Mileage Based Exits coming to CT

[kurumi]

Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed

Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.

This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.

The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.

* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".

** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.

[Brandon]

Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed

Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.

This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.

With the typical white-on-green mileposts, the benefit to motorists is not minimal, and is most certainly positive.  It allows motorists to gauge their distance to the exit from the milepost they just passed.  This is the major problem I had with the lack of white-on-green mileposts in California, and the problem I have with sequential-based exit numbering.

[KEVIN_224]

Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed

Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.

This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.

The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.

* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".

** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.

Been under that gantry many times with DATTCO or friends, heading to/from the Mohegan Sun Casino!

As for CT Route 71A, it technically ends at the corner or Kensington Road and Buell Streets, which is only a couple blocks south of me. It's worth noting that there was once a CT 71A sign north of me near the Citgo/Food Bag convenience store (where the speed limit sign is now: http://goo.gl/maps/kAkQW ). I still think the route number should've stayed on the whole length of Arch Street and then go one block east on Chestnut Street. That way, it would end at the corner of CT Route 71 itself, at the southern foot of the Harry Truman Overpass.

http://goo.gl/maps/gmEQN

[shadyjay]

Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed

Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.

This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.

The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.

* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".

** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.

Perhaps the CT 2A overlap with I-395 will be resolved with the upcoming I-395 signing project.  Will we see CT 2A reassurance markers added to I-395 between [existing] Exits 79A and 81?  Would there be dual mileposts?

[jp the roadgeek]

Route 2A is next: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x914256966/Mohegan-Sun-Boulevard-exit-numbers-to-be-changed

Route 32 interchange (currently exit 1) moves to exit 5
Mohegan Sun Boulevard (exit 2) moves to exit 6.

This change might help roadgeeks with mild OCD, but the benefit to motorists is minimal and possibly negative.

The zero point for mileposts is Route 2A's official start at the CT 2/I-395 interchange, which includes a hidden overlap* with I-395 for 3.9 miles. To most people, that overlap does not exist, Route 2A begins at I-395 exit 79A, and the current exit numbers are already mileage-based as is.

* here's one the only series of BGS mentioning the 395/2A overlap: http://goo.gl/maps/G4hwc. And I'd guess many drivers interpret this as "take 395 to get to 2A", not "2A starts here".

** more trivia: CT 14A and CT 17A already start and end at their "parent" routes. CT 182A has a hidden overlap with CT 183 to complete its return to CT 182. As for CT 71A: ehhh. It just peters out in New Britain with no END sign or anything.

Perhaps the CT 2A overlap with I-395 will be resolved with the upcoming I-395 signing project.  Will we see CT 2A reassurance markers added to I-395 between [existing] Exits 79A and 81?  Would there be dual mileposts?

Would just be so much easier if they eliminated 2A altogether and just re-routed Route 2 onto it, since it seems to be the through route to Foxwoods and beyond.  Just extend Rt. 169 into an overlap with Rt.32 through Norwich, then over the existing Route 2 to the 2A junction.  If it is kept as is, eliminate the I-395 overlap, with 71A being precedent for the elimination.

[Mergingtraffic]

ok here it is: the new I-395 signing contract, two on the CT DOT website.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29712

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29929

Click on Plan Portfoliio for sign drawings..new exit numbers.

[southshore720]

Ross Rd. on SR 695 is finally getting signage...and an exit number to boot!

I noticed that Worcester is not labeled "Worcester MA" and that Providence is not labeled "Providence RI."  I was under the impression that out-of-state destinations had to list city and state abbreviation.  Is this MUTCD or does it vary by state?  Massachusetts is very good about listing city and state abbreviation (except on the Mass Pike, but that might change in their next signing contract).

[roadman]

Ross Rd. on SR 695 is finally getting signage...and an exit number to boot!

I noticed that Worcester is not labeled "Worcester MA" and that Providence is not labeled "Providence RI."  I was under the impression that out-of-state destinations had to list city and state abbreviation.  Is this MUTCD or does it vary by state?  Massachusetts is very good about listing city and state abbreviation (except on the Mass Pike, but that might change in their next signing contract).

There has never been any requirement in the MUTCD that destinations outside the state the sign is located in shall(or even should) include the state abbreviation.

And, now that the MassPike is part of MassDOT, you will see the addition of state abbreviations on applicable signs along I-90 within Massachusetts when the signs are replaced - hopefully starting in 2015 (pending available funding).

[shadyjay]

ok here it is: the new I-395 signing contract, two on the CT DOT website.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29712

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=29929

Click on Plan Portfoliio for sign drawings..new exit numbers.

What is interesting to note in the plans is the removal of many overhead signs and conversion to "side mounted" signs, most notably for (present) Exits 90 and 98.  Looks like CT 2A reassurance markers will be posted along I-395 as well.  No signage shown for the service areas - hope the present "REST AREA - GAS/FOOD" signs get replaced at some point.   

Looks like "status-quo" is being maintained for the BGSs.  Exit 75-SB will not have Flanders added to the signs, even though it was added on the I-95 SB signs when they were replaced c 2000.  Exit 78-SB will still just display "32" instead of 32 South. 

