Connecticut News

[seicer]

What did that experimental diagrammatic sign look like?

[jp the roadgeek]

One teeny tiny update on CT 9 signage: a new LGS is up southbound on the SR 571 overpass.  It'll probably be used for a Berlin town line sign in the future, but right now there's a green OLD Exit 23 tab on it.  The first vestige of exit number changes for CT 9 has made an appearance.

But wait, there's more:




UPDATE: this kind of signage is up northbound to the CT 72 split, plus a gore sign for current exit number 26 (Downtown New Britain) with a 36 on it.  Don't know if it's a mistake, but it looks like Ellis St will be 35 (saw signage for that) and Downtown is 36 rather than 35A and 35B.  Is CTDOT pulling a MassDOT by fudging numbers like in Springfield on 91 or Worcester on 290?

[jp the roadgeek]

And now they're starting southbound.  Didn't get north of CT 72 and Christian Lane is not marked, but I did get the new gore sign for Ellis St (TO CT 71) SB


Seems CTDOT is indeed pulling a MassDOT with the renumbering.  Went down as far as CT 372 in Cromwell and here are the new exit numbers I've seen:

I-91 is 29-30, not 29 A/B. 
Exit 21 is 31
Exit 22 is 32
Exit 23 is 33
Exit 24 is 34
Exit 25 is 35 and 26 is 36, not 35 A/B
CT 72 West is 37 (should be 36)

This tells me Chestnut St SB will be 36. Haven't been north of there, but it wouldn't surprise me if East Main St SB is 38, CT 175 is 39, and CT 71 is 40, even though they'd be off by more than a mile.  Would they really make the 84 ramps 41 and 42? 

[KEVIN_224]

I saw the little sign northbound by current Exit 24 in Berlin the other morning. I wonder how they're gonna number the remaining New Britain exits. I assume CT Route 71 (a.k.a. the WestFarms Mall exit) would move from Exit 30 (now) to Exit 39 (future).

[bob7374]

And now they're starting southbound.  Didn't get north of CT 72 and Christian Lane is not marked, but I did get the new gore sign for Ellis St (TO CT 71) SB


Seems CTDOT is indeed pulling a MassDOT with the renumbering.  Went down as far as CT 372 in Cromwell and here are the new exit numbers I've seen:

I-91 is 29-30, not 29 A/B. 
Exit 21 is 31
Exit 22 is 32
Exit 23 is 33
Exit 24 is 34
Exit 25 is 35 and 26 is 36, not 35 A/B
CT 72 West is 37 (should be 36)

This tells me Chestnut St SB will be 36. Haven't been north of there, but it wouldn't surprise me if East Main St SB is 38, CT 175 is 39, and CT 71 is 40, even though they'd be off by more than a mile.  Would they really make the 84 ramps 41 and 42? 

The sign plans indicates the (To) CT 175 will be Exit 37:


And the CT 71 exit will be Exit 39:


Other plans for CT 9, along with CT 72 and CT 2 can be found in the Connecticut section of: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html

[jp the roadgeek]

I have to think those exit numbers on those signs in the plans are preliminary numbers.  A later DOT list had the CT 175 exit as 38, which makes sense because MP 38 is a few feet beyond the CT 175 overpass.  But the exit numbers (29-37) that I listed are actual signage that has been installed.  There is a gore sign northbound for CT 72 West that has a 37 on it, so it looks like the final numbers have changed yet again from the picture plans and updated DOT plans.  The CT 72 exit is right near MP 36, but has a 37 number, so I think they're taking a play from the I-91 in Springfield playbook and trying to avoid suffixed numbers as much as possible.  Why else would I-91 have 2 sequential numbers rather than be A/B?

[connroadgeek]

Drove 9 this past weekend. WTF is ConnDOT doing? New signs with patches applied with the old numbers, random "old exit XX" or "new exit XX" signs or both with no other signs for the interchange having been changed over. Why not just do one exit fully at a time?

[abqtraveler]

Drove 9 this past weekend. WTF is ConnDOT doing? New signs with patches applied with the old numbers, random "old exit XX" or "new exit XX" signs or both with no other signs for the interchange having been changed over. Why not just do one exit fully at a time?

Because it's Connecticut and they never do anything that makes sense.

