*  There's a new blue "attractions" sign for Exit 64, advertising the NWR.  It's about the size of a temporary BGS sign.
*  Branford SB Service Plaza is still under construction.  It appears the old building was torn down and a new one is taking shape.
*  My first time driving over the new "Q"... pretty nice but no pics due to the heavy rain and I was driving. 
*  Stopped at the Branford NB service plaza.  Very nicely done.  A couple of vendors aren't open yet:  signs said "Coming soon- Statement Shop" and "Coming soon-Cinnabon & Auntie Anne's". 
*  Madison NB service plaza demo work continues.
*  Usual heavy traffic for much of the drive.



The new service plazas are nice, and they are being built very quickly. I like the mall style food court that they have now. McDonald's has to be upset, as the one in Darien was one of the ten busiest McDonald's in the world thanks in large part to the number of buses that stop there before hitting NYC. The bus drivers got a free meal. Now with multiple food options that has to put a dent in business. The new gas stations are nice. Well lit and a lot more pumps. During peak weekend travel times you'd see those back up which never made sense because all you had to do was get off at the next exit where there are plenty of gas stations that are usually much cheaper.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: mc78andrew on December 27, 2013, 10:12:54 PM
Any news on when the greenwich service stations will be opened on the Merritt?  Only thing I could find was a preclosing plan that said all work would be done by this past fall? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: dgolub on December 28, 2013, 10:39:13 AM
*  My first time driving over the new "Q"... pretty nice but no pics due to the heavy rain and I was driving. 

Have they completely finished the replacement of the Q Bridge?  The last time I was up there was almost four years ago.  From Google Street View, it looks like they finished rebuilding the I-95/CT 34 interchange as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on December 28, 2013, 02:31:42 PM
The 95/91/34 interchange will be completed in 2016, according to the project site: http://www.i95newhaven.com/contractor/#
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on January 10, 2014, 04:15:37 PM
Has anyone seen the new site that ConnDOT has created about the future replacement of the Aetna Viaduct (I-84) through Hartford?  This looks like the state's next mega-project.  With the construction of CTfastrak (the New Britain-Hartford busway) and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail line within the are this part of Hartford will be under construction for a while.  Most people in Hartford are advocating for the highway to be tunneled so that way the city can push for the redevelopment of parts of the North End and Downtown North.   The site is www.i84hartford.com
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 10, 2014, 05:03:00 PM
Has anyone seen the new site that ConnDOT has created about the future replacement of the Aetna Viaduct (I-84) through Hartford?  This looks like the state's next mega-project.  With the construction of CTfastrak (the New Britain-Hartford busway) and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail line within the are this part of Hartford will be under construction for a while.  Most people in Hartford are advocating for the highway to be tunneled so that way the city can push for the redevelopment of parts of the North End and Downtown North.   The site is www.i84hartford.com
Good to know.  Thanks for the info.

Personally, I would go with the viaduct upgrade and exit ramp reconfiguration (eliminating the left lane exits and consolidating some of those close-together exit ramps).  A tunnel option, while more aesthetically pleasing, has the potential of turning into another time-consuming, Big Dig-like, boondoggle money-pit.

Given the fact that this highway is currently carrying 175,000 vehicles a day (it was originally designed for 50,000 per day); scaling it down to an at-grade boulevard is not an option IMHO.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 05:51:47 PM
Thinking outside the shitter: a tunnel to the Founders Bridge. Revert the Bulkeley to US 44 only. Looks like there's a bit of a hill along the way, so it might not be that hard as tunnels go. The biggest problem might be I-91 access to/from the west.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 10, 2014, 06:16:09 PM
One geotechnical issue w/any tunnel proposal out there is the cost of removal/disposal of any contaminated soil found on the site.

If memory serves, wasn't the aborted New England Patriots sports stadium proposal from over 15 years ago planned to be built nearby this I-84 corridor? 

Back when Patriots owner Robert Craft was proposing a new stadium for his team in Hartford in the mid-to-late 1990s; the one item that ultimately sank that whole relocation deal in 1998 stemmed from the estimated cost to remove the contaminated soil.  It was high enough to be a deal-breaker and the rest is history; the Patriots stayed in Foxboro, MA and moved to the then-brand new Gillette Stadium in 2002.

History could possibly repeat itself here.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 10, 2014, 06:36:48 PM
Before the current i84Hartford.com website was made there were a series of meetings at the Council of Governments level.  The blvd with stoplights (ala Route 34 New Haven) was considered.  But they dropped because it wouldn't work.  obv. 

So I would hope nobody would waste any more time on the issue going forward at these meetings. 

People think "hey let's go back to 1930 before interstates were built and there will be no traffic."  That's why interstates were built in the first place, b/c the US-44s and the US-1s were choked with traffic even then.

**************
Although I would love to see the proposed Waterbury stack interchange of I-84 and CT-8 come to fruition.
and
the US-7/Merritt interchange completed.  I talked to the DOT and it's on the back burner now.  No funding.  You can thank the Merritt Pkwy Conservancy for that as they stopped the project after it already began!

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 10, 2014, 07:02:07 PM
One geotechnical issue w/any tunnel proposal out there is the cost of removal/disposal of any contaminated soil found on the site.

If memory serves, wasn't the aborted New England Patriots sports stadium proposal from over 15 years ago planned to be built nearby this I-84 corridor? 

Back when Patriots owner Robert Craft was proposing a new stadium for his team in Hartford in the mid-to-late 1990s; the one item that ultimately sank that whole relocation deal in 1998 stemmed from the estimated cost to remove the contaminated soil.  It was high enough to be a deal-breaker and the rest is history; the Patriots stayed in Foxboro, MA and moved to the then-brand new Gillette Stadium in 2002.

History could possibly repeat itself here.

I thought it was simply that d-bag Kraft using Connecticut as bait, to get leverage out of Massachusetts for today's Gillette Stadium?  :no:

Some of that site today has the Connecticut Convention Center on it.

There's also no way the Whitehead-Conlon Highway could've handled traffic into the stadium, had it been built. Imagine what the backup onto I-91 would've looked like!  :-o
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on January 10, 2014, 07:17:48 PM
I know that many people are still opposed to the CTfastrak project but I think that the busway will get heavy usage once ConnDOT figures out what the plan is for 84 through Hartford.  I don't see any way that 175,000 vehicles could get through the construction.  Hopefully ConnDOT will market the busway for commuters as a viable alternative to 84. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 07:18:52 PM
I-84 should be moved to I-691, at least temporarily during construction.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on January 10, 2014, 07:26:33 PM
I-84 should be moved to I-691, at least temporarily during construction.
Traffic already backs up on 91 North at the ramp onto the Charter Oak Bridge.  If the state does pursue making I-691/I-91/CT-15 as a detour, they will have to find some way to widen the ramp or try to use the Putnam Bridge to Route 2 to 84.  I feel that this project will exacerbate the problem that Greater Hartford residents already recognize.  There aren't many efficient ways to get across the metro area. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 08:05:18 PM
If the state does pursue making I-691/I-91/CT-15 as a detour, they will have to find some way to widen the ramp or try to use the Putnam Bridge to Route 2 to 84.
One-overpass method:
(http://oi43.tinypic.com/11sj911.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2014, 08:37:31 PM
Personally, I would go with the viaduct upgrade and exit ramp reconfiguration (eliminating the left lane exits and consolidating some of those close-together exit ramps).  A tunnel option, while more aesthetically pleasing, has the potential of turning into another time-consuming, Big Dig-like, boondoggle money-pit.



But the CT Legislature has NEVER met a boondoggle pork project it didn't like.  But wouldn't completing the abandoned I-291 from the stack in Farmington alleviate a lot of through traffic bound for east of Hartford.  Not only could it serve as a bypass of Downtown Hartford and connect back to I-84 in Manchester, it could serve as a shortcut to Bradley.  Renumber the whole highway I-284 because it connects 2 segments of I-84.  Now if the Middletown Traffic lights were ever eliminated on CT 9, it could become an x95 3DI from Old Saybrook to Manchester.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on January 10, 2014, 09:06:57 PM
Personally, I would go with the viaduct upgrade and exit ramp reconfiguration (eliminating the left lane exits and consolidating some of those close-together exit ramps).  A tunnel option, while more aesthetically pleasing, has the potential of turning into another time-consuming, Big Dig-like, boondoggle money-pit.



But the CT Legislature has NEVER met a boondoggle pork project it didn't like.  But wouldn't completing the abandoned I-291 from the stack in Farmington alleviate a lot of through traffic bound for east of Hartford.  Not only could it serve as a bypass of Downtown Hartford and connect back to I-84 in Manchester, it could serve as a shortcut to Bradley.  Renumber the whole highway I-284 because it connects 2 segments of I-84.  Now if the Middletown Traffic lights were ever eliminated on CT 9, it could become an x95 3DI from Old Saybrook to Manchester.

I've dreamt of I-291 at least getting constructed to the Farmington Stack but the chances of that happening are as high as the possibility of the state tolling the reconstructed 84 through Hartford.  The amount of NIMBYs that live along the route as well as the environmental concerns of building so close to the reservoirs have killed the project and have kept the project dead.  The state did 4-lane Route 218 from Route 159 in Windsor to the Cigna complex in Bloomfield which is a compromise for the cancelled 291 project but Route 218 is often congested at rush hour between local traffic and employees trying to get to work at Cigna.  This might be getting into new thread territory but the state should seriously considering doing some grade separation of Route 218 or getting rapid transit along the Griffin Line and further north to Bradley.  Northwest Hartford and its suburbs have horrid transit/road connections to anything south of 84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 11, 2014, 12:40:48 PM
East of Hartford I-84 works fine because there are ample lanes and bypasses. I-291 to the North and CT-15 to the south. 

West of Hartford there's none of that.  The only widening would be an aux lane between Exits 40-42.  That's it! unfortunately.

***
Roundabout news in Salem:
http://www.theday.com/article/20140106/NWS01/301069975/0/SEARCH

Here's a map:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=salem,+ct&hl=en&ll=41.476428,-72.264193&spn=0.001312,0.002851&sll=41.500765,-72.757507&sspn=1.34323,1.886902&hnear=Salem,+New+London,+Connecticut&t=h&z=19
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 11, 2014, 03:05:14 PM
My I-84 solution overlaps with several of your ideas:

This is a few billion dollars, but it solves the viaduct problem, gives Hartford and East Hartford what they say they want, frees up some well-located real estate, does not consume a lot of new right-of-way, moves thru traffic out of the city (well, except for Meriden). Trucks get a long hill on I-91 that they didn't have on I-84 (Metacomet Ridge, which 84/72 cut through in New Britain) so that's a drawback.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on January 11, 2014, 03:26:08 PM
I-84 through Hartford would benefit from C/D roads for Downtown exits & I-91 while mainline traffic is unaffected by all of the exits involved (express & local).  The only impediment would be the air rights tunnel...and I don't know if it's currently wide enough to accommodate such a plan.

If anything comes of the plan, I'm hoping the left lane exits are eliminated and the sharp twists and turns are smoothed out.  I absolutely hate driving through this stretch...it's a white-knuckle ride every time!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on January 11, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
I absolutely hate driving through this stretch...it's a white-knuckle ride every time!
Unless your destination is near Farmington-Plainville, why not use I-691?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 11, 2014, 03:51:55 PM
I absolutely hate driving through this stretch...it's a white-knuckle ride every time!
Unless your destination is near Farmington-Plainville, why not use I-691?

Coming from Boston I'd use 691 everytime.  Only hiccup would be the I-91 NB ramp to I-84 EB via 5/15.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 11, 2014, 09:14:39 PM
One more solution: reroute I-84 onto CT 72 and CT 9 north to near CT 175.  Build a connector from there to the 5/15 expressway portion at the top of the Berlin Turnpike.  Follow over the Charter Oak Bridge to rejoin in East Hartford.    I-84 from Plainville to Manchester becomes I-184.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on January 12, 2014, 02:35:20 PM
I absolutely hate driving through this stretch...it's a white-knuckle ride every time!
Unless your destination is near Farmington-Plainville, why not use I-691?

Coming from Boston I'd use 691 everytime.  Only hiccup would be the I-91 NB ramp to I-84 EB via 5/15.
You've nailed the reason why I avoid what would've been a better alternative!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on January 12, 2014, 04:59:23 PM
I absolutely hate driving through this stretch...it's a white-knuckle ride every time!
Unless your destination is near Farmington-Plainville, why not use I-691?

Coming from Boston I'd use 691 everytime.  Only hiccup would be the I-91 NB ramp to I-84 EB via 5/15.
You've nailed the reason why I avoid what would've been a better alternative!
Get off at exit 27, U-turn onto the ramp to 15 north? Take 3 to 2 to I-84 (adds 2.3 miles)? Take 99 through Wethersfield (probably not worthwhile)?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 13, 2014, 03:24:52 PM
I-84 should be moved to I-691, at least temporarily during construction.
To a degree, ALT I-84 trailblazer and equivalent signs have already been placed at/along I-691, 91, US 5 & CT 15 for at least two decades.  I first started seeing them in the 90s when another segment of I-84 was being reconstructed.

ALT 84 TO 91 signs near Exit 27 (I-691 East) (http://goo.gl/maps/OXMaz)

The bottom line is that the above-alternate route is already being used by through traffic as an alternate to I-84.  As stated by others, the main traffic issue with that route not I-691 itself but rather the merging with or exiting off I-91 via US 5/CT 15.  Note: I've tried the CT 3/2 alternates as well. 

It's too bad I-691 (IIRC it was orginally planned to be a part of the full I-291 loop) didn't extend east and north and connected w/I-84 near I-291.  Had that happened, a lot less through traffic would use I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on January 13, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
I-691 (IIRC it was orginally planned to be a part of the full I-291 loop)
Sort of - it looks like, had Hartford become LA, you would have been able to follow freeways on 66 to Portland and 17 to Glastonbury, then I-491 to I-84. But it would be shorter to take I-91 to I-491.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/art-hfd-fwy-60s.png
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on January 14, 2014, 12:03:26 AM
I have to disagree on I-691 being planned as part of any Hartford loop (inner or outer). Long range vision was for a freeway heading to Willimantic, to merge with the proposed US 6 freeway. No plans to make it curve northbound (on either end).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on January 14, 2014, 08:29:01 AM
I-691 (IIRC it was orginally planned to be a part of the full I-291 loop)
Sort of - it looks like, had Hartford become LA, you would have been able to follow freeways on 66 to Portland and 17 to Glastonbury, then I-491 to I-84. But it would be shorter to take I-91 to I-491.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/art-hfd-fwy-60s.png
Thanks for the info.; but the merging bottlenecks w/I-91 would've still appeared to be an issue even if I-491 was fully built.

While I-691 was not orginally planned to be a part of a lower loop/bypass; maybe it should've been.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on January 20, 2014, 07:10:04 PM
I'm not sure if this has been brought up in this certain forum post, but has anyone been following the new I-95 bridge over the Housatonic River? The state seems to be moving at a good pace to replace it, and the replacement is nice. It looks like all they are doing is just adding shoulders and replacing the bridge structure itself. I can't wait for it to be finished because I think CTDOT did a nice job for once.  :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 20, 2014, 09:17:06 PM
I believe it's called the Moses Wheeler Bridge. I never thought they'd have the room to do any other work, considering how close the Amtrak/Metro North train bridge is to it!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 20, 2014, 10:48:03 PM
I have to disagree on I-691 being planned as part of any Hartford loop (inner or outer). Long range vision was for a freeway heading to Willimantic, to merge with the proposed US 6 freeway. No plans to make it curve northbound (on either end).

This was part of my Eastern I-82 idea that incorporates this, the abandoned 84 to Providence and I-195/MA 25 to the Sagamore Bridge. I-384 could still be expanded to join it where the US 6 bypass begins now.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on January 21, 2014, 12:41:31 PM
I believe it's called the Moses Wheeler Bridge. I never thought they'd have the room to do any other work, considering how close the Amtrak/Metro North train bridge is to it!
It would've been nice if they built a southbound Exit 33 for Rte 110 as part of this project instead of the current practice of having to trudge through U.S. 1 in Devon (Milford) via Exit 34...but I guess the I-95 corridor in SW CT is plagued by too many exits as it is.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 21, 2014, 07:40:06 PM
It would've been nice if they built a southbound Exit 33 for Rte 110 as part of this project

Dunno that that'd be possible without taking property.

Although as far as I can guess, the reason exit 33 was built as half an interchange was because if it were complete it would have been hilariously easy to shunpike around the the toll plaza that was immediately west of there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 24, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
ConnDOT has released its 5 year Capital Plan, which runs 2014-2018...

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=538426

Projects of note:
2014 -- I-84 Waterbury reconstruction, continue I-95 Moses Wheeler & Q Bridge projects, I-95 median safety improvement
            from Baldwin Bridge to Rocky Neck
2015 -- I-95 Yankee Doodle Bridge rehab, West River Bridge, I-84 sign replacement Exit 30-52, CT 8 sign replacement Shelton   
           to Winchester (Winsted)
2016 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 85 to RI, CT 8 sign replacement I-95 to Shelton
2017 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 54 to 85

Also the list of major long term unfunded initiatives includes:
I-84 - Hartford viaduct
Rt 9 - Middletown improvements (int. w/ CT 66, 17)
Rt 11 - expressway completion from Salem to Waterford/East Lyme
I-84 - expansion west of Waterbury to NY line
I-95 - expansion Old Lyme to RI line
Rt 3 - Putnam Bridge rehab or replacement
Rt 8 - interchange with I-84

There's no mention of any mileage-based exit conversion, though I'd assume I-95 would get converted following the replacement of signs from Exit 54-85.  Much of that section has already had signs replaced (most recently, 2000) so unsure if it would just mean a signage improvement or full replacement.  Button copy only remains on that stretch from Exit 54-59 (installed 1992) and from Exits 68-70 (installed 1993). 

Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Still no large-scale sign replacement for I-84 between Exit 54 and 64, some of which holds the title to the oldest signage in the state (after I-84 in Waterbury area).  And no mention of any sign replacement for CT 2, CT 9, or I-91.  So looks like button copy will remain at least through the 2020 timeframe.  Unless something pops up between now and then.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on January 24, 2014, 04:35:30 PM
Is it even known if CT will convert anything beyond CT 2 and I-395 yet?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 24, 2014, 05:28:10 PM
Is it even known if CT will convert anything beyond CT 2 and I-395 yet?

Seems kind of pointless to convert i395 and ct 2a and not do the whole state.  Then again.... signs are being replaced from end to end on these two routes at the same time, albeit under 2 contracts.   

Perhaps, with the upcoming I95 signing projects, exits will be renumbered from Branford, east.  Perhaps not. 

If ConnDOT was smart, they'd renumber CT 15 next.   After i395, that's the route to gain most with the mile-based system. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on January 24, 2014, 06:33:32 PM
I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 24, 2014, 08:48:54 PM
I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)
Oh, but the exit numbering is part of the historic resource of the Parkway that would be compromised by changing it.

(Note: Sarcasm)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 24, 2014, 09:16:20 PM
Would be smart to convert 84 when the Waterbury widening project is done.  When they do the Exit 30-52 signage replacement (except that 33-35 is already done), they ought to put temporary tabs over the exit signs with the mileage based exits underneath.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on January 24, 2014, 09:30:31 PM
There will be no conversion to mileage based exit numbers any time soon. Get over it guys. Also, the federal government is not going to suspend federal funding because Connecticut refuses to switch to a mileage based exit system. Those hoping for a change can go cry in their wheaties now. Some of you dream in black and white, but the rest of us live in the real world where shades of gray rule the day.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on January 24, 2014, 09:50:15 PM
There will be no conversion to mileage based exit numbers any time soon. Get over it guys. Also, the federal government is not going to suspend federal funding because Connecticut refuses to switch to a mileage based exit system. Those hoping for a change can go cry in their wheaties now. Some of you dream in black and white, but the rest of us live in the real world where shades of gray rule the day.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on January 24, 2014, 10:49:00 PM
I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)
Oh, but the exit numbering is part of the historic resource of the Parkway that would be compromised by changing it.

On a more serious note, you have the issue that locals mostly refer to exits off the Parkway by number, not by destination. So if the numbers changed you'd have a lot of people going "WTF?"

We did have an amusing incident once, though, where someone unfamiliar with the area arrived early because they assumed the exit numbers would start over at 1 once they crossed into Connecticut and thus thought their destination was a lot further away than it actually was. :P
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 25, 2014, 12:43:23 PM
ConnDOT has released its 5 year Capital Plan, which runs 2014-2018...

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=1373&Q=538426

Projects of note:
2014 -- I-84 Waterbury reconstruction, continue I-95 Moses Wheeler & Q Bridge projects, I-95 median safety improvement
            from Baldwin Bridge to Rocky Neck
2015 -- I-95 Yankee Doodle Bridge rehab, West River Bridge, I-84 sign replacement Exit 30-52, CT 8 sign replacement Shelton   
           to Winchester (Winsted)
2016 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 85 to RI, CT 8 sign replacement I-95 to Shelton
2017 -- I-95 sign replacement Exit 54 to 85

Also the list of major long term unfunded initiatives includes:
I-84 - Hartford viaduct
Rt 9 - Middletown improvements (int. w/ CT 66, 17)
Rt 11 - expressway completion from Salem to Waterford/East Lyme
I-84 - expansion west of Waterbury to NY line
I-95 - expansion Old Lyme to RI line
Rt 3 - Putnam Bridge rehab or replacement
Rt 8 - interchange with I-84



Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Still no large-scale sign replacement for I-84 between Exit 54 and 64, some of which holds the title to the oldest signage in the state (after I-84 in Waterbury area).  And no mention of any sign replacement for CT 2, CT 9, or I-91.  So looks like button copy will remain at least through the 2020 timeframe.  Unless something pops up between now and then.

CT-8 has the most non-reflective button copy in the state.  I counted 11 NRBC signs between Shelton and Waterbury.  Their days are numbered.

Also, the CT-2A Thames River bridge has moved up from the Major Long-Range Unfunded list to the Unfunded List.  I guess that's a step up?!  but no mention of the CT-2A/Route 2 bypass that was talked about a few years ago. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on January 26, 2014, 06:12:30 PM
CT 2 and CT 9 are in dire need of sign replacements...it's too bad they are left out.  Also, no mention of I-384.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on January 26, 2014, 07:11:14 PM
Not just CT 2 & 9, but also surprised I-84 in East Hartford-Vernon got left out.  Some of this signage dates back to the mid 80s, when I-384 was connected to I-84.  Still some huge route markers on the BGSs in this area, though many have been replaced in recent years.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on February 01, 2014, 07:36:23 PM
Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Branford to Saybrook has six towns as well as Old Lyme to the RI border. The Branford to Saybrook segment passes through a combined population of 99k while the Old Lyme to RI border section covers 130k. There are no cities on I-95 east of New Haven as the largest town is Groton, and even that only has a population <40k. The plan to widen that section goes back at least a decade and they were targeting having it done by the 2020-2025 time frame, and here we are a mere six years now away from that. I thought it was actually going to happen when the DOT started aggressively pushing the brush back along the Old Lyme and east section a while back. I-95 is going to always suck at least while we are alive since not much can be done with it. I'm jealous of places like Texas where if they run into capacity issues they just double or triple the lane-miles simply by getting some dump trucks and pavers together. If one were a conspiracy nut, one might think I-95 is the way it is on purpose to keep property values high in the wealthy Fairfield County towns.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: doogie1303 on February 02, 2014, 10:06:27 PM
Also interesting to note that I-95 widening is not mentioned from Branford to Old Saybrook.  Guess it makes sense to work on the section east of Old Lyme first as its shorter and "less developed" than the western counterpart.

Branford to Saybrook has six towns as well as Old Lyme to the RI border. The Branford to Saybrook segment passes through a combined population of 99k while the Old Lyme to RI border section covers 130k. There are no cities on I-95 east of New Haven as the largest town is Groton, and even that only has a population <40k. The plan to widen that section goes back at least a decade and they were targeting having it done by the 2020-2025 time frame, and here we are a mere six years now away from that. I thought it was actually going to happen when the DOT started aggressively pushing the brush back along the Old Lyme and east section a while back. I-95 is going to always suck at least while we are alive since not much can be done with it. I'm jealous of places like Texas where if they run into capacity issues they just double or triple the lane-miles simply by getting some dump trucks and pavers together. If one were a conspiracy nut, one might think I-95 is the way it is on purpose to keep property values high in the wealthy Fairfield County towns.

I'm not holding my breath on this one happening anytime soon, I've heard the widening of I-95 saga for most of my life as I originally grew up in Old Lyme. The problem with this section is how close properties are to the interstate as well as the topology. There were several hills they blasted thru when they built the highway, so you cant just regrade the sides and throw down another lane. Plus the other big issue is the swamplands and tidal marshlands the highway goes though. Back in the 50's when they built the Connecticut Turnpike, there was no EPA to tell the builders that you can't build through marshes. So to try to expand the highway in addition to a physical nightmare is also going to be a logistical nightmare.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 03, 2014, 04:38:09 PM
I'd agree with that for the Merritt. Some exits skip numbers anyway, so the sequential system can be somewhat confusing for locals. (I personally am used to it)
Oh, but the exit numbering is part of the historic resource of the Parkway that would be compromised by changing it.

(Note: Sarcasm)

They would start counting the miles at an arbitrary point in New York for historical consistency.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on March 15, 2014, 03:08:27 PM
Does anyone know about the Putnam Bridge reconstruction project? The last time I was in Hartford, I remember seeing a VMS sign about delays and such for construction. Also, what are they generally reconstructing on it?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on March 15, 2014, 04:52:29 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=521038

Putnam Bridge: rehab/repair/retrofit/repaint; replace barriers; and add a second span sidewalk on the south side.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on March 15, 2014, 06:17:24 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=521038

Putnam Bridge: rehab/repair/retrofit/repaint; replace barriers; and add a second span sidewalk on the south side.