Regardless, kudos to ConnDOT for starting to make the switch to mile-based exits, and these contracts prove it is going to happen, and soon.

[roadman]

I also noted the general change from overheads to ground-mounts with this project.  Even though I-395 is two lanes each way, it seems to be a big step backwards, when you consider both visibility issues and the need for future clearing and thinning that ground BGSes will eventually require.

And "Type IV" sheeting for new signs?!?.  Interesting that ConnDOT isn't making the switch to the better high intensity prismatic (HIP) sheetings (Type VIII or higher) that other states (like Massachusetts) have been specifying for some time now.

It's also interesting that the background color of the "backer" panel for the generic service LOGOs on the 1 mile advance exit signs is green, not blue.

And you'd think they could bother to square off the upper right corner of the sign border where the main sign meets the exit tab.  Yah, it's a minor detail, but one that (IMHO) makes the signs look so much more professional in appearance.

[Mergingtraffic]

I also noted the general change from overheads to ground-mounts with this project.  Even though I-395 is two lanes each way, it seems to be a big step backwards, when you consider both visibility issues and the need for future clearing and thinning that ground BGSes will eventually require.

And "Type IV" sheeting for new signs?!?.  Interesting that ConnDOT isn't making the switch to the better high intensity prismatic (HIP) sheetings (Type VIII or higher) that other states (like Massachusetts) have been specifying for some time now.

It's also interesting that the background color of the "backer" panel for the generic service LOGOs on the 1 mile advance exit signs is green, not blue.

And you'd think they could bother to square off the upper right corner of the sign border where the main sign meets the exit tab.  Yah, it's a minor detail, but one that (IMHO) makes the signs look so much more professional in appearance.

I was thinking overheads require more effort to maintain considering it's a structure over the highway.  They did that with a few other signing contracts such as some on CT-40.  On I-84 EB at Exit 10 a full gantry was changed to a right hand gantry. 

Some of the yellow Left exit panels, and the other text doesn't line up.  The word "EXIT" lines up to the "E" in "LEFT" on the yellow "LEFT" panel.  It looks odd.

And for some of the mohegan Sun signs (new Exit 9), where the signs remain and a an exit number overlay is to be installed.  Why not just install a new side alligned exit tab instead of leaving them centered??!!

I know why they did it but the new exit numbers don't make sense to the average driver on Route 2A.  I can see people saying why is this exit 5 now?

[southshore720]

I've never been a fan of ground-mounted BGS'.  They are too prone to being slammed into by an out-of-control car, maintenance vehicle, or our four-legged deer friends.  And once it's damaged, it takes forever to be replaced.

[Alps]

I've never been a fan of ground-mounted BGS'.  They are too prone to being slammed into by an out-of-control car, maintenance vehicle, or our four-legged deer friends.  And once it's damaged, it takes forever to be replaced.

Why I'm not a fan: Too easy for trucks to get in the way.

[froggie]

Why ground-mounted guide signs tend to win out over overheads:  cheaper, less maintenance required (yes, overheads require maintenance)

[rickmastfan67]

Why are we doing this again? State has too much money and time on its hands? I'd rather more lane-miles of highway (or even better return all that extra money to the tax payers if there's such a big surplus) rather than new exit tabs, but maybe that's just me.

Pretty sure that the FHWA or the MUTCD is mandating that the remaining states that have sequential-based exits (CT, RI, NY, MA, VT, NH, NJ tpke) convert over to distance-based exits at some point in the not-too-distant future.

I wish the FHWA would get on PennDOT case to finish the sequential > mileage based exit numbers.  PA-28 is the only road I know of in PA that is still sequential based after the changeover in 2000.

[PHLBOS]

I wish the FHWA would get on PennDOT case to finish the sequential > mileage based exit numbers.  PA-28 is the only road I know of in PA that is still sequential based after the changeover in 2000.

I was under the impression that PennDOT's changeover to mile-marker-based exit numbers back then were mandatory for Interstates, optional for non-interstates.  The majority of PA's non-interstate highways (non-interstate PA Turnpike spurs aside) don't number their interchanges at all.

[NE2]

On http://www.pahighways.com/exits/ I see PA 29, PA 309, PA 378, and PA 581. All are close enough that they could be mile based depending on what system and how much fudging is used.

[PHLBOS]

On http://www.pahighways.com/exits/ I see PA 29, PA 309, PA 378, and PA 581. All are close enough that they could be mile based depending on what system and how much fudging is used.

I believe that PA 581's numbers were indeed converted but only slightly (IIRC the road either opened right around the time PennDOT was changing their exit numbers or just prior to such); given the single-wide center-placed exit tab on the approach diagramatic BGS' to its western terminus w/I-81, it certainly gives the impression that its connection w/I-81 originally had no exit number(s). 

http://goo.gl/maps/u1fMG

Similar likely holds true with its easterly terminus w/I-83; I-83 North in particular (it originally may not have had an exit number).

http://goo.gl/maps/Z3O9O

Either way, PennDOT screwed up in that I-83 South exit ramp should be Exit 6A and not the I-83 North pull-through.