[jp the roadgeek]

Update on CT 9: nothing done north of CT 72 except a couple new overheads northbound for CT 175.  Came back southbound and saw that 28 and 28A (CT 72/East Main St) will be 37 A/B and Chestnut St will be 36.  So it looks like CT 175 will indeed be 38, CT 71 will be 39, and I-84 will either be 40 A/B or 40-41.  Also, looks like supports are in place to replace the 1/2 mile Columbus Blvd and 1 mi CT 71 gantry on CT 72 East.

[The Ghostbuster]

Well, at least the numbers are being changed from sequential-to-mileage-based. That's more than I can say for most of New York State, Vermont (screw the milepoint signs), New Hampshire, Delaware, Interstate 95 in Rhode Island, and the New Jersey Turnpike and its spurs.

[jp the roadgeek]

Well, at least the numbers are being changed from sequential-to-mileage-based. That's more than I can say for most of New York State, Vermont (screw the milepoint signs), New Hampshire, Delaware, Interstate 95 in Rhode Island, and the New Jersey Turnpike and its spurs.

New York already did I-84 (CT is the last state on the I-84 corridor with sequential exit numbers) and the Hutch, plus added mileage-based numbers to the Taconic. 

[abqtraveler]

Well, at least the numbers are being changed from sequential-to-mileage-based. That's more than I can say for most of New York State, Vermont (screw the milepoint signs), New Hampshire, Delaware, Interstate 95 in Rhode Island, and the New Jersey Turnpike and its spurs.

New York already did I-84 (CT is the last state on the I-84 corridor with sequential exit numbers) and the Hutch, plus added mileage-based numbers to the Taconic.

New York will also renumber exits to mile-based on I-81 after they reroute I-81 onto I-481 around Syracuse. But that's still a few years away.

[tolbs17]

Sequential numbering is old school by now. But back in the day, it was simple.

[tolbs17]

Don't think that this has been posted, so I'll post it here

https://www.wfsb.com/news/gov-lamont-says-ct-doesnt-need-tolls/article_9262eb02-4657-11ec-90af-33f7518852a6.html

Seems like the infrastructure bill reversed the idea of re-tolling the Connecticut Turnpike.

[relaxok]

New York already did I-84 (CT is the last state on the I-84 corridor with sequential exit numbers) and the Hutch, plus added mileage-based numbers to the Taconic. 

Since i haven't waded through all the updates on this, is I-84 in CT PLANNED to go mileage based or not?

[jp the roadgeek]

New York already did I-84 (CT is the last state on the I-84 corridor with sequential exit numbers) and the Hutch, plus added mileage-based numbers to the Taconic. 

Since i haven't waded through all the updates on this, is I-84 in CT PLANNED to go mileage based or not?

Yes, but not until 2028 or so.  CT 2, 3, 9 (with OLD and NEW Exit supplemental signage going up now), 11, 17, 72, and (FWIW) 82 have projects.  I believe the next ones after that are CT 8 and I-691.  The heavy hitters (84, 91, 95, and Route 15) are among the last on the list.  Like NY, CT is dragging its arse.

[Mergingtraffic]

And now they're starting southbound.  Didn't get north of CT 72 and Christian Lane is not marked, but I did get the new gore sign for Ellis St (TO CT 71) SB


Seems CTDOT is indeed pulling a MassDOT with the renumbering.  Went down as far as CT 372 in Cromwell and here are the new exit numbers I've seen:

I-91 is 29-30, not 29 A/B. 
Exit 21 is 31
Exit 22 is 32
Exit 23 is 33
Exit 24 is 34
Exit 25 is 35 and 26 is 36, not 35 A/B
CT 72 West is 37 (should be 36)

This tells me Chestnut St SB will be 36. Haven't been north of there, but it wouldn't surprise me if East Main St SB is 38, CT 175 is 39, and CT 71 is 40, even though they'd be off by more than a mile.  Would they really make the 84 ramps 41 and 42? 

The sign plans indicates the (To) CT 175 will be Exit 37:


And the CT 71 exit will be Exit 39:


Other plans for CT 9, along with CT 72 and CT 2 can be found in the Connecticut section of: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/neexitrenumbering.html

So how did the CT-175 shield get messed up?  The plans there show the 3-digit shield and but the actual sign has the crappy 2d shield that is off center. I know the current plan is just replacing the exit tab, but somewhere along the line the CT-175 shield got messed up.  So was it a plan error or a manufacturer errer?