Oh I see. Thanks!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 13, 2014, 10:50:45 PM
I was back on 91 this weekend after a long absence, and noticed that a tremendous amount of tree clearing has occurred in Middletown, in places the whole width of the median.

Anyone know why?

Last year it was cut back somewhat -- more in line with the usual kind of clearance you find for sight lines, etc.  This round is on a scale I only recall seeing on Mass. Route 3 when they rebuilt the whole highway.

I am pretty surprised to see what a deep ravine exists between the north and southbound carriageways.  You'd never have known when the trees were in there.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 14, 2014, 02:12:43 PM
I noticed that when I went to New York City on March 26th. Also, I noticed a couple of missing southbound mile markers (especially MM 25 in Middletown) were back.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on April 14, 2014, 02:33:29 PM
There will be no conversion to mileage based exit numbers any time soon. Get over it guys. Also, the federal government is not going to suspend federal funding because Connecticut refuses to switch to a mileage based exit system. Those hoping for a change can go cry in their wheaties now. Some of you dream in black and white, but the rest of us live in the real world where shades of gray rule the day.
Regarding those states that will continue to use sequential numbering, the Feds have only themselves to blame by eliminating the compliance date for the changeover from the final version of the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 14, 2014, 09:20:05 PM
I was back on 91 this weekend after a long absence, and noticed that a tremendous amount of tree clearing has occurred in Middletown, in places the whole width of the median.

Anyone know why?

Last year it was cut back somewhat -- more in line with the usual kind of clearance you find for sight lines, etc.  This round is on a scale I only recall seeing on Mass. Route 3 when they rebuilt the whole highway.

I am pretty surprised to see what a deep ravine exists between the north and southbound carriageways.  You'd never have known when the trees were in there.



It goes back to the hurricane when people complained about too many trees causing power outages.  The DOT adapted it saying all trees must be clear 30FT from the road so cut down the possibility of trees falling into the road.

Of course on the Merritt they are planting NEW trees in the median, of course the Merritt is the one road in CT with the most tree falling deaths.   Blame the MPC
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 14, 2014, 10:31:50 PM
I was back on 91 this weekend after a long absence, and noticed that a tremendous amount of tree clearing has occurred in Middletown, in places the whole width of the median.

Anyone know why?

Last year it was cut back somewhat -- more in line with the usual kind of clearance you find for sight lines, etc.  This round is on a scale I only recall seeing on Mass. Route 3 when they rebuilt the whole highway.

I am pretty surprised to see what a deep ravine exists between the north and southbound carriageways.  You'd never have known when the trees were in there.



It goes back to the hurricane when people complained about too many trees causing power outages.  The DOT adapted it saying all trees must be velar 30FT from the road so cut down the possibility of trees falling into the road.

Of course on the Merritt they are planting NEW trees in the median, of course the Merritt is the one road in CT with the most tree falling deaths.   Blame the MPC
a) velar 30FT? Typing from a phone with autocorrect?
b) Are they replanting on the Merritt? I haven't seen new growth in the median in a few years.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 14, 2014, 11:19:07 PM
b) Are they replanting on the Merritt? I haven't seen new growth in the median in a few years.

Yes as they are completing the revamp, new wooden guardrails, signage, culverts etc.  The project was done in Trumbull and Fairfield and now it's moved down to Stamford area.  Although the hideous BGS signs remain and are falling apart too.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on April 14, 2014, 11:43:35 PM
Speaking of mileage-based exits: the signing revision on I-395 and CT 2A begins May 1, 2014.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=543260
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=543258
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 12:07:51 AM
One of the pages linked mentions an Exit 14. Where is that, exactly?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on April 15, 2014, 10:57:35 AM
One of the pages linked mentions an Exit 14. Where is that, exactly?
http://montville-ct.patch.com/groups/corey-sipes-blog/p/more-details-emerge-for-i395-exit-renumbering
New Exit 14 is Old Exit 82 (West Town Street).
Or perhaps they meant to say Route 14 in the news release?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on April 15, 2014, 04:29:44 PM
I was back on 91 this weekend after a long absence, and noticed that a tremendous amount of tree clearing has occurred in Middletown, in places the whole width of the median.

Anyone know why?

Last year it was cut back somewhat -- more in line with the usual kind of clearance you find for sight lines, etc.  This round is on a scale I only recall seeing on Mass. Route 3 when they rebuilt the whole highway.

I am pretty surprised to see what a deep ravine exists between the north and southbound carriageways.  You'd never have known when the trees were in there.



It goes back to the hurricane when people complained about too many trees causing power outages.  The DOT adapted it saying all trees must be clear 30FT from the road so cut down the possibility of trees falling into the road.

Of course on the Merritt they are planting NEW trees in the median, of course the Merritt is the one road in CT with the most tree falling deaths.   Blame the MPC
It would be weirder if the most falling tree deaths were on a road that trees couldn't fall on.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2014, 06:21:28 PM
One of the pages linked mentions an Exit 14. Where is that, exactly?
http://montville-ct.patch.com/groups/corey-sipes-blog/p/more-details-emerge-for-i395-exit-renumbering
New Exit 14 is Old Exit 82 (West Town Street).
Or perhaps they meant to say Route 14 in the news release?
Holy crap the comments. Does no one realize the money is going toward SIGN REPLACEMENT, not EXIT NUMBER REPLACEMENT? Actually, one person does - and they would rather have no signs at all. Okay, I'll take the money, you can have your sign-free paradise. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 08:07:09 PM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Widening-Interstate-84-in-Waterbury-255397431.html

A vague article from channel 30 (NBC) of New Britain/Hartford, mentioning that I-84 will see a $400 million widening project starting for Waterbury in June. Most likely it's the area near the exit for CT Route 69. The road under that bridge and a short distance to the east is still only two lanes.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 15, 2014, 10:31:05 PM
A vague article from channel 30 (NBC) of New Britain/Hartford, mentioning that I-84 will see a $400 million widening project starting for Waterbury in June. Most likely it's the area near the exit for CT Route 69. The road under that bridge and a short distance to the east is still only two lanes.

About damn time, although the fact that that segment is referred to as the "last narrow stretch" is depressing. Still only 4 lanes between exits 7 and 19, that widening is needed too!

Also between the state line and I-684, but that's New York's problem which I don't see them addressing anytime soon since it would benefit Connecticut more than New York.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 15, 2014, 10:58:45 PM
Plus they just redid those bridges last fall at NY Exit 21 in Southeast. I don't know if they were 2 lanes for each side or 3.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2014, 11:49:24 PM
A vague article from channel 30 (NBC) of New Britain/Hartford, mentioning that I-84 will see a $400 million widening project starting for Waterbury in June. Most likely it's the area near the exit for CT Route 69. The road under that bridge and a short distance to the east is still only two lanes.

About damn time, although the fact that that segment is referred to as the "last narrow stretch" is depressing. Still only 4 lanes between exits 7 and 19, that widening is needed too!

Also between the state line and I-684, but that's New York's problem which I don't see them addressing anytime soon since it would benefit Connecticut more than New York.
As crappy as the NY stretch of I-84 is, I've found that the delays generally stem from only having 3 lanes between Exits 4 and 7, with US 7's traffic thrown onto I-84.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 16, 2014, 10:55:14 PM
As crappy as the NY stretch of I-84 is, I've found that the delays generally stem from only having 3 lanes between Exits 4 and 7, with US 7's traffic thrown onto I-84.

Or simply the fact that that stretch is also the middle of Danbury and cities create traffic.

More than 3 lanes would help things there, but man, that is difficult to get Connecticut to do.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JimmyI395 on April 17, 2014, 11:38:16 AM
One of the pages linked mentions an Exit 14. Where is that, exactly?
http://montville-ct.patch.com/groups/corey-sipes-blog/p/more-details-emerge-for-i395-exit-renumbering
New Exit 14 is Old Exit 82 (West Town Street).
Or perhaps they meant to say Route 14 in the news release?
Holy crap the comments. Does no one realize the money is going toward SIGN REPLACEMENT, not EXIT NUMBER REPLACEMENT? Actually, one person does - and they would rather have no signs at all. Okay, I'll take the money, you can have your sign-free paradise. Good luck with that.

These people that commented on that article are so stupid. Nobody will know what exit to take because the numbers will be different. Really! Then I saw somebody wrote that the A. and B. instead of N. S. is stupid too. I guess nobody been outside of Connecticut and seen what other states do.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 17, 2014, 06:39:44 PM
As crappy as the NY stretch of I-84 is, I've found that the delays generally stem from only having 3 lanes between Exits 4 and 7, with US 7's traffic thrown onto I-84.

Or simply the fact that that stretch is also the middle of Danbury and cities create traffic.

More than 3 lanes would help things there, but man, that is difficult to get Connecticut to do.

The widening plans are basically what is there now, same footprint but with an extra 4th lane reducing to 3-lanes between the US-7 interchanges.

I want the extra lane but I think traffic backs up mainly because of people changing lanes because the left-lane drops and exits for (Left) Exit 7 on I-84 EB and from traffic merging on from US-7 South onto I-84 West.  With that merge, the US-7 South onramp to I-84 WB really shouldn't back up as that is where the 3rd lane begins, so no merging is needed.  But drivers merge left into the I-84 center and left lanes causing the slow down.  Sometimes back to Exit 11.

unless they put the US-7 ramps on the right and get rip of the lane drop through the interchanges, the same traffic patterns and backups will remain.  Another example of CT taking the easy, cheap way out and being unambitious.  If they do it right and do it right the first time, we wouldn't have these problems.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on April 19, 2014, 04:46:00 PM
Holy crap the comments. Does no one realize the money is going toward SIGN REPLACEMENT, not EXIT NUMBER REPLACEMENT? Actually, one person does - and they would rather have no signs at all. Okay, I'll take the money, you can have your sign-free paradise. Good luck with that.
I would guess that last comment was a bit of a joke. There's always someone that wants to make everything into a political statement. I think the public sees this $9M project and doesn't believe there will be any benefit. They are mostly right, and as a few others commented, there are certainly better and more effective ways to spend that money.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on April 19, 2014, 10:55:31 PM
I can't read the signs on I-395 at night...the replacement is completely worth the $$$!  CT DOT's decision way back when to put reflective button copy on semi-reflective background was absolutely stupid.  THAT was the waste of money!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on April 20, 2014, 11:03:42 AM
I believe the signs on I-395 date back to 1985. 

I was driving on CT 9 two nights ago and some of the button copy signage is still relatively readable at night.  That signage I believe was installed sometime between 1985 and 1988, since I remember that signage in place prior to Route 9 being extended beyond I-91, and that happened in December 1989.  CT 2 and CT 9 still are mostly 100% button copy, outside of spot sign replacements here n' there.  I-95 is scheduled to lose the majority of its button copy over the next few years according to long-range DOT contracts.  But still nothing to replace the old I-84 signage in E. Hartford/Manchester. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 20, 2014, 01:19:04 PM
Holy crap the comments. Does no one realize the money is going toward SIGN REPLACEMENT, not EXIT NUMBER REPLACEMENT? Actually, one person does - and they would rather have no signs at all. Okay, I'll take the money, you can have your sign-free paradise. Good luck with that.

That will work when all motor vehicles are self-driving.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:10:24 PM
Re: reflective-background button copy signs, drive through NJ some night. Signs date to the early 90s along I-287 (north of US 22, that's a good 53 miles), I-80 (east of NJ 15 for about 50 miles), and I-295 (dwindling in number, but still there south of I-76 for 26 miles). 20 years later, they're still readable at night by and large. (You will find examples that aren't - I-287 east of Somerset in particular, but for all I know those were installed a few years earlier.) Since signs are only designed to last about 12 years before replacement, 20 says to me that there's no inherent fault with reflective-background button copy, it's just that they're not properly maintained and left out there beyond their design life.
(Incidentally, the design life is tied to reflective material losing its reflectivity. So the really old non-reflective background signs are still performing about the same after 50-60 years, as long as the buttons stay clean.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on April 21, 2014, 08:58:25 PM
Holy crap the comments. Does no one realize the money is going toward SIGN REPLACEMENT, not EXIT NUMBER REPLACEMENT? Actually, one person does - and they would rather have no signs at all. Okay, I'll take the money, you can have your sign-free paradise. Good luck with that.

That will work when all motor vehicles are self-driving.
To be fair most have GPSes built in to the car, or the kind you stick on your windshield, or your cell phone, so the notion that without the new signs people won't know how far it is to the next exit is kind of silly. I will say if there ever was a highway in this state where a renumbering makes sense, it is definitely I-395, and the numbers will change so drastically that there is no chance of confusion between old and new exit numbers as the lowest current exit number is higher than the highest new exit number. I would also probably sign it as I-395 TO I-90 instead of the current little TO Mass Pike signs they have just before the exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 21, 2014, 10:21:30 PM

Since signs are only designed to last about 12 years before replacement, 20 says to me that there's no inherent fault with reflective-background button copy, it's just that they're not properly maintained and left out there beyond their design life.
(Incidentally, the design life is tied to reflective material losing its reflectivity. So the really old non-reflective background signs are still performing about the same after 50-60 years, as long as the buttons stay clean.)

This does beg a somewhat different question, though: if reflective sheeting turns to shit after 20 years, but button copy still performs reliably after 50 years, what kind of impact does that have on costs? I can see where button copy might be more expensive to fabricate, but is the total cost of it, including installation, more than 2.5x that of reflective sheeting? If not, then the new technology has a higher lifecycle cost and thus one could fairly ask for non-roadgeeky reasons: is the functional benefit worth the extra cost?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2014, 11:31:47 PM

Since signs are only designed to last about 12 years before replacement, 20 says to me that there's no inherent fault with reflective-background button copy, it's just that they're not properly maintained and left out there beyond their design life.
(Incidentally, the design life is tied to reflective material losing its reflectivity. So the really old non-reflective background signs are still performing about the same after 50-60 years, as long as the buttons stay clean.)

This does beg a somewhat different question, though: if reflective sheeting turns to shit after 20 years, but button copy still performs reliably after 50 years, what kind of impact does that have on costs? I can see where button copy might be more expensive to fabricate, but is the total cost of it, including installation, more than 2.5x that of reflective sheeting? If not, then the new technology has a higher lifecycle cost and thus one could fairly ask for non-roadgeeky reasons: is the functional benefit worth the extra cost?

Letters floating on a non-reflective background is just not nearly as visible as a fully reflective sign. The tradeoff is cost vs. quality/technology.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2014, 08:51:17 PM

Since signs are only designed to last about 12 years before replacement, 20 says to me that there's no inherent fault with reflective-background button copy, it's just that they're not properly maintained and left out there beyond their design life.
(Incidentally, the design life is tied to reflective material losing its reflectivity. So the really old non-reflective background signs are still performing about the same after 50-60 years, as long as the buttons stay clean.)

This does beg a somewhat different question, though: if reflective sheeting turns to shit after 20 years, but button copy still performs reliably after 50 years, what kind of impact does that have on costs? I can see where button copy might be more expensive to fabricate, but is the total cost of it, including installation, more than 2.5x that of reflective sheeting? If not, then the new technology has a higher lifecycle cost and thus one could fairly ask for non-roadgeeky reasons: is the functional benefit worth the extra cost?

Letters floating on a non-reflective background is just not nearly as visible as a fully reflective sign. The tradeoff is cost vs. quality/technology.

I think it depends on location to a certain extent.

This sign dates to 1969-1970....still there and looks fine.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7300/12470917383_87bcceab54.jpg)

but then you have this from the same era:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3745/12504647654_43b520b745.jpg)

Overall non-reflective is easier to read b/c of the contrast.

Some of the reflective button copy signs, the letters look black.

Also, I noticed on I-95 NB, there are 2 demountable copy BGSs around Exit 26 and one was from 2002 and one from 2011 or so.  The one from 2002, is half as bright as the 2011 signage. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 24, 2014, 07:08:58 PM
http://www.rt8bridgeport.com/Home.html

Check it out.  It means some of the "Bridge Clearance" signs on Lindley St will be torn down.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on April 28, 2014, 11:39:32 PM
Quote
The seven span Lindley Street Bridges will be replaced with a new 2 span steel beam bridge.  The other five spans on the Lindley Street bridges will be eliminated and replaced with earth fill.

Welp, looks like Laidlaw can kiss a lot of their parking goodbye. Wonder where they're going to move all those school buses to?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 01, 2014, 05:03:27 PM
Whaddya think?  It says more funding allocated and more DOT engineers sought.


FOR RELEASE: April 15, 2014 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE: (860) 594-3062
FAX: (860) 594-3065
WEB SITE: www.ct.gov/dot 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOV. MALLOY: 5-YEAR TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN WILL CONTINUE INVESTMENTS TO STRENGTHEN AND UPGRADE STATE BRIDGES, HIGHWAYS AND RAIL SYSTEMS AND CREATE THOUSANDS OF JOBS

 

(WATERBURY, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy, joined by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty (CT-5)., Mayor Neil O’Leary, state Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) Commissioner James P. Redeker, state lawmakers, representatives from the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), and members of the state building trades, today announced several of the state’s investments in major highway, bridge and rail projects as part of ConnDOT’s 2014-2018 Transportation Capital Infrastructure Program. The Governor made the announcement at the site of one of the Capital Program’s major projects, the widening of the I-84 corridor in Waterbury, which is set to begin construction this year.

 

“We have invested millions in our roads, bridges and railways over the last three years and have an ambitious five-year plan in place to continue upgrading and strengthening our transportation infrastructure well into the future,” said Governor Malloy. “These projects will facilitate commerce, stimulate economic development, improve the daily commutes of countless residents and create thousands of immediate construction jobs.”

 

Earlier this year, Governor Malloy proposed a state transportation budget for 2015 that represents a 165 percent increase in funding compared to 2010 levels and includes about $1.4 billion to fund the largest transportation capital program in Connecticut’s history. The Governor’s 2015 transportation budget also restores the dedication of the State Transportation Fund solely for transportation purposes. The Governor also noted that his budget – now being considered by the General Assembly – calls for the hiring of 75 ConnDOT engineers to move projects through the design and bid process more quickly.

 

“Investment in infrastructure create a positive flow of goods, services and job creation - the result is a positive impact on Connecticut and its citizens,” said David Roche, President of the Connecticut State Building Trades. “Our workers look forward to doing their part to upgrading and rebuilding our highways, roads and bridges for a better Connecticut.”

 

“A modern and efficient transportation infrastructure has long been cited as one of the key components of a competitive business climate,” said John R. Rathgeber, president and chief executive officer of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association. “As Connecticut strives to be one of the best states to do business, these investments are critical to accessing regional, national and global markets.”

 

“As the investments that have already been made by Governor Malloy come on line, people are returning to work and this is the time to step-up the momentum and take the construction industry's ability to drive jobs and economic activity to scale,” said Don Shubert, President of the Connecticut Construction Industries Association. “These projects not only provide local jobs, but once the improvements are in place, all of the benefits go to Connecticut residents. These much needed transportation improvements provide opportunities, change lives, and build stronger communities.”

 

ConnDOT anticipates the availability of approximately $1.8 billion in the total Capital Program funding in Federal Fiscal Year 2014 for all transportation modes. This amount includes approximately $345 million for bus and rail assets and $1.4 billion available for highway and bridge infrastructure. In its 2013 Capital Program, ConnDOT committed approximately $1.6 billion for all transportation modes – road and bridge, railroad and bus and other public transit. The 2.7-mile I-84 widening project will add a third lane in each direction through Waterbury and is one of dozens of projects in ConnDOT’s five-year capital plan. Other major projects include:

 

Replacement of the I-84 Hartford viaduct
Q Bridge replacement (I-95 New Haven)
Moses Wheeler Bridge replacement (I-95 Stratford)
Putnam Bridge rehabilitation (Route 3 Glastonbury)
Rehabilitation of Merritt Parkway in Stamford
Operational improvements on I-95 in Norwalk
 

“Jobs and economic growth depend on safe and reliable roads, bridges and railroads-- and all transportation-- requiring sound, sustained investment,” said Senator Blumenthal. “I applaud the state for this wise and substantial investment. As chair of the Surface Transportation subcommittee, I will continue to fight to ensure that federal transportation investment keeps up with our state's needs and priorities, particularly with regards to our commuter rail system, which has gone far too long without sorely needed safety upgrades and investments.”

 

“Our roads, rails, and bridges are the critical arteries we use every hour of every day to move people and goods around our state,” said Senator Murphy. “These investments create jobs now and are crucial to the long-term strength of our economy -- I applaud Governor Malloy for making them.”

 

“Investment in our transportation infrastructure is critical for long-term economic growth and our state’s competitiveness,” said Congresswoman Esty. “As a member of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I've been working to increase investments to improve our aging roads, bridges, and railroads. The widening of the I-84 corridor, as well as the other construction projects funded through the Capital Program, will reduce traffic on our roads, increase productivity for local businesses, and put people back to work.”

 

“Governor Malloy has once again stepped up to address issues that are so critical to Waterbury’s future,” said Mayor Neil O’Leary.  “This project ultimately will reduce traffic congestion on the highway, making access into and out of Waterbury easier than ever.  As the city continues attracting new manufacturing businesses, efficient transportation will be vital.”

 

DOT Commissioner James P.  Redeker said that in addition to highway and bridge improvements, the capital plan calls for millions more in investments in the New Haven commuter rail line – the busiest in the country – and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail corridor, which will offer enhanced intercity passenger service beginning in 2016.  The state invested $10 million to upgrade the power supply for the New Haven Line, which was successfully completed in February, giving full back-up power redundancy for the east- and westbound lines.

 

Last week, Governor Malloy announced that Connecticut has applied for $600 million in federal transportation funding to help cover the capital costs of three resiliency, or “hardening,” projects central to the Metro-North’s commuter rail infrastructure.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 02, 2014, 08:50:37 PM
Also talk of tolls now that Obama wants to loosen the restrictions of tolls.  But, read the stupid comments in the article.  Even though they said electronic tolls, people still think of booths and the 1983 Stratford accident.  New Hampshire had a similar accident and they never removed tolls.  Also, neighboring states also have had no incidents day in and day out.

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140501/connecticut-highway-tolls-may-result-from-white-house-policy-change
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 02, 2014, 09:20:03 PM
Connecticut’s last toll was removed after a 1983 crash in Stratford that killed six and injured four more.

Wow! So wrong! Try the Charter Oak Bridge's East Hartford side in 1989.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 02, 2014, 11:36:48 PM
Connecticut’s last toll was removed after a 1983 crash in Stratford that killed six and injured four more.

Wow! So wrong! Try the Charter Oak Bridge's East Hartford side in 1989.  :banghead:

Well, the infamous crash in question was in 1983. So the statement is correct when read literally. But it is poorly written, it implies the toll removal was in 1983 - which, as you say, it was not.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on May 04, 2014, 08:33:35 PM
If you want to get picky (the best kind of correct), there are still two toll crossings in Connecticut. These are also the only two routes that have seasonal winter closures.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 04, 2014, 09:32:38 PM
If you want to get picky (the best kind of correct), there are still two toll crossings in Connecticut. These are also the only two routes that have seasonal winter closures.

Six, if you include ferries that connect CT with other states.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 05, 2014, 11:14:46 AM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Major-Road-Construction-Begins-on-I-95-in-New-Haven-257919971.html

http://wtnh.com/2014/05/05/bridge-replacement-west-haven-begins/

Saw this mention of a 4-year I-95 construction project getting started in New Haven and West Haven today.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on May 05, 2014, 04:44:48 PM
From the official project website, http://www.i95westriver.com/:

Quote
The West River Bridge is one of the longest and most heavily traveled bridges in the State of Connecticut. The ConnDOT project will widen the existing bridge from 92 feet wide to 136 feet wide while maintaining the existing six-lane highway and adding four full-width shoulders.

I can think of a dozen bridges in the state that see more traffic and are much longer than the West River Bridge.  Just quick, the Baldwin, Gold Star, Bulkeley, Charter Oak, Founders, Q, Yankee Doodle, Mianus, Bridgeport Harbor, Sikorsky, Bissel, and Dexter Coffin are all longer.

Regardless, at least this project is getting underway, though I still think it's another project that demonstrates the short-sightedness of ConnDOT, only building 3 lanes each direction, albeit with full shoulders. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 05, 2014, 08:26:58 PM
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Major-Road-Construction-Begins-on-I-95-in-New-Haven-257919971.html

http://wtnh.com/2014/05/05/bridge-replacement-west-haven-begins/

Saw this mention of a 4-year I-95 construction project getting started in New Haven and West Haven today.
So long exit 44.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on May 05, 2014, 08:31:06 PM
From the official project website, http://www.i95westriver.com/:

Quote
The West River Bridge is one of the longest and most heavily traveled bridges in the State of Connecticut. The ConnDOT project will widen the existing bridge from 92 feet wide to 136 feet wide while maintaining the existing six-lane highway and adding four full-width shoulders.

I can think of a dozen bridges in the state that see more traffic and are much longer than the West River Bridge.  Just quick, the Baldwin, Gold Star, Bulkeley, Charter Oak, Founders, Q, Yankee Doodle, Mianus, Bridgeport Harbor, Sikorsky, Bissel, and Dexter Coffin are all longer.

Regardless, at least this project is getting underway, though I still think it's another project that demonstrates the short-sightedness of ConnDOT, only building 3 lanes each direction, albeit with full shoulders. 

I think we just need to get over the fact that Connecticut will never have much highway over 3 lanes. There just isn't space for it, especially in Fairfield and New Haven counties along the water. Does anyone know if they are forced to do full shoulders when they redo a section of highway to bring it up to full interstate standards? I always wondered if a lot of the shortsightedness is just because they're more concerned with keeping cost low while fulfilling the standards knowing full well that they could double the size of the highway and still have the same issues so why bother. I think mass transit is the way to go in the I-95 corridor if you're forced to travel it frequently.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on May 05, 2014, 10:18:26 PM
So long exit 44.