Since most if not all of PA 581's BGS' have been replaced; traces of any OLD EXIT X signs or covered-over exit tabs/signs weren't found when I last drove that road a couple of weeks ago.

In the case of PA 29 & 309, located much further north than where I live so I haven't had a chance to drive those, one could argue that the exit numbers are mile-marker based (within tolerances) with respect to the highway itself rather than the route number.  Similar could be said for the Cross-Westchester Expressway section of I-287 in NY; the mile markers reflect the expressway itself but not I-287, which multiplexes w/I-87 along the NYS Thruway for about 15-16 miles east of the CWE.

PA 378's numbers clearly never changed since some of the sub-exits still use E & W suffixes rather than A & B; but, again the locations of the exits are within tolerances of the corresponding mile markers.

[vdeane]

That could just as easily be because, at both termini, one exit is on the left and the other is on the right; when referring to both collectively, neither side of the sign works for the tab, so center would be used.

[PHLBOS]

That could just as easily be because, at both termini, one exit is on the left and the other is on the right; when referring to both collectively, neither side of the sign works for the tab, so center would be used.

Look a tad closer to the BGS; the lower message lists EXIT 1/2 MILE note the singular reference; that's one reason why I believe Exits 1A-B weren't the original exit numbers for this interchange. 

Most dual-exit diagramatic BGS' have two single exit tabs mounted on each side per the below-example:

http://goo.gl/maps/cAGLz

[roadman]

Why ground-mounted guide signs tend to win out over overheads:  cheaper, less maintenance required (yes, overheads require maintenance)

OTOH, ground mounted signs are less visible to traffic, particularly on roads with heavy truck traffic.  Ground-mount signs are also more vunerable to damage from errant vehicles than overhead signs are to damage from overheight vehicles.  As for maintenance, ground-mounted signs eventually require clearing and thinning of brush and cutting of tree branchs.  Believe it or not, this usually means the DOT has to clear a certian level of environmental review (varies from state to state), which often requires a sign-off from the local conservation commission - all to do what should be routine maintenance on an Interstate highway.  Unless your trees are really overgrown, this isn't an issue with overhead signs.

And, while overhead sign structures ocassionally require some maintenance, it's normally fairly minimal.  IMHO, these requirements are more that offset by the visiiblity improvements and overall lower maintenance requirements for overhead signs as compared to ground-mounts.

Seems to me that ConnDOT is being penny-wise and pound-foolish in regards to this aspect of the I-395 upgrade.

[vdeane]

But how often does a ground-mount sign get taken out in an accident?  Aside from some gore signs at problematic interchanges, in my experience it's quite rare, and often the sign is intact.  Most I've seen in NY don't require much in the way of clearing beyond routine mowing either.  Environmental review is typically minimal if you're just restoring the conditions that existed when something was built; this is how New Jersey managed to rebuild the shore so fast, for example. (and DOT's don't usually bother with brush clearing anyways; NYSDOT never has, at least, even when REPLACING signs!)

That could just as easily be because, at both termini, one exit is on the left and the other is on the right; when referring to both collectively, neither side of the sign works for the tab, so center would be used.

Look a tad closer to the BGS; the lower message lists EXIT 1/2 MILE note the singular reference; that's one reason why I believe Exits 1A-B weren't the original exit numbers for this interchange. 

Most dual-exit diagramatic BGS' have two single exit tabs mounted on each side per the below-example:

http://goo.gl/maps/cAGLz

Whether it says "exit" or "exits" doesn't have any bearing on whether it was renumbered (though why have a number here at all?): http://goo.gl/maps/g21Aq

[roadman]

Yes, gore signs are the most likely ground-mounted BGS panels to get whacked by an errant vehicle.  But larger BGS panels on the roadside get whacked more often than you think.  And they are expensive to replace.

As for environmental review, you are correct that "in-kind" sign replacement generally is exempt from Federal environmental review requirements (it's called an "automatic categorical exclusion").  The problem lies with state and local laws, which may or may not be more restrictive.  For example, in Massachusetts, there are a number of "road maintenance" categories (BGS/LGS sign replacement and clearing and thinning among them) that qualify for an automatic CE under the Federal rules, but still require a review and sign-off by the state wildlife people, the state historical commission, and the local conservation commissions in the communities the work is being done in.

I could sort of understand ConnDOT's position on the matter if they were replacing existing ground-mount installations "in-kind" instead of upgrading to overhead mounting.  But to replace overheads with ground-mounts is IMHO taking a big step backwards.  Especially considering the need to improve sign visibility as a means of addressing the issue of older drivers (which is the principal reason using Type IV sheeting makes little sense).

[froggie]

From Roadman's last post, sounds to me like MassDOT has a lot more review involved than the typical state DOT does.  Which would explain his preference for overheads.  A lot of that extra "overhead" (pun intended) for ground-mounted sign approval just doesn't apply in the states I'm familiar with.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't be surprised if the overhead mounts on I-395 are nearing the end of their life, so they might need to be replaced for new signs anyways.  When NYSDOT does such things they often do a temporary ground-mount because the concrete the posts are anchored in takes two months to cure.