[shadyjay]

I don't think any exit tabs are going to be replaced anymore... contrary to what the southern contract plans say.  I drove all of CT 9 yesterday and the new tabs on the signs being installed from Exit 18, northward, have the exit numbers overlayed (meaning the milepost exit #s are underneath).  ConnDOT has told me via e-mails that the reason so many extruded signs are now sheet aluminum was to reduce project cost.  Replacing brand new exit tabs with even newer tabs seems even more wasteful, so it seems that is off the table now.  I still am not a fan of the excessively-small town line signs and the exit services symbols being on their own signs, when they easily could've been incorporated into either the 1 or 1/2 mile guide sign (the service bar). 

Honestly, the "175" shields don't look all that bad, though I'd like to see the numerals thicker, and therefore, in a rectangle, but I digress:
CT9NB-Exit29-1 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And this is just so confusing, SB at former Exit 11 in Middletown.  No other signs for this exit have been replaced, and all old signs still say "Exit 11".  So why even bother until the new signs with the new numbers are up?
CT9SB-Exit 11-newExit21 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

And even further south, SB at former Exit 5 in Deep River.  All other sheet aluminum signs up in this area have the old number overlayed over the new number...except this one:
CT9NB-Exit05-services by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

At least these signs look good, having replaced bridge-mounted signs.  Still, the numbers are confusing... they should be Exits 29A-B... not two different numbers...
CT9SB-Exit20S-newExit30 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

There is some more good news, at least:  All offramp sheet aluminum guide signs that were missing arrows have had new signs put up which have arrows. 
Still waiting on the southbound mile markers to be corrected... no 0.2 markers put up yet, and a couple still missing NB in Haddam.  No new mile markers (or any new sheet aluminum signs) north of Middletown. 

See all the Route 9 sign replacement photos I've taken here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157719337442409

[roadwaywiz95]

Off the success of the channel's "Doubleheader Day" of programming, the next event for my team and I is planned for this Saturday over on the channel and we're looking forward to having the members of the AARoads community on hand for this special "road meet" presentation!

The 2021 Hartford, CT Road Meet is an online event intended to mimic and simulate the elements of an in-person meet with the help of photo/video footage and remote interactions with members via Skype. (We will be sure to incorporate added time for general chat/discussion, The event will kick off promptly at 12:00 PM ET. We look forward this program and to seeing you folks in attendance! Anyone reading this post who would be interested in being part of the group Skype chat or would like further information about this event should contact me personally, whether via this forum or some other method of contact.

[Duke87]

Don't think that this has been posted, so I'll post it here

https://www.wfsb.com/news/gov-lamont-says-ct-doesnt-need-tolls/article_9262eb02-4657-11ec-90af-33f7518852a6.html

Seems like the infrastructure bill reversed the idea of re-tolling the Connecticut Turnpike.

The idea was already dead, but yes, this does help resolve "whence the transportation funding".

Should also be noted that covid has been weirdly kind to CT's finances, creating budget surpluses where there were previously shortfalls due to alterations of people's commuting and spending patterns. That helps too, though it remains to be seen how much it will last.

[jp the roadgeek]

Drove I-91 from I-84 into Windsor the other day.  Saw quite a bit new supplemental signage, and many of the 0.2 mile markers are being replaced with similar ones used in the recent I-84 mile marker replacement (much larger numbers).  Also, several of the Speed Limit 65 signs are the newer, more standard version.  Also, the HOV gore signs are now white on green instead of black on white, and the overpass signs are now free standing (love how the I-291 and CT 218 ones are about 10 feet apart.  However, some of the 0.2 mile marker placements are slightly different; the 43.8 marker is about 20 feet before MP 44, then 44.2 is only about 100 feet after that. Seems they're doing the northbound side first, then working back south.

[abqtraveler]

Don't think that this has been posted, so I'll post it here

https://www.wfsb.com/news/gov-lamont-says-ct-doesnt-need-tolls/article_9262eb02-4657-11ec-90af-33f7518852a6.html

Seems like the infrastructure bill reversed the idea of re-tolling the Connecticut Turnpike.

The idea was already dead, but yes, this does help resolve "whence the transportation funding".

Should also be noted that covid has been weirdly kind to CT's finances, creating budget surpluses where there were previously shortfalls due to alterations of people's commuting and spending patterns. That helps too, though it remains to be seen how much it will last.