And also so long to this hideous sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.283121,-72.934225,3a,55y,220.51h,80.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHBNMZrbS7B72c14ipv0YJQ!2e0)!


Interestingly, when the interchange that was exits 44 and 45 on the Merritt was reconfigured to have only one exit, 45 was the number they ditched. Here, they're keeping 45 and ditching 44. Interesting balance there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 05, 2014, 10:57:22 PM
From the official project website, http://www.i95westriver.com/:

Quote
The West River Bridge is one of the longest and most heavily traveled bridges in the State of Connecticut. The ConnDOT project will widen the existing bridge from 92 feet wide to 136 feet wide while maintaining the existing six-lane highway and adding four full-width shoulders.

I can think of a dozen bridges in the state that see more traffic and are much longer than the West River Bridge.  Just quick, the Baldwin, Gold Star, Bulkeley, Charter Oak, Founders, Q, Yankee Doodle, Mianus, Bridgeport Harbor, Sikorsky, Bissel, and Dexter Coffin are all longer.

Regardless, at least this project is getting underway, though I still think it's another project that demonstrates the short-sightedness of ConnDOT, only building 3 lanes each direction, albeit with full shoulders. 


right on Shadyjay! If you look at I-95 SB through Long Wharf, the lane configuration is pretty much finished and what it'll be after the work is done.  Traffic still backs up because the 4th lane exits at exit 45.  They should really extend the 4th lane down to exit 43 or Exit 42.

but yes, short sighted and unimaginable.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on May 05, 2014, 11:06:52 PM
So long exit 44.

And also so long to this hideous sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.283121,-72.934225,3a,55y,220.51h,80.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHBNMZrbS7B72c14ipv0YJQ!2e0)!

I'm gonna miss that button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on May 06, 2014, 10:01:01 PM
So long exit 44.

And also so long to this hideous sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.283121,-72.934225,3a,55y,220.51h,80.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHBNMZrbS7B72c14ipv0YJQ!2e0)!


Interestingly, when the interchange that was exits 44 and 45 on the Merritt was reconfigured to have only one exit, 45 was the number they ditched. Here, they're keeping 45 and ditching 44. Interesting balance there.
The exit numbers are union.  You can't ditch one number without ditching the other.  It's in the contract.  It's also the reason why CT is still mostly sequential.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 08, 2014, 09:24:26 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-connecticut-tolls-0503-20140502,0,1708514.story

Follow-up article in The Hartford Courant about the toll debate.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on June 07, 2014, 10:30:16 AM
This overhead sign replacement contract (various routes, statewide) was recently advertised:

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=32409

I count about 45 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on June 07, 2014, 11:52:02 AM
This overhead sign replacement contract (various routes, statewide) was recently advertised:

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=32409

I count about 45 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.

Thanks for that link. Is there any reason that some of the signs place an arrow in a rather ugly spot compared to the right of the legend / the bottom line of the sign? The EXIT 30 {CT 40} Hamden Chesire sign is a good example of this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on June 07, 2014, 01:09:19 PM
Possible reasons could include economy in sign panel area, wind loading, and (in the case of ground-mounted signs, such as SR 71/Corbins Corner) a desire to keep the assembly down to two posts instead of three.

In the case of the sign you mention, the design needs to be fixed since "Chesire" is a misspelling--the town is actually Cheshire, just like the county in England (or the cat in Alice in Wonderland).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 07, 2014, 07:32:11 PM
This overhead sign replacement contract (various routes, statewide) was recently advertised:

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=32409

I count about 45 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.
The replacement in Old Saybrook is wasteful. The existing signs are fine. Not sure why they need replacement.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 07, 2014, 08:27:12 PM
This overhead sign replacement contract (various routes, statewide) was recently advertised:

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=32409

I count about 45 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.
The replacement in Old Saybrook is wasteful. The existing signs are fine. Not sure why they need replacement.

Glad to see I-84 WB in Waterbury is getting some "LEFT" advance BGS notice for CT-8 SB.

ANNNND, a hint of things to come, the plans for the "LEFT EXIT" tab is left with extra space for the future addition of an "A", "B", or "C" etc.  I would say mileage based exits!


Also, on I-91 SB they have Exit 40 signed as a double lane exit only, when it's not because there is an option lane there.  Wtf!?!

and is the Exit 21 "exit now" sign on I-84 WB getting replaced again?  Isn't that the 3rd time?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 07, 2014, 08:38:54 PM
Also, I mentioned this in the I-84 thread but it really belongs here.

HOT lanes or the likes on I-95?

http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 07, 2014, 08:39:28 PM
Is that actually extra space, or just the new dimensions for the tab as mandated by the feds?  Unfortunately I can't load the PDF as it refuses to display in anything other than Adobe Reader.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: J N Winkler on June 07, 2014, 09:51:24 PM
Are you trying to load the spec book, or the plans portfolio?  The spec book has the sign panel details while the plans portfolio has the elevations.  I'd expect the spec book to load without trouble in third-party PDF viewers, but the plans portfolio might cause difficulty; if that is the case, I suggest unpacking the portfolio using pdftk.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: OracleUsr on June 08, 2014, 02:10:24 AM
I was able to view the spec book, but not the portfolio PDF in Firefox.  Being more of a sign person myself, I liked looking at those plans.

It may not be so much that they're going to use that for distance numbering, but to abandon the practice of numbering every off-ramp.  Ideally, the I-84/CT 8 interchange should be an A&B not two consecutive numbers.  So the new sign might eventually look like this (number approximate of distance number):

LEFT
EXIT 31A                                                EXIT 31B
8 South                                                  8 North
Naugatuck                                              Torrington
Bridgeport

(cardinal directions in mixed case to indicate raised caps)

Will be interesting how they use the left banner under the Eastbound viaduct such that it is visible.  Also glad they decided to use the more standard LEFT tab placement rather than how they tabbed I-84 West at US 7 South in Danbury:

LEFT
EXIT                3

7 South
Norwalk
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 08, 2014, 10:48:12 AM
This overhead sign replacement contract (various routes, statewide) was recently advertised:

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=32409

I count about 45 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.
The replacement in Old Saybrook is wasteful. The existing signs are fine. Not sure why they need replacement.

I agree, but pretty sure it has something to do with the load on the bridge.  CT is moving away from attaching signs to overhead bridges.

Also interesting to note that in the plans, some I-84 signs in Farmington are going from overhead to ground-based.  CT in recent years seems to be moving more and more signs to the ground.  It makes me wonder if we'll see I-91 in North Haven and Wallingford go ground-based in the future.  If I-91 in Middletown and Cromwell is, I see no reason why not to eliminate the overhead supports further south. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 08, 2014, 04:26:46 PM
Glad to see I-84 WB in Waterbury is getting some "LEFT" advance BGS notice for CT-8 SB.

ANNNND, a hint of things to come, the plans for the "LEFT EXIT" tab is left with extra space for the future addition of an "A", "B", or "C" etc.  I would say mileage based exits!


Also, on I-91 SB they have Exit 40 signed as a double lane exit only, when it's not because there is an option lane there.  Wtf!?!

and is the Exit 21 "exit now" sign on I-84 WB getting replaced again?  Isn't that the 3rd time?
Well it does say right on the drawing of the standard exit tab that it should be big enough for double digit exit numbers or double digit mileage for future mileage based exits. I'd say the future is spelled out pretty clearly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on June 08, 2014, 05:17:57 PM
Looking at those plans and comparing the signs to each other, it definitely looks like there's extra space built-in for mile based numbers on SEVERAL of the signs.  One even has "future overlay panel" written in!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on June 11, 2014, 12:51:43 AM
The state added a new unsigned route in Stamford on May 30: SR 790, paralleling I-95 and serving the multimodal transport center.

Where I stumbled across this: http://www.boardofreps.org/Data/Sites/43/userfiles/mail/2014/140331_dot_south_state_street.pdf

Updated secret route list: http://kweb/roads/ct/secretlist.html#d_790_route
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on June 11, 2014, 10:44:20 PM
Oh now that's funky.

There are several places where pairs of frontage roads are state-maintained, but this is the only case where one frontage road is state maintained and the other is not!

I also find this interesting considering all the work Stamford has done and is doing to build their "urban transitway" east of the train station along Dock St, Jefferson St, and Myrtle Ave over to route 1 east of downtown. You would think that road, at least once finished, would be of much greater state interest than South State St.


At any rate, I'm going to play hipster roadgeek and obnoxiously claim I clinched CT 790 years before it existed. :-D
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 12, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
Knowing CT, they'll probably number the little connector ramp being built to the New Britain FasTrac terminal SR 594 in honor of the number of millions of dollars used to build the boondoggle.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 17, 2014, 09:26:57 PM
A couple observations from my trip to CT last weekend:

Routes travelled:
I-91 from Exit 22 to 49/Mass
I-95 from Exit 69 to 85
I-395 from Exit 79A to 81
CT 2 from Exit 28 west to Exit 18
CT 2A from Exit "3" to I-395
CT 9 from Exit 1 to 20

*  Still missing a gantry on I-91 SB at Exit 40, though scheduled to be replaced.
*  The brown sign that said "EXIT 33/XFINITY THEATER" on I-91 has been modified.  The exit tab is still brown, but the
    sign is now blue says "ATTRACTIONS" with a brown box saying "XFINITY THEATER".  The "ATTRACTIONS" signs are
    new to CT.  They are normally similar to the FOOD / FUEL / LODGING signs. 
*  No signs of sign replacement on I-395 yet, though the project is still in its infamy.  Did see a SB sign for the 
    Montville Service Plaza.  The old button copy "REST AREA - GAS-FOOD" has been replaced with "SERVICE PLAZA - 
    FOOD - FUEL". 
*  I-95 NB was congested between Exits 70 and 74.  No surprise - a sunny Saturday in mid June.
*  An accident had the intersection of CT 9 Exit 7 and CT 154 closed.  Those "in the know" will know that this is a 3-
   mile long ramp.  We made it all the way to just before the intersection when we were forced to turn around.  They
   should've had a cop blocking off the exit from CT 9.  The NB VMS did say "RAMP TO CT 154 CLOSED" but should've
   said EXIT 7 closed.  SB VMS said nothing.  Apparently the accident resulted in a fatality.
*  Only major delay on the return trip home was CT 9 at the work zone between Exits 9 & 10, which is down to a single
    lane.  It's a "smart work zone" but I can't find a web site for it.  Was surprised to see NO DELAY on the 91 NB Exit
    29 ramp. 
*  Still no new-style "reduce speed ahead" signs on CT limited-access highways.  These are the yellow diamonds with an
    up arrow and a speed limit sign.  They're becoming quite common in the rest of New England.
*  Out of State-related:  lots of new signage on I-91 in Mass through Springfield.  See the "I-91 Sign Replacement"
    thread for details.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 18, 2014, 12:23:53 AM
The Courant has a story about Tuesday's I-84 viaduct public hearing (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-i-84-0618-20140617,0,964454.story).

High points:

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on June 18, 2014, 10:10:20 AM
Why not have an elevated "express I-84" and then frontage roads to cover Downtown Hartford?  That would eliminate all of the tight interchanges and would allow for a smoother interchange at I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 18, 2014, 10:12:37 AM

Why not have an elevated "express I-84" and then frontage roads to cover Downtown Hartford?  That would eliminate all of the tight interchanges and would allow for a smoother interchange at I-91.

$$$$$$
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 18, 2014, 08:04:06 PM
A couple observations from my trip to CT last weekend:

Routes travelled:
I-91 from Exit 22 to 49/Mass
I-95 from Exit 69 to 85
I-395 from Exit 79A to 81
CT 2 from Exit 28 west to Exit 18
CT 2A from Exit "3" to I-395
CT 9 from Exit 1 to 20

*  Still missing a gantry on I-91 SB at Exit 40, though scheduled to be replaced.
*  The brown sign that said "EXIT 33/XFINITY THEATER" on I-91 has been modified.  The exit tab is still brown, but the
    sign is now blue says "ATTRACTIONS" with a brown box saying "XFINITY THEATER".  The "ATTRACTIONS" signs are
    new to CT.  They are normally similar to the FOOD / FUEL / LODGING signs. 
*  No signs of sign replacement on I-395 yet, though the project is still in its infamy.  Did see a SB sign for the 
    Montville Service Plaza.  The old button copy "REST AREA - GAS-FOOD" has been replaced with "SERVICE PLAZA - 
    FOOD - FUEL". 
*  I-95 NB was congested between Exits 70 and 74.  No surprise - a sunny Saturday in mid June.
*  An accident had the intersection of CT 9 Exit 7 and CT 154 closed.  Those "in the know" will know that this is a 3-
   mile long ramp.  We made it all the way to just before the intersection when we were forced to turn around.  They
   should've had a cop blocking off the exit from CT 9.  The NB VMS did say "RAMP TO CT 154 CLOSED" but should've
   said EXIT 7 closed.  SB VMS said nothing.  Apparently the accident resulted in a fatality.
*  Only major delay on the return trip home was CT 9 at the work zone between Exits 9 & 10, which is down to a single
    lane.  It's a "smart work zone" but I can't find a web site for it.  Was surprised to see NO DELAY on the 91 NB Exit
    29 ramp. 
*  Still no new-style "reduce speed ahead" signs on CT limited-access highways.  These are the yellow diamonds with an
    up arrow and a speed limit sign.  They're becoming quite common in the rest of New England.
*  Out of State-related:  lots of new signage on I-91 in Mass through Springfield.  See the "I-91 Sign Replacement"
    thread for details.

CT 9 exit 7 is for CT 82. Also, the attractions signs have been in use for years along I-95 in Fairfield County, and I've started seeing them pop up along the rest of 95 too, so perhaps they are starting to spread to other highways. Regarding reduce speed ahead signs, the CT standard seems to be a large rectangular sign on both sides of the road when it's not temporary due to something like a sharp curve where yellow diamonds are used sometimes accompanied by alternating flashers.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2014, 11:34:54 PM
Oh, I'm well aware of Exit 7 going to CT 82.  However, the VMS said "RAMP TO ROUTE 154 CLOSED".  This is the VMS right after Exit 6's merge at the Wig Hill Road overpass.  The VMS message was the confusing part.  To make any sense, it should have said EXIT 7 CLOSED, as there is nothing - absolutely nothing - on CT 82 between CT 9 and CT 154.  It's a "Super 3" with no interchanges.  So we decided to take Exit 7 anyway, and got to within site of the CT 154 intersection where we were forced to turn around.  We also saw CT 154 itself was closed.  So we headed back "west" to CT 9 North, then decided to change our plans, reversed at Exit 8 and headed south.  The VMS before Exit 7 had no message whatsoever.  I'm guessing there were a lot of pissed off people on that ramp.

Come to think of it, I did see a VMS earlier this year on I-95 in Westbrook for Exit 64.  What struck me as odd with the I-91 Exit 33 sign is that there was NOTHING wrong with the old regular brown sign saying "xFinity Theater".  It's been up since they built the Meadows, saying "Music Theater" first, then "Comcast Theater".  There are so many brown attraction signs out there "in the wild" but to take a small one and convert it blue and squish in an ATTRACTIONS and the xFinity Theater box seems odd. 

I wonder when ConnDOT will switch to the new standard yellow diamond for a reduced speed ahead sign on an interstate.  My guess will be "eventually".  Just look at how far behind CT is from the other 47 contiguous states as far as various highway-related items:  abolishing the 55 mph limit ..... aligned exit tabs ..... service symbols ..... etc.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 21, 2014, 08:50:10 PM
Here's a thought that just occured to me...

Given the MUTCD's new stricter requirements/regulations on what can be posted on a particular exit's BGS, it got me thinking about some exits on I-95 in Eastern Connecticut.  When it comes time for those signs to be replaced, will we see Exit 86's US Sub Base, Exit 87's Clarence B. Sharp Hwy, and Exit 90's Mystic Aquarium/Seaport disappear from primary BGSs?  And what will they be replaced with? 

I've always thought Exit 86 should include LEDYARD over the present Gales Ferry.  And Exit 87 used to also have a control "city" of Industrial Area on 1980s-era signage.  Exit 90 has, for as long as I can remember, had the two Mystic attractions.  Only in the late 90s was the sign modified so that only the EXIT 90 and route marker were in the green, with the rest of the sign brown (to denote attractions). 

I have no idea what ConnDOT's timetable to replace this signage is, but I wonder what will happen with those exits.  Seeing as how UMASS and JFK LIBRARY are being stripped from signs on I-93 in Boston, and the desire to not have a highway name on a BGS in favor of something more "concrete".  NYC lost most of its highway names from BGSs.... could good ole' Clarence B. Sharp fall by the wayside?

And also, whatever made Brainard Airport in Hartford so special that it got on the EXIT 27 BGSs for all these years?  It's not that major of an airport by any means.  Seems like it should be put on a secondary sign.  I don't see TWEED, WBY-OXFORD, GROTON- NEW LONDON, DANIELSON, or even SIKORSKY on BGSs.   


Just a thought during this longest day of the year....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on June 21, 2014, 11:59:58 PM
And also, whatever made Brainard Airport in Hartford so special that it got on the EXIT 27 BGSs for all these years?  It's not that major of an airport by any means.  Seems like it should be put on a secondary sign.  I don't see TWEED, WBY-OXFORD, GROTON- NEW LONDON, DANIELSON, or even SIKORSKY on BGSs.   

If you count by number of landings/takeoffs, unless I'm mistaken, Brainard is the busiest airport in the state.  Its operations count is a little bit higher than Bradley's, and it's almost double that of the busiest airport on your list.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on June 22, 2014, 11:01:25 AM
Here's a thought that just occured to me...

Given the MUTCD's new stricter requirements/regulations on what can be posted on a particular exit's BGS, it got me thinking about some exits on I-95 in Eastern Connecticut.  When it comes time for those signs to be replaced, will we see Exit 86's US Sub Base, Exit 87's Clarence B. Sharp Hwy, and Exit 90's Mystic Aquarium/Seaport disappear from primary BGSs?  And what will they be replaced with? 

I've always thought Exit 86 should include LEDYARD over the present Gales Ferry.  And Exit 87 used to also have a control "city" of Industrial Area on 1980s-era signage.  Exit 90 has, for as long as I can remember, had the two Mystic attractions.  Only in the late 90s was the sign modified so that only the EXIT 90 and route marker were in the green, with the rest of the sign brown (to denote attractions). 

I have no idea what ConnDOT's timetable to replace this signage is, but I wonder what will happen with those exits.  Seeing as how UMASS and JFK LIBRARY are being stripped from signs on I-93 in Boston, and the desire to not have a highway name on a BGS in favor of something more "concrete".  NYC lost most of its highway names from BGSs.... could good ole' Clarence B. Sharp fall by the wayside?

And also, whatever made Brainard Airport in Hartford so special that it got on the EXIT 27 BGSs for all these years?  It's not that major of an airport by any means.  Seems like it should be put on a secondary sign.  I don't see TWEED, WBY-OXFORD, GROTON- NEW LONDON, DANIELSON, or even SIKORSKY on BGSs.   


Just a thought during this longest day of the year....

Shadyjay, on a recent spot replacement of a sign bridge on I-95 S for Exit 87, There is a new sign with a "Left Exit Tab" for CT 349 and it is still "Clarence B. Sharp Hwy."  The replaced sign on the same sign bridge for Exit 86 also guides to "U.S. Sub Base / Gales Ferry."  So I don't think you will see changes with either one.

I would be interested to see changes in Exit 90.  They should put the attractions on an auxiliary ground-based BGS and use "Downtown Mystic" as the control.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 22, 2014, 07:51:36 PM
Here's a thought that just occured to me...

Given the MUTCD's new stricter requirements/regulations on what can be posted on a particular exit's BGS, it got me thinking about some exits on I-95 in Eastern Connecticut.  When it comes time for those signs to be replaced, will we see Exit 86's US Sub Base, Exit 87's Clarence B. Sharp Hwy, and Exit 90's Mystic Aquarium/Seaport disappear from primary BGSs?  And what will they be replaced with? 

I've always thought Exit 86 should include LEDYARD over the present Gales Ferry.  And Exit 87 used to also have a control "city" of Industrial Area on 1980s-era signage.  Exit 90 has, for as long as I can remember, had the two Mystic attractions.  Only in the late 90s was the sign modified so that only the EXIT 90 and route marker were in the green, with the rest of the sign brown (to denote attractions). 

I have no idea what ConnDOT's timetable to replace this signage is, but I wonder what will happen with those exits.  Seeing as how UMASS and JFK LIBRARY are being stripped from signs on I-93 in Boston, and the desire to not have a highway name on a BGS in favor of something more "concrete".  NYC lost most of its highway names from BGSs.... could good ole' Clarence B. Sharp fall by the wayside?

And also, whatever made Brainard Airport in Hartford so special that it got on the EXIT 27 BGSs for all these years?  It's not that major of an airport by any means.  Seems like it should be put on a secondary sign.  I don't see TWEED, WBY-OXFORD, GROTON- NEW LONDON, DANIELSON, or even SIKORSKY on BGSs.   


Just a thought during this longest day of the year....

I think all of those airports have BGSes, including Chester Airport. Danielson I'm not sure about.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 22, 2014, 08:25:39 PM
You know, I thought about that new assembly on I-95 South retaining the "status quo" of control points.  But I wonder if that's just because it was a spot replacement, vs an all-out complete replacement of all signage.

Regarding the airports, all are listed on secondary signage.  What I just find odd is that Brainard Airport makes it onto the primary BGSs for Exit 27.  I could see if it was a commercial airport getting that kind of treatment, but wonder if in the next round of sign replacement, will Brainard Airport go on a secondary (ground) sign?  Guess we'll find out in 2030.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 24, 2014, 10:04:43 PM
You know, I thought about that new assembly on I-95 South retaining the "status quo" of control points.  But I wonder if that's just because it was a spot replacement, vs an all-out complete replacement of all signage.

Regarding the airports, all are listed on secondary signage.  What I just find odd is that Brainard Airport makes it onto the primary BGSs for Exit 27.  I could see if it was a commercial airport getting that kind of treatment, but wonder if in the next round of sign replacement, will Brainard Airport go on a secondary (ground) sign?  Guess we'll find out in 2030.
I just assumed Brainard Airport is the main destination for that exit. Where else does that ramp go? Simple answer is no where. There's a few stores, a McDonald's, and a hotel or two, but that exit dumps you off right in front of the airport, and is on a sliver of land penned in by the Connecticut River and I-91. If it weren't for the airport, I don't think that exit would even exist. None of the other airports are sitting that close to the end of their exit ramps (with Bradley being the obvious exception).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on June 25, 2014, 01:54:18 AM
I just assumed Brainard Airport is the main destination for that exit. Where else does that ramp go? Simple answer is no where. There's a few stores, a McDonald's, and a hotel or two, but that exit dumps you off right in front of the airport, and is on a sliver of land penned in by the Connecticut River and I-91. If it weren't for the airport, I don't think that exit would even exist. None of the other airports are sitting that close to the end of their exit ramps (with Bradley being the obvious exception).

The South Meadows (the neighborhood of Hartford that Exit 27 is in) is one of the two industrial areas of Hartford, it's the southern equivalent to the North Meadows (Exit 33).  While the North Meadows has the music venue, expo center, car dealerships, the Hartford Jail, and the old dump/police headquarters the South Meadows has Brainard, the water treatment plant, trash to energy plant, the Hartford Regional Market and serves as a gateway between I-91/the Charter Oak Bridge and the city's southwestern neighborhoods.

In other words, the exit is kinda important.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 25, 2014, 05:41:20 PM

I just assumed Brainard Airport is the main destination for that exit. Where else does that ramp go? Simple answer is no where. There's a few stores, a McDonald's, and a hotel or two, but that exit dumps you off right in front of the airport, and is on a sliver of land penned in by the Connecticut River and I-91. If it weren't for the airport, I don't think that exit would even exist. None of the other airports are sitting that close to the end of their exit ramps (with Bradley being the obvious exception).

The South Meadows (the neighborhood of Hartford that Exit 27 is in) is one of the two industrial areas of Hartford, it's the southern equivalent to the North Meadows (Exit 33).  While the North Meadows has the music venue, expo center, car dealerships, the Hartford Jail, and the old dump/police headquarters the South Meadows has Brainard, the water treatment plant, trash to energy plant, the Hartford Regional Market and serves as a gateway between I-91/the Charter Oak Bridge and the city's southwestern neighborhoods.

In other words, the exit is kinda important.

Sure, like Ty Law's Launch trampoline park doesn't exist. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on June 25, 2014, 08:27:06 PM
Does anyone what ConnDOT's major projects for this year are? I would assume the most important are probably continuing construction on the Q Bridge and the Moses Wheeler Bridge on I-95.


Btw- This is reply 666.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Marc_in_CT on June 26, 2014, 11:31:56 AM
Does anyone what ConnDOT's major projects for this year are? I would assume the most important are probably continuing construction on the Q Bridge and the Moses Wheeler Bridge on I-95.

The Route 34, Naugatuck River Bridge rehab in Derby is a pretty big one that is going to make my daily commute a royal pain in the neck for the next 2 years:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=544138 (http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=544138)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 26, 2014, 09:12:44 PM
The Route 34, Naugatuck River Bridge rehab in Derby is a pretty big one that is going to make my daily commute a royal pain in the neck for the next 2 years:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=544138 (http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=544138)

You know, when I first saw this, I got my hopes up, thinking that the Stevenson Dam project on Route 34 was finally going to get underway.  That was my first job I did when I started surveying back in '99.  Then I remembered that's the Housatonic River... actually Lake Zoar, and not the Naugatuck.


As far as major ConnDOT projects for this year... well, not really, more like this decade...
In addition to those mentioned, there's also the I-95 West River and Norwalk projects, plus the Merritt Parkway safety improvements in Stamford/New Canaan.  Starting relatively soon (well, bids are about to go out) is the I-84 Waterbury widening.  Those are the real big ones, road-related.

