Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

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".   

[wytout]

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.

[wytout]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[wytout]

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

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[relaxok]

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..

[kurumi]

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.

[wytout]

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.

[NE2]

It's a giant croquet hoop.

[Duke87]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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!

[Alps]

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.

[shadyjay]

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!

[kurumi]

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.

[yakra]

Whoa whoa waitasecond...
"right-hand exit"?

[shadyjay]

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.

[connroadgeek]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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. 

[connroadgeek]

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.

[shadyjay]

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! 

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[shadyjay]

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!!!

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

[/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