Yet as much as Connecticut officials gripe about how much money they need for transportation, I never see them apply for the many federal transportation grants or loan programs that are out there. A lot of other states are applying for--and are being awarded--funding through the INFRA, BUILD Act, and other programs that I haven't seen Connecticut use to its advantage. Seems like they're perfectly fine with continuing to take out bonds to finance road construction, but that is going to catch up to them in a very bad way later on.  Tolls will not gain traction in Connecticut for the foreseeable future, as long as there are those with memories of the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash still around.

Yes, out-of-state drivers make up a huge portion of vehicles on Connecticut's roads, and many of them don't pay a nickel for upkeep of the state's roads as Connecticut is small enough to drive through on a single tank of gas. The question has always been is how do you get these out-of-state motorists, who inherently contribute to the wear and tear on Connecticut's highways, to pay their fair share. No one has yet come up with a solution to that problem that doesn't involve tolls.

[Rothman]

Don't think that this has been posted, so I'll post it here

https://www.wfsb.com/news/gov-lamont-says-ct-doesnt-need-tolls/article_9262eb02-4657-11ec-90af-33f7518852a6.html

Seems like the infrastructure bill reversed the idea of re-tolling the Connecticut Turnpike.

The idea was already dead, but yes, this does help resolve "whence the transportation funding".

Should also be noted that covid has been weirdly kind to CT's finances, creating budget surpluses where there were previously shortfalls due to alterations of people's commuting and spending patterns. That helps too, though it remains to be seen how much it will last.

Yet as much as Connecticut officials gripe about how much money they need for transportation, I never see them apply for the many federal transportation grants or loan programs that are out there. A lot of other states are applying for--and are being awarded--funding through the INFRA, BUILD Act, and other programs that I haven't seen Connecticut use to its advantage. Seems like they're perfectly fine with continuing to take out bonds to finance road construction, but that is going to catch up to them in a very bad way later on.  Tolls will not gain traction in Connecticut for the foreseeable future, as long as there are those with memories of the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash still around.

Yes, out-of-state drivers make up a huge portion of vehicles on Connecticut's roads, and many of them don't pay a nickel for upkeep of the state's roads as Connecticut is small enough to drive through on a single tank of gas. The question has always been is how do you get these out-of-state motorists, who inherently contribute to the wear and tear on Connecticut's highways, to pay their fair share. No one has yet come up with a solution to that problem that doesn't involve tolls.

How do you know they aren't applying?

[DrSmith]

Drove I-91 from I-84 into Windsor the other day.  Saw quite a bit new supplemental signage, and many of the 0.2 mile markers are being replaced with similar ones used in the recent I-84 mile marker replacement (much larger numbers).  Also, several of the Speed Limit 65 signs are the newer, more standard version.  Also, the HOV gore signs are now white on green instead of black on white, and the overpass signs are now free standing (love how the I-291 and CT 218 ones are about 10 feet apart.  However, some of the 0.2 mile marker placements are slightly different; the 43.8 marker is about 20 feet before MP 44, then 44.2 is only about 100 feet after that. Seems they're doing the northbound side first, then working back south.

I noticed that yesterday as well. It's good its being done as those signs were completely unreadable at night. Although that has been true for many years. There were only a couple of new ones north of Poquonock Av. Although the Dexter Coffin Br/Conn River sign is now a new brown sign.

[Duke87]

Yes, out-of-state drivers make up a huge portion of vehicles on Connecticut's roads, and many of them don't pay a nickel for upkeep of the state's roads as Connecticut is small enough to drive through on a single tank of gas. The question has always been is how do you get these out-of-state motorists, who inherently contribute to the wear and tear on Connecticut's highways, to pay their fair share. No one has yet come up with a solution to that problem that doesn't involve tolls.

This is silly flawed logic though. Sure, you can drive through CT without buying gas, but that doesn't mean everyone does. As much as people fuss over gas prices, the reality is that the majority of people the majority of the time will get gas when they need gas, wherever they happen to be when that happens. Besides, gas in CT is currently cheaper than it is in downstate NY, so if anything anyone driving here and not passing through to MA/RI or beyond (which is a large chunk of out of state drivers) has an incentive to fill up while here.

"Out of state drivers aren't paying their fair share" isn't a real problem, it's just a thing that's politically convenient to believe in order to rationalize policies to "make other people pay for things, not me"