Edited for quote clarity
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 27, 2014, 12:04:06 AM
I-84 at Exit 30 in Southington will be completely closed in both directions this weekend. It's for a hyperfix bridge replacement project, similar to what was done to the west last fall at New York's Exit 21 in Southeast.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-in-Southington-Closed-This-Weekend-264755631.html

UPDATE: Article about the hyperfix from the New Britain Herald:
http://newbritainherald.com/articles/2014/06/27/news/doc53acdfadc447c994937385.txt

It says you can also go to www.ct.gov/dot and follow a travel alert notice on the page for a live construction feed. Or just go here:

http://www.earthcam.net/projects/ctdot/interstate84/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on June 27, 2014, 08:55:50 PM
I-84 at Exit 30 in Southington will be completely closed in both directions this weekend. It's for a hyperfix bridge replacement project, similar to what was done to the west last fall at New York's Exit 21 in Southeast.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-in-Southington-Closed-This-Weekend-264755631.html

UPDATE: Article about the hyperfix from the New Britain Herald:
http://newbritainherald.com/articles/2014/06/27/news/doc53acdfadc447c994937385.txt

It says you can also go to www.ct.gov/dot and follow a travel alert notice on the page for a live construction feed. Or just go here:

http://www.earthcam.net/projects/ctdot/interstate84/
Thanks for the link. This is gonna be like when they opened the first lanes of the new Q-Bridge: I'm gonna be sitting here watching until something interesting happens. It's too addictive! I probably would have been better off not knowing this work was happening this weekend.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 29, 2014, 08:35:37 PM
No, this photo is NOT from the O.J. Simpson slow speed chase of 1994. I happened to catch the I-84 Westbound span at Marion Avenue in Southington, CT (Exit 30) reopen live. How nice! :D

(http://i.imgur.com/1e902bJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on June 29, 2014, 09:32:06 PM
Nice...Nice.... but this one is not bad either, from Time Lapse Camera #3...

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Hc23QAkjiwA/U7C9uyMbnYI/AAAAAAAATo4/GVWS2ghlGg8/s720/Untitled.png)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 29, 2014, 10:03:06 PM
and like NY last fall in Brewster, the project completed ahead of schedule.  I wish they'd do this more often like on CT-34 in Derby. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 30, 2014, 02:28:55 AM
Sounds a lot like the Medford, Mass., bridges replacement on I-93 in 2011.  Each was done in a weekend, and the results still seem good.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 30, 2014, 02:22:34 PM
Plans for the last segment of I-84 to widened in Waterbury have been released.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=32646 (http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=32646)
Starting on page 997 on the "Project Specifications" are the sign details.

The only sad thing is the last remaining non-reflective button copy signs are going with it.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3820/12470920973_378fa40f08.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/k11JjR)

Actually the lanes will be reversed on the C&D road.  2-lanes for CT-69 SB and one for I-84 EB/CT-69 NB.  and before that there is a CT-69 SB 2-lane down arrow pull through overhead.  See page 1024. That'll be interesting.This sign won't be replaced as a BGS, just a route shield.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5075/14223620972_d876fbc332.jpg)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on July 07, 2014, 05:26:42 PM
Oh now that's funky.

There are several places where pairs of frontage roads are state-maintained, but this is the only case where one frontage road is state maintained and the other is not!

I also find this interesting considering all the work Stamford has done and is doing to build their "urban transitway" east of the train station along Dock St, Jefferson St, and Myrtle Ave over to route 1 east of downtown. You would think that road, at least once finished, would be of much greater state interest than South State St.


At any rate, I'm going to play hipster roadgeek and obnoxiously claim I clinched CT 790 years before it existed. :-D


I would think so as well, but I am wonder if Stamford would want to apply for North State Street as well, in order to reduce costs of maintenance (I assume it is high due to the wear of trucks and buses entering/exiting I-95).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 10, 2014, 12:47:06 AM
I would think so as well, but I am wonder if Stamford would want to apply for North State Street as well, in order to reduce costs of maintenance (I assume it is high due to the wear of trucks and buses entering/exiting I-95).

I dunno. I'm speculating here, but I did used to work for the city, so it is informed speculation:

The City of Stamford has been undergoing a series of projects to rehab or replace all of their various bridges over the Mianus and Rippowam (Mill) Rivers, which was spurred on by flooding issues caused by a storm in the spring of 2006. In addition to keeping the structures in good repair there is a side goal of increasing the capacity of water that can flow underneath them in order to prevent them from possibly getting washed out in future storms and to reduce flooding.

South State Street features such a bridge which has not yet received such a rehab. I suspect the logic in giving South State to ConnDOT centers around who is responsible for that bridge. By giving it up, the city is dumping the responsibility of rehabbing it on the state.


Meanwhile, North State Street ends a block further east and features no such bridge. So the city does not have any similar motivation to want it turned over.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2014, 10:26:25 PM
Don't hold your breath but found RFP on the DOT website for:

I-91 Exit 29 to I-84 interchange. Note the 70mph design speed.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/I-91_to_Rte_15_Charter_Oak_Alt_8_B_wo_Cost_Est_%2807-08-14%29.pdf

and

US-7/CT-15 interchange:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/2227-_Design_Services_for_Rte_7&15.pdf


Whole list at:
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/browse.asp?a=1527&bc=0&c=24461
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 14, 2014, 11:00:12 PM
It looks like the 91-to-15 NB ramp is 60 mph.  15-to-91 NB seems to be 70 mph.

I guess times are tough, but this interchange would be easier with 15-to-91 SB on a two-lane, right-entrance flyover.  I have no idea if the geometry would work. 

It's a little surprising that the ramps were made so underpowered.  This was not a low-traffic movement (91 to 84) in 1989 or whenever they started building it. 

Anecdotal experience, personal and otherwise, makes me feel like there was some shift from 84 as a through route to Boston from New York after the tolls were dropped on 95 and 15.  I don't know if the numbers bear this hunch out, but it could help explain the capacity problems. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on July 14, 2014, 11:01:49 PM
Has the Merritt Parkway Conservancy already started to rally the troops to kill the 7/15 proposal for the umpteenth time?  :poke:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 15, 2014, 09:24:50 PM
Quote
to provide environmental studies and design services

Yup, starting the whole process over. So if we're lucky they'll break ground in 2022. Because:

Has the Merritt Parkway Conservancy already started to rally the troops to kill the 7/15 proposal for the umpteenth time?  :poke:

Probably.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: spmkam on July 16, 2014, 09:16:34 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/data/hc-white-house-report-connecticuts-roads-worst-in-us-20140714,0,4346900.htmlpage#.U8Z6vPldUqq



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on July 16, 2014, 09:29:34 AM
http://www.courant.com/news/data/hc-white-house-report-connecticuts-roads-worst-in-us-20140714,0,4346900.htmlpage#.U8Z6vPldUqq
Not to be nonchalant; but in other news, bears have been known to go in the woods.

It's been likely stated in previous pages of this thread but it's worth repeating; the gas taxes should be allocated to a road/transportation fund and not a general fund.  The latter's too easy to be raided for frivolous spending.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 16, 2014, 12:27:00 PM
Quote
to provide environmental studies and design services

Yup, starting the whole process over. So if we're lucky they'll break ground in 2022. Because:

Has the Merritt Parkway Conservancy already started to rally the troops to kill the 7/15 proposal for the umpteenth time?  :poke:

Probably.

It's amazing how one non-gov't group can have soooo much power. I remember in 2009 when they had public meetings and the MPC has their own design which was a cloverleaf.  The DOT bended for them and presented a powerpoint on how cloverleafs were great and tried to push through a cloverleaf design to appease the MPC.

Luckily, local residents opposed that and we now have the current Alt21 design, which is amazing similar to the original design.

This group has more say than you realize.  Officials close to the projects have told me the conservancy is the reason there aren't many VMS signs and why the new service plazas STILL don't have adequate acceleration lanes in New Canaan and NB in Fairfield.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 16, 2014, 08:58:32 PM
Don't hold your breath but found RFP on the DOT website for:

I-91 Exit 29 to I-84 interchange. Note the 70mph design speed.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/I-91_to_Rte_15_Charter_Oak_Alt_8_B_wo_Cost_Est_%2807-08-14%29.pdf



Kinda confused by that PDF as there's no color key so I can't exactly tell what's proposed here.  But on closer examination, is it a left exit being proposed to leave I-91 NB in the vicinity of where the two carriageways of I-91 separate?  Does this entail widening the Charter Oak Bridge itself?  I see widening for the Main St & Silver Ln bridges in East Hartford. 

All very interesting.  Though, also not holding my breath!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 16, 2014, 10:25:24 PM
Kinda confused by that PDF as there's no color key so I can't exactly tell what's proposed here.  But on closer examination, is it a left exit being proposed to leave I-91 NB in the vicinity of where the two carriageways of I-91 separate?  Does this entail widening the Charter Oak Bridge itself?  I see widening for the Main St & Silver Ln bridges in East Hartford. 

All very interesting.  Though, also not holding my breath!

I also won't hold my breath, and I dread what construction will do to traffic on that section of 91...but if ConnDOT is smart, they'll get moving on it soon.

Looking down the road, 84 is going to be turned into a worse mess when they finally do something about the Aetna Viaduct.  That in turn will create an incentive for through traffic to seek alternate routes.  If ConnDOT can improve the flow of 91-15-84, it makes the Charter Oak Bridge a viable component of those alternates.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 17, 2014, 12:50:02 AM
Based on the report's source (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/roads/) it appears that "poor condition" is defined based on pavement condition and nothing else. This is not a bad metric although it makes little comment on the adequacy of the road to handle traffic.

The ASCE page also notes one of those facts which is obvious to anyone paying attention but still bears pointing out: pavement conditions are generally worse in urban areas compared to rural areas. This unsurprisingly follows a similar correlation in budget conditions.

Indeed, looking at the map, the more urbanized a state is, the more roads in poor condition it has. Accompanying Connecticut in the red zone are Rhode Island, New Jersey, and California. New York isn't in the worst category but then New York is very good about maintaining roads upstate, it's mostly just the city that's a mess.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 18, 2014, 01:58:32 AM
There's something I noticed while on I-84 Thursday. Particularly Manchester, CT. With many of the on and off ramps to/from Buckland Hills Mall and to/from I-291...

All the street light poles had what looked like mile markers attached to them. Small green rectangles with white numbers and letters. Consecutive street light poles were numbered like "M | 271", "M | 272", "M | 273", etc. I didn't see any of these along I-84 itself. I know for certain that those markers weren't there a few months ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2014, 01:16:41 PM

There's something I noticed while on I-84 Thursday. Particularly Manchester, CT. With many of the on and off ramps to/from Buckland Hills Mall and to/from I-291...

All the street light poles had what looked like mile markers attached to them. Small green rectangles with white numbers and letters. Consecutive street light poles were numbered like "M | 271", "M | 272", "M | 273", etc. I didn't see any of these along I-84 itself. I know for certain that those markers weren't there a few months ago.

I periodically hit the ShopRite in Manchester off 384 (closest one to Boston), and the ramp from Silver Lane has these.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 18, 2014, 05:18:52 PM
Were there any of these strange markers along I-384 itself?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on July 19, 2014, 09:10:47 AM
Were there any of these strange markers along I-384 itself?

My fiance and I were just discussing these last week.  They seem to be on all ramps aroudnd the exit 60/62, 61, 59  I84/I384/I291 interchanges and C/D roadways.  Any thoughts at all on these.  They do not seem to appear at all on the mainlines just the ramps and C/D's, and it's EVERY SINGLE light pole.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on July 19, 2014, 06:16:10 PM
Were there any of these strange markers along I-384 itself?

My fiance and I were just discussing these last week.  They seem to be on all ramps aroudnd the exit 60/62, 61, 59  I84/I384/I291 interchanges and C/D roadways.  Any thoughts at all on these.  They do not seem to appear at all on the mainlines just the ramps and C/D's, and it's EVERY SINGLE light pole.

The body of the article is behind a paywall, but this Journal-Inquirer  article's abstract (http://www.journalinquirer.com/towns/manchester/new-highway-ramp-signs-to-help-emergency-responders/article_e5b0b658-9d77-54a3-a8ce-0bd2f9fff66b.html) should be enough to give a clue.

(They're like 1/10-mile markers, but numbered "creatively" to identify which ramp, in addition to location on that ramp.)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2014, 10:31:49 PM
Was riding back from Providence this afternoon, and saw an interesting exit sign at the CT border most likely put up by RIDOT: The exit 93 sign just before the border has a RI 216 and a RI 184 shield on the BGS.  Granted, 216 does enter RI, but 184 ends before the border.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on July 20, 2014, 06:24:37 PM
Was riding back from Providence this afternoon, and saw an interesting exit sign at the CT border most likely put up by RIDOT: The exit 93 sign just before the border has a RI 216 and a RI 184 shield on the BGS.  Granted, 216 does enter RI, but 184 ends before the border.

There's a GSV link courtesy of PHLBOS from the Erroneous Road Signs thread: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg302355#msg302355
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 21, 2014, 11:56:55 PM
http://foxct.com/2014/07/21/connecticut-drivers-dont-pay-for-tolls-in-massachusetts/

This piece aired during the 10 pm news tonight on WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford. Never once did the piece show anything with I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike. Just generic NY and NJ traffic shots and a portion of I-84 in Hartford near the tunnel.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 22, 2014, 02:08:52 PM
Also, a time-lapse video of the I-84 Marion Avenue bridge replacement in Southington is now out:

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 24, 2014, 03:16:57 PM
Kinda confused by that PDF as there's no color key so I can't exactly tell what's proposed here.  But on closer examination, is it a left exit being proposed to leave I-91 NB in the vicinity of where the two carriageways of I-91 separate?  Does this entail widening the Charter Oak Bridge itself?  I see widening for the Main St & Silver Ln bridges in East Hartford. 

All very interesting.  Though, also not holding my breath!

I also won't hold my breath, and I dread what construction will do to traffic on that section of 91...but if ConnDOT is smart, they'll get moving on it soon.

Looking down the road, 84 is going to be turned into a worse mess when they finally do something about the Aetna Viaduct.  That in turn will create an incentive for through traffic to seek alternate routes.  If ConnDOT can improve the flow of 91-15-84, it makes the Charter Oak Bridge a viable component of those alternates.

Yes I have heard they plan to start in 2018-2019, which is before the Aetna Viaduct.  Maybe they are fast tracking this, because until I ran across the link, I knew nothing of the project.  The I-91 and CT-15 split is a good idea as traffic for I-84 can just take than instead of backing up on exit 29.  Although CT-15 should be the right road of the split.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 25, 2014, 05:24:50 PM
Found the details in the Exit 29 relocation project I was looking for:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/63-703_Project_Description.pdf

In summary, the 4th lane would be extended from Exit 27 north to Exit 29.  The new ramp would be 2 lanes, exiting I-91 Nb on the left.  Four lanes would continue over the far southwestern end of the COB through the reduction in shoulder width, but not on the entire bridge.  It would widen again on the northeastern end of the bridge, continuing to Silver Lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 29, 2014, 11:59:29 PM
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/courant-250/moments-in-history/hc-250-g-fox-highway-construction-20140723,0,5935844.story

This article appeared in the July 29th edition of The Hartford Courant. It talks about the urban legend of the G. Fox department store supposedly had on the routing or exit ramps of I-84. The old picture is from when it was getting built in 1961. The picture shows today's left Exit 30 from I-91, as it merges onto the west side of the Bulkeley Bridge in Hartford.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on July 30, 2014, 05:33:27 PM
Anyone know of the status to replace highway signs on I-95 between Fairfield and New Haven (Exits 26-44)?  While some sections of this contract were completed previously (Exits 26-30 in the early 2000s, Exits 36-41 a few years ago), the current contract will replace all signs from Exit 30 to 34 and perform modifications to others.  The SB Exit 38 1/2 mile sign will be replaced (it was damaged), ATTRACTIONS signs will be added, along with new mile markers, etc.  The contract plans were posted on ConnDOT's site over a year ago.  I'm assuming a contract was awarded, but then again, I'm not sure since the project is not listed on the "CT Travel Map", and I've seen nothing new on the web cams of the area. 

The project is also replacing I-84 EB Exit 7 signage with "APL" diagrammatics, plus a few spot sign replacements on CT 25.

Anyone seen anything new "in the field"?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 30, 2014, 05:49:23 PM
exactly what is wrong with CT:

building and moving ahead on a walking trail while not building a highway.


http://www.route7.org/news/2014/06-02-2014Advocate.pdf

Look at the end: hey you can walk to work one way and train home the other.  Yeah, people would walk/bike 20 miles one way. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 30, 2014, 07:42:33 PM
You forget this is the state that would rather spend $594 million on a bus only road on which only 10 people will ride than to do anything to fix I-84 through Hartford or I-95.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 30, 2014, 10:52:38 PM
Super 7 never has been and never will be a viable proposal. It passes through the backyards of too many wealthy, influential people who don't want it.

And you know what, that's fine. With the recent widenings in Wilton and Danbury, the existing road is now much better equipped to handle the traffic demand than it used to be.

What I would like to see, though, is the end of the freeway tied directly into the old road so that the dangerous intersection at Grist Mill Road can be eliminated.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 30, 2014, 11:06:27 PM

What I would like to see, though, is the end of the freeway tied directly into the old road so that the dangerous intersection at Grist Mill Road can be eliminated.

Actually Senator Bob Duff of Norwalk proposed that and almost immediately the political talk starts saying it's a sneaky start of the expressway to Danbury.  I agree, if the highway won't be completed then it should have a proper ending, like what they did in Brookfield. No reason why that can't be done in Norwalk
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on July 31, 2014, 01:32:48 AM
Actually Senator Bob Duff of Norwalk proposed that and almost immediately the political talk starts saying it's a sneaky start of the expressway to Danbury.

Pff, people are silly. You could do it using land south of Grist Mill Road, with the tie in point being basically in exactly the same spot that route 7 currently leaves Maine Ave, in front of the DMV. In that case it would actually be a slight stunting of the freeway, forget sneaky extension.

Something like this (hasty sketch I threw together years ago):
(http://i.imgur.com/dDAeunL.png)

Show people plans for that and I'm sure the objections would stop. If anything this firmly establishes that the expressway will always end there and no further north. People in Wilton and Ridgefield will like that!

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 31, 2014, 01:58:42 PM
Actually Senator Bob Duff of Norwalk proposed that and almost immediately the political talk starts saying it's a sneaky start of the expressway to Danbury.

Pff, people are silly. You could do it using land south of Grist Mill Road, with the tie in point being basically in exactly the same spot that route 7 currently leaves Maine Ave, in front of the DMV. In that case it would actually be a slight stunting of the freeway, forget sneaky extension.

Something like this (hasty sketch I threw together years ago):
(http://i.imgur.com/dDAeunL.png)

Show people plans for that and I'm sure the objections would stop. If anything this firmly establishes that the expressway will always end there and no further north. People in Wilton and Ridgefield will like that!

I never thought about it ending south of Grist Mill Rd.  Bob Duff wanted the highway to end at the southernly junction of CT-33 & US-7.  He said the state owns most of the land anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on August 01, 2014, 05:44:25 PM
Doesn't CL&P have a right-of-way north of the ending of the highway? Could have sworn it's already clear cut north of there where high voltage lines and towers run to the Wilton substation. The one that got taken out during Sandy and Wilton residents complained because they were without power for over a week, yet fail to remember all the times they blocked CL&P wanting to make infrastructure upgrades in their town. Wilton might just be the worst town in the state when it comes to blocking infrastructure upgrades. This is a town that was dry not that long ago.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 01, 2014, 09:09:57 PM
Bob Duff wanted the highway to end at the southernly junction of CT-33 & US-7.  He said the state owns most of the land anyway.

They do, although they have been trying to sell it off since they've realized they're unlikely to ever have any use for it.

Doesn't CL&P have a right-of-way north of the ending of the highway? Could have sworn it's already clear cut north of there where high voltage lines and towers run to the Wilton substation.


I'm not sure whether CL&P actually owns the land or simply has easement rights, but yes, they do have lines running adjacent to the train tracks from Grist Mill to the substation, which is most of the segment in discussion. The state owned ROW reserved for the highway is immediately to the west of that. Except for immediately near the intersection with Grist Mill and immediately adjacent to the lines, though, the land is not clear cut, it is undeveloped but forested.

It is also worth noting that that segment of the highway would if built pass directly through where two ponds now are. The plan originally of course would have been to simply fill them in, but modern environmental regulation makes that impossible without recreating twice the acreage of wetlands elsewhere and makes it difficult to get through the courts when you inevitably have litigation even if you can manage to meet that condition.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 12, 2014, 12:44:06 PM
Today I was in New Haven and our route took us on CT 34. They recently took down most of the old signage and replaced it with some new signs that look great. Next time I'm there I'll get some pictures. The traffic was horrible ever since they shifted the highway off onto N. Frontage Road. I think ConnDOT did a nice job with this project for once. I can't wait to see the finished product!  :bigass:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 18, 2014, 10:14:24 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/08/18/first-of-ct-fastrak-buses-arrives/

One of the new CT Fastrak busses has arrived via Waterbury, of all places. One of the people quoted is Former New Britain Mayor Tim Stewart. His daughter Erin is our current mayor.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 26, 2014, 11:54:13 PM
when did CT start using reflective button copy?  I always thought it was around 1984 or 1985 based on a reflective button copy sign at the Exit 25 on-ramp to I-84 in Waterbury with a 10-85 date on the back. 

I base it on this:

NRBC (non-reflective button copy) was used until 1980 or so.  CT-8 SB has it in Beacon Falls, SB and my recollections are that the road in that area opened up around then.

However, roads that were opened or had new signage in 1981-1983 had demountable copy.  CT-25 in Bridgeport used it and there's a sign on CT-127 that has a date of 10-81 on it. Plus when I-84 was widened in Danbury in 1982-1983 from Exit 1-3 it also had demountable copy.  While the segment between exits 3-7 had reflective button copy when it was widened in 1986-1988.

However, in Hartford this past week, at the end of the Exit 48B off-ramp there's a reflective button copy sign with a 3-82 date on the back, so it kinda throws my theory out the window.

Any one know for sure?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 27, 2014, 01:41:54 AM
Your dates are probably right in a general sense. But I doubt there is any single date where you can say "everything installed before this date used standard X, and everything installed on or after this date used standard Y" since that's just not how things work. What standard is followed will depend on the date the sign was designed, not the date it was fabricated or the date it was installed.

CT may have decided early in 1982 to start using reflective button copy, but given the design cycle on things any signage installed over the next couple years as part of a major project would have been fabricated according to the old standards since the construction spec would have been written before the decision to make the change was made. Meanwhile, here and there signs might have started showing up according to the new standard sooner if they were one-off replacements (sign got hit by a truck, needed to have legend updated, etc.) rather than part of a major project.

So, the sign at exit 48B was probably a one-off, maybe even a pilot for the new idea. Meanwhile the signs from exits 1-3 were installed later but designed earlier.


For a more recent example of this in action, note how signage on the NJ Turnpike Widening between exits 6-9 is all according to the old turnpike standards while new signs elsewhere are MUTCD compliant, with some of the MUTCD compliant signs having gone up before the signs for the widening did by a year or two.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 27, 2014, 05:25:32 PM
Thanks Duke. kinda like today.  lol

btw: anybody have any old pictures of the old I-86 Connecticut signage? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2014, 05:54:32 PM
So, the sign at exit 48B was probably a one-off, maybe even a pilot for the new idea.

always plenty of these floating around.  for example, did you know that California went to retroreflective green overhead signs not in 2002 but ... 1956?  Roseville Bypass (US-40, later I-80).  just an example of a one-off experiment.

and here's some I-86 photos:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CT/CT19610861i1.jpg)
1972

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/CT/CT19790861i1.jpg)
1985
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 27, 2014, 09:46:56 PM
However, in Hartford this past week, at the end of the Exit 48B off-ramp there's a reflective button copy sign with a 3-82 date on the back, so it kinda throws my theory out the window.

3-82 sounds awfully early for reflective button copy, especially in the Hartford area.  Earliest known installations of RBC I know of were on I-95 and I-395, and those had a 1985 date.  Since all the ramps in Hartford were reconstructed during the late 1980s or early 1990s, I can't see a 3-82 being valid... 3-92 maybe.  Or maybe it was relocated from somewhere else.  Still strikes me as a typo.

The opening of I-691 west of Exit 4/3 in Southington/Cheshire is another "phase overlap".  I believe I-691 was extended in the mid to late 1980s, with demountable copy (no buttons), during the same era when I-95 and I-395 signage was being replaced.  Shortly later, I-84 and I-384 were reconstructed with "DC" while CT 9 had its signage upgraded by 1989 with RBC. 

It would be interesting to see if ConnDOT had a file of all expressways in the state and what signage they have had over the years.  I've compiled a list but its quite incomplete.   

Still... so many unanswered questions:
Why didn't I take more pictures back in the 80s?  Did I-91 between New Haven and Rocky Hill (except Exits 21-22) have RBC?  What year was it traded out for "Phase IV"?   The early Phase IV, that is, with the "old-style" exit tabs.  I know the CT Turnpike in Branford and Guilford held onto its original signage until 1991-92, then went to the present RBC, but what about west of there?  What year was the original signage east of Madison traded in for the former demountable copy that was then replaced c 1999/2000 with the present signage? 

And of course the big question...
Why do I even wonder about this stuff?    :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on August 27, 2014, 09:54:06 PM
It would be interesting to see if ConnDOT had a file of all expressways in the state and what signage they have had over the years.  I've compiled a list but its quite incomplete.   

Knowing the way these things work I'm sure they have tons of files you can dig through with information on individual projects but they most certainly don't have a neatly compiled list. The OCD/Roadgeek crowd may love the idea of such a list but I assure you the DOT has no practical use for one, certainly not enough practical use to spend resources making one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 27, 2014, 10:59:34 PM
The OCD/Roadgeek crowd may love the idea of such a list but I assure you the DOT has no practical use for one, certainly not enough practical use to spend resources making one.

