News:

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

Main Menu

Connecticut News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

PHLBOS

Quote from: doofy103 on October 03, 2014, 03:44:44 PMI-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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD


connroadgeek

#776
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?

Pete from Boston


Quote from: PHLBOS on October 03, 2014, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on October 03, 2014, 03:44:44 PMI-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." 

ctsignguy

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
http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/<br /><br />Maintaining an interest in Fine Highway Signs since 1958....

jp the roadgeek

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.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

southshore720

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:

yakra

Quote from: ctsignguy on October 08, 2014, 09:10:37 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.
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

jp the roadgeek

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.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

PHLBOS

Quote from: yakra on October 09, 2014, 12:41:40 AMSeeing 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."

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 09, 2014, 09:10:40 AMOH 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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

hubcity

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 09:14:13 AM
Quote from: yakra on October 09, 2014, 12:41:40 AMSeeing 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".

PHLBOS

Quote from: hubcity on October 09, 2014, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 09:14:13 AM
Quote from: yakra on October 09, 2014, 12:41:40 AMSeeing 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).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

southshore720

Some traffic reporters in Southwest CT still call I-95 "The Turnpike."

shadyjay

Quote from: hubcity on October 09, 2014, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 09:14:13 AM
Quote from: yakra on October 09, 2014, 12:41:40 AMSeeing 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.


Pete from Boston


Quote from: 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.

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. 

vdeane

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: ctsignguy on October 08, 2014, 09:10:37 AM
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?
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

connroadgeek

Quote from: southshore720 on October 09, 2014, 04:58:07 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.

connroadgeek

Quote from: shadyjay on October 09, 2014, 05:51:42 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.

Duke87

#793
Quote from: shadyjay on October 09, 2014, 05:51:42 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)

QuoteRegarding 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.

QuoteInteresting 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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

shadyjay

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? 

ctsignguy

Quote from: doofy103 on October 09, 2014, 11:00:51 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on October 08, 2014, 09:10:37 AM
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
http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/<br /><br />Maintaining an interest in Fine Highway Signs since 1958....

connroadgeek

Quote from: 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? 

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.

PHLBOS

#797
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 12, 2014, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: 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? 

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

Saw my first one of these in CT on EB I-84 at Exit 41

Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

connroadgeek

#799
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.



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