Didn't think so.  Guess that's why we have these boards.... so we can all share information to help "fill in the blanks".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 28, 2014, 02:37:08 PM
However, in Hartford this past week, at the end of the Exit 48B off-ramp there's a reflective button copy sign with a 3-82 date on the back, so it kinda throws my theory out the window.

3-82 sounds awfully early for reflective button copy, especially in the Hartford area.  Earliest known installations of RBC I know of were on I-95 and I-395, and those had a 1985 date.  Since all the ramps in Hartford were reconstructed during the late 1980s or early 1990s, I can't see a 3-82 being valid... 3-92 maybe.  Or maybe it was relocated from somewhere else.  Still strikes me as a typo.

The opening of I-691 west of Exit 4/3 in Southington/Cheshire is another "phase overlap".  I believe I-691 was extended in the mid to late 1980s, with demountable copy (no buttons), during the same era when I-95 and I-395 signage was being replaced.  Shortly later, I-84 and I-384 were reconstructed with "DC" while CT 9 had its signage upgraded by 1989 with RBC. 

It would be interesting to see if ConnDOT had a file of all expressways in the state and what signage they have had over the years.  I've compiled a list but its quite incomplete.   

Still... so many unanswered questions:
Why didn't I take more pictures back in the 80s?  Did I-91 between New Haven and Rocky Hill (except Exits 21-22) have RBC?  What year was it traded out for "Phase IV"?   The early Phase IV, that is, with the "old-style" exit tabs.  I know the CT Turnpike in Branford and Guilford held onto its original signage until 1991-92, then went to the present RBC, but what about west of there?  What year was the original signage east of Madison traded in for the former demountable copy that was then replaced c 1999/2000 with the present signage? 

And of course the big question...
Why do I even wonder about this stuff?    :)

Also Shadyjay and Duke87....I noticed CT-8 in Beacon Falls, the SB side was opened first around 1980 and has NRBC, as you see here:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3872/14569551955_50e03bb4c2.jpg)

but the NB side in the same area opened up a couple of years later.  The signage on the NB side is RBC with a date of 1989 installation.  So, does that mean there was no signage until 1989 or does that mean there was NRBC up that was replaced about 6 years after it was installed? Seems kind of quick for signage replacement?

The similar is true with CT-40.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2014, 02:59:45 PM
was there once a white 42 shield on there that was replaced with an outline shield?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on August 28, 2014, 08:27:00 PM
was there once a white 42 shield on there that was replaced with an outline shield?

Wouldn't surprise me.  Looking close, you can definitely see the outline of a larger shield.  And it's been known to happen elsewhere in CT.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on August 30, 2014, 11:08:15 AM
was there once a white 42 shield on there that was replaced with an outline shield?

Wouldn't surprise me.  Looking close, you can definitely see the outline of a larger shield.  And it's been known to happen elsewhere in CT.

Dont know how widespread it was, but at one time, ConnDOT would bolt on 24x24 CONN wood route shields onto their BGS.....I recall a few on the Connecticut Turnpike, and some on CONN 2, 9, and I-91....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 31, 2014, 05:08:03 PM
Only in CT folks:

State wants to put in a left-turn lane on CT-63 NB at CT-67 with a stop light.  It's a 3-way intersection.
Construction started this summer. 

NOW, residents are complaining about the traffic light and dont want it.  Im sure NIMBY and town character have something to do with it.

The other issue, talk of a traffic light goes all the way back to 1974!  Studies in the 1990s and early 2000s and work JUSt started in 2014.  WTF. 

THIS is why there is no Hartford Beltway.

http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20140818/klarides-wants-connecticut-dot-to-reassess-woodbridge-road-project
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 01, 2014, 03:33:29 PM
The left turn lane would be beneficial. That intersection doesn't strike me as being in sore need of a signal for traffic count reasons although I can see where there would be a safety motive for it.

You are correct with your assessment of the sentiment, though. CT culturally abhors change. Building something new will always be met with intense opposition no matter what it is.


But I have to commend Klarides, at least, for being self-aware enough to concede that she is not an expert on the matter and is not qualified to make her own judgment on the engineering merit of the project. Too many people would insist they know better than the experts because they spent five minutes googling it and found some blogger writing about how traffic signals cause asthma.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on September 02, 2014, 08:27:00 PM
CT sign practices update. Tolland Green, CT.  Noticed a little something taking a scenic route home and I will provide a photo asap.

New signage where 195 Ends at Route 74 in Tolland.  at the intersection there is a WEST 74 and EAST 74 sign facing the NB Terminus of 195.  Nestled between those two signs is a wide 3di shield with 195 on it.... and above it an "END" placard  i.e. END 195.  Historically, it is not CT practice to mark route ends, in fact I don't recall ever seeing it.  Are we seeing a pile of coincidental anomalies lately with state highway signage or a real shift/update in signing practices?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 02, 2014, 10:52:59 PM
From June 22:
(http://i.imgur.com/4mJzbwe.jpg)

 :)

I have clinched every state highway in CT and this is the only END banner I have ever seen in the state. Also, CT until a year ago didn't typically use rectangles for 3 digit routes. So it's a departure from tradition in two ways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 02, 2014, 11:29:45 PM
There's only one other that I know of at the east end of CT 4 in West Hartford.  The END is black on gold.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 03, 2014, 12:58:21 AM
There's only one other that I know of at the east end of CT 4 in West Hartford.  The END is black on gold.

Alright, so that's two. Street View shows it as a regular banner, though (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.753994,-72.76851,3a,73.7y,87.98h,60.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHSMzPvNrJEhTtloAzW-CwA!2e0).

I don't recall spotting this sign when I clinched CT 4 but then that would have been before the street view image was taken by a few months so it may not have been there.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 03, 2014, 11:39:26 AM
I remember seeing an "END 349" sign in Groton in the late 1980s, but it's gone now. The DOT has installed a couple of markers northbound at that point, though not an official "BEGIN 349" marker: http://goo.gl/maps/g93pj
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 03, 2014, 06:12:27 PM
Nice find! I've lived in Connecticut for about 38 of my 43 years and have never seen an "END" sign like that! CT Route 71A ends about 4 blocks from my house in New Britain, but has no begin/end sign at all.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on September 03, 2014, 07:54:25 PM
There's only one other that I know of at the east end of CT 4 in West Hartford.  The END is black on gold.

Alright, so that's two. Street View shows it as a regular banner, though (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.753994,-72.76851,3a,73.7y,87.98h,60.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHSMzPvNrJEhTtloAzW-CwA!2e0).

I don't recall spotting this sign when I clinched CT 4 but then that would have been before the street view image was taken by a few months so it may not have been there.

and it looks like recent signage.  Maybe we will be seeing more of this.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 03, 2014, 09:21:07 PM
I've seen quite a few rectangular signage around.  CT-188, 334 have new ones. 

There's also an ancient CT-334 rectangle at the Exit 19 NB off-ramp from CT-8.  So it has been done for decades just sparingly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 03, 2014, 10:10:09 PM
First, the discontinuance of the use of button copy
Then, aligned exit tabs
Then, 3-digit-wide state shields
Now, new END signs???

What next, the announcement that Route 11 will be built? 

Another sign of the apocalypse......
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 15, 2014, 04:26:12 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/09/15/candidates-for-governor-talk-transportation/

Democratic Governor Dannell P. Malloy and Republican candidate Tom Foley discussing transportation related issues this morning at a conference in North Haven. Once again, the possibility of tolls was mentioned by both. Malloy even hinted at finishing CT Route 11. Let's hope! :)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 15, 2014, 09:26:48 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/09/15/candidates-for-governor-talk-transportation/

Democratic Governor Dannell P. Malloy and Republican candidate Tom Foley discussing transportation related issues this morning at a conference in North Haven. Once again, the possibility of tolls was mentioned by both. Malloy even hinted at finishing CT Route 11. Let's hope! :)

Not before he authorizes the funding to build an $800 million busway from Bethlehem to Cornwall.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 15, 2014, 09:59:09 PM
Quote
Each navigated the same questions, including how to improve traffic on I-95.

“I think there are things we can do like what we’re doing in Norwalk, re-configuring some of the exits and on ramps,” Malloy said.

Positively adorable, like trying to cause a flood by spitting in the river. Either make I-95 10 lanes wide and blast everything out of the way that you need to in order to make that happen, or just give up and leave it alone.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 16, 2014, 01:45:39 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/09/16/exit-change-to-affect-i-95-traffic-in-new-haven/

A small update on heading from I-95 South to I-91 North in New Haven for tonight into Wednesday. Oh joy! :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 16, 2014, 01:51:56 PM
Quote
Each navigated the same questions, including how to improve traffic on I-95.

“I think there are things we can do like what we’re doing in Norwalk, re-configuring some of the exits and on ramps,” Malloy said.

Positively adorable, like trying to cause a flood by spitting in the river. Either make I-95 10 lanes wide and blast everything out of the way that you need to in order to make that happen, or just give up and leave it alone.

Well, if the interchange re-configurations result in smoother merges, that might at least improve traffic speeds.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 16, 2014, 10:26:49 PM
http://www.courant.com/politics/elections/hc-dan-malloy-tom-foley-transportation-0916-20140915,0,4585908.story

Here's the Hartford Courant's take on it.  Finally, a politician says what a lot of people think:

But at a transportation forum Monday morning, the two rivals offered starkly different visions on how to alleviate the congestion. Foley, a businessman from Greenwich, said the Malloy administration has placed too much emphasis on mass transit and has not done enough to expand capacity on the state's roads.
 
"I understand there's ... important balances between mass transit and roads and bridges," Foley said. "But ... any purposeful strategy to push people out of their cars and onto mass transit, I really don't think is going to work."


I don't know  much about Foley but finally someone wasn't being PC and said mass transit isn't the answer. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 17, 2014, 03:34:42 PM
Not to get this started on a road vs rail/mass transit debate, the state of CT for too long has neglected its mass transit systems.  This has become quite evident in recent years, with equipment failures due to snowy winters, old catenary on the New Haven Line (some of which dated back to the 1907-1915 era), and most recently, the failure of the Norwalk River swing bridge.  The mass transit debates go back to when Rowland was governor... he didn't want to spend any $$$ on the rail system, and since he left office, the effects of that have really shown.  Not that Rowland did the roads any good - the I-84 debacle east of Waterbury proved that. 

The end result of all this was a mass transit system which still needs investing, and a road system which is becoming increasingly congested and with a lack of funds which delay any improvements to either system. 

The busway boondoggle has been going on since the 90s.  Personally, if anything I think they just should've upgraded the rail line.  Now a proposed commuter line from Waterbury to Hartford needs to travel south from New Britain to Berlin, then go north, because of the busway.  I'm all for mass transit but I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thinks it is a huge waste of precious funds, be they federal or state. 

Outside of spot improvements on I-95, I don't think widening from Greenwich to New Haven is the answer.  East of New Haven, though, I-95 should be 6 lanes (3 each way) all the way to at least New London.  I think closing some exits on I-95 would help, as do the "operational" lanes being added.  I still think tolls are the way to go to help move these (and other) projects along.  I'd have no problem paying a toll if I knew it was going to go into the transportation budget, and not just a "general fund".

I think the present project to add commuter rail along the Amtrak line from New Haven up to Hartford and Springfield is a great idea - something that should've been done years ago.  Mass transit does work, if done properly, but road improvements are needed as well. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 17, 2014, 08:32:41 PM
Outside of spot improvements on I-95, I don't think widening from Greenwich to New Haven is the answer.

Because it's politically impossible, not because it wouldn't work. A road like that in most states would have been widened to ten lanes 20 years ago. But Connecticut is home to too many wealthy NIMBYs for any project involving any significant amount of eminent domain to be viable. Why do you think those crazy proposals about double decking I-95 have bounced around? It would be easier and less expensive to widen the road horizontally, but you'd have to take property in order to do that and the property owners in question are influential people.


As for Metro-North, you are right, it does need investment in things like catenary replacement, but that does nothing about congestion since all it amounts to is maintenance of the existing system. For actual improvements you need to do things like expanding yards and buying more rolling stock so you can add more service.

But even then, Metro-North can't do everything. It can do more if development is encouraged to be done in such a way that best enables people to commute by train, but this being Fairfield county it's going to be home to some rich suburbanites who will value a quiet suburban setting over ease of transit access, and these people WILL use a car for at least part of their commute.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 18, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
Outside of spot improvements on I-95, I don't think widening from Greenwich to New Haven is the answer.

Because it's politically impossible, not because it wouldn't work. A road like that in most states would have been widened to ten lanes 20 years ago. But Connecticut is home to too many wealthy NIMBYs for any project involving any significant amount of eminent domain to be viable. Why do you think those crazy proposals about double decking I-95 have bounced around? It would be easier and less expensive to widen the road horizontally, but you'd have to take property in order to do that and the property owners in question are influential people.


As for Metro-North, you are right, it does need investment in things like catenary replacement, but that does nothing about congestion since all it amounts to is maintenance of the existing system. For actual improvements you need to do things like expanding yards and buying more rolling stock so you can add more service.

But even then, Metro-North can't do everything. It can do more if development is encouraged to be done in such a way that best enables people to commute by train, but this being Fairfield county it's going to be home to some rich suburbanites who will value a quiet suburban setting over ease of transit access, and these people WILL use a car for at least part of their commute.

Exactly right on all counts.  I'd like to add that DOT doesn't seem as ambitious as other state DOTs in scopes of projects but I'm not sure that is because they know they'll be shot down anyway by NIMBYs.

An example, the US-7 widening in Danbury/Ridgefield, there is no reason why no center jersey barrier was put down in the middle.  Any other state would have.  But people cried out when it was suggested. 

Another, when I-95 was widened in Bridgeport, why wasn't the god awful CT-25 loop ramp included?  The tight radius and the up and down of the loop ramp is horrendous.  I'd like to think other DOTs would've addressed that further or made it a flyover. 

If this was TX or even NJ I-95 would be 10-lanes in Fairfield County.

Is there any place in the US where the arrival of mass transit actually made a noticeable difference on nearby roads?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: relaxok on September 19, 2014, 07:57:07 PM
Not sure if these exact pics have been posted on AARoads before, but here's a gallery of historical photos of the Merritt someone linked me today..

http://blog.ctnews.com/trending/2013/11/26/trending-how-we-get-home-for-thanksgiving/#18378101=0 (http://blog.ctnews.com/trending/2013/11/26/trending-how-we-get-home-for-thanksgiving/#18378101=0)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 19, 2014, 08:39:22 PM

If this was TX or even NJ I-95 would be 10-lanes in Fairfield County.

New Jersey also let dense population  preclude road development.  Texas? Fairfield County is fourteen times more densely populated than Texas as a whole.  This is not a practical comparison.

Quote
Is there any place in the US where the arrival of mass transit actually made a noticeable difference on nearby roads?


Of course, there's no way to measure the impact of their arrival per se, because they predate the highways (and in a lot of cases, the towns they serve), but if Metro-North, New Jersey Transit, and LIRR were to shut down tomorrow and all those folks started driving instead, I'm sure you'll agree there might be a little bit of impact on the roads. 


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on September 19, 2014, 09:48:04 PM
Outside of spot improvements on I-95, I don't think widening from Greenwich to New Haven is the answer.

Because it's politically impossible, not because it wouldn't work. A road like that in most states would have been widened to ten lanes 20 years ago. But Connecticut is home to too many wealthy NIMBYs for any project involving any significant amount of eminent domain to be viable. Why do you think those crazy proposals about double decking I-95 have bounced around? It would be easier and less expensive to widen the road horizontally, but you'd have to take property in order to do that and the property owners in question are influential people.


As for Metro-North, you are right, it does need investment in things like catenary replacement, but that does nothing about congestion since all it amounts to is maintenance of the existing system. For actual improvements you need to do things like expanding yards and buying more rolling stock so you can add more service.

But even then, Metro-North can't do everything. It can do more if development is encouraged to be done in such a way that best enables people to commute by train, but this being Fairfield county it's going to be home to some rich suburbanites who will value a quiet suburban setting over ease of transit access, and these people WILL use a car for at least part of their commute.

Exactly right on all counts.  I'd like to add that DOT doesn't seem as ambitious as other state DOTs in scopes of projects but I'm not sure that is because they know they'll be shot down anyway by NIMBYs.

An example, the US-7 widening in Danbury/Ridgefield, there is no reason why no center jersey barrier was put down in the middle.  Any other state would have.  But people cried out when it was suggested. 

Another, when I-95 was widened in Bridgeport, why wasn't the god awful CT-25 loop ramp included?  The tight radius and the up and down of the loop ramp is horrendous.  I'd like to think other DOTs would've addressed that further or made it a flyover. 

If this was TX or even NJ I-95 would be 10-lanes in Fairfield County.

Is there any place in the US where the arrival of mass transit actually made a noticeable difference on nearby roads?

Sorry, but we don't want more people here. If we can discourage you then so be it. Have fun in our long miserable rush hours.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 26, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
some new signage on I-95 in Bridgeport popped up yesterday.

I-95 NB, I saw a new aux exit BGS: "Exit 27 Downtown Bridgeport" and a specific service BBS "Attractions Exit 27" that is currently blank. 

I wonder if the wording of the current main Exit 27 BGS will change since the AUX now has what the main old ones have.
These were not there Wednesday but there on Thursday.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 26, 2014, 07:22:23 PM
some new signage on I-95 in Bridgeport popped up yesterday.

I-95 NB, I saw a new aux exit BGS: "Exit 27 Downtown Bridgeport" and a specific service BBS "Attractions Exit 27" that is currently blank. 

I wonder if the wording of the current main Exit 27 BGS will change since the AUX now has what the main old ones have.
These were not there Wednesday but there on Thursday.

This is the project I was curious about whether or not it had started yet.  I got a copy of the plans for the project off ConnDOT's web site, and for Exit 27, the replace "Downtown Bridgeport" with "Harbor Yard".  SB, Exit 27 will become Exits 27B-C.  The project begins around Exit 25 and continues up to Exit 45.  Signs in the Exits 34-42 range were replaced a few years back, but this project will make some modifications/additions, including new mile markers and adding new blue "ATTRACTIONS" signs and such. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 26, 2014, 11:04:21 PM
On my way down to CT from VT this afternoon, I happened to hit the SPG-HFD corridor right at rush hour.  Seeing VMSs advertising an accident in the North Meadows area, I diverted off I-91 onto US 5.  This took me down the "Berlin Turnpike of the North".  I always found this stretch of road, known locally as John Fitch Blvd, odd, and very Berlin Turnpike-ish.  It's a pretty nice road to drive, has a 50 mph speed limit, and a tree-lined median. 

Was this intentional?  Kurumi's site dates the building of the road to the same era as the Berlin Turnpike (1940s).  Guess it all dates back to when this road was the route between Springfield and Hartford, in the days long before I-91. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 27, 2014, 07:51:42 AM
Is Connecticut alone in using single-logo-panel "Attractions" signs?  They started popping up about two years ago, and are just about the exact width of the logo panel, about 60", which probably makes the whole sign 120" tall.

They look excessively cramped.  There is little negative space, making the signs look designed spur-of-the-moment and amateurish.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on September 27, 2014, 08:34:12 AM
Was this intentional?  Kurumi's site dates the building of the road to the same era as the Berlin Turnpike (1940s).  Guess it all dates back to when this road was the route between Springfield and Hartford, in the days long before I-91. 
The most similarity I see is that they are both widened to four lanes, in generally more rural areas back in the 40s (though both developed now), so infrequent traffic signals and the ability to have a divided highway. Having driven both, I don't feel like the two roads are connected "spiritually" as it were. Berlin Tpk. feels more like a New Jersey divided highway (NJ 10 for example), the northern US 5 feels more New Englandy (US 1 in southern MA).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 27, 2014, 09:45:13 AM
It would be nice if more state widening projects were done in the same format as US 5 South Windsor.  CT 66 between Middletown and Meriden would look really nice if it was divided/tree lined like US 5.  Guess they missed their chance in the 40s....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 27, 2014, 08:48:38 PM
If we use "expressway" as multilane divided, mostly at-grade but access partially controlled, and "freeway" for what CT labels "Expressways", then here's the rough timeline of expressway construction (sections longer than a few blocks):
* 1938 to 1942: US 5 Berlin Tpke; US 5 South Windsor; CT 159 (US 5A); CT 34 Derby Tpke; CT 32 New London; CT 17/66 Portland; US 1 East Haven
* 1942 to 1950: CT 9 (Acheson Drive), Middletown (which is freeway on south end); possibly old CT 8 in Beacon Falls
* 1950 to 1960: CT 218, western section, Bloomfield
* 1960 to 1970: nothing
* 1970 to 1980: nothing
* 1980 to 1990: nothing
* 1990 to 2000: CT 218, eastern section, Bloomfield
* 2000 to 2010: US 7/202, New Milford
* 2010 to 2020: CT 72, Bristol

Right around WW II Connecticut largely dropped expressways from its playbook in favor of freeways. Recently a few expressways have come back into vogue as lower-impact alternatives to planned freeways (7, 72). Perhaps 25 may end up as an expressway. 11, if ever built, would probably be a parkway. US 6 east of Bolton is probably never going to happen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 27, 2014, 11:12:45 PM
Saw ConnDOT put a LEFT tab on the I-84 west sign on CT 72 West in New Britain (still no exit number though)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 28, 2014, 08:42:14 AM
http://www.i95westriver.com/SiteMap.pdf

Plans for i-95 Exit 44-45.  thoughts?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 28, 2014, 08:43:16 AM
If we use "expressway" as multilane divided, mostly at-grade but access partially controlled, and "freeway" for what CT labels "Expressways", then here's the rough timeline of expressway construction (sections longer than a few blocks):
* 1938 to 1942: US 5 Berlin Tpke; US 5 South Windsor; CT 159 (US 5A); CT 34 Derby Tpke; CT 32 New London; CT 17/66 Portland; US 1 East Haven
* 1942 to 1950: CT 9 (Acheson Drive), Middletown (which is freeway on south end); possibly old CT 8 in Beacon Falls
* 1950 to 1960: CT 218, western section, Bloomfield
* 1960 to 1970: nothing
* 1970 to 1980: nothing
* 1980 to 1990: nothing
* 1990 to 2000: CT 218, eastern section, Bloomfield
* 2000 to 2010: US 7/202, New Milford
* 2010 to 2020: CT 72, Bristol

Right around WW II Connecticut largely dropped expressways from its playbook in favor of freeways. Recently a few expressways have come back into vogue as lower-impact alternatives to planned freeways (7, 72). Perhaps 25 may end up as an expressway. 11, if ever built, would probably be a parkway. US 6 east of Bolton is probably never going to happen.

CT hasn't beem big on boulevards like US-5/CT-15 Berlin Tpke.  Most states have a lot of those type roads.  Another example of CT not thinking big.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 28, 2014, 05:59:36 PM
http://www.i95westriver.com/SiteMap.pdf

Plans for i-95 Exit 44-45.  thoughts?

The doc is titled "sea option4.dgn" ... I'd like to see options 1-3 (and 5-...). I'm not a highway engineer, but still have several things to complain about.

* No auxiliary lanes or capacity improvements across the West River Bridge. Yes, there are full-width shoulders which is nice, but if you're spending $130M anyway to replace a bridge, maybe put in the lanes now.
* No left-turn pocket on Kimberly Ave southbound at the new signalized intersection. Maybe traffic is light enough that it wasn't warranted. Or maybe you'll have unfortunate drivers going straight, stuck behind people waiting to turn left. But CT people are used to that.
* What's the deal with two missing turning movements at Sea Street and Ella Grasso Blvd? Makes for a more interesting cycle at the traffic signal, but... safety? Traffic calming? What?
* Is there enough room for left-turning traffic queued on EGB waiting to get onto I-95 north and south? Probably is, I'm sure they've studied the numbers

In short, you could remove all identifying information from that diagram, make no reference to the project it's from, and it would still look like something from Connecticut.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 28, 2014, 06:28:02 PM
http://www.i95westriver.com/SiteMap.pdf

Plans for i-95 Exit 44-45.  thoughts?

The doc is titled "sea option4.dgn" ... I'd like to see options 1-3 (and 5-...). I'm not a highway engineer, but still have several things to complain about.

* No auxiliary lanes or capacity improvements across the West River Bridge. Yes, there are full-width shoulders which is nice, but if you're spending $130M anyway to replace a bridge, maybe put in the lanes now.
* No left-turn pocket on Kimberly Ave southbound at the new signalized intersection. Maybe traffic is light enough that it wasn't warranted. Or maybe you'll have unfortunate drivers going straight, stuck behind people waiting to turn left. But CT people are used to that.
* What's the deal with two missing turning movements at Sea Street and Ella Grasso Blvd? Makes for a more interesting cycle at the traffic signal, but... safety? Traffic calming? What?
* Is there enough room for left-turning traffic queued on EGB waiting to get onto I-95 north and south? Probably is, I'm sure they've studied the numbers

In short, you could remove all identifying information from that diagram, make no reference to the project it's from, and it would still look like something from Connecticut.

Yep typical CT not thinking big.  In those regards I think CT has the worst roads in the country. No other state does that.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 28, 2014, 07:32:19 PM
... Just like the Moses Wheeler Bridge replacement only being designed for 6 lanes (with full width shoulders), ongoing bridge replacements on I-95 in Old Lyme only being wide enough to support 4 lanes, etc etc....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on September 28, 2014, 07:52:25 PM
Is Connecticut alone in using single-logo-panel "Attractions" signs?  They started popping up about two years ago, and are just about the exact width of the logo panel, about 60", which probably makes the whole sign 120" tall.

They look excessively cramped.  There is little negative space, making the signs look designed spur-of-the-moment and amateurish.

I do believe these are "temp" placeholders until the next round of blanket sign replacement in a given area. There is one nearby for exit 68 on i 84 for the Adventure Park at Storrs.  I'm assuming that since CT is just starting to do attractions signs we may see them look more like your other services signs when they are replaced.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 28, 2014, 08:52:41 PM
The present contract for I-95 sign replacement between Exits 26 and 42 shows full-size attraction signs to be installed, similar to the present Food, Gas, Lodging logo signs. 

The "stopgate" versions definitely are cramped... the one on I-91 at Exit 33 for the xFinity Theater is very similar, and I believe it was just attached to the former brown sign which said "Music Theater" with an exit tab.  I think there's one on I-95/Exit 64 as well. 

God only knows when ConnDOT will get around to sign replacement on I-91 north of Hartford.  Signs north of Windsor Locks were installed in the late 1980s.  Signs on I-84 east of Hartford are from the mid 1980s and I would think would be in line for replacement before then.  CT 2 and CT 9 signs are also from the same vintage. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 28, 2014, 10:02:05 PM
* No auxiliary lanes or capacity improvements across the West River Bridge. Yes, there are full-width shoulders which is nice, but if you're spending $130M anyway to replace a bridge, maybe put in the lanes now.

As with so many things, blame the NIMBYs. Try to provision for a future widening of I-95 and people will flip out because oh my god this means they intend to widen the road and that must never happen. Also, the lesser width of the bridge cuts cost from the project. Which is penny wise and pound foolish but that's typical for New England planning.

Quote
* What's the deal with two missing turning movements at Sea Street and Ella Grasso Blvd? Makes for a more interesting cycle at the traffic signal, but... safety? Traffic calming? What?

Well, those two missing movements as things stand do not currently exist. Betcha anything the people who live along Sea Street decided it needs to stay that way or else it might encourage more people to cut through their neighborhood.
Indeed, if that were a regular intersection, cutting through the neighborhood would be the best route from CT 122 to Sargent Drive. Removing those movements forces that traffic to hop on I-95 for an exit instead. Which is utterly counterproductive because ideally you'd rather traffic only going one exit not get on the interstate in order to keep it flowing smoothly, but nope, NIMBYs in nice houses won't have their pretty street being used as a through route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 01:02:18 PM
CT just started early with what is becoming a pretty common trend in the northeast: a blanket non-consideration of capacity increases of any kind.  NY is in the same boat; other than projects that were already planned, there will be no additional general purpose capacity added on any NYSDOT highway project in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2014, 03:48:38 PM
So many things here in these last few posts:

1) http://www.i95westriver.com/SiteMap.pdf
Why can't the SB I-95 movement to NB Ella Grasso Blvd stay as a free-flow movement like it is now!?! If you look at the plans you see the new ramp as proposed, is in a smaller footprint than the current ramp configuration. 

So why can't the traffic heading off the ramp to points south (such as the West Haven beaches) of the interchange stop at the light (as is currently proposed) but traffic wishing to head NB up Ella Grasso Blvd split off and remain a free-flow movement?  Other states such as NJ would've done that.  Another issue of CT thinking small and taking away free-flow movements.

2) CT always late to the party.  The "ATTRACTIONS" signs are just another example.  Other states have been doing it for years but CT just discovered it.
Design/build, public-private partnerships, the list goes on and on...

3) NIMBY, as Duke pointed out:
As with so many things, blame the NIMBYs. Try to provision for a future widening of I-95 and people will flip out because oh my god this means they intend to widen the road and that must never happen. Also, the lesser width of the bridge cuts cost from the project. Which is penny wise and pound foolish but that's typical for New England planning.
Well, those two missing movements as things stand do not currently exist. Betcha anything the people who live along Sea Street decided it needs to stay that way or else it might encourage more people to cut through their neighborhood.
Indeed, if that were a regular intersection, cutting through the neighborhood would be the best route from CT 122 to Sargent Drive. Removing those movements forces that traffic to hop on I-95 for an exit instead. Which is utterly counterproductive because ideally you'd rather traffic only going one exit not get on the interstate in order to keep it flowing smoothly, but nope, NIMBYs in nice houses won't have their pretty street being used as a through route.

people WILL flip-out and draw conclusions prematurely.  Another example, the proper ending of US-7 @ Grist Mill.  There have been talks of properly phasing that in to the 4-lane road up by CT-33 but people trashed it saying the expressway was coming. 

The same can be said as to why CT-66 in Middlefield/US-7 in Ridgefield are 4-lanes UNdivided.  People flipped at the thought of a jersey barrier to it was taken out. meanwhile it's more dangerous to have cars wizzing by at 50mph with a double yellow line.

4) Merritt/US-7 interchange is going to start again at the planning stages.  Read the article and look at the length CTDOT is going through to appease people.  My god.  NIMBY is why it hasn't been built yet.
http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/conndot-to-hire-planning-consultant-for-dormant-merritt-parkway-main/article_1f0ffd4c-5fd0-5aec-9f54-1e24c02266f6.html

5) NY DOT recently replaced a bridge on I-84 in Brewster wide enough for 3-lanes in each direction, more than the current 2-lanes each way.

6) PS: I-95 SB through Long Wharf, what you see now won't improve in regards to congestion.  It's as wide as it's going to get. The number of lanes 4 going to 3 at Exit 45 is pretty much in the final alignment. The 4th lane should go down to Exit 43 or Exit 42.  Another example of small thinking.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on September 29, 2014, 05:30:32 PM
I get the feeling that CT is looking to reduce the amount of movements on I-95, not increase them, since too many interchanges is one of the reasons it's so congested.  Note that exit 44 is eliminated on that plan.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on September 29, 2014, 07:48:59 PM
A free-flow movement from I-95 SB to CT 10 NB would be just a channeled right turn, not an extra ramp.

As best I can figure it's standard policy in CT now to not have free-flow right turns in urban areas. Whenever an intersection involving one is reconstructed, it is removed. The reasoning being that free-flow turns are bad for pedestrian safety.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2014, 12:18:11 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/U7udTky.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/NnH7XNu.jpg)

The posts in the first picture are from I-95 in New Haven. That's part of a big closure/lane reduction right now from 10 PM until 5 am tonight. As for the second picture, it looks like the gantry sign for CT Route 10 was never replaced.

While taking exit 46 from I-95 North tonight, I could see the top piece of that new gantry lying on the ground. From what I understand, there will be another closure of this type for Thursday night into Friday.  :rolleyes:

And...and!...I saw a few of those new big blue "ATTRACTIONS" signs. I think all but one of them were blank.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on September 30, 2014, 01:02:53 AM
And...and!...I saw a few of those new big blue "ATTRACTIONS" signs. I think all but one of them were blank.

Perpetuating the notion that there's nothing to do in CT :-)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 30, 2014, 02:13:03 AM
Ha ha! Very true! It's kinda why I left this little state for a few hours! :P

Taking a look at I-95 traffic cams a while ago, it didn't look all that bad with northbound traffic in New Haven.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&Q=415316
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on September 30, 2014, 10:48:43 AM
Ha ha! Very true! It's kinda why I left this little state for a few hours! :P

Taking a look at I-95 traffic cams a while ago, it didn't look all that bad with northbound traffic in New Haven.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2354&Q=415316
Going from the traffic cameras to the traffic incident report, one of the listings is for 'Road Work on I-395 Southbound between Exits 79 and 78 in effect today until 3:00 pm.' Could this be related to the exit sign replacement/renumbering project?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on September 30, 2014, 06:20:22 PM
As for the second picture, it looks like the gantry sign for CT Route 10 was never replaced.

Yet... they made the effort to align the exit tab.  They did that on the pipe gantry assembly at Exit 45, SB, too. 

Those are some beefy looking gantries.  Weird how the pipe gantries have been phased out already, at least at this location.

Going from the traffic cameras to the traffic incident report, one of the listings is for 'Road Work on I-395 Southbound between Exits 79 and 78 in effect today until 3:00 pm.' Could this be related to the exit sign replacement/renumbering project?

The travel map shows a project to rehabilitate a culvert near Exit 78.  That could be why as well. 

I was down in CT this past weekend, though time didn't permit me to take a drive around to check the progress on that project.  Vehicle repairs were a higher priority, and it kept me at bay until about 15 minutes before I retracted back to VT.  At least I beat rush hour in Hartford, though the area between Exits 28-29 on 91NB had its usual delays. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Beeper1 on September 30, 2014, 07:05:04 PM
Was on 395 a couple days ago.  So far some footings have been poured for ground mounted auxiliary signage (service signs, etc...) but that's it.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 02, 2014, 04:59:07 PM
Work on a contract for spot replacement of overhead signs will start Monday 10/6:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?A=2135&Q=554002


According to the plans, some installations will use pipes, others will use trusses, and I think at least one will use the new beefy angle pipes like those on I-84 near Exit 3 in Danbury.  Below is a summary of what's happening as far as types of replacements:

Site 1:  Fairfield 95 SB:   A pipe gantry from Site 3 will be moved to this location
Site 2:  Derby 8SB:  From bridge mount to ground based
Site 3:  Waterbury 84E/W:  Two separate gantries replaced with a single span for both directions
Site 4:  North Haven 91NB:  A temporary sign has been at Exit 10 for several years now.
Site 5:  Farmington 84WB:  Overhead to ground
Site 6:  Farmington 84WB:  Overhead full span to overhead span on decelleration lane only
Site 7:  Farmington 9 SB:  bridge mount to ground
Site 8:  Newington 9 SB:  overhead mount to ground
Site 9:  Windsor Locks 91SB:  temporary sign to be replaced with full-width overhead
Site 10:  Windsor Locks 91NB/SB:  two separate overheads to be combined into single full-width over both directions
Site 11:  East Hartford:  Overhead full span to overhead span on decelleration lane only
Site 12:  Vernon 84WB:  bridge mount to ground
Site 13:  Old Saybrook 95 SB:  bridge mount to ground (2 signs)
Site 14:  Groton 95NB:  bridge mount to ground (lane ends sign)

Still funny how much ConnDOT is going to ground-based signs (even on 3 lane highways).   Guess it makes sense from their standpoint as its less to maintain with it being on the ground, though MassDOT cites visibility issues as to why they're going "all overhead".  The ground-sign on I-84 WB in Farmington really struck me as bizarre going to the ground.  It definitely makes me wonder if we'll be seeing more ground-based signage for exits on I-91, especially.  Exits in Wallingford and North Haven I can see going to the ground.  Could Enfield exits?   It seems like there's an increased desire to get signs off bridge overpasses.  I foresee some new gantries going up in Enfield when those signs get replaced.  But exits for King St (46) and Enfield St (49) could go all to the ground as they all are (at present) solo overheads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 05:02:55 PM
I think the overpasses have to do with structural integrity.  The signs actual place wear on the bridges girders and add to the stress already placed on it.  Now I am only guessing only but it does make sense.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 02, 2014, 05:22:36 PM
It seems like there's an increased desire to get signs off bridge overpasses.
I think the overpasses have to do with structural integrity.  The signs actual place wear on the bridges girders and add to the stress already placed on it.  Now I am only guessing only but it does make sense.
I noticed a similar practice in both MA & PA regarding replacing overpass-mounted BGS for either ground-mounts or overhead gantries and the reason was indeed structural-related with respect to the overpass.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 03, 2014, 03:44:44 PM
It's also odd several full overhead gantries with multiple signs are now right aligned overhead gantries based on recent contracts.  You'd think the right aligned overhead gantries wouldn't be as stable.

I-84 EB, Exit 11 1 Mile sign and the Exit 10 exit now signs were on a full overhead gantry but now they are on a right aligned overhead gantry.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 03, 2014, 04:17:48 PM
I-84 EB, Exit 11 1 Mile sign and the Exit 10 exit now signs were on a full overhead gantry but now they are on a right aligned overhead gantry.
I believe the proper term for those are cantilevered gantry.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 05, 2014, 08:38:37 PM
The attractions sign on I-95 S/B just north of exit 27 in Bridgeport is, like the others recently installed, blank, but was split in half: the top half for exit 27B and the bottom half for 27C. Could the BGS be far behind? Or will they just stick two new tabs on the existing signs right at the split when you exit at 27?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 05, 2014, 10:18:01 PM

I-84 EB, Exit 11 1 Mile sign and the Exit 10 exit now signs were on a full overhead gantry but now they are on a right aligned overhead gantry.
I believe the proper term for those are cantilevered gantry.

I prefer "sticky-outy side-pole sign." 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on October 08, 2014, 09:10:37 AM
Currently on the middle of a week-long vacation in New England and stopped by to see Jeff at the Sign Shop.  After exchanging pleasantries and updates we discussed several topics....

1) Milage-based exit numbers:  nobody really likes the idea, unlike larger states in the Midwest or West, the concept seems crazy here.  From their POV, you can have a stretch where exits can be numbered 12-13-14-15, but the Feds would have them numbered 6A, B, C, D.  I-395 is an odd case.  Legislatively, it is still the same highway as I-95 after I-95 jumps off toward New London....I observed that the Ohio Turnpike doesn't change exit numbers when I-76 swaps with I-80.

2).  Route markers:  The proposed route markers I offered a few years ago are dead. He had brought them back up when discussions with high-ups were ongoing regarding changing signs to meet new Federal standards, and they were shot down as not meeting the new federal regs (even with alterations for reflectivity and number size)  So, not only are wide shields here to stay, but it looks like the Massachusetts squares will replace the West Virginia squares

3) he did mention the attraction signs and ruefully acknowledged that Connecticut was late to that party....

4). The good news was his funding was increased enough to allow him to hire the staff necessary to make more new signs to clear the backlog of orders he hadn't been able to fill for a long time.

5). Driving from Rhody to my hotel, I will admit much of the current BGS needs replacing....and Jeff did acknowledge that button copy on reflective sheeting was not a bright idea....

At this point, I don't know how many more trips I can make out here, this trip has been harder on me physically because of my health issues, so this trip has been more about enjoying what is left of the classic Connecticut signages before they get swallowed up in the morass of federally-mandated sameness
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 08, 2014, 09:40:28 AM
New signs on I-84 East in West Hartford/Hartford

1. New ground mounted sign before the Prospect Ave bridge "Downtown Hartford/Exits 48-50"
2. New ground mounted sign for I-91 2 miles exit sign.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on October 08, 2014, 10:19:59 AM
If CT wants to ground-mount, that's fine.  But to ground-mount the I-91 approach...a major interstate junction??  I think that deserves more attention for motorists!   :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on October 09, 2014, 12:41:40 AM
1) Milage-based exit numbers:  nobody really likes the idea, unlike larger states in the Midwest or West, the concept seems crazy here.  From their POV, you can have a stretch where exits can be numbered 12-13-14-15, but the Feds would have them numbered 6A, B, C, D.  I-395 is an odd case.  Legislatively, it is still the same highway as I-95 after I-95 jumps off toward New London....I observed that the Ohio Turnpike doesn't change exit numbers when I-76 swaps with I-80.
Seeing as how 395, still being the CT Turnpike, continues the numbering from I-95 now... well, I can't say I was *surprised* to see that 395 would start over at 0 with the renumbering, but it woulda been neat-o if they still continued the numbering from I-95's mileage at the split.
OTOH, that could make for a weird transition if 395 starts at mile 89 or whatever, and the numbering on I-95 proper before the split hasn't been changed over yet. Yeah.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 09, 2014, 09:10:40 AM
Alas, the days of the Connecticut Turnpike being known as an official road mostly disappeared when tolls disappeared.  Trailblazer signs are extremely rare, and no BGSs refer to it as such.  Most roads that have a name that are state turnpikes have  a closed ticket toll system  So, although there's a nostalgia to continue CT Turnpike mileage on the south end of I-395, it makes more sense to start at 0, because technically, 395 is an exit off of I-95.  OH does it that way on the turnpike because A. The road is well signed and referred to, and B. The I-76 stretch is short anyway.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 09:14:13 AM
Seeing as how 395, still being the CT Turnpike
Do people still refer to the Turnpike stretch of I-95 & 395 as the CT Turnpike?  With the tolls being gone for just about 30 years; my guess is the answer to that would be "No."

OH does it that way on the turnpike because A. The road is well signed and referred to, and B. The I-76 stretch is short anyway.
And C. Tolls are still being collected on the OH Turnpike.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: hubcity on October 09, 2014, 11:28:12 AM
Seeing as how 395, still being the CT Turnpike
Do people still refer to the Turnpike stretch of I-95 & 395 as the CT Turnpike?  With the tolls being gone for just about 30 years; my guess is the answer to that would be "No."

I agree, while noting that, somehow, CT15 is still "The Merritt Parkway".
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 12:54:50 PM
Seeing as how 395, still being the CT Turnpike
Do people still refer to the Turnpike stretch of I-95 & 395 as the CT Turnpike?  With the tolls being gone for just about 30 years; my guess is the answer to that would be "No."

I agree, while noting that, somehow, CT15 is still "The Merritt Parkway".
That could be due to the fact that the Parkway still has overheight vehicle restrictions (i.e. no trucks or busses).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on October 09, 2014, 04:58:07 PM
Some traffic reporters in Southwest CT still call I-95 "The Turnpike."
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 09, 2014, 05:51:42 PM
Seeing as how 395, still being the CT Turnpike
Do people still refer to the Turnpike stretch of I-95 & 395 as the CT Turnpike?  With the tolls being gone for just about 30 years; my guess is the answer to that would be "No."

I agree, while noting that, somehow, CT15 is still "The Merritt Parkway".

The Merritt is still posted with its trailblazer, and is advertised with that name from both I-95 as well as I-287 in NY.  It also is an extension of the Hutchinson Parkway in NY, which is known solely by that name to motorists.  The Merritt is also listed on several historic registers as well, such as the National Register of Historic Places and is a state scenic road. 

However, for some reason, the Wilbur Cross is referred to more as Route 15 or, incorrectly, as the Merritt, despite it being signed as the W. Cross Pkwy from both I-91 and I-95.  No trailblazers are posted for it, though.

Regarding I-95 and I-395, I still refer to them as the turnpike, but that's me.  It's kind of sad to see the last vestige of the continuous road being removed (the continuous exit numbers).  I would have kept the exit numbers as they were, or renumbered them by mileage based on the NY state line in Greenwich being MP 0, and have simply left the I-95/I-395 interchange unnumbered.  I'd also incorporate a 2-lane "exit" for I-95 and I-395 with any future widening project, so that it doesn't "appear" that the "turnpike" exits from itself. 

Interesting that CT doesn't want to switch anything else to mile-based exits.  I would've thought CT 15 would have been next.  Maybe it will be eventually.  But until the time comes for a state-wide shift, I-395 and CT 2A become the oddballs.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 09, 2014, 07:07:59 PM

Alas, the days of the Connecticut Turnpike being known as an official road mostly disappeared when tolls disappeared.  Trailblazer signs are extremely rare, and no BGSs refer to it as such.

Maybe none in Connecticut, but it is so named on the BGS eastbound 287 in New York.  I can't recall the last time I saw a trailblazer. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on October 09, 2014, 09:37:35 PM
I don't think CT wants to convert anything to mileage-based.  They might have been planning to replace the signs anyways and had the FHWA force their hand.  I recall some sign plans posted here for I-84 that had room to add extra digits in the number.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 09, 2014, 11:00:51 PM
ruefully acknowledged that Connecticut was late to that party....

LOL CT DOT/Legislators that decide transportation items are late to the party on A LOT of things. 

and no more West Virginia thick borders on state routes?  They are going to phase them out?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 10, 2014, 07:19:14 PM
Some traffic reporters in Southwest CT still call I-95 "The Turnpike."
A lot of people still call it the turnpike, mostly those that live in towns along 95. I've found that very few people that call it the turnpike realize that once east of East Lyme it's no longer technically THE turnpike, but a lot of people still call it that nonetheless. In SW CT there are two, really three, main routes you hear about from traffic reporters: the turnpike, the parkway, and the post rd.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 10, 2014, 07:46:46 PM
The Merritt is still posted with its trailblazer, and is advertised with that name from both I-95 as well as I-287 in NY.  It also is an extension of the Hutchinson Parkway in NY, which is known solely by that name to motorists.  The Merritt is also listed on several historic registers as well, such as the National Register of Historic Places and is a state scenic road. 

However, for some reason, the Wilbur Cross is referred to more as Route 15 or, incorrectly, as the Merritt, despite it being signed as the W. Cross Pkwy from both I-91 and I-95.  No trailblazers are posted for it, though.

Regarding I-95 and I-395, I still refer to them as the turnpike, but that's me.  It's kind of sad to see the last vestige of the continuous road being removed (the continuous exit numbers).  I would have kept the exit numbers as they were, or renumbered them by mileage based on the NY state line in Greenwich being MP 0, and have simply left the I-95/I-395 interchange unnumbered.  I'd also incorporate a 2-lane "exit" for I-95 and I-395 with any future widening project, so that it doesn't "appear" that the "turnpike" exits from itself. 

Interesting that CT doesn't want to switch anything else to mile-based exits.  I would've thought CT 15 would have been next.  Maybe it will be eventually.  But until the time comes for a state-wide shift, I-395 and CT 2A become the oddballs.

The Merritt is also signed as such in NY as a destination on both I-287 as well as the Cross County. Of course CT doesn't want to switch to mile based exit numbers. There's little to gain there as exits in the state are about a mile apart in general (not to mention zero chance of adding an exit on any highway ever again) so there's going to be very little change and it will just be more confusing than useful when old exit 25 becomes new exit 24 since most of the new exit numbers will have existed under the old system. When the bigger states changed over, the old exit 24 became the new exit 161 (the Bellefonte exit on I-80 in PA for example which I roughly call the halfway point to OH when crossing PA though maybe the Clearfield exit would be a better choice), so there was no chance of confusing new and old exits since I-80 maxed out at exit 53 pre-changeover so almost all the new exit numbers never existed before. What will happen in a state like CT will be the same as in NY where people just refer to the exit by the street name or destination it services as it is written on the sign. On I-95 instead of saying get off at exit 24, people will just say get off at the Commerce Dr exit to avoid confusing it with old exit 24 which is about a mile away which goes to the Blackrock Tpke. Mileage based exit numbering takes away the predictability and is a system designed about 3 decades too late. Anyone with a phone these days knows how far the next exit is cool numbering scheme or not - basically the same reason a lot of states ditched emergency call boxes. Speaking of the Merritt and exit numbering, now that is a highway that could use some new exit numbers at least with respect to the 27-27S-30 mess.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 10, 2014, 08:14:55 PM
However, for some reason, the Wilbur Cross is referred to more as Route 15 or, incorrectly, as the Merritt, despite it being signed as the W. Cross Pkwy from both I-91 and I-95.  No trailblazers are posted for it, though.

I don't have a photo on hand since I'm on the road, but there ARE Wilbur Cross trailblazers out there. They are the same as the old style Merritt ones (lighter blue, no Mountain Laurel)

Quote
Regarding I-95 and I-395, I still refer to them as the turnpike, but that's me.

I think it's somewhat of a generational thing. Nobody in CT under the age of 30 will ever use the name "Connecticut Turnpike". People old enough to remember the tolls sometimes still do.

Quote
Interesting that CT doesn't want to switch anything else to mile-based exits.  I would've thought CT 15 would have been next.  Maybe it will be eventually.

The signs on the Merritt are only about a dozen years old. You will most likely see the numbers change once it comes time to replace all the signs but that won't be for at least another decade.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 10, 2014, 08:48:54 PM
Cruising around the ole' Google Street View, I found this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5646702,-72.3292808,3a,75y,129.1h,93.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOwOtp2jJDLKJyzrdiiuAUw!2e0

Don't recall seeing this one being referenced in the past couple years worth of "overhead sign replacements on various expressways". 

Wonder how many more years it will take before ConnDOT reverses the positions of the route marker and direction on pull-through signs.  Is that even in the MUTCD yet? 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: ctsignguy on October 12, 2014, 02:54:34 PM
ruefully acknowledged that Connecticut was late to that party....

LOL CT DOT/Legislators that decide transportation items are late to the party on A LOT of things. 

and no more West Virginia thick borders on state routes?  They are going to phase them out?


Seems so....the preference seems to be the equally-boring Massachusetts look....


Couple of other items in forgot in my original posts

6)  They are definitely going to 24x30 shields for their 3-di routes...they didnt like them (I guess that is more items for them to track), but expect to see a LOT of the old 3-di 24x24 to come down in the next year or so....bai-bai to the classic B-fonts as well...

7) I-95  Jeff doesnt see any solution to this.  If the ConnDOT tries to widen I-95, it would be tied up in the courts for years as those areas are the most affluent in Connecticut and those wealthy folks wont give up their property without a bloody and expensive fight....Double-decking presents it's own challenges regarding engineering and maintenance in a state whose bridge maintenance has been spotty at times over the years. And closing exits is a non-starter as well...state and local politicians will fight to the death to keep any and all exits open in their towns and districts....The real issue is the Turnpike was built to 1950s traffic standards as thought of in the 1940s, and to be realistic, as it stands, it is outside its reasonable service life....and as we in Ohio have seen in the case of the I-70/71 area, solutions are expensive, and time-consuming, and result in aggravation for locals as well as the travelling public
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 12, 2014, 06:52:10 PM
Cruising around the ole' Google Street View, I found this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5646702,-72.3292808,3a,75y,129.1h,93.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOwOtp2jJDLKJyzrdiiuAUw!2e0

Don't recall seeing this one being referenced in the past couple years worth of "overhead sign replacements on various expressways". 

Wonder how many more years it will take before ConnDOT reverses the positions of the route marker and direction on pull-through signs.  Is that even in the MUTCD yet? 

Why do they have to reverse the position of the route marker and direction? New York seems to do this a lot. At the end of I-287 there are two signs. One says "NORTH 95 New Haven" and the other says "95 SOUTH New York." I never could figure out if it was intentional or a mistake.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on October 13, 2014, 09:07:59 AM
Cruising around the ole' Google Street View, I found this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5646702,-72.3292808,3a,75y,129.1h,93.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOwOtp2jJDLKJyzrdiiuAUw!2e0

Don't recall seeing this one being referenced in the past couple years worth of "overhead sign replacements on various expressways". 

Wonder how many more years it will take before ConnDOT reverses the positions of the route marker and direction on pull-through signs.  Is that even in the MUTCD yet? 

Why do they have to reverse the position of the route marker and direction? New York seems to do this a lot. At the end of I-287 there are two signs. One says "NORTH 95 New Haven" and the other says "95 SOUTH New York." I never could figure out if it was intentional or a mistake.
IIRC, the reverse position of the route markers & directions (for left-lane movements or exits) only came about when diagrammatic-approach BGS' are used.  Exit 339 (for US 1 South/City Ave.) off I-76 West in Philly being one exception.

All other styled approach signs (including the newer-style APLs) typically don't follow the reverse route marker/direction layout (for left lane movements/exits) convention.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 13, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
Saw my first one of these in CT on EB I-84 at Exit 41

(http://cdn.nationalsafetycommission.com/signs-small/yellow/speed_reduction_ahead.gif)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 13, 2014, 08:11:03 PM
I drove U.S. 7 this weekend and found that the replacement signal just north of the U.S. 7/CT 35 split has backplates with yellow borders, there's a centerline rumble strip in the Ridgefield/Danbury section, and that the state is actively replacing red balls with red arrows. They are everywhere now in Fairfield County and not just new installations. I don't know if I'm a fan of the red arrows as they are harder to see than a solid red ball and convey the same meaning (i.e. if you're in a left turn only lane, a red ball signaling no movements for that lane is the same as signaling no movement in the only direction permitted in that lane). Also those huge exit tabs for left exits look kind of silly like APL BGS. The old style exit only yellow stripe along the bottom made more sense and stood out more. Sometimes I think they like to fix things that aren't broken or like most government entities need to justify their existence through excessive bureaucracy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 13, 2014, 11:00:53 PM
Is there a new state maintained road in Danbury? 

Look at page 3 under DANBURY

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dstc/180days.pdf
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 13, 2014, 11:26:23 PM
Is there a new state maintained road in Danbury? 

Look at page 3 under DANBURY

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dstc/180days.pdf

Nah, SR 824 was created in 1984. "New State Road" is just the road's name, as far as ConnDOT is concerned. It shows up as Woodland Rd on Google Maps.

There's also a New State Road in Manchester, CT, that has kept that name, and was state maintained (SR 806, then SR 437) until 1962. But now that's a former state road.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 14, 2014, 08:31:21 AM
"New/Old State Rd" is common parlance in many areas for superseded/superseding state highways.  Lots of "Old State Roads" around here are short segments that have a curve and/or houses that were bypassed for a better through route.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 15, 2014, 06:11:03 PM
another example of CT being late to the party:

CT DOT started doing time travel updates on the VMSs.

"To Rte 7, 8 miles, 10 minutes" I saw that on I-95.  Also checked the travel map where is displays the VMS text and they're doing it across the state.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: wytout on October 15, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
I Think these got the switch turned on statewide today.  I was heading down 91 south from Windsor to Hartford and the VMS's were updated with travel times to 84, Route 15, Route 3, Route 9, etc.

Late to the party, but nice just the same.  I got sick of the same message every day "Delay 8 Miles Exit 37 - 32" etc. etc.


------------------------------------------------

Regarding CT state 3Di Route Shields, yup.  Hadn't looked at the Sign Catalog in a while. it was updated March of this year, and it surely does have specific sign panels for 24x24 / 36x36 1&2 digit shields and 24X30 / 45X36 3Di state route shields.



Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on October 16, 2014, 09:42:34 PM
Today I saw two travel time VMS' in Milford along I-95. Heading northbound, there was a sign saying "I-91 10 Miles 13 Minutes". Heading southbound, there was a VMS for the Route 8 interchange in Bridgeport, but I don't remember the exact mileage/time. I'm glad to see CT is finally doing this, now if we could only get some mileage signs...
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 17, 2014, 08:31:41 AM
.....now if we could only get some mileage signs...

CT has never been that big on mileage signs.   Only a handful exist.  I do recall many years ago seeing one on I-91 SB with distances to Meriden and New Haven given in both miles and km.  And then there were the "Next Exit xx Miles" signs on the turnpike in Branford.  They were funny since the exits were only 1-3 miles apart.   Now where I live, next exit signs are much more useful since our exits are much farther apart than even the infamous Merritt Parkway's 'no exit zone'!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 17, 2014, 09:39:12 AM
There's a distance sign on I-84 West in Union, not too long after the Massachusetts border. before you pass the weigh station. It shows the distance to Hartford and Waterbury.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 17, 2014, 06:01:13 PM
There's a distance sign on I-84 West in Union, not too long after the Massachusetts border. before you pass the weigh station. It shows the distance to Hartford and Waterbury.

And that's the only one on I-84 if I recall. 
I-95 NB has two:  one in Greenwich for Stamford & Bridgeport and one in Stonington for N. Stonington and Providence
I-95 SB has two:  one in Stonington for New London & New Haven and one in Groton for New Haven & Bridgeport.  I think there is one for Stamford & New York City somewhere in lower Fairfield Cty as well.
CT 9 has one in each direction:  between Exits 8 & 9 in Haddam
CT 2 has several between Marlborough and Norwich
CT 8 I think has one SB near the exp'y start, for Waterbury and Bridgeport. 

And I think that's it. 

I would definitely add more to I-84 and I-95, and definitely add some on I-91. 

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 17, 2014, 07:08:56 PM
Massachusetts has one on their portion of I-84 west, mentioning at least Union and Hartford. Not sure about Waterbury.

As for I-91, I don't see a mileage sign until the first overpass in Longmeadow, MA, nearly a mile north of the CT state line. I know it mentions Brattleboro, VT being about 63 miles away.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on October 18, 2014, 11:13:14 AM
If I recall correctly, there is a button copy mileage sign on CT 15/Wilbur Cross Parkway southbound in Meriden just past the I-91 interchange. It mentions the distances to New Haven, Bridgeport, and NYC.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 18, 2014, 12:11:11 PM
Forgot about that one, and apparently so did ConnDOT as its in that "no-man's land" of forgotten button-copy signage... right up there with the NB BGSs for Exit 67/East Main St and the signage for Exits 55/54 on the east side of the Sikorsky Bridge.  And that even older non-reflective button copy for SB Exit 55 1/2 mile, which still has the text services listing below it that used to be common in the NRBC era.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on October 18, 2014, 12:59:09 PM
It always bothered me that the orphan button copy signs on Wilbur Cross at Exits 55/54 were never replaced...and I doubt we'll see replacements anytime within this decade.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 18, 2014, 01:52:45 PM
If those signs are replaced anytime in the next couple of years, they will be orphans as well, being the only signs on the WCP/Merritt with "aligned" exit tabs.  Maybe they will get replacement as part of a "spot" overhead replacement project, but highly unlikely for the NB signs, since that gantry was put in when the bridge was replaced.  So we're looking at either a replacement as part of a WCP or a Merritt replacement.  Given both these roads had some of the oldest signs in the state when they were replaced in the early 2000s, we're looking at replacement sometime in the 2040 time frame.  Unless the Feds force ConnDOT's hand to make the Merritt signs MUTCD compliant, and convert exit numbers to mileage, in which case the Merritt may get new signs in the 2020-2030 timeframe.   :D

When the time comes, however, I can see most of the SB signage going "ground-based".  The present overheads just don't fit in with the character of the tree-lined median of the WCP.  And NB, why do we need two exits accessing the same road?  You can go straight off the Wheelers Farm Road offramp and still get to Wolf Harbor Road.  And does the NB onramp still have the old NRBC signage?  Sure does, in the GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2520996,-73.0737311,3a,75y,32.79h,74.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKg92BpZjtAtr23J3fgn0rA!2e0
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on October 18, 2014, 02:09:29 PM
I find it very interesting actually. All of the signs along the Milford Parkway as well as the ground based signs for the onramps onto CT 15 have been replaced within the last two years, except for the signs on the Wilbur Cross. They're the only button copy signs left in Milford!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 18, 2014, 03:02:31 PM
Here's what I have for Milford sign phases:

Phase I signage (1970s-vintage - non-reflective button copy):  WCP SB Exit 55 1/2 mile & Wolf Harbor Rd NB WCP onramp
Phase II signage (1980s-vintage):  n/a   - closest to Milford is on CT 25
Phase III signage (reflective button copy):  WCP NB/SB Exit 55, WCP SB Exit 54
Phase IV signage (Merritt Pkwy version)  WCP SB advance for Exit 53 and NB Exit 54
Phase IV signage (aligned exit tabs, no borders):  Conn Tpke
Phase IV signage (aligned exit tabs, with borders, current standard):  Milford Pkwy
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 18, 2014, 06:24:36 PM
Here's what I have for Milford sign phases:

Phase I signage (1970s-vintage - non-reflective button copy):  WCP SB Exit 55 1/2 mile & Wolf Harbor Rd NB WCP onramp

I think the Exit 55 SB half mile sign with the "FOOD PHONE GAS LODGING etc is reflective.  I could've sworn they were when I drove by.  Very early reflective but reflective.

The Wolf Pit Road signs have all been replaced unless I missed one.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on October 18, 2014, 08:22:22 PM
One other new trend spreading across the state is the new larger mixed-case FHWA font small guidance signs that tell you which way a town is at the end of a ramp or junction. Previously the long rectangular green signs used all caps that for some reason were pretty small and might give a distance and would generally have an arrow - those were harder to read than these new ones. These new ones are definitely an improvement from a readability standpoint.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 18, 2014, 11:48:22 PM
Yes, that distance sign mentioned above is just after CT Route 15 splits away from I-91 in Meriden, right as the NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES portion begins.

Also noticed a new sign on I-95 North tonight in Darien. There's now a big yellow sign warning about a bridge height restriction along US Route 1 nearby. It reminds drivers to take Exit 13 instead of the upcoming Exit 11.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 19, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
I-84 Hartford Viaduct replacement: There have been enough comments to transportation officials about completing I-291 that the Hartford Courant even did an article on it.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-no-new-ring-highway-1013-20141013-story.html

But do you see?  Because of road cut backs a generation ago, it still affects us today. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on October 19, 2014, 02:24:52 PM
I-84 Hartford Viaduct replacement: There have been enough comments to transportation officials about completing I-291 that the Hartford Courant even did an article on it.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-hartford-viaduct-no-new-ring-highway-1013-20141013-story.html

But do you see?  Because of road cut backs a generation ago, it still affects us today.

I totally agree. Hartford needs a beltway or some sort of bypass badly. All traffic that's heading northbound towards the airport, Springfield, etc has to take I-91 north which causes lots of backups in Downtown Hartford. As for I-84, I think they should have it tunnel under downtown. The only thing is this would cost lots of $$$ which I'm sure the state either doesn't have or doesn't want to cough up.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on October 19, 2014, 10:14:02 PM
As for the second picture, it looks like the gantry sign for CT Route 10 was never replaced.

Yet... they made the effort to align the exit tab.  They did that on the pipe gantry assembly at Exit 45, SB, too. 

Those are some beefy looking gantries.  Weird how the pipe gantries have been phased out already, at least at this location.

Going from the traffic cameras to the traffic incident report, one of the listings is for 'Road Work on I-395 Southbound between Exits 79 and 78 in effect today until 3:00 pm.' Could this be related to the exit sign replacement/renumbering project?

The travel map shows a project to rehabilitate a culvert near Exit 78.  That could be why as well. 

I was down in CT this past weekend, though time didn't permit me to take a drive around to check the progress on that project.  Vehicle repairs were a higher priority, and it kept me at bay until about 15 minutes before I retracted back to VT.  At least I beat rush hour in Hartford, though the area between Exits 28-29 on 91NB had its usual delays. 

I drove down I-395 South to attend the Merritt Parkway Meet on Saturday. I spotted one new exit sign going the other direction, it was at the CT 2A exit and from my quick glance backwards it had a 2A shield and a right mounted exit tab, with the current exit number, 79A. It may be that they are changing the signs along 2A first, including at I-395, then moving on to the interstate signs. Guess it wouldn't make any sense to change the exit number on that one sign, when all the other older signs remain. The only other new signs spotted, as has been posted, were the blue service area signs.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 19, 2014, 11:26:08 PM
There's also a mileage sign on I-84 east just past I-684 in Brewster with mileages to Danbury (8) and Hartford (65).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 28, 2014, 10:43:36 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/10/28/truck-catches-fire-on-merritt-parkway/

And this is what cellphone guidance gives truckers! This happened on the Merritt Parkway (CT Route 15) in Greenwich...barely! The driver's trailer, which obviously should never have been on this road, struck the King Street overpass on the state line.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on October 28, 2014, 11:39:08 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/10/28/truck-catches-fire-on-merritt-parkway/

And this is what cellphone guidance gives truckers! This happened on the Merritt Parkway (CT Route 15) in Greenwich...barely! The driver's trailer, which obviously should never have been on this road, struck the King Street overpass on the state line.

Reminds me of seeing tractor trailers on the WCP stopped on the shoulder not far from the West Rock Tunnel.  Guess that's why the u-turns on either side of the tunnel are extra long.... so that a wayward trucker can be u-turned, requiring traffic stops in both directions.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on October 29, 2014, 12:23:24 AM
http://wtnh.com/2014/10/28/truck-catches-fire-on-merritt-parkway/

And this is what cellphone guidance gives truckers! This happened on the Merritt Parkway (CT Route 15) in Greenwich...barely! The driver's trailer, which obviously should never have been on this road, struck the King Street overpass on the state line.

That is one of the lower bridges around and it has trimmed quite a few trucks down to size in its time. NYSDOT has an overheight detector leading up to it northbound and has recently painted "LOW BRIDGE NO TRUCKS" in that area and others on the Hutch. Of course it doesn't make a damn difference since truckers won't see signs they aren't looking for no matter how obvious you try and make them.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on October 30, 2014, 08:37:35 PM
Sorry if this isn't directly road related but,

http://wtnh.com/2014/10/30/new-havens-downtown-crossing-project-unveiled/

What is everyone thoughts on this? I like the idea a lot since it'll bring lots of new growth to New Haven. At the same time however, especially with the removal of CT 34, I have a feeling a significant amount of traffic will still be there. Hopefully when all this construction is done the traffic will be not as bad, but we'll see..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on October 31, 2014, 02:01:06 AM
OMG, the comments on that page

Quote
THEY NEED TO KNOCK DOWN THOSE CHURCH STREET SOUTH PROJECTS!!!! ARE THEY???? THOSE PROJECTS ARE TROUBLE!!!!! NOTHING BUT DRUGS AND CRIME AND MORE SCUM!!!

Hey, maybe they could build a freeway there :)

Well, if 34's never going to happen, then yes, reclaim the prime city land, make it more walkable and appealing. Traffic from Derby/Ansonia area could take CT 10 (possibly upgraded) to I-95 or mumble mumble something to I-91.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on October 31, 2014, 03:42:34 PM
Quote
THEY NEED TO KNOCK DOWN THOSE CHURCH STREET SOUTH PROJECTS!!!! ARE THEY???? THOSE PROJECTS ARE TROUBLE!!!!! NOTHING BUT DRUGS AND CRIME AND MORE SCUM!!!

When exactly have housing projects not produced unsavory elements in cities? No one wants to live in 'the projects',
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 31, 2014, 05:02:58 PM

Quote
THEY NEED TO KNOCK DOWN THOSE CHURCH STREET SOUTH PROJECTS!!!! ARE THEY???? THOSE PROJECTS ARE TROUBLE!!!!! NOTHING BUT DRUGS AND CRIME AND MORE SCUM!!!

When exactly have housing projects not produced unsavory elements in cities? No one wants to live in 'the projects',

Poverty produces unsavory elements.  Housing projects concentrate poor people.  I think it's important to make the distinction that building or removing the building  doesn't create or eliminate the problem. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on October 31, 2014, 05:19:06 PM
Poverty produces unsavory elements.  Housing projects concentrate poor people.  I think it's important to make the distinction that building or removing the building  doesn't create or eliminate the problem.

True. However, I feel that newer residents will be less inclined to move in to an area that contains the often dilapidated appearance that housing projects tend to give (not saying that (usually) the immediate area around the projects would look any better...).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 20, 2014, 07:33:48 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/11/20/possible-flaw-in-i-95-moses-wheeler-bridge-puts-project-over-budget-sets-back-completion/.

This is about the I-95 bridge over the Housatonic River, between Stratford and Milford. Looks like the total replacement project has been delayed and may now cost millions more. :(
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on November 20, 2014, 08:53:51 PM
http://wtnh.com/2014/11/20/possible-flaw-in-i-95-moses-wheeler-bridge-puts-project-over-budget-sets-back-completion/.

This is about the I-95 bridge over the Housatonic River, between Stratford and Milford. Looks like the total replacement project has been delayed and may now cost millions more. :(

I just read about that. It's unbelievable. Living in Milford, traffic can be crazy trying to get across that bridge due to all the construction. Hopefully they can find some kind of alternative to this..
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 21, 2014, 12:26:39 AM
http://wtnh.com/2014/11/20/possible-flaw-in-i-95-moses-wheeler-bridge-puts-project-over-budget-sets-back-completion/.

This is about the I-95 bridge over the Housatonic River, between Stratford and Milford. Looks like the total replacement project has been delayed and may now cost millions more. :(
I love reading article comments. People are so clueless. This has nothing to do with government or (likely) the contractor, and certainly not the union workers. Design flaws are on the engineers. Then again, I don't want to be blamed if anything I do goes wrong. (:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 21, 2014, 07:16:07 AM
I don't think CT wants to convert anything to mileage-based.  They might have been planning to replace the signs anyways and had the FHWA force their hand.  I recall some sign plans posted here for I-84 that had room to add extra digits in the number.

WTIC-DT news is teasing a feature story for Monday (24 November) morning about a "change coming to Connecticut highways" and "what will be done to avoid confusing drivers".

Considering that the teaser tape featured pictures of exit signs....
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 21, 2014, 01:04:03 PM
If CT actually does a full conversion, it's gonna make all the remaining sequential states look pretty silly.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 21, 2014, 06:07:15 PM

If CT actually does a full conversion, it's gonna make all the remaining sequential states look pretty silly.

Among the readers of AARoads, perhaps.  Among most people who use those roads, not so much.

I would prefer that they don't do this conversion, because I have decades of crisscrossing CT behind me that have burned a pretty good familiarity with those numbers into my head (86-to-84 conversion notwithstanding). 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 21, 2014, 08:56:03 PM

If CT actually does a full conversion, it's gonna make all the remaining sequential states look pretty silly.

Among the readers of AARoads, perhaps.  Among most people who use those roads, not so much.

I would prefer that they don't do this conversion, because I have decades of crisscrossing CT behind me that have burned a pretty good familiarity with those numbers into my head (86-to-84 conversion notwithstanding). 

It's probably the story of the exit signs for I-395. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2014, 12:02:24 AM
It's probably the story of the exit signs for I-395. 
Hasn't that been talked about for months now?  It's not like it's been a secret outside of AA Roads.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:13:38 AM

If CT actually does a full conversion, it's gonna make all the remaining sequential states look pretty silly.

Among the readers of AARoads, perhaps.  Among most people who use those roads, not so much.

I would prefer that they don't do this conversion, because I have decades of crisscrossing CT behind me that have burned a pretty good familiarity with those numbers into my head (86-to-84 conversion notwithstanding). 
The whole "I'm familiar with the way it used to be, so don't change it" is what led to Jim Crow. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on November 22, 2014, 01:29:42 AM
It's also what led to using mileage instead of kilometerage for exit numbers. Kilometers are the hepcats of the highways.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:32:31 AM
It's also what led to using mileage instead of kilometerage for exit numbers. Kilometers are the hepcats of the highways.
The one thing Obamunism didn't fix is the metric system. What kind of liberal deity did we elect?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on November 22, 2014, 01:35:56 AM
His recent Overreaching Executive Orderghazi has a hidden provision that allows kilometers to sneak across the border and murder our miles.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:42:59 AM
His recent Overreaching Executive Orderghazi has a hidden provision that allows kilometers to sneak across the border and murder our miles.
I've noticed dual-language mile and kilometer signs near our borders. Are they to be given amnesty?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on November 22, 2014, 02:14:16 AM
Dual-unit signs already have amnesty from St. Raygun of the Eighties.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2014, 09:33:55 AM


If CT actually does a full conversion, it's gonna make all the remaining sequential states look pretty silly.

Among the readers of AARoads, perhaps.  Among most people who use those roads, not so much.

I would prefer that they don't do this conversion, because I have decades of crisscrossing CT behind me that have burned a pretty good familiarity with those numbers into my head (86-to-84 conversion notwithstanding). 
The whole "I'm familiar with the way it used to be, so don't change it" is what led to Jim Crow. Just sayin'.

Sure, and you know who else valued highway efficiency? THE NAZIS!
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on November 22, 2014, 10:08:04 AM
But Mussolini knew where it was at, convincing his subjects that the trains were on time.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2014, 10:45:39 AM
Mussolini just changed the numbers to make people happy.  Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 22, 2014, 06:42:01 PM
I love reading article comments. People are so clueless. This has nothing to do with government or (likely) the contractor, and certainly not the union workers. Design flaws are on the engineers. Then again, I don't want to be blamed if anything I do goes wrong. (:

Agreed.  The level of cluelessness in most comments is, well, rather remarkable. 

I am not qualified to design anything that might possibly be used on a bridge or tunnel, but I know almost infinitely more than most of those commentators. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 22, 2014, 06:42:56 PM
His recent Overreaching Executive Orderghazi has a hidden provision that allows kilometers to sneak across the border and murder our miles.
I've noticed dual-language mile and kilometer signs near our borders. Are they to be given amnesty?

It's a conspiracy I tell you.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 22, 2014, 09:17:35 PM
Noticed on I-84 EB in Waterbury the BGS:

               84           EAST
        v              v                v

which has been signed this way since the late 1970s has now been patched to include this overlay:

          84 EAST        RIGHT LANE
                              ENDS 1/2 MILE
      V                 V                    V

So,they spent $$ on a "right lane ends" overlay but they will be widening the highway to 3-lanes east of here and in 3 years the overlay will be removed. 

So, there's been no overlay for 30 years why fix it for the last 3 years before the lane drop is gone?!  $ coulda been spent better.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 22, 2014, 11:06:01 PM
I believe it has to do with the elimination of the overhead assembly just east of that pullthrough which was a 1 mile advance for Exit 25 and a Lane Ends / XXXX Feet / Merge Left".  That assembly is being eliminated, and the Exit 25 sign being moved to the ground. 

All part of a statewide "spot sign replacement" project, which is replacing some gantries with new ones, or moving formerly overhead signs (on bridges or gantries) down to the ground. 

Look for the 2014-issued contract to include the replacement of the I-91 SB Exit 40 gantry (which no longer exists), and two gantries being combined into one for Exit 41/SB - Exit 42/NB.  Also in the contract:  removing two perfectly fine signs off an overpass and to ground level on the turnpike at Exit 66.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 22, 2014, 11:20:55 PM
I believe it has to do with the elimination of the overhead assembly just east of that pullthrough which was a 1 mile advance for Exit 25 and a Lane Ends / XXXX Feet / Merge Left".  That assembly is being eliminated, and the Exit 25 sign being moved to the ground. 

All part of a statewide "spot sign replacement" project, which is replacing some gantries with new ones, or moving formerly overhead signs (on bridges or gantries) down to the ground. 

Look for the 2014-issued contract to include the replacement of the I-91 SB Exit 40 gantry (which no longer exists), and two gantries being combined into one for Exit 41/SB - Exit 42/NB.  Also in the contract:  removing two perfectly fine signs off an overpass and to ground level on the turnpike at Exit 66.
Oh crap.....I didn't even notice the 1 MILE advance gantry was gone.  Still waiting for the CT-8 SB Left exit sign to be put up going  WB on I-84.
and
I guess that's why the WB version of 'RIGHT LANE ENDS" was taken down by Exit 25A
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 23, 2014, 10:56:14 AM
The I-91 SB gantry missing is the "exit now" gantry for Exit 40.   It's replacement for the past year or so has been a small temp sign just with a CT 20 shield and a Bradley Airport shield, saying "RIGHT 2 LANES".  Ironic, since a few years back, the NB "exit now" sign got taken out as well, but the gantry was still in tact.  That sign was replaced with Phase IV center tab but retaining the Phase III pullthrough.

I still have to wonder when ConnDOT will start replacing some older signage in the state.  I still see no signing contracts being announced for the oldest of interstate signage on I-84 in East Hartford/Manchester.  After that, the next oldest would be I-95 east of New London and I-91 from East Windsor up to Mass (all from the late 1980s-vintage).  Only 2015 contracts I see are I-84 to the Bulkley Bridge and CT 8 up to Torrington.  Those on I-91 from East Windsor northward were put up when that portion was widened in the late 1980s.  The SB Exit 47E 1/4 mile got wacked and is half its normal size.


Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 23, 2014, 05:10:45 PM
The I-91 SB gantry missing is the "exit now" gantry for Exit 40.   It's replacement for the past year or so has been a small temp sign just with a CT 20 shield and a Bradley Airport shield, saying "RIGHT 2 LANES".  Ironic, since a few years back, the NB "exit now" sign got taken out as well, but the gantry was still in tact.  That sign was replaced with Phase IV center tab but retaining the Phase III pullthrough.

I still have to wonder when ConnDOT will start replacing some older signage in the state.  I still see no signing contracts being announced for the oldest of interstate signage on I-84 in East Hartford/Manchester.  After that, the next oldest would be I-95 east of New London and I-91 from East Windsor up to Mass (all from the late 1980s-vintage).  Only 2015 contracts I see are I-84 to the Bulkley Bridge and CT 8 up to Torrington.  Those on I-91 from East Windsor northward were put up when that portion was widened in the late 1980s.  The SB Exit 47E 1/4 mile got wacked and is half its normal size.

I thought it was weird CTDOT is choosing to replace CT-8 signage from Waterbury on north rather than Waterbury on south.  The signs north of Waterbury were partially replaced anyway, I think up to exit 36 or 38 are new signs (past 10 years or so) meanwhile southern parts of CT-8 still have non-reflective button copy.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 23, 2014, 07:14:36 PM
That is bizarre.... but from Waterbury-Thomaston probably won't be replaced.  There may be spot changes in that section, such as new mile markers, but I doubt you'll see brand new BGSs through there. 

It's kind of like the present contract to replace signs on the turnpike from Fairfield to West Haven.... signs replaced east of the Housatonic River in recent years won't be replaced, except for some spot changes, such as mile markers, new "attractions" blue signs, etc.  The only major new signs east of Milford as part of that project will be for Exit 43. 

Guess we'll know for sure when the contract plans appear online.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: bob7374 on November 25, 2014, 10:38:45 AM
I don't think CT wants to convert anything to mileage-based.  They might have been planning to replace the signs anyways and had the FHWA force their hand.  I recall some sign plans posted here for I-84 that had room to add extra digits in the number.

WTIC-DT news is teasing a feature story for Monday (24 November) morning about a "change coming to Connecticut highways" and "what will be done to avoid confusing drivers".

Considering that the teaser tape featured pictures of exit signs....
The link to the news report is below. It says I-95 will be one of the next routes to change, and that the total process may take 20-30(?) years (can you spot (hear) the error in the discussion on which direction numbers increase?):
http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/ (http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 10:56:44 AM
It says I-95 will be one of the next routes to change, and that the total process may take 20-30(?) years (can you spot (hear) the error in the discussion on which direction numbers increase?):
http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/ (http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/)
I spotted the error when I first heard it (via your Facebook link).

I have to ask why ConnDOT believes that changing all its exit number signs will take 20-30 years?  When PA, a much larger state than CT, converted; such took only about a year or two.  Most of the changes only involved either changing the exit tab (but not the main sign) or just masking the new number over the old number on the existing exit tab as opposed to replacing entire BGS'.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: roadman on November 25, 2014, 11:12:22 AM
It says I-95 will be one of the next routes to change, and that the total process may take 20-30(?) years (can you spot (hear) the error in the discussion on which direction numbers increase?):
http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/ (http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/)
I spotted the error when I first heard it (via your Facebook link).

I have to ask why ConnDOT believes that changing all its exit number signs will take 20-30 years?  When PA, a much larger state than CT, converted; such took only about a year or two.  Most of the changes only involved either changing the exit tab (but not the main sign) or just masking the new number over the old number on the existing exit tab as opposed to replacing entire BGS'.

If I interpert the news story correctly, it appears that ConnDOT's plan for conversion is to incorporate the new exit numbers when BGSes are replaced as part of the normal updating cycle - hense the 20 to 30 year time frame.

Absolute stupid way to do the project, if you ask me.  And you can blame the Feds in part for not sticking to their guns and insisting on a compliance date for the conversion.  There was a compliance date for exit number conversion in the 2007 Federal Register NPA for the 2009 MUTCD, but it was removed from the final version of the MUTCD that was adopted.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Zeffy on November 25, 2014, 11:15:54 AM
Absolute stupid way to do the project, if you ask me.  And you can blame the Feds in part for not sticking to their guns and insisting on a compliance date for the conversion.  There was a compliance date for exit number conversion in the 2007 Federal Register NPA for the 2009 MUTCD, but it was removed from the final version of the MUTCD that was adopted.

Agreed wholeheartedly. At this rate, ConnDOT might as well as just not convert at all, especially if it is going to take more than a decade to switch everything over. It isn't rocket science either - it's literally just the masking of the old numbers and installation of newer ones that correspond to the mileage. Of course, this is the state that is so underfunded that simple roadway widenings can't even be completed, so I guess it's not all that shocking.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on November 25, 2014, 11:31:21 AM
Why can't we use the money to fund other road projects such as widening or constructing new freeways? Sure, some signs are in bad shape and we can replace those, but there are several that are perfectly fine! What an absolute waste. This is why I really hate this state.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on November 25, 2014, 11:39:10 AM
It's the California exit number installation method.

New York, too, actually (on I-95 and I-278).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 11:49:33 AM
If I interpert the news story correctly, it appears that ConnDOT's plan for conversion is to incorporate the new exit numbers when BGSes are replaced as part of the normal updating cycle - hense the 20 to 30 year time frame.
The only problem with that approach is that one could conceivably have one highway that has at least two separate strings of exit/interchange numbers.  Not every highway (especially the longer ones) has all of its signs replaced at the same time. 

Absolute stupid way to do the project, if you ask me.  And you can blame the Feds in part for not sticking to their guns and insisting on a compliance date for the conversion.  There was a compliance date for exit number conversion in the 2007 Federal Register NPA for the 2009 MUTCD, but it was removed from the final version of the MUTCD that was adopted.
Here's the thing, this is not the first time that ConnDOT had to change exit numbers on (one of) its highways.  Originally, the eastern stretch of I-84 (that was once I-86 and orginally CT/MA 15) had exit numbers that followed the numbers along CT 15/Wilbur Cross Highway south of I-84.  IIRC, all ConnDOT did then (to change the numbers to follow those of I-84) was either mask the old number or (when it was still available) replace the button-copy numerals on the exit tabs and gore signs.

I believe there's still one old exit gore sign along I-84 that still features a masked exit number (I forget where exactly it is).

Why not just mask over the existing exit tabs like other states (including MA for its I-95 & 93 exit numbering back in the 80s) have done?  It's certainly a lot cheaper.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2014, 12:08:48 PM

Why can't we use the money to fund other road projects such as widening or constructing new freeways? Sure, some signs are in bad shape and we can replace those, but there are several that are perfectly fine! What an absolute waste. This is why I really hate this state.  :banghead:

This is pennies compared to the kinds of projects you mention.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on November 25, 2014, 12:51:35 PM

Why can't we use the money to fund other road projects such as widening or constructing new freeways? Sure, some signs are in bad shape and we can replace those, but there are several that are perfectly fine! What an absolute waste. This is why I really hate this state.  :banghead:

This is pennies compared to the kinds of projects you mention.

Good point. On the subject of sign replacement, I noticed ConnDOT has replaced the signs at the off/on ramps to I-95 in West Haven at Exit 43 and in Stratford at Exit 32. The font sizes and shields seem to a bit bigger than the old ones.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2014, 01:02:29 PM
Massachusetts is also doing it this way.  I suspect the reason is because none of these states actually want to convert and have no desire to dedicate time/money to it.  Piecemeal is an excellent way of diluting costs when there's no money/willpower to do something.

If/when NY converts it will probably be this way as well.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: shadyjay on November 25, 2014, 03:10:48 PM
Regarding I-95, I wouldn't touch the exit numbers west of New Haven.... those signs are all new/soon to be new and the exits are pretty close to the mileage anyway.  I'd only change from Branford, east.  And it's from Branford, east, which needs new signs anyway.  Specifically, between Exits 54-59 (installed c 1992-93), Exits 68-70 (installed 1993), and Exits 85-93 (installed late 1980s).  As for I-91, I see no resigning projects on the horizon for that stretch so I can see that taking some time, if the "overlay" method isn't used before the signs get replaced. 

As for state routes, CT 2 and 9 signs date to the late 1980s, so I can see those taking awhile to replace.  CT 15 signs were replaced in the 2000-2003 timeframe, and unless the MUTCD forces ConnDOT's hand at making Merritt Parkway signage standard, I can't see those signs being replaced anytime in the next 10-20 years.

Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on November 26, 2014, 11:33:07 AM
I don't understand how the sign replacements for CT 2 and CT 9 aren't a high priority.  Those are some of the WORST in the entire state.  Especially on CT 2, where the Exit 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D disaster needs to be rectified.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: southshore720 on November 26, 2014, 11:37:49 AM
Are there exit numbers on the CT 2 mini-freeway @ Foxwoods?  I seem to recall an exit tab for "Exit ___" for CT 214.  If they do add exit numbers, how would that work in comparison to what currently exists on the mainline CT 2 freeway?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: kurumi on November 26, 2014, 12:01:22 PM
Are there exit numbers on the CT 2 mini-freeway @ Foxwoods?  I seem to recall an exit tab for "Exit ___" for CT 214.  If they do add exit numbers, how would that work in comparison to what currently exists on the mainline CT 2 freeway?

Just a plain EXIT tab, with no blank for a number: https://www.flickr.com/photos/therealkurumi/sets/72157623309817615/
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 06:53:32 PM
It says I-95 will be one of the next routes to change, and that the total process may take 20-30(?) years (can you spot (hear) the error in the discussion on which direction numbers increase?):
http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/ (http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/)
I spotted the error when I first heard it (via your Facebook link).

I have to ask why ConnDOT believes that changing all its exit number signs will take 20-30 years?  When PA, a much larger state than CT, converted; such took only about a year or two.  Most of the changes only involved either changing the exit tab (but not the main sign) or just masking the new number over the old number on the existing exit tab as opposed to replacing entire BGS'.
PA also added signs that said "OLD EXIT XX". They should also get rid of the "NEXT EXIT XX MILES" signs. It's redundant if the exit numbers are based on mileage.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 07:03:40 PM
Regarding I-95, I wouldn't touch the exit numbers west of New Haven.... those signs are all new/soon to be new and the exits are pretty close to the mileage anyway.  I'd only change from Branford, east.  And it's from Branford, east, which needs new signs anyway.  Specifically, between Exits 54-59 (installed c 1992-93), Exits 68-70 (installed 1993), and Exits 85-93 (installed late 1980s).  As for I-91, I see no resigning projects on the horizon for that stretch so I can see that taking some time, if the "overlay" method isn't used before the signs get replaced. 

As for state routes, CT 2 and 9 signs date to the late 1980s, so I can see those taking awhile to replace.  CT 15 signs were replaced in the 2000-2003 timeframe, and unless the MUTCD forces ConnDOT's hand at making Merritt Parkway signage standard, I can't see those signs being replaced anytime in the next 10-20 years.


Exit 56 in Branford is right at mile marker 56. Exit 70 is right at mile marker 79. The exit numbers aren't going to change much, and quite frankly for the ones that do it's going to add confusion because for the most part they will just go up or down a number or two that already exists. In other states that have done the conversion it's not so bad when exit 53 becomes exit 310 because there never was an exit 310. When exit 24 becomes exit 25 or 26 in Bridgeport or something silly like that, it's going to be confusing and people will just have to refer to the exit by the street or route it services to avoid ambiguity.

It's a small state. One where there is rarely more than a mile between exits, and one that will likely never add new highway mileage or exit ramps in my life time. There's very little benefit to doing this conversion. Enjoy the new exit numbers while you sit in hours of traffic.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 07:06:22 PM
Speaking of exit numbers, having just drove 95 for the holiday, exits 27A-B-C are alive and well in Bridgeport. I think most of the signs have been replaced and have new exit tabs (with borders) and the new suffixes except for right at the exit itself.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 29, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
Regarding I-95, I wouldn't touch the exit numbers west of New Haven.... those signs are all new/soon to be new and the exits are pretty close to the mileage anyway.  I'd only change from Branford, east.
As for state routes, CT 2 and 9 signs date to the late 1980s, so I can see those taking awhile to replace.  CT 15 signs were replaced in the 2000-2003 timeframe, and unless the MUTCD forces ConnDOT's hand at making Merritt Parkway signage standard, I can't see those signs being replaced anytime in the next 10-20 years.

Here's the story from FOXCT. (we've talked about it but I dont think anyone posted a link yet..so here goes...)So based on this Shadyjay....looks like when the new BGS signs go up on CT-8, does that mean new numbers as well? 

**Also,remember when I pointed out, a few months ago in this thread, the soon to be new I-84 WB Exit 19 Left Exit advance sign that had an exit tab with a space for a letter??  That could be for the new numbering scheme sooner rather than later.


http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/


HARTFORD — Keep an eye on those exit signs because the numbers are changing.

Connecticut is now among the growing number of states that are moving to a mileage-based system when it comes to exit numbering. The numbers originally went sequentially.

“We’re not going around and removing perfectly good exit signs and replacing them and spending money just to re-number them,” said Kevin Nursick, the spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Transportation. “We’re doing it because all of those signs are at the end of their useful life. They’re no longer reflective, we can’t see them well at night, and the lettering is very faded. So we’re replacing them out of necessity, and when we do that, we bring them up to the newest standards.”

The standards are set by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Administration, and as Connecticut interstates undergo road construction, they will be updated to the new exit numbers. The entire state is expected to convert to the new system over the next 20 years.

I-395 from East Lyme to Wilsonville is the first Connecticut interstate to get the new system based on mileage. For example, exit 77 (Route 85) would change to Exit 2 since it is located approximately 2 miles away from the start of I-395 in East Lyme. The number scheme varies by direction. For roads that run east to west, numbers begin low from their origin point in the east and increase the further west you go. North and south roads begin low in the south and go up the further north you go.

There will be a roughly two-year grace period before the old exit numbers are fully phased out, giving ample time for publications and businesses to update anything.

“This underscores the importance of having an up to date map whether it’s a paper map, or digital map, and updating your GPS device with the latest map available from the manufacturer., ” said Aaron Kupec, a spokesman for AAA.

The next roads to get updated exit numbers will be I-95 and Route 8. Construction is scheduled to begin at some time in 2015.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 29, 2014, 10:48:16 PM
Don't the exit numbers increase as one travels west to east?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on November 30, 2014, 02:40:39 AM
For CT 8, the ratio of mile marker to sequential number is below 1.0 for every exit until you get to Thomaston. So if ConnDOT changes numbers north of there with a sign replacement project, they get a usable scheme as a result that counts sequentially up to 40 and then goes 44, 47, 49, 50, 52, 56 instead of 41-46. Piecemeal indeed, but unconfusing and likely to be left in that state indefinitely unless the feds really play hardball. Lots of alphabet soup if you change numbers further south and no number would change by more than 3.

I-95 likewise I could see getting changed from the 395 split onward, where there's already a few missing exit numbers so you'll have a jump from 76 to 90 instead of 76 to 81. Eh.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2014, 06:57:26 AM

It says I-95 will be one of the next routes to change, and that the total process may take 20-30(?) years (can you spot (hear) the error in the discussion on which direction numbers increase?):
http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/ (http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/)
I spotted the error when I first heard it (via your Facebook link).

I have to ask why ConnDOT believes that changing all its exit number signs will take 20-30 years?  When PA, a much larger state than CT, converted; such took only about a year or two.  Most of the changes only involved either changing the exit tab (but not the main sign) or just masking the new number over the old number on the existing exit tab as opposed to replacing entire BGS'.
PA also added signs that said "OLD EXIT XX". They should also get rid of the "NEXT EXIT XX MILES" signs. It's redundant if the exit numbers are based on mileage.

It's only redundant if you know the next exit number.   
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on November 30, 2014, 11:58:32 AM

It says I-95 will be one of the next routes to change, and that the total process may take 20-30(?) years (can you spot (hear) the error in the discussion on which direction numbers increase?):
http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/ (http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/)
I spotted the error when I first heard it (via your Facebook link).

I have to ask why ConnDOT believes that changing all its exit number signs will take 20-30 years?  When PA, a much larger state than CT, converted; such took only about a year or two.  Most of the changes only involved either changing the exit tab (but not the main sign) or just masking the new number over the old number on the existing exit tab as opposed to replacing entire BGS'.
PA also added signs that said "OLD EXIT XX". They should also get rid of the "NEXT EXIT XX MILES" signs. It's redundant if the exit numbers are based on mileage.

It's only redundant if you know the next exit number.   
I've been hearing that this mileage based system is great because then you know how far it is to the next exit. So it sounds like you're saying that's not true? Then what exactly is the point of the change?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2014, 12:34:04 PM


It says I-95 will be one of the next routes to change, and that the total process may take 20-30(?) years (can you spot (hear) the error in the discussion on which direction numbers increase?):
http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/ (http://foxct.com/2014/11/24/interstate-exit-numbers-in-connecticut-changing-over-next-few-years/)
I spotted the error when I first heard it (via your Facebook link).

I have to ask why ConnDOT believes that changing all its exit number signs will take 20-30 years?  When PA, a much larger state than CT, converted; such took only about a year or two.  Most of the changes only involved either changing the exit tab (but not the main sign) or just masking the new number over the old number on the existing exit tab as opposed to replacing entire BGS'.
PA also added signs that said "OLD EXIT XX". They should also get rid of the "NEXT EXIT XX MILES" signs. It's redundant if the exit numbers are based on mileage.

It's only redundant if you know the next exit number.   
I've been hearing that this mileage based system is great because then you know how far it is to the next exit. So it sounds like you're saying that's not true? Then what exactly is the point of the change?

If you know what exit you're getting off at, it's pretty simple to figure out how far is left.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on November 30, 2014, 12:37:04 PM
I've been hearing that this mileage based system is great because then you know how far it is to the next exit. So it sounds like you're saying that's not true? Then what exactly is the point of the change?
Who cares how far the next exit is unless you're getting off there? The important thing is how far it is to YOUR exit.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 30, 2014, 11:21:40 PM
The mileage based exits on CT 15 will be so much better than the current double exit number/start at 27 scenario.  Exits would go:

Merritt: 0, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 (A/B NB), 18, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32 (A/B NB), 33 (SB CT 127, NB CT 108), 34 (A/B SB), 37
Wilbur Cross: 38, 39 (A/B NB), 42, 43 A/B, 47, 50, 51 A/B, 53, 58, 59, 61, 64, 65 A/B (NB).  New: CT 15/I-91 S ramp no number)
South Hartford Expressway: 80, 81 A/B (I-91 S/Airport Rd) 82 (91N NB only) 83 (A/B NB), 84 (NB Only). 

Now for Route 2 through East Hartford, here's how each direction could look from the Founders Bridge to CT 94 (current Exit 8)

EB: Unnumbered (East River Dr) , 1A (84 E), 1B (Governor St), 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4 (CT 3), 5A, 5B, 6
WB: 6, 4, 3, 2 1A, 1B, 1C (I-84 W)
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: yakra on December 01, 2014, 12:02:31 AM
Source?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 01, 2014, 12:36:18 AM
All of these numbers we're coming up with are obtained simply by looking at the known mile points of each interchange. Actual numbers as implemented will likely differ slightly. I doubt ConnDOT will post an exit 0, for example. I suspect they will either make it 1 or god forbid just match New York's number for the other half (currently 30).

Another example: jp is fudging to avoid alphabet soup. Purely based on nearest mile marker, exits 44, 46, and 47 would become 27, 29A, and 29B, not 27, 28, and 29. ConnDOT may or may not do this (but yeah I suspect they would).

jp's theoretical scheme also assigns one number for current exits 50 and 51 rather than two different numbers. This creates no conflict since these interchanges are opposite-facing half-diamonds but wheter ConnDOT would do it this way is an open question. Although there is existing precedent with I-95 exit 67.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 08:15:52 AM
The Merritt could just start at 19, following the Hutch's mileage.  But I agree, Connecticut would more likely start over at 0.  The idea of the Merritt as an outgrowth of the Hutch is one from the "so these are highways..." era that hasn't had much importance since the Interstate system was conceived. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: PHLBOS on December 01, 2014, 11:34:32 AM
Don't the exit numbers increase as one travels west to east?
That error was discretely commented on a few posts back (see replies #856 & 857).  The report & reporter involved clearly made a mix-up (error).
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: vdeane on December 01, 2014, 01:33:35 PM
The Merritt currently starts mileage at 0 even though the exit numbers don't.

Wouldn't it be hilarious (and/or painful) if CT renumbered exit 27 to 30 to match NY and then NY decided to adopt mileage-based numbers, splitting the numbering again?
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: NE2 on December 01, 2014, 02:19:49 PM
The Merritt currently starts mileage at 0 even though the exit numbers don't.

Wouldn't it be hilarious (and/or painful) if CT renumbered exit 27 to 30 to match NY and then NY decided to adopt mileage-based numbers, splitting the numbering again?
This is like the story of NY/NJ 17.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 01, 2014, 10:14:55 PM
The Merritt currently starts mileage at 0 even though the exit numbers don't.

Wouldn't it be hilarious (and/or painful) if CT renumbered exit 27 to 30 to match NY and then NY decided to adopt mileage-based numbers, splitting the numbering again?

The Merritt did not have exit numbers when it first opened. But I suspect it had exit numbers before it had mile markers.

As for your scenario about the exits regoofing, don't joke, that would happen.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 11, 2014, 12:49:47 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/capital_plan/DOT_FY_2015_2019_Capital_Plan.pdf

Capital Plan I out and look at page 20.  It says I-95 additional travel lane in lower Fairfield county.  hmmmm
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on December 11, 2014, 03:29:15 PM
It seems like ConnDOT is slowly getting it's act back together. However, we all know how projects like these were cancelled due to no funds. I would think that most of the major projects would be done after the New Haven project is completed.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 11, 2014, 06:16:17 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/capital_plan/DOT_FY_2015_2019_Capital_Plan.pdf (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/capital_plan/DOT_FY_2015_2019_Capital_Plan.pdf)

Capital Plan I out and look at page 20.  It says I-95 additional travel lane in lower Fairfield county.  hmmmm
They have added it for some distance in Stamford. Bits and pieces. Really needs more than one lane though.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 13, 2014, 08:57:16 PM
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/capital_plan/DOT_FY_2015_2019_Capital_Plan.pdf (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/capital_plan/DOT_FY_2015_2019_Capital_Plan.pdf)

Capital Plan I out and look at page 20.  It says I-95 additional travel lane in lower Fairfield county.  hmmmm
They have added it for some distance in Stamford. Bits and pieces. Really needs more than one lane though.
Really? Where? I know they added an operational lane in Darien and it looks like they are doing the same between 13 and 15 in Norwalk, but let's not kid ourselves. These are all band-aid solutions to something that needs a tourniquet.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 15, 2014, 01:28:02 AM
I believe Steve may be thinking of Bridgeport, where I-95 was widened to 8 lanes from roughly exits 25 to 29, except the extra lane drops and rejoins at 27A and they kept that damed loop ramp onto route 8 (ConnDOT fail).

That or he's referring to the 4th southbound lane that adds at exit 10 and drops at exit 8.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2014, 06:53:20 PM
I believe Steve may be thinking of Bridgeport, where I-95 was widened to 8 lanes from roughly exits 25 to 29, except the extra lane drops and rejoins at 27A and they kept that damed loop ramp onto route 8 (ConnDOT fail).

That or he's referring to the 4th southbound lane that adds at exit 10 and drops at exit 8.
Yeah, it must be that SB lane.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: connroadgeek on December 16, 2014, 06:18:04 PM
I believe Steve may be thinking of Bridgeport, where I-95 was widened to 8 lanes from roughly exits 25 to 29, except the extra lane drops and rejoins at 27A and they kept that damed loop ramp onto route 8 (ConnDOT fail).

That or he's referring to the 4th southbound lane that adds at exit 10 and drops at exit 8.
That Rt. 8 loop ramp is ridiculous. They did all that work just to replace it with the same thing, though IIRC ConnDOT claims the radius was improved. For the size of the new ramp I thought for sure it was going to be at least two lanes if they were sticking with the original loop design.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 16, 2014, 11:51:53 PM
It widens to two lanes for the second 180 degrees of the 270 degree turn. Used to be one lane all the way around, so that is an improvement. But it's still a one lane exit and still a loop.

Thing of it is, they went for a cheap easy solution because ConnDOT is perpetually strapped for cash and has a difficult time getting anything built in one of the worst states for NIMBYism in the country.

Eliminating the loop would have meant taking structures via eminent domain. It also would have meant making the interchange rise pretty high and cover a larger area in what is almost the middle of downtown, so you would run into context-sensitivity problems.
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Mergingtraffic on December 17, 2014, 01:24:47 PM
I believe Steve may be thinking of Bridgeport, where I-95 was widened to 8 lanes from roughly exits 25 to 29, except the extra lane drops and rejoins at 27A and they kept that damed loop ramp onto route 8 (ConnDOT fail).

That or he's referring to the 4th southbound lane that adds at exit 10 and drops at exit 8.
That Rt. 8 loop ramp is ridiculous. They did all that work just to replace it with the same thing, though IIRC ConnDOT claims the radius was improved. For the size of the new ramp I thought for sure it was going to be at least two lanes if they were sticking with the original loop design.

The radius was improved!?!  You mean it was worse??
It widens to two lanes for the second 180 degrees of the 270 degree turn. Used to be one lane all the way around, so that is an improvement. But it's still a one lane exit and still a loop.

Thing of it is, they went for a cheap easy solution because ConnDOT is perpetually strapped for cash and has a difficult time getting anything built in one of the worst states for NIMBYism in the country.

Eliminating the loop would have meant taking structures via eminent domain. It also would have meant making the interchange rise pretty high and cover a larger area in what is almost the middle of downtown, so you would run into context-sensitivity problems.


It should've been a flyover like with CT-34 in New Haven. It's mostly burned out factories in Bridgeport by I-95 anyway. 
Title: Re: Connecticut News
Post by: Duke87 on December 18, 2014, 12:32:52 AM
The radius was improved!?!  You mean it was worse??

I don't think it was. The ramp still follows the same path it has since it was first built. What has changed are two things:
1) it now widens to two lanes partway through the curve, used to be one lane all the way around
2) it is now a lane drop from I-95 rather than a regular exit.

The extra lane means that vehicles moving slowly around the curve can be passed. And the lane drop means that if it does back up onto I-95, it will not interfere with through traffic as much as it used to.

This seems to be a sort of tactic ConnDOT is not afraid to use - when it cannot eliminate